Russian local cavalry. Boyar and noble army

Boyar children, as a class, formed at the beginning of the 15th century, were initially not very large patrimonial owners. They were “assigned” to one city or another and began to be attracted by princes for military service. Later, the boyar children were divided into two categories. Boyar courtyard children - initially served as part of the Sovereign (Grand Duke) court or moved to it from the courtyards of appanage princes. City boyar children, who initially served the appanage princes, were assigned to a specific city. A clear difference between these categories took shape by the 30-40s of the 16th century. Boyars' courtyard children received higher salaries. In the second half of the 16th century, they occupied an intermediate position between city officials and elected boyar children. City boyar children made up the majority. At the beginning of the 16th century, the cities belonged to the Moscow and Novgorod categories, and in the second half, such groups of cities as Smolensk, Seversk, Tula and Ryazan emerged from Moscow.

The nobles were formed from the servants of the princely court and at first played the role of the closest military servants of the Grand Duke. Like the boyars' children, they received plots of land for their service. In the first half of the 16th century, the nobles, together with the boyar courtyard children, formed a special Sovereign regiment. At first, the nobles in the documents stood lower than the children of the boyars, as a special group; they stood out only in the middle of the 16th century. There were also urban nobles. They were formed from servants of appanage princes and boyars and were equipped with estates far from Moscow.

Reforms of Ivan the Terrible

In 1552, the regiments of the local cavalry received a structure of hundreds. The command of hundreds was carried out by hundreds' heads.

During the reign of Ivan the Terrible, elected nobles and boyar children appeared, who carried out both courtyard and city service. The boyars' elected children were replenished from among the courtyards, and the courtyards, in turn, from among the policemen.

In 1564-1567, Ivan the Terrible introduced the oprichnina. Service people were divided into oprichninas and zemstvos, and the districts were divided in the same way. Oprichnina implemented the idea of ​​the “Chosen Thousand”. In 1584, the oprichnina court was liquidated, which led to a change in the structure of the Sovereign's court.

Moscow service people included tenants, Moscow nobles, solicitors and stewards. Their total number in the 16th century it was 1-1.5 thousand people, by the end of the 17th it increased to 6 thousand.

The highest command positions were occupied by Duma ranks - boyars, okolnichy and Duma nobles. Their total number was no more than 50 people.

Time of Troubles

The Time of Troubles led to a crisis in the local system. A significant part of the landowners became empty-handed and could not receive support at the expense of the peasants. In this regard, the government took measures to restore the local system - made cash payments and introduced benefits. By the second half of the 1630s, the fighting efficiency of the local army was restored.

Romanov reforms

At the same time, during the reforms of the army, a duality arose in its structure, since initially the basis armed forces The Russian Kingdom was represented by the local army, and the rest of the formations were dependent on it. Now they received independence and autonomy as part of the armed forces, and the cavalry of the hundred service became on a par with them. During the military district reform of 1680, the ranks (military districts) were reorganized and the structure of the Russian armed forces was finally changed - in accordance with these ranks, rank regiments were formed, which now included local cavalry.

In 1681, a reform of the organization of Moscow service people began. It was decided to leave them in the regimental service, but to reorganize them from hundreds into companies (60 people each) led by captains; and into regiments (6 companies per regiment). To achieve this, localism had to be abolished in 1682.

Liquidation

The local army was abolished under Peter I. On initial stage During the Great Northern War, the noble cavalry, under the leadership of B.P. Sheremetev, inflicted a number of defeats on the Swedes, however, its flight was one of the reasons for the defeat in the Battle of Narva in 1700. At the beginning of the 18th century, the old noble cavalry, together with the Cossacks, still figured among the regiments of horse service and took part in various military operations. There are 9 such regiments known. In particular, the Hertaul regiment of Ivan Nazimov was formed in 1701 from Moscow ranks and servicemen of the regimental and centenary service of the Novgorod rank, then transformed into a Reitar regiment, and disbanded in 1705. The regiment of Stepan Petrovich Bakhmetyev was formed in 1701 from servicemen of the regimental and centurion service, as well as archers and Cossacks of lower cities, and was disbanded in 1705. The regiments of Lev Fedorovich Aristov and Sidor Fedorovich Aristov were formed in 1701 from servicemen of the regimental and centenary service of the Kazan rank, disbanded by 1712. The regiment of Bogdan Semenovich Korsak, formed from the Smolensk gentry, maintained the organization of regiments of hundred service and the militia system during the first quarter of the 18th century. As a result of the transformations of the army, a significant part of the aristocrats was transferred to the dragoon and guards regiments, many of them became officers.

Structure

In the second half of the 16th century, the following structure of service people in the homeland who made up the army was formed:

• Duma officials
  • Okolnichye
• Moscow officials
  • Stolniki
  • Solicitors
• City officials

This structure was finally formed, probably after the abolition of the oprichnina. As a rule, the most distinguished aristocrats could become stewards. The children of boyars, okolnichikhs, and Moscow nobles began their service with this rank, or moved to it after serving in the rank of solicitor. Stolniks, upon completion of their service, moved to the Duma ranks or to the rank of Moscow nobles. They either began their service with the rank of solicitor, or transferred to it after serving in the rank of tenant. The residents, as a rule, were the children of elected nobles, less often - Moscow nobles, clerks, archery heads, sometimes prominent palace figures, and also, perhaps, the best courtyard children of the boyars. At the end of their service, residents, as a rule, moved to the “choice of the cities,” but sometimes they could become solicitors or Moscow nobles. As a rule, representatives of the princely-boyar nobility served in the rank of Moscow nobles, and in some cases elected nobles rose to the rank; and served all their lives, except in those cases when they could move to Duma ranks or, due to disgrace, be demoted to “choice from the cities.” Children of elected and Moscow nobles could begin serving in the rank of elected nobles. Often, after a long period of service, the boyar's courtyard children, and in exceptional cases, even policemen, could rise to the "selection" level. Residents who had served in the palace service, Moscow nobles demoted as a result of disgrace, clerks, and solicitors were transferred to the “choice.” Elected nobles, most often, served in this rank for the entire service, but sometimes they could move to Moscow ranks.

Large regimental and simple regimental governors were appointed from representatives of the Duma ranks, and they were also sent as governors to border cities. The most honored boyars could be appointed commanders of the entire army. During wartime, some of the Moscow servicemen were part of the Sovereign's regiment, while others were sent to other regiments, where they, together with elected nobles, occupied the positions of governors, their comrades, and heads. When distributing positions, local seniority was taken into account. It is also characteristic that the main duties of Duma and Moscow officials were considered to be service at court, and military appointments were considered additional “parcels.” Localism also played a role among city service people - it depended on the rank (after the cities of Zamoskovny came the cities of the Novgorod rank, as well as the cities of southern Ukraine) and the order within the rank.

Number

It is impossible to establish the exact number of local troops in the 16th century. A. N. Lobin estimates the total number of Russian troops in the first third of the 16th century to be up to 40,000 people, taking into account the fact that the main part of it was the local cavalry. By the middle of the century it increases, in the last quarter it decreases. According to his assessment, 18,000 landowners took part in the Polotsk campaign of 1563, and up to 30,000 people together with military slaves. V.V. Penskoy considers these estimates to be underestimated and limits the upper limit of the number of local troops in the first half of the 16th century to 40,000 landowners and military serfs, or 60,000 taking into account other servants. O. A. Kurbatov, pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of A. N. Lobin’s work, notes that such a calculation of the upper estimate of the number is incorrect due to too large an error. At the end of the 16th century, according to S. M. Seredonin, the number of nobles and boyar children did not exceed 25,000 people. The total number, including slaves, according to A.V. Chernov, reached 50,000 people.

In the 17th century, the number of troops can be accurately determined thanks to the surviving “Estimates”. In 1632 there were 26,185 nobles and boyar children. According to the “Estimate of all service people” of 1650-1651, there were 37,763 nobles and boyar children in the Moscow state, and the estimated number of their people was 40-50 thousand. By this time, the local army was being replaced by troops of the new system, a significant part of the local army was transferred to the Reitar system, and by 1663 their number decreased to 21,850 people, and in 1680 there were 16,097 people in the hundred service (of which 6,385 were Moscow ranks) and 11 830 of their people.

Mobilization

In peacetime, the landowners stayed on their estates, but in case of war they had to gather, which took a lot of time. Sometimes it took more than a month to fully prepare the militia for military action. However, according to Perkamota, at the end of the 15th century it took no more than 15 days to assemble an army. From the Discharge Order, royal letters were sent to the cities to the governors and clerks, in which the landowners were instructed to prepare for the campaign. From the cities they, with collectors sent from Moscow, set out to the place where the troops were assembled. Each collector in the Rank Order was given a list of service people who were supposed to participate in the campaign. They informed the collector of the number of their slaves. According to the Code of Service of 1555-1556. a landowner with 100 quarters of land had to bring one armed man, including himself, and according to the Council verdict of 1604 - with 200 quarters. Along with the fighting serfs, one could take with them the Koshevoy and baggage train people. Landowners and their people came to work on horses, often with two horses. Depending on the wealth of the landowners, they were divided into various articles, the requirements for them and the nature of the service depended on their membership. Upon mobilization, service people were distributed among voivodeship regiments, and then “signed up in the hundreds.” Selected units were formed during the painting or later.

They went on a hike with their own food. Herberstein wrote about supplies during the campaign: “Perhaps it will seem surprising to some that they support themselves and their people on such a meager salary and, as I said above, for such a long time. Therefore, I will briefly talk about their frugality and temperance. Anyone who has six horses, and sometimes more, uses only one of them as a lift or pack horse, on which he carries the necessities of life. This is first of all crushed millet in a bag two or three spans long, then eight to ten pounds of salted pork; He also has salt in his bag, and if he is rich, mixed with pepper. In addition, everyone carries with him on the back of his belt an axe, a flint, kettles or a copper vat, and if he accidentally ends up in a place where there is no fruit, no garlic, no onions, no game, then he makes a fire, fills the vat with water, throws add a spoon full of millet, add salt and cook; Both master and slaves live contented with such food. However, if the master gets too hungry, he destroys it all himself, so that the slaves thus sometimes have an excellent opportunity to fast for two or three whole days. If the gentleman wishes for a luxurious feast, then he adds a small piece of pork. I say this not about the nobility, but about people of average income. The leaders of the army and other military commanders from time to time invite others who are poorer, and, having dined well, these latter then abstain from food, sometimes for two or three days. If they have fruits, garlic or onions, then they can easily do without everything else.”. Directly during the campaigns, expeditions were organized to obtain food in enemy territory - “corrals”. In addition, during the “corrals”, prisoners were sometimes captured with the aim of sending them to the estates.

Service

Tactical formations

In the first half of the 16th century, a marching army could include many different commanders, each of whom had from several dozen to several hundred fighters under the command. Under Ivan the Terrible in 1552, a structure of hundreds was introduced, which made it possible to streamline the system of combat command and control.

The main tactical unit from the middle of the 16th century was the hundred. The hundred heads represented the junior command staff. They were appointed by the governor of a regiment from elected nobles, and from the Time of Troubles - from simply experienced boyar children. The number of hundreds was usually 50-100 people, occasionally more.

For execution specific tasks a “light army” could be formed. It consisted of hundreds, possibly selected ones, who were allocated 1-2 from each regiment of the entire army. A unit of 1000-1500 boyar children in the first half of the 16th century, as a rule, was divided into 5 regiments, each of which had 2 governors. Since 1553, it began to be divided into 3 regiments - Bolshoi, Forward and Sentry, and also 2 governors. Each voivodeship regiment had from 200 to 500 soldiers.

The entire army on campaigns was initially divided into the Bolshoi, Advanced and Sentry regiments, to which regiments of the Right and Left Hand could be added, and in the case of the Sovereign’s campaign, also the Sovereign Regiment, Ertaul and Bolshoi Outfit (siege artillery). In each of them, several (2-3) voivodeship regiments were allocated. If at first the names of these regiments corresponded to their position on the battlefield, then during the 16th century only their numbers and the parochial seniority of their commanders began to depend on them; Together, these regiments extremely rarely gathered in a common battle formation, since conducting battles with the participation of a significant number of people did not correspond to Moscow strategy. For example, in 1572, during an attack by the Tatars, regiments of the Russian army, taking refuge behind the Gulyai-Gorod, took turns making forays from there in order of seniority. The number of regiments was different, according to available data, the Large Regiment was almost 1/3, the Right Arm - a little less than 1/4, the Advanced - about 1/5, the Guard - about 1/6, the Left Arm - about 1/8 of the total number. The total number of troops in some campaigns is known from rank lists. In particular, in I.P. Shuisky’s campaign against Yuriev in 1558, it amounted to 47 hundreds, the coastal army of M.I. Vorotynsky in 1572 amounted to 10,249 people, and the army of F.I. Mstislavsky in the campaign against False Dmitry in 1604 - 13,121 people.

Types of service

In the second half of the 16th century, service was divided into city (siege) and regimental. The regimental service, in turn, included long-range and short-range services.

Siege service was carried out “from the ground” by small people. Those who could no longer perform regimental service due to old age, illness, or injury were also transferred to it; in this case, part of the estate was taken away from them. Those enrolled in the siege service were not entitled to a monetary salary. Small nobles and boyar children could be transferred to regimental service for good service and given cash and additional local salaries. In some cases, veterans could be disqualified from service entirely.

Long-distance, marching service implied direct participation in campaigns. The near (Ukrainian, coastal) was reduced to protecting the borders. Low-income nobles and boyar children could be recruited to the serf service. The middle-class people, “whose people were on horseback, and were young, and playful, and had served,” carried out stanitsa service; the wealthiest were appointed commanders and bore primary responsibility. The serif service consisted of protecting serif lines. The stanitsa service consisted of patrolling the border territory by mounted detachments, which, if enemy detachments were detected, were to notify the governor. The detachments served in shifts. The “Boyar Sentence on Village and Guard Service” of 1571 provided for the death penalty for unauthorized abandonment of post.

Supply

In the second half of the 15th century, the army being formed was primarily supplied by estates in the newly annexed Novgorod lands, as well as in other annexed principalities. The landowners were supplied with lands confiscated from disgraced appanage princes and boyars, and partly from free peasant communities. Household children of boyars and grand ducal nobles were located near Moscow. In addition, at the end of the 15th century, Scribe Books were compiled, assigning part of the peasants to the landowners; and St. George's Day was also introduced, limiting the right of peasants to transfer from one landowner to another. Later, the Local Order was organized, which was responsible for the distribution of estates.

Since 1556, a system of reviews was organized, at which, among other things, the children of landowners - novices, who were fit for service by age (from 15 years old) were registered for service. To do this, Duma people with clerks came from Moscow to the cities (in some cases, their role was played by local governors), who organized the election of salary workers from local landowners. These salaries helped distribute new recruits according to items depending on their origin and property status. As a result, new recruits were enlisted in the service, assigned land and monetary salaries, and enrolled in verstal tithes. The salary of new workers depended on the article and in the second half of the 16th century ranged, on average, from 100 to 300 quarters and from 4 to 7 rubles. People from the lower classes were not allowed to serve in the local army, however, on the southern borders, and later in the Siberian lands, sometimes exceptions had to be made. Since 1649, the layout order has changed. According to the Code, children were now considered fit for service from the age of 18 and were registered as city boyar children, and not in the rank of their father. In addition, the relatively poor could be recorded as new system. In some cases, it was also allowed to exhibit dat people. Salaries for new workers in the second half of the 17th century ranged from 40 to 350 quarters and from 3 to 12 rubles per year.

The Swedish diplomat Petrey reports the following about the shows: “Their review is not the same as with us and other peoples; when they make a review, all the colonels converge on one courtyard, sit in a hut by a window or in a tent and call the regiments to them one after another, a clerk stands next to them calling each by name according to the list in his hands, where they are all written down, each must go out and introduce himself to the inspecting boyars. If there is no one present, the clerk carefully writes down his name until further order; they do not ask if there are servants, horses, weapons and weapons with him, they only ask him himself.” .

Information about service people was recorded in collapsible and distributing tithes. This information, determined at the reviews, included the number of fighting serfs of the landowner, weapons, horsepower, and salaries. Money was paid depending on this. Tens from the reviews were sent to the Rank Order, and the lists from them were sent to the Local Order. The rank order in tens also recorded information about the participation of soldiers in hostilities, changes in pay, and noted capture and death.

The average salary in the second half of the 16th-17th centuries ranged from 20 to 700 quarters of land and from 4 to 14 rubles per year. The local salary of city boyar children ranged from 20 to 500 quarters, courtyard children - from 350 to 500, elected - from 350 to 700. The salary of Moscow officials, for example, Moscow nobles, amounted to 500-1000 quarters. and 20-100 rubles salary. Salary of Duma officials: boyars received from 1000 to 2000 quarters. and from 500 to 1200 rubles, roundabouts - 1000-2000 quarters. and 200-400 rubles, Duma nobles - 800-1200 rubles. and 100-200 rubles. Estates for special merits, for example, for being a seat of siege, could be given away as patrimony. Among Moscow service people, the number of patrimonial people was quite large.

From the second half of the 60s of the 16th century, the shortage of land suitable for disposal led to the redistribution of estates. Surplus estates and allotments of landowners who evaded service began to be confiscated and given to others. This resulted in estates sometimes consisting of several parts. Due to the flight of peasants and the increase in the number of wastelands, in some cases only one part of the local salary was full-fledged land with peasant households, and the other was issued in the form of wastelands. Therefore, landowners received the right to look for inhabited lands themselves. In the 17th century, due to a lack of suitable land, the real estate of many city people was less than their salary, which was especially evident on the southern borders. For example, according to the analysis of 1675 and the review of 1677, 1078 nobles and children of the boyars of the southern cities had 849 peasant and bobyl households. Average estates there were 10-50 quarters.

Combat capability

In addition to the long gathering, the local army had a number of other disadvantages. One of them was the lack of systematic military training, which negatively affected his combat effectiveness. The arming of each person was left to his discretion, although the government gave recommendations in this regard. In peacetime, landowners were engaged agriculture and participated in regular reviews at which their weapons and combat readiness were checked. Another important drawback was failure to appear for service and flight from it - “noness”, which was associated with the ruin of estates or with the reluctance of people to participate in a certain war (for example, due to disagreement with government policy). It reached particular proportions during the Time of Troubles. Thus, from Kolomna in 1625, out of 70 people, only 54 arrived. For this, their estate and monetary salaries were reduced (with the exception of good reasons for non-appearance - illness and others), and in some cases the estate was completely confiscated. In the event of an unsuccessful turn of the battle, those hundreds who did not take any part in the battle sometimes fled, as happened, for example, near Valki in 1657 or at Narva in 1700. Most of his defeats were associated with this property of the local cavalry. However, in general, despite the shortcomings, the local army showed a high level of combat effectiveness. People learned basic combat techniques from childhood, because they were interested in service and prepared for it; and their skill was reinforced by direct combat experience. Individual defeats, as a rule, were associated not with the weakness of the army, but, except in cases of retreat without a fight, with the mistakes of the governor (as in the Battle of Orsha in 1514 or in the Battle of the Oka in 1521), the surprise of an enemy attack (Battle of the Ula River (1564)) , overwhelming numerical superiority of the enemy, the reluctance of people to fight (as in the Battle of Klushino 1610, in which the army, unwilling to fight for Tsar Vasily IV, dispersed without taking part in the battle). And the courage of warriors in battles was encouraged. For example, to the Ryazan commander of the centenary Mikhail Ivanov, who in the battle of 1633 “beat and wounded” many Tatars, took two prisoners and “killed many,” and his horse was shot with a bow - 50 quarters were added to the former 150 and 2 rubles salary to the former 6.5 rubles for commanding a hundred, “yes, two rubles for the pagan, and good cloth.” Information about the participation of military men in each battle was entered into the service records.

Tactics

Manor cavalry tactics were based on speed and developed under Asian influence in the mid-15th century. “Everything they do, whether attacking the enemy, pursuing him or fleeing from him, they do suddenly and quickly. At the first clash, they attack the enemy very bravely, but do not hold out for long, as if adhering to the rule: Run or we will run.”- Herberstein wrote about the Russian cavalry. Initially, its main goal was to protect the Orthodox population from attacks, mainly by Turkic peoples. In this regard, coastal service became the most important task of military men and a kind of school for their combat training. In this regard, the main weapon of the cavalry was the bow, and melee weapons - spears and sabers - played a secondary role. Russian strategy was characterized by a desire to avoid major clashes that could lead to casualties; preference was given to various sabotage attacks from fortified positions. To counter Tatar raids, a high degree of interaction and coordination between reconnaissance and combat detachments was required. In the 16th century, the main forms of combat were: archery combat, “baiting”, “attack” and “removable combat” or “great slaughter”. Only advanced detachments took part in the “harassment.” During it, an archery battle began, often in the form of a steppe “carousel” or “round dance”: detachments of Russian cavalry, rushing past the enemy, carried out mass shelling. In a battle with the Turkic peoples, mutual fire could last “for a long time.” Archery combat was usually followed by an “attack” - an attack using contact melee weapons; Moreover, the start of the attack could be accompanied by archery. During direct clashes, multiple “attacks” of detachments were made - they attacked, if the enemy was steadfast, they retreated in order to lure him into pursuit or to give room for other units to be “launched”. In the 17th century, the fighting methods of local troops changed under Western influence. During the Time of Troubles, it was rearmed with “traveling arquebuses”, and after the Smolensk War of the 30s - with carbines. In this regard, “shooting combat” with firearms began to be used, although archery combat was also preserved. Since the 50-60s, a cavalry attack began to be preceded by a volley from carbines.

Ertauls (also called ertouly, Yartauls), first mentioned in the mid-16th century. They were formed either from several horse hundreds, or from the best fighters selected from various hundreds, and sometimes from the voivode's retinue. The Ertauls walked ahead of the entire army and performed reconnaissance functions, usually they were the first to enter battle, they were assigned the most important tasks, so reaction speed and high combat effectiveness were required. Sometimes the ertaul made a false flight, leading the pursuing enemy into an ambush. In case of victory, as a rule, it was the ertaul who pursued the defeated enemy. However, even if the bulk of the army went into pursuit, the commanders and heads tried to maintain control of the hundreds under their control, since there might be a need to conduct a new battle or take enemy fortifications. Pursuits were usually carried out with great caution, since the retreating enemy could lead to an ambush, as happened in the Battle of Konotop.

In the second half of the 16th century, the practice developed in the event of defeat to gather in field fortifications, but the bulk of the cavalry was scattered throughout the area. Since the Time of Troubles, those who did not return to the fortifications began to be punished. Perhaps the end of the Time of Troubles dates back to the appearance of “diversion detachments” consisting of one or several hundred (although the term “diversion” itself has been known since the 16th century). The tasks of these detachments were, in the event of defeat, to carry out an attack on enemy units, which made it possible to disrupt the pursuit of our troops and ensure an organized retreat. Due to the important role of the withdrawal, it was formed from the elite of the local army, and from the 60s of the 17th century - sometimes from the cavalry of the new system. At the same time, since the 50s, the need for withdrawal has been decreasing - infantry began to play its role. At the same time, with the decreasing role of the local army and due to its low ability for linear combat, it began to perform the tasks of ertaul and withdrawal in the second line of the main formation. The local cavalry acted as a diversion, for example, in the battle on the river. Basho 1660, saving the pursued Reitar with a counterattack.

In the 1570s-1630s, cavalry detachments of foreign servicemen sometimes advanced ahead of the troops.

The plan for the battle, as a rule, was developed by the governors and leaders at the council, where the battle order, the course of the battle and conditional signals were discussed. For this, reconnaissance data was used - “entrances” and “passing villages”, identified, as a rule, from the city or the approaching hundred. Based on the enemy's supposed intentions, the governors either attacked or went on the defensive. When attacking, they tried to attack unexpectedly, “unknown.” In 1655, near Vitebsk, such an attack, organized by Matvey Sheremetyev, made it possible to defeat a numerically superior Lithuanian detachment. During Tatar raids, Russian cavalry tried to attack as they scattered throughout the territory in order to search for booty and captives. If the commanders decided to attack the enemy in a good position, then the advanced detachments started a battle until the main forces arrived to carry out a frontal attack; or until ways are found to attack from the rear or flank. However, attacks from the flanks were carried out mainly in defensive battles. The role of a base during field battles was often played by walk-towns, covered by infantry and artillery. With the help of a false flight, pursuing enemy troops were sometimes targeted and fell into a fiery ambush.

The system of military command and control was largely formed under the influence of the Timurid states. Voivodship orders were transmitted by special esauls from the young children of the boyars. The banners served to indicate the location of the voivode and voivode headquarters, and horse hundreds. Hundred banners, at least in the 17th century, were sent to the voivodeship regiments from the capital for each campaign and distributed among hundreds, and upon dissolution the troops were sent back; therefore, the ownership of the banner was unknown to the enemy. The standard bearers followed the commander of the regiment or hundred, and the entire detachment followed the banner. Conventional signals were also given with banners or horsetails. Sound signals, called “yasaki”, served to indicate the “influx”, as well as the gathering of troops at the end of the battle and for other purposes. Musical instruments were included in the voivodeship and royal camps, these included: tulumbas or tambourine, “big alarm” (drums); covers, timpani; surnas. There were also “yasak cries”. This management system gradually fell into disuse in the second half of the 17th century under Western influence.

Armament

Equipment of a Russian warrior of the mid-16th century. Engraving from the Basel edition of Herberstein, 1551.

The landowners armed themselves and armed their people at their own expense. Therefore, the complex of armor and weapons of the local army was very diverse, and, in general, in the 16th century it corresponded to the West Asian complex, although it had some differences, and in the 17th century it changed noticeably under Western influence. The government sometimes gave instructions in this regard; and also checked the armament at the reviews.

Steel arms

The main bladed weapon was the saber. Mostly they were domestic, but imported ones were also used. West Asian damask and damask sabers were especially valued. Based on the type of blade, they are divided into massive kilichis, with a bright elmani, and narrower sabers without elmani, which include both shamshirs and, probably, local Eastern European types. During the Time of Troubles, Polish-Hungarian sabers became widespread. Konchars were occasionally used. In the 17th century, broadswords became widespread, although not widely. Additional weapons were knives and daggers, in particular, the bait knife was specialized.

Until the Time of Troubles, the noble cavalry was widely armed with hatchets - these included hammered hatchets, mace axes and various light “hatchets”. Maces ceased to be common by the middle of the 15th century, and by that time only beams were known. In the 17th century, pear-shaped maces associated with Turkish influence became somewhat widespread, however, like buzdykhans, they had primarily ceremonial significance. Throughout the entire period, warriors armed themselves with pernachs and six-fingers, but it is difficult to call them widespread weapons. Flails were often used. They used coins and klevets, which became widespread under Polish and Hungarian influence in the 16th century (possibly in the second half), however, not very widely.

Bow with arrows

The main weapon of the local cavalry from the end of the 15th century to early XVII centuries there was a bow with arrows, which was worn in a set - saadak. These were complex bows with highly profiled horns and a clear central handle. Alder, birch, oak, juniper, and aspen were used to make bows; they were equipped with bone plates. Master archers specialized in making bows, saadaks - saadachniks, and arrows - archers. The length of the arrows ranged from 75 to 105 cm, the thickness of the shafts was 7-10 mm. The arrowheads were armor-piercing (13.6% of finds, more often found in the north-west and lost widespread use in the middle of the 15th century), cutting (8.4% of finds, more often in the region of “German Ukraine”) and universal (78%, moreover , if in the XIV-XV centuries they amounted to 50%, then in the XVI-XVII - up to 85%).

Firearms

Defensive weapons

Notes

1. Kirpichnikov A. N. Military affairs in Rus' in the XIII-XV centuries. - L.: Science, 1976.
2. Chernov A.V. Armed forces of the Russian State in the XV-XVII centuries. (From the formation of a centralized state to the reforms under Peter I). - M.: Military Publishing House, 1954.

XVI century was a time of active expansion, gathering lands under the hand of Moscow. Increased foreign policy activity required support in the form of a large and mobile army, capable of quickly moving to a particular area to carry out offensive or defensive actions, or simply to demonstrate force. It was the cavalry that met all these requirements. And although infantry and artillery became an increasingly important component of the country’s military strength every year, only cavalry regiments could provide solutions to tactical and strategic tasks. They started the battle, covered the retreat, developed success in case of victory, conducted reconnaissance and controlled the marching columns. In the process of laying the territorial foundations of Russia, cavalry was used not only for direct military purposes. Small detachments were sent on long expeditions, which were simultaneously reconnaissance, a campaign of conquest, a research tour, an embassy, ​​trade and prospecting mission and, finally, an incredible adventure for everyone who was not sitting on the stove at home.

The local cavalry fighter was a universal warrior who owned all types of offensive weapons. Foreign travelers invariably praised the professional training of Russian equestrian warriors. Sigismund Herberstein in “Notes on Muscovite Affairs” marveled at how the Muscovites managed to use a bridle, a saber, a whip and a bow and arrow at the same time while galloping. The Russian horseman was a good, strong fighter. In addition, the new system of local recruitment of troops made it possible to assemble armies unprecedented in the previous era, up to 100-150 thousand people. In a word, as it is sung in a Cossack song of the 19th century: ““Believe and hope, Rus' is safe, the strength of the Russian army is strong.” Considering the above, the victories and successes of Russian weapons look (almost always) justified and logical. It can be scary and bitter to read about defeats, realizing that people died and were captured in the thousands due to the fault of negligent and disorganized command.
For example, during the second Kazan War of 1523, a huge Moscow army of 150 thousand people, moving in three columns, came to Kazan separately, and the artillery and convoy were a month late! The army was saved from complete destruction by the decisive actions of the Russian cavalry, which on August 15, 1524 defeated the Tatars on the Utyakov Field (the right bank of the Sviyaga River) and forced them to retreat under the walls of Kazan.

The fundamentals of Russian cavalry tactics began to take shape back in the 13th-14th centuries. It was then that battle tactics with alternating advances and multi-unit formation of troops for battle spread and improved. By the end of the 15th century. This tactic is fully adapted to the conditions of light-horse combat. Light saddles with flat bows and short stirrups made the ramming spear strike, which prevailed as a means of attack in the classical Middle Ages, impossible. The high landing, as S. Gerberstein noted, did not allow “... to withstand a somewhat stronger blow from a spear...”, but it provided ample opportunities for maneuverable combat. Sitting in the saddle with bent legs, the warrior could kick, the warrior could easily stand up in the stirrups, quickly turn to the sides, shoot from a bow, throw a bow, or use a saber. The tactics of the Russian cavalry, thus, for objective reasons, began to resemble in general terms the tactics of the light eastern cavalry. The German historian A. Krantz accurately and in detail described it: “...running up in large lines, they throw spears (sulits - Auto) and strike with swords or sabers and soon retreat back” (quoted by Kirpichnikov, 1976).

The cavalry's armament included the entire range of combat weapons of its time, except for the pronounced infantry "tools" - such as a reed, a slingshot, or a arquebus. Moreover, defensive weapons developed almost exclusively among the cavalry, since the infantry played the role of riflemen and did not need developed protection, except, perhaps, for portable shields.

As noted above, offensive weapons were adapted to the needs of light cavalry. Spears cease to be the main weapon of equestrian warfare, although they do not completely disappear from use. The spearheads lose their massiveness, coinciding with the samples of the 14th-15th centuries in their main geometric characteristics. For the first time after the 12th century. the peaks spread widely. They are characterized by a narrow 3-4-sided feather, no more than 30 mm. The bushings have almost no pronounced neck, in addition, the base of the feather is often reinforced with spherical or biconical thickening, which was caused by the desire to give maximum rigidity to the narrow body of the pike. Faceted and twisted bushings served the same purpose. A good collection of peaks from 1540 was discovered in Ipatievsky Lane in Moscow. It is significant that for every ten lances found, there was one spear and one spear. Apparently, it was the pike that became the main polearm of cavalry by the beginning of the 17th century. completely replacing the spear, which is confirmed by archaeological finds, for example in the Tushino camp. The saber and broadsword were the main melee weapons. Basically, they repeated the forms of bladed weapons of Western and Central Asia, although European, especially Hungarian and Polish samples were also used. Konchars were common as auxiliary weapons - swords with a narrow long blade for striking through chain mail. European swords and swords were used to a limited extent.
The bow dominated as a weapon for distance combat. Complex reflexive bows with a set of arrows for various purposes (from armor-piercing to “cutting” arrows) were an indispensable weapon for a light cavalryman. Cases with sulits - “jerids” - were worn at the belt or, more often, at the saddle. From the 1520s Firearms began to spread among the cavalry, which by the 1560s. is gaining wide scope. This is evidenced by the messages of Pavel Jovius and Francesco Tiepolo about horse-mounted arquebusers and horse-mounted arquebus archers. Apparently, the cavalry was armed with short carbines, and by the end of the 16th century. - and pistols.

Defensive weapons consisted primarily of flexible defense systems. “Tyagilyai” were very popular - long-brimmed fabric jackets with short sleeves, quilted with horsehair and cotton wool, which could be additionally lined with fragments of chain mail fabric. They were distinguished by a significant thickness of padding and heavy weight (possibly up to 10-15 kg), reliably protecting them from arrows and sabers. After a hiatus of more than a century, chain mail or ringed protection systems are regaining popularity. For example, one can recall shells made of rings that are flat in cross-section and canoes - shells with enlarged rings. In the XIV century. Various ring-plate armor appeared. By the 16th century they had become the predominant defense systems incorporating plate structures. It seems possible to distinguish three main groups of ring-plate armor. All of them had the cut of ordinary shirts with short sleeves (or no sleeves at all) and lamellar inclusions only on the chest and back. The first group is the Bekhterets, which consisted of several vertical rows of narrow rectangular plates located horizontally, stacked on top of each other and connected on the sides by chainmail weaving. The second group was the “Yushmans,” which differed from the Bekhterts in the size of the plates, which among the Yushmans were much larger, so that no more than four vertical rows were placed on the chest. In addition, yushmans often had a medial axial cut on the front with clasps. The third group is “kalantari”. They were distinguished by plates connected on all sides by chain mail weaving. A common design feature of all three groups is the width of the chain mail connecting jumpers, which amounted to three rows of rings. In this case, standard weaving was used, when one ring was connected to four.

The so-called mirror armor stands apart. They could have a ring-plate structure and were equally likely to be assembled on a fabric base. Mirror armor apparently originates from additional breastplates that sometimes accompanied scale and lamellar armor from the second half of the 13th-15th centuries. They had a poncho-type cut with a fastener on the sides or on one side. A distinctive feature is the central monolithic convex plate of a round or multifaceted shape, covering the body in the area of ​​the diaphragm. The remaining plates were rectangular or trapezoidal in shape, complementing the central plaque. The thickness of the plates reached from 1.0 to 2.5 mm on combat mirrors; the front ones were, as a rule, thinner. The surface of the plates was often covered with frequent stiffening ribs, which, arranged in parallel, formed neat ridges. The edges of the plates were often trimmed with decorative fabric edging or fringe. Mirrors were expensive armor. Even in an ordinary version, without decorations, they were accessible only to a few. For example, the painting “Battle of Orsha” depicts only commanders of Russian cavalry units in the mirror.

Fabric armor, lined on the inside with steel plates in the manner of European brigandines, had a certain distribution. They were made in the Asian fashion, which was expressed in the cut in the form of a long-skirted caftan and plates with rivets located in the right or left corner at the top, in contrast to the plates of European brigandines, riveted along the upper or lower edge, or in the center. This type of armor was called “kuyak”. Combat headbands can be grouped into three sections, according to their design: the first - rigid, the second - semi-rigid, the third - flexible. The first includes helmets, shishaks, iron hats or “erikhonki”. They covered the head with a monolithic high spheroconic or tent-shaped crown with a spire (shelomy); low domed or spherical-conical crown with “steep” sides and without a spire (shishaki); a hemispherical or low domed crown with a steel visor (often with a nasal arrow), movable cheekpieces and a nape cap (erichon caps, iron caps). The second section includes almost exclusively “misyurki”. They covered only the crown with a convex monolithic plate; the rest of the head was covered with a chain mail mesh, sometimes with inclusions of steel plates like a bang terza. At the end of the 16th century. headbands in the style of coracin 2, made from round scales riveted to a leather base, became more widespread to a limited extent. The third section is formed by “paper caps”. These were quilted headbands, like tyagilyai. The term comes from the cotton fabric from which such headbands were sewn or from their cotton padding. They were sufficiently stable that they were sometimes equipped with steel nosepieces riveted to the forehead of the crown. Paper hats were cut in the form of erichonkas with cheekpieces and backpieces.

The armor could be supplemented with bracers (sleeves, basbands) and leggings (buturlyks).

The latter were used extremely rarely and only among the highest nobility. Bracers, on the contrary, due to the abandonment of shields and the spread of saber combat, became a necessary protective device.
Shields were rarely used during this period. If they did exist, then they were Asian “kalkans”, round, conical in cross-section.

The reconstruction shows Russian mounted warriors from the mid-16th century. The reconstruction is based on materials from the collection (boyar arsenal) of the Sheremetevs.

The first figure (foreground) is depicted in heavy and richly decorated boyar equipment.

Helmet: spheroconic helmet with movable ears.

Armor: yushman with a clasp on the chest.

Bracers: “bazubands”, consisting of several plates on chain mail loops. The surface is covered with gold tauched ornament.

Gaiters: have a mesh construction and are combined with plate knee pads.

Shield: “Kalkan”, woven with multi-colored silk cord.

Offensive weapons are represented by a saber in a sheath.

The second figure (background) represents a simple warrior of the local cavalry. The reconstruction is based on finds in Ipatievsky Lane in Moscow (stored in the State Historical Museum) and illustrations by S. Herberstein.

Helmet: spheroconic “bump” with aventail.

Armor: “tyagilyai” - a quilted caftan with a high collar.

Offensive weapons: bow and arrows, as well as the “palm” - a specific pole weapon, which is a knife-like blade with a socket on a long shaft. Armament could be supplemented by a saber or broadsword, an ax and a knife.

1 Srezni is an old Russian term meaning a broad-bladed arrowhead.
2 Coracin is a type of armor made up of metal scales reinforced on top of a soft base.

Since its formation, the Moscow state either strengthened its positions in military battles, or carefully prepared for new wars, or defended itself from predatory invasions. Naturally, this required the correct organization of the Russian army, its recruitment and leadership, and the preparation of the defense of the frontiers.

Composition and internal organization of the Russian army

In the XV - XVI centuries. The internal structure of the armed forces of the Moscow State was determined. The backbone of the Russian army was made up of “service people”, who were divided into “service people for the Fatherland” (service princes, boyars, okolnichy, tenants, nobles, boyar children, Tatar “princes”) and “service people according to the device” (Cossacks, archers, gunners).

The organization of the Moscow army at first was carried out in two ways: by prohibiting the departure of service people from the Moscow princes and attracting landowners to serve, and also by attracting permanent military detachments of appanage princes. At all times, the issue of material support for the service of soldiers was quite acute. In this regard, the government of Ivan III, having received a large fund of lands in the process of attracting the Novgorod Republic and the Tver Principality, decided to distribute parts of them to service people. Thus, the foundations for the organization of the local army, the core of the Moscow army, are laid.

All other military men were distributed among the regiments of the noble army. This structure of the armed forces lasted until the middle of the 17th century. In modern historical literature the opinion was established that all groups of military men, by type of service, belonged to four main categories: infantry, artillery, cavalry and auxiliary units.

Local army

In the process of annexing new principalities to the Moscow state, the number of squads entering the service of the Grand Duke increased. The authorities began to reorganize the armed forces. Petty princes and boyars now received land dachas for their service.

The core and main striking force of the armed forces, the bulk of which were nobles and boyar children, became the mounted local army. The soldiers who served under Grand Duke Ivan III as part of the “Sovereign's Court” received generous land and cash salaries. The majority either remained at their previous place of residence or moved to other principalities at the behest of the government. In this case, the warrior-landowners began to be called city children of the boyars, Novgorod, Kostroma, Tver, Yaroslavl, Tula, Ryazan, Sviyazh, etc.

In the middle of the 14th century. As a special category of troops, nobles were distinguished, who, along with the boyars' children, received estates from the Grand Duke for temporary possession, and in wartime were his closest military servants. In order to preserve the cadres of the noble militia, the government limited their departure from service.

In the middle of the 16th century, a series of important reforms were carried out aimed at centralizing the country and streamlining the military system. The Code of Law of 1550 prohibited the conversion of boyar children fit for service into serfs. This was due to the fact that there was a certain barrier to the growth of personal troops of large feudal lords. Since 1558, boyar children (from the age of 15) and service people were assigned to the royal service. Thus, the noble army and the “sovereign regiment” were replenished by the service people of the appanage principalities.

When organizing the local army, servants from the dissolved boyar households were accepted into service. They were allocated land, which passed to them under the rights of conditional holding. Such displacements became widespread after the annexation of the Novgorod land to the Moscow state. Local landowners received estates in Vladimir, Murom, Nizhny Novgorod, Pereyaslavl, Yuryev-Polsky, Rostov, Kostroma and other cities.

Education local militia became an important milestone in the development of the armed forces of the Moscow state. Their numbers increased noticeably, and the military structure received a clear organization.

The local militia had major shortcomings. It gathered only in case of military danger, armed itself at its own expense, and therefore was distinguished by great diversity. These aspects were noted in his studies by one of the most authoritative experts on the history of the Russian armed forces, A.V. Chernov40. While taking care of their farms, the owners of the estate were not always willing to serve. The unity of the state's armed forces was also undermined by independent detachments of large feudal lords. A distinctive step compared to the previous organization of troops was subordination to one leadership and the conduct of military operations according to a single plan. The real misfortune of the Russian local army was the “non-appearance” (failure to show up for service) of nobles and boyar children, their flight from the regiments, the massive nature of which was noted in the last years of the Livonian War. This was due to the ruin of the farms of service people, who were forced to abandon their farms at the first order of the authorities. In this regard, a system was organized for searching, punishing and returning “netchikov” to duty, and later the government introduced mandatory third-party guarantees for the proper performance of service by every nobleman or son of a boyar. It was decided to deprive the “netchins” of their estates, and they could receive a land salary again only after achieving it through diligent and efficient service.

The government of Ivan IV, having given a harmonious military organization to the local system and equalizing patrimonial landowners with landowners in service, created a large cavalry army, the number of which reached 80 - 100 thousand soldiers. In general, the local cavalry, ready to go on any campaign at a moment’s notice, demonstrated good training and the ability to win in difficult circumstances. In XV - 16th centuries the defeats were caused primarily by the mistakes and incompetence of the governors (in the Battle of Orsha on September 8, 1514, the battle on the Oka River on July 28, 1521).

Many service people “in the homeland” who took part in battles showed true courage and devotion to duty. These exploits are mentioned in chronicles and documents. For example, it tells about the famous hero, the Suzdal son of the boyar Ivan Shibaev, who captured a prominent Tatar military leader in the battle near the village of Molodi Diveya-Murza (April 30, 1572).

In Moscow and other cities, general reviews (“debriefings”) were often held to check the combat readiness of the landowner soldiers. Children of landowners who had grown up and were already fit for service were assigned an appropriate land and monetary salary. Information about such appointments was recorded in “ten”, the layout lists of district service people. In addition to the layout ones, there were “tithes”, “collapsible” and “distributing” ones, designed to record the attitude of landowners to the performance of their official duties. They included information about the names, salaries, weapons of each serviceman, as well as the number of slaves assigned to him, data on the number of male children, information about previous service, the reasons for their failure to appear for the “debriefing”, etc. Local and monetary salaries could be increased depending on the results of the review and on the readiness for service of the children of boyars and nobles. If landowners were found to have poor military training, cash and land salaries could be reduced. The first reviews of nobles were held in 1556. This was facilitated by the adoption of the Code of Service (1555/1556). All collapsible, distributing and layout “tithes” were to be sent to Moscow, notes were made on them about official appointments, military and diplomatic assignments, participation in campaigns, battles, battles and sieges.

Land grants were called "dachas". Their sizes differed from the salary and depended on the land fund being distributed. With the increase in the number of service people “at home,” the size of dachas began to decrease noticeably. At the end of the 16th century. the landowner owned land several times less than his salary. Thus, in order to feed themselves, other service people had to engage in peasant labor. The number of city nobles and boyar children recruited into service in each district depended on the amount of land freed up in that area for local distribution.

Small-scale servicemen were not assigned to long campaigns, they were often exempted from guard and village service, their main duty was to perform siege (garrison) and sometimes even “foot” service. Those who were completely impoverished were automatically dropped from service.

The most important task of the officials conducting the inspections was the correct establishment of salaries for those newly called up for service. A service man could receive the land dacha due to him and an increase to it only through good service.

In each district, according to the “tithes” and scribe books, salaries had their own limits. The authorities tried not to lower the salary below a certain level (50 quarters of land), preferring to leave some service people without local dachas. Local land ownership was most regulated in the Moscow district.

In the second half of the 16th century. The military service of the children of boyars and nobles was divided into city (siege) and regimental. Siege service was carried out either by small-scale residents with a salary of 20 rubles or by those who were unable for health reasons to perform regimental (march) service. It was carried out on foot. These soldiers were not paid a monetary salary, but for proper performance of their duties they could be transferred from siege service to regimental service with an increase in local salary and the issuance of a cash salary.

Regimental service was long-distance (march) and short-range (Ukrainian, coastal), which in peacetime was reduced to border protection. Moscow service people (the most prominent part of the nobility - solicitors, stewards, Moscow nobles and tenants41, heads and centurions of the Moscow archers) were in a more privileged position. In the regiments, they occupied command positions of governors, their comrades, hundreds of heads, etc. Their total number was small - no more than 2 - 3 thousand people in the 16th century, but they brought into service a significant number of combat slaves. In this regard, the strength of the Tsar’s regiment reached 20 thousand people (in the Kazan campaign of 1552), and with the participation of “elected” nobles and boyar children, and more.

Hundreds, like regiments, were temporary military units of local militia. The landowners called into service were formed at assembly points in the hundreds; from the remnants of the district hundreds, mixed hundreds were created; they were all distributed on the shelves. At the end of the service, the nobles and boyar children went home, hundreds disbanded, and at the next call they formed again.

Thus, the basis of the marching Russian army was the regiments of the noble cavalry, and rifle and Cossack orders, instruments and hundreds were distributed among them.

The Code of 1556 finally formalized the local system of recruiting troops. It attracted a large number of feudal lords to military service and created an interest among the nobility in serving the sovereign. The creation of the noble cavalry had progressive significance in accordance with the requirements of the growing Russian state.

1. Local army

In the first years of the reign of Ivan III, the core of the Moscow army remained the grand-ducal “court”, the “courts” of appanage princes and boyars, consisting of “free servants”, “servants under the court” and boyar “servants”. With the annexation of new territories to the Moscow state, the number of squads that went into the service of the Grand Duke and replenished the ranks of his cavalry troops grew. The need to streamline this mass of military people, to establish uniform rules of service and material support forced the authorities to begin a reorganization of the armed forces, during which the petty princely and boyar vassalage turned into sovereign service people - landowners, who received conditional holdings of land dachas for their service.

This is how the mounted local army was created - the core and main striking force of the armed forces of the Moscow state. The bulk of the new army were nobles and boyar children. Only a few of them had the good fortune to serve under the Grand Duke as part of the “Sovereign's Court,” whose soldiers received more generous land and monetary salaries. Most of the boyars' children, transferring to Moscow service, remained at their previous place of residence or were resettled by the government to other cities. Being counted among the service people of any city, landowner soldiers were called city boyar children, organizing themselves into district corporations of Novgorod, Kostroma, Tver, Yaroslavl, Tula, Ryazan, Sviyazhsk and other boyar children.

Emerging in the 15th century. the difference in the official and financial status of the two main divisions of the largest category of service people - courtyards and city boyar children - persisted in the 16th and first half of the 17th centuries. Even during the Smolensk War of 1632–1634. Household and city local warriors were recorded in discharge records as completely different service people. Thus, in the army of princes D. M. Cherkassky and D. M. Pozharsky, who were going to help the army of governor M. B. Shein encircled near Smolensk, there were not only “cities”, but also a “court” sent on the campaign, with a list of those included into it “the captains and solicitors, and Moscow nobles, and tenants.” Having gathered in Mozhaisk with these military men, the governors had to go to Smolensk. However, in the “Estimate of all service people” 1650–1651. courtyard and city nobles and boyar children of different districts, Pyatina and stans were listed under one article. In this case, the reference to belonging to the “court” turned into an honorary name for landowners serving together with their “city.” Only elected nobles and boyar children were singled out, who were actually involved in service in Moscow in order of priority.

In the middle of the 16th century. From among the service people of the Sovereign's court, nobles are distinguished as a special category of troops. Before this, their official importance was assessed low, although the nobles were always closely connected with the Moscow princely court, tracing their origins from court servants and even serfs. The nobles, along with the boyars' children, received estates from the Grand Duke for temporary possession, and in wartime they went on campaigns with him or his governors, being his closest military servants. In an effort to preserve the cadres of the noble militia, the government limited their departure from service. First of all, the emasculation of service people was stopped: Article 81 of the Code of Law of 1550 prohibited accepting as serfs “children of Boar servicemen and their children who did not serve,” except for those “whom the sovereign would dismiss from service.”

When organizing the local army, in addition to the grand ducal servants, servants from the Moscow boyar courts (including serfs and servants) that had been dissolved for various reasons were accepted into service. They were allocated land that passed to them under conditional ownership rights. Such displacements became widespread soon after the annexation of the Novgorod land to the Moscow state and the withdrawal of local landowners from there. They, in turn, received estates in Vladimir, Murom, Nizhny Novgorod, Pereyaslavl, Yuryev-Polsky, Rostov, Kostroma “and in other cities.” According to the calculations of K.V. Bazilevich, of the 1,310 people who received estates in the Novgorod Pyatina, at least 280 belonged to the boyar servants. Apparently, the government was satisfied with the results of this action, subsequently repeating it when conquering counties that previously belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Service people were transferred there from the central regions of the country, receiving estates on lands confiscated from the local nobility, who, as a rule, were expelled from their possessions to other districts of the Moscow state.

In Novgorod in the late 1470s - early 1480s. included in the local distribution a fund of lands made up of obezhs confiscated from the Sophia House, monasteries and arrested Novgorod boyars. An even larger amount of Novgorod land went to the Grand Duke after a new wave of repressions that occurred in the winter of 1483/84, when “the Grand Duke captured more of the Novgorod boyars and boyars, and ordered their treasuries and villages to be assigned to himself, and He gave them estates in Moscow throughout the city, and he ordered other boyars who trembled at the king’s command to be imprisoned in prisons throughout the city.” The eviction of Novgorodians from their land holdings continued subsequently. Their estates were obligatorily assigned to the sovereign. The confiscation measures of the authorities ended with the confiscation in 1499 of a significant part of the lord's and monastic estates, which, “with the blessing of Metropolitan Simon,” was given to local distribution. By the middle of the 16th century. In the Novgorod Pyatina, more than 90% of all arable land was in local ownership.

S. B. Veselovsky, studying those carried out in Novgorod in the early 80s. XV century placement of service people, came to the conclusion that already at the first stage, those in charge of land allocation adhered to certain norms and rules. At that time, manor dachas “ranged from 20 to 60 obezh,” which at a later time amounted to 200–600 quarters of arable land. Similar standards apparently applied in other counties, where the distribution of land to estates also began. Later, with an increase in the number of service people, local salaries were reduced.

For faithful service, part of the estate could be granted to a serving person as a fief. D. F. Maslovsky believed that the patrimony was complained about only for “sitting under siege.” However, surviving documents suggest that the basis for such an award could be any proven difference in service. The most famous case of the mass grant of estates to the estates of distinguished servicemen occurred after the successful end of the siege of Moscow by the Poles in 1618. Apparently, this misled D. F. Maslovsky, but an interesting document has been preserved - the petition of Prince Alexei Mikhailovich Lvov with a request reward him for “Astrakhan service”, transferring part of the local salary to patrimonial salary. An interesting certificate was attached to the petition indicating similar cases. As an example, I. V. Izmailov is given, who in 1624 received 200 quarters of land as a patrimony with 1000 quarters of the local salary, “from one hundred quarters to twenty quarters<…>for the services that he was sent to Arzamas, and in Arzamas he built a city and made all sorts of fortresses.” It was this incident that gave rise to the satisfaction of Prince Lvov’s petition and the allocation of 200 quarters of land from 1000 quarters of his local salary to his estate. However, the prince was dissatisfied and, citing the example of other courtiers (Ivan Fedorovich Troekurov and Lev Karpov), who had previously been awarded estates, asked to increase the award. The government agreed with Prince Lvov’s arguments, and he received 600 quarters of land as his patrimony.

Another case of granting estates to the patrimony is also indicative. Serving foreigners “spitars” Yuri Bessonov and Yakov Bez On September 30, 1618, during the siege of Moscow by the army of the Polish prince Vladislav, they went over to the Russian side and revealed the enemy’s plans. Thanks to this message, the night assault on the Arbat Gate of the White City by the Poles was repulsed. The “spitarshchiki” were accepted into the Russian service, received estates, but subsequently filed petitions for their transfer to estates. The petitions of Yu. Bessonov and Ya. Beza were granted.

The formation of the local militia was an important milestone in the development of the armed forces of the Moscow state. Their numbers increased significantly, and the military structure of the state finally received a clear organization.

A.V. Chernov, one of the most authoritative specialists in Russian science on the history of the Russian armed forces, was inclined to exaggerate the shortcomings of the local militia, which, in his opinion, were inherent in the noble army from the moment of its inception. In particular, he noted that the local army, like any militia, gathered only when a military danger arose. The collection of troops, which was carried out by the entire central and local state apparatus, was extremely slow, and the militia had time to prepare for military action only within a few months. With the elimination of the military danger, the noble regiments dispersed to their homes, stopping service until a new gathering. The militia was not subject to systematic military training. Independent preparation of each serviceman for going on a campaign was practiced; the weapons and equipment of the soldiers of the noble militia were very diverse, not always meeting the requirements of the command. In the above list of shortcomings in the organization of local cavalry, there is much that is true. However, the researcher does not project them onto the conditions for building a new (local) military system, under which the government needed to quickly replace the existing combined army, which was a poorly organized combination of princely squads, boyar detachments and city regiments, with a more effective military force. In this regard, one should agree with the conclusion of N. S. Borisov, who noted that “along with the widespread use of detachments of serving Tatar “princes,” the creation of noble cavalry opened the way to hitherto unimaginable military enterprises.” The combat capabilities of the local army were fully revealed in the wars of the 16th century. This allowed A. A. Strokov, who was familiar with the conclusions of A. V. Chernov, to disagree with him on this issue. “The nobles who served in the cavalry,” he wrote, “were interested in military service and prepared for it from childhood. Russian cavalry in the 16th century. had good weapons, was distinguished by quick actions and swift attacks on the battlefield.”

Speaking about the advantages and disadvantages of the noble militia, it is impossible not to mention that the main enemy of the Moscow state, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, had a similar system of organizing troops at that time. In 1561, the Polish king and Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund II Augustus was forced, when gathering troops, to demand that “princes, lords, boyars, gentry in all places and estates should take responsibility for themselves, so that anyone capable and capable of serving the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would be straightened out.” and every one rode to war in the same barve, heavy servants and tall horses. And on each plow, there is a zbroya, a tarch, a tree with an ensign under the Statutu.” It is significant that the list of weapons of military servants does not contain firearms. Stefan Batory was also forced to convene the Lithuanian Commonwealth, who was skeptical about the fighting qualities of the gentry militia, which, as a rule, gathered in small numbers, but with great delay. The opinion of the most warlike of the Polish kings was completely shared by Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, who became acquainted with the structure of the Lithuanian army during his exile in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Let's quote his review full of sarcasm:

“As soon as they hear the barbarian presence, they will hide in the hard cities; and truly worthy of laughter: having armed themselves with armor, they sit at the table with goblets, and tell stories with their drunken women, but they don’t want to leave the city gates, even right in front of the place, but under the hail, there was a slaughter from the infidels against Christians.” However, in the most difficult moments for the country, both in Russia and in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the noble cavalry performed remarkable feats that mercenary troops could not even imagine. Thus, the Lithuanian cavalry, despised by Batory, during the period when the king was unsuccessfully besieging Pskov, almost destroying his army under its walls, carried out a raid deep into Russian territory (a 3,000-strong detachment of Christopher Radziwill and Philon Kmita). The Lithuanians reached the outskirts of Zubtsov and Staritsa, terrifying Ivan the Terrible, who was in Staritsa. It was then that the tsar decided to abandon the cities and castles conquered in the Baltic states in order to end the war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at any cost.

However, the raid of H. Radziwill and F. Kmita is very reminiscent of the frequent Russian invasions of Lithuanian territory during the Russian-Lithuanian wars of the first half of the 16th century, when Moscow cavalry reached not only Orsha, Polotsk, Vitebsk and Drutsk, but also the outskirts of Vilna .

The real misfortune of the Russian local army was the “absence” of nobles and boyar children (failure to appear for service), as well as their flight from the regiments. During protracted wars, the owner of the estate, forced to abandon the farm at the first order of the authorities, rose to serve, as a rule, without great desire, and at the first opportunity he tried to evade fulfilling his duty. “Netstvo” not only reduced the armed forces of the state, but also had a negative impact on military discipline, forcing them to spend a lot of effort to return the “nettschiki” to duty. However, “netness” took on a mass character only in the last years of the Livonian War and was of a forced nature, as it was associated with the ruin of the farms of service people, many of whom could not “rise” to serve. The government tried to fight the “netchiks” and organized a system of searching, punishing and returning them to duty. Later, it introduced mandatory third-party guarantees for the proper performance of service by every nobleman or son of a boyar.

“Noness” intensified during the Time of Troubles, persisting as a phenomenon subsequently. In the conditions of the real ruin of many service people, the government was forced to carefully examine the reason for the landowners’ failure to appear in the army, bringing to justice only those nobles and boyars’ children who were “fit to be in the service.” Thus, in 1625, 16 servicemen (out of 70 soldiers who were ordered to go on a campaign) did not arrive at the appointed gathering place in Dedilovo from Kolomna. Of these, four “have never been in the service,” but “according to the fairy tale, [they] can be in the service.” The other twelve landowners from among those who did not show up are “useless and poor, it is not possible to be in the service.” 326 Ryazan nobles and boyar children arrived in the regiments. There were 54 people in the “nontechnical” group, of which “two Ryazans were not in the service”, “and according to the fairy tale of the nobles and boyar children it was possible to be in the service<…>25 people are uncrossed and poor, and others wander around the courtyard, they cannot be in the service.” The rest of the absent landowners were sick, on duty, on call in Moscow, or received other assignments. The ratio of the number of servicemen absent from the regiments for objective reasons and actually evading military duty is interesting - these turned out to be 12 to 4 according to the Kolomna list and 54 to 2 according to the Ryazan list.

The royal decree was issued only about the latter. An order was sent to Kolomna and Ryazan: to subtract 100 cheti from their local salary to the “netchiki”, who “can be in the service” but who were not in the regiments, “and from their cash salary from quarters and from city money a quarter.” The punishment was not very severe. In wartime, the entire estate of servicemen who fled from service or did not arrive in the regiments could be confiscated “irrevocably”, and taking into account significant mitigating circumstances - “subtract from the local salary of fifty cheti, money of two rubles, in order to steal and running away from work [was] not common.” The "netchiki" deprived of their estates could again receive a land salary, but they had to achieve it through diligent and efficient service. They were re-installed from escheated, abandoned and confiscated hidden lands.

In the frequent wars and campaigns of that time, the local cavalry, despite significant shortcomings, generally demonstrated good training and the ability to win in the most difficult circumstances. Defeats were caused, as a rule, by mistakes and incompetence of governors (for example, Prince M.I. Golitsa Bulgakov and I.A. Chelyadnin in the Battle of Orsha on September 8, 1514, Prince D.F. Belsky in the battle on the Oka River 28 July 1521, Prince D. I. Shuisky in the Battle of Klushino on June 24, 1610), surprise of an enemy attack (battle on the Ula River on January 26, 1564), numerical superiority of the enemy, treason in his camp (events near Kromy on May 7, 1605 G.). Even in these battles, many of the service people who participated in them “for the fatherland” showed true courage and devotion to duty. Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky spoke extremely commendably about the fighting qualities of the Russian local cavalry, writing that during the Kazan campaign of 1552 the best Russian warriors were the “gentry of the Murom district.” Chronicles and documents contain references to the exploits performed by servicemen in battles with the enemy. One of the most famous heroes was the Suzdal son of the boyar Ivan Shibaev, son of Alalykin, who captured Diveya-Murza, the most prominent Tatar military leader, on July 30, 1572 in the battle near the village of Molodi. The courage and military skill of the Russian nobles were also recognized by their enemies. Thus, about the son of the boyar Ulyan Iznoskov, captured in 1580 during the second campaign of Stefan Batory, Jan Zborovsky wrote: “He defended himself well and was badly wounded.”

In order to check the combat readiness of the landowner soldiers in Moscow and the cities, general reviews (“reviews”) of the nobles and boyars’ children enrolled in the service were often held... At the reviews, the children of the landowners who had grown up and were already fit for service were selected for service. At the same time, they were assigned a “new” land and cash salary corresponding to their “verst”. Information about such appointments was recorded in the “ten” - lists of county service people. In addition to the layout ones, there were “tithes”, “collapsible” and “distributing” ones, designed to record the attitude of landowners to the performance of their official duties. In addition to names and salaries, they included information about the armament of each serviceman, the number of military slaves and koshev people assigned to him, the number of male children, the estates and estates in their possession, information about his previous service, the reasons for his failure to appear at the " analysis”, if necessary - indications of wounds, injuries and general health. Depending on the results of the review, those who showed zeal and readiness for service to nobles and boyar children could have their land and cash salaries increased, and, conversely, land and cash salaries could be significantly reduced for landowners convicted of poor military training. The first reviews of nobles and boyar children were held in 1556, shortly after the adoption of the Service Code of 1555/1556. At the same time, the term “tithe” itself was introduced into use. The need to draw up such documents became obvious during large-scale military reforms " Elected Rada" All collapsible, distributing and layout “tithes” had to be sent to Moscow and stored in the Rank Order, notes were made on them about official appointments, diplomatic and military assignments, parcels with seunch, participation in campaigns, battles, battles and sieges; distinctions and awards, additions to local and monetary salaries, wounds and injuries that interfered with service, captivity, death and its causes were recorded. Lists of “tithes” were submitted to the Local Order to provide the service people listed in them with land salaries.

Land grants allocated on the basis of “analysis” were called “dachas”, the sizes of which often differed significantly from the salary and depended on the land fund being distributed. Initially, the size of the “dachas” was significant, but with the increase in the number of service people “at home” they began to noticeably decrease. At the end of the 16th century, cases became widespread when a landowner owned land several times less than his salary (sometimes 5 times less). Non-residential estates (not provided for by peasants) were also distributed. Thus, other service people had to engage in peasant labor to feed themselves. Fractional estates appeared, consisting of several properties scattered in different places. The increase in their number is associated with the famous decree of Simeon Bekbulatovich, which contained an order to allocate the children of boyars to lands only in those districts in which they serve, but this order was not carried out. In 1627, the government returned to this issue again, prohibiting Novgorod service people from having estates in “other cities.” However, attempts to limit local land ownership to the borders of one county could not be carried out - the Local Order, in the conditions of a constant shortage of empty land, constant disputes over the dachas assigned according to the salary, but not received, was unable to fulfill such instructions. The documents describe cases when a nobleman or a boyar's son who was recruited into service did not receive a local dacha at all. Thus, in the scribe book of the Zvenigorod district of 1592–1593, it is noted that of the 11 courtyard children of the boyars of the 3rd article, for whom, during the layout, a salary of 100 quarters of land was determined, 1 person received a dacha more than a certain norm - 125 quarters, four received estates " not in full,” and 6 boyar children did not receive anything, although they were entitled to “800 children of the good land.” In the Kazan district, some service people had only 4-5 quarters of land on their estate, and Baibek Islamov, despite the strict ban, was even forced to “plow the tribute land.” In 1577, when checking the petitions of the boyars’ children from Putivl and Rylsk, it turned out that only 69 service people owned estates in these districts, and besides, they were placed “on an incomplete salary, some in the floors, and others in the third and fourth lots, and others were given little for their estates.” At the same time, it was discovered that in Putivl and Rylsky districts “99 people were not displaced.” Since they were all serving, the government paid them a salary “in their salaries” - 877 rubles. , but could not allocate estates. This state of affairs continued subsequently. In 1621, in one of the “collapsible” books, preserved only in fragments, it was noted that Ya. F. Vorotyntsev, whose local salary was 150 quarters of land, and his monetary salary was 5 rubles, “there is not a single estate in his dachas.” honor." Nevertheless, the irreplaceable warrior arrived at the review, although without a horse, but with a self-propelled gun and a spear.

In the event that the local dacha was less than the assigned salary, then a rule was in force according to which a “not fully posted” nobleman or boyar’s son was not exempt from military service, but received some relaxation in the conditions of service: servicemen of limited capacity were not assigned to long campaigns, they tried to free them from guard and village service. Their destiny was to perform siege (garrison) service, sometimes even “foot” service. In 1597, in Ryazhsk, 78 (out of 759) servicemen were transferred to “siege service”, receiving 20 quarters of land, but deprived of cash salaries. Those who were completely impoverished were automatically dropped out of the service. Such cases are recorded in documents. So, in 1597, during the analysis of the Murom nobles and the children of the boyars, it was established that “Menshichko Ivanov son Lopatin<…>He has nothing to serve in the future, and they don’t hold bail for him, and he hasn’t been to Moscow for inspection.” This boyar's son owned only 12 quarters of the estate; such a tiny landholding was far from being equal to the largest peasant plot. “Ivashko and Trofimko Semenov’s children, the Meshcherinovs,” had even less land. They had the same “fiefdom” for 12 quarters between them. Naturally, the Meshcherinov brothers also could not serve and “did not go to Moscow for the review.”

The number of city nobles and boyar children recruited into service in each district depended on the amount of land freed up in that area for local distribution. Thus, in 1577, in Kolomna district there were 310 nobles and boyar children (in 1651 in Kolomna there were 256 elected, courtyard and city boyar children, 99 of whom signed up for the Reitar service), in 1590 in Pereyaslavl-Zalessky - 107 service people “in the fatherland” (in 1651 - 198 people; of which 46 were in the “raitar”); in 1597, in Murom, famous for its warriors, there were 154 landowners (in 1651 - 180; of which 12 were reitar ). The largest number of serving nobles and boyar children had such large cities as Novgorod, where in five Pyatina more than 2000 people were recruited into service (in 1651 - 1534 nobles and 21 local newly baptized), Pskov - more than 479 people (in 1651 - 333 people, including 91 Pustorzhevtsy and 44 Nevlyan residents settled in the Pskov district, who lost their old estates after the transfer of Nevel to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth under the Deulin Truce of 1618 and remained with the Polish-Lithuanian state after the unsuccessful Smolensk War of 1632–1634).

The local and monetary salaries of courtyard and city nobles and boyar children ranged from 20 to 700 quarters and from 4 to 14 rubles. in year. The most honored people of the “Moscow list” received a land salary: stewards up to 1500 quarters, solicitors up to 950 quarters, Moscow nobles up to 900 quarters, tenants up to 400 quarters. Their salary ranged from 90 to 200 rubles. from stolniks, 15–65 rubles. from solicitors, 10–25 rubles. from Moscow nobles and 10 rubles. from the residents.

The correct establishment of salaries for newly recruited nobles and boyar children was the most important task of the officials conducting the reviews. As a rule, “novices” received a local and monetary salary of three articles, but exceptions are known. Let us give several examples of determining local and monetary salaries for newly recruited nobles and boyar children:

In 1577, Kolomna “noviki” according to the “yard list” were divided into only 2 articles:

1st article - 300 quarters of land, money 8 rubles each.

2nd article - 250 quarters of land, money 7 rubles each.

But in the same Kolomna, the “noviki” who were listed “with the city” were promoted to 4 articles with slightly lower salaries:

4th article - 100 quarters of land, money 4 rubles each.

In Murom in 1597, “noviki” according to the “yard list” of 3 articles received land salaries even more colonists, but all of them were paid the same salary:

1st article - 400 quarters of land, money 7 rubles each.

2nd article - 300 quarters of land, money 7 rubles each.

3rd article - 250 quarters of land, money 7 rubles each.

The Murom “city” “noviki” were divided into 4 articles, the first of which, in comparison with the Kolomna “noviki”, had an increased land salary, but a reduced monetary one:

1st article - 300 quarters of land, money 6 rubles each.

2nd article - 250 quarters of land, money 6 rubles each.

3rd article - 200 quarters of land, money 5 rubles each.

4th article - 100 quarters of land, money 5 rubles each.

In 1590 in Veliky Novgorod, during the formation of the “novikov”, many of whom served as unformed “for five years or so,” boyar Prince. Nikita Romanovich Trubetskoy and clerk Posnik Dmitriev divided service people into 3 articles:

1st article - 250 quarters of land, money 7 rubles each.

2nd article - 200 quarters of land, money 6 rubles each.

3rd article - 150 quarters of land, money 5 rubles each.

Such size of layout should be recognized as very high, because in the southern cities, even when “noviki” were recruited into the stanitsa and guard service, which was considered more honorable and dangerous in comparison with the regimental service, local salaries were significantly lower, although the monetary salary corresponded to the Novgorod one. For example, in 1576, during the analysis of service people in Putivl and Rylsk, “noviki”, divided into three articles, received in Putivl:

1st article - 160 quarters of land, money 7 rubles each.

2nd article - 130 quarters of land, money 6 rubles each.

3rd article - 100 quarters of land, money 5 rubles each.

In the scribe book of the Zvenigorod district of 1592–1593. land “new” salaries were almost three times lower:

1st article - 70 quarters of land.

2nd article - 60 quarters of land.

3rd article - 50 quarters of land.

In this case, only local salaries were indicated, cash salaries were not taken into account, and possibly were not paid. Some of the “newcomers” received the land on the estate “not in full”, while others remained without any place. A service man could receive the land dacha due to him and an increase to it through good service and demonstrated distinction in the performance of the duties and assignments assigned to him.

In 1604, when the children of the boyars of the Ryazan archbishop were recruited into the service, they were divided into six articles, with the following local and monetary salaries:

1st article - 300 quarters of land, money 10 rubles each.

2nd article - 250 quarters of land, money 9 rubles each.

3rd article - 200 quarters of land, money 8 rubles each.

4th article - 150 quarters of land, money 7 rubles each.

Article 5 - 120 quarters of land, money 6 rubles each.

Article 6 - 100 quarters of land, money 5 rubles each.

In the same 1604, when the okolnichy Stepan Stepanovich established “newcomers” from Suzdal, Vladimir, Yuryev Polsky, Pereyaslavl-Zvalessky, Mozhaisk, Medyn, Yaroslavl, Zvenigorod, Gorokhovets and other cities, they were also divided into 5 and even 6 articles.

The data presented is very eloquent. They testify to the fallacy of P.P. Epifanov’s statement about the establishment of “a salary determined by law for estates.” As data from tithes and scribe books show, in each district salaries had their own limits, which varied greatly from each other. The determining factor in each specific case was the size of the land fund that was distributed locally. The authorities tried not to lower the salary below a certain level (50 quarters of land), preferring to leave some service people without local dachas.

After the great “ruin” of the early 17th century. The government, experiencing serious financial difficulties, temporarily stopped paying wages to the city boyar children. In the book compiled in 1622. I. F. Khovansky and clerk V. Yudin made characteristic notes about “dismantled” service people in “Ten Different Cities”: “He can serve without a salary,” with the obligatory addition “but only the sovereign will grant him a cash salary and he will add more service." The above also applied to the elected nobleman Ivan Ivanovich Poltev, who had a salary of 900 quarters, and 340 quarters in the local dacha (of which 180 were granted as patrimony). He went to work without a salary on horseback, in a saadak and with a saber, accompanied by a serf “on a gelding with a squeak.” If he is paid the required 40 rubles. Poltev promised to “add more services” and put on “bekhterets and shishak” and bring another servant “on horseback in a saadak with a saber.” Similar promises were made by other service people interested in receiving a cash salary. Some of them, for example Andrei Stepanovich Neelov, could not get into the service without a salary.

Due to the limited land fund, local land ownership was most regulated in the Moscow district. In October 1550, when determining the rate of employment of 1000 “best servants” here, the government decided to divide them into three articles with salaries of 200, 150 and 100 quarters of land. Compared to the local salaries of boyar children in other cities, for the first and second articles they were almost half as much. However, the government soon managed to increase the salaries of the nobles of the “bigger category” of the Moscow district. Already in 1578, he determined the local salary at 250, 300 and even 400 quarters. For service people of the second and third articles, salaries remained unchanged. However, boyar children placed near Moscow received an increased salary - 12 rubles. landowners of the 1st article, 10 rubles. - 2nd article and 8 rubles. - 3rd article. Subsequently, the norms for local distributions in the Moscow district were again reduced. In accordance with the Decree of 1586/1587 and the Council Code of 1649, boyars received no more than 200 quarters per person near Moscow, okolnichi and Duma clerks - 150 quarters, stewards, solicitors, Moscow nobles, heads of Moscow archers, sedate and respectable key holders - 100 quarters, “nobles from the cities who serve by choice” - 50 quarters according to the Decree of 1586/1587 and 70 quarters according to the Code, tenants, grooms, centurions of the Moscow archers - 50 quarters, courtyard solicitors, sytniks and boyar children “Tsaritsyn” rank" - 10 quarters, from every 100 quarters of their local salary, clerks "who sit at work by order" - 8 quarters. The rest of the land salary, which exceeded the norm for local distributions near Moscow, was allocated to them in other districts.

In the second half of the 16th century. The military service of nobles and boyar children was divided into city (siege) and regimental. Siege service was carried out either by small estates with salaries of 20 chietas or by those who were unable for health reasons to perform regimental (march) service; in the latter case, part of the estates was taken away from the boyars' children. Siege service was carried out on foot; it could only be carried out “from the ground”, from local estates; No monetary salary was paid to soldiers serving in siege service. For the proper performance of duties, land-poor nobles and boyar children could be transferred from siege service to regimental service with an increase in local salary and the issuance of a cash salary. Retired nobles and boyar children who could not perform regimental service due to old age, illness or severe injuries continued to be included in the city (siege) service. Thus, in the collapsible “tithe” of 1622, among the Kasimov landowners there was an “elected” nobleman Vasily Grigorievich Chikhachev, who had 150 quarters of land, on which 18 peasants and 5 peasants lived. According to the salarymen’s tale, those conducting the analysis, Prince Ivan Fedorovich Khovansky and clerk Vasily Yudin, noted that “Vasily is old and crippled from wounds, without an arm and sick with an internal disease - his guts are floating out.” Recognizing that Chikhachev “was unable to serve in regimental and nearby service due to old age and illness due to injury,” the drafters of the document did not give the one-armed veteran a final resignation, writing down that “Moscow or city service is appropriate for him.” Among the 27 Kaluga residents enrolled in the city service in 1626, 4 had no estates, and another 12 were peasants. In 1651, in the Ryazan district there were 71 retired landowners listed in the city service. In total, according to the “Estimate of all service people” compiled that year, there were 203 retired (old, crippled and sick) and poor children of the boyars “assigned to the city service” in all districts. Only very old and crippled veterans received final retirement. People like Bogdan Semenovich Gubarev, who after 43 years of military service lost the remnants of his health and in 1614 sent a petition to Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. The old warrior asked for his dismissal from service “due to old age and injury” and for the grant of an estate to his young children. When examining Bogdan Gubarev in the Discharge, it was discovered that he was “old and crippled from wounds, his left arm below the elbow was crossed with a saber and could not control his hand, his left cheek and ear were cut off, and he was pierced through the cheeks with a squeaker and his teeth were knocked out.” Only then was he released from service, obliging his sons (7, 5 and 4 years old) to send a Danish man to war until they came of age.

Regimental service was long-distance (march) and short-range (Ukrainian, coastal). In peacetime, it was reduced to the constant protection of borders, mainly southern ones. If necessary, city nobles and children of boyars of “lesser status” were attracted to the serf service, the wealthier ones (who had from 10 to 300 quarters of land), “who would be horse-drawn people, and young in appearance, and playful, and prostituted”, were attracted to the stanitsa service, appointing as senior over them the most wealthy - who had salaries of 400–500 quarters. The increased salary in this case also implied a maximum measure of responsibility - the nobles appointed by the village heads had to conscientiously fulfill the duties assigned to them.

Moscow service people (the most prominent part of the nobility - stolniks, solicitors, Moscow nobles and tenants, heads and centurions of the Moscow archers) were in a more privileged position compared to the city boyar children. Local salaries of soldiers of the Sovereign Regiment ranged from 500 to 1000 quarters, and cash salaries from 20 to 100 rubles; many of them had large estates.

In the regiments, Moscow service people occupied command positions of governors, their comrades, centurion heads, etc. The total number of stewards, solicitors, Moscow nobles and residents was small - no more than 2–3 thousand people in the 16th century, 3700 in the middle XVII century They brought into service a significant number of military servants (battle serfs), thanks to which the number of the Tsar’s regiment reached 20 thousand people (in the Kazan campaign of 1552), and with the participation of “elected” nobles and children of boyars, and more.

The landowners of one district, called up for service, were formed at assembly points of hundreds; from the remnants of the district hundreds, mixed hundreds were created; they were all distributed on the shelves. After the end of the service, the nobles and boyar children went home, hundreds broke up and were formed again the next time they were called up for service. Thus, hundreds, like regiments, were only temporary military units of local militia.

The earliest information about the composition and armament of nobles and boyar children dates back to 1556, when a review was carried out in Kashira by the boyars Kurlyatev and Yuryev and the clerk Vyluzga. When summing up its results, we will consider only those nobles and boyar children whose local salaries are shown; There are 222 such people in the Kashira “tithe”. In terms of their property status, these persons belonged mainly to the middle-class nobility: they had estates of 100–250 quarters (on average 165 quarters). They came to the review on horseback (without exception), and many even “double-horse” - with two horses. It was reported about the weapons of the Kashirians in the “tithe”: 41 warriors had a saadak, 19 had a spear, 9 had a spear, 1 had an ax; 152 servicemen arrived at the review without any weapons. The drafters of the document noted that 49 landowners had protective weapons (armor).

The review was attended by 224 noble people - serfs (except for Koshevoys - convoys), including 129 unarmed people. The remaining 95 military servants had the following weapons: saadak and saber - 15 people, saadak and spear - 5, saadak and spear - 2, saadak - 41, spear - 15, spear - 16 and arquebus - 1 person. Of the 224 combat serfs, 45 were in protective equipment, all had horses. Consequently, there were no fewer noble servants than the landowners themselves, and they were armed no worse than the landowners.

How the noble cavalry changed at the end of the 16th century is shown by the “tithe” in the city of Kolomna in 1577. Kolomna nobles and boyar children (283 people) belonged to the average landowners, but came to the review armed better than the Kashiryans. Almost everyone had the same weapons: saadak and saber. Many of them had good defensive weapons; most of the Kolomna boyar children went on a campaign, accompanied by fighting serfs or at least mounted “people with yuk (pack).”

At the end of the 16th century. The government made attempts to strengthen the combat effectiveness of the local cavalry. Thus, in 1594, during an inspection of the children of the boyars of the city of Ryazhsk, most of them were ordered to serve with arquebuses. The Ryazhsky landowners, armed with firearms, were distributed among 6 hundreds, commanded by S. A. Khirin (50 boyar children, including “newcomers”), R. G. Baturin (47 boyar children), G. S. Lykov (51 boyar sons), A. N. Shchetinin (49 boyar children), V. R. Ozerov (50 boyar children) and T. S. Shevrigin (47 boyar children). In total, 294 landowners served in the units of horse squeakers, not counting their centurions.

Regarding the total number of local militia at the end of the 16th century. There are indications in the special work of S. M. Seredonin on the armed forces of the Russian state. The author came to the conclusion that the total number of nobles and boyar children at the end of the 16th century. did not exceed 25 thousand people. Seredonin calculated that these landowners, having an average of 200 quarters of estates or estates, had to bring 2 people with them. Thus, the total number of cavalry from nobles and boyar children with their people was about 75 thousand people. These calculations by the author for the 16th century. A.V. Chernov clarified quite convincingly, noting that from 200 quarters of land the landowner had to bring, according to the Code of 1555/1556, not two, but one armed man, since from half of the specified land (100 quarters) he served myself. Consequently, in the 16th century. the total number of noble militia was not 75, but 50 thousand people. Moreover, the surviving “tithes” for the second half of the 16th century. show that the nobles and boyar children very carelessly brought with them armed people due to them under the Code of 1555/1556 (the ruin affected service class during the years of the oprichnina and the Livonian War), therefore the local cavalry in these years numbered significantly less than 50 thousand people. After the famine of the early 17th century, which forced service landowners to get rid of military slaves who had become superfluous parasites, the number of military servants accompanying their “sovereigns” to war decreased. The impossibility of complying with the old standards of military service, determined by the Code of 1555/1556, was also recognized by the government. In 1604, the Council Judgment ordered that serfs be sent on campaign not from 100, but from 200 quarters of land.

In the middle of the 17th century, despite the loss of the western and northwestern territories, the number of service people “at home” increased slightly. This happened due to the removal of the “noviki” and the nobles and children of the boyars removed from the lands given to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, who received new dachas in the southern counties and entered the local distribution of black-growing volosts. According to the “Estimate of all service people” of 1650/1651, there were 37,763 nobles and boyar children in all cities, Pyatina and camps of the Moscow State. In Moscow there were “on the list” 420 stewards, 314 solicitors, 1248 Moscow nobles, 57 foreigners “who serve with Moscow nobles”, 1661 tenants - a total of 3700 people. Unfortunately, the compilers of the Estimates did not indicate the number of combat slaves provided by servicemen, however, according to the most minimal estimates, there were then at least 40–50 thousand people.

Boyar people or military serfs were military servants whom landowners and patrimonial owners brought from the land according to the norm determined by the Code of 1555/1556, armed and on horseback. A.V. Chernov, speaking about the boyar people, wrote about the independent combat significance of military servants in the Russian army. As an example, he used the siege of Kazan in 1552, during which, according to the historian, “the boyar people, together with the archers and Cossacks, bore the brunt of the siege and capture of the city on their shoulders.” Moreover, Chernov continues, in military operations under the walls of the Tatar capital, military slaves acted separately from the nobles. Like other military men, they were formed into special detachments (hundreds) with their own heads, and in some cases had an independent regimental organization. The historian's assumptions are unconvincing. The basis of the marching Russian army, as shown above, were regiments of noble cavalry, into which riflemen and Cossack orders, instruments and hundreds were distributed; in reliable There are no references to “servile” regiments and hundreds in documentary sources. Sometimes military servants were used in prefabricated units assigned to storm enemy fortresses, but as part of infantry columns, the basis of which were archers and Cossacks, under the command of heads and centurions from the nobles. This is exactly what happened near Kazan in 1552 and near Narva in 1590.