Moscow tsars and princes in the opinion of foreigners of the early 18th century

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

In the library of the University of Bern, I accidentally found the genealogy of the Moscow tsars and princes, as seen at the beginning of the 18th century. The document is called: LinkGenealogie des czars de Moscovie ou empereurs de la grande Russie: avec le blason de leurs armes et de leurs etats / selon Mr. Hubner. Link [Amsterdam]: [s.n.], [zwischen 1705 und 1739]. Unfortunately, you cannot download it from there. And you can watch only in a very small window. I will take pictures from him, talking about this document.

I also advise you to read my previous post on this topic, also written on the basis of a foreign document.

We'll start with Rurik.

Firstly, Rurik is written here only by princes / prince and, as far as I understand, began to reign in NEUGARD in 840 (like his brothers on the right and on the left). However, it does not agree with modern historiography. And again, there is no exact date of death. Sineus and Truvor have an inscription after the cross (which, as I understand it, means death). Google identified this language as Finnish and translated it - "San Dedicated." Again, the coats of arms of the principalities that were then part of Muscovy are drawn along the edges of this document. There is also Novgorod. But it is written differently than in the inscription from Rurik.

It is a mistake, an accident, or vice versa, talking about different cities, it is difficult to understand. But the latter is very likely. We had a great many new cities. The same Nizhniy was previously called simply Novgorod, too. And in the title of the Moscow princes they wrote: Novgorod, Nizovye lands. Why go far, here is another Novgorod in the same document.

Guess what kind of Novgorod is this? Okay, I will not torment this Veliky Novgorod. And the lower one was just above.

We go further, more precisely higher. Igor is there. By the way, there is no prophetic Oleg, who ruled the principality under Igor. Well, he seems to be not a relative. But Olga is not. On the right there is some kind of Olgus. But I did not understand whether this is a man or a wife. Moreover, this is more likely a relative of Svyatoslav. But, as far as I understand, the wives are not shown separately here. Only if in the description to a particular king or prince.

What is written there by Igor is not clear. But clearly he did not occupy any kind of throne. And the date "930" is not clear at all what it means. The same can be said about Svyatoslav. The text mentions Christians and an incomprehensible date "971". While now they believe that he died in 972.

But then Vladimir goes on.

Pay attention, there is a number 1 above his tablet and a crown is drawn on the right. As I understand it, foreigners considered him the first ruler of the Russian land. And not a prince or a prince, there are no such words in the text. And again NEUGARD. Nothing is said about the adoption of Christianity. All dates also do not agree with modern ideas.

Next comes, as I understand it, Yaroslav the Wise. Here he seems to be already a prince. Mention is made of Polotsk, which, it seems, should not exist at all. Dates, as always, do not hit. Well that's okay. Our historians always knew better what was there a thousand years ago.

Pereslavl is mentioned in the table of his son, Vsevolod. But there is nothing of the kind in the official biography. There are no dates here at all.

Next comes, most likely, Vladimir Monomakh. The date of death does not add up. But he is already considered the third ruler on the list, monarque, monarch. Maybe because of this, the nickname was formed?

But the next ruler does not have any dates at all. This is most likely Vsevolod Olgovich. Or maybe not. Is that what it says on his tablet? Who is he ?

And with him begins the era of rulers, from whom nothing remained except the name and title. There are no dates at all. There is information about Rurik and Vladimir, who lived 300 years earlier. But about these rulers no longer exists. Probably not yet invented then. Hands did not reach.

George is it with us that Yuri Dolgoruky? By the way, then the name was Yury and not Yuri. That was the name, for example, of Lermontov's ancestor, who was from Poland. And by the way, this Georgeno crown and serial number. And in general, it turns out that we have two centuries, that in general there were no rulers in Russia? But the word Moscow is already appearing. And the princes are no longer called princes, but Grand Ducs. Maybe we are not correctly calling them princes. The same Vladimir, who brought Christianity to Russia (by the way, read how it was) was generally a kagan. Then the titles were given a very serious meaning and they always had a great semantic load, which we simply do not know anymore. Therefore, we call all the princes together. And these "princes" may not even know the words.

But Dmitry following him is already more difficult to identify. Judging by the table Rulers of the Russian state, from Wiki, there seemed to be no such name at all at that time. And who are these Yaroslav and Alexander, it seems our historians do not know. But no, Alexander is most likely Nevsky. There is little information in the plate. Something he did in 1244. Or maybe not him. Nevsky seems to have never been a Moscow "duke".

Next comes Danila Alexandrovich, who seems to be only the fifth ruler of Russia, and, as far as I understand from the text. established his residence in Moscow.

Danila is followed by two Ivans, about whom, again, only names and titles are known, and the titles are local, Moscow. This is just not surprising. I wrote that until the end of the 15th century we had no Chronicle at all.

But Dmitry is already the Grand Duke of Russia and it seems Tartary. Interesting. Only the dates do not coincide with the official biography of Dmitry Donskoy.

And again, except for Kalita, all the other nicknames of the Russian tsars and princes (and by the way, maybe Kalita is not a nickname? Another Kalita and the year -1376 are written on the left) are still unknown to foreigners at the beginning of the 18th century. Probably not yet invented.

Donskoy is followed by Vasily, also the Grand Duke of Russia. As I understand from the text, he was married to Anastasia, daughter of Vitold, the ruler of Lithuania. Well, that's bad luck, our historians for some reason think that her name was Sophia. And somehow this Vasily died early, in 1399, instead of 1425.

And on the side to the left is written some kind of Gregory, the eighth ruler of Russia. Who is this anyway? After Basil the Grand Duke, there is still some kind of Vasily, but not a ruler. And further up, it seems, there is a cross.

To the right is the "First Branch of Kings"

Those. It seems that "Rurikovich" is ending Well, actually, it's not scary. Then the rulers were still elected, first at veche gatherings in the principalities and then at the Soviets of the Whole Earth, the medieval parliaments of the then Rus. The main thing was that the applicant had royal, princely blood. How it was determined, I still cannot understand. But for the then inhabitants of Russia it was clear without any documents there, apparently.

And so is the First Branch of Kings. It begins with Ivan Vasilyevich. By the way, does it not seem to you that there is a rather large time gap between him, the ninth ruler, and the previous, incomprehensible Gregory, the eighth ruler? Actually, this is normal. In my opinion, before Ivan Vasilyevich, we did not have such a state as Russia. What has now been written almost in the history textbook, I have already written about it. And only from the beginning of the 16th century began, as we used to say, the gathering of Russian lands. And simply their conquest and the transformation of individual principalities with veche democracy into some kind of flimsy semblance of the first seemingly state. Why like? I already wrote about this.

Let's take a closer look at this new branch.

Apparently, now we know this Ivan as Ivan III Vasilyevich. Only now they do not call him tsar. And in general, in the chronicles of the 17-18 centuries, they are confused with Ivan the Terrible. Again, it was he, the Terrible, who liberated Russia from the Tatars. But this was attributed to this particular Ivan. Why is it not clear.

Well, then comes Gabrielle. The most interesting thing is that in my previous post about how foreigners imagined the genealogy of the Russian tsars, there is also Gabriel / Gavrila, and also right here at this place. The trend is however. True, here he still wrote as Vasily Tsar. Apparently Gavrila was gradually forgotten and deleted from history. Remember above, there was also the ruler Gabril, who is not listed anywhere in history? Some curse on this name. Why was it so inconvenient that it was urgently renamed? Maybe he violated the harmonious system of succession, when, according to the Romanov history, the throne was passed from father to son. And here it was clearly something wrong. Although in this table Grozny is shown the sons of Gabriel / Gavrila.

But the nickname "Terrible" is missing from the plate. And for some reason the word is written - Prince. This is what it means? A hint of the oprichnina and the reign of Semeon Bekbulatovich? Oh, everything was not the way we imagine it now. I am sure of this.

Everything seems to be in order with Fedr Ivanovich. And it is even written that he was married to the daughter of Boris Godunov. But she was like Irina. And then some other name appears.

Let's move, as it is written in the tablet, to the Second Branch of Kings but marked de différentes mais ons. What Google translated as - but with various additions.

Boris Godunov comes first.

Strange a little, why only he and Kalita were awarded the "surname"? Let's skip Vasily Shuisky and also Vladislav, the son of the Polish King, about whom I already wrote, and let's go straight to the False Dmitriy.

Only after looking at this table, I was surprised to find out how many there really were. Moreover, they are all on Wikipedia, go and have a look. And ALL of them in this tablet are recognized as real kings, although they are written with the prefix "pseudo". Even the Fourth one, which does not have a serial number and does not have a crown sign.

This is the biggest mystery of the Time of Troubles. I'm sure they were all people of the royal family. You can declare yourself a king, but you can become one only after the population and the ruling elites recognize it. And, as far as I understand, this happened with all False Dmitriy. Most of the nobility and common people swore oath to at least two of them and kissed the cross, which was at that time the actual recognition of the right to the throne. But the Time of Troubles is for that vague, that none of them, for various reasons, could sit on it. But that's another question. The Romanovs have already declared them impostors, so that no one doubts the legitimacy of their autocracy. In fact, after all, Mikhail Romanov sat on the throne with gross violations of the procedure and violated his own oath to the Tsar of Moscow Vladislav. So the king is not real. What the Romanovs very, very much then wanted to forget. For which they ruined history as best they could. Well, you can see for yourself.

Let's move on to the "Third Branch of Kings".

It begins with Georgy Romanov. And again I have to ask the question - who is this? The father of Nikita Romanov was Roman Yuryevich Zakharyin-Koshkin. Yes, he was the father of Anastasia, the wife of Ivan the Terrible, about which there is an entry in this table, here it is on the right. Why did the Romanovs not like the name George, that they renamed their ancestor? By the way, not everything is in order there with their pedigree. It is not clear, so who are they actually the Romanovs or the Zakharyins?

Fyodor Nikitich's wife Maria is written, but it is not clear with the patronymic or surname. And what does she have to do with Ivan the Terrible? But in the official history, Ksenia is listed as the mother of Mikhail Fedorovich. And it is logical to write it down on this plate. Again, in the article about Filaret, there seems to be no mention of his wife at all.

Oh, it's a dark matter, uuuu … … …

With Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich himself, there seem to be no questions. But with his son Alexei Mikhailovich questions again begin. The first wife is written by Maria. But the second is listed as, if I read correctly, Tsarina Natalya Kirillovna. And here she is listed as the boyar's daughter. But according to the official history, Kirill Poluektovich was a small local nobleman. Usually, all the same, they strive to raise their clan, but here historians, for some reason, on the contrary, greatly lowered the Naryshkin clan. By the way, they are from the Crimea. Maybe the Romanovs did not want to cover this part of the history of Russia? After all, 90 percent of the then nobles were not local, not Slavs.

Go ahead.

The twenty-second ruler of Russia is Fyodor Alekseevich. But Peter Alekseevich was only 24 and only in 1689. And the tablet says something about the regency of boyar Fyodor Abramovich. But Romodanovsky, when it comes to him, was Yurievich.

Let me make a link to one study. There, for this period, simply fantastic material was selected. I was already jealous. I know how difficult it is to do it. I disagree with most of the conclusions there. But the idea that Natalya Naryshkina was not the mother of Peter the Great and that he himself became tsar only after Ivan's death are confirmed in this document. Then there was another troubled time, the truth about which later the Romanovs greatly distorted.

In general, of course, everything here needs to be translated completely, and by experienced translators, in order to bring out at least some crumbs of truth.

History has never been a science. And only a means for the authorities to justify these or those of their actions. Therefore, it was rewritten always and everywhere. And we see such an intermediate edit in this document.

I hope you were interested. I still want to know and understand what really happened there.