Did Ivan the Terrible kill his son? Did Ivan the Terrible kill his son? What to do with Ivan in GTA 4

The fact that Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich killed his own son has been known to everyone since school. And many people have probably seen Repin’s painting of the same name. However, it is quite possible that the king never raised his hand against his son John.

Was there a motive?

Detectives say almost every crime has a motive. Ivan the Terrible also had it. However, none of the motives put forward by historians stands up to criticism.

Karamzin also claimed that there were political disagreements between the tsar and his son. Allegedly, the Tsarevich demanded from his father that he expel the Russian enemies from Pskov. However, Ivan the Terrible believed that his son wanted to overthrow him from the throne and hit him with a rod. But this version was first voiced by Antonio Possevino, who was the papal legate, and therefore simply could not be an independent witness to this tragedy.

Moreover, it was Possevino who was the author of a completely different version, according to which the father killed his son for domestic reasons. Possevino claimed that the pregnant wife of the Tsarevich Elena came out of her chambers with her clothes open. Grozny reprimanded her and rewarded her with a couple of slaps. The woman could not stand on her feet and fell, as a result of which she lost her child. The son came to his father and called him the culprit of what happened. He flared up and hit John.

Moreover, none of the historians will say that Ivan the Terrible committed the murder intentionally. Rather, they will agree that the king was in a state of passion. However, he still had time to come to his senses. The fact is that when Ivan the Terrible swung his staff for the first time, Boris Godunov stopped him.

We should also not forget that John Ioannovich was the tsar’s favorite son, his hope, the only heir at that time, since his other son, Feodor, was not yet suitable to become head of state.

What do the chronicles say?

There was also no mention in the chronicles that Ivan the Terrible killed his son. Novgorod, Moscow and many other chroniclers equally cover the death of the Tsarevich: “John Ioannovich reposed.” Not a single document contained even a hint of a criminal version of death.

Murder or disease?

In 1885, the writer and historian Pobedonostsev, having seen Rrein’s painting, was indignant and sent a message to Emperor Alexander III that this picture could in no way be classified as historical, since “this moment (meaning, the moment of the murder) is purely fantastic.” .

Metropolitan John also questioned this murder. In his work “Autocracy of the Spirit,” he claimed that the Tsarevich died from a serious illness. Moreover, the Metropolitan also mentioned the absence in the chronicles of any information about the crime that had occurred.

Journalist Manyagin, in his work “The Leader of the Militant Church,” also claims that the Tsarevich died from a physical illness. True, this illness was caused by nothing more than a toxic substance.

Exhumation of bodies

In his book, Manyagin writes that in 1963, the graves of the royals and their entourage were opened in the Kremlin. Among them were the graves of Ivan the Terrible and his sons. As a result of a thorough examination of the remains, it turned out that the bones of Tsarevich John contained mercury. Its quantity was several times higher than the norm. Some scientists have suggested that this fact is a consequence of rubbing mercury ointments, which in those days were actively used to treat syphilis. However, this version also fell apart when the analysis showed no signs of this disease in the heir.

Moreover, high levels of mercury were also found in the remains of Ivan the Terrible himself, as well as his mother and wife. Historians suggest that someone deliberately and regularly poisoned all members of the royal family. So the question of whether Ivan the Terrible killed his son remains open.

Fragment of Ilya Repin’s painting “Ivan the Terrible Kills His Son”

But Grozny didn’t kill his son!

Having seen a new painting at an exhibition in St. Petersburg in 1885 Ilya Repin“Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan November 16, 1581,” which later became known under the simplified title “Ivan the Terrible kills his son,” the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod and the outstanding Russian thinker Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev was extremely indignant at its plot, in which fiction was presented for fact, and wrote to Emperor Alexander III: “The picture cannot be called historical, since this moment ... is purely fantastic.”

Why did the prince die?

Indeed, the fact of the murder of his son Tsarevich Ivan by Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible until recently seemed indisputable, because it was reflected even in school textbooks, as one of the evidence of the alleged cruelty of the Russian Orthodox Autocracy. And no one wondered where this fact came from in historical literature. Only Metropolitan John of St. Petersburg and Ladoga first refuted this slander against the tsar in his book “Autocracy of the Spirit,” where he proved that Tsarevich John died of heavy and that in the historical documents that have reached us there is no hint of filicide.

But what do the documents say? In the Moscow Chronicle for 7090 (1581 - N.Sh.) written: "... Tsarevich John Ioannovich reposed". The Piskarevsky chronicler indicates in more detail: “...at 12 o’clock in the night of the summer of November 7090 on the 17th day... the death of Tsarevich John Ioannovich”. The fourth Novgorod chronicle says: “The same year (7090) Tsarevich John Ioannovich reposed at Matins in Sloboda...” The Morozov Chronicle states: “... Tsarevich John Ioannovich passed away”. As we see, not a word about murder. As for the facts testifying to the death of Tsarevich John from poisoning, they are completely justified. V.V. Manyagin in his book “The Leader of the Militant Church” (2003) writes: “As for the disease, we can say definitely - it was sublimate poisoning. The death caused by it is painful, and the dose causing such an outcome does not exceed 0.18 grams.”.

Who installed this?

"IN 1963 year in the Moscow Kremlin Cathedral, writes Manyagin, four tombs were opened: Ivan the Terrible, Tsarevich Ivan, Tsar Theodore Ioannovich and commander Skopin-Shuisky. When examining the remains, the version of the poisoning of Tsar Ivan the Terrible was verified. Scientists found that the arsenic content was approximately the same in all four skeletons and did not exceed the norm. But in the bones of Tsar John and Tsarevich John, a presence was discovered that far exceeded the permissible norm. Some historians have tried to argue that this is not poisoning at all, but a consequence of treating syphilis with mercury ointments. However, studies have shown that no syphilitic changes were found in the remains of the king and prince. After a study of the burials of the Moscow Grand Duchesses and Tsarinas was carried out in the 1990s, the fact of poisoning with the same sublimate was identified as the mother of Ivan Vasilyevich, Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya (died in 1538), and his first wife Anastasia Romanova (died in 1560) . This indicates that the royal family was victim of poisoners(see: Korobov P. “The Tsar’s Tomb.” - “Nezavisimaya Gazeta”, 2000, April 26).

The data from these studies made it possible to assert that Tsarevich John was poisoned(see “Results”, No. 37 (327), 2002, September 17, p. 38-39). The poison content in his remains is many times higher than the permissible limit. Thus, Soviet history refutes the version of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich’s murder of his son.”

The myth of filicide was created by foreigners

Who is the author of the slander against Ivan the Terrible? The names of this writer and his followers are known. Their inventions are only links in a chain of false fabrications about our great past. Metropolitan John believed that “the testimony of foreigners had a decisive influence on the formation of the Russo-hating beliefs of “historical science.” The outstanding researcher of antiquity Sergei Paramonov spoke about the same thing in the book “Where are you from, Rus'?”, which he published under the pseudonym Sergei Lesnoy: “Our history was written by Germans who did not know or knew Russian poorly”.

An example of this is the false Norman theory, the myth of the calling of the Varangians and other myths. The fact that the authors of works on Russian history were the Soviet academician B.A. Rybakov. He wrote, in particular: “During the time of Bironovism, when it turned out to be very difficult to defend the Russian principle in anything, in St. Petersburg, among scientists invited from the German principalities, the idea was born of the Slavs borrowing statehood from the North German tribes. The Slavs of the 9th-10th centuries were recognized as “living in a bestial manner” (an expression of the Normans), and the northern robber detachments of the Varangian Normans, who were hired to serve various rulers and kept Northern Europe in fear, were declared the builders and creators of the state. So, under the pen of Siegfried Bayer, Gerarda Miller and Augusta Schlözer the idea of ​​Normanism was born, which is often called the Norman theory, although the entire sum of Normanistic statements over 2 centuries does not give the right to call Normanism not only a theory, but even a hypothesis, since there is neither an analysis of sources nor a review of all known facts ... "

It would seem that we are talking about an era that is not related to the topic. But if you do not understand the West’s desire to distort the truth about our great past, it is difficult to believe that what was written about Ivan the Terrible by foreigners is a simple lie. You can cite thousands of examples distortion of the history of our state by Western historians. But the era of Ivan the Terrible was subjected to especially vicious attacks.

“With Karamzin’s “light hand” it became a sign of good form to generously smear this era with black paint,” wrote. “Even the most conservative Marxist historians considered it their duty to pay tribute to Russophobic rhetoric, speaking of “savagery,” “ferocity,” “ignorance,” and “terror” as self-evident features of the era.” Moreover, evidence for historians of the alleged horrors of that era was Not eyewitness accounts, Not archive data, Not testimony of courtiers, recorded and preserved in archives, and slanderous fabrications of Western envoys. The myth of filicide and other false myths were necessary not only to expose the tsar as a bloodthirsty tyrant in the eyes of his descendants, but also to prove to the Western world, by that time “famous” for the horrors of the Inquisition, that the order in Russia was no better.

“Starting with Karamzin,” wrote Metropolitan John, “Russian historians reproduced in their writings all the abomination and dirt that foreign “guests” poured on Russia, and the creative “heritage” of people like Staden and Possevin was for a long time perceived as evidence of life and morals of the Russian People..."

A. Gulevich says the same thing in his book “Tsarist Power and Revolution”: “National history is usually written by friends. The history of Russia was written by its enemies.”

But who was the first to slander one of the greatest Russian autocrats? These are the lines that I wrote Anthony Possevin(papal spy), picked up Heinrich Staden(German spy) and quoted too gullible (?) Karamzin: “The prince, filled with noble jealousy, came to his father and demanded that he send him with an army to expel the enemy, liberate Pskov, and restore the honor of Russia. John, in a flurry of anger, shouted: “Rebel! You, together with the boyars, want to overthrow me from the throne,” and raised his hand. Boris Godunov wanted to restrain her: the Tsar gave him his somewhat sharp staff and hit the prince hard in the head with it. This unfortunate man fell, bleeding!"

Jesuit monk Anthony Possevin arrived in Moscow in 1581 to serve as a mediator in negotiations between the Russian Tsar and the Polish King Stefan Batory, who invaded Russian lands during the Livonian War. As a legate of Pope Gregory XIII, Possevin hoped, with the help of the Jesuits, to achieve concessions from John IV, taking advantage of the difficult foreign policy situation of Rus'. His goal was not at all the reconciliation of the warring parties, but subordination Russian Church to the papal throne... The Catholic Church, having lost hope of breaking the Russian State both openly, through the crusades, and secretly, with the help of heresies, now sought to achieve this by deception, promising Ivan the Terrible, if he betrayed the true faith, the acquisition of territories which previously belonged to Byzantium.

“But the hopes of the pope and the efforts of Possevin were not crowned with success,” wrote M.V. Tolstoy in “History of the Russian Church”. - John Vasilyevich showed all the natural flexibility of his mind, dexterity and prudence, which the Jesuit himself should have given justice to, rejected the requests for permission to build on Latin churches, rejected disputes about faith and the union of Churches on the basis of the rules of the Florence Council and was not carried away by the dreamy promise of acquisition the entire Byzantine Empire, lost by the Greeks allegedly for retreating from Rome.”

The Union of Florence, in other words, an agreement to unite the Orthodox and Catholic churches, was signed in 1439 in Florence. This union was another attempt by Rome to spread Catholicism by force. In response to it, in 1448, a council of bishops in Moscow declared it autocephalous, that is, independent of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Commenting on M.V. Tolstoy, Metropolitan John wrote: “A well-known historian of the Russian Church could add that the intrigues of Rome in relation to Russia have a long history, that the failure of the mission made Possevin the personal enemy of the tsar, that the very word “Jesuit”, because dishonesty And unscrupulousness members of the order, it has long become a household name that the legate himself arrived in Moscow a few months after the death of the prince and under no circumstances could he have witnessed what happened.”.

Ivan Vasilyevich answered firmly and menacingly: “Are you saying, Anthony, that your Roman faith is one with the Greek faith? And we bear the true Christian faith, but not the Greek one. The Greeks are not our gospel. Our faith is not Greek, but Russian.”. The mission was a complete failure, and the enraged Possevin, out of his anger, created a myth that Ivan the Terrible, in a fit of anger, killed his son and heir to the throne, Tsarevich Ivan Ioannovich.

“Possevin says,” writes Metropolitan John, “that the king was angry with his daughter-in-law, the wife of the prince, and during a quarrel that broke out, he killed him. The absurdity of the version (already from the moment it appeared) was so obvious that it was necessary to “ennoble” the story, to find a more “reliable” reason and “motive for the murder.” This is how another tale appeared - that the prince led the political opposition to his father’s course in negotiations with Batory to conclude peace and was killed by the king on suspicion of involvement in the boyars. Both versions are perfect unfounded And unproven. It is impossible to find even hints of their authenticity in the entire mass of documents and acts that have come down to us dating back to that time.

But information about the “natural” death of Tsarevich Ivan has a documentary basis. Back in 1570, the sickly and pious prince, reverently fearing the hardships of the royal service ahead of him, donated a huge contribution of a thousand rubles to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery at that time. Preferring monastic feat to worldly glory, he accompanied the contribution with the condition that “anyone who wants to take tonsure, Tsarevich Prince Ivan will be tonsured for that contribution, and if, due to his sins, the Tsarevich is no more, then he will be commemorated.”

Indirect evidence of Ivan’s death not from a blow from a staff is the fact that in the “modified” version of filicide, his death did not follow immediately after the “fatal blow,” but four days later, in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. Subsequently, it became clear why the prince faded away for four days - it was caused sublimate poisoning.

Another one picked up and developed the version of “sonicide” rogue– German Heinrich Staden, who arrived in Russia on reconnaissance missions. Staden wrote slanderous notes, which Karamzin considered to be true and which were exposed by Soviet historians. For example, I.I. Polosin called them “a tale of murder, robbery, red-handed theft,” and characterized by “inimitable cynicism.” According to another Soviet historian, S.B. Veselovsky, “they were an incoherent story of a barely literate, uneducated and uncultured adventurer, containing a lot of boasting and lies...”

Returning to, Staden outlined a project for the conquest of Muscovy, proposing to destroy all churches and monasteries, destroy and abolish the Orthodox faith, and then turn the Russian people into slaves. This is whose data many Russian historians used when describing the era of Ivan the Terrible in their writings.

Russian philosopher Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin warned that “in the world there are peoples, states, governments, church centers, behind-the-scenes organizations and individuals - hostile, especially Orthodox Russia, especially imperial and undivided Russia. Just as there are “Anglophobes”, “Germanophobes”, “Japanophobes” - so the world is replete with “Russophobes”, enemies of national Russia, who promise themselves every success from its collapse, humiliation and weakening... Therefore, no matter who we talk to , no matter who we turn to, we must vigilantly and soberly measure him by the measure of his sympathies and intentions in relation to a united, national Russia and not expect: from the conqueror - salvation, from the dismemberer - help, from the religious seducer - sympathy and understanding, from the destroyer - benevolence, from the slanderer - truth. Politics is the art of recognizing and neutralizing the enemy…»…

Was Ivan the Terrible cruel?

Instructing the creators of the film “Ivan the Terrible,” director Eisenstein and Cherkasov, who played the role of the Tsar, he said: “Ivan the Terrible was very tough. It is possible to show that he was tough. But you need to show why you need to be tough. One of the mistakes of Ivan the Terrible was that he did not destroy five large feudal families. If he had destroyed these five large families, then there would have been no Time of Troubles at all...”

Ivan the Terrible was called a tyrant, exorbitant cruelties were attributed to him, and meanwhile, Stalin, who carefully studied the tsar’s policies, concluded that he even showed excessive softness towards hostile boyar families, pardoning them and thereby allowing Russia to be plunged into the Time of Troubles, which killed almost half the population Muscovy. Meanwhile, the facts refute the cruelty of the tsar and the inhumanity of the oprichnina “terror”.

N. Skuratov in the article “A look at the reign from the point of view of strengthening the Russian state” he writes: “To an ordinary person ignorant of history, who is not averse to sometimes watching films and reading a newspaper, it may seem that the guardsmen of Ivan the Terrible killed half of the country’s population. Meanwhile, number of victims political repressions of the 50-year reign are well known from reliable historical sources. The vast majority of the dead are named in them by name... those executed belonged to the upper classes and were guilty of very real, and not mythical, treason... Almost all of them had previously been forgiven under kissing oaths of the godfather, that is, they were oathbreakers, political recidivists.”.

Manyagin notes that Metropolitan John and historian R.G. shared the same point of view. Skrynnikov, who pointed out that during the 50 years of the reign of the Terrible Tsar, no more than 4-5 thousand people were sentenced to death. But from this figure it is necessary to remove the executed boyars before 1547, that is, before the crowning of Ivan Vasilyevich. He cannot be responsible for the mutual murders of various boyar clans striving for power.

Manyagin writes: “During the reign of John IV, the death penalty was punishable for: murder, rape, sodomy, arson of a residential building with people, robbery of a temple, high treason. For comparison: during the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, already 80 types of crimes were punishable by death, and under Peter I - more than 120! Every death sentence under John IV was pronounced only in Moscow and approved personally by the Tsar.”.

The power of the Orthodox Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich was much softer than in Europe, about which Manyagin says the following: “In the same 16th century, in other states, governments committed truly monstrous lawlessness. In 1572, during St. Bartholomew's Night, the city was killed from above. 80 thousand Protestants. IN England in the first half of the 16th century, only people were hanged for vagrancy 70 thousand Human. In Germany, during the suppression of the peasant uprising of 1525, more than 100 000 Human. Duke of Alba destroyed during the capture of Antwerp 8 thousand and in Harlem 20 thousand people, and in total the Spaniards killed about 100 000 Human".

So, in “enlightened” and “merciful” Europe during approximately the same period more than 378 thousand people were executed, mostly innocent, and in Russia under Ivan the Terrible they were executed for specific serious crimes 4-5 thousand. Why is the Terrible Tsar a tyrant, and the Europeans are mercy itself?

During the reign of Ivan the Terrible population growth was 30-50%, during his reign the population decline was 40%. Therefore, Tsar Terrible is a tyrant, and Peter is the Great. Now we see how accurate the definition of I.L. Solonevich: “The Russian historian is a specialist in distorting the history of Russia”.

Speaking about executions, we should not forget that it was the “not destroyed” boyar family Shuiskikh was one of those families that pushed Russia into the Time of Troubles... This was the beginning of the destruction of the Autocracy built by the dynasty. And this destruction was the result not of cruelty, but, on the contrary, of the extreme mercy of Ivan the Terrible.

Vlad tells you that someone Ivan is going to rob Roman and you need to kill this scoundrel. Logical, isn't it? And this Ivan also annoyed Mikhail Faustin, so his life count has clearly come to an end. But!

You will have a choice - to leave Ivan alive or still kill him.

Once outside, take the car and drive to Roman's, to the parking lot. There, seeing you, Ivan will try to run away. Eventually you will reach a blocked road. Jump out of the car and chase Ivan around the construction site.

On the very last roof you will reach Ivan, and here you will have to choose: help him get to heaven or leave his life. If the latter is close to you, then Niko will simply call Vlad and deceive him, saying that he killed Ivan. If you kill, then exactly the same thing will happen.

12. Concrete Jungle

Little Jacob wants you to take him to Willis, since he himself is not able to. When you arrive at the location, Jacob will ask you to stand in the alley. Wait for him there.

Then Jacob will say that we need to remove the guys who are running from the backyard. Run over two with a car, kill the third with a pistol. Once you're done with this, go back to the car and pick up Jacob.

Next, head towards Meadows Park. There we get out of the car and help Jacob kill one man in the house. It will be easier to do this if you use the cover of the wall (on PC by default this is done with the "Q" key) and shoot from the doorway from a safe position.

Shoot the guy on the stairs in the head. You will have to enter the building and take out two more dealers.

It's pretty easy. After completing the task, Jacob will ask you to take him home.

13. Uncle Vlad (Hoarder Vlad)

Niko sees Roman drinking in sad loneliness. He finds out that Mallory seems to be somehow connected with Vlad, but Bellik’s cousin is very afraid of Glebov. Since Niko has his own suspicions about this, he himself goes to the showdown. Roman accompanies him so that he doesn’t do anything stupid.

Take a taxi and go to Vlad's Comrade bar. When you get there, talk to Vlad. He will set his bodyguards on you.

If you have a shotgun, then you can easily deal with these two idiots. After that, run after Vlad. He will run away in a car, you will catch up with him. Avoid huge trucks on your way.

Ultimately, Vlad will crash his car and try to escape on his own two feet. Get out of the car, watch the video.

After you learn about bullying people, take out a gun and fix it on Vlad.

14. Crime & Punishment

Roman hides in a trash can because Faustin and some tough guys are looking for him. Niko tells his brother that everything is fine, and immediately gets hit on the head by one of the “brothers.”

When you wake up, you realize that you are in the domain of Faustin. He already knows about the death of Vlad Glebov, but it’s okay - he didn’t particularly like him. Now you work for him.

Then Mikhail shoots Roman because he won’t stop screaming like a pregnant girl. The wound is not fatal (later Roman will say that he was shot in the stomach, although it seemed to be a leg and then tangentially).

Faustin needs a police car from you. By the way, I found someone to contact, right? I wish I could have asked Little Red Riding Hood for a wolf skin. So... Faustin needs a police car to steal a couple of TV vans.

Look for a police car. You can call the cops by calling 911, you can simply ram their car (any car), kill them when they get out, and go about your business. Or you can just wait at Faustin’s house. In a minute, a police car will arrive on some call, the cop will leave it on the side of the road. Feel free to take it and go on a mission.

Use GPS to find vans in the city. Don't crash the car!

Look for the target on the spot. Three vans, owned by Kenny Petrovich. They are marked on the map with turquoise dots. It's different every time.

Two of them will be empty, the third will be the one needed. Turn on the sirens, block them and approach the driver. He will open the van, if there is nothing there, move on. In the desired van there will be an aggressive passenger who will start shooting at you.

Once you have obtained the van by hook or by crook, follow the GPS to Hooper Street.

15. Do You Have Protection (Now you have a roof)

Since Faustin, roughly speaking, is “boozed,” Dmitry is currently issuing orders for him. He wants to be taken to a sex shop on Hove Beach.

Take the Turismo that is parked near Faustin's house and follow the GPS directions. Having arrived at the place, get out of the car and follow Dmitry.

He is angry because the guys in this store are selling porn without Faustin's consent. And he wants you to intimidate them. Target the guy on the right, then the guy on the left and shoot him in the leg. After this “suggestion”, they agree to pay Faustin part of the profits from sales.

Once you're done with this, return to Dmitry. He will demand to be taken to the weapons depot. There you can buy a weapon, Micro-SMG for $1200. But don’t be afraid – Faustin is paying for it. If you need ammo, it costs $100 for every 50 bullets. Pure rip off!

Having purchased what you need, return to Dmitry and take it home. The mission is over.

16. Final Destination

Faustin suspects that there is a rat behind him. He has two options - either it's you (how could he even think that?!), or someone living in South Bohan. He wants you to prove your innocence and kill that guy, although Dmitry does not agree with such arrangements.

Take a car and go to Guantanamo Avenue. When you cross the bridge and are near your destination, call Faustin. He will still want the death of the “rat” from you.

Drive to the point, go up to the station platform and talk to Lenny. He will tell you to get rid of him, and he will set two of his friends on you. Deal with them and run after Lenny.

17. Logging On

18. Shadow

Someone does dark things and doesn't share with Little Jacob. Head to Southern Broker to track down this brazen dealer.

Arriving at the park, you see a dealer. You need to follow him slowly, without arousing suspicion or getting too close. Go through the alley and as soon as you reach the road, Roman will call, scaring the dealer.

After talking with Roman, run after the dealer into the building. Shoot the door lock to enter the apartment. Then use cover to take out the enemy on the right. Through the door, in the other room, there are two more guys.

Once you kill them, the mission will be completed.

19. No Love Lost

Mikhail Faustin wants to find out if his daughter Anna is having an affair with a certain biker Jason Michel. If so, then you will have to kill him.

As always, we take Faustin’s Turismo (what a nice car) and go to the place - Firefly Island.

After the cutscene in which Niko catches Anna Faustin with Michel, the biker will try to escape on his motorcycle. We follow him using a motorcycle parked sympathetically nearby.

Don't waste your expensive ammo on it by shooting it from your motorcycle. It's useless. There is a much more effective way to remove a biker. Stay on his tail. Later his friends, four in number, will appear.

When they turn left into Meadows Park, abandon the motorcycle and get into the nearby jeep.

Use the car to ram the bikers and run over them. If necessary, get out of the car and shoot, using it as cover.

After killing all five, including Jason, call Faustin and report the successful completion of the task.

20. Rigged To Blow

After meeting Faustina's wife and listening to the story from their past, begin a new task. Mikhail wants you to get someone a certain truck.

Drive to the truck, which is located in the old factory. Get in the truck and call Faustin. He will cheerfully tell you that the explosives in the van are more than enough to ensure that not even a molecule remains of Niko.

And this truck needs to be delivered to the garage. Manage it as carefully as possible. The truck is not very fast, but it is not recommended to take turns even at its maximum speed.

Once you've delivered the truck, walk away and enjoy the big BANG!

Until recently, the fact that Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible killed his son Tsarevich Ivan seemed indisputable, because it was reflected even in school textbooks as one of the evidence of the alleged cruelty of the Russian Orthodox Autocracy. And no one wondered where this fact came from in historical literature. But what do the documents say?

Having seen in 1885 in St. Petersburg at an exhibition a new painting by Ilya Repin “Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan on November 16, 1581,” which later became known under the simplified name “Ivan the Terrible Kills His Son,” the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod and an outstanding Russian the thinker Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev was extremely outraged by its plot, in which fiction was presented as fact, and wrote to Emperor Alexander III: “The picture cannot be called historical, since this moment ... is purely fantastic.”

WHY DID THE TSAREVICH DIED?
Indeed, the fact of the murder of his son Tsarevich Ivan by Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible until recently seemed indisputable, because it was reflected even in school textbooks, as one of the evidence of the alleged cruelty of the Russian Orthodox Autocracy. And no one wondered where this fact came from in historical literature. Only Metropolitan John of St. Petersburg and Ladoga first refuted this slander against the tsar in his book “Autocracy of the Spirit,” where he proved that Tsarevich John died of a serious illness and that in the historical documents that have reached us there is no hint of filicide. But what do the documents say?

In the Moscow Chronicle for the year 7090 (1581 - N.Sh.) it is written: “... Tsarevich John Ioannovich reposed.” The Piskarevsky chronicler indicates in more detail: "... at 12 o'clock in the night of the summer of November 7090 on the 17th day... the death of Tsarevich John Ioannovich." The Fourth Chronicle of Novgorod says: “In the same year (7090) Tsarevich John Ioannovich reposed at Matins in Sloboda...”

The Morozov Chronicle states: “... Tsarevich John Ioannovich passed away.” As you can see, there is not a word about murder.

As for the facts testifying to the death of Tsarevich John from poisoning, they are completely justified.

V.V. Manyagin in his book “The Leader of the Militant Church” (2003) writes: “As for the disease, we can say definitely - it was poisoning with sublimate. The death caused by it is painful, and the dose causing such an outcome does not exceed 0.18 grams.” Who installed this?

“In 1963, in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin,” writes Manyagin, “four tombs were opened: Ivan the Terrible, Tsarevich Ivan, Tsar Theodore Ioannovich and commander Skopin-Shuisky. When examining the remains, the version of the poisoning of Tsar Ivan the Terrible was verified. Scientists found that the arsenic content was approximately the same in all four skeletons and did not exceed the norm. But in the bones of Tsar John and Tsarevich John, the presence of mercury was discovered, far exceeding the permissible norm. Some historians have tried to argue that this is not poisoning at all, but a consequence of treating syphilis with mercury ointments. However, studies have shown that no syphilitic changes were found in the remains of the king and prince. After a study of the burials of the Moscow Grand Duchesses and Tsarinas was carried out in the 1990s, the fact of poisoning with the same sublimate was identified as the mother of Ivan Vasilyevich, Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya (died in 1538), and his first wife Anastasia Romanova (died in 1560) .

This indicates that the royal family was a victim of poisoners for several decades.

The data from these studies made it possible to assert that Tsarevich John was poisoned. The poison content in his remains is many times higher than the permissible limit. Thus, Soviet historical science refutes the version of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich’s murder of his son.”
...
..
WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF THE SLANDER AGAINST JOHN THE TERRIBLE?
But who was the first to slander one of the greatest Russian autocrats? These lines, which were composed by Anthony Possevin (papal spy), were picked up by Heinrich Staden (German spy) and quoted by the too gullible (?) Karamzin: “The prince, filled with noble jealousy, came to his father and demanded that he send him with an army to expel the enemy , liberate Pskov, restore the honor of Russia. John, in a flurry of anger, shouted: “Rebel! You, together with the boyars, want to overthrow me from the throne,” and raised his hand. Boris Godunov wanted to keep her: the Tsar gave him several wounds with his sharp staff and hit the prince hard in the head with it. This unfortunate man fell, bleeding!"

Jesuit monk Anthony Possevin came to Moscow in 1581 to serve as a mediator in negotiations between the Russian Tsar and the Polish king Stefan Batory, who invaded Russian lands during the Livonian War. As a legate of Pope Gregory XIII, Possevin hoped, with the help of the Jesuits, to achieve concessions from John IV, taking advantage of the difficult foreign policy situation of Rus'. His goal was not at all the reconciliation of the warring parties, but the subordination of the Russian Church to the papal throne... The Catholic Church, having lost hope of breaking the Russian State and the Orthodox Russian Church openly, through crusades, and secretly, with the help of heresies, now sought to achieve this by deception, promising John Ivan the Terrible, in case he betrays the true faith, the acquisition of territories that previously belonged to Byzantium.

“But the hopes of the pope and the efforts of Possevin were not crowned with success,” wrote M.V. Tolstoy in “History of the Russian Church”. - John Vasilyevich showed all the natural flexibility of his mind, dexterity and prudence, which the Jesuit himself had to give justice to, rejected the requests for permission to build Latin churches in Rus', rejected disputes about faith and the union of Churches on the basis of the rules of the Council of Florence and was not carried away by the dreamy promise the acquisition of the entire Byzantine Empire, lost by the Greeks allegedly for retreating from Rome.”

The Union of Florence, in other words, an agreement to unite the Orthodox and Catholic churches, was signed in 1439 in Florence. This union was another attempt by Rome to spread Catholicism by force. In response to it, in 1448, a council of bishops in Moscow declared the Russian Orthodox Church autocephalous, that is, independent of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Commenting on M.V. Tolstoy, Metropolitan John wrote: “A well-known historian of the Russian Church could add that the intrigues of Rome in relation to Russia have a long history, that the failure of the mission made Possevin the personal enemy of the tsar, that the very word “Jesuit”, due to the unscrupulousness and unprincipledness of the members of the order, It has long become a household name that the legate himself arrived in Moscow a few months after the death of the prince and under no circumstances could he have witnessed what happened.” John Vasilyevich answered the Jesuit firmly and menacingly: “Are you saying, Anthony, that your Roman faith is the same as the Greek faith? And we bear the true Christian faith, but not the Greek one. The Greeks are not our gospel. Our faith is not Greek, but Russian.”

The mission was a complete failure, and the enraged Possevin, out of his anger, created a myth that Ivan the Terrible, in a fit of anger, killed his son and heir to the throne, Tsarevich Ivan Ioannovich.

“Possevin says,” writes Metropolitan John, “that the king was angry with his daughter-in-law, the wife of the prince, and during a quarrel that broke out, he killed him. The absurdity of the version (already from the moment it appeared) was so obvious that it was necessary to “ennoble” the story, to find a more “reliable” reason and “motive for the murder.”

This is how another tale appeared - that the prince led the political opposition to his father’s course in negotiations with Batory to conclude peace and was killed by the king on suspicion of involvement in a boyar conspiracy. Both versions are completely unfounded and unproven. It is impossible to find even hints of their authenticity in the entire mass of documents and acts dating back to that time that have reached us. But information about the “natural” death of Tsarevich Ivan has a documentary basis.

Back in 1570, the sickly and pious prince, reverently fearing the hardships of the royal service ahead of him, donated a huge contribution of a thousand rubles to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery at that time. Preferring monastic feat to worldly glory, he accompanied the contribution with the condition that “anyone who wants to take tonsure, Tsarevich Prince Ivan will be tonsured for that contribution, and if, due to his sins, the Tsarevich is no more, then he will be commemorated.” Indirect evidence of Ivan’s death not from a blow from a staff is the fact that in the “modified” version of filicide, his death did not follow immediately after the “fatal blow,” but four days later, in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. Subsequently, it became clear why the prince was fading away for four days - it was caused by sublimate poisoning.

Another rogue, the German Heinrich Staden, who arrived in Moscow with intelligence tasks, also picked up and developed the version of “sonicide”. Staden wrote slanderous notes, which Karamzin considered to be true and which were exposed by Soviet historians. For example, I.I. Polosin called them “a tale of murder, robbery, red-handed theft,” and characterized by “inimitable cynicism.” According to another Soviet historian, S.B. Veselovsky, “they were an incoherent story of a barely literate, uneducated and uncultured adventurer, containing a lot of boasting and lies.”

Returning to Germany, Staden outlined a project for the conquest of Muscovy, proposing to destroy all churches and monasteries, destroy and abolish the Orthodox faith, and then turn the Russian people into slaves. This is whose data many Russian historians used when describing the era of Ivan the Terrible in their writings. Russian philosopher Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin warned that “in the world there are peoples, states, governments, church centers, behind-the-scenes organizations and individuals - hostile to Russia, especially Orthodox Russia, especially imperial and undivided Russia.

Just as there are “Anglophobes”, “Germanophobes”, “Japanophobes” - so the world is replete with “Russophobes”, enemies of national Russia, who promise themselves every success from its collapse, humiliation and weakening... Therefore, no matter who we talk to , no matter who we turn to, we must vigilantly and soberly measure him by the measure of his sympathies and intentions in relation to a united, national Russia and not expect: from the conqueror - salvation, from the dismemberer - help, from the religious seducer - sympathy and understanding, from the destroyer is goodwill, from the slanderer is truth. Politics is the art of recognizing and neutralizing the enemy.” And Saint Basil the Great advised choosing from the works of historians “only what is necessary for yourself and consistent with the Truth, and leaving the rest without attention.”

Ivanovich was killed by his own father. In a fit of anger, the king poked his son in the temple as hard as he could with his staff. The blow was precise and strong - the Tsarevich died on the spot. It’s also surprising what kind of son Ivan the Terrible killed! The most beloved, the eldest, the one on whom he had high hopes, because his second descendant, Fedor, was not ready to rule the country from the very beginning.

Over the past more than four hundred and fifty years, history has become overgrown with many legends, and different versions of what happened have been put forward. The exact date of the Tsarevich’s death has not yet been established. Some researchers suggest that the tragedy occurred back in 1581, in November, others call 1582, and still others, the majority, still adhere to the date of July 3, 1583. By and large, the numbers are not that important, the main task is to understand why Ivan the Terrible killed his son, and did he kill him at all? Let's try to figure it out.

First version. Political

Nikolai Karamzin in his “History” voiced that politics became the stumbling block between father and son. Filled with noble jealousy, the Tsarevich came to his parent and demanded the liberation of Pskov, expulsion of the enemy, and restoration of the honor of the Russian Empire. In anger, John shouted that his son, together with the boyars, wanted to overthrow him from the throne, and raised his hand. Boris Godunov tried to restrain her, but the king inflicted several wounds on the nobleman with his sharp staff, and then hit the crown prince with force in the head. He fell, bleeding profusely. The death of Ivan - the son of Ivan the Terrible - occurred instantly. It is noteworthy that this version, which Karamzin considered true, was originally put forward by Antonio Possevino, the papal legate, who, admittedly, was, if not the most interested witness, then certainly not independent. Therefore, the reliability of such a statement is very doubtful, especially since it is not confirmed by any other evidence. Then why did Ivan the Terrible kill his son? Go ahead.

Second version. Everyday

Only officially, Tsar John Vasilyevich was married at least seven times. As we know, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. So the young crown prince tried to keep up with his father. His first wife was Saburov's daughter, Evdokia Bogdanova, after an unsuccessful marriage she was forcibly tonsured a nun. The second wife, Feodosia Mikhailova, Solovov’s daughter, suffered the same fate - she ended her life in a monastery. By 1583, Ivan was married to the daughter of the youngest of the Sheremetyev brothers, Elena. One morning, Ivan Vasilyevich saw the crown prince’s pregnant wife in an inappropriate form: her belt was not tied, and it was not proper for a married woman to walk around open. The king got angry and gave his daughter-in-law a couple of good slaps in the face. Elena fell and hit herself, and the next night she lost her child. Immediately the Tsarevich ran into the chambers and began to reproach his father, he stood up for his wife, and for this he was hit in the temple with a staff. It turns out that this is why Ivan the Terrible killed his son! However, not everything is clear here either. The author of this version was the same Antonio Possevino, who was interested in presenting the ruler as a ruthless son-killer in order to legitimize the European Inquisition. So what actually happened?

Third version. Love

He was very keen on the female sex and, according to testimonies, did not miss a single skirt. One day, somewhere in the wards, he met Elena, the wife of Tsarevich Ivan, whom we have already talked about, and began to force her to cohabitate. It is not known for certain whether Ivan Vasilyevich eventually became a daughter-in-law (in Rus' this has long been the name given to a man who shared one woman with his son), but the young princess told her husband about the harassment, and he decided to sort out the relationship with his father. We know how it all ended. The son fell with a broken temple, and after some time his wife was sent to a monastery. But is this how it really happened?

Fourth version. Refuting

Historians who lived much later than Ivan Vasilyevich and his offspring wondered: “Did Ivan the Terrible kill his son?” Perhaps this is just a fascinating legend? In other words, misinformation and slander? Indeed, at present, the very fact of filicide raises enormous doubts. To understand why we should doubt it, let’s turn to the years 1883-1885 - the time when the work of art “Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan November 16, 1581” appeared from the brush of the famous Russian artist Ilya Repin.

Painting “Ivan the Terrible kills his son”

It was under this name that the canvas, which depicts how the Russian Tsar dealt the Tsarevich a fatal blow, became known to the general public. On the red carpets covered with patterns in the twilight of the chambers, an abandoned staff lies next to an overturned throne, and in the very center of the chambers two figures are illuminated: a father who has just committed something irreparable in an angry outburst, and a son dying in his arms. Despair, immeasurable love and horror are expressed on the face of Ivan Vasilyevich; he convulsively hugs the Tsarevich, tries to stop the bleeding by pressing the wound on his head, and the son, forgiving his father, falls to his chest. The senile appearance of the king with sharpened features looks in his loss at the same time pitiful and scary. Ivan’s face in comparison is more “alive”, spiritual, humane. Pity for his father overwhelms the Tsarevich, he experiences a feeling of forgiveness, it elevates him above all the petty passions unworthy of a person that caused his death, and cleanses his soul. This is exactly what the painting “Ivan the Terrible Kills His Son” demonstrates.

The fate of Repin's work

Now the canvas is kept in Moscow, in the Tretyakov Gallery. A group of Orthodox activists and historians in 2013 asked to remove it from there, as it offends the patriotic feelings of Russians. The request was denied. It must be said that this is not the first attack on the picture. When it was first presented to the general public at the 13th traveling exhibition, the whole of St. Petersburg was excited. Spectators literally besieged the building where the canvas hung. There were fierce debates: the intelligentsia and progressive youth were wildly delighted, while other St. Petersburg residents were indignant: “Is it possible to show filicide?” Among those who did not like the work was Emperor Alexander III, as a result of which it was banned from showing on April 1, 1885. This was the first film to be censored in the Russian Empire. However, just three months later, at the request of the artist A. Bogolyubov, who was close to the court, the ban was lifted.

Was there a murder?

At this very exhibition in St. Petersburg in 1885, the painting “Ivan the Terrible Kills His Son” was noticed by the outstanding Russian thinker and Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Konstantin Pobedonostsev. He was outraged by its plot, because, in his opinion, fiction was presented as fact. Pobedonostsev wrote a letter in which he said that this work of painting cannot be called historical, because the moment depicted is purely fantastic. How so? We were always told about the murder of Tsarevich Ivan by Ivan Vasilyevich as an indisputable fact, even in school textbooks it was written about this as an example of how cruel the Russian autocracy was. It was not entirely clear why Ivan the Terrible killed his son. But no one thought about how such information got into historical literature in the first place.

Dramatic event

In 1913, something strange happened at the Tretyakov Gallery. When examining Ilya Repin’s canvas “Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan November 16, 1581,” icon painter Abram Balashov shouted: “Too much blood!” He then attacked the painting with a knife and cut it up. Repin immediately came to Moscow and, together with Igor Grabar, his former student and famous restorer, began restoration. The attempt on the work of painting received wide resonance in the press; there was even a debate on the topic of how ordinary people relate to the depiction of royal persons. Repin was unexpectedly accused of deliberately provoking people to aggression and of not understanding the situation in Russia. The artist was confused and very annoyed. He left Moscow in upset feelings and decided that he would never come to this city again.

Why did the Tsarevich die?

Metropolitan John of Ladoga and St. Petersburg in his book “Autocracy of the Spirit” denied the fact of the murder and stated that the death of the son of Ivan the Terrible was due to a serious illness. Indeed, in the surviving historical documents there is not a word about filicide. But numerous factors were discovered confirming that the crown prince died as a result of poisoning. V. Manyagin, in his 2003 work “Leader of the Church Militant,” wrote that Ivan was poisoned with sublimate, a poison that causes painful death if taken in an amount of 0.18 grams or more.

Exhumation

In the Archangel Cathedral of the Kremlin in 1963, four tombs were opened: commander Skopin-Shuisky, Tsarevich Ivan, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, Tsar. During the study of the remains, scientists discovered that all four skeletons contained approximately equal amounts of arsenic, and it did not exceed the norm. However, in the bones of Tsarevich Ivan and Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, the presence of mercury was discovered in a dose significantly exceeding the permissible norm. Some historians argued that this was not poisoning, but the consequences of treatment with mercury ointments for syphilis. But as a result of research, no syphilitic changes were revealed in the remains of representatives of the royal family.

New facts

In 1990, a study was carried out of the burial places of the great Moscow queens and princesses. As a result, it was discovered that Elena Glinskaya, the mother of Ivan the Terrible, who died in 1538, and his first wife, who died in 1560, were poisoned with sublimate. That is, the royal family was a victim of poisoning for several decades. The data from these and other studies allowed us to conclude that the murder of Ivan the Terrible’s son by his own father is a fiction; in fact, he was poisoned; this is supported by the fact that the poison content in his remains exceeds the permissible limit many times over. Thus, science categorically refutes the version of filicide.