Did the Russian State... Part X by Nils Johann ('Some of us have talked...')

'Parliament' is the normal consequence of people trying to live together, and the English alone, developed neither of those two concepts. Neither did Ivan IV invent it in Russia. Communities meet to talk, and decide on matters regarding the community. The 'Veche' in early mediaeval Russia, preceded the Russian state-formation, and it worked as a Forum, for talks on economics, law and war, like the Norse Thing or the Swiss Landesgemeinde. The free cities of Pskov and Novgorod are often held up as later examples of these kinds of assemblies. None of the assemblies, like the Veche, or Parliament were open to everyone. We need to keep that in mind, before we start to romanticize a pragmatic tool of government. They are fori, where those who have franchise in the state, -those who contribute directly to the state, meet. “Taxpayers” in one form, or another; warriors, landowners, merchants and master tradesmen. Those who possess a vital skill or a business. After the gathering of the dispersed territories under Muscovite rule, these forms already in existence, were utilized by Ivan IV. He used it to govern and organize his realm, and he enacted reforms of many sectors of state. Opinion on how Ivan's Zemsky Sobor worked differ, from that it was a puppet parliament, there to enact his will, to a (sometimes) legitimate channel of popular representation. Crummey states,“...it would be a mistake to view it as an embryonic representative institution.”

To counter the claim in Crummey: It would be a mistake to see the English parliament aslittle more than a constant Byzantine court intrigue.

If we look at how Henry used his parliament to shore up the power of the Crown, there is however no great difference to Ivan's use. And here a special understanding is needed, because this will seem odd to those of us, accustomed with a modern parliamentary system. It needs to be seen in regard to the justification for power, being derived from 'Divine Right', and thus parliament gathers with the Monarch, for him to explain how he understands the will of God, and for them to agree that his interpretation is correct. And who wants to anger the Warlord who runs the “legal” punishment-system? But with this in mind, inevitably the system must have communicated in both directions. (*To relate Crummey's statement to a anachronistic example of representative government, the United States of America might serve. Even though regulation varied across the states, on average 5% of the adult population maintained the right to suffrage. The right to representation was restricted even more, but the representatives were deeming themselves as representatives of the entire populous. )

In order to effectuate policy, and to communicate better with the vast domain of the Czar, he called for 'The Assembly of the Land' in 1549. It was made up by the tree usual estates, The Nobles, The Church, and The (rich) Townspeople and Merchants. This 'Zemsky Sobor' developed to gathering regularly after that, and was also taken to advice on controversial issues. It seems, its main purpose was to agree with (or “understand”) the Czar's interpretation of the will of God, as was the case in England. In addition, a council of chosen nobles, The 'Rada' or a 'governing council' if you will, was established, and the organization of The Church was centralized. The 'Stoglavy Sobor' ('Gathering of Hundred Heads') was used to unify the practices of the Church's rituals and its regulations. Like with the Zemsky Sobor, it was done to streamline the 'chain of command', and to ease management. In rural regions, increased local self-government was introduced. The communal councils were attributed privileges that prior to that had been the jurisdiction of the local noblemen / governors.

One trait was the 'popular' election of local tax-men. Crummey claims;

“The explanation for the Monarch's broad power lies not so much in the efficiency of his government as in the lack of barriers to his exercise of it; for no estates or corporate organizations limited the Grand Princes' freedom of action, and no constitutional norms defined their authority.”

Crummey's work ignores the bargain character of what Ivan builds, as these systems inevitably will communicate both ways. Further on, the work also ignores that there is Law, and that the system of Ivan seems to be a “normal” Divine-Right-Monarchy for its time. Even more remarkable, is Shepard's comment in his review of Crummey, when he concludes on the basis of Crummey's work;

“But at the end of Ivan's reign, after all the blood-letting, he still ruled with the collaboration of the clans of the higher nobility, and for the most part these were the same clans that had been pre-eminent in the opening years of his adult reign!”

It is a interesting contradiction to take note of. If there is cooperation with the high-nobility within the Rada, how can it be that there are “no estates or corporate organization” to limit the Grand Prince? The 'Zemsky Sobor' was also a tool for achieving cooperation, and this does not differ greatly from the English 'Parliament' during the period.

Henry needed capital to wage war for his dynastic claims on the continent, and to construct palaces. He had emptied his coffers and exhausted the land by the middle of the 1520's. The system of taxation had to be reformed in order to enrich the Crown. The first plan was executed by the King's Minister, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey (*1473–†1530), who managed to gather funds through an increase of the tax-burden on the wealthy, land-'theft', and by forcing the nobility to “buy” a kind of prototype state-obligation.

As we remember from Spittler's definition above, we are here looking at two semi-bureaucratic states where income comes from personal agricultural landholdings, and to a minor extent from the tariffs on foreign trade. Both monarchs, next to the tariffs on foreign trade, gain their means from their personal land-holdings. For any further taxation, the security of the realm needed to be at risk. This would also have been the main reason to call together 'Parliament'. The dominant reason for any self-respecting monarch to talk to a 'Common House', would have been to enact special taxes, without too much resistance. (This might be a motivational factor for the constant warfare of the period. Special taxes would have to be justified, as issues of defense of the realm. It served the concentration of capital, and the centralization of co-ordination, to the Crown.) However, if he could, the Monarch would avoid the hassle of having other people telling him how to run his 'firm'.

This takes us then to the great heist, performed in a similar way, in order to achieve similar ends, by both monarchs. The details of course differ, but Henry and Ivan do come to a remarkable solution to their challenges, regarding organizational and financial autocracy. Their goal is it to reduce dependence of people that are not necessarily to be trusted, discipline their own rank, and to gain a higher degree of fiscal independence. The Monarchs' role as Primus Interpares was changing in many emerging states during this time. As the positions become more polarized, we see the emergence of Autocracies (Denmark, Russia, Iberia, France, and England until the civil war), and their counterpart, noble-republics (The Netherlands, The Swiss federation, and to some extent also Sweden and Poland,).

Ivan the Terrible: The First Czar of Russia

In 1533, the year of the ascension of the infant of Ivan IV Vasilyevich to power, Moscow had been ruled by a grand prince and controlled 2.8 million square kilometers- to put this into perspective, that is about five times the size of modern France. Moscow now symbolized a new political center and time showed a new Russian civilization that was more rural, more centralized and authoritarian, and more hierarchical than Kievan Rus had ever been. The infighting between the princes of different principalities had finally (for the most part) calmed down and most had been able to agree on a system of vertical succession for its rulers- only the son of a grand prince was eligible for the throne and the heir to the throne should be the eldest living son of the last ruler. (One source suggests that the succession was actually decided by the blinded ruler Vasily II and his triumph over his uncles and cousins after 1430.) The culture of the orthodox church had also become more enmeshed into the society and many members of the church hierarchy helped perpetuate the idea of Moscow/Russia being the 'third Rome' that the first two 'Romes' had fallen as God's punishment and Russia was now the third and final 'Rome'. This idea was clearly expressed by abbot Joseph of Volokolasmk Monastery who also expressed four ideas that when used helped build the foundation for a more authoritarian government- the ruler is God's representative, ruler's main concern should be for the spiritual welfare of his subjects, all his subjects should obey him unless the ruler is acting in a non-Christian manner, and then the subject's disobedience should be passive and they should be willing to suffer at the hands of an unjust ruler. The combination of the acquisition of more territory, the fall of the Roman Empire and the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, the rise in power and prestige of the princes of Moscow, and the deep and pervasive influences of the church allowed for the eventual rule by the dominant princes of Moscow... and also the development of an autocratic, hereditary ruler who was able to gather enough power to become 'terrible' or a tyrant. This paper will explore the life of Russia's first Tsar, his policies, and the negative influence that Ivan IV was able to hold over his subjects. This paper will also explore the major changes that occurred during this time frame that affected the 'lifestyle' of his subjects and became so ingrained in the population that many of these changes continued into the twentieth century.

Ivan was the son of Vasili III from his second wife Elena Glinskaya. He was born on August 25, 1530 in the city of Kolomenskoye, Russia. Details on his first few years of life are not well known as we are lacking documentation. What is known is that his life probably took a drastic change when he was three years old. In 1533, Vasily III became ill and died of blood poisoning from an infection from a boil on his leg. Even though the succession of princes had been 'decided', Vasily III's two remaining brothers were quickly arrested after his death to keep the throne preserved for the elder son, the now three year old Ivan IV. By this time, the government could be visualized as a pyramid- the grand prince at the top, surrounded by members of other elite families, with administrative officials conducting the business of state and then provincial servicemen provided the personnel for other civil and military posts -it must be stated that the top of the pyramid didn't have absolute power at this time. The next several years would see Russia ruled by regents and rival family factions who would rule in his name. His first regent was his mother Elena and she was his regent until she died in 1538. (It was fairly risky to be a relative of Ivan at this time -both of his uncles died in prison, his half sister Agrafena was sent to a convent and a half brother assassinated, and it is believed that his mother might have been poisoned.) After his father's death, the next decade was a time of political turbulence in Russia... and a time of neglect and domestic conflict. Three families used this period of time to try and gain political superiority over each other- the Shuiskiis, Bel'skiis, and Glinskiis. During this time, Ivan and his younger brother Yuri appear to be secondary concerns to the power struggle taking place and in letters Ivan was quotes as suggesting that he and his brother went hungry, had poor clothing, and even had to beg for their needs. This rivalry between the warring families turned violent and bloody and Ivan appears to have been in the middle- a difficult way to grow up. This violence and turmoil has been suggested to have caused a permanent scarring and hardness in his character that came out later during his reign. While there appears to be some question as to the why's, Ivan IV assumed control of the kingdom at 14 years old. One suggestion is that at the age of 14, Ivan ordered one of the ruling princes of the family of Shuiskii thrown to the dogs and executed.

A few years later and after some sort of settlement with the important ruling families, Ivan was crowned tzar in a four hour ceremony on January 16, 1547 in the Assumption Cathedral/Dormition Cathedral., An important feature of this coronation was that he wore the Monomakhn Cap as his new crown- this cap once signified the subordination of the Moscow princes to the Mongol-Tartars. Fairly quickly after this event on February 3, 1547, Ivan married Anastasia Romanova from a powerful boyar family - this family would later be known as Romanov which was the family of the last of the Russian Tzars in the early 1900's. Anastasia was married to Ivan for 13 years- years which appear to have had a good and calming effect on him (Ivan's nickname for her was his 'little heifer'.) She was to bear him six children and died in the summer of 1560 after a lingering illness- assassination is also a suspect as well. Whether illness or murder was the culprit, Ivan IV was devastated by his wife's illness/ death and the many years of his reign after her death were not the peaceful and moderate ones that it had been while she was living.

The early years of his reign with a few exceptions appear to be relatively peaceful and prosperous. Ivan was a smart man who appears to have been an avid reader, a writer and art lover... and a good politician. A riot broke out soon after his marriage during the summer due to a huge fire in Moscow and it had to be dealt with. The tzar then set up an advisory council in 1549 of 'common men' to help guide him- Alexis Adashev and the monk Sylvester were the cream of this advisory body. After that, Ivan passed a new law code and various decrees aimed at increasing government efficiency and also church efficiency (1550). The 'Stoglav' church council of 1551 was an attempt by the tzar to bring better order and discipline to the administration and morals to the clergy of the Eastern Orthodox church and to set limits on the ways the church could obtain land. He worked on defining the relationships of elite families with the grand prince (himself) and that helped to relax the intensity and the violence of the past political competition. Ivan increased the size/membership of the Boyar Duma as he filled that government body with selected church leaders and nobles who supported his initiatives. Also during the 1550's, the Tsar improved the organization of his central government and set up 'offices' that dealt with a single area of government. (Military, Foreign Relations, etc...) He also changed/tweaked the military and created a permanent force named the Streltsy. Using the Streltsy, Ivan concentrated on the conquest of non Russian areas including Kazan (1552), Astrakhan (1556) and Siberia which paved the way for eastward expansion. On an unfortunate note, the Tsar did find that his previous mistrust of the boyar classes was reinforced in 1553 when an illness caused him to ask for their support for his son Dmitri... which he wasn't able to easily get (possibly because his son was young and the ruling classes could still 'feel' or remember the chaos surrounding the childhood reign of Ivan.) It appears that he never forgot the hesitation- and certainly his childhood experiences might have never been far from his mind throughout his life... although we will never know that for certain. He recovered and that particular crisis ended.


After his first wife's death (Anastasia), Ivan's policies became more paranoid and stern. From 1560-1580, Ivan married six times and had a few more children. He appears to have never really gotten over the death of his first wife and it certainly seems that these last wives- while providing him with his eventual heir for the throne... never had the sway or hold over him as Anastasia did. He began to distrust his advisory council (they were a few of the 'hesitators' over the succession of his son in 1553) and both the formerly mentioned members left around 1559. The personal loses, which include the death of his wife and the defection of a trusted friend in 1564, seems to have cause an deep anger and despair that Ivan IV never recovered from. The next decade saw a Tsar who suspected conspiracies against him from all sides and engaged in a two decade long 'Livonian' War which was not successful and resulted in a loss of land. In January 1565, he moved his family from Moscow and abdicated his throne... only agreeing to return if his right to deal with traitors as he saw fit was accepted- which it was. He developed a new organization called the Oprinchina which Ivan used in some areas exclusively to carry out the tzar’s wishes and as a form of secret police/court – to weed out and execute traitors. He separated himself entirely from the Duma and other offices of government and only interacted with them on 'extraordinary and exceptional' occasions. The Oprichniki ended up ruling about half the country as a separate royal court and administration for about eight years, killing thousands of innocent people- many from the noble classes and confiscated hundreds of estates of the condemned. As the years went on Ivan's fear worsened and his reign of terror continued. He denied the Boyar Duma the right to judge cases of capital punishment. He forced the suicides/death of suspected plotters or potential heirs... clearing the way so that only his sons could inherit the crown. He had the city of Novgorod burned, devastated and destroyed in the year 1569. No one class was immune from his paranoia or his wrath- not even men from the Church His behavior became sometimes more difficult to understand and he even abdicated his throne again in 1575 and served 'as a lesser prince' to the new grand prince for about a year before the charade ended. He also tried to open more relations with other countries including Queen Elizabeth I of England and when he didn't get the response he wanted, he wrote the Queen several rather bitter letters. His rages continued and in a moment of extreme anger in 1581, he beat his pregnant daughter in law on the excuse that her clothing was immodest. His son Ivan (and his heir apparent) engaged in an argument with his father which ended in his (the heir's) death. Ivan was devastated by this death and the political consequences were that he only had two sons left- the eldest was Feodor. Ivan is thought to have died of a stoke while playing chess on March 28, 1584. This left the throne to Feodor- described by sources as unfit, weak-witted, etc...

Ivan IV Vasilyevich was certainly a colorful figure in whom historians still have many debates about today. While in the English language we call him Ivan the Terrible, this is not quite the best translation of the Russian name 'Ivan Groznyi' and suggests to English speakers a more negative connotation than the thoughts and ideas of his native land. Other translations that could be more apt are: awe-inspiring, formidable, menacing, 'the great', or 'the dread'. These translations suggest that Ivan IV was not thought of as only a 'terrible' or a tyrant. If we add into our mix parts of Russian folklore as well as chronicles, it can be seen that this nickname was meant as a compliment by some... and rulers who came after him such as Peter the Great and Stalin regarded Ivan IV quite favorably. There is also some discussion about the few sources that we have that have been used to 'develop' our understanding of the tzar's character, motivations, and behavior- some historians believe that one major source (Kurbskii-Groznyi apocrypha) is a forgery from a later century. It is certainly true that in some ways Ivan IV defies accurate description. He has been described by historians in many ways- and some descriptions conflict with each other and seem to be almost opposites. Some descriptions include: a ruthless political leader, madman, murderer, a paranoid, a sufferer of disease and mercury poisoning, torturer, insanity sufferer, animal abuser, etc... There are tales of supernatural happenings at the time of his birth, of warnings by church leaders, etc... which also add to the mystique of his legacy.

One a last biographical note, Ivan was considered a fairly pious man for most of his life. He had been well grounded in the Bible while he was a child and when he toured Russia throughout his lifetime, he was known to stop at every monastery on the way. He also built a cathedral- St Basil's Cathedral in 1560 in celebration of his achievements over Kazan and sent a embassy group to Constantinople at one point when asked. In 1550, the tzar summoned a national assembly (the first ruler to do so) to make a public confession of his sins and promised that he would govern Russia justly and mercifully. Ivan IV was also known to travel annually on pilgrimages so as to be seen as a humble and penitent ruler. One source can be quoted as writing- 'Despite Ivan's repeatedly unrestrained actions, he always remained constant in his belief that God was with him and every action he committed.' The tzar believed in following 'signs' from God and might have made some decisions based on his interpretation of signs. (An example is a legend that states that Ivan had been contemplating moving his capital city from Moscow to the city of Vologda. While attending the ceremony of consecration for the St Sophia church in that city, a piece of stone came off of the foot of an angel and fell on the Tzar's toe... he decided not to move the capital to Vologda.) Right before Ivan's death, he worked with the orthodox church and became a monk- dying under the name of Jonah. (This was apparently very common for rulers to become monks right before they died in order to improve their chances for heaven.) There is some debate about Ivan IV's position in the orthodox church with those for and against his 'sainthood'- his fans appear to be winning the debate however, as he is known as a 'Saint' under Article 64.6 of the Covenant of One-Heaven and his date of formal beautification has been set for 12/21/2012.


There were several major changes that were brought about during the reign of Ivan IV. One change is that under his tutelage and his son Fedor, one focus of foreign policy was the control of others lands such as Kavan in 1552 and Astrakhan in 1556 which helped assure Russian control of the Volga River. Along with his expansion of the Russian empire, he also centralized the government. One aspect of his reign was that while the beginning of his reign came after years of instability and no stable hierarchy, his reign was marked by the continuing efforts to restore and maintain and appropriate balance. One part of the political legacy he left was a completely different governmental structure-the title of Tsar symbolized a new acquisition of supreme power with religious overtones. The creation of the Oprichnina marked a new process that worked along with other changes to firmly centralize the government and to reduce the political power of the wealthy or elite. The idea of local governments that Ivan created are still very much in force today. Many of these political changes have stayed with Russia until almost a century ago. The fact that Stalin himself could exist as a ruler for so long in a modern century with his behavior was based just as much on the political structure left by Ivan IV than Marxist ideas. Ivan's sheer genius for propaganda is also a legacy that Russia continued to use for several hundred years to help keep tight control over its population and image. But on a positive note, many of these changes strengthened the Russian state and helped keep it stronger and more secure from it's foreign enemies. Ivan's systematic or accidental removal of heirs to the throne also left the throne vulnerable and after his son Fedor died in 1598, there was a succession crisis. (Ivan's only other son Dmitry died under mysterious circumstances during Fedor's reign.) Lastly, Ivan began the Russian quest of 'expansionism' and he made Russia an empire whose desire for growth and power continued even up to our present time. His expansionism also brought Russia into a relationship with other countries in Europe through trade and politics and this legacy would continue on into the 20th century.

The economic legacy that Ivan left behind was a devastated country. He had inherited debt from before he was in power and his wars brought the debt higher... even with raising taxes. He gave land to the Oprichniki but he had no way to confiscate their lands or hold these members accountable for their actions. So the Oprichniki could overcharge the peasants causing the peasants to flee in some cases... leaving whole villages empty and overall economic production took a tumble- in some years Ivan reacted to the fleeing constituents by declaring certain years 'forbidden' to leave your masters or their land- I do wonder how effective that was. The wars also paid a heavy cost in human life. And none of the above discusses the places that were destroyed- in Novgorod for example, about 90% of the farm land at one point had been abandoned.

In conclusion, Ivan IV is not an easy character to define. His legacy in Russian policy and culture is quite long lasting. His gift for propaganda has helped to control in some ways how he was viewed... and is viewed today. His life and his story are legend and the tale of many books, biographies, movies and opera... and his writings and/or hymns have been honored, published and even recorded as recently as 1988 into the first Soviet produced CD. Very few rulers have caused the plethora of different emotions and argument as this particular one. If having a legacy of being avidly discussed centuries after your death could be considered success... then Ivan IV was one of the most successful people in Russian history.

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!

The Earliest Beginnings of a Modern Russia

In modern times, Russia is the largest country in the world with over six million square miles of land. It is the ninth most populous nation in the world today with 142 million people, shares borders with more countries than any other existing in the world and has the world's largest reserves of mineral/energy and forest resources. Over its centuries of history, the boundaries of land and the people that we call Russian today have changed a great deal. This paper will discuss who the earliest known inhabitants were of this land was well as migration and the areas they settled in which include the modern cities of Novgorod and Kiev.

The focal point of the earliest Russian culture was centered around Slavic tribal kingdoms that populated several areas (along with a few other groups of people that were assimilated into the Slavic tribes) in and around the areas of Novgorod and Kiev. One source describes how goods would be brought by boat west towards Russia through the Caspian Sea and up the Volga river to the place where Novgorod was built and stands today. These lands were populated by the formerly discussed groups whose earliest members formed tribes and then cities- joining together into a unique state which is known as Kievan Rus... and is the starting point for three current Slavic nations- Russia, Ukraine and Belarus In the state of Kievan Rus, many individuals settled in the areas they called Novgorod and Kiev and then continued to spread out to other surrounding areas. (These two cities retain these names today) Both cities existed before the formation of the state Kievan Rus was officially formed in 880 by Prince Oleg who chose the city of Kiev as his capital city. In fact the city of Kiev 'celebrated' its 1500th anniversary in 1982- that must be a pretty interesting place to see the many layers of history in its many streets and buildings.

One attraction to the city of Kiev is its location. The many nearby rivers and waterways made Kiev an excellent place for travel and trade and this town was able to become the center of a trade route between Constantinople and Scandinavia. The Dnieper River runs right through the town and within the modern limits of the city of Kiev, there are over 400 bodies of open water including rivers, tributaries, lakes, etc... Novgorod also had excellent access to the Oka and Volga rivers. Once described as the bridge between the European lands and the Asian lands which probably also helped it prosper as a trading partner or trade route. Novgorod also has the distinction of being able to reach several large bodies of water such as seas for trading with other nations- these are the Baltic, Black, Caspian and White Sea as well as the Sea of Azov. Both places have a short window/climate for growing crops and other forms of agriculture... and both places had large resources of forests for wood which would have helped with boat building, buildings and even material for trade... such as for food! It certainly is a testament to the longevity and the resources surrounding these cities that they are still there and are habitable (still growing today!)- even when they were destroyed in time of war they were rebuilt right over the destroyed city.

There were many excellent reasons for migration early in Russia's history. The land itself is located in the northern most reaches of the globe and reaches across several time zones. Winters are generally longer than in other countries with a more southern base and summers are equally short. The land or geography of Russia is generally flat with few mountains so expansion was easy... add the waterways and travel/migration was even easier. Both the cities of Kiev and Novgorod were probably built by their first inhabitants because they did have more options for trade, living, travel, etc... than some of the surrounding areas. These areas, because of the great capacity for moving people and goods quickly, would have been very powerful cities- commercially strong and politically sensitive and valuable. Having control of the land around these rivers as well as the waterway itself would shape much of Russia's history over the last several centuries. These areas also had large resources of building materials with the huge forests which could also have been used to build tools, boats or ships, houses or even heat. Other resources that were available were plenty of 'fur' animals, and access to warm water ports (a few mentioned above). I suspect, and admit that this is a guess from the different readings, but the climate in these two cities would have been moderated by the lowlands and the large amounts of water... whereas other areas in Russia may not have had or do have such a 'nice' climate.

Before this class, I have known only a few tiny tidbits about Russia and most of them are 'famous' tidbits. I had heard of Lenin and Stalin and not much very flattering about either of them. I had also heard of Gorbachev and and the 'collapse' and of Putin and his successor- I have become a current news reader over the last decade. I will admit that I do not have much of an opinion either way of Putin or Mendeleev mainly because I do not trust our newspapers to tell me an unbiased account. The only other tidbit that I have a bit of knowledge on is the most obvious- Nicolas I and Alexandra and their children... and can't forget Rasputin! I signed up for a class on Russian history for a few reasons. One is that I doubt that Russia is nearly as romantic as it seems in my mind... or as foreign. I also am not impressed with the idea that I have been studying history for years and feel as if I was weaned on it, but know almost nothing about Russia or China. And I think I would like to become more well rounded in that regard. Thank you for the opportunity!