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 First Romanov Czars: Michael and Alexei (1613-1676)

The accession of Mikhail Romanov to the Russian throne in February 1613 marked the end of the 'Time of Troubles' for the Russia country. A few ideas survived this time stronger and intact which was to affect the Russian country politically for centuries to come. The idea that only a strong monarch/tzar could keep the country from chaos was strong and seemed to many to be the only alternative to ongoing chaos. One idea was that the only stability that had been available was the Orthodox church and that was the only guarantee and unifying factor in Russia without a Tsar. There was also the idea that the person who should be in charge needed to be of the 'people' and understand the hardships that they had faced... and were facing. Last was the realization that the Tsar needed the boyar class and could not have authority without them- they would have to work together or get nowhere but trouble, death and chaos for all. The person also needed to be acceptable to the majority if not all Cossack groups as well as the boyar class. Finding someone on the Rurik hereditary line that hadn't been involved in the intrigue and choosing sides in the long civil war was that much harder. So it comes as almost no surprise that the chosen individual was young, had the appropriate heredity, and had very little political involvement over the last fifteen years. A quote from a source that caused me to laugh- “The choice (for czar) fell upon a boy, whose name might have wrung a sigh from the ghost of Boris Godunov: Michael Romanov.” I think the author was right! This paper will discuss the reigns of Tsar Mikhail I and his son Alexei I of Russia. It will discuss their goals and achievements and help us continue on our enlightening path of learning Russian history.

Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanov was born on July 12, 1596 to Feodor Nikitich Romanov and Kseniya Shestova in Moscow, Russia. Very little else is known about his childhood. It is known that both of his parents were forced by Boris Godunov to enter service in the church to keep them out of sight/mind for the 'succession'. Before taking vows and being known as Patriarch Filaret, Feodor Romanov had been a distinguished soldier, a man of diplomacy and had been the popular candidate for the throne when Feodor I passed away and Boris Godunov took over. The young Michael probably grew up in a convent with his mother at Tolvuysiy pogost and then later moved with her to Kostroma. In February 1613, he was the chosen and elected czar.... but the next step was for the new czar to be found. And found he was at his mother's side at the Ipatiev Monastery near Kostroma on March 24th. (On a side note, there is a legend about a man named Ivan Susanin who was tortured to hide the whereabouts of the young Michael Romanov and because of his faithfulness and his silence his ancestors were given one half of Derevischi village by Tsar Mikhail.... or he led a Polish army group sent to capture the czar astray and they were never heard from again. There is some debate about this.) Many sources suggest that Mikhail and his mother were not accepting at first of his new 'elevation'- only after much discussion did Michael accept the position of Czar. He approached Moscow on May 2,1613 and several weeks later he attended his coronation in the Assumption/Dormition Cathedral. He married Maria Vladimirovna Dolgorukova in 1624 and when she died four months after their marriage, Michael married Eudoxia Streshneva. Together, they produced ten children including the next Czar Alexis.

The first priority of the new Tsar in 1614 was to restore order and rid the country of the 'foreign occupators'. One source suggests that Tsar Micheal’s main goal was actually twofold- to rid Russia of the large foreign armies and put to rest the conflicts with Poland and Russians as well as deal with his country's financial problems to help solidify Michael's own position. Due to his age, he ruled closely with close consultation with the Boyar Duma and the Assembly of the Land for the first few years... and well as help by his mother's relatives that took control of governmental affairs until the return of Mikhail's father. Patriarch Filaret returned to Moscow in June of 1619 and took up the reigns of political affairs, accepting the title of Great Sovereign and ruling until his death in 1933. However, before his father's return Mikhail had many accomplishments. He had inherited a bankrupt country and he immediately borrowed money to pay the army and raised taxes. Michael was able to put down an uprising of an pretender (false Dmitri III) and his promoters which helped to cement his rule. After the necessary isolation of Russia during the civil wars of the 'Troubles', Tsar Michael looked to England and to its monarch James I for an alliance that could protect Russia from further problems with Poland- there was precedent for good relations with England as relations between the Queen of England (Elizabeth I) and Russian monarchs Ivan IV and Boris Godunov were mostly amiable. This step, along with the taxes and rebuilding the army ended parts of the Polish occupation of Russia and helped control the Swedish threat. Tsar Mikhail signed the Treaty of Stolbovo in 1617 and the Treaty of Deulino in `1618. The alliance with England was successful in its ambitions and both parties (the Tsar of Russia and the King of England) gained many of the priorities and securities that they wanted in their high stakes game of 'risk'. Throughout the last years of his rule, the czar's concentration was on colonization and fort-building in the south and in Siberia- as well as the reformation of the structure of local governments to increase the authority of the central administration. Tsar Mikhail Romanov ruled until his natural death of illness on July 12, 1645 after naming his 16 year old son Alexei as his designated heir.

Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov was born on March 19, 1629, to Tsar Mikhail and his second wife, Eudoxia Streshneva. Alexis was brought up by various wet nurses until the age of five and then his education was entrusted to two boyars names Boris Morozov and Basil Streshnev. Even though he was handed the throne at the same age as his father, he had been able to be better prepared for the challenge. He was sixteen years of age when his father died on July 13, 1645 and his coronation was held on September 28, 1645. In Russian, his nickname was 'tishaishii' which means 'most quiet one' and he was known to be a very devout and religious man. (The word 'tishaishii' can also mean 'the most meek.) Tsar Alexei relied heavily on his two tutors for advice during the early parts of his reign, but firmly stood on his own during much of his reign. He married Maria Ilynichna Miloslavskaya in January 1648 and she gave birth to thirteen children in their twenty-one years of marriage... and died a few weeks after the last childbirth. It was said that Tsar Alexei was very grief-stricken at her death, however, he did later marry again; a Nataliya Kyrillovna Naryshkina and after their marriage in February 1671, she bore him three children... including Peter, who would later be known as one of the greatest Russian rulers in history.

No one can really honestly suggest that the time frame during the rule of Tsar Alexei was not tumultuous. Events happening all over the globe confirm that statement. But Russia itself was part of and participated in some of the difficulties. In Russia during his reign, Tsar Alexis faced numerous town rebellions including defeating the Cossack group led by Stenka Razin, fought and was fairly successful territory-wise in the Russo-Swedish war of 1656, a thirteen year war with Poland which was quite successful territory-wise, as well as a permanent schism in the Orthodox church. According to the introduction to his own book on falconry, Alexis is quoted as saying that "everything must be done with good order, discipline, and exact arrangement.” One source mentions that this quote helps explain the tzar’s emphasis on centralization, obedience, and conformity. He believed that nothing could be secure or strengthened unless great care, strong consistency and hands on strong authority was used. This was not a whim that he expected others to follow alone- Tsar Alexis required the same behavior in almost all instances from himself. Alexei is also quoted as coining the phrase “a time for work, an hour for play” which is still a popular saying in Russia.

He was considered one of the most educated men of his time and he himself wrote and edited many of the important decrees and documents of his time for Russia. He was the first czar to sign laws on his own authority and to permit realistic portraits of himself as well as to actually receive personal communications as a 'person' and not as a leader. Tsar Alexei also established an international postal system to improve communication with other states in Europe. He was described in the memoirs of Lizek as a “Tsar [that] is gifted with unusual talents, has fine qualities and rare virtues... subjects love him so much and revere him.” A monument to Czar Alexei is scheduled to be completed in the city of Penza in 2013 which is the city's 350th anniversary- this city is significant as it was built on Czar Alexei orders to bolster one of the Russian empire's borders.

Tsar Alexei was a man who seems to have a broad vision and unlike some of his predecessors, didn't seem to enjoy the punishments that he felt 'forced' to order. His actions increased the territory of Russia and also helped cement the autocracy for his successors... giving them more power than he had come to the throne with. When he died, he left a fairly stable country ready to accept some new western ideas and a lasting legacy. His son Peter I would continue and build on his father's ideals and legacy creating a legend for himself and a country that would continue to last until this very day.... even if in a smaller form.

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!