The beginning of the colonization of Siberia by the Russians occurred during the reign of Boris Godunov, who ruled from 1584 to 1598 on behalf of the feeble-minded Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, and from 1598 to 1605 he was the king himself.

On the Irtysh river in 1587 the city of Tobolsk was founded, and in 1594 - the city of Tara. At the same time, the cities of Surgut (1594), Narym (1596) and Tomsk (1604) were built on the Ob. The events of the Time of Troubles did not prevent the Russian people from mastering the Yenisei River basin, where the cities of Turukhansk (1607), Yeniseisk (1618) and Krasnoyarsk (1628) were built.

A small note should be made here. Russian colonization proceeded simultaneously in a centralized manner, that is, by order from Moscow, and in an initiative manner, and both of these trends were practically inseparable. By the Russian people, the author means the archers, and the Cossacks, and the industrialists, and the fugitive peasants, in short, everyone who went to the East.

Subsequently, the Russian people penetrated into Eastern Siberia in two ways: northern - along the rivers Lower Tunguska, Vilyui and its tributary Chunu, Lena; and by the southern route - the Verkhnyaya Tunguska, its tributary the Ilim, the tributary of the Lena Kut and, finally, the Lena. At the mouth of the Lena Aldan tributary, these two paths converge into one, going up the Aldan and its tributary, the Mae River, which, with its upper reaches, comes close to the upper reaches of the Ulya River, which flows into the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. It was along these rivers that the Russian people moved mainly during the occupation and settlement of Eastern Siberia.

In the late 20s of the 17th century, the governor of the city of Yeniseisk began to equip expeditions up the Upper Tunguska to tax the natives with yasak and to conquer them completely. In addition, the voivode wanted to get to the land of the Buryats, where large deposits of silver ore were supposed: the Russian people saw silver among the Buryats. The result of these expeditions was the construction of the first Rybny stockade on the Upper Tunguska above the confluence of the Uda, and then, in 1631, the Bratsk stockade at the confluence of the Oka into the Angara. The result of this was the conquest of the Tungus and Buryats who lived in this area.

Other Cossack detachments from the upper Angara along its tributary Ilim and further along the Lena Kutu tributary made their way to the Lena and began to collect yasak here from the natives, and then met the Yakuts. To ensure the collection of yasak and with views for the future, the Cossacks built Ilimsky forts on the Ilim River, Ust-Kutsky and Tutursky - at the confluence of the Tutura River into the Lena. These fortresses became points of departure for further movement down the Lena. In 1632, the Cossacks had already reached the Yakuts who lived on the middle Lena, and built the Yakutsk prison in their land.

The Russian people moved in other directions as well. In the years 1638-1639. a detachment of Tomsk Cossacks under the command of Ataman Kopylov along the Aldan and May rivers reached the Stanovoy Range and, having crossed it, descended to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk by the Ulya River. The Cossacks explored the shores of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk up to the Tui River in the north and up to the Uda River in the south, and at the mouths of these rivers they built Ust-Tuiskoe and Ust-Udskoe winter huts. The Tunguses who lived along the Aldan and Mae and along the shores of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk were surrounded by yasak. The Yenisei Cossacks, under the command of Ataman Perfiryev, went up the Vitim River and collected tribute from the Tungus who lived there.

Kopylov and Perfirev collected information from the Tungus about the Amur River and the tribes living there. The Tunguses told them that people live there sowing bread, having livestock, mining copper, silver and lead ore, catching valuable sables, etc. Shilka "for the sovereign's yasak collection, for the reception of again unstable people, silver, copper and lead ore and for bread."

In July 1643, Poyarkov with a detachment of 133 people sailed on plows from Yakutsk, and by autumn along the Aldan and Uchur reached the Gonam River. Here he left 40 people with loads for the winter, and with the rest set off across the Stanovoy ridge. Along Zeya, the detachment descended to the regions inhabited by daurs. Poyarkov's Cossacks overwintered in a hastily built prison, having lost about 40 people during the winter, who died of hunger. By the spring, a party that had left him for wintering on the Gonam River approached Poyarkov, and the detachment on plows moved further downstream of the Zeya. Only 65 people made it to the mouth of the Amur, where they "swept and brought under the tsar's hand" the Gilyaks.

Poyarkov did not dare to return back upstream and went on Gilyak boats north along the shores of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk to the places where, as he knew, there were Russian winter huts. This trip lasted for about twelve weeks. At the mouth of the Ulya River, he built a prison on the site of an old Russian winter quarters and overwintered. In the spring, leaving twenty Cossacks in the prison, Poyarkov moved along the Ulya River, then dragged the boats to Maya and in July 1646 returned to Yakutsk with a rich yasak, hostages and other trophies.

Poyarkov pointed out to the Yakut governors the places along the Zeya and Shilka (i.e., Amur), and along their channels, where, in his opinion, the ostrozhki should be built. “There,” said Poyarkov, “you can also lead seated people under the tsar's high hand on campaigns, and you can strengthen them in eternal servility, and collect yasak from them, in that the sovereign will have a lot of profit, because those little lands are crowded and rich and they are sore, and there is a lot of every beast, and a lot of bread will be born, and those rivers are fishy, ​​and the sovereign's military men will not be poor in anything. "

In the spring of 1647, a detachment of Cossacks under the command of Semyon Shelkovnik went down the Ulya River, which flows into the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, and from the mouth of the Ulya sailed by sea to the mouth of the Okhota River. There Silkovnik's detachment met a Tungus army of up to a thousand people. The Cossacks managed to repel the attacks and put the ostrozhek at the mouth of the Okhota. This is how the first Russian port on the Pacific Ocean was created, which received the name of the river Okhotsk.

In 1654 the Tungus managed to burn down the Okhotsk prison, but soon a new Russian detachment appeared. The Tunguses were defeated, and the fort was rebuilt.

Simultaneously with the Amur Territory, the coast of Lake Baikal was also surveyed. The Yakut voivode sent a Cossack Pentecostal Kurbat Ivanov with 75 servicemen and industrial people to Lake Baikal. The detachment landed on the island of Olkhon and conquered the Tungus there. Then Kurbat himself returned to Yakutsk, and to explore the shores of Lake Baikal he sent half of his people under the command of the foreman Skorokhod, who walked along the coast of Lake Baikal to the mouth of the Barguzin and conquered the Tungus who lived in the upper reaches of the Angara. A small detachment of Cossacks did not dare to go further.

In 1649, the boyar's son Vlasyev, who settled on the Kolyma River, sent servicemen and industrial people to the upper reaches of Anyui, which flows into the Kolyma. There, the Cossacks caught several natives and learned from them that a new river Anadyr begins from the upper reaches of the Anyui behind the stone. The Cossacks returned to the Kolyma, gathered a large detachment and went to look for this river. They found it, went down it and met with another Russian expedition, climbing up Anadyr. This expedition, led by the Cossack Semyon Dezhnev, set out to sea along the Kolyma in 1648, then moved east along the coast, passed through the present Bering Strait into the Bering Sea, and from there entered the mouth of the Anadyr.

When these two expeditions met, there was almost a bloody clash between the Russian people over yasak, and Dezhnev and his comrades hastily retired on ships back to sea. Here in 1652 he beat walruses and collected their tusks, periodically engaging in fights with the Koryaks and Chukchi. With news from Dezhnev, a streltsy centurion was immediately sent to establish the power of the sovereign "in a new land" and to establish order in the newly opened field.

In the 40s. In the 17th century, the Russian people became a firm foot in Transbaikalia as well. A detachment of Cossacks under the command of Ataman Vasily Kolesnikov was sent from Yeniseisk to Baikal to check on the silver ore. Walking along the northeastern shore of Lake Baikal, the detachment reached the upper reaches of the Angara. There, in 1646, the Verkhneangarsk fort was built to keep the local Tungus submissive.

From the Mongols who lived in Transbaikalia, Kolesnikov learned that there was no silver ore here, but the Chinese brought it. But before this information reached Yeniseisk, two more parties of servicemen came out to Baikal one after another. The second party, under the leadership of the boyar's son Ivan Galkin, in 1648 built the Burguzinsky prison on the Barguzin River. From it, the Russian people went out to explore the upper tributaries of the Vitim along the Selenga and Shilka rivers and their tributaries. The result of these reconnaissance was the construction of the Bauntovsky and Verkhneudinsky forts (1652), the Irgensky stockade (1653) and the Nerchinsky stockade (1654). The Bauntovsky stockade was built on Lake Bauntovskoye, from which flows the Vitim Tsypa tributary, Verkhneudinsky - on the Selenga tributary to the Ude River, Irgansky - on the Irgan lake, from which the Selenga tributary Khilok flows, Nerchinsky - at the confluence of the Nerch into the Shilka.

In the late 40s - early 50s. In the 17th century, the Russian people tried to establish themselves thoroughly on the Amur. In 1649, the old "experimenter" ataman Yarko (Erofei) Pavlovich Khabarov (born about 1610, died after 1667) announced to the Yakut voivode that he would go to the Amur, lead 70 servicemen and industrial people, bill, feed, pay salary, provide food and weapons. The voivode agreed.

Khabarov went a new way - the Olekma River, then its tributary Tungir, from the Tungir, by dragging, went to the Amur tributary, the Urku River. The uluses of the native prince Lavkai were located here. But both the uluses and the prince's big city with five towers, deep ditches, podlazami under all the towers and hiding places with water were empty. Khabarov went down the Amur to another city, and it turned out to be empty, there were no people in the third city, where Khabarov stopped to rest.

On the same day, the guard announced that five natives had arrived. Khabarov sent an interpreter to ask what kind of people they were? It turned out that it was Prince Lavkai himself with two brothers, a son-in-law and a slave. The prince asked who he was dealing with. “We came to trade with you and brought a lot of gifts,” the interpreter answered. To which Lavkai replied: “What are you deceiving! We know you Cossacks. Before you, the Cossack Kvashnin was with us and said about you that five hundred people are coming, and many more people are following you, you want to beat us all and rob our estate, take wives and children to the full. That is why we scattered. "

Khabarov, through the interpreter, began to persuade Lavkai to give yasak to the sovereign, the prince promised to think it over. With this the natives left and never returned. Khabarov followed them, found two more cities, both were empty. Khabarov did not go further, returned to the first city, left part of his detachment there, and in May 1650 he himself returned to Yakutsk.

Voivode Khabarov reported that “along the glorious great river Amur live Daurian people, arable and livestock, and in that great river there are a lot of fish of all kinds opposite the Volga, along the banks of great meadows and arable lands, large dark forests, a lot of sable and every animal, the sovereign will have a treasury great. Bread will be born in the field, barley and oats, millet, peas, buckwheat and hemp seeds. If the Daurian princes submit to the sovereign, then the profit will be large, there will be no need to send bread to the Yakut prison, because from the Lavkaev city from the Amur River through the portage to the Tugir River to the new prison, which he, Khabarov, will only go from a hundred versts , and from the Tugirsky prison down Tugirem, Olekmoya and Lena to Yakutsk I will only swim for two weeks. Daurian land will be more profitable than Lena, and against the whole of Siberia the place will be decorated and abundant. "

Khabarov's report made an impression on the Cossacks - 170 volunteers immediately volunteered to go to the Amur, and the governor gave another 20 people. And in the same 1650 a detachment of Cossacks, armed with three cannons, went to the Amur. But this time the Daurs resisted. Near one of the Daurian cities (Albazin), Russian Cossacks fought with the Daurs, the natives fled, and 20 Cossacks were wounded. The Daurs left Albazin, leaving it to the Russians.

In another city, the native prince Gugudar also fought back the Russians. When asked to give yasak, Gugudar replied: “We are giving yasak to the Bogda (Chinese) king, but what yasak do you have? Do you want the yasak that we throw to our last children? " Khabarov then wrote: “And the daurs from the city shot at us in the field of arrows, as the cornfield was planted. And those fierce Daurs could not stand against the state storm and our battle. " Russian Cossacks took the town. The natives lost more than six hundred people killed, the Cossacks - four killed, and 45 were wounded.

Over the years of the conquest of Siberia, the Cossacks have become accustomed to the fact that if they manage to break the prince, then count, and the whole family has submitted. But with the Daurs everything turned out differently. Khabarov captured one Daurian ulus and took the Daurian princes as amatants (hostages), but soon learned that the ulusniks were fleeing. Khabarov asked the new amatants: "Why did they change the sovereign and send their people away?" They answered: “We did not send, we are sitting with you, and they have their own thoughts. Than we all die, so it is better we die for our land alone, when we are already in your hands. "

For wintering, Khabarov's Cossacks built Achansk town. The Ducher and Achanians besieged the Russians several times, but the Cossacks easily repulsed all the attacks of the natives.

However, in the spring of 1652, a new enemy appeared - the Manchu army, sent by order of the governor of the Chinese bogdykhan. This army had guns and guns. But the Cossacks fought back here too. Khabarov wrote: “March 24, in the morning dawn, over the Amur River, a glorious force hit the city of Achansky, Kozakov, the Bogdoi force, all the horsemen and kuyachny (armor) people, and our Cossack esaul shouted to the city Andrei Ivanov a serviceman: brothers, Cossacks, get up quickly and put on your strong kuyaks! And the Cossacks rushed to the city in uniform shirts against the city wall, and we, the Cossacks, hoped from the cannons and from the weapons the Cossacks beat from the city.

Agio is being fired from weapons and cannons at our city by the Bogda Cossack army. And we Cossacks with them, the Bogda people, their army, fought from behind the wall from the dawn until the sun went down. And that Bogda army was put on Cossack yurts, and they would not allow us, the Cossacks, to pass through the city at that time, and the Bogda people covered the city wall with banners, they, Bogda people, cut down three links of the wall from top to the ground near that city of ours. And from that great army of Bogdoi, prince Isinei calls out to the Tsar of Bogda and the entire army of Bogdoi: do not burn or chop down the Cossacks, eat their Cossacks alive. And our interpreters heard those speeches of Prince Isiney and told me, Yarofeyka. And when we heard those speeches from Prince Isiney, we lined all the Cossacks into sya kuyaks, and Yaz Yarofeiko and service people and free Cossacks, praying to save our Most Pure Lady of Our Lady and the saint of Christ Nicholas the Wonderworker, we said goodbye between ourselves and said that word Yaz Yarofeiko, and Esaul Andrey Ivanov and all our Cossack army: we, brothers Cossacks, will die for the baptized faith, and we will stand up for the house of the Savior and the most pure and St. for one person against the state of the enemy, but alive we are the Cossacks in the hands of them, the people of Bogda, will not be given. And those people of the Bogdoevs began to gallop into those break walls, and we, the Cossacks, rolled a big copper cannon here to the break-through place of the city, and started to beat the Bogda army from the cannon, and from small weapons we taught to shoot from the city, and from other iron cannons to fight. Bogda people became after them: here, too, Bogda people, by virtue of all of them, by God's grace and state happiness and our joy, beat many of their dogs. And how they, Bogdoi, recoiled away from our cannon battle and from the breach, and at that time there were servicemen and free hunting Cossacks one hundred fifty-six people in kuyaks on a sortie to the Bogda people out of the city, and fifty people remained in the city, and how we to them, the Bogdoi, they went out of the city on a sortie; they, the Bogdoi, had two iron cannons under the city.

And by the grace of God and the happiness of the state, we, the Cossacks, we, the Cossacks, knocked them off, the Bogdoi people, and the army, and from whom they, the Bogda people, the best warriors had fiery weapons, and we beat those people and took weapons in them ... And attack on them, Bogdoev, great fear, show them our uncountable strength and all the bogdoy people from the city and from our battle ran apart. And the circle of that Achansky town have we figured out what is beaten? There were six hundred seventy-six people on the spot, and their strength was six hundred and seventy-six, and our Cossack forces came from them easily from ten people who were bogdoes, but they took us, Cossacks, seventy howling people in that fight. "

Ataman Khabarov correctly assessed the situation, he did not wait for the approach of large Manchu forces, left Achansky town and went up the Amur. On the way, Khabarov met a small detachment of Cossacks with one cannon, heading from Yakutsk to his aid. But these were not the forces with which it was possible to go back and fight the army of the Bogdykhan.

On August 1, 1652, Khabarov decided to make a stop at the mouth of the Zeya River, where the city of Blagoveshchensk is now located. Here Khabarov was going to build a fortified town. But on the same day, a mutiny broke out in his detachment. 136 mutinous Cossacks on three ships separated from Khabarov and sailed down the Amur. Only 212 people remained with the chieftain.

Then Khabarov sent four Cossacks to Yakutsk to the governor with a report of the rebellion, asked him to say that it was impossible to develop new lands with the people who remained with him, since the Manchus are aggressive and well-armed, and the ataman did not dare to leave the Amur without the sovereign's decree.

Only in 1653, the nobleman Zinoviev came to the Amur with the sovereign's salary for Khabarov and his Cossacks. Erofei Pavlovich, having handed over the yasak to Zinoviev, went with him to Moscow, and left Onufriy Stepanov as the "orderly man of the great Amur River of the new Daurian land".

In September 1653 Stepanov with an army sailed down the Amur in search of bread and timber. Bread was found only on the banks of the Amur tributary of the Shingal River. From there Stepanov sailed further down the Amur and overwintered in the country of duchers, collecting yasak from them.

At the beginning of June 1654 Stepanov with the Cossacks again went to Shingal for bread. For three days the detachment sailed safely up the Amur, but at Shingal the Cossacks met a large detachment of Manchus with firearms. Part of the army sailed on ships, and the cavalry went along the coast.

The Manchus from the ships were the first to open fire on the Cossack plows. But the Cossacks were not at a loss, fired a return volley and boarded the Chinese ships. The surviving Manchus locked themselves behind the ramparts of the town of Shingal. Stepanov ordered to storm the town, but the attack was repulsed.

From the interrogation of the captured Manchus it turned out that the Chinese Bogdykhan sent an army of three thousand to the place where the Shingala flows into the Amur, the army was ordered to stay there for three years and not to let the Russians in. In addition, the Bogdykhan forbade the tribes of the Amur region to sow grain and ordered them to hastily move into the depths of Manchuria on the Naun River.

Stepanov left Shingal and fortified himself at the mouth of the Kamara River, which flows into the Amur from the south, building the Kamarsky prison there. On March 13, 1655, the ten thousandth Bogdykhan army approached the prison and began to shoot arrows with fiery charges to burn the prison. On March 24, the Manchus attacked from four sides.

To protect themselves from the Manchu fire, the Cossacks hid behind special carts, on which were reinforced with thick wooden shields, sheathed with leather. The besiegers used large ladders with wheels at one end and iron hooks at the other, as well as other Chinese siege devices. The Cossacks repulsed the attack, and then swiftly counterattacked the enemy and captured all their "siege equipment".

But even after that, the Bogdykhan army remained under the walls of the prison until April 4. The Manchus day and night, how much in vain did they hit the prison with cannons, and left without achieving anything.

This defeat of the Chinese troops near the Kamarsky prison cleared Amur and Shingal, where Stepanov again began to make his way for bread.

But in 1656 a new decree of the bogdykhan was issued - to bring all the local tribes (the Russians called them duchers) from the Amur and Shingala rivers. Thus, the Manchus used the scorched earth tactics.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and the Siberian governors did not want to start a big war with the Bogdykhan, and in 1654 the first ambassador, the boyar's son Fyodor Baikov, was sent from Tobolsk to China "to look after the auction and goods and other local behaviors."

It took Baikov a long time to reach China. From the confluence of the White Water River into the Irtysh to the Chinese kingdom, its path ran in mountains, poor in water and food, and Baikov walked along the Chinese land to the first city of Kokokotan for two months, stopping for a long time to supply water and food. From Kokokotan to the outpost city of Kipka, the ambassador traveled for twelve days, and from there Baikov went for another seven days to the Chinese king in the city of Kanbalyk (Beijing), passing 18 cities. The ambassador reached Kanbalik only in March 1656.

Here Baikov first got acquainted with the customs of the Celestial Empire. In Kanbalyk, all the states of the world were considered vassals of the Bogdykhan, and the gifts of the ambassadors were a tribute. The Chinese courtiers demanded that Baikov give them all the royal gifts intended for the bogdykhan. The Russian envoy objected: "Everywhere there is such a custom that the ambassador himself gives the sovereign an amateur letter, and then gifts." The courtiers replied: “Your sovereign has such a rank, but ours has his own. The king does not indicate anything to the king, ”and they took away the gifts by force.

A day later, the courtiers ordered the Russian ambassador to come to them in order and give them the royal charter. Baikov replied: "I was sent to the Tsar Bogda, and not to commanded neighbors." "The king orders you to be executed because you do not listen to his decree," the Chinese courtiers ordered to convey to the ambassador. “At least the tsar ordered to separate me in the joints, but nevertheless I will not go to the order, and I will not give you the sovereign letter,” Baikov replied.

As a sign of the royal anger for this stubbornness, the ambassador returned his gifts, and that was the end of the matter. Baikov returned to Russia, where he talked a lot about the amazing country, first seen by a Russian.

Having learned about such a reception of his ambassador, Tsar Alexei was offended and did not want to equip the new embassy. Meanwhile, the hostile actions on the part of the Chinese did not stop. 30 June

1658 Chinese army on forty rowing ships attacked Stepanov, who was sailing along the Amur below Shingal. The Russians were defeated, Onufriy Stepanov himself and 270 Cossacks were killed. The Chinese got the rich "sovereign's yasak sable treasury." Only one plow managed to escape, several more Cossacks swam to the shore and escaped on dry land. In total, 227 Cossacks left.

The defeat of Stepanov's detachment was only a tactical failure of the Russians. Even before his death, a decree had come from Moscow to local governors to strengthen their positions on the Shilka and in the upper tributaries of the Amur, and from there, they could operate further down the Amur as far as possible. To accomplish this, the Yenisei governor Afanasy Pashkov revived the abandoned towns: Nerchinsk at the confluence of the Nerch with the Shilka and Albazin on the Amur.

In the years 1659-1670. there were only minor clashes with the Chinese (Manchus). In 1670, the Chinese commander, who occupied Shingal, invited the Nerchinsk voivode Arshinsky to enter into negotiations. Arshinsky, on his own initiative, sent four Cossacks directly to Beijing to Bogdykhan with a proposal for an alliance and unhindered trade between the two states.

The Cossacks in China were well received, they returned to Nerchinsk with a letter from the Bogdykhan: “My industrial people were on the Shilka River, and when they returned, they told me: Russian people live along Shilka in Albazin and our Ukrainian people are fighting. I, bogdykhan, wanted to send people to war against the Russians. And they told me that your great sovereign people live there, and I did not order to fight, but sent to see if your great sovereign really lived in the Nerchinsk prison? The governor of Nerchinsk, according to your decree, sent ambassadors and a letter to me, and I now learned that indeed in the Nerchinsk prison the governor and service people live according to your great sovereign's decree. And henceforth, our Ukrainian lands would not be at war and would not do a thin thing, but what this word is supposed to, we will begin to live in peace and in joy ”.

This diploma gave rise to sending a new embassy to Beijing. At the beginning of 1675, the Greek Nikolai Gavrilovich Spafari, the interpreter of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, was sent to China. The ambassador traveled by a different road than Baykov, through Yeniseisk and Nerchinsk, and on May 15, 1676 arrived in Beijing.

But the Russian ambassador to Beijing was greeted coolly. The courtiers said that Bogdykhan Kanhi would not accept the royal letter from him. “What proud customs, against the rights of all peoples! - Spafari said to the Chinese. - This is a miracle, everyone is surprised, why did you start so that ambassadors are taken in front of the khan, but they do not take the state diplomas? The courtiers explained to the ambassador: “In the old years we had an ambassador from a certain state, he brought a lot of gifts with him and verbally declared all friendship and love. Our bogdykhan, overjoyed, immediately ordered the ambassador to take him before him with gratitude. But as they began to read the letter, it turned out to be a great dishonor to the bogdykhan, and the ambassador himself began to speak obscene speeches. Since then, it has been decided: first to take the letter from the ambassador and read it, and, depending on the letter, the bogdykhan accepts the ambassador or does not. The khan himself cannot change this custom. Only out of friendship for the tsar's majesty he ordered, not according to custom, to take a letter from two people close to you, but in order to receive you with a gratitude, don't even think about it! "

After many days of disputes, the courtiers agreed that Spafari should bring the letter not to the order, but directly to the palace, to the duma, where the people close to him sit, and they will take the letter to Bogdykhan. After that, the Russian ambassador was brought to Bogdykhan to bow. He bowed quickly and not to the ground, the courtiers noticed to him that it was necessary to bow, as they did - slowly and to the ground. “You are Bogdykhanov's servants and you know how to bow, but we are not Bogdykhan's servants, we bow as we know,” was Spafari's reply. After bowing three times, the tangerines ordered them to run to Bogdykhan, because it was customary for them. But the Russian ambassador went on the sly, saying: "It's not my custom to run away."

Approaching the bogdykhan, Spafari bowed again and sat down on the pillow. There were eight yards before Bogdykhanov. Bogdykhan sat in his place on a dais, he was young, 23 years old, “with a generous face” (that is, he was pretty face-up). During this visit, Bogdykhan simply did not pay attention to Spafari. But during the second visit, the ambassador managed to ask several questions to Bogdykhan.

Spafari has lived in Beijing all summer. The Russians brought with them a lot of goods, both government-owned and their own, for sale and exchange. But the trade was going badly: the Chinese nobles, merchants and interpreters agreed on at what price to buy goods from the Russians and at what price to sell their own. At the end of the summer, the Russian embassy began to gather home. Spafari announced that he would not go to the sovereign without a Bogdykhanov letter, and demanded that he be given a copy in Latin in order to know if there was any evil word in it. But the mandarins explained to Spafari Chinese customs. First, any ambassador who arrives at the Bogdykhan must say that he came from the lowest to the highest. Secondly, all gifts brought to the bogdykhan from another sovereign are considered a tribute. Thirdly, gifts sent by a bogdyhan to another sovereign should be regarded as a salary for faithful service. So Bogdykhanov's letter to the Russian sovereign was drawn up in accordance with these customs. “Do not be surprised,” the Chinese nobles Spafari said, that we have such a custom, “like one god in heaven, so one earthly god, bogdykhan, he stands among the earth, in the middle between all the sovereigns, we have never had this honor and will never be changed. Report three deeds to the royal majesty verbally: 1) to betray Gantemir; 2) if he sends a messenger here ahead of time, then instruct him not to resist in anything, no matter what we command; 3) to forbid his people living on our borders to offend our people. If the tsar's majesty fulfills these three articles, then the bogdykhan will fulfill his wishes, otherwise no one from you from Russia and from foreign countries would come to us in China with bargaining and with any business. "

With this, the Russian embassy went home, without the Bogdykhanov letter, which Spafari did not take, not wanting to see in it expressions that were offensive to the tsar's honor. As for the Chinese, Spafari had the most unfavorable impression: "There are no such crafty people in the whole world in the bargaining, and you will not find such thieves anywhere: if you do not take care, then the buttons of the dress will be cut off, the swindlers will disappear!"

So, Russia's diplomatic efforts ended in nothing. The conflict on the Amur continued. The main efforts of the Chinese were aimed at destroying the Russian fortress of Albazin.

The town of Albazin was built in 1651 by Erofei Khabarov on the site of the Daurian settlement. It got its name from the name of the native prince Albazy. In 1658, after the death of Ataman Stepanov, the Russians left Albazin, but in 1666 the fortress was restored by Nikofor of Chernigov. This personality is quite colorful. Nikifor is a Pole by nationality, fought against Tsar Alexei, for which he was exiled to "places not so distant" - to the banks of the Lena. There he contrived to kill the local governor Obukhov, and not because of ideological considerations, but so - they fought over a woman. Then Nikifor of Chernigov gathered a detachment of the Cossack freemen and went to the Amur. Nikifor turned out to be not only a brave, but also an intelligent person, he understood that he would not succeed in becoming a specific prince of Albazinsky. Knowing Moscow customs, Nikifor collected a huge tribute of furs from the foreigners and went to Moscow to confess.

In Moscow, Chernigovsky was sentenced to death for the murder of Obukhov, but the "soft junk" did its job. As a result, the tsar not only pardoned Nicephorus, but also appointed him governor of Albazin.

Russian settlers began to arrive in Albazin, who built a number of settlements on the Amur, and the monk Hermogenes founded a monastery near Albazin in the Brusyanoy Kamen tract, which became a stronghold of missionary activity among foreigners.

According to the reports of the Siberian governors, in Moscow in the summer of 1679, at the Petrov post, a detachment of Cossacks led by Gavrila Frolov set off from Albazin to explore the valley of the Zeya River. For three years the Cossacks carried out patrol service on the Zeya, brought the Tungus population into Russian citizenship, founded winter huts and forts. Once a Cossack patrol met in the mountains two riders on white horses, armed with bows and swords. These were Saints Vsevolod and Dovmont. Having entered into a conversation with the Cossacks, the holy warrior princes predicted the soon following invasion of the Chinese troops on the Amur, a difficult defense and the ultimate triumph of Russian arms. “And the Chinese will come, there will be attacks and great battles, and we will help the Russian people in those battles. And the Chinese will not take the hail. "

On June 4, 1685 (and according to other sources, July 12, 1685), a 15,000-strong Chinese army with 150 guns suddenly appeared near Albazin. Commander Lan-Tan commanded her. Albazin's garrison by that time consisted of 150 Cossacks with three cannons. The Chinese launched an assault, but were repulsed and suffered heavy losses. However, the lack of food and ammunition forced the Russian governor Alexei Tolbuzin to agree to an honorable surrender. On June 23, Albazin's garrison left the fortress with weapons and went to Nerchinsk. Some of the inhabitants of Albazin were captured by the Chinese and sent to Beijing, where they founded the Albazin colony and became the first Orthodox missionaries.

The Chinese army quickly left the Albazin region and did not manage to harvest grain. Meanwhile, the Nerchinsk voivode Vlasov sent a detachment of Cossacks under the command of the Russified Scotsman Athanasius Bayton to help Tolbuzin. Tolbuzin returned, harvested grain and restored the Albazin fortress.

On June 7, 1686 Lan-Tan reappeared under the walls of Albazin with an eight-thousandth army and four hundred siege weapons. Moreover, the siege artillery of the Chinese was commanded by ... a Jesuit monk, the French Verbier. In the very first days of the defense of Albazin, Tolbuzin was mortally wounded by a cannonball. Instead, Athanasius Byton took command.

The Scottish Cossack and his team fought desperately and repulsed all attacks of the Chinese. However, due to a lack of food, the defenders began scurvy, and by April 1687 the number of the Albazin garrison had decreased to 82 people. Nevertheless, Byton continued to hold the defense of the fortress.

In the meantime, from Moscow to Albazin's rescue, the okolnichny Fyodor Golovin arrived with a carrot and a stick - with an army and with the status of "great plenipotentiary ambassador." Golovin entered into negotiations with Lan-Tan, and on May 6, 1687, the siege from Albazin was lifted. In August of the same year, the Chinese army left for Aigun. By the end of the siege, only Byton and twenty Cossacks survived in Albazin.

In August 1689, under the walls of the fortress of Nerchinsk, negotiations between Golovin and the Chinese ambassadors began. The Chinese delegation included the Jesuit fathers - the Spaniard Pereira and the Frenchman Gerbillon. The Jesuits served as translators and consultants for the Chinese.

The negotiations began with Golovin's complaint about the Chinese government that had started the war, he demanded that hostilities stop immediately and the Chinese return all the loot. The Chinese replied that the Cossacks, led by Khabarov, came to the Chinese land, built Albazin and oppressed the Chinese yasak people. Bogdykhan sent an army, took Albazin, but the Chinese released the governor of Tolbuzin, because he promised not to return and not build a new city. This promise was not fulfilled. Then Bogdykhan again sent an army to Albazin, but as soon as he learned about the approach of the Russian ambassador for negotiations, he ordered the army to withdraw. In his opinion, the land on which Albazin was built and the entire Daurian country belong to China.

Golovin objected that if there were any insults on the part of the Russian people, then the Bogdykhan should have let the great sovereign know about this, as is customary among all peoples, and not start a war. The land where Albazin, Nerchinsk and other ostrozhki were built never belonged to Bogdykhan, but belongs to the Russian state, and the yasak people who lived on it paid yasak to the Russian sovereign, and if anyone paid yasak to Bogdykhan, he did it against his will, because these places are in at that time they were far from Russian cities. And when the Russian people built Albazin, Nerchinsk and other forts, the Daurians continued to pay yasak to the great sovereign.

The Chinese insisted that the Russians never owned the lands from Lake Baikal to the Amur, but the Bogdykhan owned them, since these lands belong to the Mongol Khan, and all Mongols are Chinese subjects.

It came to a precise definition of the boundaries. Golovin said that the border should run along the Amur to the sea, on the left side of the Amur - Russian land, on the right - Chinese. The Chinese, however, claimed that the Amur River had been in the possession of the Bogdykhan since the time of Alexander the Great. Golovin replied that it was not worth looking for old chronicles, because after Alexander the Great, many lands were divided into powers of different states. The Chinese, leaving Alexander the Great alone, stubbornly continued to insist on the border along Lake Baikal, otherwise they threatened to go to war on Albazin. Golovin told them that during negotiations it is not customary to threaten war, and if the Chinese want war, then let them declare it directly. Golovin ordered to translate this into Mongolian, suspecting that the Jesuits, translating from Latin into Chinese, add a lot from themselves. This suspicion was confirmed, the Chinese replied that they spoke only about the borders, and not a word was said about the war.

But even in the Mongolian language, the Chinese stood firmly on the border along Lake Baikal. Golovin proposed a border along the Bystraya River. The Chinese proposed a border along Nerchinsk: the left bank down the Shilka to Nerchinsk is Russian, and the right bank to the Onona River and Onona itself along the Ingoda River are Chinese. With this, the Chinese began to demand an end to the negotiations. Then Golovin proposed a border along the Zeya River. The Chinese just giggled and refused.

Meanwhile, a large Chinese army approached Nerchinsk. By order of Golovin, archers and Cossacks took up combat positions in front of the prison. As Golovin later reported: the Nepchinsky prison "was very small and thin, and was hopeless for military craft - many logs rotted ..."

Finally, on August 29, 1689, a treaty with China was signed in Nerchinsk. Golovin had to give in. The border was drawn along the Argun River. The city of Albazin was ordered to ravage to the ground. But from the Amur to the Uda River, which flows into the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, the border was drawn very conditionally. The fact is that in the territories north of the Amur, which formally belonged to China, there were neither Russians nor Chinese. Moreover, both sides did not even have normal maps of these territories.

Russia and China. Conflicts and cooperation - Shirokorad Alexander Borisovich

Algeria spanish occupation corsair

The defeat of Abd al-Qadir marked a turning point in the conquest of Algeria, which allowed France to begin the violent modernization and Europeanization of the life of Algerian society. In economic terms, colonial conquest meant, above all, the seizure of land. In accordance with the official decrees of the 1840s, the French administration confiscated the lands of the dey, the beys, part of the land property of Muslim spiritual institutions, as well as the lands of the tribes that "raised arms against France." During the agrarian reforms of 1843-1844. the tribes were asked to document their rights to the lands they occupied. However, most of the tribes used the land on the basis of customary law, and did not have such documents. The French authorities recognized their lands as "ownerless" and expropriated them. Along with the "official" redistribution of property, the fund of colonization was also replenished by the purchase of private land holdings by Europeans. The redistribution of land was especially accelerated after the defeat of Abd al-Qadir, but in 1863 the Emperor Napoleon III, who disliked the colonists and feared a catastrophic loss of land for the Algerians, declared the tribes collective and irreplaceable owners of their lands. Nevertheless, the area of ​​the land fund of colonization grew rapidly: in 1850 the colonists owned 115 thousand hectares, in 1860 - 365 thousand hectares, and in 1870 - 765 thousand hectares. As a result of the conquest and colonization, half of the best lands in Algeria, not counting forests, mines and other economically valuable territories, were at the disposal of the French authorities and private individuals.

In parallel with the seizure of land, the French state began intensive economic development of the country. Large concession companies established in Algeria began in the 1860s to develop the country's natural resources (coal, phosphorites, metal ores). For their removal, the first railways and highways were built, and telegraph communication was being established. The processing of agricultural products was gradually launched. In the 50s - 60s of the XIX century. Algeria has become an important sales market for the metropolis and a source of cheap mineral raw materials and food products (fruits, vegetables, wine). During these years, the orientation of local and European landowners to marketing products in the metropolis contributed to the gradual transformation of Algeria's subsistence economy into a commodity one.

However, for all the significance and scale of the economic reorganization of Algeria, the main result of the French conquest was nevertheless resettlement colonization. After the landing of the French expeditionary force in Algeria, all kinds of adventurers began to enter the country, seeking to profit from the robbery of the indigenous population. In the 1840s, they were joined by impoverished peasants and townspeople in France, Spain, Italy, hoping to create a better life in a new place. Germans, Swiss, Greeks, Maltese, Corsicans also poured into this multi-lingual stream. As a result, the European presence developed at an ever-increasing pace: in 1833 there were 7.8 thousand Europeans in Algeria, in 1840 - 27 thousand, and in 1847 - already 110 thousand people. At the same time, the French themselves constituted no more than half of all immigrants. The French colonial authorities in every possible way encouraged the entry of non-French Europeans in order to replenish the ranks of the European minority. In addition, Algeria in the 19th century. was considered a reliable place of exile for convicts and political prisoners, most of whom, after serving their sentences, remained in the country. Finally, the metropolitan government forcibly resettled the unemployed here and gave refuge in Algeria to internally displaced persons who turned to them for help.

European immigrants who settled in the Algerian coastline took root relatively quickly on the local soil. Most of them were quite poor, and their immigration was caused not by the greed for profit, but by economic and political turmoil in their homeland. Unlike other colonies in France, Algeria is home to a large, socially diverse and ethnically diverse European population. A mosaic combination of languages, customs and customs of the newcomers

settlers were soon supplemented by mixed marriages in the French and non-French European environment. As a result, already 20-30 years after the start of colonization, a special social and ethnocultural type of “Algerian-European” began to form. This circumstance played an important role in the further development of Algeria.

The establishment of the colonial order in Algeria soon received political and legal formalization. The regime of the Second Republic (1848-1851) officially proclaimed Algeria part of the national territory of France. The governor now had only military power, and the areas inhabited by Europeans were divided into three special departments. They received civil self-government and the right to send three deputies to the French parliament. However, with the formalization of the power of Napoleon III (1851), the attitude of Paris towards the Algerian colony changed markedly. Among the colonists there were many political opponents of the newly-minted ruler of France, and already in 1852 he deprived Algeria of representation in parliament. Then, during the Second Empire, Napoleon II replaced the military governor with the “Minister of Algeria and the Colonies,” and in 1863 he even proclaimed Algeria an “Arab Kingdom”, thereby trying to oppose the Arab-Berber traditional elites to the colonists. The new policy of Paris in Algeria was carried out by the "Arab bureaus" created in 1844 - intermediary institutions between the French military command and the Arab-Berber leaders. In the 50s - 60s of the XIX century. the role of the "Arab bureaus" was twofold - on the one hand, they limited the powers of local Arab sheikhs, and on the other, they suppressed the aspirations of European colonists to directly intervene in the management of "native affairs".

The victory over Abd al-Qadir went to the colonial authorities at a high price: the conquerors lost in 1830-1847. 40 thousand soldiers and were forced to keep in Algeria at least x / 3 of the armed forces of France. In addition, the abuses and violence that accompanied the colonization of Algeria constantly aroused anti-French sentiments among the Algerians.

The defeat of Abd al-Qadir marked the end of organized resistance, but the hard-to-reach regions of the Sahara and mountainous Kabylia remained centers of frequent local uprisings. Throughout the 1850s, the French conquered Kabilia (1851-1857) with difficulty. The riots in the Saharan oases - Zaadzha (1848-1849), Laguat (1852), Tuggurt (1854) - generally subsided by the beginning of the 60s. In the west of the country, the rebel movements of the tribal unions Banu Snassen (1859) and Ulad Sidi Sheikh (1864-1867) posed a considerable threat to the colonial administration. Fearing war with tribes on two or more fronts, the colonialists suppressed these uprisings with particular cruelty. Algeria became a school of punitive operations for prominent French military leaders - Pelissier, Saint-Arno, Bujot, Cavaignac, MacMahon. In fact, the entire flower of the French military command went through many years of experience of barbaric intimidation of the indigenous inhabitants of Algeria. It. the circumstance later affected the methods they chose to suppress political opponents in the metropolis itself, especially during the defeat of the Paris Commune.

If the scattered actions of the tribes were relatively easily suppressed by the colonialists in the 1860s, then in 1870 the situation changed dramatically. The defeat of France in the war with Prussia and the proclamation of the Paris Commune created favorable conditions in Algeria for a new surge of anti-colonial movements. On the one hand, a significant part of the colonial troops was transferred to France - first to conduct hostilities against Prussia, and then to suppress the Paris Commune. The colony remained relatively small (45 thousand people) and less combat-ready units. On the other hand, the defeat of the French army at Sedan and the surrender of Napoleon II gave the Algerians back the hope of liberation. The capture of Paris by the Prussians was perceived in cities and tribes as a sign of the complete defeat of France and the exhaustion of her forces.

At the same time, among the European population of Algeria (especially among the colonists and exiled republicans), the collapse of the Second Empire caused a storm of enthusiasm. In 1870-1871. in Algeria, proponents of democratic change even created self-governing defense committees. For six months they opposed the actions of Paris, demanding greater independence of Algeria from the metropolis. However, when a major Arab and Berber uprising broke out in Algeria in 1871, the Republican leaders quickly abandoned their autonomous aspirations and chose to defend themselves by the French army.

The liberation uprising of the Algerian Berbers in 1871 turned out to be a brief but determined attempt by some of the local leaders to take advantage of a rare moment of weakness and disorganization in the management of the colony. It was headed by Muhammad Mukrani - the ruler of one of the districts of Kabylia (Eastern Algeria), a descendant of an old Berber family - and his brother Ahmed Bu Mezrag. With the active support of the Muslim brotherhood of Rahmaniyya, they were able to create a real rebel army of up to 25 thousand soldiers. In March - July 1871, Eastern Algeria became the theater of violent guerrilla warfare. Algerian tribes seized communications, destroyed the posts of the French army, besieged garrisons, and smashed the colonists' farms. The situation of the French troops in eastern Algeria was almost as serious as during the struggle against Abd al-Qadir.

Aware of the danger of an uprising, the authorities of the metropolis took radical measures. The colonial corps, weakened during the years of the Franco-Prussian war, was strengthened, and its number was brought to 86 thousand people, and an armed militia was created from among the colonists. Systematic actions in the spirit of the tactics of "mobile columns" allowed the French command to defeat the main forces of the rebels by the summer of 1871. In 1872, a complete disarmament of the population was carried out, and the most active leaders of the uprising were exiled to New Caledonia. The uprising of 1871 was the last major outbreak of anti-French resistance in Algeria, although sporadic clashes between tribal militias and the colonial army continued until 1883.

In 1750, huge territories remained in the world, which the Europeans had not yet had time to visit. At the end of the 18th and throughout the 19th century. many European scientists and travelers set off on a long journey to discover new and explore various seas and continents (read the article ""). The discoverers (see article ““) were followed by merchants and settlers, and thus colonies began to be created, which were subject to the rule of one or another European country and largely depended on it.

From 1768 to 1779 Captain James Cook led three expeditions to the Pacific Ocean. He visited various islands, in particular the island of Tahiti, where his ship was met by combat canoes (narrow, long boat) of the natives, Cook landed in Australia and explored its east coast. The unusual animals of Australia amazed and interested the scientists and artists who participated in the expedition. Captain Cook also sailed around the New Zealand islands. Members of the crew of the ship "Endeavor" landed on one of the islands, where they first saw its inhabitants - the Maori.

African exploration

In the 19th century, there were many expeditions to explore Africa and create its maps. Travelers on their way admired many beautiful African landscapes, such as, for example, Victoria Falls, but there were also misfortunes. Many contracted diseases unknown to Europeans and died. During their expedition in search of the source of the Nile River, two Englishmen, Speck and Grant, spent some time visiting Muteza, the ruler of the state of Buganda, who received them with great cordiality. Some researchers, such as Dr. Livingstone, were also Christian missionaries (people who came to these colonies and carried the teachings of Christ with them). They opened hospitals and schools for Africans and built churches. One of the first Europeans to explore the Sahara Desert was a Frenchman named Rene Caye, who was also one of the first to see the ancient African city of Timbuktu with his own eyes. Among the researchers of distant lands in the XIX century. there were women. Shown here is Alexandrina Tinne, a wealthy Dutch woman who traveled long distances in North Africa and Sudan.

Other expeditions

The brave English traveler Richard Burton, during his trip to Saudi Arabia, disguised himself as an Arab to visit the holy city of Muslims Mecca, where access to Europeans was at that time closed. Many travelers have gone missing in the jungles of South Africa, where they went to search for lost ancient cities and make maps. Later, expeditions to the North and South Poles began to be equipped. In 1909, the American Robert Peary was the first to reach the North Pole, and the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen was the first to reach the South Pole (1911).

Colonial conquests

The Europeans sought to acquire new sales markets for the products produced in their factories. They also needed raw materials for industry, such as cotton or tea leaves. Often, European countries sent troops to the lands where their trade missions were based to suppress conflicts between local rulers. In addition, officials were sent there to establish the management of this territory. Thus, these lands turned into colonies of certain European states.

More and more Europeans went to the colonies with their families to settle there permanently or permanently. They acquired vast land plots and established plantations where local people worked for them, growing tea, rubber, cotton and various food crops, as well as raising sheep or cattle. Later, when they began to search for and find minerals on the territory of the colonies, they began to build factories, factories and railways there, as a result of which even more people from Europe rushed to the colony. European governments, worried about the growth of the population in their countries, strongly encouraged the movement of their citizens to live in the colonies, where they all had enough land and work.

Among some scholars there is an opinion that during the "reunification" with Russia, Crimea did not experience any colonization. It could not exist already because, unlike, say, the Caucasus, here "there was no seizure of foreign land", but there was ... "the struggle of the Russian people for the return of their ancestral lands" (Nadinsky P.N., 1949, 20, 60) - obviously, we are talking about Tmutarakan, possibly, and about the Scythians, whom this author considered the ancestors of the Russians - is unknown, this thesis has not been clarified in any way.

It seems, nevertheless, that when studying the period of the end of the XVIII - XIX centuries. The essence of the "Crimean" policy pursued by the Russian government - economic and national - plays a greater role than finding out who the ancestors of the indigenous Crimean population were (by the way, the problem solved by science long before PN Nadinsky), which we will do.

The first action of this kind, which markedly changed the ethnic appearance of the region and was carried out by the government using typically colonial, violent methods, took place even before the military operations subsided during the years of the seizure of Crimea.

Check-out and check-in. At the beginning of 1779, the Russian government decided to evict the bulk of the Crimean Greek Christians, as well as some of the Armenians outside the Crimea. This achieved three goals. Since the alleged oppression of the Greeks and Armenians by the Tatars was put forward as the reason for this action, Muslims were presented in a negative light in front of the Christian world, specifically in front of European diplomacy; this partly justified the struggle of the "most Christian queen" with them. Secondly, the resettlement of a large detachment of labor (over 30 thousand people) achieved the goal of the initial colonization of the newly conquered, but not yet settled Northern Azov region. Finally, thirdly, the most valuable territories were liberated, mainly along the South Bank and in the most fertile river valleys, which were to go to the royal treasury.

There is much that is not clear about this exodus of the descendants of the ancient Greeks and Byzantines. Old historians report that the Metropolitan announced to the Greek flock about some kind of "agreement with the Russian government" regarding resettlement. At the same time, the Greeks did not show much enthusiasm, and even some "difficulties" began, the meaning of which we can only guess and which "Suvorov overcame with his energy and management", after which "the resettlement took place, despite the protests of both the Tatars and the Christians themselves. "(Kulakovsky Yu., 1914, 134 - 135).

The Soviet historian reveals the meaning of these vague phrases as follows: "The tragedy of the defeat of the age-old way of life of the original Crimean Greek population, the horror of ruin, the tears and cries of women and children ... do not need comments "(Shneider DS, 1930, 41). However, this action was criticized by the most humane of her contemporaries: "An incomprehensible policy, ruining their root, which serves as a benefit and decoration of the Crimea, installed them in the vicinity of Azov ... The change in climate and way of life reduced many of them among them" (Mertvago D.B. ., 1867, 177). Further, as already mentioned, Muslim-Christian family ties were very widespread in Crimea. Now they were mercilessly torn apart. Many Muslim relatives of the evicted begged to resettle them, not stopping for this and before the adoption of Christianity. But they were refused: "A lot of those come to the chiefs of the troops in different places, declaring their desire, but for that they correspond to silence" cit. Quoted from: A.K. Markevich, 1910, 534).

Let us turn to one more old author - F. Hartahai. He talks about the Evpatorian Greeks - they also resisted deportation. "Though they will chop us down with sabers, we still won't go anywhere!" they shouted. The Armenian neighbors "for God's sake, prophets and ancestors asked the khan to save them from such a misfortune." And Khartakhai testifies that the Tatars tearfully asked the khan to repulse the royal harassment. And when Girey, frightened by the bloody events of recent months, refused to contradict the Russians, the elders of the Tatar clans angrily declared to him: "We do not know that any of our ancestors could yield their subjects to please others" (1867, 108).

There are other evidences in the literature about this tragedy of Crimean Christians, but all of them are not a decree to modern apologists of the tsarist policy in Crimea, who stubbornly cite only one reason for deportation - "the fear of the Christian population of the Crimean Khanate before possible repressions from the Tatar authorities for open sympathy for Russian troops ... (Multinational Crimea, No. 1, 24) The above quote is interesting because it is completely false - both in terms of some Tatar (and not Russian, as it was in practice) repressions, and in part "sympathy" Crimeans for the Russians, three times in half a century destroyed and burned their ancient cities.

Let's finish this plot with one more quote from F. Khartakhai: "In the Salachik ravine, in the Assumption skete, the emaciated sons of Panticapaea, Theodosia and the famous Chersonesos met for the last time ... Christians were sorry and painful to leave the country where they lived for so long; they were sorry to leave their temples, empty houses, the ashes of their ancestors and the sky under which they were born ... After the prayer service, all Christians, singing prayers, in a discordant crowd stretched across the mountains and plains, leaving the coast of Crimea forever "(Khartakhai F., 1867 , 112). We will only add that half of the settlers died on this path ...

The first deportation was followed by many others. It has already been said above about the private, landowner resettlement of serfs to the Crimean lands. But the state colonial policy was of much greater demographic importance. The purpose of this policy was not a secret - they wrote about it in the newspapers: "To consolidate Russian rule in the newly annexed region, it was necessary to settle it with purely Russian people ..." (SL, 1887, no. 3). The government began to allocate land to retired soldiers, as well as to forcibly resettle women who were destined for them to be wives to Crimea. Such semi-artificial families settled in special settlements - in the Simferopol district these are Podgorodnyaya Petrovskaya, Mazanki, Kurtsy, Mangush, Zuya, Viya-Sala, Verkhniye Sably and Vladimirovka; in Feodosiya - Izyumskaya, Elizavetovka; in Evpatoria - Trekh-Ablamy, Stepanovka.

The second wave of immigrants was made up of state peasants and foreigners - on the river. Konskoy, near Znamenka, settled 3 thousand Old Believers from Novgorod-Seversky; Armenians settle near Topla, Ortalan and Old Crimea; near Autka - part of the Greeks who returned from Azov.

The third wave was made up of foreigners - Mennonites from Elbing and Danzig (more than half a thousand people stopped by), then Germans from St. Petersburg, Nassau, Württemberg and Bavaria. Finally, in 1810, carpenters and masons were invited from Turkey to live in (Settlement, 1900, no. 27).

The most consistent of the colonialists insisted on the continuation of the deportation of the indigenous Crimeans - this time Muslims, arguing already in 1804 that for the Russification of the region "a million people of craft and commercial non-Muslim faith, eternally hostile to enlightenment, were needed" (Nikolsky A.V., 1925 , 23). Some landowners implemented this program without waiting for decrees from the capital. So, the governor of Tavrida A.M. Borozdin resettled a thousand Russian serfs to "his" village of Salby, and refused to lease the Tatars, after which they were forced to leave their land and homes. But the new serfs worked for the landowner not legalized 5 - 8, but 150 days a year and more (ibid., 23, 25).

On the Kerch Peninsula, villages of archipelagic Greeks appeared, who participated in the struggle against the Turks on the side of Russia and in suppressing the resistance of the Tatars to the Russian troops during the years of the conquest of Crimea. account, etc. (PSZ, No. 14284), they were granted the right to duty-free trade with abroad (PSZ, No. 14473), financial support was equal to 136 thousand rubles. per year (Zagorovsky E.L., 1913, 31). Later, these Greeks settled in Balaklava, Kadykovka, Komar and Alsou, occupying 9 thousand acres of land (Shneider D.S., 1930: 4).

Such privileges, exceeding aid for colonists of other nations, were not accidental. Here the idea was embodied "to create a counterbalance to the Crimean Tatars from the Greek battalions", expressed "the desire to oppose the triumphant Christianity to the defeated Mohammedanism", and this resulted in "terrible methods of treatment of the new Greek settlers with the Tatars, in the inimitable cruelty of violence committed by them against Tatar wives and children. ”Even now, old Tatar songs have survived, reflecting this strip of Russification of the region and the bitter share of the Tatars in these difficult years, which caused the mass emigration of Tatars to Turkey" (Korsakov ..., 1883, 5).

Not much inferior to the Greeks were the Russian settlers, who in no small part consisted, as a contemporary points out, of rootless "vagrants who squandered the supplies given to them," who, "wanting nothing, destroyed the best trees, selling everything they could." Equally predatory was the attitude of the new settlers to the "ancient inhabitants" of Crimea: "Being installed in the villages where the Tatars remained, on the land granted to the landowner, they contributed to the early removal of the primitive inhabitants" (Mertvago D.B., 1867, 179). Further, on the eve of the second Turkish war, the Russian authorities "conceived and requested an order to take away weapons from the Tatars and drive their cattle to the steppe beyond Perekop, stretching to the banks of the Dnieper. This made it possible, by taking away weapons, to take away everything that could be taken. Tatars, of which cattle were being stolen ... believing them to be dead, they tried to sell them in vain. The nobles and judges, looking after order and counting certain ones, counting a lot for themselves, bought a horse and cattle in a herd for a ruble "(ibid., 180 - 181).

Finally, an unaccountable stream of accomplices of the colonialists - speculators in land and real estate - poured into the Crimea in a powerful wave. In the first decades after the annexation, lands often fell into their hands for nothing, and if a price was set for them, it was about 1 ruble. for 6 acres (Mochanov A.E., 1929, 61)! Selling the land with the Tatar population living on it, the speculators made a fabulous profit, objectively they facilitated the colonization of the region - the new landowners could more comfortably acquire land for themselves without leaving the Crimea for this.

Since the 1780s. exploitation of the colonial type also originates. It is known that, having occupied the colonies, the metropolises strengthen their power not only by the "gunboat policy" (the Black Sea Fleet played such a role in Crimea), but, as a rule, with the help of the aboriginal population itself. All this was repeated in Crimea, where "the strategic tasks set by tsarism", to put it mildly, "diverted the forces of the population for military service, the creation of fortifications", etc. (Druzhinina E.I., 1959, 262). The volume of work on the military fortification of the Crimea was gigantic - in fact, new fortress cities arose: Sevastopol, Evpatoria, Simferopol. The extraction of building materials on the ground and the construction itself were carried out by the hands of the local population, only partly the military were involved. Tatar horses, oxen, camels were used for transportation, which caused huge damage to the peasant economy.

Considering the listed features of exploitation and economic inequality of the Tatar population in comparison with the new settlers, the many times greater hardships that befell the Tatars (during the war for interests alien to them), in comparison with those experienced by the Russian peasantry (in relative proportions), the peculiarities of the land policy in Crimea, methods of managing the local population and methods of suppressing the national movement, we come to the conclusion that Russia's policy in Crimea at the end of the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries. was typically colonial, causing colossal damage to both the economy and the national identity and culture of the ethnic group.

Results of the annexation of Crimea. So, "weakened in the process of economic development, resting against the socio-economic system that was holding it back, tormented by a long struggle with Russia, entwined with a complex system of espionage, bribery and intrigue and intimidated by Russian bayonets, the Tatar Khanate ceased to exist" (Shneider D.S., 1930 , 41). The khanate completely lost the remnants of political independence, which it enjoyed even under the most despotic sultans. His inner life was now also ruled by "infidels," unfamiliar with local traditions, the peculiarities of Tatar spiritual life, national psychology, established economic orders, local economy, which over many centuries had come to the highest degree of environmental friendliness.

Moreover, Russian officials did not want to get acquainted with all the diversity of life that they found in the Crimea, or delve into its peculiarities - they were no different from the functionaries of other colonial powers, especially at the initial stages of colonization. And of course, they were least of all worried about the negative changes in the life and culture of the Tatars, the fact that "the exploitation of the landless mass of the people ... even in the last times of the khanate, never reached" such proportions (Nikolsky PA, 1929, 7). The spread of actual serfdom not only did not play, as P.N. Nadinsky, a "progressive role" (1951, I, 95), but also threw the Tatars far back in socio-economic and national-political development82.

The regress was noticeable in the cultural and spiritual sense as well. This will be discussed in more detail in the chapter on the history of Tatar culture, but here we will restrict ourselves to a quote from the memoirs of one authoritative witness of the first years of Russian domination in Crimea. The victors "devastated the country, cut down trees, smashed houses, destroyed sanctuaries and public buildings of the natives, destroyed water pipes, robbed the inhabitants, outraged the Tatar worship, threw the bodies of their ancestors from their graves and threw them into the manure and turned their tombs into troughs for pigs, destroyed monuments antiquity "and, finally," established their disgusting serfdom "(cited in: S. Bakhrushin, 1963, 58).

In this regard, let us cite another surprising conclusion of Nadinsky: “Reunification with Russia immediately radically changed the face of Crimea. It seemed to have risen from a swamp of three centuries of vegetation. - what is true is true.

One of the immediate results of the annexation of Crimea and the subsequent "radical change in the face" of the region were the Tatar uprisings, however, of local significance. Outbreaks of armed rebellions, which began at the time of the seizure of Crimea, continued in the future. "Those suspected of agitation or sympathy for Turkey were punished mercilessly. The pacification of the region took place only after the extermination of a significant part of the Tatars" (Volfson B., 1941, 63).

Unfortunately, we do not know the exact number of victims of punitive actions already carried out in peacetime. Only evidence of the desire of the local authorities to hide the volume of repressions, as well as the peculiarities of the measures taken, apparently extremely cruel even for their time, has survived, since usually no secret was made of the methods of suppressing unrest. So, in a report from Karasubazar dated April 28, 1783, it was said: "The execution continued secretly from his Excellency and over some more criminals, under which the 46 people mentioned in the letter were punished with hard labor, whipping and some cutting of ears; now all over Crimea consists calmly "(quoted in: Wolfson B., 1941, 63).

In the same years, one of the most tragic pages for the population of Crimea opens - the first mass exodus of the Tatars begins, caused by the policy of robbery and violence carried out by a government that is alien to them in all respects. So, already in the first years of the existence of the "Russian Crimea", it was left by 4 - 5 thousand Tatars who emigrated to Turkey; by 1787 the total number of emigrants, mainly steppe dwellers, reached 8 thousand people (Markevich A.I., 1978, 380).

Generic relations among the South African Bantu do not constitute any exception, they are similar to the generic relations of all peoples at this stage of development. Just like among other peoples, the Zulu, for example, calls father not only his real father, but all his brothers, he calls his mother not only his own mother, but also his mother's sisters, wives, uncles, etc. All members of the clan have certain rights and are bound by various obligations. When a young man gets married, his relatives help him pay off the lobola; when he marries off his daughter, he will give some of the lobola received to his relatives. He has to give them gifts from time to time, and they help him with advice and, if necessary, feed him. They help him in case of trouble, when building a hut, harvesting, etc. Members of each clan have their own holidays and ceremonies.

The family was exogamous: a man could not marry a girl of his kind, even though she was a very distant relative of him, he had to marry a girl from a different kind. Each clan had its own name, which distinguished it from other clans, the history of its origin, the greeting formula, etc. The Mashon retained the totemic organization of the clan. Each genus had its own totem - an animal with which the genus considered itself related and by whose name the genus was named. This animal was considered inviolable. For example, people of the antelope genus believed that they were in a state of blood relationship with the antelope, the patroness of the genus; she was not killed and meat was not eaten. Violation of this rule was allegedly fraught with serious consequences: it was assumed, for example, that if you eat antelope meat, your teeth will fall out. In some genera, they found a way to circumvent this rule: if a special stone and bark of a certain tree are placed in the cauldron where the antelope meat is cooked, then the meat can be eaten.

The marriage union between people who had the same totem was strictly forbidden: it was believed that the spouses would lose the ability to produce offspring. But in a large totemic clan, this created difficulties in finding a wife. Therefore, totemic clans were split into smaller units that bore different family nicknames and united people descended from one not very distant ancestor. The totem in the Mashona language is called Mutupo, and the family nickname is Chidavo. A man could marry a woman with another chidavo, even if she belonged to the same mutupo.

The Herero tribal organization was original. They coexisted maternal and paternal account of kinship, two forms of organization of the clan. Each person, by birth, belonged to the maternal clan - eanda, with whom he did not break ties throughout his life. Each member of the eand had the right to inherit on the maternal side of his maternal uncle. At the head of the Eand was the elder brother of the eldest woman, Eanda. But each Herero belonged at the same time to another organization - Oruso; this affiliation was inherited through the male line - from father to son. When a woman married, she became her husband's Oruso. At the head of the Oruso was the eldest of the men, the Oruso, his ancestor and head. A special part of the property was inherited through the Ouso line. This duality created an extremely complex system of inheritance among the Herero. By the time the Europeans arrived, the leading principle of the Herero social organization was, of course, patriarchal, but the Eanda was still a strong, living relic of matriarchy.

However, the clan, as the main unit of the primitive communal system, has long ceased to exist, disintegrated into large patriarchal families. By the beginning of European colonization, only a few, more or less strong, remnants of the clan organization remained.

The land was still collectively owned by the tribes and their subdivisions, but the use of the land was already private. Livestock and tools were the private property of large patriarchal families. In their use were estates and cultivated land, they disposed of the products of their labor at their own discretion. It was already a society of small producers, bound by collective ownership of land and by the general interests of defending against external attacks. Property inequality already existed among ordinary members of the community: there were rich and poor. There was a livestock loan and hence the economic dependence of the poor on the rich. The tribal elite exploited their fellow tribesmen and held significant wealth in their hands. The tribal leaders and tribal elders were large livestock owners, and the care of their herds fell a heavy duty on the ordinary members of the community. The communes were obliged to cultivate their fields free of charge, build dwellings, cattle pens, etc. This was a form of production relations characteristic of the period of transition from relations of cooperation and mutual assistance of people free from exploitation to relations of domination and subordination.

The highest form of social organization was the tribe. Each tribe was independent, but relations of dependence had already appeared, a hierarchy had developed, a subordination of the leaders of the tribes. Descriptions of the first European travelers and missionaries (late 18th - early 19th centuries) give us a kaleidoscopic picture of the fragmentation of some tribes, the unification of others and the disappearance of others. Stable forms and boundaries of tribes disappeared, an intensive process of mixing of tribes took place.

The principle of consanguinity was still at the heart of the resettlement of people: the neighbors were relatives. But tribal isolation and tribal endogamy were already a thing of the past. The productive forces had already outgrown the framework of production relations and did not fit into the boundaries of the tribal organization. The destruction of the tribal structure was an expression of the discrepancy between the relations of production and the nature of the productive forces.

The tribe was headed by an elected leader. The national assembly was preserved, which decided the most important issues of the life of the tribe, elected and dismissed the leader of the tribe. But the circle of candidates was already strictly limited, dynastic families stood out, and the struggle for the post of leader was reduced to the struggle of his heirs, and the people had only the opportunity to support one of them. "A person who does not belong to the ruling dynasty could be elected leader only in an exceptional case" 1. Engels wrote about this stage of primitive society: “the election of their (tribal leaders. - Auth.) Successors from the same families little by little, especially since the establishment of paternal law, passes into hereditary power, which is first tolerated, then demanded and finally usurp; the foundations of hereditary royal power and hereditary nobility are laid ”2.

Before us is a picture of the primitive communal system in its last phase of development: the tribal structure is still alive, but has already lost its former harmony and stability; there is private property, rich and poor have appeared, but society has not yet split into antagonistic classes; management of public affairs is concentrated in the hands of wealthy dynastic families, but the state apparatus of violence does not yet exist. The exception was the Mashona, who already had the Monomotapa state 3.

Startcolonization

European colonialists appeared in South Africa only in the 17th century, that is, three hundred years ago. The Portuguese lived the sea route from Europe around Africa: in 1486 1 Portuguese expedition under the command of Bartolomeu Dias rounded the Cape of Good Hope 2 and reached the mouth of the river. Great Fish. After that, however, another century and a half passed before the settlement of Europeans in South Africa.

The inhospitable sandy shores of South West Africa did not attract travelers; the shores of the southern tip of Africa seemed even less attractive: ships were constantly crashed near them, and the navigators tried to pass them as soon as possible. Only the east coast, with its mild climate and rich vegetation, could attract the Portuguese. But this coast was inhabited by the warlike Bantu tribes, and the Portuguese were content with short stops to replenish their supplies of fresh water and food. The main strongholds were the bays for the Portuguese, where ships entered on their way to Goa, to the center of the Portuguese possessions in India.

With the fall of the colonial power of Portugal, its possessions in southeast Asia passed into the hands of the Dutch. The Dutch East India Company took over the spice trade throughout Indonesia. The Dutch also had to look for convenient bays where their ships could stop on their way to Asia and stock up on food and drinking water. In 1652, the representative of the East India Company, Jan van Riebeck, with a small group of soldiers, workers and employees of the company landed in the bay near Table Mountain and founded a fortified settlement there, from which the city of Kapstadt, present-day Cape Town, later grew, thus initiating the creation of the Cape Colony.

Five years later (1657), the first group of immigrants - free burghers - from Holland arrived in South Africa. Since 1698, the French, the Huguenots, who fled from religious persecution, began to move to a new colony; settlers from Germany came after them, etc. The national composition of the colonists was rather complex, although most of them were still Dutch. The descendants of these first colonists later received a common name - Boers (from the Dutch Loer - peasant). Now they prefer to call themselves Afrikanders.

The number of settlers, at first small, a hundred years later, in 1750, amounted to about 5 thousand; by the end of the 18th century. Europeans numbered more than 15 thousand people. As the population grew, the colony gradually expanded its territory. Newly arriving colonists moved deeper and deeper into the country, seizing the lands of the Hottentot tribes. The Hottentots tried to resist, but could not resist the colonists armed with firearms. The Dutch exterminated entire tribes, and the surviving Hottentots and Bushmen were turned into slaves.

In 1776, Dutch colonists appeared in the valley of the river. Great Fish, inhabited by the Bantu - Kosa tribes. The Kos did not represent unity at that time, individual clans fought for the division of the pastures, their leaders Ndlambe and Gaika were at enmity with each other. But nevertheless, the scythe were able to delay the further advance of the colonists, and r. Great Fish remained the border between the Bantu and the Dutch colony for 40 years.

Slave labor in the Cape Colony was very widespread. A large territory, about 650 thousand km 2, completely cleared of Hottentots and Bushmen, was at the disposal of 15 thousand Europeans. Each colonist was a large landowner. The estates of up to 10 thousand hectares have survived to this day. For example, General Botha, a descendant of the first Dutch colonists, owned 12 thousand hectares of land, and this was no exception. Together with the land, the colonists seized from the Hottentots, and then also. the scythe has livestock. Therefore, each colonist became a large livestock owner. He was also a slave owner. The economy of the colonists was based on the labor of slaves. Due to the mass extermination of the Hottentots in the first period of colonization and the lack of local labor, slaves were imported from Madagascar, from East Africa and Malaya. By the beginning of the 19th century. in the colony there were about 30 thousand imported slaves and about 20 thousand Hottentots. The first English missionaries, trying to justify the British conquests in South Africa, collected a lot of material testifying to the plight of the slaves and the arbitrariness of the slave owners in the Cape Colony. The indignation of the slaves was suppressed with extreme cruelty. The slave-owning orders of that time are preserved, as we will see later, in a modified form after the establishment of English rule in modern South Africa.

At the beginning of the XIX century. The Cape Colony was captured by England. At this time, the British were at war with Napoleonic France. French troops won victories over their opponents in Europe, while England, meanwhile, gradually seized the French colonies in America, Africa and India. When Bonapartist France annexed Holland and, having declared it the Batavian Republic, actually incorporated it into their possessions, England in 1806 seized the Cape Colony.