Did The Russian State... - Part II by Nils Johann (On the 'Curse' of the Orient)

In the essay 'The Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political institutions', by Donald Ostrowski, it is suggested that the organization of the Muscovite state could, to a strong degree have been influenced by the Mongol overlords that taxed, or demanded tribute and hostages from the Russ princes in the period. Ostrowski expresses himself quite diplomatically, and is explicit on the stance, that from this, it does not follow that the Russian state, that springs out of this state, later in time, is inherently of 'eastern' conception or constitution. The article makes room for what Ostrowski calls a 'pseudo-Byzantine' development, after the gradual severing of the ties between the Khans and the Lords of Moscow after 1430 -when the princes stopped 'visiting' the Khan in Sarai.

It is a sensible assumption that people or cultures, that are in contact with each-other do learn from each-others techniques. Thus also in the realm of management and statecraft. The problem with this approach however is that it does not seem likely that the Tartars had a refined statecraft, being steppe-nomads and good warriors, that mostly formed their war-bands based on brittle, personal allegiances. Conquest, for the former raiders, therefore, must most likely have been a “learning by doing” experiment. Due to their high degree of personalized, not institutionalized rule, their dominions also get brittle once the ruler dies. With time the tartars also adopt sedentary life, but it is rather a consequence of their dealings with sedentary and urban culture where they conquer.

It was a widely held opinion from the 1850 and onward, that the Asian states were “despotic”. Also the Asian peoples lacked the European/Western ability for rational thought. -Thus a mongoloid Russia would explain a backward Russia. Karl Wittfogel runs with a less extreme notion than above, of what Mongolian influx might mean, as Ostrowski also mentions in his article. To criticize Wittfogel today might seem to be like kicking in open doors, but his most famous work "Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power." "Wittfogel's scientific contribution in the ideological conflict with Soviet Communism" still echoed in the lecturing rooms when I started to interest myself for Russia in 2005. (With that quote it should be abundantly clear that we are not reading history, when reading Wittfogel) The book takes its thesis about the 'Hydraulic society', developed in his book “Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Chinas” (1931), and superimposes the concept on Russian history, to explain his contemporary Soviet Union, using the concept as a 'grand theory of everything'. Thus Soviet Communism is explained as follows: Along the great rivers like the Euphrates or the Jiang-tsek-iang, centralized states arose because the coordinated regulation of irrigation was crucial for agriculture, and the steadfastness required by agriculture made people easier to rule. This gave rise to a system of government Wittfogel named “Oriental Despotism”. Later this mode of government would also spread to the whole of Asia, remaining more or less
unchanged up to Wittfogel's time. It is also spread to areas without irrigation-systems, like Russia. With the Mongol invasion, Wittfogel claims, Russia was “asieatesized” and thus the despotic structures that had risen in the Far-East were integrated into the coming Russian systems of government, commencing up until Soviet Communism.

The story is a nice and elegant one. The narrative is beautiful and it seems at the first glance to “explain it all”, and to make sense. It was well received in the climate of the Cold War. The only problem of course, is that it cannot be true. It's highly incredible, unscientific, speculative and tendentious. The vast oversimplification that was needed to formulate Wittfogel's assertion has with time rendered Wittfogels work to be seen as outdated and incorrect, but his spectre seems to cling on in our discussion. The various weaknesses, are as well made clear by Joseph Needham's Review of Oriental Despotism (1959). Wittfogel work seems perfect for the Zeitgeist that surrounded him in the United States of the 1950's, distancing him from his own past in the German Communist party, while telling a story, elegant, comforting and assuring to his surroundings.

Alexander Yanov (1930-) can be seen as in opposition to Wittfogel's narration. In his trilogy Yanov tells a somewhat different story. He puts the responsibility for the “break with the West” in the lap of Ivan VI. -There was no Mongol imprint. He also rejects that paternalistic tendencies is something exclusively Russian, -something that should be less hard to accept when considering
Western Europe at the same time. Yanov advocates that the period from 1480 till 1560 is a period of “European tradition” in Russia, whilst the 'Oprichnina' of Ivan IV breaks this tradition. After that it was a long and hard struggle for Russia to “get back to Europe”, and it finally gets there after the breakup of the USSR. This is also in part tendentious, as it leans on a positive, highly unrealistic, mythological portrait of western Europe.

The works of Yanov and Wittfogel are representatives of two opposing archetypal interpretations of Russian history and Russia. The one understands it as “meant to be” 'European', the other as 'Asiatic'. -Or 'Western' and 'Eastern'. It is important to note that not all writing about Russia falls into this category. Ostrowski, who's focus is primarily on early Slavic history, has also published extensively in the field of comparative history, and methodology, and this seems to keep him from oversimplification and generalization.

Comments...? Questions...?

Did The Russian State Form in a Different Manner than Its Occidental Neighbours? - Part I by Nils Johann

Can Russia be seen as following the same formative patterns as the new bureaucratic (proto-) states rising in Western Europe? A discussion in historiography, world history and the problems of long chains of causality, exemplified by a comparison of Russian and English political history during the reigns of Ivan IV and Henry VIII. (Late medieval/Northern Renaissance period, 16th century.)

While studying medieval Russia two questions kept popping up in the Literature: Does Russia have its background in “Eastern” (Asiatic) or “Western” (European) culture? Does a possible Asiatic background account for the perceived “backwardness” of the land? During the reading, a suspicion of double-standards for the 'scales' we use to measure the 'East' and the 'West' arose. Marginal cosmetic differences seemed to be exploited to exasperate a narrative, of a distant, strange, and mythical Russia. The historiographical discussion will start with the more specific grand works and perspectives concerning Russia, opened up by Ostrowski's essay on "The Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political institutions", which served as a inspiration for this work. What then also needs to be addressed is the claim of Russian backwardness which is the main narrative thread in Alexander Yanov's work, and in large parts in other writings, like the work of Wittfogel. Is the way Russia is portrayed up to this day, intentionally overemphasising minor differences, as a result of the political tension that ensued between its rulers and the neighbors in 'The West', rather than a matter of fact? Could the portrayal also be the result of sloppy methodology... even if some Russian scholars themselves adopt this view during the zenith of British hegemony, in the middle of the 19th century? It became my desire to look at the subject with a 'Homeric blindness' and a 'Ranke'an' moral disassociation.

While dealing with this question the main challenge gave itself by the seemingly ethereal qualities of terms like 'Europe' utilized in the discussion. An approach was finally opened up by 'zooming out' and taking a look at Frank's work in "ReOrient- Global Economy in the Asian Age" (1998) and by the discussion that ensued between him and Landes, Goldstone, Vries, Pomeranz and others. I still remember discussing the 'hot topic' of the 'special' European development with Vries back in 2004, and also that it ended with Vries passionately leaving.

I will make an account of this larger discussion further on because it will provide the proper context for discussing what 'Western Traits' actually are, and how far back we actually are honestly able to superimpose this term back in time. Goldstone's suggestion: To see Europe as the (*'barbaric') rim-lands of “Civilization”. Civilization at first spreading from Mesopotamia, in the direction of Europe, is a good perspective for helping us understand this.

With the narrative, that: Every time non-European state-formations have stability, their government can inherently, within this discussion, be described as despotic or tyrannical, we might be led astray: As long as there was order in China, and India, up until about 1800, these areas also maintained a technical lead on poor, war-torn Western-Europe: Stability equals innovation, because relative risk is reduced, and more persons are allowed to specialize. Risk becomes acceptable when it is affordable to take a loss.

In order to answer the question of the paper, what follows is an introduction to the greater European realm during the lives of Henry VIII (*1491-†1547) of England and Ivan IV (*1530-†1584) of Russia. This context is important, because looking at Russia isolated, can sometimes make us forget the realities of late-medieval/Renaissance life, in its westward neighbors. We could go into the trap of unintentionally only comparing it to our life experiences today, leading us to handle the subject-matter unhistorical. The demonstration will then continue by looking at, and comparing their reigns, which are more alike, than proponents of British exceptionalism, or of the Asiatic culture of Russia, would care for. We start out by comparing their families rise to power and their relation to the other noble families. There follows a comparison of their household management, the legal status of the Emperors, and their warfare.

In several works by, amongst others, Crummy and Yanov, the reign of Ivan IV is held up as an example of 'non-European' political behavior. When we with that approach compare Ivan's reign to that of Henry VIII, interesting choices for conclusion open up. Neither Henry, nor Ivan, are behaving like the Europeans of Ferguson or Wittfogel. The alleged “democratic”, free Occident, stands like an elegant myth, with its cradle in a later age. In short, the privilege of a few noblemen in Britain after 1688, does not make out as credible freedom, and in the 1540's, English political conditions do not stray remarkably from conditions in Russia. In the comparison of chapter 4, a pattern will emerge, that highlights the similarities in behavior of the two Monarchs and their Crown. Both castigate and subjugate the other competing nobles. In order to accumulate capital they reform their management and communication systems, laying the groundwork for a bureaucratic state. They do this in order to exploit the realm, and to aggregate power in their own hands. This enables their wars of conquest. Standing gunpowder-armies enable them to project their power further than their predecessors. It should be acknowledged that differences between England and Russia, but when looking at the grand motions, an impression of similar development for the period forms.


Comments.... Questions? :)

My Popular Hits 2010-2011

It has been a few years since I started this blog and so much has really changed since then. My home, my family, my friends, the church, my life, my health…. so much is so different and, in many ways, new. This blog was started to help connect to family due to their encouragement and suggestions. But it has opened so much more opportunity for me. This blog still helps me keep in touch with family and I do feel less alone, but I have also made some friends from different countries and enjoy those small friendships. I have learned about other cultures and I have found deeper relationships with some family members than I have ever had before. This has been a wonderful blessing to me…

Last week, I got an email from my blogger account that congratulated me on reaching over 50,000 views. It is a stunning thought. I do not feel like I even really know one hundred people… and yet so many thousands have crossed the path of some of my thoughts. It is a feeling that is both overwhelming and a feeling of pure awe. So while I am sure I have a small group of followers and I am sure that most of the time… I can be quite boring, rambling, etc…. I thought I would take a few minutes to list the top ten posts that I have written that have been viewed over the last few years. I hope you enjoy! :)


1. Peter the Great: The Modernizer of Modern Russia (7794 views- first published 4/15/2011)








2. Ivan the Terrible: The First Czar of Russia (6025 views -first published 3/30/2011)








3. Debunking Some of the Myths of Medieval Daily Life (4121 views - first published 3/8/2011)









4. Some Snapshots of Life on Gondwana (3141 views - first published 8/18/2010)




5. Thoughts on the Document 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen' (1757 views - first published 9/19/2011)






6. The 'Worst Shark Attack Ever' - An Example of Human Failure and an Easy Scapegoat (1431 views - first published 6/24/2010)





http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
The Life and Art of Carl Heinrich Bloch (1090 views - first published 3/13/2011)






8. The Rise of Moscow after the Mongol Conquest (937 views - first published 2/21/2011)



9. Random Thoughts on Oral History, Interviews, and Technique (827 views - first published 2/23/2011



10. The Subjugation of Kievan Rus : The Tartar-Mongol Conquest and its Influences / Ramifications (827 views - first published 2/23/2011)






Is there a post that is your favorite? A post that maybe you really enjoyed but didn't see on the 'most viewed' list? Anything you are willing to share...? :)

Brief Views on the History of the Black Death

The start of the spread of the Black Death actually has a rather ignoble beginning. A group of Christian Italian merchants who had been expelled from their native city of Tarna had come to stay in the Muslim trading posts of Caffa. These two groups had a bit of religious difficulty with each other and soon a small skirmish turned into a full-on war. It was one year into the siege in which the Muslims (with help from the local Mongol army) were attempting to out-root the Christians from Caffa that the plague arrived- it killed so many in the Mongol army that they were forced to stop fighting. However, the Mongol prince came up with a successful plan... and it was at this time that the remaining troops loaded their catapults with the dead bodies of his soldiers that had died of the plague and were then thrown into the city walls. The rotting corpses tainted the air and poisoned the water causing death in the city. A few of the still able individuals with resources were able to gather in their boats and attempt to sail away to safety... taking local rats accidentally on board with them. These rats carried fleas infested with the plague and soon the sailors were dying as they traveled. No port would allow the boat to dock when it was seen the boats were filled with the dead and dying... and when they reached in Mecina in Sicily, they barely stopped long enough before they were sent out again. It was in this brief respite however that there was time for several rats to get ashore. This very brief encounter is what was thought to have brought the Black Death from the East to Europe. We now know that the Bobak marmot is the creature that has always brought the plague to people.... by coughing on fleas... which spread it to rats... which spread it to us. All the great human plagues can be traced back to this animal in Mongolia who are particularly susceptible to this illness.


Europe was in a rather bad position for a contagious disease to arrive on its shores. By the time that the plague arrived in Europe, overpopulation was the norm. The long wars that had weakened the people and their lands were not completely ended in 1348, famines and harvest failures had left people hungry and undernourished, and it goes without saying that the instability probably caused great amounts of stress and fear that lingered on in the people even in times of peace. Overpopulation, especially in cities, made it easier for the plague to spread as people interacted with each other and then more people, as the filth and sewage of the cities that was not properly treated and left everywhere which left the people at more risk... as the poor used the clothing and possessions of the dead and the dying. As people became more fearful and terrified, the rich would gather possessions if they could and would flee away from the towns with the plague... but of course they would travel with it in their possession continuing the movement and the spread... accidentally bringing more and more people and communities into the path of the plague. One of the other quick ways that the plague travels to new victims was by ships and usually within days of a ship docking the plague was found everywhere nearby. One a sad note as well, the Catholic church had labeled cats as animals who belonged only to witches or where familiars of Satan... so the cat population, which could have helped control the rat population, was extremely low in Europe at his time.


There are actually two types of plague and they are spread through the human population in slightly different ways. The two types of plague are respiratory/pneumonic and bubonic plague... neither of which were very enviable. Bubonic plague was characterized by boils and blisters as well as fever that would appear which would weaken the person and the blisters/boils would grow larger and more painful until by around the fourth day, the person usually died. Very few that came down with the plague would live to tell about it later so we have very few firsthand autobiographies- the few we do are hard and difficult to read. Pneumonic plague is characterized by high, consistent fevers and respiratory difficulty, bleeding and breakdown. Pneumonic plague is much deadlier than its sister bubonic plague.... as well as much easier to transmit to other victims. The disease was spread by the infected fleas which would then bite a human host. Pneumonic plague could also be spread through the expelled air of an infected person.


It would be remiss at this point to suggest that the only terror of this time was the plague. The group that became known as the flagellants certainly can be accused of making things worse for the majority of the people. The flagellants were a group of religious extremists who believed that by causing harm and self abuse to their bodies, they could stop the plague by this form of 'penance' and would purge the society around them of sin. The Pope at first encouraged these 'sects', but these groups soon condemned the Pope for the failure of the plague to cease... and the Pope realized that this group was a risk to public order and his position. The Pope would then write to all the leaders in Europe to ask them to deal with the flagellant sects. Fairly quickly, most of the flagellants would be suppressed and wiped out in the several kingdoms which did effectively wipe out the majority of the sect members across Europe. At one point, the flagellants accused the Jewish populations of poisoning the wells and causing the plague causing several pogroms and massacres of these minority populations. So these sects didn't tend to cause anything but harm.... the fear and terror, as well as social unrest and massacres that they caused in many ways could have helped spread the plague as people ran from the unrest to other areas or brought the sick more closely together to protect themselves from the more immediate threat.


One impact that the Black Death had on the medieval societies was how people reacted to the church and to how God was seen. The Black Plague had a huge impact on the Catholic church. The difficulties caused by the flagellants was a black mark on the church that was difficult for the organization to shake... especially as the flagellants started to use the Church as a scapegoat for the death and the plague. Far more difficult to shake however, was the new attitude that the survivors tended to keep- that the established church was not necessarily absolute in power. People still strongly believed in God and their beliefs had even been strengthened due to the suffering causes by the plague. But all hierarchy- whether church based or politically based- was seen with a look of skepticism that had never been fostered before in the minds of the common man. People started to question the church as well as the general order of the world and tradition. It changed the relationship between the surviving poor and the surviving rich as the shortage of labor would give peasants more bargaining power. Europe was no longer overpopulated.... and it would take well over one hundred years for Europe to truly recover from the devastation of the Black Death.

The Rise of Moscow after the Mongol Conquest

During the years of 1237-1240, Batu Khan and his armies overwhelmed the Russian military forces and the lands of Kievan Rus became a part of the vast Mongolian Empire- or the Golden Horde. Many cities were the worst for wear from this war, and the capital city of Kiev was no exception. Kiev was already a 'falling star' by the time that Batu and his armies arrived- in 1169, the city was captured and sacked by a Russian Prince named Andrei Bogoyubsky who then promptly moved his capital to the newer city of Vladimir- after accepting the title of 'Grand Prince' of course. Kiev's location was no longer as much of an asset as it had been at one time due to trade route changes and political re-directs so the country-state of Kievan Rus was dividing into two 'groups'... and groups that really had little communication with each other. When the Mongol armies arrived at Kiev, they razed the city to the ground and decimated the population who had resided there. So the time was ripe for the ascension of a new capital city in the Russian lands... and Moscow was ready and amply endowed through several circumstances and means to rise to the top of quarreling princes/cities to snatch at the number one spot. This paper will discuss the circumstances and advantages that the small city of Moscow had that allowed for its growth and dominance during the final years of Kievan Rus' existence and the leadership of the Golden Horde.

The land on which sits the current city of Moscow was inhabited long before the Russian city was built and named. Evidence shows early evidence of humans dating to the Stone Age with evidence from the Schukinskaya Neolithic site, the Fatyanovskaya culture burial ground as well as other sites. The first mention of the existence of the city of Moscow was in 1147 when it was used as a meeting place for two princes-Yuri Dolgorukiy and Sviatoslav Olgovich. In 1156, Yuri Dolgorukiy built a wooden wall and a moat around the small city... and he is the man generally credited with the founding of the city of Moscow., This 'mere village' was situated near Moska river and had ready access to the Oka, Volga, and Dnieper, and Don rivers and was rather insignificant when compared to other new principalities of its time: Suzdal, Vladimir, Tver, and Riazan are examples. Situated in the northeast section of Kievan Rus, the city sat on a relatively flat geography with moderate temperatures and huge swaths of forests. This small city was also ideally located in the migration path of populations traveling from the middle Dnieper to the northeast section of the state. The impact of the Mongols on the Kieven Rus state can be described as inconsistent- in this case location really does matter. In some areas, the devastation was large and hard to overcome such as in Kiev and Vladimir. In other areas the impact of the invasion was less felt and so areas such as Moscow had less problems with depopulation. In fact, Moscow notably had an influx of population due to being a less devastated and more protected settlement.

During the years of the Mongol oppression or 'yoke' as it was sometimes called, the Russian aristocracy had a custom of how inheritance was divided between the male children- or princes- of the household. This system, called the 'appanage' system describes a system where it was common for a Russian prince to divide his land into as many 'appanages' as they had male children. In the principality of Moscow, the ruling prince followed the system, but tweaked it just enough to change the outcome of the inheritance. Instead of dividing the property into equal pieces, which over generations would become smaller to non-existent when there were too many princes around, the ruling prince would leave a major share of his estate to the eldest son and only small pieces to the other sons. This had the effect of allowing the eldest sons to dominate his brothers and take their lands in arguments... whereas in other areas civil wars between princes were much more evenly matched.

This form of primogenitive inheritance helped give Moscow an edge over other Russian territories. In the beginning Moscow was considered of such little significance, that it was an inheritance to the very youngest son of Alexander Nevsky named Daniel in 1263. Daniel attacked and/or inherited a few other 'appendages' and was able to leave an enlarged inheritance to his son. One of his prodigy, Ivan I, was known to collaborate with the mongols and was considered so trustworthy by the Khans that he was given the title of Grand Prince and was put in charge of tax collecting throughout much of the Rus lands around 1331. Using his profits to buy more land or collecting more appanages through force, Ivan increased the amount of his holdings five times. Ivan also helped to transfer the residence of the chief bishop of the orthodox church to Moscow (from Vladimir) and so he was able to count on support from the church for his actions over other rulers and cities. Ivan I also had the advantage of having mongol troops available for his command to fight other Russian prices or kinsmen who he had a disagreements with.

So while other princes were spending their time dealing with more princes and land to fight with/over and not having good success, the rulers of Moscow were quietly successful in their quest to increase the size of their holdings. Individual princes from all over attempted to secure the support, influence and even military might of the Mongols for their own endeavors or for the title of Grand Prince. So inter-dynastic quarrels could now be brought and appealed to the Khan for settlement... and many were. It can certainly be said that the Russian princes were not passive when dealing with succession problems and many times the Khan was called upon to deal with these family struggles. But one specific situations helped move the Khan of the Golden Horde to look more favorably upon Moscow. Moscow's main challenger for the title of Grand Prince and for the tax patent was the city of Tver and the rivalry between these two cities had been fierce for quite some time. (This civil war between the two cities lasted about 25 years. One source describes the contest between these two cities are full of 'dramatic episodes of court intrigue, highway robbery, murder, and war.) However, in 1327, a violent anti-Mongol riot broke out in Tver with the death of several mongol officials- which effectively ended the Khans strategy of allowing each of the cities to hope to get his 'favor'. The army of the Golden Horde attacked the town of Tver, its neighbors and devastated the cities... among the leaders of the troops for this attack was Prince Ivan of Moscow. It was also thought that the city of Tver was becoming political allies of Lithuania- a traditional enemy which caused some worry to the Mongol Khan.

Due to the calculation and successful implementation of the 'appanage' system by the princes of Moscow as well as the implicit support of the Golden Horde, the military might of Moscow over other Russian principalities was fairly assured. So, it should not have come to the surprise of anyone that as the rulers of Moscow grew more powerful, the yoke of oppression would be less tolerable. In 1378, Dmitri Donskoi and his army beat a small Mongolian army at the Battle of the Vozha River and in 1380, an alliance of Moscow princes defeated the Mongol alliance at the Battle of Kulikovo- marking the beginning of the end of the Golden Horde's power in Russia. There is some question of who the winner was in this last battle if you are looking at it from the military point of view, but from the moral and human point of view, Russians saw that the mongols could be successfully challenged and that 'Moscow' was the champion 'of the oppressed nation'...and Dmitri Donskoi was a hero for openly challenging the Mongol army/occupation. His son Vasily I was the first prince since the occupation to have been named successor of a city in a will without the prior approval of the Khan and he started his reign by sending 'gifts' to the Mongols and not the full tribute.

The empire of the Golden Horde began to disintegrate around the reign of Ivan III- a prince of Moscow, who greatly expanded the territory under the control of the city and laid the foundation for the coming Russian empire that was ruled by czars in an autocratic system. By the time Ivan III had completed his territory grabs, he had all the land of Russia under his control and a unified nation- in a way Kievan Rus had never been. For decades, the Mongols had been experiencing internal conflict with fairly frequent overthrows and a new 'Khan' designated.

In conclusion, the world and the life that lives on it is experiencing constant change. Kiev, at one time, had all the advantages at her feet between water access, land, trade, people, etc... But as the world changed, Kiev's 'star' was no longer so advantageously aligned and another 'star' could rise. And as the state grew in population, Moscow is a city that is more centrally located- Kiev was very much in the south of the state. Also, travel and communication from Moscow around the state would have been easier due to its abundance of close waterways. Through luck, sheer cunning, and natural advantages, the city of Moscow rose to a prominence that it has continued to this day. From a small, meager village in 1147 to the city that now houses 10,563,038 people, Moscow has become the largest city in the state of Russia... and a city with a vivid, living history that can be seen in its buildings and people today.

The Subjugation of Kievan Rus : The Tartar-Mongol Conquest and its Influences/ Ramifications

The Tartar- Mongol invasion of 1237-1241 marked the collapse of the Kievan Rus state and for more than a century, the Mongolian leaders and armies remained the major power over most of the Rus territories. For almost the next 300 years, the three major influences on this country and its people were the Mongols, the new city of Moscow, and let's not forget the Russian princes and aristocracy that will continue to weave their influence, civil war, and conflicts onto the Russian people and its land mass. This paper will discuss the Tartar -Mongol invasion and the Russian resistance to it and also will discuss the history of the “Golden Gate” of Kiev and its significance to Russian history and the Mongol invasion.

By the time of the beginning of the Mongol invasion in 1237, many things had changed in Kievan Rus. The city of Kiev was no longer the capital of the 'great prince' Andrei Bogolyubsky as he had 'sacked' the city and then moved 'his' capital to the city of Vladimir. As the trade to Greece became less important, so did the city of Kiev and eventually steppe nomads (the Polovtsy) cut the water route to Greece. This waterway 'tie' had connected the two largest areas of Kievan Rus... and they were now divided. Decentralization and migration to avoid the steppe nomads began to occur and ordinary Russians, as they understood the inability or unwillingness of their princes to rule, took to finding their own strength to solve their problems and to try and prosper. This lack of communication and the lack of cooperation by the ruling elite left the Kievan Rus state more vulnerable to outside invading forces. This vulnerability and then the loss of several armies that were sent to help neighboring Polovtsky forces fight the Mongolian forces, helped assure the collapse of the Kievan Rus and the takeover by the Mongols.

Russia was safe for a few years from the Tartar-Mongols as the Mongolian forces retreated to the East in 1227 to deal with internal problems arising from the death of Genghis Khan....however, these were dealt with and so the Mongols returned, invading under a khan named Batu and a general named Subodei. While the Russian elite and its people should have been prepared for the Mongols to return, the Riurikid princes failed to take any extraordinary precautions against attack – even after three of their neighbors were attacked and subdued in 1229 and 1232. Batu and his army attacked in 1237 by crossing the Volga river and systematically taking over the land after his demand for a tribute of 10% of all the assets of Russia was denied- which included people and horses. The first to fall was the city of Riazan which was conquered in a week, destroyed the small town of Moscow in January 1238, 'captured, plundered, and burned' the city of Suzdal, and then reached the city of Vladimir in February- which was defeated and beaten in a battle on the Sit' river on March 4, 1238. The great Tartar-Mongol campaigns in the lands of Russia can be divided into two separate phases over three years (1237-1240).


By 1240, Batu had conquered all but a single part of the Kievan Rus- and Novgorod escaped only by a very lucky circumstance. As new territories were acquired, the Mongols conscripted new members for the military from the conquered populations and adapted their 'clan structure' to the conquered people. The Mongols were also noted by religious communities at the time for being very tolerant of other religions. However, the Mongols were not noted for their abundance of mercy or pity- to themselves or other groups of people. An example of the strict discipline by this group for themselves can be measured the the example given to other soldiers – if one or more soldiers was 'captured' by the enemy, the other members of their military 'group' were executed after the battle's end. Also, in “The Tale of the Destruction of Riazan”, the audience is reminded that the Mongols 'burned this holy city with all its beauty and wealth... And churches of God were destroyed and much blood was spilled on the holy alters. And not one man remained alive in the city. All were dead. All had drunk the same bitter cup to the dregs. And there was not even anyone to mourn the dead.', After the Mongol military campaigns were concluded in the Rus lands, these lands joined the vast empire that was known as the Golden Horde- which at its largest point covered large areas across eastern Europe, Persia, China and Korea.

The land of Kieven Rus and its people were deeply affected by the invasion and subsequent rule by the Mongol rulers. Looking at the land through a large lens, the country itself was mostly cut off from Europe for more than 250 years. This would certainly have had its effect on the economy- as well as the political and cultural structure of the time. After the city of Kiev was burned to the ground in December 1242, the center of political power in the Rus was shuffled from there to the newer city of Moscow. (An interesting chronicle account on the siege and burning of Kiev mentions that so many people tried to get to safety from the Mongol army in the Church of Tithe that the upper floors of the church collapsed due to the weight. The Church of Tithe was also the first church built of stone in the city of Kiev.) At the time of the Mongol destruction, Kiev was considered one of the largest cities in the world, with a population exceeding one hundred thousand. Many parts of the land and its human geography was destroyed as cities were burned, large quantities of people killed, several royal princes killed along with their armies, and a new way of life and new leaders emerged. (There is some argument about how much real damage either than 'deaths' the Mongol conquest actually caused.) The only facts that do not appear to have much dissent surrounding them is that the Tartar-Mongol forces seemed to easily and speedily conquer the Kievan Rus state due to a few circumstances- the Mongol army was much larger and much more efficient due to skill, military tactics etc.... The Russians had no central command, smaller and less efficient armies, no intelligence system and very little communication between the towns and districts.

With the coming of the Khan- ruler or tsar of the Golden Horde, the lives and lifestyles of the remaining populations were to change. The Mongol society was primarily a nomadic one and that was not to change after the takeover of a different group of people. Society was based around clans, which were then divided into tribes and then smaller groups and even when building cities and agricultural communities, the Mongols were known for continuing to be a people who were easily 'transportable'- while building his capital city of Sarai, the leader Batu lived in a tent. One source suggests that by 1253, this capital city was an enormous 'tent city' of about ten miles in size. The economy was affected as tribute needed to be paid to the Mongol oppressors, qualified men were forced or conscripted into new positions in the economy- army, crafted items, other skilled labor, etc... Some chronicles describe the taking of slaves and the systematic conscription of the skilled craftsman and artisans. So internal commerce would have suffered a setback due to the lack of city craftsman to make things to sell, the inability of the towns to make goods to satisfy the villagers, the Mongol policy of 'ignoring' the peasants so that the peasants would be forced to grow food for themselves and the trade routes that had been disrupted and needed to be restored, etc... To be blunt, the Mongols, who were primarily interested in economic gain, had the motivation to get the economy moving again quickly and settle in peaceful relations over the conquered. That said, the motivation was based on what the Mongol leaders wanted the economy to do... and that did not necessarily contain what the economy had already been functioning as before the war.

Politics changed as well. The war with the Mongols had reduced the number of princes that still survived to vie for power and land (mostly the northeastern princes). And each of these princes needed to accept their new rulers, learn how to deal with the new rules/laws and attempt to recover and restore order in their lands- of course, after they had their right to continue to 'rule' confirmed by the Khan. The fact that the Mongols had become the men in charge, however, did not change the continuous power struggles between the Russian princes as well as the near severance of political and cultural ties between the north and south lands. In some areas the only outward sign of the Tatar-Mongol invasion's success was that the Russian princes would travel to the headquarters of the Golden Horde to pay allegiance to the Khan and have their appointments as leaders confirmed... as well as to pay tribute. The invasion also brought the 'census' to Russian lands as the Mongol leaders used the information gathered for military conscription, land division, assessing the amount of tribute due, etc... Politics in general changed more in the southern areas of the old Kievan Rus due to proximity to the headquarters of the Golden Horde- the northern areas were less easily influenced. Diplomatic rituals clearly changed and developed over this time as well. The visits became more formalized and became a 'ritual'... and not a haphazard system.

Other changes that can be attributed to the Mongol invasion were changes in culture. A postal system was developed that helped speed communication and make it more efficient. Interactions between the Church and the Golden Horde became more direct and regular at time went on and by 1261 a bishopric was established at Sarai and the Russian church was afforded special privileges from taxation and military conscription- even though the Mongols were generally Muslim. Individual bishops could serve as diplomatic agents for the khans and were used by the Golden Horde to help improve alliances with the Byzantium as well as act as emissaries to the Russian princes (which could suggest church approval for the Mongols.) As the city of Moscow became more prominent over time, the culture that the city of Kiev had shared diminished and the cultural attributes of Moscow became more widespread. (By 1252, Moscow had become an independent hereditary principality and over the next hundred years it was to grow strong enough to not only annex some of its neighbors in 1302, but to also fight for the title of Grand Princedom in the early 1360's.) Over time, the Golden Horde would put it's trust/confidence in the prince's of Moscow over other political princes.

Like all empires, the Golden Horde was chipped at over time and was eventually vanquished from the Russian lands. In 1380, an alliance led by the princes of Moscow defeated the mongols at the battle of Kulikovo- which was to mark the beginning of the end of the Golden Horde in Russia. The Mongol 'vacuum' as filled as it lifted, but mostly by Russia's traditional enemies (the Poles and the Lithuanians) and not necessarily by the Russian's themselves. As these new groups moved in, intermarriage became more commonplace, helping to blend, people, cultures, and language.

In conclusion, while the Mongol invasion caused changes in the economic, political and cultural structure of Kievan Rus- and certainly contributed or caused the failure/collapse of the state, not all changes can be placed squarely at the feet of the Golden Horde. For some groups economic advantages could be had that were better than before the invasion... and many economic hardships that were suffered by the common man could be shown to be as much the fault of the Russian princes themselves as well as the Mongol leaders. The changes in culture can be placed at the feet of the Mongols... and at the feet of the Russian princes and the Byzantine empire as well. And many political 'changes' didn't cause much change at all- the Russian princes still squabbled like toddlers playing a high stakes game of Risk. Some changes, such as the census and tax gathering methods the princes saw as distinct benefits- and kept using them after the Khan had been vanquished from the Russian lands. Moscow rose to prominence because of the calculation of its princes and their use of the 'political arraignments by the Golden Horde- a calculation that other princes in Russia didn't take advantage of.

An interesting side note to this invasion and physical structure that has managed to survive the years of changes and revolution is the “Golden Gate' of Kiev. Who constructed the gate is up to debate- whether it was Vladimir I or his son Yaroslav the Wise- although Yaroslav appears to be winning in the debate. It was constructed in 1017-1024 and served as a main gala entrance to Kiev. The Golden Gate was originally a 'triplet' and was one of the three main gates into the city of Kiev. The other two have not survived the onslaught of centuries. The city of Vladimir had a set of gates also known as the 'Golden Gates', but those particular gates were destroyed by Batu during the Mongol invasion of the city. The Golden Gate of Kiev, however, was built so well that when Batu tried and successful attacked the city of Kiev, he was unable to get through that particular gate... and only found success through a less well fortified area. These 'gates' have a few significant connections to the past history of the Russian state. In 1048, a french delegation arrived in the city of Kiev to ask King Yaroslav for his daughter's hand in marriage to King Henry I of France. The french diplomats was awed by the beauty of the “Golden Gates” and you can still find royal deeds in France signed with the seal of the Princess Anna Yaroslavna- which has a iris and a gate... which is thought to be the Golden Gates of Kiev. If all the entrances to Kiev had been like the Golden Gate...well, the Mongols might have met their match in the city of Kiev. It is also a unique architectural structure that has been imitated a few times, but is based on the internal decorations found in ancient Ruthenian churches. Currently, the Golden Gates have been restored on the ruins of the original gates, holds a museum inside and are now the property of a different nation- Ukraine.

The Late Kievan Era: Vsevolod III and the Early Development of Ukraine

During the reign of Vladimir I, the country-state of Kievan Rus was brought into stability, Christianity, as well as economic security. After his son's were placed in positions of power in cities around the state with ready militias and some autonomy, it looked as though Kievan Rus was ready for a golden age of peace and prosperity. This was not to be and right before his death in 1015 AD, Vladimir's many sons began to fight for more control, larger land areas and supreme power over all as well as wealth. This bloody infighting continued with little respite as different princes began to exert more control over their lands and fight off invaders- whether 'relative' or foe. For almost one hundred years, brothers killed brothers and other relatives with a few brief periods of stability between periods of strife and civil war. The next ruler of note was Vladimir Monomakh in 1113 AD. However, by 1132 Ad, Kievan Rus was beginning to seriously divide and fragment due to internal tensions between the differing princes and the city of Kiev could no longer be counted on to produce an occasional strong and unifying ruler. Other economies and other political centers began to assume more importance during this time including the cities Vladimir-Suzdal (in Suzdalia), Galicia-Volhynia, and Novgorod... and another hundred years of various times of vague calm and civil war were to commence. During this time, a large period of relative calm and economic success was brought about by the rule of Vsevolod III. He lived from 1154-1212 and was known as the 'Grand Prince' as well as by the name Vsevolod the 'Big Nest'- due to his fourteen children. In this paper, I will discuss the life and successes of Vsevolod III, some of the reasons for his success, and the populating of the lands we now call Ukraine- or “the breadbasket of Europe”.

Vsevolod was one of the children of Yuri Dolgorukivi who is known as the founder of the city named Moscow around the year 1156.(Yuri I) It is not known exactly who is his mother was (he was the 10th/11th of fifteen known children, but historical speculation suggests his mother was Helene Komnene, a Greek princess who took Vsevolod with her to Constantinople after his father's death. It was in Constantinople at the Komnenoi court that he spent his childhood, returning to Kievan Rus in 1170 and possibly visited Tbilisi where he might have met his future wife. Before 1186 Vsevolod married his first wife, Mary Shvarnovna of Ossetia- she bore him 14 known children and died in 1206. Mary devoted her life to works of 'piety' (and clearly having children!) and was later glorified as a saint in the church. In either 1207 or 1209, Vsevolod married Liubov Vasilkovna, the daughter of Vasilko Bryacheslavich who was Prince of Vitebsk- they had no children that are known.

During the early parts of his reign, Vsevolod participated in many military struggles and was not known for being merciful. He increased his holdings by strengthening the defenses on the middle Volga, building outposts along the northern Dvina, seizing towns from Novgorod, and appropriating its lands along the Upper Volga. He had limited success, however, in bringing Novgorod itself under his control. He put people in charge of areas who would do his will and was not accepting or tolerant of disobedience. He was known as a great military commander and in “The Tale of Igor's Campaign” it is written - “Great prince Vsevolod! Don't you think of flying here from afar to safeguard the paternal golden throne of Kiev? For you can with your oars scatter in drops the Volga, and with your helmets scoop dry the Don.” For the church, he was much more generous and in his capital city of Vladimir he had built the Cathedral of St Demetrius in 1197. When the Assumption Cathedral was destroyed by a large fire in 1185, he had it rebuilt under his direction. And around the year 1200, his wife Mary founded the Princess Convent presumably with his blessing.

During his life time, he was acknowledged as the dynasty's senior prince, but Vsevolod focused his attention on his lands and of the neighboring principalities of Rianzan and Murom. His sons, following their father's example, devoted themselves to their northern concerns and withdrew from 'southern' politics. Vsevolod III ruled for 36 six years until his death on April 14, 1212 of natural causes at the age of 58 (a rare way to die for a military man!)

So by 1200, the northeastern area of Kievan Rus known as Suzdalia had become quite important... and its ruler Vsevolod III had dominated the other princes in the south for the over quarter century that he had been in power. There are a few clear reasons that Vsevolod III was able to be so successful in his quest for power and wealth. One important reason was his luck of geography- Suzdalia had many rivers including control of most of the upper Volga river. Some of these rivers flowed in and out of neighboring territories which gave Suzdalia an opportunity to act as a middleman between other states that their ruler did not hesitate to take advantage of. In addition, the soil of the area was rich and fertile. Agriculture was easier to develop in this area than in other parts of the Kievan Rus state. When you also add the fact that Suzdalia had fewer problems with foreign enemies than some of its southern counterparts- and by the 12th century, its primary enemy the Volga Bulgars were on the defensive and less likely to attack.... it is not surprising that many new cities sprang up in this state. All of these factors would have made migration to this area quite attractive to many people which can also help explain how the population grew so quickly around this time. Most of the migration appears to be Slavic populations moving to the safer areas to avoid the constant incursions by nomadic tribes that continued in the south. It should also be mentioned that because the Suzdalia area was an area of high migration, it gave the princes more power than the rulers of the older, more entrenched areas. Trade would have been a good reliable source of income during this time with fewer enemies, lots of 'controlled' rivers and waterways, more individuals to make or grow goods, and the possibility of acting as a middleman on some rivers to neighboring states. An 18th century Russian historian named V.N. Tatishchev states “the Volga Bulgars were constantly trading in Suzdalia where they sold grain, valuable objects, cloth and other goods around the Volga and Oka.” Other sources suggest that trade was a very common occurrence during this time before the Mongol invasion.

The territory that we now call Ukraine still has almost all of the same geological benefits that were exploited during the time of Vsevolod. The soil is still rich and will produce large high-quality yields. It had heavy forests in the twelfth century which would have been used for housing, heat, and trade. It had plenty of rivers for drinking water, agriculture and animal husbandry, travel, etc... Animals for fur and/or food would have been fairly easy to find as well. Add the idea that this area would be mostly safe from invaders and it would be hard to imagine why everyone in the area didn't move there! And several sources describe the rich and frequent trade in this area... as well as the thriving culture.

I found a few things interesting when I was researching this paper. For instance, I laughed out loud at finding a genealogy website that showed the links between George Washington and Vsevolod III... and all sorts of others! I was also amused to find that this great man has his own Facebook page- it doesn't look like it is updated frequently, but...wow! And one site helped me to place this time frame with more clarity in my mind because it linked the year of Vsevolod's death with the failure of the children's crusades- I think one of the worst parts of history that I have ever studied... or at least the worst ideas I have ever heard of. The Suzdalia state sounds like it had many places in which it would be possible to work for a living, enjoy some medium of safety and also have the opportunity for culture. This was a really fascinating research project... and so I look forward to the next one!