After the fall of Alexander of Tver, Moscow became master of Novgorod, with substantial implications for European politics. Novgorod, loathing the land-based empire of Muscovy and fearful of a domination of their merchant privileges, revolted against Basil, and the son of Dimitri was forced to invade that haughty Patrimony.

While Lithuania and the Mongols were exhausting one another, Basil I Dimitrivic spread his empire to Novgorod and Vladimir, and was soon to buy Suzdal. As this is still the age of Tamerlane, Moscow was again to take advantage of the anarchy in the Horde to continue its expansion. It might also be noted that as Moscow became an empire, patterns of landholding improved for the lot of the peasantry. The treatment is peasants is proportional to the level of central control, central, of course, as defined as landholding conditionally maintained, rather than absolutely so. Once landlords are given land under condition of service, either military or bureaucratic, the treatment of peasants improves for the least of reasons, that a regular income from estates is necessary to support the increasingly onerous demands of royal policy. The creation of a service nobility–to use an anachronism–is one of the great achievements of the Basil’s, and finds its apogee under Ivan III the Great.

By the end of his reign, Basil had married into both the Byzantine and Lithuanian empires, proving the power of Moscow at this time, as well as the devious set of alliances Basil was interested in maintaining. However, the Lithuanians disappointed Basil in their desire for the strategic city of Smolensk, a city that will become a major dividing line between empires for centuries to come.

Basil II the Blind reigned from 1425 to 1462. He was the only son of Basil I and Sophie of Lithuania. His ascension to the Muscovite throne helped ignite a major civil war that was to exhaust Moscow for 20 years between Basil II and his uncle George. His uncle was assisted by his two sons, Basil the Squint and Dimitri Shemyaika. The khan at the time did not trust George, and had no qualms about giving the throne to Basil.

An important boyar, Vsevelod, was promised the daughter of Basil II in exchange for loyalty. However, the girls mother, Sophie of Lithuania, refused, thus angering Vsevelod. As this boyar was the lynchpin of Muscovite military force, his loss and defection to George was extremely harmful to Moscow’s cause, and was one of the major issues that ignited the civil war. In addition to this, the rather overbearing Sophie, during the wedding of Basil the Squint, removed the belt of Dimitri (Donskoi), a powerful relic representing authority, from this interloper, which was a clear indication that she refused to accept him as Grand Prince and Muscovite ruler.

What followed was war, with the sons of Yuri, Basil the Squint and Shemyaika fighting to control Moscow. First, Basil the Squint proved victorious, leading Basil II to flee to the Horde. This irritated Shemyaika, who then plotted with Basil II to overthrow the Squint. During the course of the war, Basil II was captured by Basil the Squint, and was blinded, hence his name Basil II the Blind. However, it was clear, especially since George had died, that the population of Moscow supported the son of Basil I.

When Basil II had been in the company of the Mongols (who had normally supported his claim) Shemyaika raised enough money to pay off the embattled khan to make him Grand prince, all the while pretending to serve the cause of Basil II. Shemiakya was hated as an interloper by the population of Moscow, who quickly threw him out. Basil II’s friends were able to raise an army for him, as the Blind was considered the only real force capable of defeating the rebellious Novgorod, who, unsurprisingly, declared for Shemyakia. In the subsequent invasion, Basil executed the rebels against Muscovite power.

Basil II’s reign was extremely significant in that finally, the oligarchies of Pskov, Smolensk and Novgorod were forced to finally concede Moscow as the central organizing force among Orthodox Russians. In many respects, the civil war, only described here in the briefest of ways, was an excuse for Basil to extend his strength against the interest of the trading oligarchies (often called “republics” in the mainline literature).

Further, the defeat of George (Yuri) and his two sons also put an end to the specific sort of succession from brother to brother (then to son) that was the cause of so much confusion. While Basil II received the patent from the Mongols (which by now was really a formality), tradition was with George, as Basil I’s brother. Even further, the “testament” of Dimitri clearly refers to collateral succession, and George was merely following the rule of his grandfather in challenging Basil. There are clear signs of Muscovite patriotism and sense of mission in the violence the populace aimed at Shemyaika, and Basil II was a genuinely popular ruler. Shemyakia was willing to take the concept of Muscovite centralism far farther than Basil, and as such, irritated the aristocracy of Moscow. Eventually, having fled to Novgorod, he was poisoned by Muscovite agents, fully aware that, so long as the interloper was alive, Basil II could never be safe.

Nevertheless, the tremendous expansion of Moscow under Basil II set the stage for the apogee of Moscow as am empire under the great leaders Ivan III the Great, Basil III and Ivan IV Grozny.

How did “collateral” descent become primogeniture?

This is a difficult question, and it comes up in many other contexts and cultures. Collateral succession is a clear reference to the Kievan system of rule, where a very weak central state was divided up among brothers. Once Russia was developing into an empire, to put it simply, it made far more sense that there is to be a succession to the eldest son, known as primogeniture. Dimitri was likely merely making reference to the ancient Russian tradition. Unfortunately, this neglect led to the civil war, for Yuri was merely pursuing his rights under law, while Basil II was pursuing the greater good of Russia. There really were no bad guys here.

Were the demands made on the nobility higher in this period than previously?

As far as I’m concerned, this was the main issue of the era. Primogeniture makes greater demands on the nobility than collateral descent, for there is one ruler who must consider his relatives servitors, however dignified their offices. Those who in Kievan times would have ruled their own tiny states were now basically high level bureaucrats for the Grand Prince. This distinction is central: it typifies the building of empire, centralization, state building, bureaucracy, standing armies, greater tax gathering abilities and, in my view, the better treatment of peasants. Landlords, under this system, are not absolute, as they were In Poland. They were a service nobility who held their lands on condition of service. Therefore, peasants become helpers in the noble’s duties, for without their cooperation, the noble could not assist the Tsar the way he was required to perform. Peasants were the “payment” for bureaucratic duties, in that they were to work for the noble, while the noble worked for the Grand Prince. This pyramid was widely accepted by the peasant classes as justifying their own position: there was a hierarchy of labor, all were responsible to someone higher, and all were equal before God. All had responsibilities, all difficult, all demanding, but all for the good of the Russian state. The noble was placed in a position of having to negotiate with the peasant commune under their elected head, for without peasant co-operation, the noble would lose his lands. In Poland, the life of the peasant was far harder, for the noble was completely independent on his lands, while the monarch was toothless.