Month: March 2014

To think like Socrates

Or

The Socratic method of the liberal thinking

 

1Socrates once said ‘I know that I know nothing’ and he is claimed as one of the most influential people who ever live and one of the wisest man in the Greek philosophy. We all know these words , whether by word of mouth or from experience during our school years, but do we know the spirituality and wisdom they possess?! That giant of the Greek society put under consideration every statement or belief under the scrutiny of his critical eye, not for pleasure only, but for justification how we should treat the conclusion on which we often jump often too easily and with such hastiness. He handed down his wisdom and knowledge to us freely, the question is whether we are able to embrace such a provoking conception and make out of it the best we could.

The Socratic Method is named after the fallowed philosopher and in nutshell it is a way of critical questioning of statement, which main aim is to provoke and stimulate the logical reasoning or how you lead to one conclusion to another and what is behind it as reasons and justifications. The method opens the ‘Pandora’s box’ of new thinking by involving the participants in an open dialog in which the logical reasoning and deduction go hand in hand in order to explore in depths the given problem or the subject of the discussion. One of the key elements of that methods is in letting your ‘ contender’ to express their opinion freely without interrupting them , as doing so  you could see how his logical- thinking flows around and he introduces his ideas more openly. Moreover , very often it comes down to the point when there is a lot of contradictions in what he is trying to explain, but in these contradictions are the roots of his misunderstand or misinterpretation of the subject.

The second element of an utmost importance in this ,method is questioning. Instead of responding in kind to your opponent, you have to ask him question from which you could reach his basic statement and the flaws in his thinking could easily emerge on the surface.

Your question could seek different target and results such as making conclusive evidence of the statement, seeking logical explanation, assumption or verification. By these questions, it could be even possible to be explored the moral scruples and ethical boundaries of the participants in the dialog. The element of surprise should not be ruled out by you or even by them.

For giving explicit clarification of what I’ve said above I would like to put forward one ‘theoretically hypothetical argument from which I could give you examples of the questions’ aims in the method.

Supposing someone said ‘I’m against the war, everyone who is responsible for such a conflict should be punished!’

‘So you’re for the peace and prosperity, right? (Seeking Clarification)

‘Yes, of course!’

‘OK,So everyone responsible for some kind of worldwide conflict should be punished? Who exactly?’ (Again seeking clarification of the statement)

‘The world leaders …like Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler…’

‘Only the leader then, they are the most responsible for such actions to be taken?’

‘Yeah, I guess , they give orders…but they are not alone, I mean the most closest people around them.’

‘What about the soldiers in their armies? What about them? Should they be punished from what they did or not? ‘

‘Yes, of course!’

‘But what about the fact that they were only taking orders or were threatened with death if they wouldn’t have done it? Were they victims or not?’ (Questioning Ethical boundaries).

Indeed, the discussion could head another direction, this is only manufactured potted version of the real conversation that might take place. However, the place from which everything begins is the statement from it all other things follow. For instance, it could be questioned the original source from which the person forms his/her deduction or possible implication might be added by conditional statements like ‘If that’s true, then…’.

The beauty of the Socratic Method is partially hidden in the fact that there is no ‘right’ answer to the raised question during the discussion. The objective is not to be sought the ‘RIGHT’ answer and to be provoked heated discussions and endless quarrels, but rather to be explored the domain of the person’s knowledge and how that knowledge could be useful in the new way of thinking in order the issue to be looked from different perspective. The method is a new interpretation of the version of Socrates ‘ thinking regarding the moral reasoning and the common ‘sense’ as he said that we should achieve the “moral qualities of a high order: sincerity, humility, courage.”   The Greek philosopher said that ‘unexamined life is not worth living’ and we could see how his main object of curiosity was the human’s thinking and the limitations of it. Aristotle even said that only one arrow could reach the target, but millions to miss it, from which it is plainly clear how the truth could be veiled in deep mysteries and not so easy to be approached.

Even at that time when Socrates lived, he was able to see the dangerous and scandalous side of his method. He managed to acknowledge how it would shake the grounds under which the society lived at that time by saying ‘we have form conviction from childhood about what’s just and fair…but then lads get their first taste of arguments which they used only to contradict and refute others… (539 b.)’

However, the  Socratic dialoged lifts the veil behind the truth that no universal agreement on one problem is ever achievable as the philosophers use wide range of tenable and untenable justifications of the man’s actions. Moreover, it reveals the problematic and perplexing nature of our reasoning and put under consideration the circumstances under which we form our system of beliefs.

Moreover, the method creates the so called ‘creative discomfort’ in which the facts, ideas and inspiration flow together in order to create new way of thinking. The participants are prompted to expose themselves at such variation and degree that the truth behind their assumptions eventually come clear to everyone.

 

The Madness in 19th century

29123Asylum_watercolour

 

In the not so dim and distant past, the problem with the people with mental disabilities was easily and often dismissively ignored by many. The faith which those people came across was rarely pleasant and fortunate enough to be worth living. For instance, there were only two options between the people with mental handicaps could choose at that time, during the 18th and 19th century, the first one was if they were harmless , they could be leave alone to live as best as they managed to do, while the second illustrated how they were kept as a prisoners in degrading conditions.

However, the main aim of this article is to focus on the mental treatment in Britain during the 19th century and to explore the various methods of treatment at that time.

The majority of the people, who were mentally ill, were called ‘idiots’, ‘imbeciles’ or ‘feeble minded especially if they were suffering from learning disabilities. In the best cases, they were looked after their families, but in the worst-case scenario they were confined in prisons or workhouses. Until the beginning of the 18th century, madness, in particular, was wildly regarded as a domestic problem which did not take part in the public’s domain.  However, if the family was considered relatively poor or they couldn’t take care of the ill person for some reason or another, the person was to be taken in an institution called ‘asylum’ , which resembled much more a prison than a place for health care .

I would like to give an example how one long –standing traditional institution as the Hospital of St Mary of Bethlehem in London , which was founded in the early 1400s, treated the mental handicapped people. First of all, the policy under which the asylum worked was extremely strict and no exceptions were accepted. The candidates for being patients were to be put under medical expectation which could indicate whether they should be accepted or not. As the policy of the institution was clear that it was supposed to provide care for only curable individuals. The ‘lucky’ patients were confined for up  to one year, during that period they should be considered recovered from their illness, if not they were put in the ‘incurable’ wing.

During the 19th century,  apart from laudanum (an opium derivative resembling morphine) and cocaine, another type of sedatives was unknown, which was only work as an disadvantage rather than something else. The brutality with which many patients were treated was a commonplace, things such as chains, handcuffs, iron girdles, collars and strait-waistcoats were often used in methods of ‘taming’ the patients. Another treatment was mechanical restrain, under which the patients were chained to the floor or to the bar of their cells for a long period of time, sometimes even for life. Moreover, another well-established methods were the baths , sometimes the patient was put into cold bath with temperature below 75ºF or in hot bath with temperature above 85ºF. ‘The bath of surprise’ was a treatment in which the patient was suddenly precipitated while standing on its moveable and treacherous cover.

After those horrific methods of treatment, in the second half of the 19th century, a new method was adapted named ‘moral therapy’ , which was complete innovation for both the patients and their doctors. According to it, the patients were due to recover only in cozy atmosphere in which they could derive pleasure and solace. Consequently, many asylums were wildly decorated with paintings, home-welcoming furniture was placed and many other things were added in addition to the rooms.

Despite this promising treatment, the things swiftly changed with the arrival of the electricity power in 1831 by Michal Faraday. That arrival prompted even much more frightened prospect for the mental ill people, who were treated with the shock of electricity’s power. Doctors used no longer drugs as curable priority rather than sedatives , in addition they were adamant that mentally disturbed people were in deed of physical intervention as the only path to their recovery.

There were three main stages of electricity from which the doctors could take advantage during their treatment: galvanism (or continuous current), faradism and the frictional (or static electricity from which electrify the patient and then drawing sparks from the affected part). Nevertheless , the first two were highly in favor among many doctors while the last one was under strong doubt regarding its efficiency. Unfortunately, nobody was able to guarantee the future implications of such a methods and everything was performed in relation with the ‘trail –error’ approach . The treatment was imposed on the patient in different variation of times, sometimes in a period of couple of days, sometimes during a month.  It lasted between 10-20 minutes roughly ,as longer exposure could lead even to death or further unexpected difficulties.

At first, main area where the stimulation of the electricity was focused was the skin of the patients and the electrodes were placed in the hands. However, there was a gradual shift of that tendency and during the second half of the 19th century the electrodes were put in the head as they could ‘provoke’ a new wave of brain thinking and therefore that could lead to a successful recovery. Sometimes hand and feet were dipped into acidulated water with one electrode in it, which was supposed to accelerate the level of receptivity.

One typical case:  girl at age 26 , a farmer’s daughter with description of illness : melancholia. Her diagnosis said that mentally she was in state of depression with possibility of suicide attempts. The treatment consisted of doses of Chloral helping her to sleep and bath ‘s therapy, but without avail. She used to wake up with a start during the night, with increasingly violent behavior and in state of great excitement. As a result, she was imposed   with different types of drugs and under surveillance day and night. No future complications were observed with the exception of slight contorted movements of her head. Electricity was also applied 26 times, positive charge in the hands and negative one in the head.

This is only typical example of many cases, the implications were different and no one was capable of predicting the future results of such a treatment. Many people left the institutions partly recovered,other were not so blessed . If not recovery, it was observed strange calmness in the patients behavior, which the doctors acknowledged as a lack of harmful attempts or violent behavior.

Berlin’s treaty or how the Balkans suffered unfair treatment

In duration of one month (between 13 June -13 July) 1878 in Berlin, the European major powers gathered together in order to solve the problems concerning the faith of many European nationalities. That delegation of representatives was highly influence by the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck, whose main concerns were not to pacify the eruption of crisis in Europe (mainly in the Balkans) after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78, but to satisfy the desires of another European powers such as Britain and Austro –Hungary. That was diplomatic meeting , but it was far from being diplomatic and fair in many ways, especially regarding the ethical origin and respecting the rights of many nationalities across the continent. This is ample evidence, how one treaty could do more harm than good and how people’s wishes could be disregard and throw away without much courtesy.

Three main powers were in the center of that hurricane of struggles for domination between  the Ottoman empire (which was in its period of decay), the Russian empire (with its pretentions of dominations over the Balkans) and the Austro-Hungary with similar wishes as the Russians. In addition, the British’s interests were to support the Ottoman empire in hope to prevent Russian’s power to encroach in the Balkan’s territory. By contrast, one by one many balkans’ states became independent or less pliable to Ottoman’s influence , which immediately made them  potential targets for Russia or Austro-Hungary domination.

However, an arrival of the new element like “Pan-Slavism” movement , added brand new complexion in the international affairs. As a matter of fact, that movement arose by the power of culture, history and traditional heritage between the people in the northern (Poles, Ukrainians), western (Czechs, Slovaks) and southern Slavs (Serbs, Croats, Slovenes) and had its most influential power over the Balkans. The movement was eagerly accepted and grasped with wave of enthusiasm by Russia, since the empire could rise its pretentions over Poland and Ukraine. However , Poland refused to accept the new doctrines , being tired of the unwanted control of Russian, Prussian and Austrian empires on her territory, the only thing Poland wanted was her ultimate independence.

In 1786, after the miserable failure of Serbia’s war against the Ottoman Empire , an international conference took place in Constantinople , highly recommended by Russia , in which it was decided to be made settlements mutually agreeable to all parties. During the conference , the destiny of the Balkans’ nations were subject of greedy imperialism as if the territory was big cake and everyone was eager to get the biggest piece. For instance, Russia was eager to support the independence of Serbia and Montenegro as long she was given free access to Bulgaria and Romania. On the other hand, Bosnia and Herzegovina would be under the influence of Austro-Hungary. However, this rearrangement of priorities was not accepted lightly by the Turkish sultan Abdul Hamid II, consequently the Russo-Turkish war broke out with its highest straight and allured every Balkan’s state into war. It ended with the treaty of San Stefano, with the new enlarged Bulgarian state with its new territories, which possessed a treat in the eyes of Great Britain and Austria as they feared that it would serve as a tool of Russian’s expansion in the Balkans.

The main aim of the congress in Berlin was to re-create a new map of Europe, which would serve in benefit to only three states. Serbia, Rumania and Montenegro declared their independence, but Rumania had to cede the territory of Bessarabia to Russia, which the latter had lost after the Crimean War.

As the reason above, the possibility of Bulgarian’s state being a treat to great powers , was not justifiable to their unfair actions and the treaty of Berlin. After almost 500 years under slavery and Ottoman influence over Bulgarian territories, after that new state taking its first breath and could sense the freedom for the first time, Bulgaria was almost torn into after the treaty of Berlin. The territories of Macedonia and the unnatural creation of the principality of East Rumelia were under the control of the Ottomans.  Looking back with the perspective of the present, we could see how the coexistence of so many nationalities under Ottoman empire’s control was something impossible for 19th century Europe. One of the questions, which intensified the pressure even more was Macedonia, Bulgarians and Serbians were adamant to one another they were reluctant to give up on it, neither the Ottomans.

However, the most striking fact of the whole treaty was that representatives of from Russia, England, Austria-Hungary, Germany, France, Italy and Turkey attended it, in addition there were representatives of Balkan countries (Greece, Iran, Romania, Montenegro and Serbia) were invited to the congress but did not participate in its work. I would like to make an emphasis on the fact that there was no representative of Bulgaria, which violated the treaty and its validity. Here, we could see how Bulgarian state was not only refused a say in that question, but also was a subject of unfair treatment.

Nevertheless, Britain and German’s concerns about the Balkans’ influence or future dominations had grounds, they were unjustified in the eyes of many people. For instance, the Russian general Nikolay Pavlovich Ignatiev wanted ‘the Eastern peoples ,notably the Slavs,to turn their gaze to Russia, and not to other European state’.

The future of Bulgaria ,already divided into two principalities the first one (with capital Sofia) between the Danube and the Stara Planina range and the second (capital Plovdiv) in the south of the Stara Planina range, was uncertain and vague. There were fervent discussions over the fact that the prince (knyaz) who was supposed to rule the new Bulgarian state (with capital Sofia) should not have to be from Russia. Eventually , in 1886  Alexander of Battenberg was chosen to be the leader of the nation and who was a nephew of Russia’s Tsar Alexander II. Actually, the new –crowned knyaz was far from being satisfied with his position in his new principality, he even complained to his uncle and even expressed his concerns regarding his power and influence over the state. He even complained that his power was strongly restricted by the constitution and the government and that he felt himself out of place in that country – Bulgaria.

But we could easily forgive those words of him, as he was still young (only 25 years old when he came to power) and he was still green , knowing nothing of the foreign affairs and unscrupulous games of power.

photo of myself

One of my friends after taking a quick look at my blog, ask me why there is no photo of me in it. So be it : ) Here is a photo of me, I’m 25 years old, and I could assure you I’m not a cat or a dog :D:D (like in the joke that nobody knows that you’re a cat in the Internet space) 😀

DSC_1219

Pirates’ life – nasty, brutish and short

292_440_259

 

The very existence of the piracy took its first breath when the first voyages occurred for the first time. The mystery and the terrifying role that the pirates occupied in people’s minds was almost poetic and was pliable by words of mouth, which were half-true, half-falsifications or just distant speculations.

For instance, many great leaders throughout the history tried to win the war against the piracy without much success, Alexander The Great made such an attempt to curb the piracy in the Mediterranean in 330 BC without avail. Moreover, in 78 BC the young Julius Caesar was captured in the island of Pharmacusa by pirates, just to be exchanged for ransom in a period of six weeks. In 67 BC, Pompey was strongly adamant not to tolerate such situation any more, he launched campaign against those ‘savages’ in which around ten thousand pirates were killed in the cost of Anatolia.

Until 17th century, pirates used only the galleys, but after the introduction of the sailing to them by Flemish renegade named Simon Danser , their straight and power intensified rapidly with high speed. The most dangerous and fearsome from them all, were the Algerian pirates, who were united by Khayr ad-Din widely known as Barbarossa. There were many attempts made by both Britain and France to stop those malice and to emancipate the seas from them, but in most of the time, the results were at least catastrophic and devastating.

On 29th May 1720, one ship named Samuel , in the waters of the North Atlantic, was leaving its port in London just to head to Boston. That ship was precious treasure indeed, with its a cargo of ironware,assorted goods in bales and trunks, and forty-five barrels of gunpowder. The crew was comprised only  of ten men, excluding the Captain Samuel Cary and another three passengers. On 13th July the ship was forty miles east of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland when another two ships were approaching from the distance. They were pirates, searching for new victim and a new object of plunder. As soon as they came up with the ship, they did not hesitate to rise fire and to wave the black flags.  Not only did the pirates were well-equipped with weapons to fight, but they outnumbered Samuel with the amount of men on each ship, Capitan Cary estimated that there were around hundred men on each of them.  Cary was told to abandon his ship and to come abroad the pirate ship where their captain Bartholomew Roberts had to meet him, and he did so as if he’d had another choice. After everything valuable was stolen from the ship and the rest was troweled overboard, it came down to the question of the ex-captain and his people. Eventually , as it was a long established tradition, all numbers of the crew were killed , but the captain and one Irish man was forced to join the pirates  in their new adventures. However, every rule has its own exception, during a heated discussion whether Samuel should be burned or sank, the pirates noticed a new ship coming out in the horizon and in that frenzy of events our Captain somehow managed to escape from the horrible hands of the pirates in order to reach Boston and to give report of his series of unfortunate events.

I could assure you that those circumstances were quite lucky for the poor captain as much more could have happened to him and to the ship, in short that was sheer happy ending .

However, the career and the life of pirate was not always the most foreseeable and predictable event, which might lie on the path of every men. That was the case of one Scottish man named William Kidd (1645 – 1701) whose passion for the sea voyages was inherited by his father who was a seaman. Kidd, at the very peak of his career, was responsible for protecting protect English ships in the Caribbean from French attacks during the war between them. In 1695, he returned to England in order to receive his payout for his duties as privateer, but the faith had another plans for him. He came up with a plant to attack the French ships and pirate vessels, after being financial backed by his new friend  Lord Bellomont. His voyage was granted with nothing, but failure due partly to the fact that almost half of the crew perished, another part was far from organized in order to accomplish such an action. In 1697, growing into the idea that his trip was merely a catastrophe, Kidd made a stopping point near Madagascar, famous shelter for many pirates across the Indian ocean. After that , he made his greatest mistake in his life, by attacking Indian company vessel, which was his passport to prison. From that point, he was pronounced a criminal and hanged on May 23, 1701. His body hung in a cage and left to rot as a warning against other pirates or men who might dare to do such thing. Some people said that the rope on which he was hanging broke twice and only on the third time Kidd died (such a shameful death).

 

What about the women?

While the men were slaughtered ruthlessly after the ship was attacked by pirates, the women did not reach better faith than being often thrown overboard like unwanted things. Sometimes, African women were given as a presents from someone else or they were captivated by the Captain of the ship by himself. Other women were even placed in much worse circumstances by being raped many times. For instance, one an American pirate Charles Gibbs recollected from his memory how once during an attack on one Dutch ship, everyone was killed, except on beautiful Dutch girl who was taken by force in one island near Cuba. She was their prisoner for two months, after which they decided to put her to death, poisoned her and throw her body in the ocean.

However, many European women were treated with respect, for example on board the Revenge there was long established rule which said that ‘If at any time we meet with a prudent woman, that man that offers to meddle with her, without her consent, shall suffer present death.’

Many people hold the opinion that a woman could not be a pirate and they sniffed in disbelief when someone rise that question as if it was equivalent to absurdity.

One of the most famous pirates in the history was a woman and her name is Anne Bonny. She was born from love affair between a maid and English lawyer , around 1700 in Cork,Ireland. As a result, her father and her mother fled to America in order to avoid some scandalous reputation. However, Anne was supposed to marry some deceint gentleman, but when she chose James Bonny, poor as a mouse sailor, her father did not make an attempt to conceal his discontent and immediately disinherited her. Anne and her future husband set up to New Providence, where little by little she lost respect for him and did not miss an opportunity to indulge herself in different pleasures. If she was not pregnant (probably around 1719), she might have persuaded her life as a pirate even much more earlier. After that she met two of people of her future crew (“Calico Jack” Rackham and Mary Read), which by 1720 came up from the world of obscurity, just to became famous for its savages and brutality. All across the Caribbeans , everyone knew their names and they were eventually captured and sentenced to death.

On November, before the executions to take place, Rackham was allowed to see Bonny and she said to him only this ‘”I’m sorry to see you here, but if you had fought like a man you need not have hanged like a dog.” However, Bonny and Mary were not killed, due to the fact that they, both were pregnant, but Mary died in prison five months later. What happened to Anne, nobody could verify with certainty as her story stopped there, and the tail got cold.

 

 

 

 

 

The first peasants’ war in Russia or the Time of Troubles

Bogolubov_Krestn_hod_v ‘The time of troubles’ as many historians call upon that period was turning point in Russian history, not only with its unprecedenting events, but also with its great importance. After the Soviet Era, many scholars rejected the theory that that period was the ‘first peasant war’ in Russian history, instead they were inclined to refer to it as a civil war, something which they found much more compatible to the people’s perception.

That period was indeed troubling and deserved to be called upon that name, also it was serious mixture of discontent, confusion and grievance.

Everything began with the appearance of one man, which identity is still under the scrutiny of many observations, who claimed to be Tsarevich Dmitrii, Ivan the Terrible’s youngest son who died in 1591. That man intentions were not only to put into question the Boris Godunov’s reign, but also to overthrown the tsar. His explanation how he survived and fled from the hands of death was so credible than, after being reported to Prince Adam Vishnevetskii at Brahin in Lithuania, was represented to the King Sigismund of Poland. So successful was the pretender’s plan that he eventually was taken under the patronage of Prince Constantine’s father-in-law, Jerzy Mniszech, the Palatine of Sandomierz, whose family seat was at Sambor, in Poland. Mniszech promised Dmitrii military support in return of gaining part of Russian territory, as a result the ‘lost’ son agreed and even took the daughter of the first as his wife, which was playing role as a guarantee. We could see how those even subsequently led to serious strains between Russia and Poland and the implementation of further difficulties was almost unavoidable.

However, some scholars argue that behind that unpredictable and sudden arrival of Dmitrii was an attempt of some families, between which the names of Romanovs, Shuiskii or Nagois were mentioned. On the other hand, due to lack of ample evidences the involvement of some of them was not justified or the possibility of boyars intervention, too.
After gaining enough support, Dmitrii entered Kiev with a small army of Polish troops and Cossacks, strongly determined to make his way throughout the empire. After his successful occupation of many regions like Chernigov, Putivl’, Ryl’sk and Kursk his popularity grew rapidly hand in hand with the support of many people explicitly not willing to tolerate Godunov’s policies anymore. Despite the fact that the ‘true’ tsar did not make any promises concerning the lower class society, mainly who supported him, the peasants but only expressed his views of unity against Gudanov’s regime and alternative future plan, he rose into favor even more. Those feelings were intensified even more when the sudden death of Boris Godunov took place on April 1605. Many of the boyars swore allegiance to Fedor Borisovich (Godunov’s son), but on 6th May considerable number of soldiers and army’s men changed the sides and turned to the Dmitrii. The way to Moscow was open to Dmitrii as result of that shifting nature of power and loyalty.
A proclamation wasa read out in the streets of Moscow , where people were gathering around, as a result massive revolt took place against the Godunov’s reign. No sooner did the former Tsaritsa Mariia Nagaia arrive and recognized Dmitrii as her son, he was proclaimed a tsar and his reign began( which weight was not longer than an year or less).
Some historians are quite dubious about the importance of Dmitrii’s reign due to the fact that his achievements were in shortage. We could not put so much blame on this, if we consider the short time in which he was on the throne. However, we could not turn blind eye on the fact that he granted with considerable land and money the servicemen of the southern and south-western towns who fervently supported him and also exempt them from paying taxes for fixed period of time, he indeed knew how to express his gratitude. He even planned campaign against the Turks and the Cremean Tatars, but unfortunately those ambitions were thwarted after his overthrown and dead in 1606.
As the situation continued to deteriorate, a new fresh complexion was added to the mixture, after Dmitrii’s death, on the throne came Vasili Shuiskii. As a response, everywhere around the empire a rumor was spread out that Dmitrii’s death was a fraud and he was only biding time and gathering forces. Indeed, that was sheer falsification, but new Dmitriis popped up in the scene much more quickly that it was expected. In the end, a new Dmitrii (the second false Dmitrii) made an appearance in the town of Starodub, in the Seversk region, in June 1607. His stategy was different, he entered Russia with considerable troops of Polish solders and made his own new ‘Moscow’ , just outside the city. That new ‘Moscow’ or Tushino, as this was the name of the town, had its own military support, royal court and even own Orthodox Patriarch. Moreover, the second Dmitrii was trying to alienate Moscow from the country with all the ways possible, while his supporters grew in numbers. Much more shocking events happened in his support, for instance Marina, the wife of the first Dmitrii, recognized and accounted him as her first husband, she even born a child from him. The country was relatively speaking in shock and terror, many people were shifting sides in the blink of the eye and wave of uncertainty was making his way everywhere. During that unbearable tension in the country, Shuiskii found himself in position of seeking foreign help. So, he made negotiations with the king of Sweden in possibility of war against Poland, as the second party provided military support to Dmitrii II.

Nevertheless, the grand battle between Poland and Russia occurred after Dmitrii II’s death (1610) at the very moment he ceased to be a factor. The war was triggered by another difficulty, while the army was exhausted by the events within the country, the vast majority of the boyars were ready to accept with open hands the Polish Crown Prince Ladislaus as the new Tsar as long as he maintained the Orthodox supremacy in Russia.

The Poland ‘s army was invading Moscow while someone declared Marina Mniszech and her newborn child as the rightful heirs, which was one needless action with fatal consequences. The occupation of Moscow was boiling point in Russia’ history, especially after the revolt in the city in 1611 in which the Poles troops marched towards Kremelin, after burning the outskirts of it, making the vast majority of the population homeless. A massive exposition of armies swept out the invaders from the Kremlin in October of 1612, Russian people were granted with a new tsar the year later, but the recovery from those events were not short-lived.