Unity among the Russians had always been a social and cultural, though not a political reality. Much like medieval Ireland, Russia was unified religiously and linguistically (even Ireland was unified legally, though not politically), though unity in a political sense was still not a fact. The ascension of Ivan III the Great was to permanently change that. The next three princes of Moscow, Ivan, Basil and Ivan IV, were the creators of Russia in the political sense, while their forbears were the creators of it in the religious, linguistic and cultural sense.
Ivan realized several things as he comes to the throne. Firstly, the only means whereby Russia can become a powerful state is by unification, though this notion had long since been part of the Russian consciousness. Secondly, that such unification can not be done through pleasant methods. Thirdly, that the key to unification was the final subjugation of Novgorod.
Though it is rarely mentioned in the literature, there was a strong pro-Moscow party in the oligarchic republic. This party had trading interests that lay to the east and southeast, and depended on the Volga route, rather than though the Dnieper or points west or south. As with everything in Novgorod, money and trading determined everything else. In fact, I will go as far as to claim that the Russian attitude towards labor and money comes from the war between Moscow and Novgorod. That other objects rather than money became part of the Russian mentality due, at least primally, to the battle between Moscow and Novgorod. The developing service nobility in Moscow was based on military virtue, personal behavior and loyalty. In Novgorod, virtue was considered identical with the making of money, and the means to which this can be affected. To think that this cleavage makes no historical difference is nonsense.
Ivan knew this, of course, about Novgorodian politics. Novgorod, despite the panegyrics laid at their feet by mainstream academics, Novgorod was a deeply divided country, based entirely around the worship of money. Such societies, typified by the United States in modern times, are weak and easy to subvert. Ivan wasted no time. First of all, Ivan began to play upon the severe class differences between the merchant classes who, like in all republics, controlled politics, and the laboring classes who were apparently pro-Moscow. Further, within the ruling elite, he began to play on the differences between the Volga merchants and those with other trading interests. From the Novgorodian point of view, this called for strong leadership to combat Moscow, and this leadership came from Marfa of Novgorod, a pro-Polish noblewoman who was to take the helm of Novgorod against Moscow.
Novgorod cared little for religion or ethics. Therefore, it was a normal occurrence for the Novgorodian elite to seek conversion to Catholicism in order to become a part of Polish rule. They sought protection from any agency that would guarantee their financial well being and class rule. The mass conversion to Polonism (in the full sense) was a major part of the agenda of Marfa. Eventually, King Casmir IV brought Novgorod under his protection, and the conversion began, which was, due to public pressure as well as Moscow’s interest, the pretext for Ivan’s invasion of the Apostate Republic. Novgorod was quickly defeated, and much of Novgorod’s northern lands were ceded to Moscow.
Typical of the Apostate Republic, Marfa, once she realized that Ivan was stirring up class war in the weakened republic, sought to use violence against the Orthodox poor of the city. Mass roundups, extended working hours and other forms of exploitation were engaged in by the Polish/Novgorodian ruling classes to control the pro-Moscow and Orthodox lower orders. With various revolts of the lower classes acting as a pretext for war, Ivan again, this time in 1478, invaded the Apostate Republic, scattered its arrogant rich and absorbed the city and all its lands into Moscow. Ivan had killed two birds with one stone: Casmir was defeated, and Moscow was now, physically, the largest state in Christendom. Modern Russia was born. Eurasia (in that Ivan III’s forces contained Tartar elements) had defeated Europe. Loyalty defeated greed. Orthodoxy had defeated whoredom. Upon this was Russia created.
The next step was to do the same to the much smaller, but politically identical city of Tver. Resistance to the colossus of Moscow was impossible, and Michael, prince of Tver, fled, and now, all north Russia was part of Muscovy in 1485. But Ivan made something else clear: he would not apportion out cities to his sons, as previous rulers had done. Strength only comes from unity, and modern, rather than medieval monarchy was also born with Ivan. Even the arrogant Pskov, apparently incapable of understanding the difference between short term and long term strategy, assisted Ivan with the subjugation of the commercial republics, as they were all trading competitors.
As far as the Mongols were concerned, the days of empire were over. While they could still cause major chaos, the Mongols were now divided into several organizations: Kazan, Nogai, Astrakhan, the Crimea and Sarai, just to name the major ones. These were the local, small khanates, too weak to threaten Moscow, but strong enough to prove useful to a political genius such as Ivan. In fact, many of these local princlings had approached Ivan for protection, thereby leading to increasing Muscovite penetration to the south and east. Such division was useful to Ivan when Khan Akmed sought the re-subjugation of Moscow. The arrogance of the Islamic prince was met with a blistering attack from the Nogai clan. The Mongol yoke, in a staggering anti-climax, was over. In fact, the Mongols of the south will soon become the strongest supporters of Muscovite autocracy; from their point of view, the distant rule of a tolerant prince was far better than the increasing fundamentalist Islam of their Mongol competitors.
Under Ivan, the Holy City itself, Constantinople, fell to the Turks. While Europe was stunned at this development, Ivan took the issues seriously, and began to realize that he was the main, if not the sole, defender of Orthodoxy in the world. His marriage to Sophie, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, made this a reality rather than just a theory, and, as a result, Ivan was the first to begin calling himself Tsar. Contrary to popular belief, “Tsar” is not a rendering of “Caesar.” Caesar is a lower level title in the Roman lexicon, a title, incidentally, that the Grand Princes of Russia already possessed as vassals (in theory) of the Byzantine Emperor. If the universal protector of Orthodoxy was now the burden of Moscow, then Caesar would be the last title Ivan would adopt, for it suggests a far lower title than the Greek “Basileus.” Tsar is a Mongol word related to Khan or Kagan rather than to Caesar. It denotes emperorship rather than high ranking vassalage, which Caesar (at least in the Byzantine context) would imply.
One must also not underestimate that strong and powerful Sophie, either. In her case, she came to Moscow with an army of Greek prelates, teachers, artists and philosophers. Byzantium was, in some sense, scattered to the east with Sophie, and to the west, into Italy. Moscow becomes the Third Rome in fact, not merely in theory. Sophie, educated in Italy, brings to Moscow a synthesis of east and west, of the learning of the Greeks and Italians, Catholics and Orthodox. Such a synthesis was not lost on Ivan. Byzantium came to Moscow not just ideologically or religiously, but physically as well.
Insofar as Lithuania was concerned, things went Moscow’s way there as well. There is little doubt that, while Ivan lived, Russia was the strongest and largest state in Christendom. Making matters worse for the Catholics, the death of Casmir of Poland led to the incompetent rule of Alexander (though an incompetence enforced by noble control), whose largest foreign policy victory was the pacification of Ivan by marrying Ivan’s daughter Helen.
As it turns out, Ivan had yet another pretext to go to war with Poland, and that was the manifest poor treatment of Helen with her insecure husband, Alexander. Apparently, Ivan received word that Alexander was refusing to allow Helen to worship according to Orthodox rites (as she had an entourage of Orthodox clergy with her), among other indignities that were in direct violation of their marriage arrangement. War against Poland was short, the Crimean Tartars, fighting with Ivan, received the extreme southern parts of Poland, while Ivan, yet again, killed two birds with one stone, for Alexander had called in the Germans to fight with him, and both were defeated. Moscow was not merely the master of eastern Europe, North Asia and west Asia, but Central Europe as well.
As reflecting Russia’s new position in global politics, a new law code was drawn up for the new Orthodox empire/superstate. It is called the Sudebnik, and was drawn up in September of 1497. As western Europe was coming out of the crisis of feudalism by expansion and the building of absolutism (new monarchy), Ivan was building the Orthodox empire.
The boyars are now clearly subject to the state, and their private justice (something the new code was concerned with, cf. Articles 4-7) was strictly regulated from Moscow. Judicial proceedings among boyars were tightened up, and rules of evidence rationalized (esp, article 19; something else that mysteriously disappears from the contemporary literature). It is very clear that Ivan and Sophie were very interested in the development of a rational judicial procedure for disputes among elites, reflecting, at least, that they were part of a nation and empire, and not part of the old appanage system any longer.
This specific article is of note: “Article 38. And those boyars and petty boyars whom are given grants with full jurisdiction shall administer justice, and at their court there must be [present]: a steward (dvorskij), an elder (starosta) and outstanding citizens (lushchie ljudi). And without a steward, elder and outstanding citizens the city and rural viceregents shall not hold court; and they are to take no bribes for administering justice, nor shall their deputies or agents take bribes for administering justice, either for their lord or for their deputy, and the tax-collectors shall also not ask for bribes in connection with judicial administration.”
Several things are of interest here, again, that magically escape the notice of modern commentators. The form of local justice, mediated by the Tsar, is to be as fair and representative as possible. Firstly, local justice is to be an affair given over to local elites. These elites, of course, are to rule in conjunction with the commune of peasants, as referenced by the command that the head of the commune (starotsa) is to be present at all judicial proceedings. This head-man is an elected official and the representative of the peasant classes. Second, an upper house (if you will) of “outstanding citizens” also need to be present at all proceedings. These outstanding citizens were those marked by their virtues, social standing, clerical or monastic status, as well as those who were able to read and write. In other words, the elements of democracy and aristocracy are included in the nature of judicial proceedings on the estates of the boyarin.
Now, by judicial, we mean a rather amorphous combination of legislative, executive and judicial natures, using modern terms. The law code, as typified by article 38, is as much about the procedures in the making and codification of local law as about the creation of “federal” law. Local law in medieval Russia under Ivan was just in that it followed procedures guaranteed to show justice, a separation of powers, and full representation among classes. Local authority, split between the service nobility, local elites and peasants were the source of law in Russia. This is a clear repudiation of the Novgorodian idea of law which was the rule of the moneyed elite and the institutionalized oppression of the poor.
Article 52 states: “And if a woman, or small child, or an old person, or a sick person, or cripple, or priest, or monk, or nun shall bring suit against anyone or if any of these shall serve as a witness for anyone, then he is allowed to hire a substitute [for dueling]. And the litigants or witness must kiss [the cross] but the hired fighters must fight. Against these hired fighters the plaintiff or defendant [may hire] fighters [of his own, or], if he so desires, he may himself fight in the [dueling] field.”
Does this not prove that women and children can bring suit against anyone? Where else in Europe was this the case? Ivan is called the Great for a reason, and his law code is part of that. Modern Russia was born here. Russia dedicated to justice and fairness was born here. Far from a tyranny, medieval and early modern Russia was, relative to the time, a font of justice and good laws, enforced by a strong monarch who largely stood aloof from local problems, but always reserved to himself the ability to intervene when his code was violated.
If what you have said is true, that Ivan III was far from an autocrat, right?
One of the ways contemporary academics muddy the historical waters is a slippery use of words. “Autocracy” means, of course, rule by one man. Of course, this was far from the case in Russia. Until the Bolshevik coup, Russia was a series of communal islands, empowered by law to deal with local affairs. This was, in a legal sense, the legacy of Ivan’s marriage to Sophie of Byzantium. Modern societies do not have the local autonomy of medieval ones, nor do they enjoy the powerfully limited state of medieval royal societies. How dare these tenured hacks talk of “tyranny” and “boorishness” of medieval life when their entire life is recorded by video cameras, from Wal-Mart to their urban streets. Do they think Ivan’s Russia was a “tyranny” when they fill out their tax forms, handing over all their financial records to the state upon demand? Modern academics are corrupt and are bereft of even the most elemental of critical abilities. They are hired and promoted for their ideological malleability, not for their academic acumen.What was peasant life like at this time?
This question would require many volumes to adequately answer. As far as one can tell, peasants were governed by an elected commune, which was empowered to negotiate with the landlord over labor dues and monetary taxes (where applicable). Given that the landlord was usually serving in the tsar’s court, the peasant commune dealt with the estate steward, sometimes elected, sometimes appointed by the landlord. The Russian peasant, protected by the legislative and judicial machinery of the commune, was far more autonomous than the factory worker of modern England or America, with a comparatively lower tax burden. Labor dues, or corvee, normally comprised working for the lord a few days a year, often fixing fences or bridges, or some other menial capacity. These dues were laid out democratically in communal assemblies. According to the work of Stephen Hoch, peasant diet was varied and substantial, outstripping that of the French peasant of the day. In the winter, very little work was done, but in those few places where the money economy was important, some part time labor could be expected. In some places, cottage industries were encouraged. It was possible for a peasant to do very well financially, and it was certainly in the lord’s interest to have a thriving estate, especially when so much was expected of him from the state apparat, such as it was. The Russian population was exploding at this time.