In the second half of the 17th century, Russia experienced an economic boom. This was the prerequisite for the creation powerful army and fleet. But by the beginning of the war with Sweden, Russia did not have a single military system. The army consisted of military branches created in different eras: the local noble cavalry (the heiress of the feudal squads), the archery army (created under Ivan the Terrible), the regiments of the "foreign system" - soldiers, reiters, dragoons (created in the 17th century). Plus various irregular units, including the Cossacks. In wartime, warriors, military people were also attracted to the service. They were recruited from the draft population (taxable, who carried a complex of duties - taxes). They helped the gunners, served in the wagon train, participated in the creation of fortifications, camps, etc. The fleet was only in the Sea of Azov.
local cavalry convened only with the outbreak of war. With the end of the war, people returned home. The armament was the most diverse, the rich boyars, nobles, and their servants were better armed. In such detachments, it was bad with organization, management, discipline, and supplies. Servants of the nobility, boyars in general could be untrained in military affairs. It is clear that the noble cavalry could effectively fight the hordes of nomads on the southeastern borders of Russia, but it could no longer resist the regular armies of Europe. In addition, part of the boyars and nobles had a bad motivation, they wanted to quickly return home to their household. Some did not show up at all, or were "late." The combat significance of the many thousands of noble troops was also sharply reduced by the increase in the role of firearms, the increase in their effectiveness and rate of fire. The cavalry could not withstand the massive cannon and weapons fire. The infantry became more important than the knightly, noble cavalry. The importance of the infantry and the decline in the importance of the noble cavalry was already noticeable in Russia in the 17th century (even earlier in the West).
By 1680, the local cavalry of the centenary service, together with the serfs, accounted for only about 17.5% of all Russian armed forces (about 16 thousand people). Peter liquidated the local army already in the process of the war with Sweden. Although at the initial stage of the Great Northern War, the noble cavalry, under the leadership of B.P. Sheremetev, inflicted a number of defeats on the Swedish forces. Although it is known that several regiments fought after the Battle of Narva. Most of the boyars and nobles, from the local cavalry, were transferred to the dragoon and guard regiments, many of them made up the officers of the regular army.
archers were more modern troops. They carried a permanent service, underwent some training. In peacetime, the archers carried out city service - guarded the royal court, the king during his trips, were busy guarding in Moscow and a number of other cities, became messengers. In their free time from war, service, they were engaged in crafts, trade, tillage, gardening, because the royal salary could not fully meet the needs of the servicemen and their families. The Streltsy army had an organization - it was controlled by the Streltsy order. He was in charge of the appointment to the service, the payment of salaries, and supervised military training. Throughout the 17th century, the skills of regular combat were introduced into the archery regiments.
The combat effectiveness of the archers was highly appreciated by contemporaries, who believed that the main force in the Russian army was the infantry. Streltsy regiments were widely used in various wars, participating both in the defense of fortresses and in long-distance campaigns (for example, the Chigirin campaigns of 1677-1678). But gradually their role began to decline, they were strongly attached to their daily activities, the life of the townships (the majority were close in status to the lower classes of the townspeople). As a result, in a number of uprisings of the 17th century, their “unsteadiness” appeared - political unreliability, the archers were ready to support those who offered more. In the uprisings of 1682 and 1698, the archers became the main driving force. As a result, the growing royal power began to think about the elimination of this social stratum. After the Streltsy rebellion of 1682 (“Khovanshchina”), Tsarevna Sofya Alekseevna ordered the disbanding of 11 out of 19 Moscow Streltsy regiments. Several thousand people were settled in different cities. Peter I, after the suppression of the uprising of 1698, completed this process. It should be noted that a significant part of the cadres of the Streltsy troops joined the emerging regular army. And the city archers survived the era of Peter.
Russian artillery, "cannon outfit", was formed like archery regiments. Gunners for their service received monetary and grain salaries, or a land allotment. The service was hereditary. In peacetime, they served in the garrisons of cities and fortresses. In their free time, gunners could engage in trade and craft. All Russian artillery in the 17th century was divided into siege and fortress guns (“city outfit”), light and heavy field artillery (“regimental outfit”). The gunners were controlled by the Pushkar order (a military command and control body created under Ivan the Terrible). The order was in charge of the recruitment of people for service, their salary, promotion or demotion, sending to war, etc. In 1701, the Pushkar order was transformed into an artillery office, and in 1709 - into an artillery office.
A practical guide for gunners was Anisim Mikhailov Radyshevsky's "Charter of military, cannon and other matters relating to military science" (dated 1621). I must say that the Russian artillery masters at that time practically solved the problem of creating rifled and breech-loading guns, far ahead of the level of development of technology of that time. At the end of the 17th century, there was a tendency to replace old tools with more advanced ones and to unify them by types and calibers. By the beginning of the war, Russian artillery (very numerous) had the same shortcomings as the artillery of Western countries - a lot of different types, calibers, the guns were heavy, inactive, and had a low rate of fire and range. The troops had many guns of old designs.
Cannon of a large order (siege artillery). E. Palmquist, 1674.
Regiments of the "foreign system". In 1681, there were 33 soldiers (61 thousand people) and 25 dragoon and reiter (29 thousand people) regiments in Russia. At the end of the 17th century, they accounted for more than half of all the armed forces of the country and at the beginning of the 18th century were used to form a regular Russian army. Connections of the "foreign system" began to form back in the Time of Troubles, Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky. The second organization of the regiments of the "foreign system" was carried out in the early 1630s, preparing for the war for Smolensk. In the late 1630s, they were used to guard the southern borders; during the Russian-Polish war of 1654-1667, the regiments of the new system became the main part of the Russian armed forces. Regiments were created from "hunting" free people (volunteers), Cossacks, foreigners, "shooter's children" and other social groups. Later, and from data people according to the model (organization, training) of Western European armies. People served for life. A soldier was taken from 100 yards, and later - from 20-25 yards. Annually and monthly they were given monetary and grain salaries or land allotment. Reiter regiments were recruited not only from subordinate people, but also from petty, landless nobles and boyar children. For their service, they also received a monetary salary, and some of the estates. The soldier regiments were infantry, reiter and dragoon cavalry. The dragoons were armed with muskets, swords, reeds and short lances and could fight on foot. Reiters relied on pistols (there were several of them), unlike dragoons, reiters, as a rule, did not dismount, but fired directly from a horse, melee weapons were auxiliary. During the Russian-Polish wars, horse spearmen - hussars - stood out from the composition of the Reiter.
I must say that, unlike the regiments of the Western armies of that period, which were recruited from mercenaries of different nationalities, the Russian regiments were mono-ethnic in composition, and therefore more morally stable. The regiments of the "foreign system" became the prototype and core of the future Russian regular army. They had a state supply of weapons, ammunition, food, more or less regular drill and tactical training, a more harmonious hierarchy of officer ranks, division of the unit into companies and squadrons, the first official manuals for training in military affairs were created.
Weaknesses: after the end of hostilities, a significant part of the employees went home, only a part of the officers, soldiers, dragoons, and reytar remained under the banner of the regiment. Therefore, military training could not be made systematic. In addition, the country's industry could not provide the regiments with the same type of weapons, equipment and uniforms.
military industry. The emergence of manufactories in Russia contributed to the development of the military industry. By the end of the 17th century, there were 17 enterprises in Russia that produced handguns and artillery pieces. For example, the Tula-Kashirsky factories produced 15-20 thousand muskets in 300 working days. Russian gunsmiths were persistently searching for the modernization of domestic handguns. New models of weapons were created - “screwed squeaks”, the design of rifle locks was improved - they were widely used under the name “locks of the Russian case”. But due to the weakness of the industry, it was necessary to carry out rather significant purchases of weapons from abroad.
Reform of Prince V. V. Golitsyn. At the end of the 17th century, the favorite of Princess Sophia, Prince Vasily Golitsyn, made an attempt to reform the Russian armed forces. Streltsy orders were transformed into regiments, instead of hundreds of companies, companies were introduced into the noble cavalry. In 1680-1681, the entire European part of Russia was divided into 9 military districts (“categories”): Moscow, Seversky (Sevsky), Vladimir, Novgorod, Kazan, Smolensk, Ryazan, Belgorod and Tambov discharges (Tula or Ukrainian was abolished, Siberian discharges transformations were not affected). All military men of the state were assigned to the districts. In 1682, localism was abolished, that is, the procedure for distributing official places, taking into account the origin and official position of the ancestors.
Prince Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn.
Thus, by the time Peter came to power, the Russian armed forces had already made significant progress towards becoming a regular army. This process had only to be completed, formalized, consolidated, which Peter I did. Only the achievements of the previous era in the field of military construction, economic development, allowed the reformer tsar to create a regular army, fleet, develop military industry.
Reforms of Peter before the Great Northern War
Funny troops. Even under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, out of several dozen children, the “Petrov Regiment” was organized for the tsarevich. Gradually, the game turned into a real military-practical training, adults began to be recorded as "amusing" ones. In 1684, in the village of Preobrazhensky near Moscow, the amusing town of Pressburg was built, where elements of the assault on the fortress were practiced. In 1691, the amusing troops received the correct organization and they were divided into two regiments - Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky, they were uniformed according to the Western European model. Based on this experience, Peter developed a program for the military professional orientation of young men. It included the following elements: the development of love for the sovereign and the Fatherland; development of discipline close to military; feelings of honor and camaraderie; familiarization of young people with weapons and the skills to use them; development of physical strength and dexterity of boys aged 9-12 through outdoor games and gymnastic exercises, military games; development of courage and initiative in children through special games (with a certain degree of danger, requiring courage and intelligence); knowledge of the Fatherland and the historical tasks of the state by acquainting children with the brightest and most gloomy pages of our past, with the study of the forces and aspirations of our enemies.
Avtonom Mikhailovich Golovin
The Semyonovsky and Preobrazhensky regiments, together with the elected (best) soldier regiments of F. Lefort and P. Gordon, formed the backbone new army. Regular military training was carried out in these units, and the tsar himself looked after them. Together with Peter, the basics of military affairs were mastered by his closest associates - A. Golovin, M. Golitsyn, A. Veide, F. Apraksin, A. Repnin, J. Bruce, A. Menshikov, etc. The Semenovsky and Preobrazhensky regiments became the forge of officer personnel for other military formations.
Peter laid the foundation for the correct tradition of officers - to serve from the lower ranks. He started as a drummer, in 1691 he received the rank of sergeant, in 1693 - scorer of the Preobrazhensky Regiment. This allowed him to develop in himself the qualities necessary for a commander. Peter got to know military literature of that time, studied the sciences related to military and naval affairs - geometry, fortification, astronomy, shipbuilding, artillery, etc.
They began to conduct large-scale military maneuvers, so up to 40 thousand people took part in the Kozhukhovsky campaign in September-October 1694, they were divided into two armies. During the exercises, they worked out the methods of siege and assault of the fortress, crossing a water barrier, and the field skills of the troops were checked. In the history of the military art of Russia, this was a new phenomenon. Training was conducted under the guidance of foreign officers. They began to introduce elements of linear tactics.
The Azov campaigns of 1695-1696 demonstrated the advantages of the new regiments over the forces of the local and archery troops. Streltsy, who participated in the campaign, were left in the south, entrusting them with garrison service. The number of elected soldier regiments was significantly increased. In addition, Peter decided to use the experience of Western European countries to reorganize the army; at the beginning of 1697, 150 people were sent abroad to train officers. Major A. Weide was sent to study the experience of organizing and organizing the best Western armies. He studied the experience of the French, Dutch, Austrian, Saxon armies and in 1698 provided a detailed analytical count. The main conclusion of his report: the basis of victory is "diligent training". The revised Veide report became a source for the creation of charters, instructions, instructions for the Russian regular army.
The regular army needed personnel and a lot of weapons and uniforms. Various kinds of ammunition. Already in 1698, about 700 foreigners arrived in Russia. The Grand Embassy purchased 10,000 muskets and other weapons from abroad. By August 1698, the main preparatory measures for the reform of the army were completed.
Reform 1699-1700
The Streltsy uprising of 1698 only accelerated the process of reform. Streltsy regiments were disbanded and in 1699 they began to recruit people into the "direct regular army."
Peter and his associates developed the first statutory documents. They were quite simple, everything superfluous was discarded, they took only those positions that were necessary for the combat training of soldiers. The documents were distinguished by their clarity and simplicity of presentation. In 1699, A. Golovin's "Military Articles" were compiled, in 1700 Peter's "Short Ordinary Teaching" was printed. In 1700, charters were issued regulating the internal life of the troops "" Military Articles how a soldier should keep himself in life and in the ranks and in teaching how to manage" and "Company infantry ranks".
The training of domestic officer cadres has intensified. In early May 1699, Peter held a review of Moscow stewards, and then other nobles. Their regular training began. The negligent were punished very severely, up to exile, with the confiscation of estates and estates. The king personally checked the suitability of the nobles for military service. After the course of the “young fighter”, the nobles were divided into divisions (“by generalships”), commanded by Repnin, Veide, Golovin. In July, a review was held, the distribution of the next group of nobles.
The personnel training system was also deployed by the troops themselves. The first artillery school in Russia was opened in the Preobrazhensky Regiment in 1698. A training team of sergeants was created in the Semyonovsky regiment. 300 foreigners were sent to Golovin's disposal, but they did not live up to expectations. According to Golovin, most were "revelers", while others were simply ignoramuses who did not know which end to take the musket from. Half had to be abandoned immediately, as a result, the idea of mercenarism was abandoned altogether.
Having prepared a minimal officer corps, Peter began recruiting soldiers. In this case, the experience of creating regiments of the "foreign system" was used. First they took free people - a decree of November 1699. Volunteers were promised 11 rubles of annual salary and "bread and fodder supplies." In the same month, a decree was issued on the allocation of temporary people. The mission for the selection of subordinate people was assigned to a special commission, headed by Admiral General Fyodor Golovin. By May 1, 1700, she recruited 10.3 thousand people. Another 10.7 thousand people were recruited by the Repnin commission (recruited temporary and free people in the Volga region), 8-9 thousand free people (volunteers) were recruited in a congress soldier's hut under the leadership of General Avtonom Golovin. In addition, the states of the first 4 regiments were greatly expanded.
A few months later, the first 3 divisions were formed, each with 9 regiments. They were led by Generals Avtonom Golovin, Adam Veide and Anikita Repnin. Each infantry regiment had a staff of: lieutenant colonel, major, 9 captains, captain-lieutenant, 11 lieutenants, 12 warrant officers, regimental baggage and regimental clerks, 36 sergeants, 12 captains (non-commissioned officer military rank, military rank and position in a company, battery , squadron, was in charge of accounting and storage of property and the issuance of provisions, as well as weapons, equipment and clothing), 12 ensigns, 48 corporals, 12 company clerks. Junior officers (from sergeants to corporals) were recruited from soldiers. There should have been 1152 people in the regiment according to the state. The regiment was armed and supplied at the expense of the state. The infantry regiments were armed with fuzei (a muzzle-loading smoothbore gun with a flintlock, existed in the version of an infantry gun, dragoon, officer, they differed in overall length, barrel length and caliber) and baguettes (bayonets inserted into the barrel).
The basis of the future regular cavalry was made up of two dragoon regiments. They took "children of boyar and poor princes", and then they began to fill up with nobles. By the beginning of the Northern War, the local army formed the basis of the Russian cavalry.
Taking into account the fact that the hopes for foreigners were not justified, and the army needed officers, at the suggestion of A. Golovin, from May 1700, a bet was made on the training of domestic commanders. They attracted Moscow nobles from the best families, 940 people were sent for training. It was a novelty - before that, the nobles served en masse in the cavalry, considering it a class prerogative, they were reluctant to join the infantry. But Peter broke this tradition. All attempts to evade were mercilessly punished, the nobles were obliged to serve. The results of vigorous activity quickly affected, if at the beginning of the Northern War foreigners dominated the top command staff, then the middle and junior command staff were Russian by two-thirds.
1. Local army
In the first years of the reign of Ivan III, the core of the Moscow army remained the grand ducal "court", "courts" of specific princes and boyars, consisting of "free servants", "servants under the court" and boyar "servants". With the annexation of new territories to the Muscovite state, the number of squads that went into the service of the Grand Duke and replenished the ranks of his cavalry troops grew. The need to streamline this mass of military people, the establishment of uniform rules for service and material support forced the authorities to start reorganizing the armed forces, during which the petty princely and boyar vassalage turned into sovereign service people - landowners who received land dachas for their service in conditional holding.
This is how the equestrian local army was created - the core and main striking force of the armed forces of the Moscow state. The bulk of the new troops were nobles and boyar children. Only some of them had the good fortune to serve under the Grand Duke as part of the Sovereign's Court, whose soldiers received more generous land and monetary salaries. Most of the boyar children, moving to the Moscow service, remained at their former place of residence or were moved by the government to other cities. Being ranked among the service people of a city, the landlord warriors were called city boyar children, organizing themselves into district corporations of Novgorod, Kostroma, Tver, Yaroslavl, Tula, Ryazan, Sviyazhsk and other boyar children.
Emerging in the 15th century the difference in the official and financial position of the two main divisions of the most numerous category of service people - the courtyard and city boyar children, was preserved in the 16th and first half of the 17th centuries. Even during the Smolensk War of 1632-1634. yard and city local warriors in discharge records were recorded as completely different service people. So, in the army of princes D. M. Cherkassky and D. M. Pozharsky, who was going to help the voivode M. B. Shein surrounded by the army near Smolensk, there were not only “cities”, but also a “yard” sent on a campaign, with a list of in it "stalls and solicitors, and Moscow nobles, and tenants." Having gathered in Mozhaisk with these military people, the governors were to go to Smolensk. However, in the "Estimate of all service people" 1650-1651. yard and city nobles and boyar children of different counties, pyatins and camps were indicated in one article. In this case, the reference to belonging to the "court" has turned into an honorary name for landlords who serve along with their "city". Only elected nobles and boyar children were singled out, who were really involved in the service in Moscow in order of priority.
In the middle of the XVI century. from among the service people of the Sovereign's court, nobles stand out as a special category of troops. Prior to this, their official significance was not highly valued, although the nobles were always closely connected with the Moscow princely court, trace their origin from the court servants and even serfs. The nobles, along with the boyar children, received estates from the Grand Duke for temporary possession, and in wartime they went on campaigns with him or his governors, being his closest military servants. In an effort to preserve the cadres of the noble militia, the government limited their departure from service. First of all, the enslavement of service people was suppressed: Article 81 of the Sudebnik of 1550 forbade accepting as slaves "children of servicemen of the Boars and their children who did not serve", except for those "whom the sovereign will dismiss from service."
When organizing the local army, in addition to the grand ducal servants, servants from the Moscow boyar courts dissolved for various reasons (including serfs and yard servants) were taken into service. They were endowed with land that passed to them on the rights of conditional holding. Such settlements became widespread soon after Novgorod land was annexed to the Muscovite state and local landowners were withdrawn from there. They, in turn, received estates in Vladimir, Murom, Nizhny Novgorod, Pereyaslavl, Yuriev-Polsky, Rostov, Kostroma "and in other cities." According to K. V. Bazilevich's estimates, out of 1310 people who received estates in the Novgorod Pyatina, at least 280 belonged to the boyar servants. Apparently, the government was satisfied with the results of this action, subsequently repeating it when conquering the counties that previously belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. From the central regions of the country, service people were transferred there, who received estates on lands confiscated from the local nobility, who, as a rule, were deported from their possessions to other districts of the Muscovite state.
In Novgorod in the late 1470s - early 1480s. included in the local distribution of the fund of lands, made up of obezh confiscated from the Sophia house, monasteries and arrested Novgorod boyars. An even greater amount of Novgorod land went to the Grand Duke after a new wave of repressions that came in the winter of 1483/84, when “the prince caught more and more boyars of Novogorodsk and boyars, and ordered their treasuries and the village to unsubscribe everything to himself, and he gave them estates in Moscow around the city, and other boyars, who yelled at him, he ordered them to be imprisoned in prisons around the city. The evictions of Novgorodians from their land holdings continued later. Their estates without fail unsubscribed to the sovereign. The confiscation measures of the authorities ended with the seizure in 1499 of a significant part of the sovereign and monastic patrimonies, which, “with the blessing of Simon the Metropolitan,” went into local distribution. By the middle of the XVI century. In the Novgorod Pyatina, more than 90% of all arable land was in local holding.
S. B. Veselovsky, studying conducted in Novgorod in the early 80s. 15th century distribution of service people, came to the conclusion that already at the first stage, the persons in charge of land acquisition adhered to certain norms and rules. At that time, estate dachas "ranged from 20 to 60 obez", which at a later time amounted to 200-600 quarters (fours) of arable land. Similar standards appear to have been applied in other counties, where the distribution of land to estates also began. Later, with an increase in the number of service people, local salaries were reduced.
For faithful service, part of the estate could be granted to a serving person as a fiefdom. D. F. Maslovsky believed that the patrimony complained only about the “siege sitting”. However, the surviving documents allow us to say that any proven difference in service could become the basis for such an award. The most famous case of the mass granting of local estates to estates to distinguished servicemen occurred after the successful end of the siege of Moscow by the Poles in 1618. Apparently, this misled D. F. Maslovsky, but an interesting document has been preserved - the petition of Prince Alexei Mikhailovich Lvov with a request welcome him for the "Astrakhan service", transferring part of the local salary to the patrimonial. An interesting reference was attached to the petition indicating similar cases. As an example, I. V. Izmailov is given, who in 1624 received 200 quarters of land from 1000 quarters of the local salary, “from one hundred four to twenty four<…>for the services that he was sent to Arzamas, and in Arzamas he set up a city and made all sorts of fortresses. It was this case that gave rise to the satisfaction of the petition of Prince Lvov and the allocation to him of 200 quarters of land from 1000 quarters of his local salary. However, the prince was dissatisfied and, referring to the example of other courtiers (Ivan Fedorovich Troekurov and Lev Karpov), who had previously been awarded estates, asked to increase the award. The government agreed with the arguments of Prince Lvov, and he received 600 quarters of land as a fiefdom.
Another case of granting to the patrimony of local estates is also indicative. On September 30, 1618, during the siege of Moscow by the army of the Polish prince Vladislav, the serving foreigners "spiritors" Yuri Bessonov and Yakov Bez crossed over to the Russian side and revealed the enemy's plans. Thanks to this message, the night assault on the Arbat Gates of the White City was repulsed by the Poles. The “Spitars” were accepted into the Russian service, received estates, but subsequently filed petitions for their transfer to estates. The petitions of Y. Bessonov and Y. Bez were granted.
Education local militia became an important milestone in the development of the armed forces of the Moscow state. Their numbers increased significantly, and the military structure of the state finally received a clear organization.
A. V. Chernov, one of the most authoritative specialists in Russian science on the history of the Russian armed forces, was inclined to exaggerate the shortcomings of the local militia, which, in his opinion, were inherent in the noble army from the moment of its inception. In particular, he noted that the local army, like any militia, gathered only when a military danger arose. The collection of troops, which was carried out by the entire central and local state apparatus, was extremely slow, and the militia had time to prepare for military operations only within a few months. With the elimination of the military danger, the regiments of the nobility dispersed to their homes, stopping service until a new gathering. The militia was not subjected to systematic military training. practiced self-training each serviceman to go on a campaign, the weapons and equipment of the soldiers of the noble militia were very diverse, not always meeting the requirements of the command. In the above list of shortcomings in the organization of the local cavalry, there is much that is fair. However, the researcher does not project them onto the conditions for building a new (local) military system, under which the government needed to replace the existing combined army as quickly as possible, which was a poorly organized combination of princely squads, boyar detachments and city regiments, with a more effective military force. In this regard, one should agree with the conclusion of N. S. Borisov, who noted that, “along with the widespread use of detachments of serving Tatar “princes”, the creation of noble cavalry opened the way to hitherto unimaginable military enterprises.” The combat capabilities of the local army were fully revealed in the wars of the 16th century. This allowed A. A. Strokov, who was familiar with the conclusions of A. V. Chernov, to disagree with him on this issue. “The nobles who served in the cavalry,” he wrote, “were interested in military service and prepared for it from childhood. Russian cavalry in the 16th century had good weapons, was distinguished by quick actions and swift attacks on the battlefield.
Speaking about the advantages and disadvantages of the noble militia, it is impossible not to mention that at that time the main opponent of the Moscow state, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, had a similar system of organizing troops. In 1561 the Polish king and Grand Duke Lithuanian Sigismund II Augustus was forced, when gathering troops, to demand that “princes, lords, boyars, gentry in all places and estates can take it on themselves, anyhow they are able and capable of serving the Commonwealth, straightened out and anyhow everyone went to the warrior in the same barve servants mayuchi and tall horses. And on each is a puff of zbroya, a tarch, a tree with an ensign vodley Statutu. It is significant that the list of weapons of military servants does not contain firearms. The Lithuanian Commonwealth was also forced to convene Stefan Batory, who was skeptical about the fighting qualities of the gentry militia, which, as a rule, gathered in small numbers, but with great delay. The opinion of the most militant of the Polish kings was entirely shared by Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, who became acquainted with the structure of the Lithuanian army during his life in exile in the Commonwealth. To quote his full sarcasm review:
“If they hear a barbarian presence, they will hide in hard cities; and truly worthy of laughter: armed with armor, they will sit down at a table with goblets, and there will be plots with their drunken women, and they don’t want to get out of the gates of the city, even in front of the very place, but under the hail, slashing from the infidels to the Christians was. However, in the most difficult moments for the country, both in Russia and in the Commonwealth, the noble cavalry performed remarkable feats, which hired troops could not even think of. Thus, the Lithuanian cavalry, despised by Batory, during the period when the king unsuccessfully besieged Pskov, almost destroying his army under its walls, made a raid into the depths of Russian territory (a 3,000-strong detachment of Christopher Radziwill and Philon Kmita). The Lithuanians reached the vicinity of Zubtsov and Staritsa, frightening Ivan the Terrible, who was in Staritsa. It was then that the tsar decided to abandon the cities and castles conquered in the Baltic states in order to end the war with the Commonwealth at any cost.
However, the raid of H. Radziwill and F. Kmita is very reminiscent of the frequent Russian invasions of the territory of Lithuania during the Russo-Lithuanian wars of the first half of the 16th century, when the Moscow cavalry reached not only Orsha, Polotsk, Vitebsk and Drutsk, but also the outskirts of Vilna .
The real misfortune of the Russian local army was the “absence” of nobles and boyar children (failure to appear for service), as well as their flight from the regiments. During protracted wars, the owner of the estate, forced to leave the household at the first order of the authorities, rose to the service, as a rule, without great desire, and at the first opportunity tried to evade his duty. "Netstvo" not only reduced the armed forces of the state, but also had a negative impact on military discipline, forcing them to spend a lot of effort to return the "netchiks" to the ranks. However, “absence” took on a mass character only in the last years of the Livonian War and was of a forced nature, since it was associated with the ruin of the households of service people, many of whom could not “rise” into the service. The government tried to fight the “netchiks” and organized a system of searching, punishing and returning them to service. Later, it introduced a mandatory guarantee of third parties for the proper performance of service by every nobleman or son of a boyar.
"Noneness" intensified during the Time of Troubles, persisting as a phenomenon later on. In the conditions of the actual ruin of many service people, the government was forced to carefully analyze the reason for the non-appearance of the landowners in the army, bringing to justice only those nobles and boyar children who “are in the service of being wet.” So, in 1625, 16 servicemen (out of 70 soldiers who were ordered to go on a campaign) did not arrive from Kolomna at the appointed gathering place in Dedilov. Of these, "they have not been in the service" four, "and according to the tale in the service [they] can be fine." The other twelve landowners from among those who did not appear were “uninformed and poor, it’s not good to be in the service.” 326 Ryazan nobles and boyar children arrived in the regiments. 54 people were listed in the “non-techies”, of which two Ryazan “were not in the service”, “and according to the tale of the nobles and boyar children in the service, it’s fine<…>25 people are homeless and poor, while others wander between the yard, it is not possible to be in their service. The rest of the absent landowners were ill, were in the security service, on a call in Moscow, or received other appointments. The ratio of the number of servicemen who are absent from the regiments for objective reasons and who actually evade military duty is interesting - these turned out to be 12 to 4 on the Kolomna and 54 to 2 on the Ryazan lists, respectively.
The royal decree was issued only for the latter. An order was sent to Kolomna and Ryazan: to reduce the “netchiks” who “have a hard time in the service”, but who were not in the regiments, from their local salary of 100 fours, “and from the cash salary from the quarter and from the city money a quarter of the salary”. The punishment was not very severe. In wartime, service people who fled from service or who did not arrive in the regiments could confiscate the entire estate "irrevocably", and taking into account significant extenuating circumstances - "subtract from the salary of the local man fifty four, two rubles each, in order to steal them and running from the service [was] not habitual.” Deprived of estates, the "netchiks" could again receive a land salary, but they had to achieve it by diligent and efficient service. Again they were placed from escheated, empty and confiscated hidden lands.
In the frequent wars and campaigns of that time, the local cavalry, despite significant shortcomings, generally demonstrated good training and the ability to win in the most difficult circumstances. The defeats were caused, as a rule, by the mistakes and incompetence of the governors (for example, Prince M. I. Golitsa Bulgakov and I. A. Chelyadnin in the Battle of Orsha on September 8, 1514, Prince D. F. Belsky in the battle on the Oka River 28 July 1521, Prince D. I. Shuisky in the battle of Klushino on June 24, 1610), the surprise of an enemy attack (battle on the Ule River on January 26, 1564), the numerical superiority of the enemy, treason in his camp (events near Kromy on May 7, 1605 G.). Even in these battles, many of the service people who participated in them "in the fatherland" showed true courage and fidelity to duty. Andrey Mikhailovich Kurbsky spoke extremely commendably about the fighting qualities of the Russian local cavalry, writing that during the Kazan campaign of 1552 the best Russian warriors were the “gentry of the Murom district”. In the annals and documents, there are references to the exploits performed by servicemen in battles with the enemy. One of the most famous heroes was the Suzdal boyar son Ivan Shibaev son Alalykin, who captured on July 30, 1572 in the battle near the village of Molodi Divey-Murza, the most prominent Tatar commander. The courage and military skill of the Russian nobles were also recognized by the enemies. So, about the son of the boyar Ulyan Iznoskov, captured in 1580 during the second campaign of Stefan Batory, Jan Zborovsky wrote: "He defended himself well and was badly wounded."
In order to check the combat readiness of landlord warriors in Moscow and cities, general reviews ("analysis") of noblemen and boyar children enrolled in the service were often held ... At the analysis, the children of the landowners who had grown up and were already fit for service were made up. At the same time, they were assigned a “new” land and monetary salary corresponding to their “verst”. Information about such appointments was recorded in "ten" - lists of county service people. In addition to the verst, there were “tens”, “collapsible” and “distributing”, designed to fix the attitude of the landowners to the performance of their official duties. In addition to the names and salaries, they included information about the weapons of each serviceman, the number of combat servants and kosh people exposed by him, the number of male children, the estates and patrimonies they owned, information about the previous service, the reasons for his failure to appear on " analysis”, if necessary - indications of wounds, injuries and general health. Depending on the results of the review, the nobles and boyar children who showed zeal and readiness to serve, the local and monetary salaries could be increased, and, conversely, land and cash salaries could be significantly reduced for landowners convicted of poor military training. The first reviews of nobles and boyar children were held in 1556, shortly after the adoption of the Code of Service of 1555/1556. At the same time, the term "tithe" itself was introduced into use. The need to draw up such documents became apparent during the large-scale military reforms of the Chosen Rada. All collapsible, distributing and verstal "tens" were to be sent to Moscow and kept in the Discharge Order, they were marked with official appointments, diplomatic and military assignments, parcels with seunch, participation in campaigns, battles, battles and sieges; distinctions and awards, additions to local and monetary salaries, injuries and injuries that interfere with the service, captivity, death and its causes were recorded. Lists from the “tithes” were submitted to the Local Order to provide the service people listed in them with land salaries.
Allocated on the basis of "analysis" land grants were called "dachas", the size of which often differed significantly from the salary and depended on the land fund received for distribution. Initially, the size of the “dachas” was significant, but with the increase in the number of service people “in the fatherland”, they began to noticeably decrease. At the end of the 16th century, cases became widespread when a landowner owned land several times less than his salary (sometimes 5 times less). Non-residential estates (not provided by peasants) also came into distribution. Thus, other service people, in order to feed themselves, had to engage in peasant labor. Fractional estates appeared, consisting of several possessions scattered in different places. With the increase in their number, the famous decree of Simeon Bekbulatovich is associated, which contained an order to make the children of the boyar lands only in those counties in which they serve, but this order was not carried out. In 1627, the government again returned to this issue, forbidding Novgorod service people to have estates in "other cities". However, attempts to limit local land ownership within the boundaries of one county could not be carried out - the Local Order, in the conditions of a constant shortage of empty land, constant disputes over wages, but not received dachas, was unable to fulfill such instructions. The documents describe cases when a nobleman or son of a boyar who was put into service did not receive a local dacha at all. So, in the scribe book of the Zvenigorod district of 1592–1593, it is noted that out of 11 yard children of the boyars of the 3rd article, who, when making up, were given a salary of 100 quarters of land, 1 person received a dacha more than a certain norm - 125 quarters, four received estates " not in full ”, and 6 boyar children did not receive anything, although they were supposed to“ 800 good land. In the Kazan district, some service people had only 4-5 quarters of land on the estate, and Baibek Islamov, despite the strict ban, was even forced to "plow the yasak land." In 1577, when checking the petitions of the boyar children from Putivl and Rylsk, it turned out that only 69 service people owned the estates in these counties, and besides, they were “incompletely paid, some in half, and others in thirds and fourths, but to others it was given a little for a homestead. At the same time, it was discovered that in the Putivl and Rylsk districts "99 people were unaccommodated." Since they all served, the government paid them a cash salary "in their salaries" - 877 rubles. , but could not allocate estates. This state of affairs continued later. In 1621, in one of the “collapsible” books, which was preserved only in fragments, it was noted that Ya. four." Nevertheless, a worthless warrior arrived at the review, although without a horse, but with a self-propelled gun and a horn.
In the event that the local dacha was less than the assigned salary, then the rule was in effect according to which the "not fully" posted nobleman or boyar son was not exempted from military service, but received some relief in the conditions of service: low-ranking service people were not assigned to long-distance campaigns, they tried to free them from guard and stanitsa service. Their destiny was to carry out siege (garrison), sometimes even "foot" service. In 1597, in Ryazhsk, 78 (out of 759) servicemen were transferred to "siege service", who received 20 quarters of the land each, but were deprived of their monetary salary. The most impoverished of them were automatically dropped out of service. Such cases are documented. So, in 1597, when analyzing Murom nobles and boyar children, it was found that “Menshichko Ivanov, son of Lopatin<…>he’s thin and there’s nothing to serve him in advance, and they don’t hold bail for him, but he didn’t go to Moscow for the review. This boyar son had only 12 quarters of the estate, such a tiny landholding was far from being the largest peasant allotment. “Ivashko and Trofimko Semyonov’s children of Meshcherinov” had even less land. They had the same "votchinishka" in 12 quarters for two. Naturally, the Meshcherinov brothers also could not serve and "did not visit Moscow for the review."
The number of city nobles and boyar children put into service in each county depended on the amount of land that was freed up in this area for local distribution. So, in 1577, there were 310 nobles and boyar children in Kolomna district (in 1651 there were 256 elective, courtyard and city boyar children in Kolomna, 99 of whom signed up for the Reitar service), in 1590 in Pereyaslavl-Zalessky - 107 service people "in the fatherland" (in 1651 - 198 people; 46 of them - in the "raitarekh"), in 1597 in Murom, famous for its warriors, there were 154 landowners (in 1651 - 180; of which 12 were reiters ). The largest number of service nobles and boyar children had such big cities, like Novgorod, where more than 2000 people were put into service in five fifths (in 1651 - 1534 noblemen and 21 local newly baptized), Pskov - more than 479 people (in 1651 - 333 people, including 91 Pustorzhevtsy posted in the Pskov district and 44 Nevlyans who lost their old estates after the transfer of Nevel to the Commonwealth under the Deulino Truce of 1618 and remained with the Polish-Lithuanian state after the unsuccessful Smolensk War of 1632–1634).
The salaries of the local and monetary salaries of yard and city nobles and boyar children ranged from 20 to 700 quarters and from 4 to 14 rubles. in year. The most deserving people of the “Moscow list” received land salaries: stewards up to 1,500 quarters, solicitors up to 950 quarters, Moscow nobles up to 900 quarters, tenants up to 400 quarters. Their salary ranged from 90 to 200 rubles. at the stolniks, 15–65 rubles. at the solicitors, 10–25 rubles. from the nobles of Moscow and 10 rubles. at the residents.
The correct establishment of salaries for the newly called-up nobles and boyar children was the most important task of the officials who conducted the reviews. As a rule, "newcomers" were made up by local and monetary salaries for three articles, but exceptions are known. Here are a few examples of determining local and cash salaries for newly placed nobles and boyar children in the service:
In 1577, the Kolomna "newcomers" were divided into only 2 articles according to the "yard list":
1st article - 300 quarters of land, money for 8 rubles.
2nd article - 250 quarters of land, money for 7 rubles.
But in the same Kolomna, the “novices”, who were listed as “with the city”, were placed on 4 articles with slightly lower salaries:
4th article - 100 quarters of land, money for 4 rubles.
In Murom in 1597, according to the “yard list” of 3 articles, the “novices” received even more land salaries from the kolomniks, but they were all paid in the same way:
1st article - 400 quarters of land, money for 7 rubles.
2nd article - 300 quarters of land, money for 7 rubles.
3rd article - 250 quarters of land, money for 7 rubles.
Murom "city" "noviki" were divided into 4 articles, the first of which had, in comparison with the Kolomna "noviks", an increased land salary, but a reduced cash salary:
1st article - 300 quarters of land, money for 6 rubles.
2nd article - 250 quarters of land, money for 6 rubles.
3rd article - 200 quarters of land, money for 5 rubles.
4th article - 100 quarters of land, money for 5 rubles.
In 1590, in Veliky Novgorod, during the typesetting of "novices", many of whom served as non-typed "for five years and shti", the boyar prince. Nikita Romanovich Trubetskoy and clerk Posnik Dmitriev divided service people into 3 articles:
1st article - 250 quarters of land, money for 7 rubles.
2nd article - 200 quarters of land, money for 6 rubles.
3rd article - 150 quarters of land, money for 5 rubles.
Such sizes of making-up should be recognized as very high, because in the southern cities, even when making-up "novices" in the stanitsa and guard service, which was considered more honorable and dangerous in comparison with the regimental, local salaries were much lower, although the monetary salary corresponded to Novgorod. For example, in 1576, during the analysis of service people in Putivl and Rylsk, the “novices”, divided into three articles, received in Putivl:
1st article - 160 quarters of land, money for 7 rubles.
2nd article - 130 quarters of land, money for 6 rubles.
3rd article - 100 quarters of land, money for 5 rubles.
In the scribe book of the Zvenigorod district of 1592-1593. land "new" salaries were almost three times lower:
1st article - 70 quarters of the earth.
2nd article - 60 quarters of the earth.
3rd article - 50 quarters of the earth.
In this case, only local salaries were indicated, monetary salaries were not taken into account, and possibly not paid. Part of the “newcomers” received land on the estate “not in full”, part remained unoccupied. A serviceman could receive the land dacha due to him and an increase to it by good service, by distinguished distinctions in the performance of the duties and assignments assigned to him.
In 1604, when the children of the boyars of the Ryazan archbishop were recruited into the service, they were divided into six articles, with the following local and monetary salaries:
1st article - 300 quarters of land, money for 10 rubles.
2nd article - 250 quarters of land, money for 9 rubles.
3rd article - 200 quarters of land, money for 8 rubles.
4th article - 150 quarters of land, money for 7 rubles.
5th article - 120 quarters of land, money for 6 rubles.
6th article - 100 quarters of land, money for 5 rubles.
In the same 1604, when okolnichik Stepan Stepanovich was setting up “novices” from Suzdal, Vladimir, Yuryev Polsky, Pereyaslavl-Zvalessky, Mozhaisk, Medyn, Yaroslavl, Zvenigorod, Gorokhovets and other cities, they were also divided into 5 and even 6 articles.
The given data is very eloquent. They testify to the erroneousness of P.P. Epifanov’s statement about the establishment of “the salary of estates determined by law”. As the data of tithes and scribe books show, in each county salaries had their own limits, which differed greatly from each other. The determining factor in each case was the size of the fund of lands that went to the local distribution. The authorities tried not to lower the salary below a certain level (50 quarters of the land), preferring to leave part of the service people without local dachas.
After the great "ruin" early XVII in. the government, which was experiencing serious financial difficulties, temporarily stopped paying salaries to city boyar children. In the book compiled in 1622. I. F. Khovansky and deacon V. Yudin “A dozen different cities” about the “dismantled” service people made characteristic notes: “It is possible for him to be in the service without a salary”, with the obligatory addition “but only de sovereign will grant him a monetary salary and he will add services. The above also applied to the elected nobleman Ivan Ivanovich Poltev, who had a salary of 900 quarters, in the local dacha 340 quarters (of which 180 were granted to the estate). He went to the service without a monetary salary on a horse, in a saadak and with a saber, accompanied by a serf "on a gelding with a squeaker." In case of payment of the due 40 rubles. Poltev promised to “add service” and put on “bekhterets and shishak” and bring another servant “on a horse in a sadak with a saber.” Similar promises were given by other service people who were interested in receiving a monetary salary. Some of them, for example Andrei Stepanovich Neelov, could not rise to the service without a monetary salary.
Due to the limited land fund, the most regulated was the estate land ownership in the Moscow district. In October 1550, when determining the rate of imposing here 1000 "best servants", the government decided to divide them into three articles with salaries of 200, 150 and 100 quarters of the earth. Compared with the local salaries of the children of the boyars in other cities, for the first and second articles they were almost two times less. However, soon the government managed to increase the salaries of the nobles of the "greater article" of the Moscow district. Already in 1578, the local salary was determined by him at 250, 300 and even 400 quarters. For service people of the second and third articles, salaries remained unchanged. However, boyar children placed near Moscow received an increased salary - 12 rubles. landowners of the 1st article, 10 rubles. - 2nd article and 8 rubles. - 3rd article. Subsequently, the norms of local distributions in the Moscow district were again reduced. In accordance with the Decree of 1586/1587 and the Council Code of 1649, the boyars received no more than 200 quarters per person near Moscow, 150 quarters for roundabout and duma clerks, stolniks, solicitors, Moscow nobles, the heads of Moscow archers, sedate and worthy keykeepers - 100 quarters, “nobles from cities who serve by choice” - 50 quarters according to the Decree of 1586/1587 and 70 quarters according to the Code, tenants, stirrup grooms, centurions of Moscow archers - 50 quarters, courtyard solicitors, sytniks and children of the boyars “Tsaritsyn rank" - 10 quarters, from every 100 quarters of their local salary, clerks "who sit in the office by order" - 8 quarters. The rest of the land salary, which exceeded the norm of local distributions near Moscow, was allocated to them in other counties.
In the second half of the XVI century. the military service of nobles and boyar children was divided into police (siege) and regimental. The siege service was carried out either by small landed persons with salaries of 20 four or those who, for health reasons, were incapable of regimental (marching) service; in the latter case, part of the estates was taken away from the children of the boyars. The siege service was carried out on foot, it could only be carried "from the ground", from local possessions; monetary salaries to soldiers who were in the siege service were not paid. For the proper performance of duties, land-poor nobles and boyar children could be transferred from siege to regimental service with an increase in the local salary and the issuance of a monetary salary. In the city (siege) service, retired nobles and boyar children continued to be listed, who could not carry out regimental service due to old age, illness, or because of severe injuries. So, in the collapsible “tithe” of 1622, among the Kasimov landowners, there was an “elected” nobleman Vasily Grigorievich Chikhachev, who had 150 quarters of land, on which 18 peasants and 5 bobs lived. According to the tale of the salarymen, Prince Ivan Fedorovich Khovansky and the clerk Vasily Yudin, who carried out the analysis, noted that "Vasily is old and maimed from wounds, without an arm and sick with an internal illness - the guts come up." Recognizing that Chikhachev “because of old age and illness, it is not possible to serve in regimental and near service for injury,” the drafters of the document did not give the one-armed veteran a final resignation, writing that “it is possible for him to serve in Moscow or city service.” Among the 27 Kaluga residents recorded in 1626 in the city service, 4 did not have estates, and 12 more had peasants. In 1651, in the Ryazan district, 71 retired landowners were listed in the city service. In total, according to the “Estimate of all service people” compiled in that year, retired (old, crippled and sick) and poor boyar children, “written to the city service”, turned out to be 203 people in all counties. Only very old and crippled veterans received the final resignation. Such as Bogdan Semenovich Gubarev, who after 43 years of military service lost the remnants of his health and in 1614 addressed a petition addressed to Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. The old warrior asked for his resignation "because of old age and disability" from the service and for the grant of his young children to the estate. When examining Bogdan Gubarev in the Discharge, it was found that he was “old and crippled from wounds, his left arm below the elbow was crossed with a saber and did not use his hand, his left cheek was cut off with his ear, and he was pierced from a squeak through his cheeks and his teeth were knocked out.” Only then he was released from service, obliging his sons (7, 5 and 4 years old) to put up a dedicated person for war until they came of age.
The regimental service was distant (marching) and near (Ukrainian, coastal). In peacetime, it was reduced to the constant protection of the borders, mainly the southern ones. If necessary, the city nobles and children of the boyar "smaller articles" were attracted to the serif service, the wealthier (having from 10 to 300 quarters of the land), "who would have people horses, and young themselves, and frisky, and prosezh", attracted to the stanitsa service, appointing the most wealthy as seniors over them - those who had salaries of 400-500 quarters. The increased salary in this case also meant the maximum measure of responsibility - the nobles appointed by the village heads had to conscientiously fulfill the duties assigned to them.
Moscow service people (the most prominent part of the nobility - stewards, solicitors, Moscow nobles and residents, heads and centurions of Moscow archers) were in a more privileged position compared to the boyar city children. The local salaries of the soldiers of the Sovereign Regiment ranged from 500 to 1000 quarters, and monetary from 20 to 100 rubles; many of them had large estates.
In the regiments, Moscow service people occupied the command positions of voivode, their comrades, hundred heads, etc. The total number of stewards, solicitors, Moscow nobles and residents was small - no more than 2-3 thousand people in the 16th century, 3700 - in the middle 17th century They brought to service a significant number of military servants (combat serfs), thanks to which the number of the Tsar's regiment reached 20 thousand people (in the Kazan campaign of 1552), and with the participation of "elected" nobles and boyar children and more.
The landowners of one county, called to the service, were formed at collection points in the hundreds; mixed hundreds were created from the remnants of county hundreds; all of them were distributed on the shelves. After the end of the service, the nobles and boyar children dispersed to their homes, hundreds disintegrated and, at the next call for service, formed again. Thus, hundreds, like regiments, were only temporary military units of the local militia.
The earliest information about the composition and armament of the nobles and boyar children dates back to 1556, when the boyars Kurlyatev and Yuryev and the clerk Vyluzga were inspected in Kashira. When summing up its results, we will consider only those nobles and boyar children who show local salaries; there are 222 such people in the Kashira “tithe”. These persons, according to their property status, belonged mainly to the middle local nobility: they had estates of 100-250 quarters (on average - 165 quarters). They came to the review on horses (without exception), and many even "one-horse" - with two horses. The armament of the Kashiryans was reported in the "tithe": 41 warriors had a Saadak, a spear - 19, a spear - 9, an ax - 1; 152 servicemen arrived at the review without any weapons. The compilers of the document noted that 49 landlords had protective weapons (armor).
The review was attended by 224 noble people - serfs (except for the koshev - convoys), including 129 unarmed people. The remaining 95 military servants had the following weapons: a saadak and a saber - 15 people, a saadak and a horn - 5, a saadak and a spear - 2, a saadak - 41, a horn - 15, a spear - 16 and a squeaker - 1 person. Of the 224 combat serfs, 45 were in protective equipment, all had horses. Consequently, there were no less noble servants than the landowners themselves, and they were armed no worse than the landowners.
How the noble cavalry changed at the end of the 16th century is shown by the "tithe" in the city of Kolomna in 1577. The Kolomna nobles and boyar children (283 people) belonged to middle-class owners, but came to the review armed better than the Kashirians. Almost everyone had the same weapon: a saada and a saber. Many of them had good defensive weapons, most of the Kolomna boyar children went on a campaign, accompanied by combat serfs or at least mounted "people with a yuk (pack)".
At the end of the XVI century. the government made attempts to strengthen the combat capability of the local cavalry. So, in 1594, when the children of the boyars of the city of Ryazhsk were examined, most of them were ordered to serve with squeakers. Armed with firearms, the Ryazhsky landlords were distributed over 6 hundreds, which were commanded by S. A. Khirin (50 boyar children, including “noviks”), R. G. Baturin (47 boyar children), G. S. Lykov (51 boyar sons), A. N. Shchetinin (49 boyar children), V. R. Ozerov (50 boyar children) and T. S. Shevrigin (47 boyar children). In total, 294 landowners served in the units of horse pishchalniks, not counting their centurions.
Regarding the total number of local militia of the end of the XVI century. there are indications in the special work of S. M. Seredonin on the armed forces of the Russian state. The author came to the conclusion that total number nobles and boyar children at the end of the 16th century. did not exceed 25 thousand people. Seredonin calculated that these landowners, having an average of 200 quarters of estates or estates, should have brought 2 people with them. Thus, the total number of cavalry from the nobles and boyar children with their people was about 75 thousand people. These calculations of the author for the XVI century. A.V. Chernov clarified quite convincingly, noting that, according to the Code of 1555/1556, from 200 quarters of the land the landowner had to bring not two, but one armed man, since from half of the indicated land (100 quarters) he served myself. Therefore, in the XVI century. the total number of noble militia was not 75, but 50 thousand people. Moreover, the surviving "tens" for the second half of the 16th century. show that the nobles and boyar children very inaccurately brought armed people with them, due from them according to the Code of 1555/1556 (the ruin of the service class during the years of the oprichnina and the Livonian war affected), therefore, the local cavalry in these years numbered significantly less than 50 thousand people. Human. After the famine of the beginning of the 17th century, which forced the service landowners to get rid of the fighting serfs, who became superfluous freeloaders, the number of military servants who accompanied their "sovereigns" to war decreased. The impossibility of observing the old norms of military service, determined by the Code of 1555/1556, was also recognized by the government. In 1604, the Cathedral Sentence ordered that a serf be sent on a campaign not from 100, but from 200 quarters of the earth.
In the middle of the 17th century, despite the loss of the western and northwestern territories, the number of service people "in the fatherland" slightly increased. This happened due to the use of "newcomers" and the nobles and children of the boyars, who were removed from the lands, given to the Commonwealth, received new dachas in the southern counties and received local distribution of black-mossed volosts. According to the “Estimate of all service people” of 1650/1651, there were 37,763 nobles and boyar children in all cities, pyatins and camps of the Moscow state. In Moscow, there were 420 stewards, 314 solicitors, 1248 Moscow nobles, 57 foreigners "who serve with Moscow nobles", 1661 tenants - a total of 3700 people. Unfortunately, the compilers of the "Estimate" did not indicate the number of military servants put up by service people, however, according to the most minimal calculations, there were then at least 40-50 thousand people.
Boyar people or combat serfs were called military servants, whom the landlords and estates brought from the land according to the norm determined by the Code of 1555/1556, armed and on horseback. A. V. Chernov, speaking about the boyar people, wrote about the independent combat significance of military servants in the Russian army. As an example, he used the siege of Kazan in 1552, during which, according to the historian, "the boyar people, along with archers and Cossacks, bore the brunt of the siege and capture of the city on their shoulders." Moreover, Chernov continues, in military operations under the walls of the Tatar capital, combat serfs acted separately from the nobles. Like other military people, they were formed into special detachments (hundreds) with their own heads, and in some cases they had an independent regimental organization. The historian's assumptions are unconvincing. The basis of the marching Russian army, as shown above, was the regiments of the noble cavalry, along which the archery and Cossack orders, instruments and hundreds were distributed; in reliable documentary sources do not find any mention of "serfs" regiments and hundreds. Sometimes military servants were used in prefabricated units assigned to storm enemy fortresses, but as part of infantry columns, the basis of which were archers and Cossacks, under the command of heads and centurions from nobles. This is exactly what happened near Kazan in 1552 and near Narva in 1590.
From the book Kingdom of the Vandals [Rise and Fall] author Disner Hans-JoachimTroops and Fleets A variety of views were expressed regarding the troops and fleets of the new vandal North African state. Both "arms" were at the disposal of the king, who was usually also the supreme commander. This custom, which existed before,
From the book Russian History. 800 rare illustrations author From the book Course of Russian History (Lectures I-XXXII) author Klyuchevsky Vasily OsipovichLocal landownership We call the local system the order of the servant, i.e. obligated to military service, land ownership, established in the Muscovite state of the XV and XVI centuries. At the base of this order lay the estate. The estate in Muscovite Russia was the name of the site of the state
Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich
IV. The Army In passing on to the definition of the relationship of the supreme power to the subjects in general, to the presentation of the news reported by foreigners about the government and its organs, we must, of course, first of all dwell on the structure of the army. If and now in the states
From the book The Conquest of America by Ermak-Cortes and the rebellion of the Reformation through the eyes of the "ancient" Greeks author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich6. The army of the aggressor Nikiya is a huge army of professionals. The same is reported about the army of the aggressor Khan Mamai. e. The aggressor was the Athenians, led by Nicias. They attacked Sicily. Thucydides says: "So many peoples of the Hellenic
From the Book of the Hittites author Gurney Oliver Robert1. Army The strength of the Hittite empire, like other contemporary kingdoms, was based on a rapidly developing new weapon - a light chariot drawn by horses; it appeared in Western Asia shortly after 1600 BC. The war chariot itself was not new. Sumerians
From the book Secrets of the Egyptian Pyramids author Popov AlexanderArmy The armed forces in Egypt consisted of units formed locally and subordinate to local authorities. This, however, reflected badly on statehood. For example, local princes who had their own troops overthrew the Sixth Dynasty and threw the country into a whirlpool
From the book Medieval Iceland author Boyer RegisThe Icelanders, with their incredibly heightened sense of personal dignity, extreme sensitivity, which did not allow them to bear even the slightest hint of insult or innuendo, with their exaggerated sense of their own importance, had something like a passion for
From the book Russian History. 800 rarest illustrations [no illustrations] author Klyuchevsky Vasily OsipovichLOCAL LAND OWNERSHIP We call the local system the order of service, i.e., obligated to military service, land tenure, established in the Muscovite state of the 15th and 16th centuries. At the base of this order lay the estate. An estate in Muscovite Russia was a plot
From the book Two Faces of the East [Impressions and reflections from eleven years of work in China and seven years in Japan] author Ovchinnikov Vsevolod VladimirovichPetrified army It is generally accepted that the Great Wall of China is the only creation of human hands, visible even from space. Having seen many wonders of the world in my lifetime, I was convinced that “Wanli changcheng” - “The Great Wall ten thousand li long” (6600 kilometers)
From the book Moscow Russia: from the Middle Ages to the New Age author Belyaev Leonid AndreevichARMY In the Russian principalities of the XIII-XV centuries. and later in the Moscow kingdom, the army was the subject of constant concern, because its power was the first condition for state sovereignty and economic prosperity. First, the inevitable stubborn struggle for independence from the Horde and
From the book Native Antiquity author Sipovsky V. D.The Army And in our time [the end of the 19th century], all the major European states are very concerned about their military forces, and two centuries ago wars were more frequent and longer than in our century, and therefore military affairs were in the first place among state duties. Is our
From the book Russian History. Part II the author Vorobyov M N2. Streltsy army What was the streltsy army, why did it rebel, why did Peter subsequently “burn out” the archers from the people’s body like that?
From book complete collection compositions. Volume 12. October 1905 - April 1906 author Lenin Vladimir IlyichThe army and the revolution The uprising in Sevastopol is growing all the time (61). The case is drawing to a close. Sailors and soldiers fighting for freedom eliminate the bosses. The order is maintained complete. The government fails to repeat the vile trick of Kronstadt, fails to call
The formation of a centralized state in Russia took place in a stubborn, difficult struggle with both internal and external enemies.
A particularly tense situation developed during the reign of Ivan IV, accompanied by almost continuous long wars. This was heavily reflected in the position of the local nobility, which constituted the main contingent of the armed forces of the state. Separation from the economy for many years and high expenses for the maintenance of both the landowner himself and his armed servants, with uneven provision of land holdings, led to the impoverishment of a significant part of the landed nobility and, as a result, to a decrease in their service potential. Among the Novgorod landlords, this was already evident during the Kazan and Astrakhan campaigns. The idea of the inevitability of a war for access to the Baltic Sea confronted the government in the 50s of the 16th century. the task of further increasing the contingent of the armed forces and simultaneously increasing its combat effectiveness. Its implementation was to ensure military reform, the content of which is formulated in the Service Regulations 1555/56 1
The implementation of this Code is directly related to the general review of all the armed forces of the state, which was held in June 1556 2 Its purpose was the fastest one-time check of the service zeal and combat readiness of service landowners and the compliance of their combat equipment with the size of land holdings established by the Code of Service (one a man in armor from 100 quarters of good land). Of the documents compiled in connection with this review, only two have survived: the so-called Boyar book of 1556 and the tenth book of Kashira of the same year. They contain information about the various layers of the service class.
The boyar book is an official digit document, which was the result of the June review of 1556, 3 with which all researchers agree, but there are different opinions on the issue of its purpose. N.V. Myatlev believed that the Boyar book is close to the collapsible dozens of the beginning of the 17th century. and is a list of a personal regiment, a kind of life guard of Ivan IV. According to Myatlev's calculations, out of 180 people recorded in the incompletely preserved book, 79 people belonged to the chosen thousand. 4 This assumption is justified, since the chronicle reports that it was in June 1556 that Ivan IV personally "inspected his regiment, the boyars and princes, and the children of the boyars and all of their people." 5 According to a number of sources, reviews of all the armed forces of the state took place at the same time, as a result of which dozens of service people from many cities were drawn up, 6 but the list of these dozens does not include a dozen of the sovereign's regiment. This is natural, since the sovereign's regiment did not consist of the nobles of any one city, but of personally selected representatives of the best noble families. 7 Among them were not only landlords, but also votchinniks, and, moreover, sometimes very large ones, who had votchinas ranging in size from 0.5 plows to 2 sokhs. It was not possible to divide such a regiment into articles according to the size of the local salary, as was done in ordinary tenths. It did not fit into the system of distribution of monetary salaries, adopted in tenths, and the system of monetary support for service people of the sovereign's regiment, since they, being almost all boyar children of the yard, used feedings of various profitability until 1556. These feedings were replaced by him with a cash salary with a breakdown of the personnel of the regiment into 25 articles, which was convincingly proved by Nosov. eight
Nosov, comparing the Boyar Book of 1556 with the Thousand Book of 1550, the Yard Notebook of the 50s of the 16th century. and the Kashirskaya tenth of 1556, came to the conclusion that this document "is an article-by-article list of service people, mainly yard children of the boyars ("the best in the fatherland and service"), who are entitled to receive a "money salary" in return for feeding directly from Moscow " . 9 But since about 3,000 people are recorded in the Dvorovaya notebook, and only 180 in the Boyar book, he suggested that only the boyar children, who had the right to feed and were recorded in the Discharge in special “fed lists”, were apparently included in the Boyar book. , whose turn to receive feedings came just in 1555-1556. ten
This hypothesis deserves attention, but its acceptance removes a number of other arguments of the author, first of all, the assertion that the absence of people in the book in articles 1-10 and 13-14, as well as a small number of them in articles 11 (one person) and 12 (four people) is explained by the incomplete list of the book. This absence of them can also be explained by the fact that there were no those whose turn to receive feeding fell on 1555/56. ), apparently occupied a very prominent place in the Boyar Book of 1556, ”and the assumption that in the full text of the book there should have been about 300, maximum 400 people, 11 since the queue for receiving feedings under the articles could hardly have numerical rule. Against Nosov’s assumption, the fact that the Boyar Book recorded persons who, due to the large size of their possessions, did not have feeding at all, for example, princes Danilo Yuryevich Bitsky Menshoy and Ivan Vasilyevich Litvinov Masalsky, of which the first had an estate of 2 plows, and the second - 500 quarters of the estate and 400 quarters of the estate. 12
But, whatever the points of view on the origin and purpose of the Boyar Book, one thing was clear that representatives of the privileged stratum of the service nobility were recorded in it.
Another thing is the tenth Kashira, which was the result of a review of the combat readiness of ordinary representatives of the local nobility, which included only two thousand people among 403 people (Prince M.M. Khvorostinin and Grigory Zlobin Petrov). thirteen
The nobles recorded in the Boyar Book and the Kashirskaya Ten (see table) also differ sharply in terms of the provision of land holdings. The average size of the possession of one serviceman from the Boyar Book was 324 quarters, and 15 people had less than 200 quarters; 215 Kashirians, whose land holdings are indicated in ten, had an average of 165 quarters. 9 people had 300 quarters or more, 148 people (69%) had 150 quarters or less. Such a big difference in material security was also reflected in the degree of combat equipment of these two military units. 67 Kashirians, who had 100 or less quarters of land, appeared on their own, accompanied by a man with a pack. Of these, only 4 people were in armor. According to A.V. Chernov, among the Kashirians, 152 people had no weapons at all. fourteen
The results of the review forced the government to take urgent measures aimed at strengthening the estate system as the material and social basis of the armed forces of the state, and above all, to provide additional land for the overgrown landowner families. In addition, the Code of Service introduces monetary salaries in addition to land holdings. But even in receiving this salary, the sovereign's regiment was placed in a special position. The salary of the people who served in this regiment ranged from 6 rubles due under Art. 25, up to 50 rubles, paid under Art. 11. 15 In ordinary regiments, this salary ranged from 4 to 14 rubles. 16 Additional money was paid for people who were put up in excess of those required by the Service Regulations. 17 Before large campaigns, it was quite common practice for the government to issue financial support to service people. In the Boyar book, 18 cases of issuing help before the Kazan campaign were noted for a significant amount for that time - 206 rubles, 11.4 rubles each. per person. Among these 18 people there was not a single thousand, 18 although they made up 44% of the people recorded in the Boyar Book. This indicates a fairly high material security of the thousands. Summing up the measures taken by the government of Ivan IV to strengthen the army, A.A. Zimin writes: "Reforms in the Russian army, carried out in the middle of the 16th century, led to an increase in its combat effectiveness and numerical growth." 19 This is confirmed by the successes of the Russian army in the first years of the Livonian War.
Table. The number and armament of the noble cavalry in 1556 according to the Boyar Book and the Kashirskaya Ten
| military cavalry | Number of service bad people |
The number of people they put up according to the norms of the Code of Service | The number of actually exhibited | ||||||||
| Total | including | Total | including | ||||||||
| in armor | in drags | % | in armor | % | in drags | % | without armor | ||||
| Boyar book | 160* | 567 | 495 | 72 | 920****** | 165 | 406 | 82 | 216 | 300 | 149 |
| including only patrimonies | 6** | 66 | 63 | 3 | 33 | 50 | 18 | 27 | 4 | 133 | 11 |
| Novgorodians | 25 *** | 63 | 53 | 10 | 106 | 168 | 50 | 94 | 56 | 560 | - |
| including thousands | 6 **** | 16 | 11 | 5 | 69 | 432 | 43 | 390 | 26 | 520 | - |
| Kashirskaya tenth | 215 ***** | 199 | 89 | 110 | 248 | 115 | 20 | 22 | 36 | 40 | 192 |
** Including 4 princes.
*** Including 17 thousand people,
**** Grigory Sukin, Yakov Gubin Moklokov, Zhdan Veshnyakov, Nelyub Zacheslomsky, Tretiak Kokoshin, Andrey Ogarev.
***** In total, 403 people were recorded in the ten, including 32 novices, 16 of them without estates. 188 people have no information about the size of the estates.
****** This number does not include 218 servants with pack horses.
Sources: Boyar Book, p. 25-88; Shaposhnikov N. V. Decree, soc., p. 28-44.
But the implementation of the Code of Service for a short time strengthened the position of the mass of the service nobility. The Livonian War, which began in 1558, required a new significant increase in military contingents, and the government hastily began distributing to the estates the quitrents and, to a large extent, palace lands that remained at its disposal.
By the middle of the 60s of the XVI century. many of these lands were given away. The contingent of displaced people was significantly replenished during these years at the expense of the Kazan and Astrakhan Tatars, to whom, in particular, the Suglets volost and most of the Udomel volost in the Novgorod region were completely given.
Since the second half of the 60s, due to the lack of land for new uses, the shuffling of manorial lands began. Surpluses are cut against wages, lands are taken away from netchiks for not showing up for service, and new estates are made up of these scraps, not compact, but consisting of numerous parts scattered in many places. This does not save the situation, there is still not enough land, especially cultivated, due to the flight of peasants from growing state taxes, the number of wastelands is rapidly increasing. Then the government began to provide the people who were being placed with only a part of the salary in “living” land, the rest, as a rule, a large one, the landowners received in the form of wastelands. They were given the right to search for inhabited lands themselves. The continuous fall in the value of money in the 1960s and 1970s nullified the salary. The deterioration of the material situation of the landlords and the ineffectiveness of all government measures in the field of local policy, carried out in the 60-70s of the 16th century, inevitably led to a violation of normal relations between the local nobility and the government. Until the mid-70s, the government had no serious reason to complain about the state of military discipline and morale among the mass of the noble army. But the hardships of the war, which had dragged on for more than 15 years and was accompanied by a severe economic crisis, broke the fighting spirit of the nobility. Non-attendance for service and desertion from the army since the mid-1970s have become widespread. The beginning of the collapse of the noble army was reflected in the dozens of 1577 and 1579. If, when compiling the tithes of 1556, the government did not require any additional guarantees of timely attendance at the service and its proper performance, then in the tithes of 1577-1579. after indicating the size of the local salary and the monetary salary of the boyar’s service son and the list of weapons required from him, the names in 1577 of two, and in 1579 of three guarantors for this service person in the proper performance of the sovereign service follow. 20
The former trust of the tsar in his army was replaced by a compulsory mutual guarantee, binding the serviceman with fear of cruel reprisal not only with himself and his family, but also with the people who vouched for him.
In the last years of the Livonian War, this did not help either. The local system underlying the armed forces of the state, which was created by the grandfather and father of Ivan IV and which was to be further strengthened by the Code of Service, was unable to withstand the burden of continuous thirty-year wars and oprichnina politics. To restore order and discipline in the noble army, a whip is used to help the Code and mutual responsibility. More N.M. Karamzin cited the order given by Ivan IV in 1579 to Mikhail Ivanovich Vnukov, who was sent to Vodskaya Pyatina to Prince Vasily Ivanovich Rostov. M. I. Vnukov must find the boyar children who did not appear for service in Pskov and, “looking for, beat with a whip and go to the sovereign’s service in Pskov.” 21
1 The issue of dating the Code was the subject of discussion due to the fact that in the only source that reported the publication of the Code (Nikon Chronicle), it is dated 7064, without indicating the month (PSRL. SPb., 1904, vol. XIII, 1st pol., pp. 268-269), and V.N. Tatishchev, in additions to the Code of Laws of 1550, the exact date is September 20, 7064, i.e. 1555 (Tatishchev V.N. Sudebnik. 2nd ed. M., 1786, p. 131). A.A. Zimin, investigating this issue, came to the conclusion that the Code should be dated 1555/56. “A more accurate dating of the Code is difficult” (Zimin A.A. Reforms of Ivan the Terrible. M., 1960, p. 426-429, 437-439) . But on the basis of his own reasoning, some clarifications can be made to the dating of the document. So, he notes that the Code was in effect during the Serpukhov review, which took place in June 1556, which is mentioned in the Boyar Book (Zimin A.A. Decree, soch., p. 438, sn. 2). Consequently, the Code arose no later than May 1556. I.I. Smirnov accepts the dating of V.N. Tatishcheva (Smirnov I.I. Essays on the political history of the Russian state in the 30-50s of the 16th century. M .; L., 1958, pp. 451-452). It seems that indirect confirmation of the position of A.A. Zimin can be served by the fact that it was from the end of September 1555 that the nobles began to especially intensively file petitions with complaints about the impossibility of serving from their estates and requests for land cuts (DAI. SPb., 1846, vol. I, No. 52 , pp. 85-118).
2 PSRL, vol. XIII, 1st floor, p. 271; Myatlev N.V. Thousanders and the Moscow nobility of the 16th century. Eagle, 1912, p. 63-65.
3 Archive of historical and legal information relating to Russia, published by N. Kalachov. SPb., 1861, book. III, div. 2. (Next: Boyar book).
4 Myatlev N.V. Decree. op., p. 62. According to N.E. Nosov, there were 72 thousand [Nosov N.E. Boyar book of 1556: (From the history of the origin of the quarters). - In the book: Questions of Economics and Class Relations in the Russian State of the XII-XVII centuries. M.; L., 1960, p. 205].
5 PSRL, vol. XIII, 1st floor, p. 271.
6 Myatlev N.V. Decree. op., p. 63-65; Smirnov I.I. Decree. op., p. 428-429.
7 Zimin also believes that the Boyar Book “provides information about the most prominent part of the nobility” (Zimin A.A. Decree, soch., p. 448).
8 Nosov N.E. Decree. op., p. 211, 203-204.
9 Ibid., p. 220.
10 Ibid., p. 219.
11 Ibid., p. 203, 219.
12 Boyar Book, p. eighteen.
13 Shaposhnikov N.V. Heraldica: Historical collection. SPb., 1900, vol. I, p. 28-29.
14 Chernov A.V. Armed forces of the Russian state in the XV-XVII centuries. M, 1954, p. 80.
15 There are no data on the salaries of other articles in the book.
16 Materials for the history of the Russian nobility. M., 1891, 1. Tens and a Thousand Book in the processing of V.N. Storozheva, p. 1-41.
17 The position of servicemen in the second half of the 16th century. considered in detail: Rozhdestvensky S.V. Serving land tenure in the Muscovite state of the 16th century. SPb., 1897.
18 Help received: N.S. Velyaminov, B.I. and O.I. Shastinsky, I.K. Olgov, S.G. Shepenkov, M.A. and V.A. Godunov, B.D. Kartashev, Kosovo-Plescheev, I.N. Rozhnov, T.I. Radtsov, Prince. AND ABOUT. Lvov-Zubaty, Prince. I.V. Vyazemsky, L.G. Golchin, N.G. and M.G. Pelepelitsyn, T.L. Laptev and R.D. Doronin.
19 Zimin A.A. Decree. op., p. 444. It is impossible not to cancel the social phenomenon that accompanied the numerical growth of the noble army: the percentage of serfs in its composition also increased. So, in 1556, in the sovereign's regiment, there were 760 servants for 160 gentlemen, which accounted for 82.6% of the entire personnel of the regiment, not counting 218 servants with pack horses.
20 Materials for history..., p. 1-40, 220-223.
21 Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. SPb., 1892, v. 9, App. 538; see: Discharge book 1559-1605. M., 1974, p. 165-166.
In the wars of the XV - early XVII centuries. the internal structure of the armed forces of the Moscow state was determined. If necessary, almost the entire combat-ready population rose to defend the country, but the backbone of the Russian army was the so-called "service people", divided into "service people from the fatherland" and "service people according to the instrument." The first category included service princes and Tatar "princes", boyars, roundabouts, residents, nobles and boyar children. The category of "instrument service people" included archers, regimental and city Cossacks, gunners and other military personnel of the "Pushkar rank".
At first, the organization of the Moscow army was carried out in two ways. Firstly, by prohibiting the departure of service people from the Moscow princes to Lithuania and other sovereign princes and by attracting landowners to carry out military service from their estates. Secondly, by expanding the grand duke's "court" through the permanent military detachments of those specific princes whose possessions were included in the Muscovite state. Even then, the issue of material support for the service of the grand ducal soldiers was acute. To solve this problem, the government of Ivan III, which received a large fund of populated lands during the subordination of the Novgorod Veche Republic and the Principality of Tver, began mass distribution of part of them to service people. Thus, the foundations were laid for the organization of the local army, which was the core of the Moscow army, its main striking force throughout the entire period under study.
All other military people (pishchalniks, and later archers, detachments of serving foreigners, regimental Cossacks, gunners) and mobilized to help them land and duty people in campaigns and battles were distributed among the regiments of the noble rati, strengthening its combat capabilities. Such a structure of the armed forces was reorganized only in the middle of the 17th century, when the Russian army was replenished with regiments of the "new order" (soldiers, reiters and dragoons), which acted quite autonomously as part of the field armies.
At present, the opinion has been established in the historical literature that, by the nature of their service, all groups of military men belonged to four main categories: cavalry, infantry, artillery, and auxiliary (military engineering) detachments. The first category belonged to the noble militia, serving foreigners, horse archers and city Cossacks, horse data (combined) people, as a rule, from monastic volosts, who marched on horseback. The infantry units consisted of archers, city Cossacks, servicemen of soldier regiments (since the 17th century), subordinate people, and, in case of urgent need, dismounted nobles and their combat lackeys. Artillery crews were mainly gunners and gunners, although, if necessary, other instrument people also got to the guns. Otherwise, it is not clear how 45 Belgorod gunners and gunners could operate from fortress guns, when there were only squeakers in Belgorod142. In the Kola prison in 1608 there were 21 guns, and there were only 5 gunners; middle and second half of the 16th century. the number of guns in this fortress increased to 54, and the number of artillerymen - up to 9 people. Contrary to popular belief about the involvement of only field people in engineering work, it should be noted that a number of documents confirm the participation of archers, including Moscow ones, in fortification work. So, in 1592, during the construction of Yelets, the village people assigned to the "city affairs" fled and the fortifications were built by the new Yelets archers and Cossacks. Under similar circumstances, in 1637, the Moscow archers "placed" the city of Yablonov, as reported to Moscow by A.V. Buturlin, who was in charge of construction: "And I, your serf,<…>ordered the Moscow archers under the Yablonov forest to set up a prison from the Yablonov forest to the river to Korocha.<…>And the prison was made and completely strengthened, and wells were dug and gouges were placed on April 30th. And I sent the standing sovereign of the guards, your serf, to set up for [the] foot of the Moscow archers before the arrival of military people. Where did you happen to put the spears on the same number. And how, sir, the standing guards of the organizer and completely strengthened, and about that to you, sir, I, your serf, will write off. And oskolenya, sir, do not go to the nadolbny case. And the gouges were not brought to the Khalansky forest of two versts ... ". Let's analyze the information given in this voivodeship formal reply. With Buturlin in 1637, under the Yablonov forest, there were 2000 archers and it was their hands that the main scope of work was completed, since they were appointed to help service people Oskolyane evaded burdensome duty.
Streltsy took an active part not only in the protection of work on the abuts that unfolded in the summer of 1638, but also in the construction of new defensive structures on the Line. They dug ditches, poured ramparts, put up gouges and other fortifications on Curl and Shcheglovskaya notch. On the ramparts erected here, Moscow and Tula archers made 3354 wicker shields-rounds.
A number of publications will consider not only the composition and structure of the Moscow army, its weapons, but also the organization of service (marching, city, security and stanitsa) by various categories of service people. And we start with a story about the local army.
***
In the first years of the reign of Ivan III, the core of the Moscow army remained the grand ducal "court", "courts" of specific princes and boyars, consisting of "free servants", "servants under the court" and boyar "servants". With the annexation of new territories to the Muscovite state, the number of squads that went into the service of the Grand Duke and replenished the ranks of his cavalry troops grew. The need to streamline this mass of military people, the establishment of uniform rules for service and material support forced the authorities to begin the reorganization of the armed forces, during which the petty princely and boyar vassalage turned into sovereign service people - landowners who received land dachas for their service in conditional holding.
Thus, the equestrian local army was created - the core and main striking force of the armed forces of the Moscow state. The bulk of the new troops were nobles and boyar children. Only some of them had the good fortune to serve under the Grand Duke as part of the Sovereign's Court, whose soldiers received more generous land and monetary salaries. Most of the boyar children, moving to the Moscow service, remained at their former place of residence or were moved by the government to other cities. Being ranked among the service people of a city, the landlord warriors were called city boyar children, organizing themselves into district corporations of Novgorod, Kostroma, Tver, Yaroslavl, Tula, Ryazan, Sviyazhsk and other boyar children. The main service of the nobility was held in the troops of the hundredth system.
Emerging in the 15th century the difference in the official and financial position of the two main divisions of the most numerous category of service people - the courtyard and city boyar children, was preserved in the 16th and first half of the 17th centuries. Even during the Smolensk War of 1632-1634. yard and city local warriors in discharge records were recorded as completely different service people. So, in the army of princes D.M. Cherkassky and D.M. Pozharsky, who was going to help the voivode M.B. Shein, there were not only “cities”, but also a “courtyard” sent on a campaign, with a list of “stewards and solicitors, and Moscow nobles, and tenants” included in it. Having gathered in Mozhaisk with these military people, the governors were to go to Smolensk. However, in the "Estimate of all service people" of 1650/1651, courtyard and city nobles and boyar children from different counties, pyatins and camps were indicated in one article. In this case, the reference to belonging to the "court" has turned into an honorary name for landowners who serve together with their "city". Only elected nobles and boyar children were singled out, who were really involved in the service in Moscow in order of priority.
In the middle of the XVI century. after the thousandth reform of 1550, noblemen stand out from among the service people of the Sovereign's court as a special category of troops. Prior to this, their official significance was not highly valued, although the nobles were always closely connected with the Moscow princely court, trace their origin from the court servants and even serfs. The nobles, along with the boyar children, received estates from the Grand Duke for temporary possession, and in wartime they went on campaigns with him or his governors, being his closest military servants. In an effort to preserve the cadres of the noble militia, the government limited their departure from service. First of all, the enslavement of servicemen was suppressed: Art. 81 of the Sudebnik of 1550 forbade accepting boyar children as slaves, except for those "whom the sovereign will set aside from service."
***
When organizing the local army, in addition to the grand ducal servants, servants from the Moscow boyar courts dissolved for various reasons (including serfs and yard servants) were taken into service. They were endowed with land that passed to them on the rights of conditional holding. Such settlements became widespread soon after Novgorod land was annexed to the Muscovite state and local landowners were withdrawn from there. They, in turn, received estates in Vladimir, Murom, Nizhny Novgorod, Pereyaslavl, Yuryev-Polsky, Rostov, Kostroma "and in other cities." According to K.V. Bazilevich, out of 1310 people who received estates in the Novgorod pyatinas, at least 280 belonged to the boyar servants. Apparently, the government was satisfied with the results of this action, subsequently repeating it when conquering the counties that previously belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. From the central regions of the country, service people were transferred there, who received estates on lands confiscated from the local nobility, who, as a rule, were deported from their possessions to other districts of the Muscovite state.
In Novgorod in the late 1470s - early 1480s. included in the local distribution of the fund of lands, made up of obezges confiscated from the Sophia house, monasteries and arrested Novgorod boyars. An even greater amount of Novgorod land went to the Grand Duke after a new wave of repressions that came in the winter of 1483/1484, when "the prince caught the great boyars of Novogorodsk and the boyars, and ordered their treasuries and the village to unsubscribe everything to himself, and they gave estates in Moscow around the city, and other boyars, who yelled at him, ordered those to be imprisoned in the city. The evictions of Novgorodians continued later. Their estates without fail unsubscribed to the sovereign. The confiscation measures of the authorities ended with the seizure in 1499 of a significant part of the sovereign and monastic patrimonies, which entered the local distribution. By the middle of the XVI century. In the Novgorod Pyatina, more than 90% of all arable land was in local holding.
S.B. Veselovsky, studying conducted in Novgorod in the early 80s. 15th century distribution of service people, came to the conclusion that already at the first stage, the persons in charge of land acquisition adhered to certain norms and rules. At that time, estate dachas "ranged from 20 to 60 obez", which at a later time amounted to 200-600 quarters (fours) of arable land. Similar norms, apparently, were in force in other counties, where the distribution of land to estates also began. Later, with an increase in the number of service people, local salaries were reduced.
For faithful service, part of the estate could be granted to a serving person as a fiefdom. D.F. Maslovsky believed that the patrimony complained only about the "siege seat". However, the surviving documents allow us to say that any proven difference in service could become the basis for such an award. The most famous case of the mass granting of estates to the estates of distinguished servicemen occurred after the successful end of the siege of Moscow by the Poles in 1618. Apparently, this misled D.F. Maslovsky, however, an interesting document has been preserved - the petition of Prince. A.M. Lvov with a request to welcome him for the "Astrakhan service", transferring part of the local salary to the patrimonial,. An interesting reference was attached to the petition indicating similar cases. As an example, I.V. Izmailov, who in 1624 received 200 quarters of land from 1000 quarters of the estate salary, "from one hundred four to twenty four<…>for the services that he was sent to Arzamas, and in Arzamas the city set up and made all sorts of fortresses. "It was this case that gave rise to the satisfaction of the petition of Prince Lvov and the allocation of 200 quarters of land to his patrimony from 1000 quarters of his local salary. However, he was dissatisfied and, referring to the example of other courtiers (I.F. Troekurov and L. Karpov), who had previously been awarded estates, he asked for an increase in the award.The government agreed with the arguments of Prince Lvov and he received 600 quarters of land in the estate.
Another case of granting to the patrimony of local estates is also indicative. On September 30, 1618, during the siege of Moscow by the army of Prince Vladislav, the serving foreigners "spiritors" Yu. Bessonov and Ya. Bez went over to the Russian side and revealed the enemy's plans. Thanks to this message, the night assault on the Arbat Gates of the White City was repulsed by the Poles. "Spitarschikov" were accepted into the service, given estates, but later, at their request, these salaries were transferred to the patrimony.
***
The formation of the local militia became an important milestone in the development of the armed forces of the Moscow State. Their numbers increased significantly, and the military structure of the state finally received a clear organization.
A.V. Chernov, one of the most authoritative specialists in Russian science on the history of the Russian armed forces, was inclined to exaggerate the shortcomings of the local militia, which, in his opinion, were inherent in the noble army from the moment of its inception. In particular, he noted that the local army, like any militia, gathered only when a military danger arose. The collection of troops, which was carried out by the entire central and local state apparatus, was extremely slow, and the militia had time to prepare for military operations only within a few months. With the elimination of the military danger, the regiments of the nobility dispersed to their homes, stopping service until a new gathering. The militia was not subjected to systematic military training. It was practiced to independently prepare each serviceman for a campaign, the weapons and equipment of the soldiers of the noble militia were very diverse, not always meeting the requirements of the command. In the above list of shortcomings in the organization of the local cavalry, there is much that is fair. However, the researcher does not project them onto the conditions for building a new (local) military system, under which the government needed to replace the existing combined army as quickly as possible, which was a poorly organized combination of princely squads, boyar detachments and city regiments, with a more effective military force. In this regard, one should agree with the conclusion of N.S. Borisov, who noted that "along with the widespread use of detachments of serving Tatar "princes", the creation of noble cavalry opened the way to hitherto unthinkable military enterprises." The combat capabilities of the local army were fully revealed in the wars of the 16th century. This allowed A.A. Strokov, familiar with the findings of A.V. Chernov, disagree with him on this issue. "The nobles who served in the cavalry," he wrote, "were interested in military service and prepared for it from childhood. The Russian cavalry in the 16th century had good weapons, was distinguished by quick actions and swift attacks on the battlefield."
Speaking about the advantages and disadvantages of the noble militia, it is impossible not to mention that at that time the main opponent of the Moscow state, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, had a similar system of organizing troops. In 1561, the Polish king and Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund II Augustus was forced, when gathering troops, to demand that "princes, lords, boyars, gentry in all places and estates may take it upon themselves, anyhow they are able and capable of serving the Commonwealth sya and anyhow each one rode to the warrior in the same barve, the servants of the lighthouse and tall horses. It is significant that the list of weapons of military servants does not contain firearms. The Lithuanian Commonwealth was also forced to convene Stefan Batory, who was skeptical about the fighting qualities of the gentry militia, which, as a rule, gathered in small numbers, but with great delay. The opinion of the most militant of the Polish kings was entirely shared by A.M. Kurbsky, who became acquainted with the structure of the Lithuanian army during his life in exile in the Commonwealth. Let us quote his review, full of sarcasm: “If they hear a barbarian presence, they will hide in such hard cities; and truly it is worthy of laughter: armed with armor, they will sit at a table with cups, let the plots with their drunken women go on, and you don’t want to get out of the gates of the city, even more and in front of the very place, but under the hail, slashing from the infidels to the Christians was. However, in the most difficult moments for the country, both in Russia and in the Commonwealth, the noble cavalry performed remarkable feats, which hired troops could not even think of. Thus, the Lithuanian cavalry, despised by Batory, during the period when the king unsuccessfully besieged Pskov, almost destroying his army under its walls, raided deep into Russian territory with a 3,000-strong detachment of H. Radziwill and F. Kmita. The Lithuanians reached the vicinity of Zubtsov and Staritsa, frightening Ivan the Terrible, who was in Staritsa. It was then that the tsar decided to abandon the cities and castles conquered in the Baltic states in order to end the war with the Commonwealth at any cost.
Page 1 - 1 of 3
Home | Previous | 1 | Track. | End | All
© All rights reserved
The second in time were the reforms of the local militia. The government of Ivan the Terrible showed special attention and care to the military structure of the nobles and boyar children. The noble militia was not only the basis of the armed forces of the state, but, most importantly, it was the class support of the autocracy. To improve the legal and economic status of the nobles and boyar children, to streamline their military service and, in this regard, to strengthen the state and organization of the local militia, and therefore the entire army as a whole - these are the tasks set by Ivan the Terrible, carrying out reforms of the local militia.
The earliest of the military reforms of the nobility mid-sixteenth in. was a verdict of localism.
In the autumn of 1549, Ivan the Terrible began a campaign against Kazan. On the way, the tsar invited the clergy to his place and began to convince the princes, boyars, boyar children and all service people who had set out on the campaign that he was going to Kazan “for his own business and for the zemstvo”, so that between the service people there would be “strife and places ... there were none” and in the service everyone “went without a seat”. In conclusion, Ivan the Terrible promised to resolve all local disputes after the campaign.
The fact that during the campaign it was necessary to convince the soldiers of the need for unity, for which the clergy were specially invited, shows how corrupting the influence of localism on the army was. Persuasion did not give positive results, and the boyars continued to wage a fierce struggle for "places". Then the government decided to influence the recalcitrant by legislative means.
In July 1550, the tsar, the metropolitan and the boyars were sentenced to localism. The verdict consisted of two main decisions. The first decision concerns localism in general. At the beginning of the sentence, it is indicated that in the regiments, princes, princes, nobles and boyar children should be in the service of boyars and governors "without places." In the verdict, it was proposed to write down in the “service order” that if the nobles and boyar children happen to be in the service of governors not in their “fatherland”, then there is no “damage” to the fatherland in this.
The indicated part of the verdict quite decisively raises the question of parochialism, and on the basis of it alone it is possible to conclude that the king wants to completely abolish parochial accounts in the army. However, the further content of the sentence significantly reduces the first part of the decision. Further in the verdict we read: if in the future the great nobles who are in the service of lesser voivodes not in their own country happen to be voivodes themselves together with the former voivodes, then in the latter case the parochial accounts are recognized as valid and the voivodes must be "in their own fatherland".
So, canceling the parochial claims on the part of ordinary soldiers to their governors, that is, to the command staff, the verdict upheld and confirmed the legitimacy of these claims to the places of governors among themselves. Thus, the sentence of 1550 did not yet completely abolish localism in the army, but, despite this, it was of great importance. The abolition of parochialism between ordinary soldiers and ordinary soldiers with their governors helped to strengthen discipline in the army, increased the authority of governors, especially the ignorant ones, and generally improved the combat effectiveness of the army.
The second part of the verdict was an adaptation of local accounts between governors to the existing division of the army into regiments: “he ordered to write in the service outfit where to be in ... the service of the boyars and governors by regiments.”
The first ("big") governor of a large regiment was the commander of the army. The first governors of the advanced regiment, the regiments of the right and left hands and the guard regiment stood below the large governor of the large regiment. The second governor of a large regiment and the first governor of the regiment of the right hand were equal. The governors of the advanced and guard regiments were considered "not menshi" of the governor of the regiment of the right hand. The governors of the regiment of the left hand were not lower than the first governors of the forward and guard regiments, but lower than the first governors of the right hand; the second voivode of the regiment of the left hand stood below the second voivode of the regiment of the right hand.
This means that all the governors of other regiments were subordinate to the first governor of a large regiment (commander of the army). The governors of all the other four regiments were equal among themselves, and equal with the second commander of a large regiment. The exception was the voivode of the regiment of the left hand, who stood below the voivode of the regiment of the right hand. This subordination was stipulated, apparently, because in fact the regiments of the right and left hands (flanks) occupied the same place in the army. The subordination of the first regimental governors corresponded to the subordination of the second, etc. governors, and within each regiment, the second and third governors, etc., were subordinate to the first governor.
The official place of the regimental governor, established by the verdict of 1550, existed until mid-seventeenth century, i.e., before the collapse of the old regimental organization of the troops. The verdict determined the relationship of the regimental commanders among themselves, simplified and improved the leadership of the army and reduced local disputes. Despite the obvious advantages of the new procedure for appointing commanding officers in the army, this order was poorly absorbed by the swaggering boyars. Localism continued to exist, and the government had to repeatedly confirm the sentence of 1550.
The next event of the government of Ivan the Terrible in organizing the local militia was the formation of the "chosen thousand".
The verdict provided for the "infliction" in the Moscow district, Dmitrov, Ruza, Zvenigorod, in quitrents and other villages from Moscow, 60-70 miles away, "landlords of the children of boyar radiant servants" 1000 people. These boyar children were divided into three articles and received estates: the first article for 200, the second for 150 and the third for 100 children. In total, according to the verdict, 1,078 people were “placed” in the vicinity of Moscow and 118,200 quarters of land were distributed to local ownership.
This “chosen thousand” was included in a special “Thousand Book” and marked the beginning of the service of the boyar children according to the “Moscow list”. For the children of the boyars, service in the thousanders was hereditary. For many boyar children, an entry in the "thousand" meant a major promotion, approaching the royal court.
The "chosen thousand" included many representatives of the most noble princely and boyar families. The attraction of the princes to the service had a great political significance. Receiving estates with the obligation to be ready “for parcels”, to fill various positions in the military and civil service, the descendants of the specific princes moved from their ancestral estates to estates near Moscow, where they were ordered to live permanently. Thus, the princes were drawn to Moscow, became noble landowners and lost contact with those places where they owned hereditary specific lands as descendants of specific princes.
The division into three articles did not last long. By decree of 1587, for all Moscow nobles, the same size of estates near Moscow was established at 100 quarters in a field (150 acres in three fields). This decree was fully included in the Code of 1649.
Sources of the second half of the XVI century. (bit books and annals) show that the thousands, who were always obliged to “be ready for parcels,” spent most of their time outside Moscow, mainly in military service. In peacetime, they were sent as city commanders or siege heads to the border cities, they were assigned to watch the spotlights and to build cities and border fortifications.
During the hostilities, a significant number of thousands of men became regimental governors, heads of hundreds, archers, Cossacks, at the staff, convoy, at the outfit, etc. Many thousands of men were among commanders"sovereign" regiment and in the retinue of the king. Thousanders were sent ahead of the marching troops as lodgers, they also monitored the condition of roads, bridges and transportation. Through them, in peacetime and wartime, relations were maintained with the army and city governors.
Thousanders stood at the head of orders, were governors and volosts. They appointed thousanders and tiuns, governors, sent for inventory, land surveying and patrol of lands and census of taxable population, sent as ambassadors and messengers to other states, etc.
The creation of the "chosen" thousand was the beginning of the formation of a new group of urban nobility, there were elected nobles and boyar children, or simply "choice". Elected nobles and children of the boyars from 1550 received official recognition. From the elected nobility at the royal court, a special category of service people developed under the name of "residents".
Thousanders did not lose their former estates and estates and kept in touch with the district nobility. The estate near Moscow was given to the "tenant" as a help, since he was obliged to be in Moscow, away from his land holdings. Being part of the county nobility, the elected nobles (thousanders) were ranked in the 16th century, however, not to the provincial, but to the capital nobility. They became part of the sovereign's court and were included in the so-called courtyard notebook, compiled, as A. A. Zimin's research established, in 1551.
The elected nobles and children of the boyars strengthened the Moscow metropolitan nobility and were the cadres from which service people were later formed, according to the terminology of the 17th century, the “Moscow list” or “Moscow rank”.
The education of the chosen thousand was of great political importance. The descendants of the well-born nobility were equalized in their official position with the landowners-nobles and boyar children. The relationship between the government and the local nobles and boyar children, who made up the bulk of the local militia, expanded and strengthened. Cadres of service people appeared on whom the autocracy could rely.
Together with the "elected" (Moscow) archers, the thousanders constituted the nearest armed force and guards of the tsar.
The verdict of 1550 marked the beginning of that reorganization of the service from estates and estates, which received its final establishment in the “Regulations on the Service” of 1556.
In 1556, a verdict was passed on the abolition of feeding and on the service, according to which a major reform of the noble militia was carried out.
In the verdict, first of all, the enormous harm of feeding was noted. Princes, boyars and boyar children, who were sitting in cities and volosts as governors and volosts, “performed many empty towns and volosts ... and committed many evil deeds against them ...”
In this regard, the feeding system was abolished, and the governor's "feed" was replaced by a special state monetary collection - "fed payback." The payback went to the treasury and was one of the main sources of state income. The introduction of payback brought major changes to the system of the state apparatus. Special state financial bodies were created - "quarters" (cheti).
All these events had important political and economic consequences. The abolition of feeding and the liquidation of the governor's administration led to the fact that the huge funds collected by the boyars from the population in the form of governor's feed began to flow into the state treasury. Thus, economically and politically, the boyars became weaker, and the well-fed payback turned into a source of financing for the nobility. Monetary income in the form of payback allowed the government to assign a permanent monetary salary to the nobles and children of the boyars for their service. The cancellation of feedings was carried out in the interests of the nobility.
The verdict of 1556 also decided the question of the service of the nobility and boyar children. This part of the verdict was called the "Code of Service."
Central to the verdict is the decision to establish service from the ground. From the estates and estates, the owners had to perform the "laid service." From one hundred quarters (150 acres in three fields) of the “good comforts of the land” one person was exhibited on a horse and in full armor, and on a long trip with two horses. For service to the landowners and votchinniks, a reward was established (except for land ownership) in the form of a permanent monetary salary. Salaries were also given to people who were brought with them by the landowners and votchinniks. Those nobles and children of the boyars who brought people with them in excess of the established number by sentence, the salary increased.
If the landowner or votchinnik did not serve, he paid money for the number of people that he was obliged to put up according to the size of land holdings.
The Code of 1556 established the rate of military service from the ground; an estate of 100 quarters gave one mounted armed warrior. The Code equalized service from estates and estates, service from the latter became as obligatory as from local lands. This meant that public service all those votchinniki who had previously served individual feudal lords had to bear. The code created the interest of the landowners and estate owners in the service and led to an increase in the number of noble militia by attracting new landowners to the service. In general, the Code improved the recruitment of the troops.
In addition to the purely military reforms of the noble militia indicated above, the government's concerns about improving the legal and economic situation nobles and boyar children were expressed in a number of other legislative acts.
The landlords received the right to sue in their cases, except for "murder, thievery and robbery", directly from the king himself; in the hands of the landowner, judicial power was concentrated over the peasants living on his lands, and, finally, it was forbidden to turn boyar children (except those unfit for service) into slaves, which should have led to the preservation of the cadre of military people.
In addition to the "Code of Service" of 1556, the government took a number of measures to alleviate and eliminate the debt of the landowners.
Finally, a major reform of local government, carried out in the mid-1950s, transferred local power from the hands of princely-boyar circles (deputies) to local landowners, who were under the control of the central state apparatus.
In general, all the reforms of the middle of the XVI century. had a pronounced noble character and reflected the growth of the nobility as a reliable political, economic and military force of a centralized state.
