Did the Russian State... Part XIII by Nils Johann (A Bloody Trail of Death and Destruction?)

"I am a Christian and do not eat meat during Lent", said Ivan to him. "But you drink human blood," the saint replied.”

Body-count competitions are rather tedious. To manipulate statistics is not hard, and to make them with fragmentary sources, that have been 'scrubbed by the sands of time' is profoundly suspicious. It is however done, and the results are used as “facts”, to hammer in one or another point. Both Ivan and Henry killed challengers to their regime. Real, or maybe imagined challengers, but that is beyond the point. Doing so keeps others 'in line'. Crummey makes a number out of foreigners being shaken by the sight of the executions. No doubt they would have been as shaken by witnessing the 'drawing and quartering' of an English Abbot, as by the impaling of a Russian Prince. Being foreign would have had less to do with it. Impaling might sound gruesome, but is it worse than starving to death in an English gibbet?

The Bishop of Lisieux (Lexovia), claimed that Henry had over 72,000 great thieves, petty thieves and beggars executed during his reign.“For there is not one year wherein three hundred or four hundred of them are not devoured and eaten by the gallows in one place or another”. It is not impossible considering the duration of his reign. It would mean about 2000 in an average year, with a stable population of about 2.8 million. It was custom to garotte or hang even petty thieves, and the 'mop-up' after the dissolution of the monasteries and the rebellions, with the loss of poor-relief from the monasteries, could have added the rest. It is however hard to consider the fragmentary hearsay, as a reliable source. It is a domestic estimate, and for diversion we could surely by far double the number by adding the ones that died in the many wars, acts of immense cruelty, with its content of rapine, murder and pillage.

Another example in this manner, from Russia, is the punishment of Novgorod, exacted by the Oprichniki of Ivan. Skrynnikov had the surviving prayer-lists of Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, that listed 1505 names of wealthy citizens killed. He assessed 2-3 thousand killed in total. This number could surely as well be inflated by Ivan's many campaigns.

But this chapter shall not become a competition of cruelty. By my standards, they were both cruel. But it is at least in part, a measured cruelty with an aim, like Machiavelli prescribes -if we look away from the occasional killings of family-members. Maybe, especially Ivan, who struck his son and heir dead in a loss of temper. But also Henry, who used his state to kill several of his wives, after the formalities of a 'kangaroo-court', with himself as judge. Like Crummey writes about 'Mad Czar Ivan' basing his claim on the cruel manner of the Czar's politics, there are publications to the same effect, but not as full with regards to Henry's style of government. When it comes to the understanding of the cruelty of Monarchs, this perspective disregards something in the understanding of social and political power. It may have gotten lost by the peaceful, sanitized, life that most 'Westerners' enjoy. George Mac Donald Fraser's figure, H. Flashman, gives an interesting interpretative perspective:

“...I've heard some say that she [Ranavalona I of Madagascar (R:1828–1861)] was just plain mad and didn't know what she was doing. That's an old excuse which ordinary folk take refuge in because they don't care to believe there are people who enjoy inflicting pain. "He's mad," they'll say - but they only say it because they see a little of themselves in the Tyrant, too, and want to shudder away from it quickly, like well-bred little Christians. Mad? Aye, Ranavalona was mad as a hatter, in many ways - but not where cruelty was concerned. She knew quite what she was doing, and studied to do it better, and was deeply gratified by it,...”

When 'push comes to shove', 'Power' is held by the application of 'Violence'. Being able to harm other people demonstrates social dominance. Being able to harm great numbers of people, demonstrates, and communicates, great dominance. It is (too) easy to declare cruel people to be mad. Another perspective on madness, would be that you are only mad, if you damage your own position. -Harm yourself. Public torture is a matter of communicating with society at large. Our Monarchs had no other option for maintaining their order. There were no logistics or alternative methods for it, as the surplus to afford them only become unleashed with the steam-engine. What Crummey describes, as Ivan's paranoia, leading him into destructive experiments, and a reign of terror, seems to be a 'public management trend' among all rulers of the time, suffering kindred material realities.

Being perceived as mad by your opposition is also not, a all in all, bad thing. It usually just means they can not predict your actions or 'read your mind'. A modern example of this could be the 'brinkmanship' of the Kennedy administration during the 'Cuban Missile Crisis'. And 'Terror' can still, even in the modern 'West' be a ruling instrument, as it is elegantly demonstrated in Adam Curtis' work, The Power of Nightmares, even though it, as a tool, has been refined somewhat over the years.

Our two rulers might have been slick, brutal bullies. Merciless, but must they not also have been charismatic and cocksure? Most likely good orators. With a life full of surprises, and uncertainty, doubt, and fear? They grew into their position of power. They surely were remarkable, to be able to sustain themselves, develop their realms in what was, by no doubt hostile political environments. We can of course meet the stories as those mentioned above with moral outrage, over the 'bestiality' of such persons, and try to spin a moral tale out of their deeds. But if this was their way, the simple question that should be posed is; When those who succeeded, all waged war in this manner, and ruled by murdering their opposition and killing who resisted them, can we then judge such men as Ivan and Henry for surviving?

Comments? Thoughts?

Did the Russian State... Part XI by Nils Johann (Their Great Heists)

Henry's father had already appropriated the holdings of prominent opponents in the past, stealing land under the guise of legality. Already during the prominence (1509-1529) of Cardinal Wolsey (who at the same time was the Papal Legate to England), the dissolution of thirty monasteries had taken place (1525-6), under the charge of 'corruption', their estates fell to benefit The Crown. This can however only be seen as inspirational pilfering, compared to what was to follow. Facing tax-rebellion and strikes by 1525, and having exhausted the state's economy for prospects of re-conquering English claims in France. Henry had no other choice than to seek peace, putting at rest military ambitions for the following decade, until he, and 'Lord keeper of the Privy Seal' Thomas Cromwell, (*1485–†1540) 'lash out' against The Church. The Acts of 'Suppression of Religious Houses' were forced through Parliament from 1536 up until 1539. In 1534 Cromwell had established an office that made a tour of appraisal, to estimate the worth of the monastic holdings. The holdings were made up of about a quarter of the real-estate in the realm. They started by appropriating the smaller estates. This spurred quite a large resistance. Resistors were to be gibbeted, hung, or drawn and quartered. This amounted to a larger rebellion. After it had been 'struck down', all ringleaders were executed, even though pardons had been offered and their demands had been accepted. To establish credibility the Abbots of Colchester, Glastonbury, and Reading, were hanged, drawn and quartered, and many were harshly punished and killed for their treason. The premise was established for further seizures. When it was finished, over 800, of about 850 monastery-estates, had been appropriated. The 'Coffers' of The Crown were now filled for military campaigns. But Henry still waited several years, most likely because of the internal disruption the attack on The Church had caused. This solution to economical problems seems similar to what Ivan tried to accomplish with the 'Oprichnina' (1565-72).

I have not been able to find any specifics on the Russian tax-codes of the period, but the sheer logic of the Oprichnina gives the impression that there were similar principles for allowances to monarchs in Russia, as in England, and other 'emerging bureaucratic states' throughout Europe, and maybe further east as well? As the Monarch was the one responsible for foreign policy, he could levy tariffs or tolls on foreign trade and some industries, like mining, and further, in connection with minting or arms-manufacture. Besides this, the Monarch would rely on his personal domain-land to keep the Crown outfitted.

The Oprichnina was set up during a period of intense border-wars threatening to overrun the Russian Empire. It consisted in large part of 'newly' conquered Novgorodian territory and the region of Vladimir. The story starts with Ivan, frustrated by the politics of The Capital, withdrawing to Alexandrova Sloboda. There he goes on 'strike', destabilizing the ruling council, and agitating the citizens of Moscow against them. After some negotiation, the noblemen agree to grant Ivan absolute unchecked privileges in the 'Oprichnina-territories to be'.

The Livonian Wars (1558–1583) were in part a result of Ivan's will to expand his sphere of influence, to gain foothold on the Baltic shore, thus avoiding the restrictions put on Russian trade by the powers controlling the Baltic ports. This crashed with the strategic ambition of several powerful neighbors holding a stake in the disintegrating fragmented Baltic territories. The Oldenburg, Vaasa and Jagellionians, with the Habsburg, the Dutch, and the Hansa meddling in the background, wanted 'a piece of the pie'. Tension between opposing forces is a given in power-games. Crummey does overestimate Ivan's role in what was to happen. In Crummey there is a blindness being cultivated towards, that the other actors in similar manner had aggressive ambition, almost as if Crummey postulates, that Ivan could have chosen peace? Statements like that, again make me reach for my Machiavelli:

“The Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only put off to the advantage of others.”

Leaders at times, just must lead, but the lack of proper sources does not stop Crummey from painting a grim picture. In his work the method to the madness of the Oprichnina is to be found in Ivan's sick paranoid mind. Crummey makes it easy for himself when he states, that since the conspiracies against Ivan are so poorly documented, they probably were figments of his imagination.

"The image of Ivan as a paranoiac lashing out blindly and none too effectively is well drawn by Crummey. Undoubtedly the greed, bitter internecine rivalries and self-importance of the Boyars were injurious to the efficient functioning of the administration and contributed significantly to Russia's failures in the Livonian War."

The first thing to say about that is, that if people are proven to be disloyal to you, and they try to get you... you are not paranoid, but you have a healthy instinct for caution and survival. Crummey is at times exorbitantly hostile in his treatment of Ivan. This belittles the direct practical application of this attempt at bureaucratic management. The direct control over resources needed to wage war on the surrounding enemies, gathered in one chain of command does not seem like the plan of a madman, because it in principle is rational, as argued in Pavlov and Perrie, who also further develop the idea of Ivan as a contemporary renaissance-prince.

The Oprichina was however a large land-grab that was bound to threaten the position of all 'Gentry'. They are the main source for description of the event. Gathering large domains in the 'hands of the Crown' theoretically reduced the need to negotiate with the lords and the gentry over the pressing needs of war, aiding to streamline the strategic depth of operations under a clear command structure. In order to enact this 'bold and courageous' change in policy, a new branch of government was formed. Its officials, the Oprichniki, were enlisted from the ranks of 'free-men' while a few were noble. They proved more trustworthy to the Monarch than the Bojar Class, since they had less power and claim, to challenge or obstruct his rule.

Henry and Cromwell had two advantages when they started to plunder The Church. When the land of The Church had been appropriated, it was sold to the loyal segment of The Nobility, firming them in their resolve against The Church, and implicating them in the new order. Their payments then filled the King's 'war-chest'. Henry succeeded, and was ready to subdue the whole of Britain. The other advantage was that Scotland is not The Steppe. It is not a 'never-ending' expanse. It still can make one wonder, if Ivan was not inspired by Henry's success. We know there was direct contact between England and Russia from about 1540.

Judgment on why the Oprichina was dismantled is difficult. Letters written by a discontented mutineer like Prince Kurbsky, portraying Ivan as a tyrant, do not compare to a modern day 'aircraft black box'. It is hard to differentiate the factors leading up to the dismantlement of the Oprichina-system. Was it a system that was internally weakly constructed, or did it fail due do the external pressures of a three front war in combination with natural crop-failure? It is wise to respect that 'force major', nature, is dubbed so for obvious reasons. -that Xerxes had the Hellespont whipped, did not bring his fleet back. That the Crimean Tartars burnt Moscow might have been a tipping-point. De Madriagda suggests that the system might have fulfilled the purpose of breaking the 'grip' of the Bojars. Enough credibility had been established to unite the territories, under a reformed Bojar council which included many of the leading Oprichniki as well. Both the 'Acts of Suppression', and the establishment of the 'Oprichina', lead to an accumulation of lands, in the 'hands' of the Monarch, and to the weakening of his opposition, both nominally and relatively. Neither of the systems permanently gathered the land with the Monarch, but they permanently established a principle of supremacy.

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...?

The 'Time of Troubles': The Last of the Rurik Rulers, Civil War, and the Beginnings of the Romanov Dynasty

Upon the death of Ivan IV, his son Fedor took the throne. Fedor ruled from the years 1584-1598 although it must be said that Fedor did not truly weld the power behind the throne... even if he was sitting in it. And upon his death, Russia was to have about 15 years of dynastic strife as well as social and national struggles. This period of time is known to historians by the name 'The Time of Troubles'. This paper will attempt to discuss three particular subjects. What was the 'Time of Troubles' and its significance. What were the particular struggles of the time- dynastically, socially, and nationally... and how did these struggles overlap or remain separate from each other? Lastly, what part did the Cossacks play in all of these struggles, what role did they have in Russian history, and what eventually brought the country of Russia into national chaos during this time.

While the 'Times of Troubles' didn't officially begin until the year of 1598, it's path was born in the last years of the reign of Ivan IV. The last years of his reign were filled with the consequences of his grief, paranoia, his temper and mental illness. During that time frame, Russia began to have many difficulties. The Livonian War had depleted the state of many resources, both financial and human. Ivan's oprichnina, while attempting to snuff out treason, succeeded in terrorizing the country and killing thousands of innocent people of all classes. Both the war and the 'terror squad' helped to spread destabilization and impoverishment around the country and the rising demands on the peasant class caused many peasants to flee from the oppressive demands placed against them by migrating south. Ivan, in a fit of temper killed his principle heir to the throne and then, in his own grief, died soon after. This left the throne to the next oldest son Fedor- who has been described by many sources as unfit, weak-witted, etc... Another legacy from Ivan IV to his son was the threat to Russian security by the Crimean Tartars, Poland, and Sweden.

Fedor Ivanovich was born in Moscow on May 31, 1557 to Ivan IV and Anastasia Romanovna. He was often referred to as Fedor 'the Bell-ringer' because of his frequent attendance at church services, his strong faith and his inclination to travel throughout the land and ring the bells in the churches. He was married to Irina (Alexandra) Feodorovna Godunova in 1580 and on May 31, 1584, (after the death of his father) Fedor was crowned Tzar and Autocrat of all Russia at Assumption Cathedral. Ivan IV, knowing that Fedor did have 'problems' such as mental retardation arraigned in his will for Fedor to have two guardians to act as regents for him. These two guardians became the real power behind the throne and one of them was Boris Godunov. Boris Godunov was the brother of Fedor's wife and had found great favor with Fedor's father. Czar Fedor spent much of his waking hours in monotonous prayer far removed from the understanding of the Russian state reality. During his reign, the Church of Muscovy gained a special status of Patriarchate of Moscow- a title that gave the assumption of imperial status to the church and brought the religious rule and political rule of Russia even closer. So, as the power behind the throne, Boris Godunov 'ruled' until the 1598.

In 1598 Fedor died without an obvious heir, ending the Rubik Dynasty. He was buried at the Archangel Cathedral in Kremlin. During his reign, he did not produce an heir (and did not appoint one) and Ivan's last son Dmitry had been murdered/killed- either his throat was slit or he was stabbed in the throat. (It must be noted that some suspicion was placed on Boris Godunov in this death... even though the official investigators appointed by Godunov reported that Dmitri had been playing with a knife when he had suffered an epileptic seizure and then died.) After the death of Feodor, Boris was formally 'elected' to the position of Tzar on February 17, 1598 by a council of about 600 deputies drawn from the roles of upper clergy, the boyar duma, and representatives of the service nobility. Some comments from England's ambassador who was sent to the Court of Fedor show some of the cynicism and trouble of the time. Sir Giles Fletcher is quoted as saying: “The state and form of government is plain tyrannical... You shall seldom see a Ruse a traveler, except he be with some Ambassador... They are kept from traveling, so they may learn nothing nor see the fashions of other countries...It may be doubted whither is greater- the cruelty or the intemperancy that is used in this country.” Boris was to rule/reign as Tzar until his death after a lengthy illness and/or stroke in April 1605.

The easiest way to describe what the Cossacks were is to describe them as groups of lawless frontiersman or 'migrant workers'. The ranks of these groups were filled with peasants, runaway slaves, criminals, Tartars, and sometimes even a nobleman who was embittered towards the Autocrat and/or the establishment. The Cossacks survived mostly by hunting, fishing, farming... and or course piracy/brigandage. The Cossacks were also independent of loyalties to others other than themselves and were a very democratic institution; they elected their own leaders by popular vote- called hetmans or atamans. These groups had started to develop around the time of Ivan IV in the lands that had recently been conquered back from the Tartar-Mongols. (There is some thought/ sources that suggest groups of cossacks existed earlier than this time frame.) These groups gained some power and influence (or at the least were certainly not persecuted) under the reign of Ivan IV and both the czar and the these groups sometimes worked together for their common good... with Ivan using the cossacks sometimes as auxiliaries to his army, sometimes as paid members of the oprichnina, etc... Ivan IV was also quoted in 1549 in a response to a request of the Turkish Sultan to control the cossacks- 'The Cossacks of the Don are not my subjects, and they go to war or live in peace without my knowledge.' It must be stressed however, that while in some instances the Cossacks were quite willing to have an amiable relationship with the government or the czar, in others they were more than happy to defy the laws/czar- they had no loyalty or ties to anyone but to their own group members. The cossacks were known for their horsemanship and they managed to keep most of their autonomy until Russia expanded in the 17th and 18th centuries.

The role that the Cossacks played in the development of the history of Russia was varied. One group of Cossacks that were previously mentioned (the Don Cossacks) allied themselves with the Tsars and together systematically conquered and colonized lands to secure the borders of the Volga and all of Siberia. In one example, the Cossacks who lived in the southern frontier took advantage of a foreign war between Turkey and Persia and seized the fortress of Azov in 1637- when they were unable to defend it over a long period of time, communication was made with the Tzar and the fort was abandoned on the tzar’s instructions. In some areas, the differing groups of cossacks created a buffer from invasion from other countries along the Russian borders. Members of Cossack groups also served as guides for many expeditions that were arraigned by civil or government/military groups such as surveyors, traders, explorers, etc... Cossack groups also were involved in political uprisings in Russia and were military supporters of different pretenders to the Russian throne during the Time of Troubles- in fact, the main force supporting one pretender (Pseudo Dmitri I) was the Cossacks.

In 1598, Boris Godunov was elected czar and the 'Time of Troubles' officially began. For the next eight years, there was a dynastic struggle. During this time frame, the country had widespread discontent, invasions from two different countries and various tzars of dubious validity. Boris Godunov was elected Tsar by the Assembly of the Land, but Boris had troubles from the beginning with the boyar class- many refused to grant him unlimited authority because Godunov had no hereditary claim to the throne. However, none of the boyar class could unite with each other around an alternative candidate. After Godunov was crowned, he immediately set out to make sure he didn't have problems with popular rivals; Romanov relatives were banished or sent to monasteries and other boyars were simply purged. During the first few years of his reign, Boris Godunov was quite popular and he did his best to bring about educational and social reforms, including importing foreign teachers, sending young Russians abroad to be educated and even allowed for the building of some protestant churches. However, his reign and the years after his death were filled with power struggles. Godunov was quite paranoid over his position of power and assumed (quite rightly) that others would try to take it from him. He found that his reign was marked not only by national disasters such as severe famine that killed as much as 1/3 of the population, but also invasions from both Sweden and Poland. Rumors began to circulate that the late prince Dmitri was not actually dead and the final years of Godunov's reign were spent fighting not only the other social problems of plague and famine, but the pretender Pseudo Dmitri. After the death of Boris Godunov in April 1605, the dynastic chaos and civil war began in earnest. Feodor II (the son of Boris Godunov was crowned Tsar... and murdered three weeks later. The next in charge was False Dmitri I was then crowned, but reigned only a year before conspiracies against him by a rurikid prince Vasily Shuisky who then murdered the False Dmitri and seized power. Soon after this power grab, a new conspiracy grew up around another imposter calling himself 'Dmitri' entered the fray... and False Dmitri II was born. At this time a second occupation from Poland-Lithuania began after an invasion. And, another pretender Tsarevich Peter, arrived on the scene and had to be dealt with as well. All of the above mentioned pretenders had large armies-either from foreign forces who were willing to help, Cossacks, disgruntled boyars... and some mixtures of all of the above. In all, about twelve pretenders vied for the Russian throne and brought the chaos of civil war with them during their struggle as well as the forces of foreign powers.

The struggles for independence from foreign occupation and the long civil war brought about national chaos to Russia. No area of Russia was unmolested by occupying forces or civil war, natural disasters such as plague and famine, and the struggles of the nearly dozen different pretenders to the throne were felt across all areas of Russia. When Tsar Vasily was forced to abdicate his throne by Filaret Romanov, Russia was ruled by a council of seven boyars for three years until the year 1613 when the council selected Mikhail Romanov as Tsar. This was possible because the boyar finally were able to work together for compromise, the Cossacks supported the candidate, and Mikhail Romanov was not seen as 'power grabbing' like some of the other candidates were. He ruled from February 1613 to 1645, bringing the country of Russia back to stability- expelling the Poles/Swedes from Moscow and the country, bringing Russia back to economic recovery/stability and the beginning of three centuries of Romanov rule.

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.