Library:A History of the U.S.S.R./Part 1

Early Times

The Primitive Community System in Our Country

Primeval Human Society

The Birth of Human Society

The first traces of human life in Europe date back to that distant penod when the climate was warm and humid. The luxununt, eveie»ee*i fo ests coiitoisled of laiuel, box, yew and othei species of trees. The and nveibanks abounded

in animals which today aie either extinct (as the pi e-hjstoiic elephant, and a peouluit genus, ut ihuiooeios) or xvh ch now occur in bouthern lands (as the h ppopotaimis and leopaid).

Human beings lived in small giuups (‘‘primitive hordes”). The hrst implements used by man ueie lough-ch^ppca stones. People obtained their food in common by gulh. nng snails insects, fiuit and edible roots. The hunting of small animals was still a casual pursuil . Because of the warm climate man had no need for the protection of special shelters or clothing.

Gradually the climate hardened and grew still more humid. Large glaciers formed in the north, and moved down the mountains. The luxuriant forests receded farther south, and the warm-climate animals either went south with them, or vanished completely. Vast areas were under ice.

Man however remained and adapted himself to the harsher climatic conditions inasmuch as he had learned the use of fire. At first he learned how to keep up a fire, and then how to obtain it by rubbing dry sticks together and by striking sparks out of stone. Fire kept man warm, protected him against wild beasts, and allowed him to eat his meat and fish cooked.

The earliest squatting places of man in our country are those discov- ered in the Caucasus (near Sukhumi) and in the Crimea. A large number of split animal bones and rude stone implements have been found in oaves not far from Simferopol. These were the dwellings of primitive hunters who used natural caves as protection against beasts and as shelter in time of bad weather.

When the Glacial Age was at its height, a large cap of ice covered the European territory of our country, extending to the Middle Don and the Southern Dnieper (almost to Dniepropetrovsk). The ice cap over Siberia was less considerable.

The beginning of the first millennium B.C. witnessed the birth of a class society in the southern mountains of Transcaucasia and in Asia Minor. The iron ploughshare and the iron ax brought about the decline of ^he primitive commimity system.

This blanket of ice cjovered our land for many tens of thousands of years. The glaciers melted slowly and the ice gradually receded to the north, leaving behind it ridges of boulders.

At first the land freed from the glaciers was covered with tundra. Torrents of thawing ice out channels into the soil and formed the liver systems. The abundance of moisture stimulated the rapid growth of grass and forests. The plains, woods, riverbanks, lake shores, etc., became the abode of large animals — ^the mammoth and rhinoceros, as well as the reindeer and other specimens of the northern and Arctic animal world, Man’s most dangerous enemies — the cave lion, cave bear and cave hyena— inhabited the hills and caves. Man followed the retreating glaciers to the north.

The Primitive Community

Equipped only with the wooden club, the wooden spear and the crudest stone implements man was unable to combat the ri- gorous conditions of nature and the wild beasts singlehanded.

Danger dogged him at every step. Only by helping each other could men protect themselves against the attacks of beasts and obtain the food they needed. This co-opeiation was especially necessary when hunting big game like the mammoth, rhinoceros, the wild bull and other beasts. In appearance the mammoth resembled the elephant, but was much larger and stronger. The mammoth chief means o£ defence were his enormous upcurving tusks-

The mammoth was a herbivorous animal and dangerous only when being pursued. To capture such a strong beast people had to set traps or to lie in wait for their quarry near watering places or steep cli&.

Collective life led to the formation of the primitive commumty. Everything, with the exception of some insignificant articles, be- longed to the community; private property did not yet exist. In the primitive community there were no rich and poor, no exploitation of man by man. Productive forces were very poorly developed.

People learned to make mud-huts and hovels as a shelter from the cold. Not long ago the remains of such a dwelling place were discov- ered on the Don, near the village of Gagarino. The bottom of t e hut was a shallow, oval pit the sides of which were lined with bould^ and large bones, to which poles were affixed, joined together at e top and forming a roof covered with twigs and hides. The bones ^ ^ mammoth, rhinoceros, bull and various small animals were found scattered inside the hut. Ornaments were also discovered there — the teeth of small beasts of prey, shells, and several carved bone figures of women. With the development of Soviet archeology as many as 200 habitats of ancient human society have been discovered on Soviet land, They are scattered in various places in the southern half of the European territory, in the Altai Mountains and in Western and l^astem Siberia, and are evidence of the profound antiquity of human society in our country.

The Matriarchal Clan

Origin of the Matriarchal Clan

Origin of the Matriarchal Clan, As the climate changed, the vast glaciers vanished. They remained only in the extreme north and on mountain peaks. Gradually the conditions of nature became more like what they are today. The animal world changed; many large beasts, such as the mammoth and the cave lion, became extinct. Man*s struggle for existence was considerably mitigated.

The primitive community had had no definite social organization and readily disintegrated. On the other hand, the existence of a common economy called for a more stable and permanent social organization.

In the course of many thousands of years people handed down from generation to generation acquired labour habits. They learned to make implements of various sizes and shape from flint and bone, such as axes, hammers, knives, celts, picks, spear points, etc. They started polishing the surfaces of the stone implements, making them easier to handle. People learned to sharpen and pierce stones and fix them onto handles. Of great importance was the appearance of the bow and arrow which enabled the hunter to kill his quarry from afar.

His new production technique enabled man to rise to a higher stage of human civilization, that of barbarism. Man began to make earthenware, which was necessary for storing water, especially in dry regions. At ‘first, the utensils were made of wood, twigs and skins. Then, to make them more durable, the walls of the wooden vessels were lined with clay. Still later the entire vessel was made of clay alone. Finally, the potter's wheel appeared, and with it pottery pro- duction. The “plaiting of baskets from twigs and rushes anticipated the weaving of the fibre of wild plants. This was the beginning of textile production. Coarse, hand- woven fabric w^as used for clothing, bags, and the like, !Man’s vocations became more intricate and diverse. He began to use nets woven of fibre for fishing. His chief hunting weapons were the spear, the harpoon, and the bow and arrow. Dming their excavations archeologists sometimes find the bones of large beasts .of prey with flint arrowheads deeply imbedded in them. At first women gathered fmit and berries; then they began planting grain, tubers and edible roots. For this purpose a plot of'fertile land, usually in a river valley, was loosened by means of a pointed stick — ^the hoo. Barley, millet and wheat were sown. In this way arose the primitive form of hoe agriculture.

Primitive agriculture, which was carried on chiefly by the women, provided mankind with a more stable economic basis. Gradually, in the course of centuries, primitive people began to revere woman as the s^rmbol of fertility. Realizing the importance of maternity, they also honoured woman as the ancestral Mother. And woman, as the Mother, tiller of the soil, and guardian of the collective life of the group, became head of the primitive matriarchal clan.

When a man took a wife, he went to live with her clan, where he was subordinate to his wife’s mother. At clan meetings, woman, the Mother, was in command, and members of the clan honoured only their female ancestors. For the murder of or insult to one of their kin, the entire clan sought revenge. Inter-olan blood feuds beeamo endless wars. For purposes of war several clans Joined to form tribes. Clans consisted of several hundred people, and were united chiefly for work. A tribe combined a number of clans comprising several thousand people, who primarily formed a military group. At tribal meabings the armed people — ^men and women— elected leaders and elders, and decided questions of war and peace. Women were also tribal chieftains.

The men, who were hunters, tamed wild animals. This laid the foundation for animal herding. The flrst domestic animal was the dog. In northern regions man tamed the reindeer.

Habitations of Clan Communities

Many dwelling places of clan communities have been found all over our country, from the shores of the Black Sea and the valleys of the Transcaucasian Mountains to the Far North, and from Byelorussia to Eastern Siberia. Tais material has enabled scientists to determine how people lived in that remote epoch

In the forest belt people lived along riverbanks and lake shores. Each settlement belonged to a single clan and consisted of a few hovels. The dwellers ’ chief occupation was fishing, and to somo extent hunting. In some places elan settlements were located in g/oups, a fact that points to the rise of a tribal union of clans.

In the south, where the country consisted of mixed forest and steppeland, and especially in the fertile river valleys, the chief occu- pation of the population was tilling the ground with the hoe. As an example of a primitive agricultural society we have the Tripolye civilization, relics of which were first discovered near the village of Tripolye (not far from Kiev). Numerous settlements of the Tripolye civilization have been found on Ukrainian territory, west of the Dnie- per; they are said to be about 6,000 years old. Settlements were located on high banks or on the slopes of ravines at the bottom of which streams flowed. The site selected for a dwelling was spread with clay which was baked hard with the help of bonfires. The walls were built of piles and sticks coated with clay. The result was a fairly spacious dwelling with several heai*ths inside. These crudely constructed houses accommodated up to a hundred and more people. The people planted wheat, barley and millet not far from their place of abode. Wooden flint-tipped hoes were used to turn up the soil. The grain was ground between large stone slabs.

A large number of clay statuettes of animals have been found; a magical power was presumably ascribed to these statuettes which were supposed to protect the domestic herd and help it to multiply. Pictures of domestic animals are also to be found on vessels.

Occasionally articles made of copper are found in the villages of the Tripolyo civilization. Little casting moulds have been unearthed, pointing to the fact that some of these articles were made at the place whore they were found. The frequent occurrence of metallic objects coincides with the period when the matriarchal clan system began to decline.

The Patriarchal Clan

The Development of Herding

The domestication of wild animals was of gieat importance in the life of the clan communities. Possessing domestic animals, people had a constant supply of food and were no longer dependent on the outcome of their hunt, which was not always a success. The taming of dogs and reindeer (in the north) was followed by the dom^ stication of otb r animals such as cattle, goats, sheep, swine and horses. Gradually herding became the chief pursuit of the community- At first the cattle lived all year by grazing near the set- tlement. Later the people began to make hay as fodder for the winter; in the north thin leafy twigs were dried and shredded for this purpose. During the winter domestic animals lived in the same houses with the people. Later special sheds were put up for the animals. Large herds of cattle could not remain in one place for a great length of time. People therefore began to migrate with their cattle in search of fresh pasturage. Thus, nomad herding originated in the vast steppe land- Dairy farming, and the making of cheese and butter appeared with the development of cattle raising. Man learned to treat the wool of animals and to spin thread from it; then he began to make warm fabrics which were a good protection against the cold. Later the weav- ing loom was invented.

The breeding of domestic animals enabled man to use them in turning up the soil. This led to the appearance of the first tilling implement —the wooden plough. The first primitive plough was probably a tree limb with a bent, pointed bough or rhizome.

Origin of the Patriarchal Clan

Herding was the chief occupation of the man. It greatly enhanced his importance in the community. Man, the livestock breeder, replaced woman in agriculture: he tilled the land with the aid of animals (the bull, deer and horse) and freed woman from heavy physical labour with the hoe or plough. By using draft animals, man transformed hoe agriculture into plough farming. Kinship began to be traced from the male line, and no longer from the female -The matriarchal clan, which had existed heretofore, disappeared, and was replaced by the patriarchal clan, that is, a union of relatives who originated from a common male ancestor.

It became the established custom for a man’s children to inherit their father’s property, and this led to the accumulation of wealth in the family. Rich families began to withdraw from the clan. This accelerated the disintegration of the primitive community system.

Development of Copper and Bronze Age Culture

The development of the patriarchal clan was coeval with the period when stone imple- ments began to give way to copper and bronze tools. Native copper was worked in the cold state. However, implements made of pure copper were too soft, they easily bent and soon got blunt. The dis- covery of bronze, a copper and tin alloy, was of great importance in improving the quality of metal implements. Bronze melts at a lower temperature than copper. This facilitated the smelting and manu- facture of bronze implements. The use of bronze, which is much harder than copper, permitted of a considerable improvement in tools and weapons, with the result that man’s labour became more productive and his weapons stronger.

The most ancient copper articles found on the territory of the U.S.S.R. date back to 3,000 B.C. They were originally introduced from southern and eastern lands. Local production came into being no later than 2,000 B.C, The mountains of the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Altai and the Urals became seats of the Bronze Age civili- zation. From here the use of bronze implements spread to the steppe and forest regions.

In early times, when himting was man’s chief occupation, life in the different primitive communities was practically unvaried. Later occupations became more diversified. In forest localities which abounded in wild animals, hunting was still an impoi-tant pursuit. Near rivers and lakes people turned chiefly to fishing, while in fertile river valleys they tilled the soil. The grassy steppe served as pasturage for their herds.

The inhabitants of the European forest belts and the vast wooded areas of Siberia remained preeminently hunters and fishermen. They lived in small villages far removed from each other. The primitive community system still prevailed there.

In the grassy plains of Southern Siberia, Central Asia and the Black Sea region, herding became the basic occupation. Agriculture predominated in the fertile valleys. Here the disintegration of the primitive community proceeded more rapidly. Communities of hus- bandmen and herders developed more quickly than communities of hunters. Sea steppes, which, when excavated, revealed human skeletons dyed a red colour. During burial, the dead body was covered with ochre or minium (red lead), which later settled in the bones. The dead man’s weapons and various household chattels were placed beside him. Sometimes the skeletons of a man and a woman were found together in the same burial mound. It is to be presumed that' when a man, the head of a family, died, his wife was killed and buried with him. The barrows reveal hat there were rich and poor burials, and testify to the incidence of inequality in property status. An example of an especially lavish burial— that of a clan or a tribal chief —is the tumulus discovered near the city of Maikop. The mound was about 30 feet high. The main section of the sepulchre contained a skeleton which had been coloured a bright red with minium. The deceased was dressed in clothing ornamented with golden images of bulls, rings, rosettes, and also with gold, cornelian and turquoise beads, and other small objects. Gold and silver vessels lay beside him. A canopy had been erected above the body, and was supported on gold and silver tubular piles decorated with solid gold and silver figures of bulls. The grave contained two other skeletons in special sections; the chieftain’s nearest relatives had to die with him. The Bronze Age flourished during the second millennium and the beginning of the first milleimium B C. in the mountains of the Cau- casus, Transcaucasia and the Altai. Ancient mines from which ore was obtained for the local production of bronze, have been discovered in many places.

Beginning of the Iron Age

Iron objects appeared on the territory .of the U.S.S.R. at the end of the second millennium B.C. At first iron was used to ornament bronze articles. In tbe first half of the first millennium B.C. the production of iron implements had already originated in various places, and these articles began to replace bronze weapons and tools. By the middle of the first millennium B.C, iron had firmly established itself in the life of the population of our country. It increased the productivity of labour tremendously, especially in agriculture and the crafts. “Iron made possible agriculture on a larger scale and the clearing of extensive forest tracts for cultivation; it gave the ciaftsman a tool of such hardness and sharpness that no stone, no other known metal, could withstand it/’*

The beginning of the first millennium B.C. witnessed the birth of a class society in the southern mountains of Transcaucasia and in Asia Minor. The iron ploughshare and the iron ax brought about the decline of ^he primitive commimity system.

Earliest States on the Territory of Our Country

Earliest Slaveowning States in the Caucasus and Central Asia

Basis of Slavery

In the primitive community oppression did not exist. But production, too, was in an embryonic state. With the develop- ment of herding, agriculture and domestic crafts, men were able to produce more than was necessary for their own subsistence This led to the accumulation of stocks and the bartering of products among the clan communities. With the development of private family owner- ship of the means of production, individual families also engasred in inter-family barter. Such barter further stimulated production, which could no longer be maintained by the labour power of a single family or clan.

Wars furnished a new source of labour power: prisoners of war were no longer killed, but were converted into slaves. War was now waged for the sake of capturing prisoners no less than for that of plun- der. Wars still further increased property inequality. The rich could now enslave not only people of alien tribes, but also their own tribesmen and clansmen. Thus arose a division of society into classes: a class of slaveowners and a class of slaves. The slaveowner considered his slaves Ms absolute property, just as he did any other article that belonged to Mm. He could sell, buy and kill Ms slave just as he did his cattle. A slave had no property of his own. His labour was exten- sively employed in the economy. The condition of slaves was a very wretched one, yet compared to the primitive community, the system of slavery was a progressive stage.

Formation of the Slaveowning State

The state came into being with the development of property and class inequality. It was essential to the propertied class as a means of preserving amassed riches and maintaining its power over the slaves and the indigent population. The body politic arose on the ruins of the primitive community system.

With the appearance of property inequality, clan and tribal chief- tains came to be elected from among the rich families. Wars of plunder enriched these chieftains still further and made them more powerful; with them their military retinues also enriched themselves. These retinues helped to make the rule of the chiefs hereditary. A special armed force, one which replaced the former tribal volunteer levy, was required to keep the slaves and the poor in subjection. Popular justice was replaced by a new court of law, one which served the in- terests of the ruling minority. In the clan, society had been governed according to traditional customs. Laws that protected the interests of the slaveowners appeared in the slaveowning state. A state power unknown under the primitive community system was formed in this manner.

Ancient states expanded by subjugating weaker neighbouring tribes. Such multi-tribal states were unstable since they were founded not on economic ties but on the power of the conqueror. They therefore united or fell apart according to the success or failure of one or another military leader or ruler.

Ancient Transcaucasian States

The first slaveowning state to appear on the territory of our country originated in Transcaucasia near Assyria. In the middle of the second millennium B,C. the moun- tainous land in the region of the triple lakps, Van, Sevan and Urmiya, and the upper reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and their tributaries, was occupied by small tribal unions. The Assyrian kings undertook frequent campaigns against them. This country of the triple lakes was named XJrartu (Urardhu) by the Assyrian kings.

In the beginning of the first millennium B.C. the small princi- palities of Urartu united under the supremacy of the stronger tribes. The united tribes, called Chaldeans —after the name of their god, Chaldu (Khaldu) —formed a kingdom headed by powerful rulers, who not only effectively repelled the attacks of the Assyrians, but themselves launched campaigns against them. A capital w hich was well protected in the south by the Iranian Mountain Range was built on the shore of Lake Van (near the present city of Van). During the 9th-8th centuries before our era the dominions of Urartu expanded tremendously.

To commemorate their victories the kings of Urartu left cunei- form inscriptions on rocks and cliffs, which were sometimes located in very inaccessible places. These writings, telling of important events in the history of Urartu, have been deciphered with great difficulty by Russian and foreign scientists.

The kingdom of Urartu attained its maximum size and power in the middle of the 8th century B.G. In the north the Chaldeans seized the valley of the Araxes River and went as far as the Great Caucasian Mountain Range. During their successful campaigns against their neighbours, the Chaldeans destroyed settlements and forts, carried off rich spoils and herds, and either slew the inhabitants or captured and made them slaves. King Argishti, in an inscription engraved on a cliff at Van, records the massacre and enslaving of over 64,000 people effected by him in a single campaign. Thousands of slaves dug canals, were employed in economy, and built impregnable castles on high cliffs on the domains belonging to the king of Urartu and his lords. The buildings were erected without the use of mortar, merely by pressing stones tightly against each other. Spacious dwellings were also hewn out of stone cliffs. This demanded a tremendous expenditure of labour. The intricate water supply and irrigation systems were amazing engineering feats. The canal wnioh supplied drinking water to the capital, Van, remained in use for over two thousand years. Grain and grape vines were cultivated in the irrigated regions and river valleys. Livestock breeding was of great economic importance. The Chaldeans were noted for their excellent bronze weapons and other bronze articles. Urartu was a state of slaveowners, the popu- lation being divided into freemen and slaves. The richest slaveowners were the king and his chief courtiers.

At the end of the 8th century B.C. the power of Urartu began noticeably to wane. Nomads from the north pressed the Chaldeans hard. The Assyrian empire on the Tigris grew strong again. Sargon, the Assyrian king, routed the troops of the' Urartu ruler, destroyed his capital, and carried off tremendous booty. Sargon carved the following inscription on a cliff as a record of his victory: ‘‘When the king of Urartu learned of the defeat of his troops, his heart quivered with fear, as the heart of a bird fleeing from an eagle.”

In the middle of the 6th century B.C. the Persian kingdom lying southeast of Urartu grew in power. The Chaldean tribes were weak- ened by their struggle against it. Their union under the rule of the Urartu kings had begxm to disintegrate. The very name, Chaldean, fell into disuse; Urartu was retained in the name Mt. Ararat.

New tribal unions were formed on the former territory of Urartu in the 6lh century B.C., which later developed into two nations— the Georgians and Armenians, The ancient Aimenians lived on the land around Lake Van. The Karthveli (Karthli) and other kindred tribes who lived in the valleys of the Araxes and Kura rivers and the adjacent mountainous regions formed the Georgian people. At the end of the 6th century B.C, Ai menia was compelled to submit to the rule of the Persian, king, Darius I Hystaspes, Darius has left a lengthy inscription about his conquests, in which he describes how the Armenians rose up in rebellion against him, and how this rebellion was crushed only after five bloody engagements. Armenia had to pay heavy tribute to the Persian king.

Ancient Peoples of Central Asia

In the first millennium B.C. the vast steppes of Central Asia were inhabited by numerous nomad tribes of berdfcmen. According to the Greeks, these people were noted for their warlike spirit and bravery, 'All their weapons— arrows, spears, swords, axes — ^were made exclusively of copper and bronze. Women en- joyed great freedom and even took command in time of war.

In the fertile river valleys the population engaged in agriculture. Among the agricultural people the clan system had already begun to disintegrate. Husbandry was carried on by a large patriarciial family which also included the slaves. Slave labour was used for the build- ing of artificial reservoirs and canals, which were of great impor- tance in arid areas. The most important agricultural regions were Khoresm (Khwarizm) along the lower reaches of the Amu Darya, and Sogdiana on the Zeravshan River. Caravan routes crossed Central Asia, connecting the Caspian coun- tries with Eastern Asia. The towns situated along these routes plied an active trade. The largest of these towns was Marakanda (now called Samarkand), the principal city of Sogdiana.

Campaign of Alexander the Great in Central Asia

In the 4th cen- tury B.C. Greece and Persia contended for world supremacy Alexander, king of Macedonia, invaded Asia Minor, Iraq and Persia. He dreamed of conquering India. He defeated the army of the last Pensian king, Darius III, and in the spring of the year 329 B.C. crossed the Hindu Kush Mountains and descended to the Central Asiatic plain, attracted by its natural resources and large population.

The inhabitants of Sogdiana desperately resisted the Macedonians. Taking advantage of Alexander ’s absence— he had set off for Syr Darya with the bulk of his forces— the rebellious population, led by Spitamen, massacred the Macedonian garrisons in the towns. Alexander the Great hastily returned to Sogdiana and devastatedl he land wantonly. However, in spite of their fearful losses, the people continued to resist. Spitamen, with detachments of horsemen, made unexpected sallies against the Macedonians and kept them in a state of constant alarm. After a protracted struggle, the Macedonians succeeded in routing Spitamen, who then retired to the steppes with the nomads who had been his allies. The nomads, however, fearing the Macedonians^ ven- geance murdered Spitamen and sent his head to Alexander. Thus did this outstanding leader of the Sogdians meet his end.

Having completed the conquest of Central Asia Alexander the Great marched against India. He died in the year 323 B.C., while he was preparing for new conquests.

Following the death of Alexander the Great his empire, which con- sisted of a large number of conquered lands in no way united among themselves, fell apart. Several independent states, headed by the de- scendants of Macedonian generals, were formed on the territory con- quered by Alexander. Greek (Hellenic) culture began to penetrate into the East after its conquest by Alexander. Greek warriors paved the way for merchants and craftsmen. Commerce between the Eastern coimtries and Greece increased. Greek art considerably influenced the art of the Eastern peoples. For this reason the Eastern states formed as a result of Alexander the Great ’s conquests are called "Hellenic.”

The state of the Seleucids (named after one of Alexander’s gen- erals, Seleucus) was founded in Syria. It subjugated Transcaucasia including Georgia and Armenia, and part of Central Asia including Sogdiana. Gradually the population of these lands threw off the yoke^ of the Seleucid state.

In the 3rd century B.C., Bactria became an independent state. Bactria (the territory of modern Tajikistan) was a flourishing slave- owning state at that period, and at various times included separate parts of Sogdiana, Ferghana, ELazahhstau, Afghanistan and Northwestern India.

Bactria maintained intercourse with Siberia, which supplied gold to Central Asia, and with the Urals, where metal was mined. It also had ties with China, to which coun- try a so-called “silk route” had beenlaid. The Baotrian kingdom reached the zenith of its develop- ment in the 2nd century B.C.

Armenia under Tigranes II

Af- ter the destruction of the Seleucid state by the Romans in the year 190 B.C. the Armenians rebelled against the Syrians and formed an independent slaveowning kingdom with its own dynasty of rulers, Armenia was at its greatest during the 1st century B.C, under Tigranes 11, who crushed the might of the neighbour- ing Parthian king in Asia Minor, Persia and Turkmenia, Following this victory Tigranes 11 called himself the ‘“king of kings” and even declared himself a god. He established a magnificent Eastern court at which he gave refuge to Greek philosophers and writers who had fled from Roman oppression. During his campaigns Tigranes II captured large numbers of Greeks, Jews and Arabs, and settled them in his towns. With the help of these settlers he tried to develop the crafts and trade,

Tigranes 11 governed the country with the help of the rich slave- owners, Slaves cultivated the lands belonging to the king, the temples and the rich nobility. Tigranes 11 had a large, well-organized army. If necessary he raised a popular levy of slaveowners and their people. The army was organized on the Roman system.

Georgia and Albania. Georgia, which comprised two large coun- tries — ^Iberia and Colchis — was situated north of Armenia. Colchis was the name of a country bordering on the eastern extremity of the Black Sea famous for its auriferous sands and silver mines. East of Colchis was Iberia. The population inhabiting its mountainous regions engaged in herding and preserved the clan system. Both agriculture and horti- culture were developed in the plains. Slavery was introduced here in the 1st centiuy B.C.

Albania was located on the western shore of the Caspian Sea. The mountainous regions and lowlands of Albania were inhabited by numerous small tribes, which were ruled by their respective petty princes. These tribes often attacked their neighbours, the Iberians (Georgians) and Armenians. Later they united under the supremacy of the strongest tribe, the Albanians. Subse- quently the descendants of the people of ancient Albania were incorporated into the Azerbaijan nation.

Peoples of the Northern Black Sea Region

Scythians

The people occupying the steppeland from the Volga to the Dniester in the 8th-3rd centuries B.O, consisted of various tribes including cultivators and nomad herdsmen, who bore the common name of Scythians.

We find descriptions of the life of the Scythian nom- ads in the accounts of Greek writers. All the proper- ty a Scythian possessed was contained in a four-wheeled or six-wheeled nomad kibitha — o, waggon with a felt tilt drawn by two or three yoke of oxen. Each hihi'ha was

a sort of little felt home in which the women and children lived. The

Scythians roamed with their herds of horses, sheep and cattle, remaining in a given spot as long as there was sufficient pasturage for their cattle. Then they would leave in search of pasture land. Among the masses of nomads was a rich ruling nobility which possessed large herds that were tended by slaves.

The Scythians were remarkable for their martial spirit and power of endurance, for their daring, and their cruelty to the enemy. They made wine-cups from the skulls of the people they killed, and quivers from their skin. A brave warrior was accorded the greatest honour. The Scythians held annual feasts at which only those who had slain one or ynore of the enemy were permitted to take a draught of wine from the common goblet.

Eveiy tribe had its king who was vested with great power. When a king died, his body was placed on a cart which was drawn throughout the entire land. The inhabitants who met the body of the king had to ex- press profound grief: they cut their hair short, cut off part of an ear. scratched their faces, pierced their left hand with arrows. Kings were buried in huge barrows. With them were laid their arms, precious gold and silver vessels, and a large number of horses. Their wives and ser- vants were also killed and buried with them.

Scythian tombs, some of which rise to a height of 30-35 feet are extant in the south of our country. Many of them have been excavated and a large number of interesting objects found in them are now on display in our museums.

In the large Chertomlyk barrow (not far from the city of Nikopol) on the Dnieper) a wonderful silver vase was discovered, with a frieze showing scenes of nomad life and Scythians breaking in wild mares. One section depicts two horses grazing freely in the steppe, in another scene some Scythians are having a hard time holding down a wild horse they have captured; in a third, three Scythians are trying to thi’ow a horse to the groimd. Then there is a picture of the horse after it had been tamed; a stooping Scythian is hobbling its forelegs.

Of no les interest is a gold vase found in a barrow near Kerch (on the Kul-ObaHill). One of the scenes pictures a sea ed Scythian,evident- ly a chief, listening to a tale or a warrior’s report. The chief’s long hair is tied with a headband. His clothing consists of a short kaftan con* hned by a belt, and loose, Turkish-like trousers. The chief is leaning on a long spear with both hands. A warrior is kneeling before the king. Another picture ou the vase shows a, Scythian fitting a string to his bow. Some other Scythian is treat- ing the tooth of a third person. Still another picture portrays a Scythian bandaging someone’s dis- eased or injured leg. Several of the Scythians are wearing tall pointed hoods on their heads. All of them have quivers of arrows and cases for bows slung at their side.

A golden comb, which appar- ently belonged to some Scythian king, was found in one of the bar- rows (Solokha). The upper part of the comb has a scene on it picturing a combat between three warriors: two foot soldiers (one of whom is un- doubtedly a Scythian) are attack- ing a Greek horseman. Thus has an episode of the Scythian people’s struggle for independence from the Greek enslavers been preserved for

history.

Greek Colonization of the Black Sea Coast

Greek slaveowners

went to the Black Sea region in quest of slaves, and were also lured to that tenitoiy by its riches .They had

heard that the Scythians possessed large herds of cattle and a great amount of grain, and also that there was gold in the Caucasus. Accounts of the Black Sea region have been preserved in Greek legends about the golden lieeoe,the adventures of Odysseus and others .The first Greeks to visit these shore? were fisher- men and tradesmen who bartered with the local inhabitants. Begin- ning with the 7th century B.C. permanent Gi'eek colonies sprang up on the shores of the Black Sea. On the estuiry of the Southern Bug and Dnieper arose the colony of

Olvia; not far from modern Sevas-

topol was KhersoneS; and on the Scjrthian fitting a bow-string, southeastern shore of the Crimea — Teodosia and Panticapaeum (now Keroli). The city of Tanais was built at the mouth of the Don by the Sea of Azov; Greek colonies also arose on the Caucasian coast.

The centre of each Greek colony was a city surrounded by a stone wall. This wall protected the Greek colonists from attack by the hostile population. Within the city wall were dwellings, stores and various public buildings, such as the temples and baths. Among these structures were some splendid woiks of Greek architecture, ornamented with marble columns and statues.

Trade with Greece, with Eastern lands and the peoples of Eastern Euiope was of gieat importance for the Greek colonies on the shores of the Black Sea. Vessels sailing for Greece were loaded with grain, slaves, furs and fish, while Greece exported weapons, fabrics, various utensils of clay and glass, costly ornaments and articles of luxury, and;tvine. Part of these imported goods went to satisfy the needs of the upper class of the local Greek population; part was exchanged for

f uin and other products supplied by the population of the northern^ lack Sea coast. Later the Greek cities developed their own crafts/ Many of the articles found in the Scythian barrows were made in the workshops of the Black Sea colonies. The free Greek population in the colonies, as in Greece itself, met at ^'popular assemblies” to discuss various questions and to elect their functionaries. The entire adminis- tration was in the hands of the rich slaveowners and merchants. Every city-colony consti- tuted a separate state. One such city, Panticapaeum, ruled a considerable teintory , the so-called Bosporus king- dom. It was governed both by Greek and Scythian slave- owners, whose power was passed by inheiitance from father to son.

At the end of the 3rd century B.C, the condition of the Greek colonies along the Black Sea shore deteriorated. Tribes of nomads, Sarmatae, who were kin to the Scythians appeared on the Caspian steppes. Harassed by the Sar- matae, some of the Scythians , and other nomads moved westward and reached the Danube; others went to the Crimea and occupied its northern steppes.

The Scythians who remained were assimilated by the Sarmatae and other tribes. The Greek cities found increasing difficulty in repulsing the attacks of the nomads.

The Scythians who settled in the Crimea during the 2nd cen- tury B.O. often attacked Kher- sones and the Bosporus kingdom. At this time a Pontic kingdom was formed in Asia Minor, on the southern shore of the Black Sea.

Eiersones, which was not strong enough to defend itself, concluded a treaty with the king of Pontus, by which it was to receive help.

Slave Revolt in the Crimea

At the end of the 2nd contury B. C. the Scythian slaves in the Bosporus kingdom rose in revolt. A slave of the Bosporus king, named Saumaeus, slew the king and headed the uprising. The revolt was crushed by Diophantus, a general of King Mith- ridates VI of Pontus, who had come to Elhersones to defend it against the Scythians. He captured Sanmacus and sent him to Mithridates in Asia Minor, As a sign of their gratitude for the help rendered against the Scythians, the rulers of Khersones erected a bronze statue of Diophan- tus in the acropolis of the city near the altar of tlieir most revered goddess. An inscription telling of the services and victories of Diophantus was carved on the marble pedestal. The in- scription was found among the ruins of Khersones,

The uprising of the slaves in the Crimea was not an iso- lated instance. Similar mass rebellions of slaves occurred in the 2nd and Ist centuries B. C. in many other slaveown- mg states — in Asia Minor,

Greece, Italy, on the Island of Sicily and other places.

These rebellions portended the end of the slaveowning

system.

Roman Conquests in the Black Sea Region

During the 1st century B. C. Roman dominions rapidly spread eastward. In order to conquer Asia Minor Rome had to destroy the kingdoms of Pontus and Armenia. The struggle between Rome and King Mithridates VI of Pontus lasted almost 18 years. Finally, the Roman legions indicted a serious defeat on Mi hridatos. Roman slaveowners invaded the domains of Tigranes II. They sacked the rich capital of Armenia (the city of Tigra- nocerta on the Tigris River) . The people rose in defence of their land and inflicted a series of defeats upon the Romans. Other legions under Pom- pey were then sent against Tigranes II. Georgians, Medes and other peoples joined the Armenians against the Romans. Pompey took advan- tage of dissension among the Armenian nobility and forced Tigranes II to conclude peace. The Armenian king was named the ‘'friend and ally of the Roman people,” a title which signified the subordination of Armenia to Rome. Subsequently the Romans subjugated a considerable part of Georgia.

During the 1st century B.C. the Romans established themselves firmly in the Black Sea region. The kings of Bosporus became the vassals of the Roman emperors and submissively executed all their or- ders. Roman legions were quartered in Khersones and other Greek cities of the Crimea and the Caucasus. Roman fortresses with towers from which the approach of enemy vessels could be observed, were built along the shore of the Black Sea.

The kings of Bosporus began to use the names of Roman emperors and to wear Roman clothmg. They received their insignia of royalty from Rome: the sceptre with an image of the emperor and the royal crown. Throughout the century-long existence of the Greek colonies, the descendants of the former colonists intermingled with the local popu- lation. Alien people of various tribes made their home in the Black Sea towns and became local citizens. In the Crimea, too, there was a min- gling of different peoples and cultures.

With the decline of the Roman empire, its influence in the Black Sea countries decreased still further. By the 3rd century A. D. the Ro- man fortresses in the Crimea and along the Caucasian shore became deso- lated. The former Greek cities became independent once again. A new imion of tribes, known as the Goths, was formed on the southern steppes of the Black Sea region in the 3rd century. This union also included the eastern Germans, who had fonnerly inhabited the lower reaches of the Vistula. Towards the middle of the 3rd century the Goths began to invade Roman dominions beyond the Danube. At the same time Goth pirates plundered the Caucasian and Asia Minor coasts of the Black Sea and penetrated to the Aegean Sea, burning Greek towns. In the 4th century the Goths were severely defeated by the Romans.

The attack of the Goths upon Rome’s eastern possessions marked the hegiiming of the struggle of various East European tribes against the Romans. During the same period a struggle was being waged in Western Europe between tlie Romans and the German tribes. The attacks of the “barbarians” (non-Romans) hastened the downfall of the slaveowning Roman empire.

Nomads of Asia (from the 3rd century B.C. to the 8th century A.D.)

The vast steppes of Southern Siberia and Central Asia were inhabit- ed by various tribes of nomads that later formed the Turkic and Mongo- lian peoples. Several centuries before our era the nomads living north of China formed a large tribal union. The Chinese called the nomads belonging to this union Huns. The Chinese waged an arduous strug- gle against the Huns, which lasted for centuries. The nomads made sudden raids on China’s northern territories, sacked the towns, ruined the harvest and carried off the population. When a large Chinese army was rallied, the nomads returned to the steppe and dispersed over its boundless expanses.

In order to defend their frontiers the Chinese, as far back as the 3rd century B.C., constructed solid stone fortifications which became known as the “Great Wall of China.” Gradually Chinese infiueuce made itself felt among the nomads. The Hun chief assumed the title of “bom of heavens and the earth, the chosen of the sun and the moon.” The Hun princes sent their sons to serve at the court of the Chi- nese emperor.

The nomad ruling caste adopted Chinese customs and Chinese clothing .A Soviet expedition toNorthern Mongolia, headed by P.R. Koz- lov, which explored the exceedingly rich barrows of the Hun rulers, discovered chariots, Chinese silks, a magnificent rug picturing a winged animal tearing an elk apart, precious objects, parasols whicb were symbols of high honour, and other objects.

The great Hun state decayed in the 1st century B.C. A large num- ber of Huns moved westward. New tribes formerly under the domina- tion of the Huns now came to the fore in the steppes of Asia.

Invasion of Eastern Europe by the Nomads

When the Hun state collapsed in Mongolia, some of the tribes moved westward in their attempt to escape the Chinese. Their descendants after intermingling with other peoples in the course of their roamings, appeared in Eastern Europe in the 4th century A.D. Contemporaries of the Huns called them "the fiercest warriors.” Besides the Mongolian Huns, the Hun kingdom included the native population of Central Asia and the northern part of the Black Sea region.

The Huns defeated the Goths and drove them west. The main Hun horde stopped between the Danube and the Tisia. Eor a biief space of time there was a strong Hun state in this locality, the king of which was Attila. After his death in 453, the Hun kingdom broke up: some of the Huns settled on the right bank of the Danube and mixed with the local population; others returned to their native haunts in the Black Sea steppes, where they were ethnically assimilated by the local population.

The movement of the Huns west of the Volga along the northern shores of the Black Sea stimulated the migration of other tribes aa well. Close upon the heels of the Huns, the Bulgars came to the Caspian steppes. But the Bulgars, too, were not long able to withstand the pressure of other nomads. The Bulgarian tribal union broke up into several parts. Some of these settled on the Volga (in the Bulgarian kingdom); others reached the Balkans, where they intermingled with the local Yugoslavio population, to whom it gave its ethnic name — Bulgar.

Turkic Khanate

A group of tribes, known as the Turkic khanate, arose in Mongolia in the 6th century A.D. The ruler of this state was called a kaghan, A large number of nomad and, to some extent, agricuD tuxal tribes were under the rule of this khanate. The ruling tribes un- der the leadership of their khan constantly raided their neighbours and spreadtheirpower over a vast territory. The rich and the nobles com- manded the warrior detachments and governed the subjugated tribes. The bulk of the nomad population lived in separate clan communities.

Tombstones of Turkic khans, hearing engraved inscriptions of remarkable campaigns and outstanding events, have been preserved in the valley of the Orkhon Hiver.

The Turkomans of the khanate were hostile to the Turkic Kirghiz (Khakass) who inhabited the upper reaches of the Yenisei Hiver and the Altai Mountains. One of the inscriptions tells how a Turkic khan mounted his white stallion and set off with his troops against the Kirghiz. He threw one Kirghiz off his horse. Then with a spear in his hand, he rushed into the ranks of the enemy, "While doing so he dug his spurs into his white horse so violently, that he broke the horse ’s ribs. The Kirghiz khan was killed and the people submitted to the power of the Turkic khan.

The Turkic state in Mongolia and Central Asia collapsed in the 8th century A.D. After the fall of the Turkic khanate, the Kirghiz (Khakass), who had as many as 80,000 warriors and a large popula- tion proved to be the strongest people.

And so throughout many centuries the vast lands of Southern Siberia and Central Asia saw the continuous rise and fall of one or another tribal union. The nomads in their search for better pasturage and plunder, traversed a large section of the Central Asiatic steppes. Part of the nomads settled in the new places; olhers continued fur- ther west. They were drawn to those regions by the fertile, grassy plains which spread out like a heavy green blanket northwest of the Caspian Sea.

Early Feudal States in Transcaucasia

The struggle Between Rome and Persia (Iran) for Armenia and Georgia

Rome ceased to exist as a slaveowming empire in the 4th- oth centuries A.D. The peoples of Europe and Asia, including those of Parthia and Persia, rose against her. Persia subjugated Parthia, Albania (Azerbaijan) and a considerable part of Georgia and Armenia. Only a small pait of Western Armenia and Western Georgia remained under Roman power. At the end of the 4th century the Roman empire fell apart and was divided into two empires: the Eastern and the West- ern. The Eastern Roman empire (Byzantium) continued its struggle against Persia for possession of Armenia and Georgia.

The Bfrih of Feudalism in Armenia and Georgia

About the middle of the 1st century A. D. the Arsacid dynasty was established in Armenia. With great solemnity the Roman Emperor, Kero, re- ceived an Armenian embassy and personally placed a croum upon the head of the Armenian king. It was approximately in the 4th century A.D., when kings of the Arsaeid dynasty were in power, that feudal relations originated in Armenia. Slave labour was not very productive and even became unprofitable with the development of agriculture and the crafts and impiovemenis in working tools. It was therefore superseded by the labour of feudal subjects. Serfs who lived on the lands of their feudal loids had their own little farms and the necessary implements. They tilled the land of the feudal lord and fulfilled other services for him. The lord could no longer kill bis serf with impunity, as he had killed his slave, but he still retained the right to buy and sell sei-fs. Under serfdom the peasant was interested, to a certain degree, in husbandry as a means of livelihood and to pay his lord a tax in kind, that is, with the products of his own harvest. The big landowners forced the peasants to do all the work on their estates and to render all manner of service. Every rich feudal lord had his own castle and troops. The feudal nobility seized the most important posts. The great feudal lords formed the king’s court, and attended state ceremonies at which they occupied places according to seniority.

At the end of the 3rd century A. D. the Armenian king and nobility adopted Christianity from Byzantium, and it became the national religion of Armenia. Byzantium supported the Christian church, using it to strengthen her influence. The church contributed to the final establishment of feudalism in Armenia, though ancient pagan beliefs persisted for a long time among the peasant population.

In the Byzantine part of Armenia the power of the king was de- stroyed at the end of the 4th century, and the country was ruled by By- zantine officials appointed by the emperor. Similarly the rule of the king in that part of Armenia which was under Persian sway soon came to an end. With the termination of the king’s rule the power of the large landowners was still further augmented.

Mesrob Mashtots, a monk, born of a peasant family, perfected the Armenian alphabet in the early part of the 6th century. This marked the beginning of an Armenian literature; instruction in the schools was carried on in the native language; youths were sent to Egypt and Byzantium to perfect their knowledge of the sciences. An exten- sive literature, both original and translated, appeared.

A kingdom was formed in Western Georgia on the territory of ancient Colchis in the 4th century A.B, This land was inhabited by ancient Georgian tribes of Lazis, whence the Romans and Greeks derived their name for the land — Lazica. The centre of this land was the fertile valley of Rion, which was covered with vineyards and orchards. This valley was also the site of a considerable number of towns, including Kutaisi, which engaged in commerce. After a long struggle with Persia, Lazica remained under Byzantine rule. The Eastern Georgian lands formed part of another kingdom, Karthli (ancient Iberia). In the beginning of the 5th century the king of Kar- thli became a vassal of Persia. As eveiywhere else, the development of feudal relations in Georgia enhanced the power of the landowning nobility, which tried to limit the king’s power. Christianity began to penetrate into Georgia via the cities along the Black Sea shore. With the aid of By^iantium it became firmly established as the state religion of Karthli in the middle of the 4th century, and in Lazica in the beginning of the 6th century. Christianity strengthened the cultural ties between Georgia and Byzantium. Translations of reli- gious writings appeared simultaneously with translations of Greek philosophical and historical works. This stimidated the growth of Georgian literature. The peoples of Transcaucasia did nob cease their struggle for liberation. At the end of the 5th century the Karthlian king, Vakhtang, who was called the "Wolfes Head” because of the emblem in the form of a wolf’s head on his helmet, fought against Persia. During one of the engagements he was mortally wounded. After his death the Persian feudal lords assumed power. The country was then ruled by a Persian satrap who settled in Tbilisi.

The Struggle of the Peoples of Transcaucasia Against Persian and Byzantine Domination

Byzantine and Persian domination in Georgia, Armenia and Albania (Azerbaijan) was accompanied by the terrible oppression and devastation of these lands. The population was brought to the point of despair by intolerable tribute and com- pulsory services. The conquerors conscripted the Armenian and Geor- gian youth into their armies. These conditions led to frequent bloody popular uprisings in Georgia, Armenia and Albania (Azerbaijan). The rebellions were notably powerful when the Georgians and Arme- nians joined forces against the common enemy. Pilled with hatred for their enslavers, these peoples won many a victory over numerous and better armed enemy detachments. While the people fought heroic* ally and staunchly for the liberation of their country, the rich feudal lords often turned traitors and went over to the camp of their country’s enemies. This made it easier for Persia and Byzantium to crush the uprisings of the people.

Struggle of the People of Transcaucasia against the Arabs

Persia’s rule in Armenia and Georgia lasted until the 7th century, when the Arabs, soon after reducing the Persian empire, conquered Transcaucasia and Central Asia. In 642 they seized the capital of Armenia, Dvin, and within a few years conquered all of Armenia and Eastern Georgia. In the 9th-10th centuries there was a consider- able number of rich cities in Ti*anscaucasia — ^Tbilisi (Tihis), Derbent, and others, which carried on trade and the crafts and maintained intercourse with Eastern Europe. Tbilisi became the residence of the Ai'abian emir. The country was ruled by his ostihans — governors. With the arrival of the Arabs the Moslem faith spread among the people of Transcaucasia.

The peasants of Transcaucasia fiequently rose in revolt against their Arabian conquerors, who were ruining the land with their exat*- tions and turning the local population into slaves and serfs, A big uprising of peasants, craftsmen, and slaves occurred in the first half of the 9th century in Azerbaijan, under the leadership of the gallant chieftain Babek. Babek was orphaned w^hen still a diild. After his father’s death, when he was only 10 years old, the boy was turned over to a rich herdsman, for whom he worked as a shepherd. Later he became a camel driver. This enabled him to study the life of the Azerbaijan people at first hand. The sufferings of these people, oppressed by heavy taxes and other exactions, aroused in Babek a feel- ing oi irreconcilable hatred for the oppressors and enslavers, especial- ly for the Arabian rule. Babek, who was only 18 years old at that time, joined a popular uprising and soon became its leader. Binding protection in the inaccessible, high mountain regions, Babek fought tenaciously against the Arabs. The rebels won several victories over powerful Arabian detachments.

It was only after long years of struggle that the Arabs succeeded in occupying the chief insurgent areas. Babek went into hiding in the mountains and from there he continued guerilla warfare against the Arabs and the local feudal lords who had betrayed their own peo- ple. All attempts to surround and capture Babek failed. Then one of the powerful feudal lords, pretending to be a supporter of Babek's, invited him to his castle. There Babek was treacherously seized and turned over to the Arabs. He was executed upon the order of the caliph. The uprising was suppressed. This determined struggle of the Azer- baijan. people for independence lasted over twenty years.

The disintegration of* the Arab caliphate, which began at the end of the 9th century, led to the restoration of the rule of the local wealthy families in Georgia and Armenia.

In 864 Ashod I, who represented one of the most powerful families of Armenia, became king of Armenia and founded a new dynasty of the Bagratids, which ruled until the middle of the 11th century. This dynasty succeeded in uniting a large part of Armenia. The city of Ani (not far from the city of Khrs) became the capital of the Bagra- tids and the trade centre between the East and the West. The city was beautified by a number of splendid buildings which point to the flourishing state of Armenian architecture. Erom his study of the luins of the city of Ani, Academician N. Marr, famous Soviet scientist, retraced the history of the language and cultui’e of ancient Armenia.

After the fall of the Arab caliphate, Georgia broke up into a number of rival independent feudal principalities. It was only in the second half of the 10th century that one of these, the Tao-Klarzhetsk, suc- ceeded in uniting these principalities under the power of the kings of the Georgian Bagratid dynasty.

Armenian Epic, "David of Sasun"

The memory of the age- long struggle of the Armenian people against their conquerors, the Arabs, has come down to ns in a beautiful epic poem, David of Sasun, It tells of the adventures and feats of four generations of Armenian knights. Two brothers built a fortress of huge stones high in the moun- tains which they named Sasun (‘‘Wrath”). Poor people came to Sasun from all parts of the country to seek protection, and it became the bulwark of the people’s struggle against the enemies of their native land. David of Sasun is the central figure of the poem. When ^till a youth he fought against the Arabs, who were oppressing his people. The Arab sovereign set ofF with a large army against Sasun. He had so many warriors that they dried the rivers on their way by each of them merely drinking a mouthful of the water. 1^'et the enemy’s might did not daxmt David. ‘^Brothers and sisters!” David exclaimed. *Tear not the enemy; I shall go and fight the foe for you.” David mounted his father’s miraculous steed and engaged the enemy in battle. He slew the enemy warriors, sparing those, however, who had been for- cibly driven to war. He also slew the Arabian king and liberated the

prisoners:

J break the hoind-s that do enslave^

Return, you all, to friends and those you love so true.

Return, you, home, return and there your life renew.

Nor fees nor tribute do I crave,

David had a son, Mger the Yoimger, who was as puissant and

dauntless as his father. Left an orphan, Mger continued the struggle against the enemies of his native land. The poem tells how IMger stepped up to a cliff and with a powerful blow cleaved it in two. Riding his grandfather’s miraculous steed, he vanished into the fissure, where

he will remain until the old, unjust world is destroyed.

As long as the world is all sm

As long as deceit stands to win,

So long do I 'part with this world.

When all is destroyed and created anew.

When barley grows large as the berries I 7:ncto,

Oh then will I welcome my day!

This place will I leave on that day!

In these words of Mger the Younger the Armenian people expressed their undying dream of a better life. Centuries passed, gener-

ations changed, but the bards, from age to age, continued to sing of the knights of Sasun, of their feats in their struggle against evil,  and of their great love for their native land.

Peoples of Central Asia in the Struggle against the Arabs

Conquest of Central Asia by the Arabs

At the time of the Arabian conquest Central Asia consisted of seveial states which were constantly at war with each other. The most important of these was Sogdiana, a land of fertile oases, rich foothills and momi- tain valleys. Its territory was studded with the castles of landowning princelings who were practically independent of each other. The most powerful of them was the ruler of Samarkand, who called himself the “Sogdianian king.” West of Samarkand was Bokhara. Along the lower reaches of the Amu Darya stood Khoresm.

The steppes of Central Asia were populated by nomad tribes. The incursions of Turkic tribes from the east grew more insistent. In the early part of the 8th century they tried to seize the agricultural re- gions of Central Asia and its rich commercial cities, but were repulsed by the Arabs.

In 751 the Arabs routed both the Turkomans and the Chinese on the banks of the Talass River and also conquered Central Asia.

The population of Sogdiana— the Sogdians, remote ancestors of the Tajiks —desperately resisted the Arab aggression. This agricul- tural people found an ally in the nomads, who came to their aid. It took the Arabs about 75 years to completely subjugate the lands between the Amu Darya and S3rr Darya. EJioresm, Sogdiana, Bokhara and other Central Asiatic lands became part of the Arab caliphate in the middle of the 8th century. In most cases the Arabs permitted the local prince- lings to retain their lands and power, but made them their tributaries. The caliph sent his governors to the larger cities and established per- manent Arabian garrisons there.

The prosperous merchants took advantage of the Arabian conquest to trade with the caliphate dominions. Large numbers of Arabs settled in the towns, and noticeably influenced the local culture. The Moslem faith spread among the ruling class of the local population, and the Arabian tongue became the language of literature and of the state.

The agricultural population, who had heretofore rendered various services to their landowners, now also had to pay heavy taxes in kind to the Arabs. This tax sometimes amoxmted to as much as half their crops. The people, i,e,, the peasants, slaves and indigent city popula- tion , were in constant rebellion against the Arab yoke.

The Revolt of Mokanna

The greatest uprising took place in the seventies of the 8th century. It was called the revolt of ‘^the white- shirted,” since the peasants wore simple white clothing. The leader of the popular lebellion was Hashim-ibn Hakim, who was known among the people as Mokanna, which means ‘‘The Veiled.”

Mokanna used to wash clothes in his youth. Later he had command of one of the rebel detachments. He was captured by the Aiabs and spent some years in a dungeon, but succeeded in escaping, and began to prepare a general uprising of the peasants against the Arabs and local landowners. This lebellion lasted about seven years. The insurgents seized and destroyed castles, killed the local landowners who had joined the enemies of their native land, and wiped out the Arabian garri- sons in the towns. To subdue the peasant uprising, the Arabian emirs raised a huge army equipped with battering rams. Several fierce bat- tles took place in which the peasant army suffered heavy defeats. Mokanna was killed, but tbe people did not cease to rebel against the Arabs.

The State of the Samanids

When the Arab caliphate collapsed in Central Asia in the second half of the 9th century, the ancient Tajik state of the Samanids was formed (subsequently the name Tajik was given to the native Sogdiana population), with the city of Bokhara as its capital. The kings of the Samanid dynasty tried to create a strong, centralized power, such as was necessary to combat the nomads. They stubbornly opposed individual petty rulers who tried to establish an independent rule.

Thanks to the power of the Samanids, quiet set in in the Central Asiatic steppes. This stimulated trade and life in the cities. The larg- est cities (Bokhara, Samarkand and Merv) engaged in a lively trade with eastern and western countries, particularly with China and the Volga region.

Literature and learning flourished during the reign of the Samanids, Poets and scholars (philosophers, doctors, geographers, mathemati- cians, historians and others) created an exceedingly rich literature in the Fabian and Persian languages, Numerous valuable manuscripts were stored in the royal library at Bokhara. Each department of science or literature in the library had a special room to itself, and the library had an efficiently-kept catalogue. The famous philosopher, natura- list and doctor, Avicenna (ibn-Sina) lived and worked in Bokhara at the end of the 10th century. Later his works were translated into Latin and became widespread in medieval Europe.

Khazars and Bulgars on the Volga

The Khazar State on the Volga

The Turkic-Khazars formed a strong Elhazar state on the Lower Volga in the 7th century. The K h a - zars woie a semi-nomad people. In the winter they lived in the cities, and in the spring they took their herds out to the steppes to graze. Herding remained their chief occupation, although they also engaged in agriculture, and grapevine cultivation. The Khazars were still divided into clans, each of which possessed its own section of land. However, the clan system had already begun to decay, and an iuduen- tial group of the nobility in the clan came to the fore. The Eihazar langdom was headed by a hhahan or king, who was surrounded by rich dignitaries. The king was rendered divine homage. The country, however, was governed by a lord lieutenant and not by the khakan himself.

The khakan lived in Itil, a populous city situated upon the delta of the Volga. Outside the city walls were wooden dwellings and felt nom- ad tents. The royal brick palace was situated on an island connected witli the bank by a floating bridge. The eastern side of the city was inhabited by visiting merchants —people from Khoresm, Arabs, Greeks, Jews and otheis. The many markets here had a diversity of wares from Gentral Asia, the Caucasus, the Volga region and the Slavonic lands. Itil was an important centre for southeastern trade, and its commer- eial intercourse with EJaoiesm was of especial importance. The duty which the merchants paid the lOtazars constituted one of the chief sources of income for the khakan’s treasury. The regular intercourse with Transcaucasia and Khoresm had an important influence on the constitution of the Khazar state and the everyday life of its population. The Khazar ruling class and the king embraced Judaism.

Another important Khazai city was Sarkel on the Don. Sarkel was built with the help of Byzantine engineers, and was intended to afford protection against irruptions of nomads from the north and the ^ast.

The Khazar state reached the zenith of its power in the 9th century. In the south the Khazars in alliance with Byzantium fought against the Arabs and even went as far as the Araxes River. West of the Volga, the lands between the Caspian and Azov seas belonged to the Khazars, who at one time had subjugated part of the Crimea and imposed trib- ute upon the Slavonic tribes living along the Dnieper and the Oka rivers. In the north their power extended to the middle reaches of the Volga.

The closest neighbours of the Khazars were the Pechenegs, who, in the 9ih century, roamed between the Yaik (the Ural) River and the Volga, BLarassed by other nomad tribes as well as by the Khazars, the Pechenegs moved further west in the second half of the 9th cen- tury, and occupied the steppe between the Don and the Dnieper.

Bulgar State on the Volga and Kama

he union of Bulgar tribes on the Volga broke up as a result of the constant attacks of other nomads. Some of the Bulgars migrated to the Danube. Here they were absorbed by the Slavs, but they handed down their own tribal name to these people. Others went north up the Volga and settled on the lands along the lower reaches of the Kama and the Middle Volga, where they formed an independent state. During this period of migration to the Kama and the Volga, the Bulgars were still nomads. In their new environment they turned to agriculture. According to the accounts of Arab VTiiters, the Bulgars cultivated wheat, barley and millet.

In the Bulgar state the power belonged to the king, the tribal chief- tains and the tribal nobility. Most of the towns were situated near the confluence of the Kama and the Volga. The Arabs called the Bulgar capital on the Volga, the “Great City.” Merchants from the Slav lands, from Transcaucasia, Byzantium and Central Asia, paid annual visits to the capital of Bulgaria. From the Slav lands they brought strong, fitalwart slaves and valuable furs. Arabian merchants came with steel swords, silk and oolton fabrics, and various rich ornaments.

The Bulgars themselves made journeys for furs to the north, which they called the ^^land of gloom.” They bartered with the trappers of that country. The Bulgar merchants would lay out their wares in a pre- arranged spot and then depart. The following day they would find animal skins set out beside their own goods. If the Bulgar merchant was satisfied with the bargain, he took the furs and left his own waies. If not, he would not touch the skins but would take back his own goods. Arabian cultme, which was more highly developed, penetrated Bulgaria with the eastern trade. By the 10th century the ruling class of Bulgars had already takeu over the Moslem faith from the Arabs. In imitation of the Arabs, the Bulgars began to mint their own coins.

In the beginning of the 10th century ibn-FadhIan visited Bulgaria as a member of an Arabian embassy. He left a most interesting descrip- tion of his travels. The Bulgar king met the embassy not far fiom the capital. The envoys were ushered into a large, richly appointed tent, with Armenian rugs spread on the ground. The king sat on a throne covered with Byzantine brocades- On his right hand sat the chiefs of his subject tribes. During the feast the guests were legaled with chimks of meat and drinks made of honey. Ibn-Fadhlan also saw Russian merchants there. They were strong stalwart people. Each of them was armed with a battle-ax, a knife and a sword, with which he never parted.

After the formation of the Bulgar and Elhazar kingdoms, the Volga became a very important trade route between Europe and Asia. Its upper reaches closely approach the Western Dvina, which flows into the Baltic Sea, Thus there was an almost complete river route between the Caspian and the Baltic seas. Where there was a break in the river system, boats were hauled overland by ‘^portage,”

Arabian merchants came in great numbers to trade on the Volga in the 8th-10th centuries. They paid for their purchases with dirhems, small silver Arabian coins, which were current thi’oughout Eastern Europe, including the Baltic states, Scandinavia and even Germany.

The Kiev State

Formation of the Kiev State

The Slavs in the 6th–9th Centuries

The Slavs in the 6th and 7th Centuries

The ancestors of the Slavs, one of the most numerous peoples in Europe, inhabited the greater part of Eastern Europe since time immemorial . According to Homan writers of the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., who knew the Slavs as Venedi, the Slavs lived along the Vistula and on the southern shure of the Baltic Sea.

Byzantine writers of the 6th century referred to the Eastern Slavs as Antes. The Eastern Slavs lived in the region of the Carpathians, the lower reaches of the Danube, along the Dniester, the Dnieper and the Don, occupying almost the whole of the southern part of Eastern Europe as far as the coasts of the Black Sea and Azov Sea. The Eastern Slavs engaged in agriculture, herding, fishing and hxmting. They were also acquainted with the working of metals. Their dwellings consisted of huts made of interwoven brushwood or reeds covered with clay. Their villages were surrounded by ditches, earthen ramparts, and wood- en walls. The Eastern Slavs at that time still preserved the clan system. All matters of tribal concern were decided at tribal meetings called the veche (from the word veshchat meaning to speak). Influential members of the community became head-men or princes; some of them were influential not only in their own, but in neighbouring tribes as well.

Patriarchal slavery existed among the Eastern Slavs, but slave labour did not play a significant role in their economy. Captives were either sold to foreign merchants, were permitted to return to their own land for a ransom, or, after spending several years in captivity, were given their freedom and the right to stay in the community as freemen.

Beginning with the 5th century, the Eastern and Western Slavs, year after year, ravaged the Danube lands which formed part of the Byzantine empire. Tall, strong and very hardy, the Slavs were inured to heat, cold and hunger. In war they displayed great adroitness and cunning, and though armed only with shields and Javelins, rushed boldly at the enemy. During the wars with Byzantium the Slavs mas- tered the Byzantine military art and acquired weapons which they learned to use even better than the Byzantines themselves.

Prom the 6th century the Slavs no longer confined themselves to raiding the frontier regions of the Byzantine empire, but also began to settle on the conquered lands. They peopled the entire northern part of the Balkan Peninsula almost as far as Constantinople and even pene- trated the Peloponnesus.

A nomad horde of Bulgars invaded the Danube Valley in the 7th century. Culturally, the Danube 'Slavs, an agricultural people, were far superior to the Bulgar herdsmen. This explains why the Bulgars who settled on the Danube lands were quickly Slavonicized. The descendants of the Bulgar princes headed the Slavonic kingdom which was formed at the end of the 7th century south of the Danube and which was called Bulgaria (or Bulgaria on the Danube, in contradistinction to Bulgaria on the Elama).

Slavonic Tribes in the 8th-9th Centuries

In the Sth and 9th cen- turies the Eastern Slavs split up into several tribes. The Slavonic tribes which had once inhabited the Black Sea steppes and its shores had, for the most part, been swept away by the influx of nomads. The Po- lyane (from the word polye meaning field) lived along the middle reaches of the Dnieper in the region of Kiev, bordering on the steppe. The land west of the Polyane (in the western regions of the present Ukraine) was inhabited by the Dulebiov Volynyane (FoZ^maizs), while south of them, in what is today the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic as far as the Lower Danube dwelt the TivertsiaoA Ulkhi, Northwest of the Polyane, as far as the Pripyat, a tributary of the Dnieper, were the Dye* lyane, the "forest dwellers” (from drevo meaning tree) and the DregovicM {dryagva — swamp) . The Severyme lived on the left bank of the Dnieper, along its tributary, the Desna. The vast expanse along the upper reaches of the Dnieper, beginning from the Smolensk region, and along the Western Dvina, was inhabited by the Knvichi. The Eodimichi^ who dwelt along the Sozh River, a tributary of the Dnieper, formed a separate tribe. The Slavs inhabiting the shores of Lake Ilmen were known as the Ilmen Slavs, or the Novgorod Slavs, after the city of Novgorod. East of the Dnieper basin, along the Oka and its tributa- ry, the Moskva River, lived the Vyatichi^

Pursuits and Social System of the Eastern Slavs

In the 8th and 9th centuries the Eastern Slavs were chiefly an agricultural people. In wooded areas agriculture was carried on in forest clearings, the under- brush being cut away and the large trees being stripped of their baik to rot away. The next year the patch was prepared for cultivation by firing the soil and loosening it with hoes, or it was ploughed up. Besides agriculture an important place in the ect-nomy of the group was occupied by such pursuits as hunting, collecting the honey of wild bees, and fishing. In the southern regions agriculture was of greater importance than in the north.

By the 9th century the clan system among the Eastern Slavs de- clined noticeably, though certain clan survivals still persisted. One instance of these survivals, though more rarely practised, was the blood feud. Wedding rites characteristic ofthe patriarchal clan still survived. Some of the more backward tribes clung to their custom of abducting women. In other tribes a wife would be bought for a veno^sb piu'chase price. The richer men had several wives. But the clan, as such, prac- tically no longer existed. Clans broke up into separate, large families which, no longer held together by ties of kinship, continued to live as neighbours on a common territory and formed an agrarian community. Such an agrarian community the Eastern Slavs called the verv. The husbandmen who belonged to such a community were called smerds. The verv possessed in common forests, pasture land, etc. Every family that joined the community had the lighu io graze its cattle on the common pasture land, to extract honey of wild bees from the hollows of trees in the common forest, and to set traps for birds and beasts. Tilths were the absolute property of the respective families. The centre of the commimity was the foitified town which sheltered its members in case of danger. Gradually a group of wealthier elders took the lead in the community, and acquired large tracts of land. These lands were cultivated not only by members of their families; some of the prisoners were now made slaves and also forced to woik. How- ever, like other European peoples, the Slavs advanced from the clan system directly to feudalism without adopting the inteimediary slave- holding system, since the slaveholding system was a stage through which man had already pas'jed.

In time of war, chief tains —princes —were chosen from among the elders. Leadership in time of war afforded the princes a new means- of enrichment inasmuch as they would always receive the lion’s share during the division of spoils and captives. This enabled the princes to maintain a retinue of warriors whose chief means of existence was warfare. With the help of their retinue the princes seized the power in their own tribes.

Each tribe was ruled by several princes, one of whom was con*- sidered the grand prince. This grand prince was supposed to consult with the other tribal princes and the elders on all questions concern- ing the tribe. Sometimes a meeting of the entire tribe, the veche, was called*

Such tribal principalities originated in the 9th century among all the Slavonic tribes of Eastern Europe. The centres of these princi** palities were the towns that served as the residences of the princes and their retinue. The following towns were already known in the 9th, century: Kiev in the land of the Polyane; Chernigov in the land of the Severyane; Smolensk on the Dnieper and Polotsk on the Western Dvina in the land of the Krivichi; Novgorod of the Ilmen Slavs, and others.

The Slavonic tribes east of theDnieperfthe Vyatichi and Severyane) and also the Polyane, who bordered on the steppe, were conquered by the Elhazars in the 9th century. They paid tribute in the form of furs to the Khazar khakan.

Religion of the Eastern Slavs

Until the 10th century the Slavs were heathens. They believed in the forces of nature, which they vested with human qualities. Everything that surrounded them— the stones, streams, trees, the grass— they endowed with miraculous powers: they made sacrifices to nature, decorated the boughs of ^'sacred" trees with bits of cloth, threw offerings into the water. According to the Slavs the birds and beasts also possessed miraculous powers.

The Slav world was peopled with spirits. They believed that every forest had its wood-goblin upon whom the success of the hunt depended. Before starting on a hunting expedition the Slavs left a piece of bread for the wood-goblin on a tree stump. The deep still waters ot rivers, the Slavs believed, were the abode of the water- goblins whom they tried to propitiate before going to fish. The waters were also inhabited by water-nymphs. Every Slav had his household god (the Domovoy, hearth-god) in his hut, who helped him to run the household.

The Slavs believed in the power of the sky, the sun, thunder and lightning. Their chief deity was the sun, or Dazbog^ the son of the

god of heaven. In the summer when the days were longest, the Slavs held a big feast in honour of the sun. In ancient times on the eve of June 24 (old style calendar) a maiden was thrown into the water as a sacrifice to the god-s. Later a puppet was used lor this purpose

and the people bathed in the river. This night was called Ku'paU ^Jcaya (from ku'pat’— to bathe), or Midsummer Eve. Fire, according to the Slavs, was the son of the sun. The god of thunder was Peroun. They believed that Peronn drgve across the sky in his chariot and slew evil spirits with his fiery arrows. Thus did the Slavs explain the phenomena of thunder and lightning. Strilog was the god of the wind. The patron of herding and agriculture was the ‘‘cattle god," Teles. He was also revered as the patron of bards.

One of the beliefs of the Slavs was that the souls of the dead contin- ued to live after death. Food was left on the graves for the deceased. Their funeral rites were in conformity with the cult of the dead. Not all Slav tribes had the same rites: in some places the body was buried in a grave, in others the corpse was burnt and the ashes interred. A mound was put up over the grave. The deceased was fully equipped for his future life; various household objects (a knife, flint, weapons, utensils, etc.) were laid in the grave. When a rich man died bis wife and slaves were all interred with him. A wake was held to honour the dead, attended by military games and feasting in which the dead man was supposed to be a participant.

The Eastern Slavs had no temples. Wooden idols were set up in open-air shrines . Sacrifices were made to propitiate the gods and receive their support or appease their wrath. Sometimes these were human sacrifices. The Slavs believed that there were people who could divine the will ofthegods. and they called such people or wizards. The

latter were supposed to know special incantations by which they could control the powers of nature, cine the sick, transform themselves into werewolves, etc. The pagan beliefs of the Slavs such as the belief in household gods, wood-goblins and other superstitions persisted among the people for many centuries.

The Neighbours of the Slavs

The southeastern part of the Baltic seacoasi from the Niemen River to the Western Dvina was occupied by Lithuanian tribes. Those living between the Niemen and the Vistula were called Litavtsi-Pnossi. The right tributaries of the Lower Niemen were inhabited by the Litovtsi-Zhmud.The region of the middle reaches of the Niemen was occupied by the Lithuanians proper {Litva). This name was later applied to all Lithuanian tribes. The right bank of the lower reaches of the Western Dvina was the home of the Letygoh, and the left bank -—the These two tribes subsequently formed the Latvian people. The land along the watersheds flowing into the Baltic Sea was covered with dense forests and swamps. The Lithuanians lived in these forest jungles in small settlements; they had neither towns nor fortifications. Their small clan and tribal unions were in no way connected with each other. The population engaged in hunting, agriculture, and, to some extent, in herding. The Lithuanians who lived along the seacoast fished, collected amber, which, was highly prized at that time, and traded with neigh]?oiiring peoples (notably the Scandinavians).

Various Ural-Altaic tribes lived northeast of the Lithuanians and Slavs: the CJmdes (Esths), Merya, Mordvinians, Charemissi {Mari) and others. They occupied the forest land in the northeast of Emrope. Their chief occupations were hunting and fishing. The northern woods abound- ed in sable, marten, squirrel, fox and other valuable fur-bearing animals. The pelts of these animals were bought by eastern merchants on the Volga and by European merchants on the shore of the Baltic. The people lived in mud-huts, selecting as sites for their settlements places which offered a natural protection and shielded them against attacks of the enemy.

The Varangians in Eastern Europe

A water route connecting the Baltic Sea with the Black Sea ran across the land occupied by the Eastern Slavs and was called the “route from the Varangians to the Greeks,” that is, from Scandinavia, the land of the Varangians, to Byzantium. This route ran from the GuK of Finland via the Neva Biver to Lake Ladoga^ thence up the Volkhov Biver to Lake Ilmen and from Lake Ilmen to the Lovat River, from which vessels were carried by portage to the upper reaches of the Western Dvina. Bands of Varan- gians, as the inhabitants of Scandinavia were known in Eastern Europe, or Norsemen, as they were called by their southern neighbours, used Ibis route in the 9th century when they went in quest of plunder. At that time the Norsemen terrified all Western Europe with their raids. They invaded the lands of the Eastern Slavs, as eyerywhe.*e else, for preda- tory trade and plunder. The Varangians were organized in military bands under the leadership of their Izonungs, or princes. They attacked the Slavs and other tribes, robbed them of their furs, took prisoners, and carried off their booty to be sold in Constantinople, or to be shipped down the Volga to the land of the Bulgars and to the IQiazar capital Itil. The Slavs and their neighbours repeatedly rose against these freebooters and drove them off.

Some of the Varangian princes and their retinues seized the most advantageous places on the ^‘route from the Varangians to the Greeks” and imposed tribute upon the local Slav population. They very often killed or subordinated the local Slavonic princes and ruled in their stead. Legend has it that in the middle of the 9th century one such adventurer, Rurik, established himself in Novgorod, which was the key position to the Dnieper route from the north. His brother Si- neus lived at Byelo Ozero (White Lake), across which lay a route from the Gulf of Finland to the Volga and the Urals, and another brother, Truvor, at Izborsk, a town which commanded the routes to the Baltic shore. Two other Varangian chiefs Askold and Dir, took possession of the city of Kiev in the land of the Polyane. Kiev was an important southern point on the “route from the Varangians to the Greeks.”

Another offshoot of Scandinavia seized the principality of Polotsk on a different route leading from the Baltic Sea to the Dnieper along the Western Dvina. Most of the Varangians who made raids on Slav lands returned home with their booty. Some of the Scandinavian princes, however, settled with their retinues in the towns of Riis,. sometimes entering the service of the local Slav princes to protect them from new freebooters coming from Scandinavia.

The number of Varangians who settled on Slav lands was negli- gible, The Varangian bands were augmented by local Slav warriors. Before long the Varangians were Slavonicized: already in the begin- ning of the 10th century they used the Slavonic language and wor- shipped Slavonic gods. The Varangian warriors very quickly merged with the Slav nobility and formed with it a single class. The ancient state of Rus grew in its struggle with the Varangians in the north and with the nomads who invaded the Black Sea steppes from the east, and maintained its independence of By^iantium.

Union of Eastern Slavs around Kiev

The Kiev State

The Dnieper region and the adjacent lands were united under the rule of Prince Oleg in the beginning of the 10 th century. The chroniclers tell us that at first Oleg ruled over the Novgorod Slavs, but later went down the Dnieper and conquered the Smolensk Krivichi . Proceeding farther down the Dnieper, he slew Askold and Dir, who were in Kiev, took possession of the city, and reduced the neighbouring Drevlyane. Oleg also subdued the tribes of Severyane and Radimiohi, who had been under the Khazar yoke. The simultaneous possession of Novgorod and Kiev made Oleg the undisputed lord of the Dniepei route. The lesser princes wore forced to submit to him. He became the “Grand Prince of Rus,” with all other princes “under his will.”' The lands of the Dnieper and the Ilmen Slavs were united under the rule of the Kiev prince. Tliis union was called Bus, and its centre was Kiev, which is why we call this union of ancient Russian lands “Kiev Bus.”

The greater part of the population subject to the Kiev princes were Slavs, but their state also included the Merya, Vesi, Chudes and other tribes. The economic ties among all these tribes were weak, and the latter were theiefore unable to form a stable entity.

During this period the Eastern Slavs still lived in agricultural communities — vervs — ^and retained various customs that had prevailed under the clan system. But the process of disintegration was already in progress in the community; individual members accumulated wealth; the labour of the poorer tribesmen was exploited. In this way the division of society into classes was hastened, private ownership of land developed, and feudal relations originated.

Campaigns Against Byzantium and the Caspian Countries. The Kiev state, which consisted of a number of independent principalities loosely held together maintained itself by force of arras.

The Kiev state played an important role in Eastern Europe. In 860, as a reprisal against Byzantine aggression a laigo fleet of Slav odnoderc- vhi (small craft hewn out of solid oak trunks) made its way to the Golden Horn (the inlet of the Bosporus forming the harbour of Constantinople) and threatened the walls of Constantinople. The city was saved only because a storm dispersed the Slav beet. The annals state that Oleg undertook a successful campaign against Constantinople. In 911 he concluded an .advantageous peace with Byzantium, which established the exact relations between the Bus and the Greeks. The treaty is evidence of the regular relations between Bus and Byzantium and of the great power of the prince of Kiev.

In 913 or 914 Bus attacked the Caspian coaslliiie. Russian vessels sailed from the Sea of Azov up the Don to the spot where this river most closely approaches the Volga, and from there, hy portage, their boats were carried to the Volga. The Bus then went down to t3ie Caspian Sea and ravaged the Transcaucasian coast (now Azerbaijan), but on the way back they themselves were attacked by the Khazars and sustained certain losses.

Oleg was succeeded in the second quarter of the 10th century b\* the Kiev Princ'j Igor, whom the annals call the son of Rurik, and who occupied a similar dominating position in relation to the other xDrinces. Igor continued the conquests of Oleg. He subjugated the Slavs living on the Southern Bug and imposed tribute upon the Drevlyane who revolted against the rule of Kiev. In 941 Igor launched a big sea campaign against B^^zantinm. The Bus devastated the precincts of Constantinople , but the Greek fleet kept them out of the harbour and forced them back to the Black Sea. Repulsed from Constantinople, the Rus ravaged the northern shore of Asia Minor. The Greek govern- ment had to send a large land force to drive the Rus out of that country. The Greek fleet, which was equipped with devices for pouring liquid combustibles — “Greek fire’’ — over enemy vessels, inflicted a telling defeat on Igor’s sea force. The Greeks succeeded in setting fire to the Russian vessels. To save themselves from the “Greek fire” many of the Rus plunged into the water and were drowned. Never- theless, what remained of the Slavonic fleet made its way past the enemy vessels and retmned to its native land.

To avoid a repetition of raids by the Rus the Greeks concluded a new treaty with Igor in 945. In this treaty the trade conditions between Rus and Constantinople were set forth in detail, and a military alliance against their common enemies was established.

In 943 Rus once more undertook a big expedition against the set- tlements along the Caspian seacoast. Rus warriors sailed up the Kura River and captured the city of Berdaa. From there the Rus made attacks on the outlying lands. The unfavourable climatic conditions told on the Rus, of whom disease and mortality took heavy toll. Their thinned ranks were besieged in a fortress by Arab troops; however, the remnants, under cover of night, succeeded in making their way to their vessels and to return to Rus with their plunder.

Polyudye

One of the reasons that prompted the Kiev princes to undertake campaigns and to wage war was the collection oi tribute from the conquered peoples.

Feudal relations were as yet poorly developed in the Kiev state in the 10th century. Big land tenure was in the process of formation. The princes therefore exploited the population chiefly by collecting tribute from the people. The princes had bodies of military retainers — retinues — ^with whose help they undertook their campaigns and kept the conquered peoples in subjection. They shared the tribute they extorted with their retinue, thus paying the latter for their services. Each year, at the beginning of winter, the prince and his retinue of warriors would leave their city ticl <polyudye, that is, on an expe- dition “among the people” — to levy tribute. The prince would make the round of his subject domains and collect furs, honey, hees-wax, etc., from the inhabitants. In the spring the booty together with prisoners captured in war would be loaded on ships and sent down the Dnieper to the Black Sea. At the Dnieper rapids the merchan- dise and vessels would be transferred by portage. Here the travellers would often he beset by the Pechenegs, lying in wait to rob them of their wares. Another dangerous spot was near the Island of Khortitsa (where Dnieproges, the Dnieper Power Station, now stands). The high bluffs here cramped the narrow current of the Dnieper, and a fleet of ships was always in danger of attack by the nomads.

After leaving the mouth of the Dnieper and sailing into tho Black Sea, the voyagers offered thanksgiving sacrifices at a '‘sacred” oak on a little islet. Then they followed the western shore of the Black Sea. The final destination was Constantinople, or Tsargrad (the tsar’s city) as tho Slavs called it. Theie they sold the furs, hoes- wax and slave.'-, and in exchange acquired costly fabrics, wines, fimit and other luxurie.N.

Tribute was wrung from the subject tribes by violent and oppressive means, with the result that the Drovl 3 "ane, headed by their local Prince Mai, rebelled during the rule of Igor. Igor, the chronicler says, entrust- ed the levying of tribute from certain Slav tribes to one of his more influential retainers named Sveneld, thus arousmg dissatisfaction among his guard. The latter persistently urged Tgor to go to the land of the Drevlyane himself to collect tribute, saying: "Svenold's warriors have fitted themselves out with ams, clothes and horses, while we are naked. Let us go. Prince, and collect the tribute, and thou wilt gain and we will.” After collecting tribute from the land of the Drevlyane, Igor dismissed most of his military retinue and decided to make another round himself. 'T will return and go about some more.” When the Drevlyane heard that tho prince was preparing to come back for more tribute, they said: 'Tf the wolf gets into the habit of visiting a herd he will devour it all unless he is killed.*’ They slew Igor’s attendants, then captured and killed Igor hmiself (945).

Igor’s widow, Olga (945-957), uho ruled instead of her son Sv^^a- toslav, who was in his minorit^^ mercilessly" crushed the mutin 3 % I&korosten, the principal city of the Drevly-ane, was taken and burned; many of the inhabitants were either slain or reduced to slavery’'; the rest had to pay a heavy tribute. Pearing fui*ther uprisings, Olga fixed the exact amount of tribute to be paid in the future. However, not con- tent merely with tribute she began seizing portions of the land that still belonged to the communities. This testifies to the still greater exploitation of the conquered lands by the princes and their retainers.

The Conquests of Svyatoslav

Svyatoslav (957-972), the son of Igor and Olga, wns a Slav by birth, name and appearance. He wore a simple white shirt, an earring in one of his ears, and shaved his head, leaving only a long forelock. A brave leadqr of a martial retinue, he spent his whole life on campaigns, "walking lightly, like a panthen-”; he never took any baggage carts on his marches, slept on tho erround with his saddle as pillow, and ate half-cooked horseflesh. Svyatoslav never attacked an enemy by underhand, treacherous moans. When setting out on a campaign he sent messengers ahead to say*: ‘T ’want to march against you.”

The ^jacent lands of the Dnieper and Lake Ilmen were already part of the Kiev state. S'vyatoslav directed his arms first against the Slavonic tribes living east of the Dnieper, conquered the Vyatichi on the Oka, and then attacked the other peoples. In the sixties of the 10th cenfcnry he defeated the Volga states of the Bulgars and the Khazars, then marched to the Northern Caucasus, where he defeated the Kasogi (Circassians) and Yasi (the Ossetians), In 907 Svj’-atoslav launched a campaign against Bulgaria on the Danube, a land inhab- ited by Slavs who had assumed the name of the Bulgars, their con- querors. The Bulgars were constantly attacking their neighbour, the Greek empire, indicting serious defeats on the Greeks. Not equal to coping with Bulgar incursions the Greeks appealed to Svyatoslav for aid. He not only won a complete victory over the Bulgars, but even planned to establish himself permanently in Pereyaslavets on the Danube, the capital of Bulgaria. ‘"Here,” he said, “is the centre of my land; here flows everything that is good — ^gold, rich fabrics, wine and fruit from the Greeks; silver and hordes from Czechia and Hungary; furs, bees-wax, honey and slaves from Rus.”

The Greek government, fearing such a dangerous neighbour, bribed the Pechemgs to attack Kiev. News of the siego of Kiev by the Pechenogs forced Svyatoslav to hasten back to the Dnieper region. But he did not relinquish the idea of conquering Bulgaria, After driving the Pechenegs back to the steppes, he returned and recap- tured Pereyaslavets. Thereupon the new Byzantine Emperor, John Tzimisces, advanced against him with a big army. Faced by a supe- rior enemy, Svyatoslav nevertheless did not abandon the struggle. He is attributed by the chronicles to have made the following address to his warriors: “Let us not shame the Russian soil, but lay down our lives, for the dead know no shame, but if we flee, then shall we be shamed.”

The Greek troops took Pereyaslavets, but not until after a hard struggle. The Bus garrison which had been left in the city by Svyato- slav barricaded itself in the royal palace of the Bulgars and defended itself even after the city fell to the enemy. Tzimisces ordered the palace to be set on fire; only then did the Bus leave the city for the field, where they fought their last battle. “They fought vigorously,” writes a Greek historian; “they did not take to flight, and our men put them all to the sword.” Svyatoslav shut himself up in the town of Dorostol on the Danube. He was besieged on land by Tzimisces’ army, while on the Danube his retreat was blocked by the Greek fleet with its fire-throwers. In spite of this, Svyatoslav rejected all peace offers. His army, which was very small, defended itself he- roically and made daring sallies. During the night the Bus burned their dead, killed the prisoners in their honour, and offered sacri- fices to the gods. The besieged were weakened by hunger. They made a last desperate attempt to break their way through. The Greek army wavered, and the emperor had to go into battle himself, at the head of his bodyguard — the r‘immortals/^ The sortie was repulsed; many of the Rus were wounded, and killed, and Svyatoslav himself was wounded. Further resistance was impossible. In 971 Svyatoslav con- cluded a peace treaty by which he surrendered Bulgaria. But the Oreek govermnent still feared Svyatoslav and informed the Peche- negs of his return to his native land. They ambushed Svyatoslav at the Dnieper rapids, where they killed him (V)72). The Pecheneg prince made a drinking cup of the skull of the murdered Svy^atoslav.

Introduction of Christianity into Kiev Rus

Vladimir Svyatoslavich (980-1015)

Sv^-atoslav, during his absence at the wars, had left the government of his domains in the hands of his three sons. The land of the Polyane, including Kiev, went to his oldest son Yaropolk; the land of the Drevlyane — to Oleg, and Novgorod to Vladimir. Soon after the death of their father the brothers quarrelled. Oleg and Yaropolk fell in battle, and Vladimir again united all the lands of the Eastern Slavs under his rule. Sub- sequently he extended his possessions at the expense of his neighbours. Vladimir annexed the land of Galich (Halicz) to the Kiev state, and marched against the Poles, who wanted to take possession of it, Vla- dimir also advanced against Lithuania. But his chief concern was to defend his southern frontiers against the raids of the Pechenegs. During his rule the steppe borders were fortified with ramparts and palisades, forts were erected and warlike people were settled on the frontier.

Adoption of Christianity

During Vladimir’s reign Kiev Rus adopted the Greek Orthodox religion, as Greek Christendom is called in distinction to that of Western Europe, called Catholicism. The Eastern Slavs became acquainted with Christian culture through their regular trade and political intercourse with B^’zantium and tlieir frequent trips to Constantinople, The chief reason for the adop- tion of Christianity was the fact that the class of feudal lords, which sprang up in the Dnieper region, needed a religion which would sup- port its class interests. Furthermore, the old heathen religion was in the hands of sorcerer-priests, representatives of the old tribal nobi- lity, who were hostile to the princes. The first to embrace Christia- nity were the representatives of the upper class, including their retainers. Even under Igor there already were many Christians in the prince *s military retinue, Igor's widow, Olga, had also adopted Christianity. At the end of the j'ear 987 a revolt broke out in the Byzantine empire. At the same time the Danube Bulgars threatened Byzantium from the north. The Byzantine government called upon the Kiev prince for help. An alliance was formed (OSS) which was to be sealed by the baptism of Vladimir and the entire Russian people, and by the marriage of the Kiev prince to the Greek Princess Anna (two emperors ruled Byzantium at that time; Princess Anna was their sister). With the help of a contingent of Russian troops the revolt in Byzantium was suppressed, Byzantium, however, was in no hurry to fulfil the terms of the agreement concerning the marriage of Vladi- mir and r rincess Anna. Vladimir besieged and took the city of Kher- sones (Korsun) in the Crimea, which belonged to Byzantium, and forced Byzantium to fulfil its part of the treaty. Vladimir was bap- tized according to the rites of the Greek church and married Princess Anna.

On his return from Khersones, Vladimir ordered the whole population of Kiev to be driven to the river, in which they were baptized by Greek priests. The images of the gods were burnt, and an idol of Peroun was thrown into the Dnieper. The population of other cities was baptized in the same way. Christianity, however, did not take immediate root. Heathen beliefs continued to prevail for a very long time, especially, among the rural population.

The adoption of Christianity was an important event in the life of Kiev Rus. In comparison with heathenism, Christianity was a great advance on the path of progress. It stimulated the further development and strengthening of feudal relations in Kiev Rus, since the Greek clergy employed peasant serfs on their church lands, and not slaves. The church advocated the liberation of the slaves,

Christianity was instrumental in spreading the higher Byzan- tine culture among the Eastern Slavs. The establishment of a single religion hastened the unification of all Slavonic tribes and strength- ened the power of the princes.

The introduction of Christianity also brought about closer ties with Byzantium and the states of Western Europe. Vladimir main- tained friendly relations with Czechia, Poland and Hungary. He be- came related to the Greek imperial house through his marriage with Anna. The cultural influence of the more enlightened Christian coun- tries also increased. Kiev, in the manner of Byzantium, erected stone buildings ornamented with paintings and mosaic work. The heathen shrines gave way to a church built by Greek craftsmen, and, beside it, a palace was erected for Vladimir.

Education became more widespread. About a hundred years be- fore the conversion of Rus, the missionaries Cyril and Methodius, upon instruotions from the Greek government, invented a Slavonic alphabet and translated the Greek scriptural books into the Slavonic (Bulgarian) dialect to facilitate the preaching of Christianity among the Western and Southern Slavs, Thanks to this, Kiev Rus, after its conversion, received books in the Slavonic language, Vladimir ordered the children of the nobility to be taken from their parents and forcibly taught to read and write.

The memory of Vladi- mir has been preserved in folk songs or hyliny. In these songs the people embodied their ideal of love for their native land in the persons of their valorous knighls —

Prince Vladimir’s warriors, the peasant Ilya of Murom,

Dobrynya Nikitich, Alyosha Popovich, and others who de- fended their Eussian land against the dwellers of the sloppes. These folk songs present the period of Kiev Bus as a brilliant epoch in Russian history.

Yaroslav Mudry (the Wise)

Vladimir died in 1015 and imme- diately after his death a fierce struggle broke out among his sons. One of them, Svyatopolk, seized the power in Kiev and slew his, brothers, Boris, Gleb and Svyatoslav. Another son, Yaroslav Vla- dimirovich, who had been entrusted with the government of Novgo- rod during his father’s lifetime, attacked Svyatopolk, With the help of the people of Novgorod, he routed Svyatopolk, who tied to Poland to his father-in-law. Prince Boleslaus the Brave. This internecine warfare among the princes exposed the Russian frontiers to foreign aggressors. Boleslaus of Poland invaded Rus, defeated Yaroslav on the Western Bug, entered Kiev and placed Svyatopolk on the throne. The indignation of the Russians was aroused against the Poles who engaged m plundering and banditry. When the latter dispersed through the towns and villages to take up their winter quarters, the population slew them. Boleslaus fled to Poland with the remnants of his army. Without the support of the Polish king, Svj^atopolk suffered a decisive defeat at the hands of Yaroslav and the Novgo- rodians, and was killed while trying to make his escape. Yaroslav united Kiev and Novgorod imder his rule (1019). However, his brother IMstislav Vladimirovich, ruler of the Tmutarakan principality on the Taman Peninsula, near the Caucasus, laimched a campaign against him, Mstislav conquered Seversk Land and the city of Cherni- gov from. Yaroslav. The Dnieper became the boundary between the possessions of these two brothers. After Mstislav’s death (1036) Yaro- slav re-annexed the land of Seversk to the Kiev state.

The reign of Yaroslav (1019-1054) was marked by the ultimate triumph of Christianity in Kiev Rus. It was during his rule that the church, administration was organized, and a metropolitan appointed by the patriarch of Constantinople was placed at the head of the church of Kiev. It was also under Yaroslav that the Pechersk Monastery near Kiev came into existence. This monastery played a great pait in the spread of learning among the ruling classes of Kiev Bus.

The Kiev state in Yaroslav’s reign occupied a leading position among the states of Europe in point of power and the high level of its culture. Evidence of the close political ties that existed between Kiev Eus and the states of Western Europe is furnished by the matri- monial alliances formed by Yaroslav’s family with foreign courts: his sister was married to the Polish prince, one of his daughters to the French kmg, another to the Norwegian, and a third to the Hun- garian. Yaroslav frequently interfered in the affairs of Poland. Taking advantage of the turmoil that reigned in Poland after the death of Bo- leslaus, Yaroslav once more recovered the towns which had been lost after Vladimir’s death m Galich Eus. Later Yaroslav supported his brother-in-law, the Polish prince, by sending troops to his aid The last campaign against Constantinople (1043), which ended in failure, was undertaken during Yaroslav’s rule under the leadership of his son Vladimir. In the Baltic region, which was already becoming the object of attacks by Gormans, Yaroslav built the city of Yuriev (Tartu in Esthonian) and extended his power over the Baltic peoples. He built a city on the Volga which he named Yaroslavl. In the south Yaroslav was compelled to wage a hard struggle against the Pechenegs. He continued to fortify the frontier belt by building towns.

During Yaroslav’s reign, the earliest code of laws was compiled imder the name of Yaroslav’s Pravda^ 'which revealed induences of Christian Byzantine legislation. Yaroslav’s Pravda reflected the tenacity of the old clan customs, for instance, it sanctioned the blood feud, which was confined to the members of the family, and was not applicable to the clan. ‘‘If one man shall kill another,*^ Pravda said, “the brother shall avenge a brother, the son a father, the father a son, the nephew on the brothers or on the sister’s side, if there be none to take revenge, then forty grivnas ( a grivna was a bar of silver weighing sipproximately 200 grams) shall be paid for the murdered person.” However, this obligation to seek revenge was imposed only on the next of kin and not on the entire clan, for by that time the clan had already fallen apart. During the reign of Yaroslav’s sons the blood feud^was aboli^ed altogether.

Yaroslav’s Pravda was later supplemented and revised during the reign of his sons and grandsons.

The Culture of Kiev Rus

The cullural development of Kiev Bus in the 11th century was greatly influenced by Byzantium which vtas the most civilized country m Europe at the time. The Russians, however, did not simply borrow an alien culture; they moulded it to the form of their own national ait as well as that of Western Europe and Transcaucasia. An ancient Kussian, native culture was created on Kiev soil which subsequently foimed the basis of the national cultures of the Bussian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian peoples.

A considpiable number of books translated fiom the Greek in Bulgaria on the Danube made their appearance in Kiev Bus togethei with the new religion. The pnnee and rich people had tiansenpts oi these books made for themselves. Other books were tianslated anew into the Russian language.

Besides theological books there wore secular writings, such as the Greek chronicles. Translated liteiatme served as the model for original Russian works. The first attempts to compile a history of Bus date back to the time of Yaroslav. After his death these historical notes were elaborated in the Pechersk Monastery in the form of a volmninouR work which related “whence came the Russian land.” The under- lying idea of this work was that of a united Rus- sia and a united ancient Russian people. The vol- ume Nachalmya Letopis (Initial Annals) as it was commonly called, was composed of stories, biographies of the princes, annual recordings of events made in various cities, passages from Greek chronicles, etc.

The Initial Annals have come down to us under the name, Chro- nicU of Ancient Years, in the revised versions dated 1116 and 1118. The Initial Annals are the source of our information on the ancient history of the Dnieper region and its adjacent lands. They are evi- dence of a high degree of learning in the monasteries of Kiev Rus and of the versatility and wealth of the. translated and original litera- tine of the times.

Byzantine influence made itself felt in art as well. During Yaro- slav’s reign the St. Sophia Cathedral was built in Kiev by Greek architects; however, the usual type of Byzantine architecture was modified to correspond to Russian tastes and demands. The St. Sophia Cathedral is a masterpiece of 11th century Russian art. The inteiior of the cathedral contains remarkable mosaics and frescos. The so-called “Golden Gate” was also built during Yaroslav's rule Foreigners were amazed at the splendour of Kiev and called it “the rival of Constantinople.” Other cities, especially Novgorod, built sim- ilar magnificent structures. Vladimir, son of Yaroslav, built the superb St. Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod after the Kiev model.

Disintegration of the Kiev State

Establishment of Feudalism in the Kiev State

Development of Feudal Relations in Kiev Rus

AgricuLme was the basic economy in Kiev Rus. By the 11th century it had made considerable progress and spread over a vast territory.

Among the husbandmen (the smerds) living 'in communities some wealthy people came to the fore who started to seize the land and cultivate it with the labour of the poor people dependent upon them and slaves. In this way there arose in the community a number of rich landowners possessing large demesnes. It also became more profitable for the princes and their retinues to engage in farming on a large scale than to confine themselves to the collection of tribute from the popu- lation. They therefore appropriated the community lands from the smerds and concentrated in their hands large landed estates con- sisting of tilths, forests rich in wild bees, and hunting grounds. With the help of the princes and the boyars (as the wealthy landowners came to be called), the monasteries also appropriated land to them- selves. Thus the landed property of the princes, boyars and churches was considerably expanded at the expense of the community land of the husbandmen.

Around the large towns there sprang up villages belonging to the princes, boyars and monasteries. Slave labour was not very productive. It was more advantageous for the landowner to have semi-free peasants on his land, people who had their own farms but who at the same time were compelled to work for the landowner. And so the landowners made bondsmen of the free husbandmen and exploit- ed them.

The mass of the husbandmen still lived in communities in the 11th century, their dependence on the princes being limited to the payment of tribute. By the end of the 11th century there already was a considerable group of husbandmen who were dependent upon the rich landowners. Such dependent husbandmen were, for instance, the zahu'py, A zahup received a Aiitpa, or money loan from his masrer and a small plot of land which was paid for by services (the corvee) . The inventory — Ahorse, plough and harrow — ^belonged to the master. The latter had the right to inflict corporal punishment upon his zahu'p, who could not quit without settling his debt. If he ran away and was caught, he became a slave. The zakwp was thus in complete bondage to the landowner. "TDhe landoTmers kept the smerds in bondage even at the time of Busskaya Pravda^^* Lenin said.* In the ilth century, according to Lenin, ‘‘the smerds (as Busskaya Pravda called the peasants) went into bondage and ^signed up’ for the landlords.”**

The husbandmen resisted the attempts to deprive them of their land and to enslave them; they ploughed up the boundary lines separat- ing the lands that were alienated by the feudal lords, destroyed all boundary marks, killed the princes’ and boyars’ bailiffs, and set fire to the buildings on their masters’ estates. Spontaneous uprisings against the feudal lords broke out frequently in the villages.

Relations characteristic of the feudal system came into existence in Kiev Rus: the large landowner subordinated and exploited the small producer and forced the latter to work for him.

Under the feudal system the peasants and craftsmen were the owners of the instruments and means of production and conducted their private economy by their own labour. The land, however, which was then the chief means of production, belonged to the feudal lorfls. This enabled the latter by means of force to enthrall the petty produ- cer, the peasant, and convert him into a semi-ffee man.

Russkaya Pravda

During the reign of Yaroslav’s sons and grandsons, feudal customs found reflection in a code of ducal regula- tions, known xmder the name of Busskaya Pravda^ the basis of which was Y’aroslav's Pravda, The aim of Busskaya Pravda was to protect the property of the landowners, the feudal lords. It contained a number of clauses which listed the fines imposed for violation of boundary lines, for stealing cattle, etc. The rights of a lord over his zakup and slave were precisely defined. Busskaya Pravda abolished the clan feud, which it substituted by the vu'a (blood money), that is, recom- pence paid for a murdered man; this was set at forty grivnas. Recom- pense for the murder of a boyar was double the amount, eighty grivnas, A similar vira was paid for the murder of persons who occupied impor- tant posts on the estate of the prince, the prince 's equerry, major-domo, etc. But no vira was paid for slaves. Their master was merely compen- sated for their cost which was five grivnas, A similar sum was paid for husbandmen working on a prince’s or boyar’s estate. Thus the tenant working on the land of a feudal* lord was placed in the same category as the slave. In the case of crimes Busskaya Pravda fixed fines payable t.o the prince and damages to the plaint iff. For instance, accord- ing to Busskaya Pravda, “if a man be struck with the sword but not killed, the fine is three grivnas, and one grivna to the peison struck and the cost of treatment, if a wound is inflicted,*’ or “if a tooth is knocked out and blood appears in the mouth, then the fine is twelve grivnas and a grivnia for tlie tooth"*’; “if someone hews down a tree in which wild bees swarm, the fine is three grivnaay and half a grivna for the tree.” The severest punishment was imposed for setting fire to a farm- stead or threshing fioor, taking the form of banishment and confisca- tion of the malefactor’s property. The severity of this punishment was due to the lords’ fear of vengeance on the part of their exploited tenants.

Trade and Crafts

A natural economy prevailed in Kiev E,us, that is, each farm was practically self-sufS.cient. However, in the 11th century the cities were producing commodities for the local market. Certain articles of prime necessity, such as clothing and footwear, were obtained at the torg — smarts. The feudal lords wanted articles of luxury such as jewelry, similar to those imported from Byzantium and the East. The Kiev craftsmen imitated the Greek and Eastern models and created an art of their own, the high standard of which can be judged from objects discovered amid the hidden treasures of Kiev and other cities. The Smithy’s craft stood particularly high; Bussian armourers made superior swords and other weapons. A new group sprang up in the cities — the merchants, who bought local goods and resold them in other cities in their own coun- try and abroad; in exchange they imported foreign goods which they sold in their homeland.

The original medium of exchange was animal skins in the forest belt and cattle in the steppe zone. That is why in ancient times money was called shot — cattle, or Tcuny — marten skins. Bus had no coinage of its own at first, and only iiabian, Greek and Western European coins were current. Beginning with the 11th century a small quantity of coins was minted in Kiev Bus in imitation of the Greek coins, with the heads of the princes stamped on them.

Money lending was prevalent in the cities, where the lower sec- tions, especially the artisans, suffered from it acutely. Though the craftsmen owned their own instruments of production, they became dependent upon the moneylender and merchant. The increasing division of labour intensified the* process of class stratification in the towns. Exploited by the rich merchants and moneylenders, the city poor rose against tlieir oppressors, but were unable to shake ojff the grievous yoke of dependence.

Beginning of the Disintegration of the Kiev State

Despite its show of splendour, the Kiev state was an agglomeration of loosely connected, diverse lands that had been subjugated by the Kiev princes. As big landownership developed in various regions, the local land- owners, who came into possession of large estates with numerous dependent peasants, grew more powerful and maintained their own retinues of warriors. The most powerful local feudal lords strove to free themselves of the suzerainty of the Kiev princes, and sup- ported their own princes who aspired to independence from Kiev. Thus the integrity of Kiev Rus began to crumble and give way to feudal disunity.

Shortly after the death of Yaroslav (1054) this process of disinte- gration went on apace and the Kiev state was superseded by a number of independent principalities, respectively ruled by Yaros- lav’s sons- The oldest, Izyaslav, inherited Kiev and Novgorod, that is, the two most important points on the Dnieper route; Svyatoslav received Chernigov Land, and Vsevolod —Pereyaslav and Rostov- Suzdal. The other lands went to the younger members of the prince’s family. At first the three elder brothers, Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod, acted in harmony, maintaining order in the land and defend- ing it against enemies by their joint efrorts. Sometimes the brothers met to confer on matters of common interest. Thus, at a conference called shortly after a revolt of the craftsmen and husbandmen in Kiev in 1068 they supplemented and revised the Pravda of their father Yaroslav.

Feudal Wars and the Struggle Against the Polovtsi

Yaro- slav’s sons had to defend the Russian domains against the invasions of a nomad Turkic race from Asia, called the Polovtsi. lu the middle of the 11th century the Polovtsi invaded and occupied the Black Sea steppes, driving some of the Pechenegs westward, to the Danube, and intermingling with the others. The Polovtsi were herdsmen. They were divided into several hordes or tribes, ruled by khans (princes). These nomads made devastating descents on Russian lands, seized captives, drove off the cattle, and disappeared back into the steppe. Tlieir attacks were extremely fierce and sudden.. A Greek writer bays ot them: “The Polovtsi appear and disappear in the twinkling of an eye. Their raid over, and arms full of spoil, they piecipitately seize tile reins, urge tlieir horses on %vith their feet and whip, and rush off like a whirlwind, as though desiring to overtake a bird in fiight. They are gone before you have seen them.”

in 1068 Izj^aslav and his brothers, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod marched against the Polovisi, but suffered a serious defeat and fled from the field of baitle. Izyaslav went to Kiev. The peasants, who had thronged to the city from the villages pillaged by the Polovtsi, and the Kiev populace demanded that Izyaslav give them weapons and horses and lead them again into battle against the enemy. But Izyaslav refused, fearing lest the weapons be turned against him. The crowd then broke into and pillaged the prince’s household, released the captive Polotsk Prince Vseslav from his prison, and proclaimed him the prince of Kiev. Izyaslav fled to Poland to seek the aid of Prince Boleslaus the Bold. The Polish feudal lords found this an opportune moment to intervene in the affairs of Kiev Bus. Izyaslav returned with a Polish army. Vseslav betrayed the Kiev people and secretly fled to Polotsk during the night. With the heli> of the Polish feudal lords Izyaslav cruelly avenged himself upon the rebellious Kiev people: seventy were executed and many were blind- ed and punished in other ways. The Poles quartered themselves in the cities of the Kiev principality, where the populace, infuriated by their outrages, massacred them.

In spite of the danger from the Polovtsi, the league of Yaroslav ’h. sons did not last very long. In 1073 Svyatoslav and Vsevolod drove Izyaslav out of Kiev. Svyatoslav occupied the Kiev throne. Izyaslav sought help from the German emperor and the Pope and fi.nally, with the help of the Poles, recovered the throne, but shortly after this was killed in a war against his nephews.

The feudal wars continued under Yaroslav’s grandsons. In 109T the most influential princes gathered at a joint council at Lyubech.. *^Why do we ruin the Land of Bus,” the princes exclaimed at this meeting; "plotting treason against each other while the Polovtsi are harassing our land and are glad that we are fighting among our- selves! Let us henceforth live in harmony!” To put an end to the feudal internecine warfare, those who attended the council ordained the division of Kiev Bus among themselves according to the prin- ciple of feudal heritage: **Let each possess his own patrimony!” — that is, the principality which his father had possessed . Kiev remained in the hands of Svyatopolk, the son of Izyaslav, the oldest of the* Yaroslavs. The Pereyaslav principality, which had belonged to Vsevolod, Went to his son Vladimir, known under the name of Mono- maohus, the "autocrat” (after the title of his grandfather, the By- zantine Emperor Constantine Monomachus). The participants of the conclave undertook to act jointly against those who violated the agreement. But they had no sooner departed to their respective homes when David Igorevich, the prince of Vladimir-Volhynsk, incited Svyatopolk Izyaslavich to seize one of the members of the conclave, the enterprising and bold Vasilko. Svyatopolk lured Va- silko to Kiev, seized him and turned him over to David. The latter ordered Vasilko to be blinded and imprisoned, and then seized his^ cities. The other princes, led hy Vladimir Monomachus, came out in defence of Vasilfco. He was liberated, and avenged bimself for being blinded by mercilessly devastating David’s lands. At another convocation held in 1100 in the city of Vitichev, the princes punished David by depriving him of Vladimir- Volhynsk. “We do not wish to give thee the Vladimir throne,” they hade him be told, “because thou hast flung the knife among us, which has never been in the Land of Rus.”

The wars among the princes enabled the Polovtsi to plunder the Russian lands with impunity. Sometimes the princes themselves sought the aid of the Polovtsi against their enemies. In order to fight the Polovtsi it was necessary to unite. In the spring of 1103 Svyatopolk Izyaslavich and Vladimir Monomachus met near Kiev, at Lake Dolobtkoye, where they discussed the question of a joint campaign against the Polovtsi. Svyatopolk and his warriors were reluctant to agree to this undertaking, demurring that a spring campaign would have a bad effect upon the ploughing as they would have to take the horses from the peasants for this purpose. “I am astonished, warriors,” Vladimir argued, “that you are sorry for the horse that is used in ploughing but you do not think that when the husbandman begins to plough, the Polovtsi will come, slay him with their arrows, and take away his horse, then they will come into the village and cany off his wife and children and all his prop^ erty. You are sorry for the man’s hor^^e, but you are not sorry for tile man Mmself!” Vladimir arguments convinced the vacillators. The expedition against the Polovtsi, in which almost all the Russian princes took part, was a signal success. The Polovtsi were routed, and the victors returned home with rich booty in cattle, horses, camels and captives. Another expedition undertaken in 1111 was even more successful; the Russian princes then penetrated deep into the land of the Polovtsi.

The long struggle which Kiev Rus was compelled to wage against the peoples of the steppes has been commemorated in folk legends, which tell of the heroes who defended Russian soil against the Tatars (the name Tatar implies all the steppe people— the Polovtsi, Peche- negs, and others). These tales relate how Ilya of Murom, Dobrynya Nikitich, Alyosha Popovich and other heroes stood at the “knights*  outpost” and guarded the land of Rus.

Vladimir Monomachus (1113-1125)

A violent uprising broke out in Kiev in 1113, immediately after the death of Prince Svya- topolk Izyaslavich. Driven to despair by the tyranny of the prince’s retainers and the exploitation of the rich usurers, the city poor re- volted and wrecked their houses. The rebellion threatened to spread to the countryside. The rich feudal lords— the boyars, the family of the deceased prince and the monasteries— were in danger. The wealthy burghers of Kiev, terrified by the menace, sent for Vladimir Monomachus to rule over them: “Come, Prince, to Kiev; if thou comest not, then know that much evil will be done— they will go against the boyars and the monasteries.”

The arrival of Vladimir with his retinue checked the rebellion. Vladimir appreciated the necessity of making concessions and passed a law which slightly limited the amount of interest to be paid on loans. The position of the zakupy was also somewhat alleviated. But these concessions, prompted as they were by the fear of new outbreaks, in no way changed the general situation.

After taking Kiev, Vladimir Monomachus endeavoured to arrest the disintegration of the Kiev state, which was already in progress. He forced the other princes into submission and dealt harshly with the recalcitrant, dispossessing them of their cities. All the princes were “under his will” (his vassals), and had to appear before him at his first smnmons.

This powerful Kiev prince played an important role in the affairs of Eui'ope. Vladimir was related to the Greek imperial house, his mother being the daughter of Emperor Constantine Monomachus, and a granddaughter ’Of Vladimir’s was married to one of the Greek princes. Vladimir interfered in the civil ‘strife in Byzan- tium, and his troops went as far as the Danube, where they established the claim of Rus to the ancient Russian lands of ismail. Vladimir Monomachus’ sister was married to the German emperor; Vladimir himself was married to the daughter of the English king.

Vladimir Monomachus was noted for his daring and bravery. “I never tied to save my life,” he wrote of himself, "and always looked danger boldly in the face.” "Children,” he admonished his sons, "fear neither an army nor the beast; yours is a manly task.” He spent all his life in campaigns and dangerous marches. "I gave myself no rest either by day or night, in cold or heat.” He wa^ iond of the hunt and frequently risked his life: twice the aurochs (wild bull) tossed him on its horns, a deer srored him, an elk trampled over him, a wild boar tore his sword fiom his side, a bear rent his clothing, and a "ferocious animal” threw both him and his horse.

Their tempestuous mode of life did not hamper the development of the princes intellectual pursuits. Vladimir’s father, Vsevolod, was an educated man, who knew five foreign languages. Vladimir himself set great store on learning. "Forget not the good that you know, and what you do not know, learn,” he wrote his sons. He read a great deal, and always carried books about with him on his marches. He himself wrote an interesting book, "Instructions to Chil- dren,” in which he set forth what in his opinion was the character of an ideal prince, illustrating it copiously from his own life.

The Significance of the Kiev State in the History of the U.S.S.R

The Kiev state was a stage in the history of both the Eastern Sla- vonic world, and of the non-Slavonic peoples who subsequently became independent states. Within the womb of the Kiev state a rich and vivid culture was formed, which was destined to become the fountainhead of civilization for a number of Slavonic independ- encies in Eastern Europe and to exeii: a great influence on the neigh- bouring peoples.

However, the Kiev state was not a stable, political entity. Close economic ties did not yet exist among its separate parts — a circum- stance which precluded the possibility of a strong political organi- zation. Agricult m*e and the crafts spread throughout the various regions of the Kiev state, big landownersbip developed, and the economic significance of the cities \^as enhanced. These regions formed their own separate political centies. The falling apart of the Kiev state became inevitable.

Feudal Disunity in Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Feudal Principalities in the 12th and 13th Centuries

Intensification of Feudal Disunity

The State System of Russian Principalities

Vladimir Mono- niachus was unable to anest the process of disintegration in the Kiev state. The development ot feudal relations in the dijfiFerent regions led to the formation of independent principalities which no longer professed allegiance to Kiev.

In the 12th century the entire land of Rus split up into a number of independent principalities, the most important of which were those of Kiev, Chernigov, Galich, Smolensk, Polotsk, Turov-Pinsk, Rostov- Suzdal, Ryazan, Novgorod and Vladimir-Volhynsk. Each of these principalities was ruled by an offshoot of the vast genealogical tree of Vladimir Svyatoslavich. Kiev passed from hand to hand. It was the prey of the strongest, for, as one of the princes said, ‘‘it is not the place that fits the head, but the head that fits the place.” The Kiev prince enjoyed a traditional authority over all the other princes. being consideied as the grand prince. It was his business to '*think and ponder'’ for all the land of Rus. But after Vladimir Monomachus, the princes no longer obeyed the Kiev prince and became completely independent. Kiev Rhs thus broke up into numerous small princi- palities independent of one another.

The prince was sovereign and master in his own little state. He managed all state affairs himself— he meted out justice, commanded the troops, and supervised the eoomony of the state. Sometimes, in case of need, or for lack of time he would entrust the court of justice to his bailiff. Vladimir Monomachus never lelied on his servants but attended to everything himself, including his horses, falcons and even his kitchen.

War occupied an important place in the life of a prince . The prince ’s chief military force was a well-armed retinue of horsemen which he maintained at his own expense. This military retinue was divided into superiors and inferiors. The superiors consisted of rich boyars— landed proprietors. The prince conferred with them about everything and made no decisions without their consent. If a prince undertook anything without the consent of his warriors they would say to him: ^‘Thou hast planned this without us. Prince; we shall not go with thee.”

In case of war the piince rallied a levy of foot soldiers from among Ihe city inhabitants. He could not foice the population to go to war, and m such questions he was wholly dependent upon the veche, that i*-, the assembly of the townsfolk. The veche which was controlled by the boyars and rich buighers expressed only the will of the rich burgh- eib and not the populace as a whole. The townspeople vere summoned to the veche either by the tolling of a bell or through town-criers. If the veche agreed to the campaign, the people shouted; “‘\re shall all go, and our children, too.” But there were occasions when the townspeople could not or wished not to fight. In such cases they demanded that the piince make peace with the enemy: “Make peace, Prince, or do thine own worrying.” Thus, in the 12th century, a prince could not go to -war or resist an enemy invasion without the support of the veche or the consent of his retinue. This circumstance made the veche a poweiful organ. When a new prince came to the throne, the veche negotiated with the prince regarding the conditions on which it was willing to accept him. There were times when an undesirable prince was driven out by the burghers who invited a new prince in his stead: “Come to ns. Prince, we want thee.”

The Decline of Kiev Rus

The breaking up of Bus into sepa- rate principalities was the result of economical development and ter- ritorial expansion which entailed the decline of the old political cen- tres— Kiev, Chernigov. Pereyaslavl, and, what was especially impor- tant, the weakening of the defence of Rus against foreign enemies. Bus was no longer able to defend herself effectively against the Pol- ovtsi. The constant feudal wars between the various principalities led to the ruin of the land. The raids of the Polovtsi met with almost no resistance. The effects of these wars were" most keenly felt by the hus- bandmen. During campaigns the princes drove them out of other prin- cipalities to settle them on their own lands and made them work for them, the princes. But even in their own principalities the princes and their boyars, by fair means or foul, deprived the free husbandman of his land and reduced him to bondage. From here originated the old adage : ‘‘Don’t set up your household near the household of a prince, don’t sot up a village near the village of a prince: the prince’s bailiff is like fire and his servants like sparks. If you escape the fire, you wdll not escape the spark.” Rapacious exploitation by the feudal lords and interminable waifaie wreaked havoc among the labouring population. The devastating raids of the Polovtsi drove the husbandmen from the steppe-boider regions and depopulated Kiev Rus.

“All the cities and all the villages are desolated,” writes the chroni- cler in this connection. “We cross the fields where herds of horses and cattle and flocks of sheep used to graze — everything is de eited now, the cornfields are overgiown and have become the home of wild ani- mals.” The Polovtsi took multitudes of the husbandmen into captiv- ity, “ Woe-begone and wretched, black with hunger and thirst, they walked through strange lands, naked, barefoot, their feet lacerated by thorns; with tears in their eyes they spake unto each other: ‘I am from such and such a city, ’and the other would reply: ‘And I am from such and such a countryside.’ ”

The Lay of Prince Igor’s Regiment

The grievous consequences of feudal disimity and the need for unity if the land of Rus was to be saved are portrayed with great artistic power in a brilliant national epic of the Russian people The Lay of Prince Igor^s Regiment (that is, Igor’s campaign). This work, written by an unknown author at the end of the 13th century, centres around the expedition against the Polovtsi that was undertaken by the Seversk princes and led by Prince Igor Svyatoslavich. The Seversk princes refused to join the league of the Rus princes against the Polovtsi; later they undertook an independent raid and suffered overwhelming defeat. Prince Igor himself was taken prisoner. The author depicts Prince Igor as the champion of the land of Riis, going into mortal danger for her sake- “Pilled with martial spirit, he led his brave regiments against the land of the Polovtsi to defend the land of Rus.” And Igor spake to his warriors: “Brothers and warriors! ’Tis better to be killed than taken prisoner. I wish,” he said, “to break the spear against the edge of the Polovtsi steppe; with you. Men of Rus, I wish to lay down my head or drink of the waters of the Don from my helmet!” The entire campaign is described as a heroic feat performed to save the motherland from the enemies who were continually ravaging it. The decisive battle is pictured as a sanguinary feast: 'There was not enough bloody wine here; the brave men of*Rus were finishing their feast; they gave their kinsmen to drink and they themselves laid dovm their lives for the soil of Rus.” The poet rightly lays the blame for this defeat on the princes, who were at war with each other and who did not wish to unite in tlie common struggle against the enemy. He gives a graphic description of the afflictions of the land of Rus, which was rent by feudal wars. "‘At that time internecine strife was sown and grew upon the land,’’ he says, “and the span of human life w’as shoit- ened by the treacheries of the princes. At that time the cries oi the ploughmen were rarely heard on Rus soil, but often did the crows caw as they shared the corpses among themselves.” “Brother spake to brother; this is mine and this too is mine, and the princes began to call small things great, and to forge treason, and the unclean [the heathens, that is, the Polovtsi) came with victories to the land of Rus.” The poet addresses an ardent appeal to all the princes to unite in defence of the land of Rus against the Polovtsi: “Place your feet, Sires, in the golden stirrups for the wrong we suffer today, for the land of Rus, for the wounds of brave Igor, Son of Svyatoslav!”

The Lay of Prince Jgor^s Regiment is remaikable for its artistic merits. The author was not merely influenced by the literature of hi& time, but also found inspiration in folk poetry from Avhioh he borrowed poetic figures of speech and images. His poem is a patriotic appeal for the union of the entire land of Rus against the foreign enemies.

The Galich-Volhynsk Principality in the 12–13th Centuries

Southwestern Rus

Southwestern Rus separated from Kiev at an early date and formed an independent state on the foothills of the Carpathians. It was one of the richest and most populous Russian regions. This land suffered less from the inroads of the steppe dwellers than the Dnieper region. Its proximity to the countries of Central Europe— Poland and Hungary — contributed to the development of its trade. The salt mines of Galich supplied all of Kiev Rus with salt. The local feudal lords— boyars and bishops — lost no time in seizing the finest lands for themselves. Their wealth enabled the Galich and Volhynsk boyars to acquire great political influence and power. They had their own bodies of warriors with w’hom they went to w’ar, they maintained relations with foreign states, and exercised the right of dismissing their own princes.

Two principalities were formed in Southwestern Rus in the 12th century: the Galich principality, the chief city of which was Galich, and Volhynia, whose main city was Vladimir. The Galich principality tlirived greatly under Prince Yaroslav Osmoniysl (1152-1187). Evidence of tlie might of this prince can he found in the words whidd the author of The, Lay of Prince Igor^s Regiment addresses to him: ‘'^"aroslav Osmomysl of Galich! Thou sittest high on thy throne. Thou hast propped up the Hungarian mountains with thine iron regiments, thou hast barred the path of the king (of Hungary), thou hast shut the gates to the Danube.... Fear of thee fills the lands, thou wilt open the gates to Kiev,’^ Yaroslav was called Osmomysl — ^man of great wisdom — not only because of his native wisdom but also because of his great learning— he knew several foreign languages.

The Founding of the Galich-Volhynsk Principality

After the death of Yaroslav Osmomysl, disturbances broke out in Galich. Dis* pleased with his son, who wanted to rule independently, the boyars appealed to the Hungarian king for aid.

Galich was invaded by Hungarian troops who, with the support of boyar traitors placed Andrew, the son of the Hungarian king, on the throne. The Hungarians bore themselves as conquerors in Galich and aroused a strong feeling of popular animosity. Prince Andrew was driven out with the help of the Poles who were called in from abroad. However, the disturbances still continued. A descendant of Monomachus, Roman Mstislavich, prince of the neighbouring princi- pality of Vladimir-Volhynsk, took advantage of this circumstance to seize Galich and annex it to his principality (1199), thus establishing the Galich-Volhynsk principality. Roman was one of the most mas- terful, powerful, and cruel princes of Southern Rus. He interfered in the aifairs of the Kiev principality, and waged war against Lithu- ania. He made the captive Lithuanians work on his land. It is of him the proverb says: “Roman, Roman, thy life is ill when the Litva must till.” The Polovtsi made his name a bugbear for their children. In his own principality Roman fought persistently against the boyars in an effort to unite the land of Rus.

In 1203 Roman was killed in a battle with the Poles. The chronicler describes him in iHe following way: “He rushed at the unclean (the heathens) like a lion, his fury was like that of a lynx, he slew them like a crocodile, flew over their land like an eagle, was as brave as an aurochs, and followed in the steps of his great-grandfather Mono- machus.”

Roman left two young sons— Daniel and Vasilko. Taking ad- vantage of their minority, the Galich boyars attempted to seize the power. The Hungarians and Poles intervened in the disturbances that broke out. The Tatar-Mongolian khans threatened from the east. Romanes sons were alternately driven out and recalled. When he reached manhood Daniel Romanovich vigorously combated the ar- bitrary power of the big feudal lords, the boyars. In this struggle he found support among the inferior retainers who were wholly dependent

upon the prince. Even at the most critical times the inferior retainers rallied around Daniel Romanovich. The population of the rich cities also warmly supported the prince, for they too suffered from the feudal wars and the oppression of the feudal lords. A representative of the townsfolk, the captain of a troop of one hundred men named Mikula, the annals tell us, urged Daniel to exterminate the boyars completely, saying: ^‘You cannot eat the honey until you have killed the bees.”

Daniel finally established himself on Galich soil with the help of the military commonalty and the townspeople. The attempts of the bishop and the boyars to keep Daniel out of the city of Galich failed, for the people of the city rushed to meet their prince, as the annals say, ‘‘like children to their father, like bees to the queen bee, like thirsting people to a spring.” Daniers brother, Vasilko, who had shared with him his adversities and successes, became prince of Vol- hynia.

Daniel had to repel the invasions of the Hungarians several times. In 1249, when the Tatar-Mongolian yoke settled firmly over Rus, a combined army of Hungarians and Poles invaded the land of Galich. Daniel tore into the ranks of the Hungarians and was almost taken prisoner, but he escaped, charged the enemy again, and seized and tore the Hungarian banner into shreds. The Hungarians fied, soon to be followed by the Poles who had engaged Vasilko ’s troops.

The Hungarian king subsequently found it more to his profit to form an alliance with Daniel. The latter, in league with Hungary and Poland, fought against Czechia and Austria. DaniePs son was married to the niece of an Austrian duke, and Daniel hoped, in case of his victory, to place his son on the Austrian throne. How'ever, the dual campaign ended in failure. Daniel undertook several successful cam- paigns against the neighbouring Lithuanian tribes.

The Galich-Volhynbk principality acquired a prominent position in Europe. Daniel assumed the title of king. His coronation, however, had no tangible effect. Rus could not count upon the support of Gei- many and Rome in her struggle against the Tatars.

In the continuous struggle against foreign enemies and the boyais at home Daniel developed into a daring and brave prince who, howevei , was at times too much carried away by his love of military glory.

In the 13th century the Galich- Volhyn&k principality reached a nourishing state, A busy commerce with the Dnieper region and Western Europe stimulated the growth of cities with a multifarious population engaged in trade and crafts. Daniel invited settlers, in- cluding many craftsmen, to the city of Hholm, which was fortified according to the last word of Western European military science. In his struggle against the feudal lords Daniel found support among the city population. The foimdiDg of the city of Lwow— so named in honour of one of Daniel’s sons— also dates back to the 13th century. Lwow be^ came the chief city in the land of Galich.

Russian culture in the land of Galich-Volhynsk was of a high standard. A memorial of this culture are the Galich -Volhynsk annals, which are notable for their vivid artistic descriptions and which, in poetic quality, are at times reminiscent of The Lay of Prince Igor^e Regiment,

TTestern European culture found access to the land of Galich- Volhynsk through the latter’s trade relations with the countries of the West. The churches of Ivholm were ornamented in the Catholic style with sculptural figures and stained-glass windows.

The Principality of Rostov-Suzdal

Northeastern Rus

The powerful principality of Rostov-Suzdal, situated northeast of the land of Kiev, between the Volga and the Oka, was formed in the 12th century. The land here could not boast of its natural riches. The forests abounded in wild animals and bees, and the rivers teemed with fish, but the only large fertile plain was that along the Klyazma River.

Along the Oka and its tributary, the Moskva River, lived the Slavonic tribe of Vyatichi. The Slavonic population of this territory was augmented by the steady infiux of Smolensk Kriviohi and Ko^* gorod Slavs. The Slavonic city of Rostov is mentioned as early as the 10th century. Another very ancient Slavonic city was Suzdal. During the rule of Yaroslav the city of Yaroslavl was founded (11th century). The city of Vladimir was probably built during the rule of Vladimir Monomachus (12th cen- tury).

The neighbours of the Vyatichi were the Merya, Vesi and Mordvinians. The chief pursuits of these peoples were tree felling, hunting and collection of honey, and also agriculture. In the 12th cen- tury their clan system was already in a state of decay. A number of rich fami- lies came to the fore. The tribes were ruled by princes. For a long time heathen beliefs prevailed among the non-Russian population of the Oka and the Volga regions. As among the ancient Slavs the worship of trees, rocks and the waters was widespread. People believed in wood-goblins, water-goblins and other spirits. They had a strong belief in wizards.

The Russian feudal lords began to seize the land of the Merya and Vesi and, later, of the Mordvinians. The Rus- sian princes exacted tribute from the local population.

In the 12th century the boyars and church authorities both in the Rostov- Suzdal principality and in the Dnieper region appropriated the lands inhabited by Russian peasants and non-Russian peoples and reduced the population to bondage. The annals speak of the Rostov bishop, Fyodor, as follows: "‘Grievously did the people suffer at his hands; they were deprived of their villages and weapons and horses, while others he reduced to seiwitude, threw into prison and robbed.” By such means did the feudal lords increase their possessions in the land of Suzdal. The population between the Oka and the Volga was forcibly converted to Chribtianity.

An independent principality was formed on the land of R-ostov-

Suzdal in the first half of the 12th century. The lirat Rostov-Suzdal

prince was Yuri Dolgoruki, son of Vladimir Monomachus. Here he

seized laige domains and had no scruples about appropriating the patrimonies of the local boyars. Legend hab it that the village belonging to the boyar Kuehka stood on the pt’esent site of Moscow. Yuri took possession of this village. The princely demesne of Moscow arose on the banks of the Moskva River. It was here that Prince Yuri entertained his ally, the prince of Chernigov, in 1147. The estate being situated on the boundary between the land of Suzdal and Cher- nigov, Prince Yuri erected a wooden wall round Moscow, which he converted into a fortress (1156). Yuri Polgoruki was the most powerful of the Russian princes of those days. He fought successfully against the Volga Bulgars and brought Novgorod under his domination. He also succeeded in seizing Kiev, luri, who became the prince of Kiev, died in 1157.

Andrei Bogolyubski and the Struggle with the Boyars. During the reign of Yuri’s son, Andrei Bogolyubski (1157-1174) the land of Rostov-Suzdal became a separate feudal principality. Andrei sub- jected the neighbouring princes and made them his vassals. In 1169 his troops, operating jointly with the troops of other princes, his allies, took Kiev ^‘on the shield” stormed it). For three whole days they pillaged the ancient capital. The next year Andrei sent an army to reduce Novgorod. The people of Novgorod successfully repelled the attacks of the Suzdal army, which was compelled to raise the siege of the city and withdraw after suffering heavy losses. But Novgorod subsisted on grain that came from the land of Suzdal. Andrei stopped the delivery of grain to Novgorod, thereby forcing it to surrender. It was the events of 1169, when Kiev was taken and sacked, that marked its utter decline. On the other hand, the Suzdal city of Vladimir, which Andrei made the capital of his principality, acquired great importance.

Andrei built his capital with great splendour, inviting artists from Western Europe. The Uspensky Cathedral erected in Vladimir during his rule bears traces of the influence of western art. Bogolyu* bovo, the fortified estate of the prince, was situated near Vladimir. Here the grand prince spent the greater part of his time. It was from this that he received the name of Bogolyubski,

Uneasy over the might of the Rostov and Suzdal boyars, Andrei endeavoured to increase his power within his own principality. He banished the boyars and surroimded himself with people of humble origin. The commoners, or mizinniye (“small” people), who suffered greatly from the tyranny of the powerful feudal lords, supported Andrei. “It is better to walk about in bast shoes on the estate of the prince than in fine boots on the estate of the boyar,” one of them wrote later. The boyars retained their influence in Suzdal and Rostov. On the other hand, the craftsmen and inferior retainers who were loyal to the prince, were concentrated in Vladimir and the surround- ing cities. With the support of these retainers and the townsfolk, Andrei attempted to unite the separate Russian principalities, including Kiev and Novgorod, into a single state. But the absence of economic ties among the various regions of the land of Bus made this impossible.

Andrei’s ambition to concentrate all power in his own hands brought him into armed conflict with the poweiful feudal lords of Suzdal. In 1174 the boyars entered into a conspiracy which was headed by the Kuchkovichi, whose brother had been executed by the prince. The plotters stole into the palace at Bogolyubovo and assassinated Andrei. This murder served as the signal for an uprising of the masses in Bogolyubovo and Vladimir. The poor sections of the population hud suffered greatly at the hands of the prince’s underlings. They now took advantage of the absence of all authority in the city to wreak vengeance on their persecutors. The households of the prince’s servants were plun- dered and many of their owners were killed.

Consolidation of the Vladimir- Suzdal Principality

After And- rei’s death the Rostov and Suzdal boyars decided to secure their inde- pendence and, refusing to recognize Andrei’s brothers as princes, invited his nephews to rule over them. Andrei’s inferior letinue and the townspeople of Vladimir refused to submit to the boyars of Rostov and Suzdal. The boyars threatened: ‘TVe shall burn Vladimir or send down a posadnik (burgomaster) for they are our serf-masons.” But Vsevolod Yurievich, brother of Andrei Bogol 3 rubski, supported by his soldiers and the townspeople, defeated the powerful feudal lords and forced them to recognize him as their prince (1176-1212).

The Rostov-Suzdal principality came to be called the Vladimir principality after the new capital, Vladimir-on-the-Klyazma.

Vsevolod assumed the title of Grand Prince of Vladimir, and vigor- ously upheld the traditional seniority of the grand prince among the reigning princes. The Novgorodians were forced to accept his nephews and sons, whom he sent to them as their princes. The Smolensk princes were his ‘Vassals” and compliantly took part in the campaigns on which he sent them. Vsevolod seized the Ryazan princes and threw them into prison, placing his own son in power in Ryazan. When the populace attempted to oiffer resistance, Ryazan was ciuelly ravaged.

‘‘Grand Prince Vsevolod!” the author of The Lay ot Prince Igor's Regiment says in addressing the prince. “With the oars of thy boats thou canst scatter the waters of the Volga, and with the helmets of thy warriors — drain the Don.”

Vsevolod fought the Volga Bulgars on several occasions. He under- took a great campaign against the Polovtsi, and invaded their steppe- lands. Under Vsevolod friendly relations were established between the Vladimir principality and distant Georgia. Vsevolod employed Georgian craftsmen to build the Dmitrov Cathedral in ^ ladimir. Georgian annals speak of the might of the Grand Prince of Vladimir describing him as a man “whom 300 kings obey/'

Vsevolod treated the boyars with the same high hand as did his brother Andrei. ‘‘He even showed no respect for the powerful boyars," the chronicler writes.

Vsevolod is known as BoLkoye Gnezdo (the “Large Nest”) because he had so many sons. After Vsevolod’s death each of his sons received an appanage in the principality of Vladimir. As time went on, these portions of land were divided up more and more. After separating from Kiev Bus, the land of Viadimir-Suzdal was broken up into a number of petty principalities. Under Vsevolod’s sons it was split into five parts and under his grandsons, into twelve. The oldest member of the prince’s family received the principal city of Vladimir and the title “Grand Prince of Vladimir."

The Conquest of the Mordvinian Lands

Russian feudalism expanded and absorbed the lands of non-Russian peoples. After Vse- volod’s death the Vladimir princes continued their conquest of the peoples living along the Oka and the Middle Volga. The Mordvinians retained their independence for a long time. In 1221 Vsevolod’s son, the Grand Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich, built a fortress on the site of a small Mordvinian town, at the confluence of the Oka and Volga; this fortress was named Nizhni Novgorod (now the city of Gorily); from here the Russian princes launched their raids on Mord- vinian territory. The Mordvinians defended themselves stubbornly. Their prince, Purgas, indicted many defeats on the Russian princes, and even attacked Nizhni Novgorod and burned its suburbs, but he was unable to capture the fortress. The Russian feudal lords visited savage reprisals upon the insubordinate Mordvinian people.

The Land of Novgorod

Great Novgorod and Its Domains

The land of Novgorod, in the north, stood apart from the Kiev principality in the 12th century.

Novgorod, situated on both banks of the River Volkhov at the point where it issues from Lake Ilmen, was one of the most ancient of Slavonic cities. On the eastern Torgovaya (trading) side were the mait and the square where the veche used to meet. This part of the city was chie3y inhabited by tradesmen, craftsmen and labourers. On the western, Sofiiskaya side stood a fort containing the St. Sophia Cathedral, where the Novgorod bishop had his residence. Near Nov- gorod began the land of Novgorod proper, which extended to lakes Onega and Ladoga and to the shores of the Gulf of Finland. Here were located the vast demesnes of the Novgorod boyars and the church.

Further stretched the extensive colonial possessions of Xo\"gorod, a territory that covered the entire north of our coimtry as far as the Ural Mountains. The Novgorod feudal lords collected tribute in the form of furs and silver from the peoples inhabiting the coast.

The land of Novgorod was not very feitile. Its people were depend- ent upon Suzdal for their corn supply. But the Northern Pomorye (maritime country) which was rich in fur-bearing animals ^ was a veritable gold mine to the Novgorod boyars. It was connected by river routes both with the Baltic Sea and with the most impoitant Bussian cities. Owing to its geographical position Novgorod was a natural medium of trade between Europe and Bus. German and Swed- ish merchants, at great profit to themselves, exported clolhs and other fabrics, as well as metallic wares to Bus and imported from Novgorod furs and raw materials such as flax and hemp. Begularly twice a year caravans of German “guests,” as the merchants were called, arrived in Novgorod: “summer guests” came by the water route up the Neva; “winter guests”— by sleigh through Livonia. Two inns were built for the visiting “Grerman” and “Goth” guests (the latter meaning merchants from the Swedish island of Gothland)— a “German” inn and a “Goth” inn. The German cities of the Baltic that traded with the countries of Northern Europe and in particular with Novgorod, formed a confederacy which later, in the 14th centmy^ became known as the Hanse (BCanseatic League), Novgorod merchants acted as Ihe inlermediarics in the foreign trade with Eastern Europe, reselling the articles of foreign craftsmen and similar ‘‘German” goods to other Bussian principalities.

Conquest of the Northern Peoples

At that time the ISTentsi, a people Trhom the XoTgorodians called Samoyedes, roamed the tun- dra 'seaboard of the Arctic Ocean. The main pursuit of these people ■was deer-breeding, while tiapping water-fowl and polar fox provided an additional means of subsistence. The Nentsi lived in clans, in which the head-man was also the shaman, i.e., the priest. The Nentsi were a supcrstilious people who believed in tbe power of their shamans.

South of the tundra, in the taiga, lived tribes of hunters— the Komi. The people living along the Vychegda Pviver (a tributary of the Northern Dvina) were called Zyryane by the Bussians, and those inhabiting the upper reaches of the Kama were known as the Permi (Perniiaks).

On the slopes of the Northern Urals lived peoples whom the Novgo- rodians called the Yugra. They applied this name to the people known today as Mansi (Voguls) and the Khanti (Ostiaks). Their land was famous for its wealth of fur-bearing animals. The Novgorod people used to say that tiny squirrels and deer fell from the clouds in that country instead of rain, and that they then grew up and scattered in all directions. The Ural peoples also mined silver.

The Novgorod boyars formed detachments of the Novgoiod poor and their ovm serfs, equipped them at their own expense, and sent them on marauding expeditions to the northern lands. These detach- ments sailed up the rivers in barks called ushhui^ the members of these detachments being called ushhuiniki. The ushkuinihi would swoop down on the dwellers of the north, rob them, take away their furs, and carry off their women and children, whom they sold into slavery. By such means the Novgorod boyars subjugated the peoples of the north and made them pay tribute in furs to Novgorod.

The peoples of the north frequently tried to rebel. In 1187 the Yugra (a Ural-Altaic tribe) slew the Novgorod tribute collectors. Several years later a large punitive force was sent from Novgorod to subdue the land of Yugra, The Yugra prince intrenched himself in his stronghold, and to gain time sent a message to the Novgorod waywode: “We are saving up money and sables and other goods to pay tribute. Do not ruin your subjects!” Novgorod agreed to wait; meanwhile the tribesmen of the Yugra prince began to rally around him in his stronghold. Aided and abetted by certain Novgorod traitors the prince of Yugra inveigled the Novgorod captains into his townlet, ostensibly for the purpose of negotiating with them, and murdered tliem. Tile remnants of the Novgorod troops made their way back to Novgorod with difficulty. The Yugra, however, were unable to maintain their independence; other Novgorod detachments arrived and once more forced them to pay tribute. ‘‘Sovereign Great Novgorod” (Gospoditi Veliki Novgorod) grew prosperous and powerful on its colonial tribute.

The Social System of Novgorod

The Novgorod boyars seized the best lands in Novgorod and the conquered regions, which they cultivated with the labour of their own serfs and peasants. The latter were obliged to deliver to the boyars a considerable part- of their crops (as much as half — polovina — from which they received their name polovnihi). The boyars exercised their power to prevent the polomiiki from quitting their estates and delivered the products of their hunting, fishing and agriculture on credit to the rich Novgorod merchants who sold these products abroad. The petty tradesmen were dependent upon the rich merchants. The crafts were well developed in Novgorod, but the craftsmen also fell into the servitude of the boyars and merchants. The poor were hired to load goods and to row boats.

Thus all the fruits of colonial conquest were reaped by the boyars and the merchants. The latter exploited the poor Novgorod populace — the cliorhif/e (“black people”) — as the commoners were called. The craftsmen and petty tradesmen were in debt to the boyars and meichants. The cruel exploitation to which the clionuye were subjected often led to violent rebellions against the .ruling classes.

The Prince and the Veche in Novgorod

The wealth of the upper stratum of Novgorod society contributed to the strengthening of its political power. The Novgorod boyars and merchants greatly restricted the power of the Novgorod prince. The Novgorod veche was more powerful and influential than that in other cities, but its masters were the boyars, who man- aged all affairs. In the first quarter of the 12th century the Novgorod veche ^ controlled by the boyars, contrived to have all the chief offi- cials elected from among the Nov- gorod boj^ars. Important conces- sions like this the people of Nov- gorod wrung from the princes by force. Open rebellion broke out in Novgorod in 1136, during the reign of Vladimir Monomachus’ grand- son, Vsevolod Mstislavich. Many accusations were levelled at the prince; he was criticized for not showing any concern about the peasants, and for being the first to flee from the field in time of war. The boyars held Vsevolod and his family in custody for two months, after which he was allowed to leave Novgorod. Beginning with thaj^ period the power of the Novgorod boyars greatly increased. However, the Novgorodians could not get along without a prince. Novgorod needed a prince and his retinue as a military force which it could rely on in its struggle against external enemies. But every time a prince came in condict with the "will of Novgorod” the burghers "bowed him out,” that is, they banished him and invited a new more accept- able candidate in his stead.

The Vladimir grand princes often attempted to bring Novgorod under their sway, but the Novgorodians stood their ground and did not yield their independence. Yaroslav, the son of Grand Prince Vse- volod Yurievich, encroached on the rights of the Novgorod boyars, and their indignation was so great that he had to leave the city in 1216. An early frost that year ruined the crops in Novgorod land. The road from Suzdal was held by Yaroslav who did not allow a sin- gle waggon of corn to enter the city. Soon famine set in. The people of Novgorod rallied an army under the leadership of the prince of Toropets, Mstislav Udaloi (the Bold). Yaroslav leagued himself with his brother, the Grand Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich of Vladimir and retreated to the land of Suzdal. A pitched battle took place on the Lipitsa Biver. The men of Novgorod, following an ancient custom, dismounted from their horses, removed all their superfluous clothing and their footwear, and rushing barefooted at the enemy, pressed the Suzdal troops hard. At a de- cisive moment Prince Mstislav and his retinue joined the fight and thrice breached the enemy’s lines.

The Suzdal soldiers quickly took to their heels.

The battle of Lipitsa ensured to the Novgorod people the preser- vation of their “liberties.” Every new prince invited to Novgorod was compelled to sign a ryad or contract binding himself to comply will ti. Novgorod .jotemo(r.lf-

government. The pnnoe hed no o< the Belli. olLlpit™.

right to impose new taxes or acquire 1 8 th eontury.

lands. The government of Novgorod Oruzheinaya PalatUy Moscow

and its region was entrusted to persons elected by the Novgorodians

themselves, and the prince could not dismiss them “without fault.” The prince’s military retinue was not admitted to participation in the administration.

The veche elected a posadiiih (a burgomaster or city magistrate) from among the Novgorod boyars to administer the affairs of the city. Without him the prince had no right to administer justice or decide important questions. To assist the burgomaster a »is7ja ski vas elected who was in command of the Novgorod popular levy and v as also the arbiter in trading affairs. Even the office of bishop of Nov- gorod was elective. It was not the prince but the buigonianor and the tisya ski who actually governed the city.

The veche was the supreme authority in Novgoiod. It invited princes to come and rule, banished them, elected officials and admin- istered justice. The veche assembled at the ringing of the veche bell. It sometimes happened that veche meetings were held oimuLancoubly on the Toigovaya and the Sofiiskaya sides and contradict ojy decisions would be taken by them. Clashes between the two veches usuaPy oc- curred on the Volkhov Bridge.

The veche was a peculiar form of medieval demociacy. “Soveieign Great Novgorod” was the first ancient Russian lepubhc, ailhough a feudal republic. The veche, however, did not lefleot the of the masses of the Novgorod population, being entirely coiitiulied by the boyar feudal lords and, to some extent, the rich mei chants.

By means of biibes and baits the boyars created a taction of “rowdies’^ with whose help they dominated the vcc^e. Eiich land- holders and the merchants held all the power in their hands and reduced the authority of the prince to nought. The toiling people of Novgorod were in vir- tual bondage to the boyars. At times the Novgorod poor would rise against their oppressors — the boyars.

Novgorod Culture

Evi- dences of the rich medieval cul- ture of Novgorod are to be found in the handsome buildings erect- ed by its princes, boyars and merchants, some of which still survive. One of the most remark- able monuments of the 12th century was the Nereditsa Church, with its magnificent mural paintings recently destioyed by the fascist barbarians. The art of winting flourished in Novgorod, Here, as early as the 11th century, an attempt was made to compile annals similar to the chronicles of Kiev. From the end of the 11th century such annals were kept in Novgorod, and the most important events in the city were recorded in them.

Beminiscences of Novgorod’s ancient splendour survive in the legend of Sadko, the “rich guest” (merchant) and Vasili Buslayev. The former tells of the rich trade and the journeys across the seas made by Novgorod merchants; the latter --about the tuibulent con- flicts in the veche,

Pskov

Of the minor cities subordinate to Novgorod, the city of Pskov became the most powerful in the 12th century. Active trade was carried on between Pskov and the cities of the Baltic. This trade enriched the Pskov boyars and merchants and enhanced their power. Gradually they won their complete independence from Nov- gorod.

Novgorod and Pskov with their system of self-government resembled the ^Tree cities” of Western Europe, However, there was an essential difference. In Western European cities the power was entirely in the hands of the merchants and the owners of large workshops, whereas in Novgorod and Pskov, who derived their wealth from extensive domains in the Maritime Begion, the power belonged to the feudal lords— ilie boyars and the church, the rich merchants enjoying only a limited share of the authority.

Transcaucasia and Central Asia in the 11th–12th Centuries

Georgia in the 11th and 12th Centuries

Tianscaucasia main- tained regular relations with Kiev Rus in the Ifllh centuiy,

Georgia, where feudal relations weie more developed than in Kiev Rus, became very strong in the 12th century. The Georgian feudal lords seized the peasants’ community lands and reduced the peasants themselves to serfdom. They built castles in the mountains and estab- lished a tyrannical rule over the peasants. The revolts of the peasants against their oppressors were crushed by armed force; "the people*’ —as a monk chronicler puts it— "were filled with fear of their lords/' Free peasant communities continued to exist only in the inaccessible moun- tain region.

The enhancement of the king’s power, which began to take place in Geoigia in the 10th century, was resisted by the great feudal lords, who endeavoured to preserve their independence. The kings weie sup- ported by the petty feudal lords and the merchants, the former needing a strong monarch to keep the peasants in subordination, while to the inei chants a united Georgia meant unhampered possibilities of trade.

The imification of Georgia was hindered by incursions of the Tuikoman-Seljuks, a people from the Central Asiatic steppes under the leadership of sidtans (sovereigns) of the Seljuk family (whence their name). The Seljuks conquered Persia, Iraq and part of Asia Minor.

The first devastating invasion of the Seljuks in Tran&caueasia (Armenia) occurred in 1048-1049. Beginning with the sixties of the lith century; Georgia became the object of continuous invasions by the Seljuks. It was then that Tbilisi was captured. "The Tuikomans spread over the country like locusts,” an evewitnesrs relates. "They plundered the people and turned them into slaves. They remained here till the fiiat snowfcil, eating the people out of house and home and putting to die sword all tho*e who tiled to seek refuge in the mountains, foiests and caves. Those tv"ho hid in the castles perished fiom cold and hunger. With the return of spiing the Tuikomans came again, Ko one in the land sowed or leaped a harvest* only wild beasts roamed where once people lived. Dwellings were dcstioyed by fire; the rivers ran red with the blood of men.*’

To effectively combat the invasions of the Seljuks, a stiong state powet was needed, capable of uniting the isolated feudal domains. ThU ^’^eci’iie pos":ible under the Georgian king, Da^ld the Renovator (1089-1125). David fought against the feudal lords, who made several attempts on his life. He created a strong army, organized a guards unit of five thousand men; besides this, he brought over 40,000 Polo* vtsi from the Kuban steppes of whom he formed a regular army. He also subjugated the Caucasian hillmen.

After uniting Georgia, David made war on the Seljuks, whom he drove out of his domains. In 1122 he liberated Tbilisi. David began to extend his power over the neighbouring lands as well: he conquered Azerbaijan, and undeiiiook an expedition to Armenia, whither he was called in by the native Armenian population, who looked upon the Geor- gians as their liberators from the yoke of the Seljuks and other alien princes.

David centralized the administration of Georgia. The country was divided into regions under the administration of governors. A code of laws was issued. David appointed and dismissed bishops. Gradually peace set in in Georgia. Commerce revived. Many craftsmen were invit- ed from Armenia, The silk fabrics of Georgia won fame far beyond the borders of the land. They were exported even to Constantinople. David built new cities, including the city of Gori. He renovated bridges and aqueducts and erectedpalaces and other buildings. For these activ- ities he was surnamed the Renovator. Georgian chronicles describe David in the following words: "He rose above all the kings of the earth; in his left hand he held the sea; his right hand rested on the rivers. In battle he was like a lion.”

David’s successors extended their domains in Armenia to Erzemm. Feudal Georgia acquired exceptional splendour under Queen Tamara (1184-1213). She waged war against the feudal lords and maintained power only by making consideiable concessions to the most poweiful of them, promising to rule the country jointly with a council of lead- ing feudal lords.

At that time Geoigia occupied a vast territory from the Black Sea to the Caspian, and from the Caucasian Mountain Range to Erzerum. Under Tamara several Persian regions were annexed to Georgia. The country played an important role among the states of Eastern Europe and Asia. It also established ties with Suzdal Rus.

The Poet Shot’ha Rust’hveli

Georgian culture in the reign of Tamara was in a flourishing state. This was in great measure due to Gergia’s position at the intersection of busy trade routes joining the countries of the west and the east. Here the cultural influences of Asia Minor, Persia and Byzantium met. Young Georgian feudal lords went to Constantinople to study. Georgian architecture reflected the influence of Byzantium, Georgian literatuie that of Persia. From the Arabs came a knowledge of medicine and astronomy. Thus a Georgian native culture was created, which, in its turn, influenced the neigh- bouring countries, in particular Russian culture. Education in Georgia in tile 12t]i century made great strides with the opening of schools and the growth of literature. Tamara surrounded herself with pi^ets. Foremost among them was the great Georgian poet, Shot’ha JRust'hveli. His famous poem, Knight in the Tiger*3 Skin, is of world signidcanee, being the first and earliest work of the Renaissance.

Shot’ha Rust’hveli was educated in Greece and was one of the most enlightened feudal lords of Georgia. He served at the court of Queen Tamara and was an ardent supporter of a stiong monarchy. According to legend he greatly aided Tamara in her struggle against uniuly vas- sals, thereby incurring the hatred of the nobiljty and eventually being forced to withdraw into exile. His poem, written at the end of the 12th century, is dedicated to Tamara.

Ruist’hveli drew upon Georgian folk poetry for his inspiration. His poem reflects the age-old heroic struggle of the Georgian people for their independence against the Persians, Byzantines, Arabs, Seljuts,

and other peoples.

No! The sons of alien Persia Never our sovereign lords shall be!

the heroine of the poem exclaims. Rustaveli lauded the deeds of chival-

ry of the Georgian Imights who fought for their country’s independence,

and sang of intrepidity and defiance of death.

Better death, but death with glory. Than inglorious days of shame.

Realizing the necessity of unity in the struggle, Rustaveli ex-

tolled friendship and brotherhood among the warriors.

He who friendship shuns with near ones.

Is his own most hitter foe.

He that shall deser a comrade.

He will taste the dregs of woe,

A vehement opponent of feudal discord Rust’hveli called upon the

people to support the royal power. At the same time he championed the cause of the exploited classes in their struggle against the tyranny of the feudal lords. One of his heroes orders the following disp jsition to be made of his wealth:

Give unto the weak and hornet ess.

And the slaves do thou make free,

Orphans feed, provide with plenty.

Help thejpoor that they may prosper

And by folk wlwm 1 do shelter

E’er my praises sung shall be.

Hu-Jt’hreli’s poeiQ lias been translated into all the principal lan-

guages and, as a great work of art, will ever evoke universal admiration.

Armenia in the 11th and 12th Centuries

In the 11th and 12th centuries the feudal order in Armenia, as in Georgia, was in full fiower. Va-^t demesnes were concentrated iuthe hands of the Armenian clergy and nobility. His contemporaries wrote of an Armenian bishop that he daily sent out 800 ploughs with six oxen each to till the soil. The peasants were made serfs and worked under the corvee.

The lOlh century saw the beginning of Armenia’s break-up into several independent feudal principalities. The Byzantine empire took this opportunity to seize one principality after another, until, in the first half of the ] 1th, century, it had annexed the whole of Armenia. When, however, Armenia was exposed to the attacks of the Seljuks, the B3'zantine government was unable to defend it. In 1064 the Seljuks took Ani. A Byzantine army that attempted to recover Armenia for Byzantium was defeated and the emperor taken prisoner. The Seljuk invasion seriously affected the population. The people were impov- erished and the country laid waste.

Small feudal estates remained intact only in the mountainous districts, whither the impoverished population sought refuge; heie, too, Led the ruined feudal lords. Uniting under the leadership of the feudal lords, groups of Armenian warriors continued their struggle against the foreign enemy. For a long time the "sons of Armenia, the heroic defenders of their motherland,” as Stalin expressed it, valiantly defended their mountain fastnesses and gorges. The mountainous dis- trict of Sasun defended its independence longer than all the others.

Despite Armenia ’s ruthless devastation by the Seljuks, its cultural life did not die out. On the contrary, Armenian culture exercised no little infiuence on the neighbouring countries.

Azerbaijan in the 11th and 12th Centuries

The region of Shirvan in the northern part of Azerbaijan, contiguous with Georgia, was occupied by the feudal kingdom of the Shirvan shahs (or kings) in the 11th and 12th centuries. In the last quarter of the 11th century the Seljuks forced the Shirvan shahs to pay tribute to them but did not inteifere in the domestic affairs of the country. The Georgian king, David the Benovator, marched against Shirvan; since then the Shirvan shahs became the vassals of Georgia and entered into a military alli- ance with her. This alliance resulted not merely from Georgia’s vic- tory, but from the close commercial ties between the two countries and their need for union in order to defend themselves against their common external enemies.

An important trade centre of Azerbaijan was tlie city of Derbent , situated on a narrow strip between the Caucasian ]kLouiitaiu Range and the Caspian Sea* Intercourse with the Northern Caucasus and Bub was maintained through this pass. The Derbent Pass was pro* tected by strong walls. The city of Shemakha was an important centre for silk production and silk trade.

The 11th century saw the final process in the foundation of an Azerbaijan nation formed by intermarriage of the local Albanian tribes with the Polovtsi from the north, and the Tmkomans from the south, A large section of the Albanians adopted the Moslem faith. Those who preserved Christianity merged with the Armenians.

Her Persian neighbour exercised a great influence on the culture of Azerbaijan, where the feudal lords spoke the Persian tongue and everything was written in that language. But the Azerbaijan people also contributed much of their own to Persian culture. There were two remarkable Azerbaijan poets: Nizami and Ehakani, contemporaries of Shot ’ha Rust’hveli.

Like Rustaveli, Nizami sang of chivalry and deeds of valour. He borrowed his themes from legends about Alexander the Great and the ancient Persian kings. His poem about Alexander the Great, filled with fantastic, fabulous description, mentions the war which Alexander is alleged to have waged against the Bus, and is probably a reminiscence of the Bus expeditions to the Caspian Sea in the lOlh century. Khakani, the son of a carpenter and a Christian female slave, was a brilliant lyric poet; he wrote beautiful love poems and odes, but his masteipiece is the Prison Elegy, written by him in prison, where he was thrown by order of the Shirvan shah, into whose dis- favour he had fallen.

Nizami and Kkakani wrote in the Persian language, although they were native Azerbaijans, They did much to perfect the literary language of Persia. Their woik^was considerably influenced by Azer- baijan’s cultural intercourse with Geoigia.

Central Asia from the 10th to the Beginning of the 13th Centuries

At the end of the 10th century the state of the Samanids was destroyed by the nomavlic Tuikic tribes. The Turkomans mingled with the indigenous population, who adopted the Tuikic language and, to some extent, Tuikic customs. During the first half of the 12th century, the Kara-Kilais, a numerous nomadic people with as many as 40,000 hihiikas, invaded Central Asia from the east and chose the valley of the Chu River for their pastoral pursuits. The dependence of the indigenous population inhabiting the region between the Amu Darya and Syr Darya riverb upon the Kara-Kitais was confined to the payment of tribute.

Klioiesm formed an independent state Its rulers, the Khoresm shahs, succeeded in defending their independence against the Kara- Kitais Khoresm was attacked on the west by the Tuikoman-Seljuks, but the latter weie defeated Under Shah Mukhammed (1200-1220) the legion between the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya and Noithem and Edstein Persia were incorporated in Khoresm, which at that time was a great political power in Asia and culturally far superior to many European states.

Mongol Conquests in the 13th Century

The Empire of Genghis Khan

The Social System of the Mongols in the 12th and the Beginning of the 13th Centuries

Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia and Central Asia were conquered by the Mongols in the 13th century. The Mongols inhabited the steppes of Central Asia, north of China. They were a pa&toial people whose chief pursuit was primitive, no- madic heiding, A subsidiary means of livelihood was hunting wild fowl by beating up the game from cover (battue). The Mongols did not cultnate corn and raiely used it. The necessity of feeding a large numbei of livestock compelled the Mongols to roam from place to place in search of good and abundant fodder. The Mongols lived in felt lihitkaa or tents, which were placed on ox-drawn waggons and used as movable habitations. The women lit fires in the tents and cooked the food, an opening at the lop of the tent providing an exit for the smoke. From a distance it looked as though an entije city was m motion.

At first the Mongols roamed in clans The livestock belonged to the entire clan and was grazed jointly. Several clans living together formed a ^^hoide” or tribe. Gradually private ownership of h\estock and pastuie land developed among the Mongols and inequality ap- peared among the members of the horde To wage wai the tribe elect- ed chieftains, or boghaturs as they were called Large detachments of warriois lallied about a brave and rich hoghatur. The military chieftains fiequently seized the power in their native tnbes and became khans. Thus the khans, their clansmen and warriors came to own large numbeis of cattle and slaves The poor Mongols had to work foi the khans and their suite, they shepheided the heids made kumiss (an intoxicating liquoi made from mare’s milk), sheared the sheep, fulled felt, etc

As the exploitation of the masses of this nomadic society inci eased, the Mongol khans developed into feudal lords similar to the landowners in Western Europe and Rus. The khans owned the pasture lands and large herds. Their own tribesmen became their bondsmen, o\er whom the khans maintained their power with the aid of their retinues The Empire of Genghis Khan. Yesukai, whose clan roamed the steppes of Eastern Tiansbaikal, was one of the most outstanding Mongol chieftains in the 12th century. He fell in battle again&t a neighbouring people, the Tatars. After his death his son, Temuehin, then a minor, was imable to retain the power Even his nearest clansmen deserted him. But when he grew older his daring drew many wainors to him He became the chief of a small but fearle:s3 group of wainors. With the help of one of the neighbouring khans the young Temuohm routed the Tatars, exterminated almost all the men, and spared only the young, who weie ‘'no higher than the linchpin of a cait”, the women and children were made slaves. Subsequently the neigh- bouring tubes attached the name of Tatars to the people of Genghis Khan and called them indiscriminately both Tatars and Mongols. After hib victory over the Tatars Temuehin began to extend his power over other tribes. In 1206 a council of Mongol feudal lords, the kurultaii proclaimed Tomuchin the supreme khan of all the Mongols. Temuchin adopted the name and title of Genghis Khan. He ruled over a groat empire of Mongol, Tuikic and Manchurian tribes.

Genghis Khan’s state was not united. All the members of the house of Genghis Khan received spe- cial domains. Genghis Khan either left the tribes he subjugated under the power of th'eir own princes or subordinated them to his warriors. Each domain had to send a definite number of warriors to Genghis Khan. These domains were named after the number of men in the re- spective levies, forming units of a hundred, a thousand, and ten thou- sand men. The vassals were named accordingly. The chiefs of a troop of a thousand and ten thousand ruled over the lesser feudal lords. In spite of the fact that his empire was split into so many parts Genghis Khan firmly held supreme state power in his hands. He formed a well-organized bodyguard which served as his mainstay. He had an excellent ai*my with an amazingly efficient military organization. The troops went into battle in for- mations of thousands, himdreds and tens, under the leadership of their respective commanders. The main force was the cavalry, armed with bows and arrows. The Mongols learned the art of warfare from the Chinese. When besieging cities they used missile engines, incen- diary projectiles and battering-rams to break down walls.

The empire created by Genghis Khan was a military empire whose chief aim was war and conquests. ‘"The wealth of the neighbours/’ Engels wrote, “excited the greed of the peoples who began to regard the acquisition of wealth as one of the main purposes of life. They were barbarians: plunder appeared to them easier and even more honourable than production. War, once waged simply to avenge aggression or as a means of enlarging territory that had become re- stricted, was now waged for the sake of plunder alone, and became a regular profession.” ^

The Conquest of Central Asia

Ha\ing united tlie nomad ii foes. Genghis Khan set about conquering the neighbouring countries, in TL207 Juji, the son of Genghis Khan, subjugated the peoples ol Soulheiu Siberia— the Turkic tribe of Kirghiz on the Upper Yenisei, the Islo^-gol tribe of Buryats on Lake Baikal, and others. The conquet-t of China was begun in 1211, followed after several years by Ihe invadon of Central Asia. This brought the Mongols into conflict with ihe Khoio^m shah, Mukhammed, who, however, was unable to offer effect ire ance to the Mongols, because his kingdom was lorn by inttr.’al di^- lurbances. The heterogeneous tribes of which his kingdom \v\ls made up were at war with each other. The military chiefs, regional goveTUoT.-, and representatives of the higher clergy, alarmed at the prospect of losing their feudal possessions, betrayed their country wherever pos- sible and treacherously surrendered cities to Genghis Khan. After his first defeat Mukhammed tied from Khoresm and died on an island in the Caspian Sea, Left to the mercy of fate, Khoresm, despite the desperate resiotance of its inhabitants, fell a prey to the conquerors. Samarkand, Bokhara and other cities were taken by the Mongols and subjected to temble devastation. The country was ruthle>sly ravaged. The large Murghab dam was wrecked, with the result that the city of Merv was completely destroyed. The entire kingdom of Mukhaumied passed into the hands of Genghis Kkan, who also bectune ruler o^ er a considerable pail of Persia.

The Invasion of Transcaucasia and the Black Sea Steppes

The Mongol hosts, under the leadership of Genghis Khan’s chieftains, next set out to conquer Transcaucasia and the Caucasus. They ravaged Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia and invaded the steppes of the Polovtsi, whose khans appealed to the Russian princes for aid. ‘'IX you do not help us,” their envoys said, “we will be slain today, and you — ^tomorrow.”

In 1223 the Russian princes, with the Kiev prince at their head, marched out to the steppes to meet the Tatars, as the Russians called the Mongols. The Tatars started to retreat, thus luring the Russian troops deeper into the steppe. The Russians and the Poluvt^si went as far as the Kalka River, which flows into the Azov Sea. Theie was no concord among the Russian princes. The hravebt of them., M-t *slav the Bold, with several young princes and the Polovti?i. engaged the Tatars without warning the other princes. A pitched battle took place in which the Russians were gaming the upper hand-. Daniel Roniono- vich of Galich, at that time still quite a youth, especially distinguished himself. He was womided, but in the heat of battle was not even aware of it. The Polovtsi, however, were unable to Wkthbtand a charge of the Tatars and fled, throwing the Russian ranks into confusion. The Russians were utterly defeated. Mstislav and Daniel barely man- aged to escape. Meanwhile, the Kiev and other princes who had not participated in the battle, stood encamped on a nearby bill and made 2no attempt to join the action although they saw the disastrous turn of afFaIrs. The Tatars attacked them too. The Russians stood their ground for three days but were finally compelled to surrender. The princes were promised their lives but the promise was not kept —they were murdered. After their victory on the Kalka the Mongols ad- vanced to the Volga and attacked the Volga Bulgars. Here, however, they encountered failure and retired to Mongolia across the Kazakh steppes. Genghis Khan continued his war against China. He subjugated the land of Tangut (in Southern Mongolia).

Thus a strong military power came into existence in the Mon- golian steppes. The seizure of civilized countries essentially influenced the life and empire-building activities of the Mongols, especially in the case of China. Genghis Edian employed the services of Chinese officials for improving the organization and government of his vast empire.

The Conquest of Eastern Europe

Conquest of Russian Lands by the Mongols

Genghis Khan died in 1227 at a venerable age. At the time of his death his empire con- sisted of Mongolia proper, Northern China, Southern Siberia, Central Asia and Transcaucasia.

After Genghis Khan’s death his empire was split into several large dominions called which were divided among his sons and grandsons. Ogdai, the third son of Genghis Khian, was recognized as his successor, the "Grand Khan.” He was given Mongolia and Northern China. The other members of Genghis KJian’s family were subordinate to Ogdai. Genghis Ejhan’s second son, Chagatai, received Central Asia east of Khoresm, that is, present-day Uzbekistan, Tajiki- stan and part of Kazakhstan. His dominions came to be called the Chagatai ulus, Amother large Mongolian state on' the territory of present-day U.S.S.R. was that of the Golden Horde, founded by Genghis Ethan’s grandson, 'Batu. To Batu’s share fell all the lands west of the Irtysh "where only the hoofs of Mongolian horses have trodden.” Batu marched out to conquer western lands. In 1236 his horde crossed the Ural River (the Yaik), invaded the land of the Volga Bulgars and mercilessly ravaged it.

The next year the Tatars invaded the Ryazan principality. Divided as it was into a number of independent principalities, Northeastern Bus was powerless against the Tatar hordes. The princes failed to unite in their struggle against the common foe. The Grand Prince of Vladimir, Yuri Vsevolodovich (son of Vsevolod the "Large Nest”), refused to help the Kyazan princes, Ryazan was captured and razed to the ground. The Tatars destroyed Vladimir and overran the neighbouring prin- cipalities, ^'mowing the people down like grass.” In one month they took and burnt 14 towns including Moscow.

Yuri Vsevolodovich, the Grand Prince of Vladimir, and his troops were encamped north of the Volga ona vast field near the Sit River, a tributary of theMologa.The Tatars surround- ed and defeated the Russian army (1238), the grand prince falling in the battle. Batu wanted to march farther north to the land of Novgorod, but the city being well protected by impassable forests and swamps, he turned to the Volga steppes.

On the way south he encountered serious resistance on the part of the city of Kozelsk (on the Zhiz- dra River). It defended itself desperately for seven weeks, for which the Tatars named it the *‘city of fury.” After reducing the Polovtsi and conqueiing the Crimea, Batu in 1240 advanced against Kiev and besieged the city. The in- habitants of Kiev defended the city manfully. So deafening was the noise of creaking caits. the braying of camels, and the neighing of horses that people could not hear each other. The Tatars u-ed battering- rams day and night until they finally beat down the walls of the be- sieged city. Even then the people of Kiev continued to fight in the breach. Forced to retreat, they erected a palisade in the centre of the city during the night, and the following morning the Tatars had to storm this foitification as well.

After taking Kiev the Tatars invaded the principality of Galich- Volhynsk. Vladimir, Galich and other cities were captured. The Tatar hordes next laid waste to Poland. Batu himself went into Huiigary, routed the troops of the Hungarian king and moved on to Czechia, but the resistance he encountered here was so great that he was forced to return to the Volga steppes. Batu set up his headquarters near the mouth of the Volga.

The memory of the Russian people heroic struggle against the Tatars still lives in legend. The hero oi one of these epics, Ilya of

Murom, delivered Kiev from the Tatars who were besieging it:

He fought fiercely^ Ms sword smote them —

The Tatars of strength were bereft;

In swamps sank they^ in deep rivers —

Their camps and their plunder they left.

The Tatar Yoke

Batu’s empire was called the "^Golden Horde,” that is, the golden tribe. Gradually the Tatars (Mongols) were as- similated by the Polovtsi,from whom they adopted the Turkic tongue and with whom they formed one common Turkic -speaking horde. The Russian princes agreed to pay tribute to the Tatars and to send them troops. Batu gi'anted the princes letters of investiture called yarlyhi^ entitling them to the possession of a principality. Yaroslav Vsevo- lodovich, the brother of Prince Yuri who had been killed on the Sit River, had the right through primogeniture, to the title of grand prince, and Batu recognized him as the Grand ftince of Vladimir. Other princes who submitted to the Tatars also remained at the head of their princedoms. Their visits to Batu at the Horde were attended by hu- miliating ceremonies. Before entering the khan's tent, the princes had to pass between two bonfires. The Tatars considered that the fire cleansed those going to the khan of all wicked designs. If a prince re- fused to perform this rite he was killed as a malefactor (such was the fate of Prince Mikhail of Chernigov). Upon entering the khan's tent the prince had to bow to the gromid before the khan and to remain on his knees throughout the reception.

Batu appointed governors, haslcahi, to the principal Russian cities who oppressed the population with their heavy extortions and plunder.

The Grand Khan Ogdai had a census taken of the population in all the lands subject to the Mongols, on the basis of which still greater tribute was exacted from the Russian lands. ‘‘Whoever does not pay,” says a contemporary, “is led off to the Tatars, where he remains in slavery,” The Tatar tribute-gatherers and their servants demanded gifts for themselves, besides which the population had to bear the expense of their upkeep.

According to a folk song, there was no mercy even for the poorest

of the poor. The collector took tribute from all:

If a man doth money loch.

From him his child they take.

If a man doth children lack,

From Mm Ms wife they take.

And if a man doth heljmate lack.

From him his mry self they take.

Only the princes and the clergy were exempt from such exactions.

Kevolts broke out against the Tatars in many Russian cities which were burdened by these tributes, but many Russian princes, fearing to lose their principalities, helped the Tatars to suppress these rebellions.

Novgorod was not conquered by Batu, and when Tatar envoys came to this city to demand tribute, the Novgorod people refused to pa;v’ it. The Novgorod boyars, however, out of fear of the Tatars, compelled the people to submit. The Tatars made a census of the city’s population and imposed tribute upon them. The boyars placed the entire burden of these payments upon the poor people: they "made things easier for themselves and difficult for the common folk.”

The khans exempted the orthodox clergy from the payment of tribute and granted the metropolitans letters of investiture which protected their lands. The clergy therefore exhorted the poor to obey the Tatar feudal lords. The toiling population of Rus thus suffered from a twofold oppression: that of the Tatars and the Russian feudal lords.

Only one Russian jrince did not go to the Horde to pay homage to Batu-— Daniel Romanovich of Galich, But when Daniel received a stern co mm and from the khan to appear before him, he had no option but to obey, Batu received him graciously. "0, what gall and wormwood is Tatar honour,” exclaims the annalist in this coimeotion, Daniel purchased the salvation of his principality at the price of his own self- humiliation but he did not resign himself to his subservient position. On his return from the Horde he began to prepare fora struggle, build- ing new cities and fortifying the old ones. He entered into a league with Hungary and appealed to the Pope for help against the enemy who was threatening all Europe. To win the support of the Pope Daniel even agreed to recognize him as the head of the Russian chuich. The Pope, on his part, recognized Daniel as king. But no one in Western Euiopt wanted to go to the aid of the Russians. Daniel thereupon severed rela- tions with the Pope. Wlien the Tatars learned of Daniel’s preparation^, they demanded that all the fortifications in the land of Galich- Volliynsk be razed. Kholm, which was strongly fortified, refused to comply with the demand of the Tatai’s; all the other foitresses were, however, demol- ished.

The devastation wrought by the Tatars an-ested the economic development of the Russian lands for a long lime, "The blood of our fathers and brothers has drenched the land like water,” a contempo- rary says; "many of our brothers and children have been taken into captivity; our villages are overrun by young forest; our glory is faded; our beauty has perished; our wealth has become the property of others; the fruits of our labour have been inherited by heathens; our land has fallen into the hands of ah* ens.’^ Learning and culture declined. Many monuments of art and woiks of ancient Russian literature perished in the files of Russian cities.

The Golden Horde in the Second Half of the 13th and in the 14th Centuries

Tlie einpiie <>1 the Golden Horde included the lands of the Volga Bulgais, IhePolovel^ fete})pe, the Northern Caucasus. Khoresm in Cenlial A&ia, and "Western Siberia as far as the Irtysh. The Russian principalities weie also subject to the khans of the Golden Horde. The Golden Hoide built for themselves a capital named Sarai (mean- ing “palace”) on the Lower Volga.

Captiv’e craftsmen const! ucted sumptuous palaces in Sarai for the Tatar khans, the walls of which were faced with beautiful coloured tiles. The city had a large maiket place which attracted merchants from Rusj Persia and even Western Europe. Sarai was a temporary residence of the Tatar suzerains. The rest of the Tatars continued to lead a nomad life, and drove their herds over the vast steppes from the lower reaches of the Danube to Kazakhstan. The khans themselves did not live permanently in their capital, but most of the year led a nomad life.

The Golden Horde was divided into severaLhordes or tribes, ruled by princes who were vassals of the khan. The Idian never embarked on any undeitaking without their advice and consent. These princes, and other feudal lords, exploited their own tribesmen, whose cattle and products they appropriated for themselves. The princes arro- gated to themselves the right of imposing taxes on some of the conquered regions. Finally, many of the feudal lords completely alienated the land together with the conquered agricultural population, which was obliged to render services to the feudal lords and to work for them.

At the end of the 13th century Prince Nogai, under whose rule was a large host of nomads, attained great power; he placed khans on the throne and deposed them. After the death of Xogai his horde fell apart.

The Tatar nobility adopted much of the culture of the Persians, Chinese and other civilized peoples of Asia. In the 14th century the Tatar feudal lords embraced Klam and spread this religion among the Tatar masses. This served the Tatar feudal lords as a means of keeping their subjects in submission. At the same time it tended to strengthen the ties of the Golden Horde with the civilized countries of the East.

Tatar domination also had a certain effect on the life and habits of the Russian feudal lords. The latter adopted the Eastern apparel of the Tatars (the Russian words: bashmak^ kaftan^ kushak, kolpak-^ shoe, caftan, belt, cowl-— are of eastern origin), their weapons and utensils. Some Tatar institutions existed in the Russian state for a long time. For instance, it was the Tatars who introduced the yami, that is, stations where horses were kept for the use of the khan’s officials. This prac- tice endured in Russia for several cen- turies. The Tatar conquerors, however, could not exert an appreciable cultural influence on the Russians because they themselves were at a considerably lower level of social, economic and cultural development. Whereas agriculture had developed among the Russians far back in ancient times, primitive nomad herd- ing still prevailed among the Tatars.

The Tatar depredations ruined the agri- cultural areas and led to a general econo- mic decline of the countxy. The Tatar yoke seriously aflFected all aspects of Russian life. The tax collections made for the khans, the freebootery of Tatar offi- cials and other agents of the khans, and the raids of Tatar detachments which, in the beginning, were an almost annual oc- currence, ruined the Ru«?sian people and retarded the economic, political and cultural progress of the country. The

Russian people bravely defended their independence, and waged a valiant struggle, unaided, against the rapacious khans, thus shielding Western Europe from the Tatar-Mongolian invasions. As Marx said, the Tatar yoke not o'nly oppressed, it outraged and consumed the very soul of the people who had become its victims.

Transcaucasia and Central Asia under the Rule of the Mongols

Conquest of Transcaucasia by the Tatars

Simultaneously with their conquest of the Russian principalities, the Tatars seized the lands of Ajmenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. *‘As numerous as locusts,” the Tatars overran the mountains and valleys of Transcaucasia and the Caucasus. When cities were captured all the adult males weie massacred with the exception of the craftsmen, who were turned into slaves. The Tatar warriors shared the women and children among themselves. The country was divided among the Tatar princes. The impregnable mountain fortresses were occupied by the Tatars. Resistance to tte conquerors in Transcaucasia was offered principally by tbe people* The Armenian and Georgian princes, like the Russian princes, hurried to pay homage to Batu. He gave them letters of investiture, but demanded tribute and military tolls. A census was taken in Arme- nia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, similar to that made in Rus. The Tatar tasgatherers, according to a contemporary, ‘'demanded exorbitant taxes, thereby reducing the people to poverty and tortured and torment- ed them; those who hid were found and put to death.” The impecunious had their children taken from them and sold to foreign traders. The princes co-operated with the Tatars and, as an annalist says, “plundered and robbed the poor and on the proceeds of these exactions arrayed themselves in costly clothes, and ate and drank and conducted themselves boastfully.” The Armenian and Georgian clergy, who were also exempted by Batu from the payment of taxes, supported his lule.

In this way all of Transcaucasia fell under Tatar domination. And here, as in Rus, the peasants were doubly oppressed by the Tatars and their own feudal lords.

Central Asia under Mongol Rule

Central Asia, the greater part of which, after the death of Genghis Khan, formed part of the Chagatai %lm (division), gradually began to recover from the ruthless desolation to which it was subjected by the Mongol invasion. Trade and the crafts came to life again in Samarlmnd and Bokhara . But here too the exactions ol the Mongol rulers made themselves felt. The local feudal landlords alone weie exempted from these payments; the Mongol khans and their sons granted them special charters and forbade them to be molested. The burden of taxes and servitude was borne by the poor —the peasants and the craftsmen, who in addition had to pay for the upkeep of the Tatar oflScials. The craftsmen had to deliver their wares— weapons, fabrics, etc.— free of charge to the treasuiy. These extoitions and obligations were so burdensome that they led to a widespread uprising in Bokhara (1238). The levolt was headed by an artisan, a maker of sieves, by the name of Makhmud Tarabi, who lived in the village of Tarab near Bokhara (whence he received his surname). *The revolt spread among the city craftsmen and the peasants of the outlying rural districts and was directed both against the Tatar rulers and the local feudal lords. The Tatars were driven out of Bokhara. Makhmud took possession of the city and drove all the feudal lords and the rich people out of it. The Tatar and Bokhara feudal lords united against the rebels. At first they suffered a serious defeat. The peasants, armed with hat- chets, pursued and killed the fleeing enemy. But Makhmud was kiUed during the fighting and in spite of partial successes, the uprising was crushed.

The Struggle against German and Swedish Feudal Lords

Seizures by the German Feudal Lords in the Baltic

Advance Eastward by the German Knights

While Russia was being attacked by Mongol hordes in the east, German and Sv\edish crusaders in the west formed a new and grave menace.

In the 12th centuiy, German knighthood, in quest of new lands and serfs, began to advance eastward. The southern coast of the Baltic Sea from the Vistula to the mouth of the Elba was populated at the time by the Western Slavs. The Germans attacked the Slavonic lands, built castles on them, baptized the Slavs with fire and sword, and made them their serfs. Gradually all the Slavonic lands east of the Elba as far as Poland and Lithuania were seized by the Germans. Part of the Slav population was exterminated, and the sur- vivors reduced to serfdom. The Slavonic River Sprava was renamed the Spree, the Slavonic Branibor (battle-forest) was called Brandenburg, the Slavonic Pomorye became Pomerania, and the Slavonic city of Kolebreg, i.c., coastal city, became known as Kolberg.

After their seizure of the Western Slavonic lands, the German knights turned their attention to the eastern and southern shore** of the Baltic Sea. This was the land of the Lithuanian tribes, and their neighbours the Livi (hence the name Liflandia or Livonia), while to the noith lived the Esths (Ebthland, or Ebthonia). The entire land inhabited by these tribes was called Livonia. The Litovtsi-Prussi, Polab Slavs and Slav- Obodriti were exterminated by the Geimans, and their lands seized.

The territory on the Western Dvina was the fief of Uie Polotbk (Rus- sian) princes, to whom the inhabitants paid tribute. The tribes that lived in the north were subject to Novgorod.

The Order of Knights of the Sword

In the 12th century German merchants appeared in the Baltic region to buy furs, and set up a tiading settlement near the mouth of the Western Dvina. The Germans used Christianity as a means of gaining a firmer footing on alien soil. Missionaries were sent to Livonia to preach the religion. ThciX mission not proving successful the Germans, with the support of the Pope, declared a crusade against the Livonians. The merchants of the northern German cities, interested in the conquest of Livonia, furnished the -crusaders with ships.

When the bishop appointed to the diocese of Livonia arrived with -a body of crusaders, the Livonians said to him: *‘Send your troops back; -convince us with words and not with cudgels.” The German knights defeated tlie Livonians in battle, but the bishop’s horse carried him into the ranks of the enemy and he was killed. The Germans sacked the country mercilessly and forcibly baptized the Livonians. The new bishop, Albert, realized that the people would not be brought to their knees by sporadic raids of the crusaders. He therefore built the fortified city of Riga (1201) at the mouth of the Western Dvina on the land of the Livi (the Letts) and settled it with German colonists. In 1202 he founded, with the sanction of the Pope, a special knightly order, called the Knights of the Sword, the members of which were to live in Livonia and to spread Christianity by means of the sword. Later this Order was known as the Livonian. The head of the Order was called the Mas* t?r; its members were the small landed German gentry who hoped to- become rich in the conquered land. The knights built castles in Livonia, forcibly baptized the population, and made serfs of them; those who resisted were killed. Protected by the knights, German merchants settled in Livonia for purposes of trade, and founded cities there.

The subjugation of the Baltic States by the German knights was accompanied by incredible cruelty. When the Germans set foot on the land of an insubordinate tribe, they divided their troops into several detachments which swept through the countryside burning and ravag- ing everything in their path, massacring all the males, carrying off the women and children into slavery, and seizing all the cattle. The people sought safety in the woods; during the winter they attempted to cross the icebound sea, but perished from cold and hunger. The fol- lowing is a German chronicler’s account of how the German knights dealt with the Oesel islanders.

*They kept beating them all the way to the village, pursued the fugitives through streets and in their homes, dragged them out of the houses and murdered them; those who attempted to defend themselves from rooftops and woodpiles were also seized and put to death. . . . Prom the village the people were pursued into the open field, where they were slaughtered, and across the field to the sacred grove, and this sacred grove turned scarlet with their blood, . . . More than 500 dead remained on the scene of battle, and many others were killed in the fields, on the roads and in other places.”

The disunited Livonian tribes were unable to withstand the well- organized Order. Having fallen into oppressive slavery, they appealed to the Polotsk princes for help. The latter had contented themselves with the exaction of a small tribute from the Livonians; their rule was therefore considered lenient as compared with that of the Germans. Several times the Polotsk princes attempted, jointly with the Livonians, to drive out the conquerors, hut *the knights were better armed; they had missile engines with which the Russians were still unfamiliar. All the offensives undertaken by the Polotsk princes ended in failure. After subduing the Livonians, the knights began to spread their rule over Russian lands. The population of the Polotsic principality strongly resisted the German knights. At one time the bishop of Riga even paid tribute to the Polotsk princes. One of the lesser Polotsk princes, Vyachko, especially distinguished himself in his resolute strug- gle for independence. He fought on heroically even after his ovm city had been captured and burnt by the Germans. In 1224 the knights attacked the Russian city of Yuriev, where Prince Vyachko together with the Esths sat firmly entrenched. The Germans surroxmded Yuriev with siege engines, brought up a wooden siege-tower and began to un- dermine the city walls. When part of the wall crumpled, the lower was moved to the breach. But the besieged stubbornly refused to sur- render. When the Germans started to storm the city, the besieged rolled red-hot wheels out through the gap in the broken wall and set the siege- tower on fire. But the Germans broke into the city through this very opening. Yuriev was taken and a massacre began. The Germans sur- rounded the city and did not let anyone out alive. Prince Vyachko also perished. The Germans renamed the city of Yuriev— Dorpat (now Tartu).

After the .death of Bishop Albert, the Germans suffered a number of defeats. The knights were especially discomfited when they attempted to invade the land of Lithuania. The Knights of the Sword began look- ing for allies.

The Teutonic Order

Nest to Livonia there existed another German Order, the Teutonic. Between the Niemen and the Vistula lay the land of the Lithuanian tribe of Prussi. The warlike Prussi made devastating raids upon the neighbouring Polish lands. The Palish feudal lords, unable to cope with the Prussi, asked the German Teutonic Order for aid. The Teutonic Order had been founded at the end of the 12th century to fight the Mohammedans in Palestine. With the sanction of the Pope, the Teutonic knights readily agreed to take up their abode in the land of the Prussi. The latter, who lived in small tribes under different chiefs, were not able to oppose the knights by a united force. The Germans, on the other band, were a compact, disciplined force. Before long the little towns of the petty Prussi princes were conquered. ‘^By the end of the 13th century,” Marx says, '‘that flourishing country was transformed into a desert; forests and swamps appeared in the place of villages and cultivated fields; some of the people were killed, others were carried off, and the rest were compelled to migrate to Lithuania.”*

The knights built castles and cities on the land of the Prussi and began to attract colonists from Germany. The Germans who aided the Teutonic Order in its wars against the Prussi received grants of land and built new castles. And so ever greater numbers of German colonists poured into the land of the Prussi The numeious outbreaks of the Prus* si were suppressed because of the lack of unity among these people.

Both Orders (that of the Knights of the Sword and the Teutonic) united in *1237 with the aim of prosecuting their conquests jointly in the Baltic

The meiging of these two Orders appreciably strengthened the German knightsandconstitutedagi eat danger to the Russian lands Novgorod and Pskov weie thieatened. But the Russian people had to wage an arduous stiuggie simultaneously against the Geimans and the Swedes. In the 13th century the people of Novgorod and Pskov saved the Rus- sian lands from conquest by the Geiman and Swedish feudal lords.

Struggle of Novgorod and Pskov against the Swedish and German Feudal Lords

The Victory on the Neva over the Swedes

For a long time the Swedes had been trying to seize the water-route from the Gulf of Finland to the land of Novgorod, which would give them control over the entire trade with Eastern Europe -

In 1240 the Swedes launched a campaign on the Neva under the command of Count Biiger, who governed the Swedish kingdom at that time But no sooner had the Swedes landed near the mouth of the Neva than they were attacked by the Novgorod troops under the command of the Novgorod Grand Prince Alexander, son of Yaiosiav. Alexander was one of the most outstanding princes of his time, he pursued a very cautious and wise policy with the Tatai khans and won the respect of the Golden Horde He u as also a biave and skillful military commander ‘^While conquering he was uncontiuexable,” a contemporary said of him. In the battle of the Neva against the Swedes, fought under his command, the Novgoiod people displayed great valoui. One of them, Gavrila Oleksich, in pui suing the enemy, rode his horse over the gangplank right onto an enem.} ’s ship Thrown into the water to- gether with his hoise, he swam to the bank and once more rushed into the fray. Misha of Novgorod and his men sank three Swedish vessels. Savva made his way to Birger’s tent and cut down the pole which sup- ported it, the unexpected collapse of the tent in view of the combatants inspired the Russian troops. The Swedes were utterly defeated, Birger himself was almost killed by a blow from Alexander’s lance, but saved his life by fleeing to hia ships. The men of Novgorod pursued the retreat- ing foe. For this victory on the Neva Prince Alexander won his honorific epithet of Nevsky.

Alexander was an imperious pnnce who realized that a strong rule was necessary in time of war. The Novgorod boyars, however, tned to

limit bis power. Soon after tbe victory on tbe Neva be came into con- Hict witb tbe boyars and left Novgorod.

Tbe Germans took advantage of Ale\ander's absence, seized tbe ancient Russian city of Izborsk and advanced on Pskov. Some of the boyars in tbe city pioved to be traitors Pskov was captured by a de- tachment of knigbth Tbe Germans invaded the land of Novgorod, built tbe fortress of Koporye, and made tbemsebes masters of tbe land witbin thirty kilometres of Novgorod.

The Battle on the Ice

Under these circumstances tbe Nov- gorod veche demaaded Alexander’s return. He promptly answeredL the call and arrived at Novgorod mth his retinue of warriors and an atcsiliary Suzdal detacliment. He marched out aud captured and destroyed the Koporye fortress. In 1242 he marched on Pskov, routed the German garrison and liberated the city. Then he invaded the lands of the Order. A powerful German army came out to meet him. The knights boasted: ‘We’ll take Prince Alexander with our bare hands.” The opening joust between the skirmish lines was not in Novgorod’s favour, Alexander held a position of vantage on Lake Chudskoye (Lake Peipus). There, on the ice, on April 5, 1242, a battle took place which went down in history as the Battle on the Ice. The Germans attacked in their usual ‘‘pig’s snout” formation, that is, a closed wedge. The point of the wedge was formed by a heavily armed body of horsed knights, fringing a body of foot soldiers, armed with spears and swords. The rear and flanks were protected by a detachment of mounted knights. The battle was, in the words of a chronicler, “a furious one”; the ice was stained with blood. The Nov- gorod men pursued the Germans for seven kilometres, killed 600 knights and took 50 prisoners. After this defeat the Germans hastened to conclude peace. They renounced Pskov and all their other conquests.

The Battle on the Ice ended the offensive of the German knights against Prussian soil and saved it from the fate that overtook Livonia. Tbe knights were driven back from the Russian frontier. This victory put a halt to the movement of the German feudal lords against Russian lands. The Russian people saved the Lithuanians, Esthonians and Latvians from destruction by the Germans.

The Grand Duchy of Lithuania

Formation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

As economic ties among the various regions in Eastern Europe developed in the 14th century the petty feudal domains began to unite into large feudal states. The need for defence against external enemies accelerated this process. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was formed in this way and it incorporated not only the small Lithuanian but also the neighbouring Slavonic principalities.

Union of the Lithuanian Tribes

The Lithuanians, in the 12th century, had already ©merged from the clan system. They broke up into separate tribes which were headed by petty chieftains, called hmigasi^ who became prominent because of their wealth. These chief- tains possessed large numbers of cattle and slaves and maintained a numerous retinue. The chieftains and their warriors lived in fortified toOTs deep witliin the forest thickets. The xinion of the scattered Lithuanian tribes was hastened by the danger of attack by the German knights.

In the middle of the 13th century Mendowg was the most out- standing of the Lithuanian petty princes. By violence and cunning he removed the other princes, taking all the power into his own hands. He also seized several Russian frontier lands. His capital was the Russian city of Xovgorodok. To win over the German knights Men- dowg ostensibly adopted Christianity and even ceded a part of Lith- uania to the Order. In exchange the Pope bestowed upon him the title of king. But when Mendowg became stionger, he renounced Christianity and his royal title, and at the head oi a Lithuanian army invaded the domains of the Order, and inflicted a severe defeat upon the knights. Mendowg and his army invaded the land of the Prussi, ravaged it and the neighbouring regions of Poland as well. By con- solidating the union of Lithuania, Mendowg aroused the hostility of the other Lithuanian princes, who assassinated him (1263).

The consolidation of the Lithuanian tribes into a single state, which had begun under Mendowg, continued. The tribe of Lithuanians was the nucleus around which this slate was formed- It was gradually joined by other kindred tribes, with the exception of the Prussi, who had been conquered by the Teutonic knights and had in part been destroyed, and in part Teutonized. The land of the Prussi-Lithuanians became the land of the Germans-Prussians.

The Lithuanian state became especially strong in the beginning of the 14th century, under Gedymin (1316-1341), who adopted the title of Grand Duke of Lithuania. He already had a well-disciplined army which replaced the former popular levy. Gedymin ’s troops were acquainted with siegecraft, the use of siege engines and the art of as- sault. Castles after the German style were built to defend the land.

After the Lithuanian grand dukes had united Lithuania, they began to extend their power over the neighbouring Russian lands. The population of these regions regarded their annexation to Lithuania as a deliverance from the Tatar yoke. Polotsk had fallen under the influence of Lithuania as far back as the time of Mendowg. Gedymin further extended his dominions over Vitebsk, Minsk and several other lands. Gedymin was followed by his son Olgicrd (1345-1377), who became the Grand Duke of Lithuania. He was ‘‘^smooth-tongued as the Russian chronicles put it— a sly and crafty sovereign who knew where his advantage lay and adroitly executed his designs. Lnder him the Lithuanians seized Kiev, the land of Chernigov-Seversk and the greater part of the land of Volhynia. The Smolemsk principality was annexed by the Lithuanians after Olgierd. In this way a large, powerful Lithuanian state, the capital of which was Vilnius, was created. The state of Lithuania included many Russian lands. Indeed, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was essentially a Kusso-Lithuanian state ruled by Lithuanian princes and Lithuanian joans.

Thus in the 14th century the Russian lands were divided into three parts: Northeastern Rus (the lands of Vladimir-Suzdal and Novgorod) which was under the power of the Golden Horde, Southwest- ern Rus (the principalities of Kiev, Chernigov, Smolensk, Polotsk, Vladimir-Volhynsk) which had come under the power of Lithuania, and the principality of Galich, which had been conquered by Poland in the middle of the 14th century. The ancient Russian nationality was similarly broken up into three divisions: Northeastern, Northwest- ern and Southwestern. Each division lived its own economic, political and cultural life. By the 15th century the Eastern Slavs formed three great peoples, each of which had its own language. The Slavs dwelling between the Oka and the Volga, and north of the Volga, with their polit- ical centre of Vladimir, formed the Velikoruss (Great Russian) or, as we now call them, the Russian nation; the Slavs living between the Pripyat and the Western Dvina, who were subject to Lithuania, formed the Byelorussian nation; in the South Russian lands, the centre of which was Kiev, the Ukrainian nation was formed.

The Union of Lithuania and Poland

Olgierd’s successor to the Lithuanian throne was his son Jagiello (1377-1392). During his reign Lithuania united with her neighbour, Poland. It was the need for union in the struggle against the Teutonic Order that prompt- ed both countries to join forces. Furthermore, Jagiello hoped by this means to increase his own power within the country. The Polish pans^ finding it beyond their strength to fight against the Germans, proposed a matrimonial alliance between Jagiello and the Polish Queen, Yadviga, and thus unite Lithuania and Poland into a single state. To consolidate the union, Jagiello was to convert his subjects to Catholicism, which was the dominant religion in Poland. In 1385 a treaty was concluded, sealing the union (ujiia) of Lithuania and Poland. Jagiello simul- taneously became the Grand Duke of Lithuania and the king of Poland.

The union, however, was opposed by the Lithuanians, who did not want to lose their independence. Jagiello ’s cousin, the ambitious and talented Witowt, stirred up an insurrection in order to gain Lith- uanian’s independence. Jagiello garrisoned the principal Lithuanian cities with Polish troops, but the inhabitants killed the Poles. Witowt (1392-1430) was given the title of Grand Duke of Lithuania, but he undertook not to sever relations with Poland and to accept Jagiel- lo ’s suzerainty.

Rout of the German Knights

The union of Lithuania and Poland was prompted primarily by the danger of attack by the German knights. Having conquered the lands of the Prussi, the Teutonic knights strove to extend their power over the rest of Lithuania. More and more adventurers, greedy for plunder and land, kept coming to their aid from Germany. In the 14th century the Germans conquered the lands of the Lithuanian tribe of Zhmuds, whom they had already attacked on other occasions. The Zhmuds lived along the lower reaches of the Niemen and were neighbours of the Prussi. The cruellies and extortions of the knights drove the Zhmuds to desperation and caused them to revolt time and again. They came out of the forests in throngs, attacked the newly built castles, set them on fire, massacred the gar- risons or carried the men off as captives. They appealed to Wilowt and other princes for help .‘‘Listen to us, who are oppressed and tortured,” they wrote. “The Order has brought us to such a point that we must either roam o’er the world or become bandits if we wish to exist. The knights have taken from us all the fruits of the earth and the honey of beehives, they neither permit us to kill animals nor catch fish nor trade with our neighbours. Every year they carry off our chil- dren as hostages, our elders have been carried off to Prussia, others with all their kin they have burned at the stake. Remember that we are people, and not beasts.”

The advance of the Germans threatened the Lithuanian Grand Duchy and the neighbouring Russian principalities with the loss of their independence. Witowt pursued a dual policy in relation to the GerttJ^ns: at times he signed peace treaties with them, and at others supported the insurgent Zhmuds. However, the German menace compelled Witowt in 1410, jointly with Jagiello, to come out openly against the knights. Russian, Byelorussian and Ukrainian regiments— the Smolensk, Polotsk, Kiev and others — comprised the main force of the united army. The encounter with the enemy took place in July between the villages of Grunewald and Tannenberg. In the beginning success was with the knights, but the situation was saved by the dar- ing and reckless bravery of the Smolensk warriors. The Germans suffered a crushing defeat, losing 40,000 in killed and 15,000 in pris- oners. The grand master of the Order himself fell in the battle* The victory of Grunewald, which was won thanks to the Russian regiments, halted the German advance eastward Eiom that time the Teutonic Order diopped into decay and lost all military and political signifi- cance. The significance of the Livonian Order also dwindled at the same time.

Social System of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

The Lithuanian Feudal Lords

The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a feudal state, dominated by the powerful landowners. The fore- most of them was the grand duke. He owned extensive “sovereign” lands. The peasants living on these estates worked under the corvee, and paid the grand duke quitrent in money and in kind. The peasants wlio lived on the grand duke’s lands were divided into freemen and bondsmen. The latter, if they tried to run away, were hunted and caught and returned to their master as fugitives. Besides the peasants the gi and duke had free servants who lived on his estates and were obliged to render mi litary service instead of the corvee and the pa 3 nnent of quit lent. Gradually these servants formed a group of small landown- ers called the szlachta. In addition to the grand duke there were other feudal lords in the Lithuanian duchy — princes and ^ns (nobles), and the chuioh. These feudal lords were the supreme sovereigns on their estates. Most of the peasants living on their estates were serfs and had no right to transfer themselves to any other landowner. The rich feu- dal lords, like the grand duke, had free servants living on their land, and these were obliged to ‘"render military service on horse and fully armed,” Thus the population of the Lithuanian Grand Duchy, both Lithuanian and Slavonic, was sharply divided into two classes: the feu- dal landowners and the peasants whom they exploited.

Possessing as they did large numbers of peasants and armed servants, the Lithuanian feudal lords were very powerful. The Grand Duke of Lithuania had to take their wishes into consideration. He had a spe- cial council of the great feudal lords (called the pany-rada)^ who sat in state with him. On more important occasions all the leading feudal lords convened at a general assembly (the diet).

Cities in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

The Western Dvina, which dowed through the Lithuanian Grand Duchy, was a convenient route for trade with the Baltic countries. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania therefore had many rich trading cities. Outstanding among these, besides Vilnius, were the old Russian cities of Polotsk, Minsk (first mentioned in 1147), and Berestye. The cities on the Western Dvina enjoyed a specially flourishing trade after the Grunewald vic- tory, which gave the Lithuanian merchants access to the Baltic Sea. The grand dukes of Lithuania derived a large income from this trade, and therefore tried to encouj*age it in every possible way. They freed the merchants in the big cities from many obligations and granted them self-government.

Byelorussian, Ukrainian and Russian Lands in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

The Lithuanian Grand Duchy was ethnically composed of Lithuanian and Slavonic lands. The latter included the lands of Byelorussia, Ukraine and Russia prop- er, The higher culture of the Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorussians exerted considerable influence on the Lithuanians. The faith of the Greek Orthodox church became widespread among the Lithuanians. State documents were written in the Russian language. Eusakaya Pravda influenced Lithuanian law. After the union with Poland the situation changed. The Lithuanian pa;^,who had joined the Polish pana^ began to persecute the Russian population in the duchy. The adoption of Catholicism by the Lithuanian feudal lords marked the begitiuing of the persecution of the Russian Orthodox religion and Russian nation- al culture. The Russian (Orthodox) feudal lords were deprived of the right to occupy any state posts in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Nor were they admitted to the grand duke’s rada (council). Many of them adopted Polish ways and manners and embraced Catholicism, but the people clung to their native language and culture. When there- fore the Russian state came into being in Northeastern Rfis the si liv- ing to unite with kindred Russian people was evinced by the Byelorus- sians and the Ukrainians no less strongly than by the Russians prop- er, all of whom were under Lithuanian domination.

The Grand Principality of Vladimir

The Principalities of Northeastern Rus

Feudal Tenure in the 14th and 15th Centuries

The 14th century marked the beginning of the union of the principalities of Northeastern Rus into a single Russian state.

The main occupation of the people in Northeastern Rus in the 13th and 14th centuries was husbandry’’. Important auxiliary branches of economy were fishing, hunting, and collecting the honey of wild bees. In some places salt was obtained by evaporation from subter- ranean springs. This was an article of trade with neighbouring regions. Theirs was a natural form of economy, that is, ail articles of prime ne- cessity (food, clothing, wooden articles) were made at home. Trade was poorly developed. People resorted to the market mainly for import- ed goods — articles that were not made at home. The chief wares were foreign goods which, because of their high cost, were beyond the reach of the masses and were purchased only by the feudal lords. The unfer- tile regions bought corn from lands where there was a surplus. In some places a low grade of iron ore was smelted; iron and ironware were also sometimes traded. Such was the commerce between the regions. With trade but poorly developed there was little money in circula- tion.

In the 14th century most of the land belonged to the feudal lords, both clerical and lay, viz,, the princes, their boyars and servants, the monasteries and other church institutions. The lands belonging to the feudal lords as their absolute property were called votchini, or patrimonial estates. On their patrimonies the feudal lords were petty sovereigns. They had the rinjht to hold court and sit in judgment on all the people living on their lands; they could inHict corporal punishment, and even usurped tiie right of executing their subjects. They collected tax- es and tolN from the peojile living on their patrimonies. The local prince could not interfere in the arrangements of the feudal lord, nei- ther could he send to him his judges or his taxsratherers. The boyara and otlier feudal lords gav^e grants of land to their men in return for mUitary service (fier‘>). The feudal lords needed such a military reti- nue not only for purposes of war but also to keep the working popula- tion on their patrimonies in subordination.

The feudal lords endeavoured to increase the population of their patrimonies at the expense of the free peasantry. The monasteries were especially energetic in this respect.

Monasteries were usually founded in remote, sparsely populated places. The monks emplo^'ed peasants to make forest clearings and prepare tillage grounds. The monasteries colonized vast uninhabited areas, thereby advancing the economic develo]>ment of the country. But this colonization by the monasteries was attended by ruthless ex- ploitation of the peasants W'ho settled on the monastery lands. If there were any free peasants living near monastery estates, the monks con- trived 0 wrest their land from them and compel them to work for the monastery.

Rich, populous monasteries acquired great political influence. In the 14th century the monk Sergei Radonezlisky founded the Monas- tery of the Troitsa (Trinity) near Moscow the city that eventually sprang up around its wall is now called Zagorsk]. This once poor monastery, built in a remote forest, later became the richest of all the monasteries of Northeastern Rus.

Peasants in the 14th and 15th Centuries

The peasants living on the land of a feudal lord performed all the work on Ids estate. They hauled timber for him, built the lord’s manor, put up a palisade around his domain, dammed the ponds, ploughed the land, sowed, reaped and carted the rye to the lord’s household, mowed hay, baked bread, brewed beer, spun flax^ furnished by the landowner, drove palings into the river for fishing, and helped him w^hen hunting the bear, fox, elk, etc. Such \v<3re the feudal services they had to ren- der their lords. These services were called the corv6e.

Besides the corvee, the peasants had to pay q\iitrent, the ohroh. On important holidays the peasants brought their loid “whatever they had on hancl^: eggs, cheese, baked bread and a cow', or several sheep fioni laeh v. Ilagc. Some imes he co»ve<.‘ was cornple ely i<‘plac< d by the quit rent paid in rye and oats. When ho landowner came to a vil- lage, the peasants bad to fcetl him and his entire suite, offer them “beer in plenty, bread and drinks, fish and meat in plenty, and oats and hay fertile horfc.es in plenty.” The peasants had to render all thefc>e diverse, bui’densonie services without protest, because the feu- dal lord was master of the land on which they lived.

It was difficult for a peasant to get away fiom the feudal lord. If he left, he foifeded all his property. Fuithermoie, the landowners had agreed among themselves not to take in peas- ants who had left their masters.

It often happened that the land- owners retained their peasants forcibly. If, however, a peasant did succeed in getting away, he would usually fall into the same kind of thralldom under some other landowner.

The pea.siiiits lived in small, isolated villages. Each peasant

family vvas a kind of separate little collective-producing unit. It was difficult for them to unite for joint action. Occasional attempts at resis- tance were easily ciushed.

However, there were lands that did not belong to the feudal lords. These weie inhabited by so-called state peasants, the chorniye^ who were more or less free. The>e peasants formed communities or, as they were then called, volosts. Every peasant who belonged to a volost had his own allotment and hay field, but the forests and other lands w^ere the comimin property of the entire volost. But even these seemingly free peasants weie actually in feudal dependence on their prince. They not only hud to pay him tribute, but aho had to do all kinds of work under the ctn vee: giaze the prince’s hortes, mow his hay, help the prince’s hunters and fi.-hennen, feed nut only the retinue of the prince, but also his di)Q< and hunting buds (falcons).

Towns in the 14th and 15th Centuries

So long as a naluial economy predominated, the crafts and trade could not develop to any gieat evtenl in the towns. Fuieign tiade was in the hands oi the fiontier cities— 'Xovgoi (id and Pt^kov, In other large cities, such as Moscow and Tver, there were small groups of rich meichants who made theii foi tunes by buying and re-elling foreign fabrics and other valua- ble meichaiidise. The local inaits were poorly connected. However, economic intercourse steadily grew. At the end of the 14th century Moscow was already a commercial city of considerable importance.

Splitting up into Appanages

In the beginning of the 14th century Northeastern Bus was broken up into several large principalities. The largest of them were: Tver, Moscow, Bya- zan and, somewhat later, Nizhni Novgorod. Each of these prin- cipalities was ruled by a de- scendant of Vsevolod the ‘"Large Nest.”

The prevailing low stage of development of money-com- modity relations between the various regions comprising the principalities hindered the estab- lishment of close economic ties. And, consequently, strong polit- ical ties could not be established either. Each large princi- pality was divided into appanages, that is, into small domains belong- ing to the various members of the princess family. These appanages passed from father to son through inheritance.

The appanages increased in number and dwindled in size as the princely families multiplied. Each prince tried to enlarge his appanage at the expense of his neighbour. This led to interminable struggles among the lival princes over the possession of land and cities.

The senior member of the family— the father or oldest brother — bore the title of grand prince and was considered the chief prince. But as a matter of fact his authority over the junior members of the family was very slight. The appanage princes, as the younger princes were called, were absolutely independent in their own domains. “iTou at- tend to your patrimony, and I shall attend to mine,”the grand prince said in his agreement with the appanage princes. The latter adminis- tered justice on their own appanages and collected their own taxes. Only in foreign policy was the appanage prince obliged to be “at one” with the grand prince and to come with his troops to his aid in case of war*

The government of the principality was simple. The principalities W’eie not large. For instance, the Moscow principality at the end of the 13th ceatiuy comprised three small towns besides Moscow. There wete principalities which consisted of a single town and its rural envi- rons. A painting of those days depicts the capital of the diminutive principality of Zaozerye, namely, the prince’s manor with its church and the adjacent village. Each prince directed both state aflfairs and his own economy. The prince’s troops consisted of boyars and the prince’s ‘‘free servants.” Regiments of the appanage prineos or their boyars joined the troops of the grand prince. The infantry was made up of a popular levy from the town and village population. On matters of prime importance the prince consulted with his boyars. Historians call such a confeience the “boyar’s duma.”

The administration of various branches of the prince’s economy was entrusted to different boyars. The piince appointed lord lieutenants to administer the various regions. They did not receive any salary in money but took for themselves a part of the income and ‘Vere fed"' at the expense of the population of the region, that is, they received products in kind. This system of administration was called kormle- niye — ^subsistence.

The Grand Principality of Vladimir

The numerous principali- ties into which Northeastern Rus was divided were at first entirely disconnected. The constant danger of attack by the Golden Horde and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania compelled the population of the Russian principalities to join forces in the common struggle against the enemy. The Grand Principality of Vladimir became the centre around which the Russian principalities began to unite. It was the practice of the khan of the Golden Horde, according to an old custom, to appoint one of the Russian princes the “Grand Prince of Vladimir and of all Rus,*’ i, e., the head of all others, and to endow him with a letter of investi- ture. The prince who bore this title annexed the city of Vladimir and its surrounding lands to his own domains.

The need of defence against the Tatars helped o strengthen the power of the Grand Prince of Vladimir. An alliance of princes was formed under his leadership, the allies undertaking to help one another against the Tatars and other foreign enemies. They introduced uniform custom duties on the frontiers of their posses:>ions. This was evidence of the fact that already in the 14th century the economic isolation of the feudal principalities was vanishing, a circumstance which favoured the pros- pects of consolidation.

Novgorod and Pskov in the 14th and 15th Centuries

Novgorod occupied a special position in relation to the Grand Principality of Vladimir — ‘‘the chief Russian republic ruling in North- ern Russia,” as Marx wrote. Since the end of the 13th century Novgorod no longer elected its own princes. The Grand Prince of viadimir was nominally considered the prince of Novgorod, When he assumed his office as ruler of Novgorod, he had to conform to the ancient custom of “kissing the cross” (z.e., taking the oath), that he would observe the chartered liberties of Novgorod. The grand prince himself rarely came to Novgorod, but sent his lord lieutenants there. Actually Novgorod was governed by city magistrates elected from among the Novgorod boj^ars.

In the 14tli century Novgorod became an aristocratic feudal re- public. The head of this republic was Novgorod’s leading feudal lord — the archbishop, who was elected by the veche. The Novgorod archbishop owned immense estates and had his own troops. Nothing was done in Novgorod without the consent of the archbishop, who also negotiated with foreign envoys. He upheld the authority and prestige of the boyars in Novgorod in every way he could.

All affairs were fet considered at a council of the boyar elite, who assembled under the chairmanship of the archbishop. The merchants, who made their fortunes on fur deals and from their trade with the Hanse and Russian lands v ere another influential factor in Novgorod politics in the 14th and loth centuries. The Novgorod merchants served as in- termidiaries between the boj^ars and the German merchants. They supported the boyars.

The power of the boyars grew in proportion as their affluence in- creased. Their wealth was derived from the exploitation of the non-Rus- sian population of Pomorye (the Maritime Region) and of the Russian peasants and craftsmen. A fierce class struggle was going on in Nov- gorod. In 1418 an uprising broke out here as a result of the oppression by the boyar usurers. A certain Stepanko seized hold of the boyar Daniel Ivanovich Bozhin on the street and began shouting: ‘TMen, help me with this villain.” A crowd gathered. The boyar was dragged to the Volkhov Bridge and thrown into the river, where he escaped drowning by a lucky chance. He caught Stepanko and dragged him to the torture chamber. At that some one struck the veche bell on the Torgovaya side. The crowd rushed to the street where Bo^in lived, plundered his house and moved on, sacking the homes of other boyars and saying: “They are our ene- mies.” The boyars’ granaries were also pillaged. The boyars on the So- fiiskaya side armed themselves and repelled the assailants. Erom both sides people came running to the Volkhov Bridge armed and accoutred as though for war. Indeed some people had already been killed. But the Novgorod archbishop intervened, and accompanied by his prelates, hastened to the scene of battle. Being one of the wealthiest feudal lords of Novgorod, the archbishop was interested in the speediest temiination of the outbreak. His intervention saved the boyars.

In the middle of the 14th century Pskov became independent of Novgorod. At the veche the Pskov burghers elected their own city ma- gistrates from among the Pskov boj^ars. Like Novgorod, Pskov was subject to the Grand Prince of Vladimir, who sent his lord lieutenants to that city. Here, as in Novgorod, a relentless class struggle was in progress.

The Rise of Moscow

Strengthening of the Moscow Principality

Moscow and Tver in the Beginning of the 14th Century

In the first quarter of the 14tli ceulury a bitter btriiggle for the Grand Principality of Vladimir broke out between two of the most poweiful principalities of Xoulicastern Rfis— Tver and Moscow. Both of these principalities occupied a lavouiable geographic position. They were less open to attack by theTatars since they were shielded on the southeast by other principalities, and afforded refuge to fugitives from the ravaged regions. The growth of productive forces in the Tver and Moscow principalities was moi;e rapid than in the other regions of Northeastern jRiis,

Tver was situated on the Volga at its confluence with the Tvertsa River. The city controlled the entire trade route from Novgorod to the Volga, Novgoiod merchants travelled by the Tvertsa to Northeast- ern Rus. The Volga was the trade route of Tver merchants dealing with eastern countries.

Moscow was situated on the River Mos^kva, a tributary of the Oka. A direct road from the Upper Volga to the Oka passed through the Moscow piincipality. From here one could travel to the upper reaches of the Don, down to the Azov and the Black seas and to the Crimea for trade with the Italian trading colonies which existed there at the time.

The advantage of Moscow lay in its central position, which ena- bled it to fight both against the Tatars and Lithuania, and also made it easier for Moscow to unite all the separate principalities of North- eastern Rus.

Moscow became the capital of a separate principality at the end of the 13th century after the establishment of the Tatar yoke. At that time the Moscow principality was very small, and comprised Moscow proper and two other cities — Ruza and Zvenigorod. In 1301 the Moscow prince, Daniel (^on of Alexander Nevsky) took possession of Kolomna, which stands at the coiuiuence of the Mo^skva and the Oka. In 1302 he inherited the neighbouring principality of Pereyaslavl, to which Moscow had once been subject, and thus greatly added to Moscow’s power. Nevertheless Tver was the stronger at first. The Grand Prince of Tver, Mikhail Yaroslavich, in the beginning of the 14th century, received a letter of inve:?liture from the Tatars bc'^t owing upon him the Grand Principality of Vladimir.

Translation from the Arabic: ‘‘Under the power of the peat Hea\ens, the pio- tection of all greatness and splendour. He who is guilty oC not submitting to the command of Uzbek must die”

The Tatars ’ policy was to weaken Bus and not allow any one prince to enhance his power at the expense of another. Uzbek Khan, one of the most powerful khans since Batu, fearing the growing power of the Grand Prince of Vladimir, supported the Moscow Prince \Tni Danilo- vich (1303-1325) against him. The khan gave his sister in maniage to Yuri and also placed Tatar troops at his disposal to fight against the Grand Prince of Tver. In spite of the Tatar help, Yuri suffered a severe defeat. His wife,Uzbek^s sister, was taken prisoner. She d.ed in captiv- ity, and Yuri took advantage of this fact to accuse Mikhail before the khan of having poisoned her. He succeeded in having Mikhail sentenced to death, while he himself received the cherished letter of investituie to the grand principality. But he himself soon fell at the hands of one of Mikhail’s sons. Uzbek executed Yuri’s murderer, but nevertheless bestowed the grand principality on another of Mikhail’s sons, Prince Alexander Mikhailovich.

Ivan Danilovich Kalita

In Moscow Yuri was succeeded by his brother, Ivan Danilovich (1325-1341), surnamed Kalita, meaning “moneybag,” on account of his wealth. Ivan Kalita was a shrewd and crafty sovereign. He had no scruples about the means he employed to achieve his ends and to strengthen Muscovy. He was greatly assisted by the church. The Bussian metropolitans at that time resided in Vla- dimir, and not in Kiev, which had been ruined by the Tatais. Yuri Danilovich and Ivan Kalita succeeded in winning over the metropolitan Peter. He transferred his seat from Vladimir to Moscow, and ever since Moscow has been the religious centre of Bussia. In the person of the metropolitan the Moscow prince acquired a powerful ally. The church used all its religious influence to consolidate the power of the Moscow princes. The threat of the metropolitan’s malediction was sufficient to compel the neighbouring princes to submit to Moscow’s will. Furthermore, the chureh po-sotscd vast po|m]uictl lan'^- ;*• [ v as in a -it inn to help the Moscow prIn<*o^ v'th ai<»noy aid

WTiile e idoavomiiig t iviiilh. mp b\ aod n nrthethuKh, l\u.u Ival ta at the ic tiaic tlul not i’liulue h ^ c, 7ia lit^heb vlieu li vas a Cjae-lion of lulbii " iht Ivi> i, ho - am! li icltiuie-. boon

he had ,Ut opj) of l< iiii o; no- cs^ (^ii ni In Loa p:iij(*ipalit;v ,

With the t C of the T. t..s. ii iri:7 the Li r". en.to, rimlMitin (bhchtikaii. t 1 ^ Hv un boitfs called h. d* c* ae to Tvei with a large Tatar ioiee. Tile Tatai^. Ijccaii to p ha v' edt , eaU'sUig an out- break amoiii; the pj 2 Diilacc'. Gian I ihlnee lei hmnelJ headed the

rebels, Cholkhan < id li > liVitais weie v p ed oi ^ . huii Kalita hastened to tbe Horde and odoied die khan ills '•el\iC"^ " > ^un^h the rebels. TTitli a laige T<tta3 ennv he invaded the lanif pal it oi Tver and deso- lated it. Giaiid Pimce Alovandei Mikhail jA\h UhUs. lelugo in Pskov* However, mctiopolUan Thcognosl tliieatened the Pskov people with exconunnnication if they did not dtlnor the gland piiuce; the latter theiefore 1 cd to Lhhiiania. Later Vlexaiidi^r ictiirned to Tver and managed to obi in the khcii’s pardon. I idiaated, however, by Ivan Ivallta the khan loiei summoned Alextruk i l i ilie Hoi do and hud him put to death.

The Moscow^ jirir. e achieved hi- co. j.L. 13-'^ A the -uppies'sion of T^ er. the Idle of d a ^ . Ih nee oi Viad »->i .. ’ < lov e«i upon him.

The klian gia AG h * die i ghl lo e diect ihe Td ii ixibnte from all of Hut and to JeLve. It ii'' iDcison to the IT nh*. Th*s gieatiy increased Ivan K htah iinp«iic ice among the othn* llns Lin pi luces, and he exeicised a coLia.n c urhority o\ei them. On the other hand, he became more indc] endent ol the Tc.tars. He ajipropriattjd some of the tribute, thus eniiching himseli. T\an Kalita consideiably ex'^ anded his posses- sions at the expeme ci l iie other princes. Teiiaeioiis and unsciupulous, he diligently onhiocd hts pjssessiuns, soim limes by pui chase, some- times by viw Alice, He inrde adroit use oi the Talaa? to increase his own power. A- M,.rx -aid, Pan Kalita U'cd the khan as a weapon by nieansof whichhe lidhim-elf of hP inj-t diz^geioii^ i a als and removed every obstacle that li'iipe^cd liis seizin e cd p<A ci. At the til le ol his de .th lv«ii KA.ta loll a la ih Luge piincipality. His biotLer '?iml aid he hnaseli had added 3Iozlui'k and seveial other towns to ihe p -se -ions they had iiihentid from their father. Xow the Mo-'k\a Ilaei ^11 ilurg it-- couise tiom Kolomna to Mozhaisk belonged to the IMoscm^ juinces. Thus was I mil up the xenitory of the futuie Eii -ian icalm. I\an Kiiita was so p ^weixul that he succ'^^edel in establishing a ccitain amount of older in Ins piincipality. The chiomcier assures us that undei him Ai great peace i>eUled ovei the entile Hus^ian land and the Taiarb ceased to wvi agamd it.” And wiihiiithe principality itself bi’gandage diminished an<l life became ‘-afei.

Beginning of the Struggle against the Tatars

Dimitry Donskoi

The increase of Muscovy contimied after the diMth id Iv'iin Kalita, The Grand Principality of Vladimir remained all tiie tunc in the hands of Iv'an Kalita’s dcbcendants. Only in 1359, \vlioii his '-ocoml bon, Ivcin II, died and the Moscow throne passed to the LitterV young son, Dimitiy Ivanovich (]3o0-1389), did the neigh- bouiing prince'^ attempt to dispossebs the young IMoscow prince of the £?‘and }>riiieipality. The metropoLtan Alexei and the Moscow boyars succeeded in getting the Horde to confirm their prince as the grand prince: they ]>hu‘ed the hoy Dimitry in the saddle nnd rparched against tiicir ii\al, the prince of Suzdal. Moscow was victorious and Dimitry reco\ered Vlad’mir,

Uiidoi Diiiotry Mu«covy became oxtiemely powerful. He fortified his Mom^ow, building a stone wall round it in place of the

ftrnier oak ^all (1366j, He pioscculed a vigorous policy of gaining supremacy over the other principalities and ‘'brought all the Russian princes under his will.” He had to wage a prolonged war against the neighbouring principalities of Tver, Ryazan and Xizhni Novgorod. Dimitry’s enemies sought help from the Lithuanian Grand Duke, Olgi- erd, who thrice marched against Moscow, but the patriotism of the Muscovites and the &tone wall of the capital made it impregnable. The boyars and clergy, and especially the metropolitan Alexei; helped Dimitry eonsideiably.

Annexation of the Lands of the Vychegda Komi People

Dimitry continued to extend the rule of Muscovy to the lands inhabited by non-Russian peoples. In the Ural region, on the Vychegda River, a Irihutcry of the North Dvina, and cn ihe uppor reaches ol the Kama lived tile Zyryaiie (Komi) and their kindled tribe the Permiaks. The country of these people was covered with forests teeming with fur- bearing animals. The Komi were skilled trappers. They lived in tribes and were ruled by petty princes. They were heathens, who worshipped sacred ti*ees and hung the skins of bears and other offerings on the branches. Similar offerings filled their shrines— little huts in which they kept crudely made effigies of their gods. Intercourse with the land of the Komi had long been kept up through Russian merchants who used to go there to buy furs. With the support of the Grand Prince Dimitry a monk by the name of Stefan proceeded to convert the Komi to Christian- ity. Stefan de&troyed the heathen shrines and built an Orthodox church on t he si t e of an especially revered sacred birch. He invented an alphabet for the Komi people and translated scriptural books into the Komi lan- guage. This attempt to create a Komi literature found no support among the ignorant Muscovy clergy. The adoption of Christianity threatened ll:e K aui v, ith enbl ivement. Stefan, who wa^ ^.ppointed bishop to their land, built a fortified town at the confluence of the Vyni and Vycliejd<i, The surrounding lands and the fisheries were alienated and declared the property of the bishop. The latter became a sort of lord over the entire land with the population as his feudal dependants. AYhile spread- ing Christianity, the bishop also extended the power of the Moscow Grand Prince. Moscow taxgatlierers came to V^'chegda and fieeced the local population.

The Battle of Ktllikovo

Under Dimitry the Grand Principality of Moscow grew so strong that it even took up the cudgels against the Tatars. The entire Russian people supported Dimitry in this under- taking. While Muscovy was becoming more powerful, the Golden Horde became increasingly weakened by internal dissensions and feudal disintegration. In various parts of the Golden Horde independent khans appeared, who contended among themselves for power. The *mglitie4 of the Tatar feudal lords Tras Prince Mauiai (commander uf A thousand) who ruled over the largest part of the Horde.

In 1378 the Tatar army sent by Mamai invaded the land of Ryazan II order to advance thence against Moscow, but it sustained a serious lofeat on the Vozha River. Mamai then concluded an alliance with the Lithuanian (irand Duke Jagiello. !Mamai marched out with a large host. Tlie Grand Prince of Ryazan leagued himself with Mamai in the hope « »f ^oeuruig the downfall of ^Muscovy by aid of the Horde.

Dimitry collected an army of 150,000 men. A large number of Russian princes rallied under his banner. Two Lithuanian princes, ^ons of Olgierd, in the company of Byelorussian and Lithuanian war- ritirs., also joined Dimitry. At the head of a mustered force Dimitry < ro'3se<l the Oka and \^ent as far as the Don. Here he held a military Miuicil. A laot dispute ensued. Some said: ‘‘Go on beyond the Don, l^nncel*’ Others objected: ““Don’t go, for we have many enemies.” Dimitry sided with the more daring. His troops crossed the Don. On ‘September 8, 1380, a decisive battle which has gone down in history as ihe Mamai Battle or the Battle of Kulikovo, was fought on the vast Kulikovo Field, at the mouth of the Hepryadva River. Russians and Tatars stood facing each othet on the hills that fringed the field. As soon as the morning mist lifted, both armies descended to Kulikovo Field. Turning to his troops with words of cheer, Dimitry addressed himself uot only to the princes and the boyars, but also the “younger humble ueoph*, peasant sons from small to great,” who constituted the bulk of Ins army. The battle began. An area of several miles was saturated with blood, the ground was strewn with corpses, horses stumbled over the dead bodies; men died under the horses’ hoofs or were crushed in the fray. At firbt the Tatars had the upper hand. But a body of Russian troops, led by Dimitry’s cousin, Vladimir Andreyevich of Serpukhov and Dimitry’s vaywode Volhynsky-Bobrok was lying in ambush. The men, impatient to join the fray, asked: “Are we going to stand here much longer? What help are we to them^” But Bobrok restrained his men because, as the chronicles tell us, the wind was against them. When the wind changed he said: “Xow’s the tune!” The regiment rushed into battle. The appearance of fresh forces in the rear of the Tatars at the crucial moment of the battle decided the issue in favour of the Russians, The Tatars took to their heels, hotly pursued by the Rus- sians, who captured the Tatar camp. For his victor}’- on Kulikovo Field on the Don, Dimitry was called Dimitry Donskoi (Dimitiy of the Don),

Shortly after this Mamai was killed in a battle against a new khan, Toktamish, After vanquishing ilamai, Toktamish, in 1382, attacked Moscow unexpectedly .Taken unawares, the Grand Prince Dimitry left for the north to muster an army. The boyars wanted to follow him in order to flee ftom the city, whereupon a rebellion broke out in Moscow. The Moscow inhabitants placed a guard at the gates of the Kremlin and did not permit anyone to leave, es^cept the s»iand piineess and the metropol tanAvlieu the Tatais ti.ed to ascaiilt the Ki e mlin the inhabit- ants of Moscov ponied boding water ovei the enemy, hailed stone'? at them and shot them dotvn vith fireaims. Toktaniish vab unable to take Moscow by storm. After a battle that lasted thiee days the Tatars entered into negotiations, and seemed MoecowS suiiendei by a strat- agem and a promise that the city would not be harmed. But haidh had the gates been opened than the Tatais tore into the Kienilin k.lled all Its defenders, sacked the city and then g,.ve it over to the tlames. After this setback. Bus had to pay tribute to the Tatais as before. Tlioncli the battle of Kiilikovo had not yet freed Xortheaatern Tlu^ fniiii the Tatar yoke, its significance, nevertheless, was great, for it *^ho\\ed that the rout of the Tatars was inevitable if the forces of the Ilun'.uin people were united. Moscow became the centre of the struggle ftir national independence. The battle of Kubkovo was proof that in the east of Europe . . the necessity of taking defensive meas- ures against the invasiems of the Turks, Mongols and other Oriental Xieople^ demanded that centralized states capable of withstanding the onslaught of the invaders be formed without delay.” *

The Feudal Struggle in the First Half of the 15th Century

Annexation of the Principality of Nizhni Novgorod

During the reign of Grand Prince Vasili I (1389-1425), son of Dimitry Dont'koi, the principality of Nizhni Novgorod was annexed to Muscovy. Vasili purchased an investiture from the khan giving him the right to this principality. But the fate of Nizhni Novgoiod was spelt not by the khan’s charter but by the Nizhni Novgorod feudal lords, ^ho found it more to their advantage to serve the moie poweiful Grand Pi ince of Moscow. As soon as the troops of Muscovy approached Nizhni Xovgor od, the boyars of the city declared to their prince: ‘‘Lord Pi nice, do not count on us, we are no loitger thine, and are not with thee, but against thee.” The prince of Nizhni Novgorod was seized and exiled, Nizhni Novgorod was annexed by Muscovy and with it the lands along the Oka, inhabited by M(»rdvinians.

Victory of the Grand Prince over the Appanage Princes in the Principality of Moscow

Vasili Dimitrievich left his son, the Grand Piince Vasili Vasilievich (1425-1462), a large and powerful principality, so superior to all the others in size and material resouices that the pf>S‘^ibility of a struggle against him was out of the question.

It now remained to put an end to feudal dissensions within the Moscow principality itself. The reign of Vasili Vasilievich was marked by sanguinary family feuds. Vasili’s uncle, the appanage Prince Yuri Dimitrievich, contested the title of grand prince. The Idaan settled the dispute in Vasili’s favour. Open war broke out between the princes, the struggle lasting about tw^enty years. The sons of Yuii Dnuitrie- vich— Vasili Kosoi (the Squint-eyed) and Dimitry Shemyaka flhe Unjust) — took an active part in it. Moscow passed from hand to hand several times. Once when the grand prince went on a pilgrimage to the monastery of the Troitsa (Trinity) a detachment of Shemyaka ’s soldiers rode up to the monastery in sleighs, concealed under mattuig, took the guard by surprise and broke into the courtyard, Vasili wa& carried oflF to Moscow and blinded, whence he received the epithet Tyomni (the Blind). He was exiled to Uglich. Very soon, however, the vassals of the former grand prince began to rally about him in throngs. The blind Vasili advanced with them against [Moscow, Shemyaka came out against him wdth his troops. A battle took place and Shemyaka, defeat- ed, w’as forced to flee. A few years later he w^as poisoned .With the death of Shemyaka the struggle ended. In this civil strife frrand Prince Vasili was supported not only by the feudal lords and the elcrrry, but also by the peasants and craftsmen, who had suffered grep*tly from the feudal wars. Shemyaka is described in the folk tales about tho Shemyakin 8ud (the Unjust Trial) as an avaricious man and venal judore.

The victory of Vasili the Blind over the appanage princes of Mus- covy marked a very important stage in the process of tenninating feu- dal dissension and uniting all the Russian lands into a single Rus.sian state. Internal family feuds did not stop the further strengthening of the Moscow principality because at that time the majority of the feudal lords, and especially the free servants and the church, needed a strong state which would protect their interests, ensure their right to the land^ defend these lands against enemy invasion, and keep their peasants in submission. This ex})lains why the immediate vassals of the Grand Prince of Muscovy supported him so wholeheartedly. And for both the townspeople and the peasants, a united feudal state ivas better than the former isolated feudal domains. A strong united state ensured them the peace they did not have during the continuous internecine feudal wars of the princes.

The development of trade gradually put an end to the economic isolation of the separate principalities. The need to fight tho Tatars rallied the Russian people under the banner of the most powerful of the princes — the Grand Prince of Muscov3\ The dii-united feudal prin- cipalities w’ere gradually merged into a single feudal state.

Life and Culture in Northeastern ROs in the 141h and the Beginning of the 15th Centuries

The destructive activities of the Tatars retarded the cultural development of Northeastein Bus. The Tatar raids and inces.*sarit feudal wars grievously afFectc‘(i the life of the toiling masses. Besides paying tribute to the Golden Horde, the peasant and urban population w'as cruelly exploited by their own feudal lords. The law of the strong reigned supreme. The feudal lords, supj'orted by their military retinues, plundered and exercbed an arbitrary powd- er, in defiance of their own princes. Source material tells, for instance, of a certain Luka KoIot.‘*ky. a Mo7}iaisk landowner of humble origin who had grown rich and built himself a handsome manor, no s]den- did than that of a prince: he gathered about him a retinue of wan-iors, feasted, hunted, and kept many falcons, hounds and lame bears. He behaved like a despot.Once when the huntsmen of the Mozhaisk prince Were follow^ing the chase, Kolotsky fell upon them and beat them, and took their falcons and dogs. To the prince ’s envoys he replied arrogantly and deiiaatly. It was this kind of tyranny of the feudal loids that ihe peasants most of all snfteied fiom.

To keoj) the peasants in submission, the princes resorted to such ciuel methods of punishment as flogging, cutting out tongues, lopping off cars, gouging out eyes. Xo less cruel were the princes to each oth^r m their struggle for land Jind power.

The 14tir century has not handed down any monuments of art or great \v(^rks of literature, such as have come down from the 11th and 12th centuries, before the Tatar invasion. Theie weie few literate j'cople: Clnvnd Piuncc- Vasili the Blind hinl!^clf was ‘‘bookless and un- ictlerci.'" Crude superstitions and belief in witchciaft were still pn^valcnt among the people. Those sus])eettd of witchciaft were buint at the stake. Xovertiie less cultural life did not die out compl tely. At the metnjptflitan ’s court the compdation of annals still continued. The tlrucgle for national indepenueno' was retleeted in talcs which de- t^erihed the exploits of Alexander Xovsky (zhiUye^ i.c., the biography, of Prince Alexander) and the victor y of the Russians on Kulikovo Field (Tale of the Hamai Battle). In Xovgoiod, wdiich was little affected by the Tatar invasion, the constiuction of public buildings and of churches ornamented with magnificent muial paintings, continued in the 14th and 15th c nUiiies. A splendid palace with a tall spire was built in the loih cmtuiy by the Novgoiod bishop.

In th b*g'miing of the 15th cmtiuy the famous icon painter, Andn i Rublyev, worked in Moscow. The icons painted by him, remaik- able fur their composition and delicacy of colouiing,can bo seen today in our mus tuns.

The Empire of Timur and the Decline of the Golden Horde

The Empire of Timur. The Uzbeks

Conquest Of Samarkand by Timur

During the second half of the 14th century the Golden Horde began to manifest signs of feudal disintegration. The Tatar princes, owners of separate domains, no longer owed fealty to the khan of the Golden Horde. The feudal lords dej'osed undesirable khans and set up others of their own choice. It was not rare for several rival khans at once to contend with each other for power. A serious blow was dealt the Golden Horde at the' end of the 14th century by the formation in Central Asia of the empire oi Timur, which seized some of the dominions of the Golden Horde.

The process of feudalization made great strides in Central Asia in the 14th century. Large feudal estates sprang into existence. The peasantry was heavily burdened by the services it was obliged to render the khans and other feudal lords, who were constantly at war with the khans. The eastern section of the Chagatai domain separated and formed a kingdom of its own, called Mogolistan. In western Chagatai there was a preponderance of Turkic tribes and the Mongols living there came under their influence. In the middle of the 14th century a Mongo 1- Turkio feudal lord, Timur, called the Lame (Tamerlane) came into prominence. Around him rallied a retinue of several hundred warriors, with whom he entered the service of the lord of Samarkand, Hosain, and became the companion of his campaigns.

At that time Samarkand was a big, rich city with a large population of craftsmen and tradespeople. After the invasion of the Mongols the city had lost its fortress walls and lay exposed on all sides. The Samar* kand artisans suffered much from the oppression of their native feudal lords. In 1365 the Mongols of Mogolistan advanced against Samarkand. Hosain and Timur fled. The inhabitants of Samarkand united to organ* ize their defence. The civilian population was headed by a cotton clean- er Abu-Bekr-Kelevi. With the help of the workpeople of the city he seized the power and organized the defence of Samarkand. After i protracted struggle he succeeded ih repelling the Mongols. After thei victory the people of the city retained the power in their own han ds But the following year Hosain and Timur returned. With flattering promises they inveigled Abu-Bekr to their camp and seized him. Abu- Bekr was executed.

In 1370 Timur overthrew Hosain and took possession of Samar- kand, Bokhara and the whole country between the Amu Darja and the Syr Darya. He created a strong army of Chagatai nomads, and embarked upon the conquest of neighbouring territories.

The Conquests of Timur

Timur cherished the ambition of creating a world empire. “The whole area of the inhabited world”, he said, “is not worth having two monarchs.” He conquered Khoresm, the chief city of which— Urgenj— was a trade rival of Samarkand. Urgenj, on Timur’s orders, was levelled with the ground. Part of its population was transported to Samarkand, and the site on which Urgenj had stood was sown with barley. Then Timur advanced against Persia. This campaign lasted five years and ended with the subjugation of Persia. At that time the Golden Horde was united under the rule of Khan Toklamish. Khoresm had but recently been a dominion of the Horde. Toktamish, taking advantage of Timur’s absence— the latter was engaged in the Persian campaign— invaded Khoresm. The popu* lation sided with him, but Timur hurriedly returned from his campaign and, after punishing rebellious Khoresm, he marched to Toktamish’s dominions in Western Siberia and routed him.

At the end of the 14th century Timur invaded Transcaucasia, devastated Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, and besieged the Georgian king, Bagrat, in Tbilisi. The Georgians made a desperate sally, ‘'Like falcons at a flock of cranes, like a lion at a herd of bulls” the Geor* gians flung themselves upon the foe, but to no avail. In spite of the defenders^ courageous resistance, Timur took Tbilisi by storm. King Bagrat was taken prisoner. But Timur had hardly gone before the Geor- gians rebelled again. Bagrat promised to make his land submit to Ti- mur’s rule if the latter released him. Timur permitted him to go to Georgia, where Bagrat immediately joined the rebels. The Georgians ambushed the enemy in a narrow ravine, and wiped them out, where- upon Timur moved an even greater army against the Georgians. Georgia was utterly devastated and compelled to submit.

Timur^s encroachments had brought his territories quite close to the dominions of the Golden Horde. Toktamish attempted to stem the tide of this advance, but suffered a crushing defeat on the Terek (1395), Timur invaded the territory of the Golden Horde, destroyed Sarai, maiched to the then Russian frontier city of Yelets, destroyed it, and returned to Transcaucasia. Timur’s last years weie spent in com- pleting the conquest of Persia and his expedition into India (1398- 1399). This was succeeded by his war with the Turks, which ended in the capture of the Turkish sultan* Bayezid (1402),

Timur was notorious for his ferocious cruelty. He mercilessly punished any attempt at resistance. Nothing but desolation and ruins remained as witnesses of his conquests. The populations of the captured cities were almost completely massacred. Only the artisans Were spared to be driven off into captivity.

As a monument to his victories Timur had p3rramids made of the skulls of his slain enemies.

The conquered territories of Timur formed a vast feudal kingdom. Timur shared his dominions among his sons and grandsons. The feudal lords did not cultivate their own lands but rented them out in small lots to the peasants who had to pay quitrent and render services under the corvee.

The capital of Timur’s empire was Samarkand, Here he built many magnificent buildings, the ruins of which have been preserved to the present day. Timur had a broad avenue with shops on both sides laid out in place of the narrow crooked streets, A water-supply system for the city was organized. Blossoming gardens surrounded Samaikand. Under Timur the city became the centre of a large caravan trade. It was also an important centie for the crafts inasmuch as Timur bad brought over all the artisans from the conquered cities to Samarkand.

Timur’s grandson, Ulugh Beg, was the most outstand- ing of his successors. He was a patron of science and poet- ry, and built a splendid obser- vatory near Samarkand, in which very exact scientific observations were made. In the 14th and 15th centuries the science of astronomy was on a considerably higher level in Uzbekistan than it was in Western Europe. The famous poet and philosopher, Navoyi, the author of the well-known poem ‘Tarkhad and Shirin,” and other works, lived in Ulugh Beg’s reign.

The Uzbeks and Kirghiz

After Timur’s death (1405) his empire fell apart. Intes- tine warfare broke out among his heirs.

A decisive blow was dealt the Timur empire by the Uz- beks, who constituted a un- ion of various Turkic tribes (including the Polovtsi) that roamed the steppes of Central Asia. The Uzbeks had formerly been part of the Golden Horde, and called themselves Uzbeks after Uzbeg,!ttan of the Gk)lden Horde. Their chief occupation was herding.

In the beginning of the 16th century the Uzbeks united under the rule of Sheibani Khan. During his reign they penetrated the country between the AmU Darya and Syr Darya, began to settle in the fertile valleys and engage in agriculture. Sheibani conquered Samarkand (about 1500), then Bokhara, and subjugated all the possessions of Timur’s descendants.

However, the Uzbeks did not form a centralized state; their domains were divided into several principalities, each ruled by a sultan and all of them constantly at war with each other. Under the Uzbek khans Samarkand lost its importance, and Bokhara became the capital. An independent Uzbek khanate was also organized in the 16th century at Khiva.

We find mention in the 16th century not only of the Uzbeks, but also of the Elirghiz. They are supposed to have come to Central Asia from the upper reaches of the Yenisei River. Some of the Kirghiz continned to live along tlie Yenisei even in tlie 17tli century. In Central Asia the Kirghiz inhabited the territory of the present-day Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Bepublic.

Peoples of the Volga Region under the Rule of the Tatars

The Kazan Khanate

In the 15th century, as a result of the de- velopment of feudal relations in various of its regions, the Golden Horde broke up into several independent khanates. The local feudal lords, who exploited the agricultural and nomad pastoral population, grew stronger. They strove to become politically independent of the Golden Horde. Timur’s invasion proved to be the final blow, from which the Golden Horde was never to recover.

Thus, not far from the confluence of the Kama and the Volga, on the site of the former Bulgar kingdom there arose in the 15th centu- ry the Kazan khanate. In 1437 one of the Golden Horde khans, Ulugh Mahommed, who had been banished by his brother, crossed the Russian frontier with his horde and expressed his readiness* to serve Grand Prince Vasili the Blind. His offer being rejected, he crossed the Volga, occupied the Bulgar town of Kazan, and killed the ruling petty prince.

The capital of the new khanate, the city of Kazan, stood on the steep bluffs of the River Kazanka, and was protected by wooden walls and surrounding swamps. After the conquest or the Middle Volga by the Tatars, the native inhabitants of the Kazan territory— the Bulgars— intermingled with the conquerors and formed the nucleus of the khanate population, which later was supplemented by an influx of Tatars from other Tatar lands. As distinct from the steppe regions, where nomad herding prevailed, the chief occupation of the inhabitants of the Kazan territory, ever since the Bulgars, was agriculture. The Volga and its tributaries abounded in fish, and the neighbouring forests in fur-bear- ing animals and bees. Pishing, hunting, and collecting the honey of wild bees were therefore also a very important sphere of economy. Rich pasture lands permitted the raising of large herds. The products of livestock breeding were articles of trade, l^zan leather, an item of export, was famous. Slaves, too, were an article of export . The Kazan Tatars made raids on the Russian border regions and carried off numer- ous captives. Some of these captives had to till the soil of the Tatar feudal lords; others were sold to visiting merchants. An annual fair was held on Gostinoy Island on the Volga, to which came merchants from Russia, Persia, Bokhara and Khiva.

The power in the Kazan khanate was in the hands of the feudal landowners. At their head stood the khan; the princes (belcs) and the nobles (called murzi in Tatar) were subject to him. The Moslem clergy were also feudal lords. The highest dignitary of the church was called a seii. The clergy in Elazan were very influential. The khan himself dismounted from his horse when he met a seid. The khan and other feudal lords collected tribute in the form of money, honey and other products from the ^^black people,” i.e., the masses.

In the early years of its existence the Kazan khanate was a fairly powerful kingdom. The Kazan khan, XTlugh Mahommed, was for a short time in possession even of Mzhni Novgorod. At Suzdal the Kazan Tatars inflicted a telling defeat on Vasili the Blind, the Grand Prince of Muscovy, taking him prisoner. He was liberated only for a large ransom. But latex, internal dissension greatly weakened the Kazan khanate. There was no unity among the Kazan feudal lords, and a fu- rious struggle raged for the power and for tribute. Groups of rival feudal lords alternately deposed khans and placed new ones on the throne. The enemies of the Kazan khanate— Muscovy and the Crimea— took advantage of this struggle to interfere in the affairs of the khanate and they placed their own creatures on the Kazan throne.

The Volga Region under the Rule of the Tatars

The Mordvi- nian, Mari, Udmurt and Chuvash peoples, who had long lived in the Middle Volga region, were under the power of the Tatars. All these peo- ples had taken up agriculture, but hunting and the collecting of honey still remained an important pursuit. After the Tatar conquest these peoples had to pay tribute in the form of marten skins, honey and money. By this time the elan system had already disintegrated among the Mari, Mordvinians, Chuvashes and Udmiuts, who were governed by the descendants of tribal princelings. These princelings quickly assimilated Tatar ways and customs, intermingled with the Tatar feudal lords and together with them exploited their own tribesmen.

The Bashkirs, who roamed the valleys of the Belaya and Ufa rivers, were also under the rule of the Tatar khans. The chief occupation of the Bashkirs was herding. Hunting served as an auxiliary means of existence. They paid the Kazan kbans tribute in the form of marten skins.

The Nogai Horde

In the beginning of the 15th century a large independent horde ruled by its own princes came into being in the region between the Volga and the Yaik (the Ural) rivers. This horde was called the Nogai (13th-14th centuries) because it contained certain tribes that had once been subject to Nogai, the khan of the Golden Horde. The Nogais continued to lead a pastoral nomad life. The horde was broken up into small domains ruled almost independently by members of the prince family; one of the princes was recognized as the chief prince.

The Crimean Khanate

An independent Tatar khanate was formed in the Crimea in the 16th century. The Tatars were in possession of the northern steppe of the Crimean Peninsula. The seaboard, which was divided from the steppe by mountain ranges, was in the hands of the Italians. After the Crusades, two powerful Italian mercantile republics— Venice and Genoa— seized the most important trade routes to the East in the 13th century. The Venetian and Genoese merchants penetrated to the Blacir Sea and seized the most important harbours in the Crimea, forcing out the Greeks. A struggle commenced between Venice and Genoa for possession of the Black Sea markets. Genoa was victorious, and the chief coastal towns of the Crimea came tmder its power. The centre of the Genoese colonies was KaflFa (now Feodosiya), where the ruins of Genoese walls and towers exist to this day. The Genoese in the Crimea 'were compelled to recognize the supremacy of the Golden Horde khans, but they retained their independence in the administration of their internal affairs and spread their rule over the entire southern shore of the Crimea, with its heterogeneous population (Greeks, Italians, Arme- nians, Jews, Tatars, and others).

Originally the Crimea Tatars engaged exclusively in herding. They wandeied with their herds far beyond the confines of the penin- sula. But gradually, agriculture developed side by side with cattle breeding. The Tatar feudal lords began to encroach upon the lands of the indigenous peoples of the Crimea as well as of their own tribesmen who had settled on the peninsula. The Tatar peasants who lived on the lands of the feudal lords had to pay them a tenth of the crops they grew and perform services for them imder the corvee. The Christian and Jewish population had to pay quitrent.

In the 15th century the Crimean feudal lords grew so strong that they elected their own khan in the person of Hadji Girai, who was considered a descendant of Genghis Khan. After his dea^h (1466) a struggle for power brokfe out among his sons. Victory fell to the clever and able Mengli Girai, but even he did not immediately establish himself firmly on the throne. One of the big Crimean feudal lords quar- relled with him and appealed to the Turks. Mengli Girai found an ally in the Genoese. In 1475 a Turkish fleet appeared off the coast of the Crimea and destroyed Kaffa and other Genoese fortresses. Mengli Girai was taken prisoner and carried off to Constantinople. The remaining Genoese intermingled with the Tatar population of the Crimea.

The sultan converted the khanate of the Crimea into a dependency of Turkey. By agreement with the Crimean feudal lords he restored Mengli Girai to the throne(1479“1515). The Crimeankhans were obliged to come to the sultan’s aid with their troops at his first summons. The sultan placed his garrisons inKaiffa and other important Crimean coastal towns.

Mengli Girai formed a close alliance with the Moscow Grand Prince Ivan ni, and with his help routed his enemy— the khan of the Golden Horde. In league with Muscovy, Mengli Girai waged war agiinst Lithuania and also made frequent devastating raids upon the Ukraine: he captured and burnt Kiev, and went deep into the Lithuanian Duchy. The Polish kings, who were also the grand dukes of Lithuania, annually paid heavy tribute to Mengli Girai and Ms descendants, to purchase immunity from his incursions. The Muscovy princes, in their turn, sent annual gifts to the Crimea .Bakhchisarai —“the palace of gardens” — became the capital of the Crimean khanate. The city received its name from its luxurious palaces and gardens .with their beautiful fountains.

In Bakhchisarai Mengli Girai built a school. Instruction in it, however, was limited to the teaching of the Mohammedan sacred booics.

The Crimean khanate was the niost powerful Tatar khanate in Eastern Europe. It lasted until the end of the 18th century.

The Siberian Khanate. The Kazakhs

The Peoples of Western Siberia in the 15th Century

The Tatars living east of the Urals along the Tobol River formed a separate Siberian khanate . In the 16th century the city situated at the mouth of the Tobol, which the Russians called “Siberia,” became its capital. The Siberian khanat3 was not a united kingdom. It was broken up into a large number of small principalities {ulusi) whose petty princes enjoyed a large measure of independence.

The Siberian Tatars engaged in cattle raising and to some extent in agriculture, but the chief wealth of their land lay in their valuable fur-bearing animals— sable, marten, beaver, squirrel, etc. Hunting provided the Siberian Tatars with a profitable article of exchange with the more cultured lands of Asia— Bokhara and KMva. The Siberian Tatars also obtained furs by robbing their neighbours, the trappers, from whom they collected tribute in furs.

Along the upper reaches of the Tura and to the north of it lived the Mansi (Voguls); along the lower reaches of the Irtysh and along the Oh — the Hianti (Ostiaks). Both of these peoples were divided into small tribes ruled by petty princes. The Mansi lived by hunting. Each clan owned a section of forest where it set up enclosures for the catching of elk and placed arbalests • Some of the Mansi practised a rudimentary form of agriculture and cattle breeding. The Khanti lived chiefly by fishing. Those of the tribe who inhabited the tundra raised herds cf northern elk.

The Mansi and the Khanti were heathens: the Khanti worshipped the bear, which they regarded as their ancestor. Whenever they killed a bear they performed a sacred song and dance over it, to “'atone for their sin/'

The Tatars conquered the Mansi and the Khanti and forced them to pay tribute in furs. In case of war the Vogul and Ostiak princelings had to go with their troops to help the Tatars.

To the north of the Khanti the Nentsi (Samoyedes) roamed the tundra with their herds of elk. In the spring they moyed on to the Ob Biver for fishing. The vast tundra made the Nentsi inaccessible to the conquerors; they therefore did not fall under the rule of the Tatars.

Formation of the Kazakh Khanate

In the middle of the 15th century the Kazakh khanat.e was formed east of the Urals, on the land of present-day Kazakhstan. The nomadic peoples compris- ing it had formerly belonged to a union of Uzbek tribes. In 1466 they separated from the Uzbeks and formed an independent kingdom. The Kazakhs received their name from the fact that they had separated from the Uzbeks (the word hazakh in Turkic means ^^a free man who has broken away from his tribe, from which comes the Bussian word fe;t;s»^--<k)ssack --meaning ^‘a free man”).

Creation of the Russian National State

The Reign of Ivan III and Vasili III

Territorial Formation of the Russian State

Consolidation of Northeastern Rus

Beginning with the 14th century closer economic ties developed among the different Rus- sian principalities. This contributed to their gradual consolida- tion into a single national Russian realm. However, the economy of Russia was, in itself, inadequate to ensure the formation of a central- ized Russian state in the 15th centmy. The process of unification was hastened by the need to defend the country against the Tatars and other external enemies.

During the reign of Ivan IH (1462-1505), son of Vasili the Blind, the Grand Principality of Moscow annexed almost all the lands of N'ortheastem Rus that had remained independent, and formed a single Russian state.

Of the territories that still retained their independence before the 16th century the largest was that of Novgorod, which had vast colonial possessions in the Maritime North. Novgorod continued to be ruled by a veche, and by elected burgomasters and iisyatshi. It concluded agreements vdth the grand princes as of old, but the Novgorod boyars clearly realized that their liberties were coming to an end. Among these Novgorod boyars was a group who were inclined to side with Lith- uania in order to preserve their ancient privileges. This group was headed by the rich and influential Boretsky family. One member of the family was the Novgorod burgomaster. His mother, the energetic Marfa Boretskaya, led the struggle against Muscovy, The Boretsky faction often exclaimed at the veche: “We do not want to be called the patrimony of the Grand Prince of Moscow! We are free people, and we will not tolerate any insults from Moscow; we are for King Oasimir.”

In 1471 the ruling faction of Novgorod boyars betrayed their land and submitted to the rule of Casimir, the Polish king and Lithua- nian Grand Duke. On the other hand, the Novgorod poor were for union with Moscow, with which Novgorod was inseparably bound. Ivan III, leading a big army, undertook a campaign against Novgorod. The Novgorod army was defeated in a decisive battle on the Shelona Riv- er. The city was suffering from a shortage of bread, and the poorest elements of the population compelled the boyars to enter into negotia- tions with the grand prince. Ivan m ceased military operations on con- dition that indemnity be paid. Novgorod promised to break its alliance with Lithuania. Moscow permitted Novgorod to retain its former ‘liberties.” However, Ivan III annexed Novgorod’s colonies to Mus- covy. In 1472 a Muscovy army invaded the land of Perm. This country was inhabited by the Komi-Permiak people. The Muscovy princes defeated the Perm princes and captured their chief towns. The land of Perm was forced to recognize the supremacy of the Moscow Grand Prince. Being in need of metal, Ivan HI sent men skilled in mining to the newly conquered Ural regions.

Disturbances still continued in Novgorod. The defeated boyars began to settle accounts with the friends of Muscovy and the latter sought protection from the grand prince. In 1477 the people of Nov- gorod welcomed Ivan III as their Gositdar, They had never before be- stowed this title on any grand prince, and in this case were prompted by a desire to emphasize that Great Novgorod remained independent of Muscovy, since in the dialect of Novgorod the term Gosudar, mean- ing lord, was applied to any feudal landowner. Ivan UI took advantage of this occasion to demand the same “sovereignty” in Novgorod as he enjoyed in Moscow, that is, unlimited power, since Gosudar in the Moscow dialect meant sovereign, supremp ruler. The Novgorod veche refused to accede to Ivan Ill’s demands. He marched against Nov- gorod a second time and besieged it. This time the Novgorodians made no attempt at resistance, and opened negotiations with him. In January 1478, after a lengthy parley, they accepted all the conditions laid down by the grand prince . The veche was abolished; Novgorod was to be governed by the grand prince’s lord lieutenants, instead of the burgomaster; the greater part of the lands that had belonged to the Novgorod feudal lords passed to the grand prince. The republic of Novgorod ceased to exist. The symbol of Novgorod’s liberties — the veche bell— was removed. Many of Novgorod’s leading boyar and merchant families (including Marfa Boretskaya) were removed to the cities of Muscovy and replaced by nobles from Moscow. The military ser- vitors of Muscovy were settled by the grand prince on the lands that had been appropriated from the Novgorod boyars. Pskov was allowed to retain some of its for- mer independence for having helped Muscovy in the war against Novgorod.

The next principality to be annexed was Tver, which had once been a rival of Moscow. The Prince of Tver, Mikhail Borisovich, like the Novgorod prince, had betrayed Russia and trafficked with Casimir, the Polish king and the Grand Duke of Lithuania. Ivan III profited by this to besiege Tver. During the night Mikhail fled to Lithuania, The Tver boyars transferred their allegiance to the conqueror (1485), The principality of Ryazan also became a tributary of Muscovy. Thus, during the reign of Ivan III a single national Russian state was formed in place of the former independencies of Northeastern Rus.

The Russian national state united the Russian people. The kindred peoples of Byelorussia and Ukraine were unable to free themselves from the power of Lithuania and Poland and form their own national states. They subsequently united with the Russian people in a single centralized multi-national state.

Liberation from the Tatar Yoke. The Conquests of Ivan III

Overthrow of the Tatar Yoke (1480)

With the im*or. poration of Great Novgorod, Muscovy became powerful enough to ven- ture on casting off the Tatar yoke. Ivan III made the most of the Gold- en Horde’s disintegration. He contracted a close alliance with the Crimean than, Mengli Girai, to whom he annually sent envoys with personal gifts for the khan, his wives and his leading feudal lords. Taking advantage of the weakness of the Golden Horde, Ivan m stopped paying tribute to the Tatars.

Ahmed, khan of the Golden Horde, leagued himself with the Grand Duke of Lithuania in 1480 and went forth to compel Moscow to pay tribute. The grand prince led his troops to the Oka, to meet the Tatars. Ahmed, who was ex* pecting help from the Lithuanian Grand Duke, moved upstream, in the direction of the Lithuanian border. At this time Ivan HI was confronted with the menace of a mutiny on the part of his brothers. The grand prince has- tened back to Moscow, subdued his brothers and returned to his troops.

The Tatar and the Russian hosts stood facing each other on opposite sides of the Ugra River, a tributary of the Oka. Neither the Russians nor the Tatars crossed the river. Ahmed was willing to make peace but he insisted upon the payment of tribute. The bishop of Rostov, Vassian, sent a message to Ivan III exhorting him to courageously stand his ground against the Tatars and not to heed the cowards who advised him to betray his native land to the enemy. Thus things dragged on un- til the onset of frosts. When the Dgra froze, Ivan ordered his troops to withdraw in order to give battle from more favourable positions. The khan, however, hesitated to attack. His troops were suffering from the cold and lack of food. Meanwhile, Ivan Ill’s ally, the Crimean Khan Mengli Girai, was menacing the Golden Horde from the rear, and the Grand Duke of Lithuania, who had promised his aid, had left Ahmed in the lurch. The latter retired from Moscow’s borders. Thus ended this remarkable seven months’ hostile meeting on the Ugra River.

And thus ended the Tatar-Mongolianyoke, which for two centuries had lain heavily upon the Russian people . Having won its independence from Tatar domination, the Russian national state was now able further to develop and strengthen itself politically and economically.

The so recently omnipotent Golden Horde was utterly routed by the Crimean Tatars in 1602. In place of the Golden Horde a small khanate came into existence on the lower reaches of the Volga, the cap- ital of which, was the city of Astrakhan.

Russia’s Foreign Policy (1492–1505)

IVeedom from the Tatar yoke enabled Ivan III to undertake the gradual recovery of Russian territories on its western frontier. Prom the Murmansk coast to the lower reaches of the Danube and the Black Sea lay the ancient Russian lands of Kiev Rus, which had been seized by the Danes, Swedes., Germans, Lithuanians and Tuiks. As a preliminary to his struggle for the acquisition of Smolensk and the Baltic, Ivan IH in 1492 con- cluded peace with Turkey, being the first European sovereign to do so.

That same year Ivan III had a fortress built on the delta of the Na- rova River, and named it after himself — ^Ivan-gorod (the city of Ivan). This marked the beginning of Russia’s righteous war for possession of the Baltic Sea. The Russian army, in retaliating the Swedish incur- sions which reached almost to the city of Vologda, advanced to the shores of the Gulf of Bothnia. A diplomatic war commenced over Pe^ chenga (Petsamo) which the Danes were endeavouring to seize. In 1600 open war that lasted three years broke out with Lithuania for the pos- session of ancient Russian lands. The Muscovy troops won several brilliant victories over the Lithuanians, Lithuania entered into an alliance with the Livonian order. The German knights approached Pskov several times but suffered a serious defeat at the hands of the Russian troops. By a peace treaty with Lithuania, the ancient Russian province, the land of Seversk, including the city of Chernigov, were annexed to the dominions of Muscovy, bringing Russia close up to Kiev. The Livonian Order undertook to pay annual tribute to the Mos- cow Grand Prince, but did not fulfil its obligations.

Ivan ni forced the Kazan khanate to accept vassal dependence on Muscovy, He interfered in the appointment of khans to the Kazan throne, and the people of Kazan could do nothing without the permis- sion of Muscovy,

Several campaigns were launched in the Urals. In 1500 the troops of Muscovy crossed the Ural Mountain Range. In the mountains they were attacked by the Nentsi, whom they defeated and from whom they took away 200 reindeer. After that the Moscow waywodes continued on their way by reindeer while the common soldiers travelled on dog teams. The Yugra princes who came forth against them were routed and compelled to pay tribute,

Ivan ni pursued a cautious but tenacious policy of consolidating the Russian state. Occasional failures did not daunt or check him. He achieved his ends by clever and surefooted tactics. His relations with the Tatar khans were governed by subtle policy, he skillfully played off the Crimean and Siberian Tatars against the Golden Horde, and tried to avoid recourse to arms. Harsh in his attitude towards his vassals, he held the power firmly in his hands and succeeded in making himself feared.

Russian Social and State Structure at the End of the 15th Century

Development of Money-Commodity Relations

The unifica- tion of the Knssian nation into a single body-politic was possi- ble given the existence of at least a rudimentary form of market in- tercourse between the various Russian territories.

The economy of the Russian state at the end of the 15th century was fundamentally still a natural one. Rut the development of money- commodity relations in this period proceeded more intensively than formerly. More active trade relations were established between the differ- ent towns and regions. A large trading centre was created in Moscow; shops and bazaars arose, the latter being originally known as gosiiniye dvori^ literally meaning "guest inns” for the accommodation of visit- ing merchants. Pood products were brought for sale to Moscow from the surrounding regions. A foreigner who visited Moscow during Ivan Ill’s reign gives a vivid description of winter trade: on the ice of the Moscow River "the merchants set up their stalls with various wares”; here ^%very day throughout the winter corn, meat, pigs, firewood, hay, and other necessary supplies are brought for sale; at the end of November all the people in the vicinity of Moscow slaughter their cows and pigs and bring them to the city for sale. It is a pleasure to look at these enormous quantities of stripped animal carcasses stand- ing on the ice on their hind legs.”

Thus, the individual household no longer produced all its own foodstuffs, and purchased some of them on the market. The growth of money-commodity relations is evidenced by the fact that landowners at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries were no long- er content with receiving payment in kind from their peasants, and also demanded money from them (monetary quitrent).

The development of trade enhanced the importance of the mer- chants in the cities. At the end of the 14th century mention is made in Moscow of a group of rich Surozh merchants (z.e., those trading with the town oX Surozh, or Sudak, in the Crimea) and clothiers. In addition to trade the rich merchants engaged in monby-lending; many of the appanage princes and even the brothers of Ivan III were in debt to them. The merchants were interested in the cessation of feudal strife and the unification of all Russian lands, inasmuch as this would foster trade between the various parts of the country.

The Army and Fee Estates

The Landlords and the Peasants. The economy of the feudal patrimonies remained a natural one, and still found difficulty in adapting itself to the market. There was little money in the country. When in need of money, the landowners borrowed it from the rich merchants, but chiefly from the monasteries, which amassed considerable wealth through the collection of dona- tions and by usury. Lands were mortgaged as security; in default of redemption the mortgage was foreclosed and the lands remained the property of the monastery. Large patrimonies were ruined and broken up. The chief military force was no longerthe large landowners who, under the new conditions, could not afford to maintain large mil- itary retinues, but the petty landowners. Most of these petty land- owners were the vassals of the more powerful feudal lerds and pos- sessed lands which they had received from their lords in payment for their services. They were chiefly military servitors or the dvoryane (nobility) who belonged to the court of the grand prince. The term dvoryane was applied to all small landowners who served in the army of the grand prince.

The army became centralized. Until then every prince had had to appear with his own troops when a summons came from the grand prince calling him to the army. Such a conglomerate army was defi- cient in many ways. In case of a sudden attack by the enemy it was diflicult to marshal. On each occasion it was necessary to come to terms with every individual prince. There was no single command in the army. Every regiment fought under its own ‘TDanner.” As the separate principalities were destroyed, Ivan HI attached the regiments or, as it was then said, the ‘^dvori” (courts) of the princes to his own court. In this way a large army of the dvoryane (courtiers or nobles) was formed, augmented by freemen and servants of the boyars.

However, the more important boyars who had been former princes still retained their own small forces, and during campaigns they joined the army of the dvoryane.

Owing to the lack of money in the treasury of the grand princes, the d/ooryane did not receive their allowances. Instead of paying in money, the grand prince gave the dvoryanin a small section of land which he could hold so long as he rendered military service. If a noble resigned his military service, he forfeited the land. The lands given to the nobles or other military servitors were called or fee estates

in contradistinction lo the patrimonies, which were the absolute prop- erty of their owners, and the person rendering this military service who held the estate in fief was called ^omeshchih (landlord).

Thus, the dvoryane formed a large stratum of petty landed proprie- tors (later all landowners came to be called jpomeshcMhi), The pomesh^ chih had the right to collect ^uitrent from the peasants living on his estate and to force them to render compulsory services under the corvee.

Under feudalism the peasant was never free. The feudal lord kept him on his land under compulsion, and thought nothing of resorting to open violence. It was especially difficult for the ‘‘old inhabitants,” peasants who had lived on the patrimony for a long time, to quit the land of their feudal lord. But even the other peasants weie lestricted in their freedom of passing from one landlord to another: custom de- manded that they quit only after the winding up of all the field work, in the beginning of winter, when the grain had been stored in their master’s granaries.

After the formation of a strong, centralized state, which protected the interests of the feudal lords, the nobility wanted to legalize this arrangement and thus further strengthen their power over the peasants.

To provide serf labour for the landlords, Ivan IH passed a law in 1497 by which the peasant was not permitted to leave his landlord until all the farm work had been completed. A definite day was estab- lished throughout the realm on which the peasant could **leave,” namely, St. George’s Day Yuryev that is, November 26

(old style calendar). The peasant could quit his master during the week preceding St. George’s Day and the week following it. But before do- ing so he had to settle all accounts with his master and pay for his po^ zMloye, that is, his tenancy. Even before 1497 the peasants had been greatly restricted in their right of transition from one landowner to an- other; the new law increased these restrictions. Muscovy was a feudal state, and it helped the landlords in every way possible to enthrall the peasants.

The numerous nobility acquired great political infl.ueDce in the state. Having no landed property of their own, the nobles wholly de- pended on the grand prince, from whom they received their estates and who gave them every opportunity to exploit the peasantry. The grand prince therefore had a loyal servant in the nobility, upon whose support he could rely in the matter of strengthening his power.

Central and Local Government

When the separate feudal principalities were united in a single feudal state, the government of Muscovy was organized on a new basis. Under Ivan m the entire administration became concentrated in the hands of the grand prince.

All the princes who had at one time been independent rulers were now in the service of the Grand Prince of Muscovy and became his boyars. The most illustrious of the boyars were members of the grand prince’s council, called the duma. The former princes and the rest of the boyars ranked according to lineage or, as it was then said, *‘accord- ing to birth.” The most exalted boyars received high posts. A boyar of quality could not serve under a man of inferior dignity or even oc- cupy a similar position as an inferior. When appointments were made for campaigns or other service, disputes would arise over '‘place,” with disastrous results. This state of affairs historians have given the name mestnicJisstvo^^onteixtion for precedence (from the Russian word meato meaning "place”). This rivalry for precedence wrought consid- erable mischief. Appointments were made not on personal merit and ability, but in consideration of a man^s rank and dignity, even though they were incompetent . Struggle for precedence was a sign of the political power wielded by the rich feudal lords at the couit of the grand prince. It greatly hampered the proper conduct of state affairs, al- though the fact that the Grand Prince of Muscovy decided all disputes for precedence among the boyars was evi- dence of his own growing power.

The grand prince appoint- ed his lord lieutenants to the KubSian warriors of the 16ih confcury, newly oon(][uered regions.

According to Herherstcin These people governed the

regions entrusted to them, held court, and collected tases. For doing this they were "fed” at the expense of the population, according to ancient custom. Prior to Ivan III these requisitions in favour of the lieutenant governors were entirely unrestricted. Ivan III established a fixed ration, in kind or in money, and also determined the amount of legal dues and trading imposts. Special government offices, called prikazi^ were set up in Moscow. They were of two types. Some were in charge of territorial administration and the for- mer appanages; others supervised different branches of the state administration, such as military affairs and finances. Of great importance in the administration were the grand prince’s clerks or scribes on whom all the routine of these institutions devolved. In 1497 Ivan III issued a "Law Book” called Svdehmh, establishing the form of government and legal procedure in the state.

Muscovy’s International Position

A strong army was organ- ized under Ivan Til, The concentration of power and finances, as well as the centralization of the army made it possible considerably to improve military technique. An artillery was created; craftsmen called in from Western Europe cast cannon in the newly built Liteiny Dvor (Foundry) on the Neglinnaya Biver in Moscow.

During the reign of Ivan III the Bussian state acquired a place of importance among the countries of Europe. The German emperor offer- ed Ivan III the title of king, but Ivan declared that he needed nobody’s confirmation. The Pope, who had long wanted to bring Eastern Europe under his influence, also entered into relations with Muscovy. Trade between Muscovy and the mercantile countries of Western Europe, especially with the rich republic of Venice, became very brisk. Venetian envoys and mercliants paid frequent visits to Moscow via the Black Sea and the Crimea. The grand prince needed European ar- tificers. Through the medium of Venice he invited architects, gun craftsmen and other specialists to settle in Moscow.

In 1453 Constantinople was conquered by the Turkish sultan, and the Byzantine empire fell.

Turkish domination extended over the Black Sea coast, the Caucasus, the Balkans, and up the Danube as far as Vienna. Through the aid of Venice and the Pope, Ivan III formed a matrimonial alliance with Sophia Palaeologus, the niece of the last Greek emperor. Both Venice and the Pope hoped through this marriage to increase their influence in Moscow and induce Russia to fight against Turkey. They also counted on penetrating into the East — to India and China — ^through Russia. But Ivan III did not allow foreign interference in the affairs of the Russian state.

Through the medium of the Crimea Ivan HI entered into relations with Turkey, and Moscow merchants started travelling to that country. Relations between Russia and Persia were also established. Afanasy Nikitin, a merchant of Tver, after many adventures succeeded in mak- ing his way into India (1467-1472). He left an interesting description of his travels, ‘‘peregrinations over three seas” (the Caspian Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea). Afanasy Nikitin was one of the first Europeans to reach India.

The Power of the Grand Prince

The position of the Grand Principality of Moscow underwent a radical change in the reign of Ivan III, Formerly it had been one of the many principalities of Northeastern Rus. Now it was transformed into a strong consolidated state uniting almost the entire Russian people and had become a na- tional Russian realm. The character of the grand prince’s authority also changed Ivan Ill’s reign saw the beginnings of autocracy, that is, the unlimited power of the grand prince. Formerly the Grand Mnce of Moscow was simply 'primua inter 'pares (first among his peers), the most powerful of the many Russian princes. Now he had become the sole “sovereign” of all Northeastern Rus. Sometimes he even called himself the “tsar” (a contraction from the word Caesar). After the Turk- ish conquest of Constantinople, Ivan III began to regard himself as the direct successor of the Greek emperors. He adopted the imperial seal of Byzantine— the double-headed eagle. On state occasions Ivan ni sat on a throne setHn precious stones j and wore a crown or, as the Bussians called it, the ‘‘Monomakh cap” (according to legend, it had been handed down by Vladimir Monomachus, who is said to have received it from the Greek Em- peror Constantine Monomachus)* The grand prince rebuilt his capital with great splendour. Before Ivan m Moscow had consisted al- most exclusively of wooden build- ings. Even the grand prince’s pal- ace had been made of wood. Dur- ing Ivan in’s reign the construc- tion of stone buildings increased.

Ivan m invited foreign masters and artificers to Moscow, Among them was the famous Italian archi- tect Bidolfo di Eioravante, nick- named Aristotle, who acquainted the Bussians with the use of improved building methods and mechanical devices. The masters invited from abroad built the still- existent Kremlin walls and their towers, the stone cathedrals, the luxurious stone palace of which the 'Tied Wing” with figures of lions still survives, and the magnificent Granovitaya Palata, Besides the Italian, Pskov artificers were also employed in decorating the capital.

The consolidation of the various disunited principalities into a sin- gle state led to the cessation of feudal wars among the rival princes. But the formerly independent princes did not immediately resign them- selves to the loss of their rights as rulers. They were not satisfied with their position as boyars at the court of the grand prince. They wanted an active part in the government and demanded that the grand prince listen to their counsels. So long as Ivan ITT was surrounded by a small group of faithful old Moscow boyars, he willingly listened to their opinion and tolerated criticism. But now at the grand prince’s court there were many new boyars, former appanage princes. Ivan HI did not trust his enemies of yesterday, and the new boyars were constrained, sorely against their grain, to submit to the grand prince. The lat- ter began to hold aloof from his boyars. He adopted towards them the haughty and proud mien of the Greek emperors. For disobedience to his orders boyars were either executed or exiled. The boyars attributed these changes to the influence of the Grand Princess Sophia. "As soon as the Grand Princess Sophia came with her Greeks,” they said, "everything has become^ topsy-tnrvy.”

The ohnroh played an important part in strengthening the power of the grand prince. The clergy supported the unification of the Bus- sian lands into a single state. It preached that the grand prince derived his power from God. Ivan III, for his part, granted the church numerous privileges, ensured the inviolability of its estates and ruthlessly per- secuted the 'lieretics,” that is, men who dared to criticize the tenets of the Orthodox church. The church therefore readily gave its services to the grand prince.

Consolidation of the Russian Realm under Vasili III

The unification of the principalities of Northeastern Bus was com- pleted by Vasili III (1505-1533), the son of Ivan in. Pskov was incor- porated under his rule in 1510. Vasili summoned the Pskov burgomas- ters and the boyars, who were Muscovy ^s enemies, to Novgorod on the pretext of examining their complaints against the lord lieutenant, and had them arrested. A clerk of the grand prince was sent to Pskov, where, addressing the populace from the mche tribune he announced to them the demands of the grand prince, namely, that the veche in Pskov be abolished and that the city and its environs be governed by his lord lieutenants. The veche bell was removed and taken to Moscow, Three hundred Pskov families were sent to live in Moscow, and Moscow landlords were settled on their estates.

It was also during Vasili’s reign that Ryazan was finally joined to the state. The last Ryazan prince, chaffing under his dependence on Moscow, leagued himself with the Crimean khan. The Ryazan prince was summoned to Moscow and his person seized, but he managed to escape and fled to Lithuania. His principality was annexed to Muscovy (1621), The whole of Northeastern Rus was now united under the hegemony of Muscovy,

Vasili HI continued the struggle for the recovery of ancient Rus- sian territories seized by the Lithuanian grand dukes as far back as the 14th century. In 1514 he laid siege to Smolensk and began bombard- ing the city. After three salvos a deputation headed by the bishop of Smolensk came to the grand prince at the Russian camp with the entreaty: "Do not destroy the city, take it in peace.” Thus was the ancient Russian city of Smolensk re-incorporated into the Russian state. The power of Vasili III within the Bussian realm was greatly strengthened. He was now ‘*the sovereign of sovereigns over the entire Rus- sian land.” The former appanage princes had to serve him “at his en- tire will.” The power of Vasili III, as foreigners wrote, “surpasses all monarchs of all world”; he “is absolute master of the lives and prop- erty of all.” The Muscovites “openly declare that the will of their sovereign is the will of God.” Vasili III removed the boyax‘s from the government. He suffered no opposition on their part, and if a boyar contradicted him, he drove him out of the duma with ciu'ses. He decid- ed all matters with two or three of his trusted servants, chosen for the most part among his clerks who weie always at his beck and call.

One of Vasili Hi’s contemporaries, the monk Philothei, in a me'^- sage to the grand prince, expounded the ideology of the nascent autoc- racy. “Moscow,” he wrote, “is the successor of the great world capitals: ancient Rome and the second Rome— Constantinople; Moscow is the third Rome, and there will be no fourth,”

Expansion of the Russian State and Its Transformation into a Multi-National Realm

The Reign of Ivan IV

The Rule of the Boyars. Reforms of the 1550s

The Rule of the Boyars

Vasili III died in 1533, leaving the throne to his three-year-old son Ivan, during whose minority the country was governed by his mother, the Princess Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya (1533-1538). Vasili’s brothers, appanage princes, tried to take advantage of his death to regain a share of their lost independence. But Princess Elena, who was an energetic and determined woman, im- mediately crushed all such attempts. After suppressing the turbulent appanage princes, Elena reigned supreme. She is said to have been poisoned by the boyars, who hated her.

The sudden death of the princess untied the hands of the boyars. A hoy of eight sat on the throne. The boyars hastened to seize the power in their own hands, but they themselves were at variance with each other. The princes Shuiski and Belski became involved in a bitter strug- gle. The Shuiskis rallied their followers, broke into the Kremlin, forced their way into the palaoe, and seized their opponents. But the Shutski faction did not remain in power very long, Andrei Shuiski was killed in 1543, and the power passed to the Glinakis. The rule of the boyars lasted for about nine years. The boyars were opposed to the newly established system of centralized government. They turned the cities and volosts over to their relatives and supporters for "feeding”; the lieutenants appointed by them robbed the population. Taking advantage of this turmoil and anarchic state of affairs, the Crimean and Kazan Tatars made devastating raids upon Russian lands.

In such an environment of boyar enmity and rivalry did the Grand Prince Ivan grow up, utterly neglected and scorned by those around him. He was a witness of revolting scenes of brawls and violence among the factious boyars. At the same time, young Ivan was precociously aware of the significance of his title of grand prince. As a child, during his mother *s lifetime, he remem- bered himself on ceremonial occasions, as when attending church or at receptions of am- bassadors, surrounded with impe- rial pomp and homage. After his mother *s death those very bo- yars who, as he himself put it, were usually not even concerned about his food and clothing, paid him obsequious honours at state receptions. Ivan learned to read at a very early age, and he read avidly. From the scriptural books and historical works that he read, he formed an idea of a sov- ereign vested with supreme authority. In this respect he was greatly influenced by the metro- politan Makari, an educated per- son for those times whopropound- ed the same idea in his writ- ings. The brutal and degrading environment of his youth engen- dered in Ivan a strain of cruelty.

In 1647 the seventeen-year- old Ivan solemnly assumed the title of tsar. By this act he stressed the importance of the Russian state among the other European states and the unlimited power wielded by the Russian tsar within his own country.

The return to the old system of appanages had a grievous effect upon the condition of the people, which resulted in a mutiny breaking out in Moscow in 1547 against the Glinski faction. The immediate cause was a gieat fire which destroyed a considerable part of the city. The populace had already been reduced to a state of despair by the tyrannies of the Glinskis. The Muscovites accused their oppressors of having started the fire; they shouted that Anna Glinskaya, the grandmother of the tsar, had set fire to Moscow by witchcraft. One of the Glinskis was killed; the others fled. The tsar himself took refuge in his village of Vorobyovo (the site of the present Lenin Hills).

The Demands of the Nobility

When the uprising was sup- pressed, a man of hmnble origin, a clever and adroit official named Alexei Adashev, came to the head of administrative affairs. With the support of an influential coiut priest named Sylvester, Adashev formed a strong ruling group in which were included several powerful boyars. Thus was created an Izbranruiya rada (Council of the Elect) or, as it was otherwise called, ^‘the intimate duma,” without which the young tsar made no decisions.

It was necessary as quickly as possible to satisfy the demands of the mass of the so-called military servitors— the petty provincial landlord nobility. The demands of these people found expression at the time in the writings of a nobleman by the name of Ivan Peresvetov. La the latter’s opinion, the tsar’s chief concern should be for the ‘‘mili- tary,” that is, the nobility, whom he should provide with lands and salaries. Inasmuch as there was a dearth of land, he should begin tbe conquest of the ^^fodraiahaya zemlitaa^^ — the near-paradise — in other words, the Kazan khanate. To provide salaries for the nobility Peresvetov proposed that all the national revenue be concentrated in the royal exchequer. For this purpose the system of “feedings” was to be abolished. Legal procedure was to be improved by the com- pilation of a code of laws and the infliction of severe punishment for bribery and corruption. The realization of all these measures required a strong rule and the elimination of the remaining vestiges of feudal dismemberment. And inasmuch as the ‘^leniviye bogatiny^’ (the idle rich)— the boyars— would be opposed to this, Peresvetov counselled breaking their opposition by “terror,” since, he claimed, “without such terror it is impossible to introduce truth in the kingdom.” Such was the program of the nobility. One section of the boyars realized the necessity of making concessions .They rallied aroxmd Adashev and helped him pass a number of measures aimed at strengthening the tsar’s power and at the same time satisfying the most pressing needs of the nobility.

Reforms of the 1550’s

The first thing to be undertaken was the reorganization of the administration. This was necessitated not so much by the demands of the nobility, as by the rapid growth of dissat- isfaction in the country with the old forms of government, which had found vent in the Moscow uprising of 1547. The ruling classes were faced with the menace of a popular ouibreaK. A convocation of the clergy, boyars and nobles is said to have been held in Moscow in 1549 to discuss ways and means of pacifying the country. In 1550 a new code of laws was published, regulating legal proceduie and defining punishment for bribery.

When Ivan IV was still a child, all cases of banditry had been withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the lord lieutenants who had turned them into a source of private income, and had been turned over to the district reeves. These reeves were elected by the population of the uyezds (counties) from among the local nobility. These elections were virtually manipulated by the nobility, and gave them great pow- er over the peasants of their district.

In 1565, under great pressure from the provinces, the system of "‘feedings’' was completely abolished. The lord lieutenants were re- placed by mayors and magistrates elected from the people. These mayors and magistrates administered justice and collected taxes from the townspeople and the cJiomiye (commonalty), that is, the state peas- ants. The revenue went directly into the exchequer. This measure was a very important step in the centralization of government.

Simultaneously measures were taken to improve the position and military training of the nobility.

In 1665 a code was published concerning military service: it defined the normal size of an estate whose landlord was obliged to appear “on horse and fully equipped” (about 150 hectares— 370 acres). If a military servitor possessed a larger estate, he was to provide a certain number of serfs, varying according to the size of his estate or patrimony.

To ensure labour power for the nobility, the code of 1560 confirmed the law prohibiting peasants from leaving their landowners on any date other than St. George’s Day. Peasants living on the lands of the feudal lords were, as formerly, under the jurisdiction of the landowners’ court. All these measures were in the interests of the no- bility, ^.6,, the petty and medium feudal lords. The strengthening of the nobility was conducive to the strengthening of the regal power.

The Wars of Tsar Ivan IV

The Conquest of the Volga Khanates

At the beginning of Ivan IV’s reign, the whole of Northeastern Rus was already united. It was during his rule that the subjugation of the neighbouring peoples, the conquest of their lands, and the gradual transformation of the Russian state into a multi-national state was begun. In the reign of Vasili HE the Kazan Tatars, supported by the Crimean than, had freed themselves from dependence on Muscovy. Ivan IV began preparations for the complete conquest of the Kazan khanate’. Besides the need of providing land and serfs for the nobility, other motives for this undertaking were incessant raids on Russian frontier territo- ries by the Kazan Tatars who desolated the land and carried off large numbers of captives. Furthermore, Kazan was the key to the Volga waterway which had an outlet to the Caspian, and to the routes beyond the Urals. The strengthening of Turkey on the Black Sea and in the Caucasus constituted a threat to Russia from the east via Astrakhan and Kazan. In 1550 a big expedition against Kazan had ended in fail- ure. In the spring of 1551 the city of Sviyazhsk was built on the land of the Mari, * on the hilly side of the Volga, opposite the city of Ka- zan. The Mari hillmen, who had till then been paying tribute to the Kazan khans, were now compelled to submit to the Moscow tsar. The following year the troops of Muscovy, using Sviyazhsk as their base, crossed the Volga and invested Kazan. The Tatars put up a furious resistance but were obviously outmatched by superior Russian forces which numbered 150,000 strong, well equipped with artillery .

With the co-operation of foreign engineers Kazan was encircled by a line of trenches; siege turrets were moved up to her walls, which were undermined. The total number of Tatar troops in the city was only 30,000.

Supported by detachments which attacked the Muscovy troops from the rear Kazan held out for a month and a half. Finally, the walls of the city were blown up, and on October 2, 1562, Kazan was taken by as- sault. The struggle, however, did not cease with the fall of l^zan. The Tatar, Mari,

Udmurt, Chuvash and Mordva peoples con- tinued to offer resistance to the conquerors.

The rebels inflicted a telling defeat upon the Muscovy troops and even captured the waywode who had been sent out against

them. Only after a struggle that lasted five ^ Russian man-at-arms, years were the local feudal lords won over oruzheinaya Falata by bribes to the Russian tsar. The lands of the former Kazan khanate were distrib- uted among the Muscovy military and the clergy. The popula- tion was reduced to serfdom. The Tatar feudal lords, who had retained part of their lands and were placed on the same footing as the Mus- covy nobility, also took a hand in the exploitation of the peasant pop- ulation of the Volga. Thus the toiling people of the Volga region came under a double yoke— that of the Russian and the Tatar feudal lords. With the conquest of Kazan the Bashkirs too recognized the supremacy of Russia.

In 1555 Yediger, sovereign of the Siberian khanate, acknowledged himself the vassal of Muscovy and undertook to pay the Moscow, tsar annual tribute.

In 1556 came the turn of Astrakhan: the Muscovy military servi- tors drove out the local khan and occupied the city. The entire Volga River was now in the hands of Muscovy.

The acquisition of Astrakhan opened the way to the Caspian coun- tries. Taking advantage of intestine feuds among the petty princes of the Northern Caucasus , Ivan IV ordered a city to be built on the Terek, but abandoned it under pressure from Turkey. The Russian Cos- sacks, i.e.f the free military servitors, refused, however, to accept this decision and continued to live on the Terek. After the subjugation of Kazan and Astrakhan, the Eastern front was well fortified against Turkish aggression. Eut the Crimean khanate was still a great menace. \ear after year the Crimean Tatars made devastating inroads upon the Russian frontier regions and carried oiF thousands of prisoners, whom they then sold to Turkey. To render the southern borders safe against these raids, a fortified line was built, the so-called Tula abatis line, which consisted of a number of abatises, forts and other artificial barrages near the city of Tula.

In order to keep a watch on the movements of the Tatars, detach- ments, or, as they were called, stamisi, were sent to the steppe, where they set up military outposts. Usually the observer kept a lookout for the enemy from a high tree or a tower, beneath which his comrades stood ready with saddled horses. As soon as a column of dust appeared in the distance, signalling the approach of Tatar horsemen, the observ- ers gallbped with the news to the next outpost, which relayed the in- formation further. In this way the news of approaching Tatars reached Moscow quicxly and made it possible to move troops promptly against the Tatars.

At the end of the 1550 ’s the Moscow government decided to attack the Crimea. The Russian troops sailed down the Don and the Dnieper, and reached the Crimean coast. The war for the Baltic, begun in 1558, prevented the Russians from following up these successes-

Beginning of the War for Livonia

The vital needs of the nation forced Muscovy to seek an outlet to the Baltic Sea. Russians possession of a seaboard was essential in the interests of defence, and as a means of developing her trade, and establishing cultural rela- tions with Western Europe. Isolated from the West by Livonia and Lith- uania, Muscovy, in its intercourse with Western Europe, was virtu- ally dependent upon these two states, who were interested in preserv- ing the backwardness of the Russian state and persistently prevented Western European master-workmen and skilled artificers from com- ing to enter the service of the Russian tsar.

After the defeat of Grimewald the decline of the German knighthood went on apace and they were unable to maintain the independence of their domains. Supremacy in Livonia meant supremacy in the Baltic. And so the clash among Livonia’s neighbours — Lithuania, Sweden, Denmark and Russia — ^for the possession of Livonia was coming to a head.

In January 1558 Ivan IV launched military operations against Li- vonia- After several months of fighting, Narva, one of Livonia’s most important ports, was taken. Next Yuriev (renamed Dorpat by the Ger- mans), an ancient Russian city, was recovered for Russia. One town after another snrrendeied to Muscovy’s waywodes. Livonia fell beneath the blows of Muscovy’s troops (1561). Alarmed by the success of Rus- sian arms, the neighbouring states intervened in Livonia’s affairs. Revel (Tallinn) placed itself under the protection of Sweden, Denmark took over the Island of Oesel, while the rest of Livonia went to Sigis- mund- Augustus, the Polish king and Grand Duke of Lithuania. The Grand Master of the Livonian Older kept Courland, but merely as a vassal of the Polish king. Thus the German Order, which had once threatened Russia had now ended its existence. The partition of Livo- nia led to a new twenty years’ war of Russia against Poland, Sweden and Denmark.

The Oprichnina

Organization of the Oprichnina

In Tsar Ivan's opinion the Idfranmya rada (Council of the Elect) was not prosecuting the war with Livonia with sufficient vigour. Tsar Ivan fell out with the Council soon after the capture of Kazan. The boyars on the Council endeav- oured to limit the tsar’s power. Adashev and the priest Sylvester con- sulted their boyar followers behind the tsar’s back. This attempt to limit the tsar’s power in the interest of a small group of boyars was strongly resisted by the mass of the military servitors.

In the beginning of 1560 Adashev was banished from Moscow to honourable exile as waywode of one of the conquered Livonian cities, where he died shortly afterwards. At the same time Sylvester was se- cluded in a monastery. This was followed by the execution of their sup- porters. Many of the latter fled to Lithuania, to the enemies of the Russian state. Nevertheless in 1563 Muscovy’s troops won a very great victory: Polotsk, one of the largest cities on the Western Dvina and once the centre of a Russian principality, surrendered. King Sigis- mund-Augustus made peace overtures to the Moscow government and agreed to renounce all the cities and lands in Livonia conquered by the Russian troops, but Moscow was not inclined to make peace. In 1564 Prince Kurbski, a distinguished captain whom the tsar had placed at the head of the army operating in Livonia, betrayed his coun- try and fled to Lithuania after losing a battle. In Lithuania Prince Kurbski was richly compensated for his treachery with a grant of large estates, and appointed in command of one of the armies operating against his own country (Kurbski betrayed all Ivan’s military plans to the enemy),

Kurbski ’s perfidy led to new executions. The boyars’ treason and the setbacks suffered in Livonia brought to a head the question of con- centrating all power in the 'tsar’s hands, completely destroying the boyars’ opposition, and wiping out the last traces of feudal disunity. These were the goals that Ivan IV sought to attain when he reorgan- ized the state administration in the beginning of 1565, Distrusting the boyars who surrounded him, the tsar suddenly quitted Moscow with a bodyguard of his noblemen. He stopped at the fortified Alexandrova Sloboda (a village within 100 km. of Moscow), whence he wrote an epistle to Moscow, addressed to the metropolitan, in which he recount- ed the treacheries of the boyars and reproached the clergy for having interceded on behalf of the traitors. The tsar announced that he abdicated the throne. In another epistle to the Moscow merchants and the peo* pie, the tsar wrote that ‘Tie had no anger whatever against them,” Under pressure of the Moscow populace, a deputation of the clergy and boyars went to Alexandrova Sloboda to implore the tsar to return to Moscow.

Ivan IV consented. He punislied tte boyar traitors, snmmoned tbe Zemski Sobor * (National Assembly) and set about organizing tbe oprichnina— B. “separate estate” or select corps. The populace of the capital, frightened by the possibility of the boyars seizing power, welcomed the establishment of the new order in the realm and the in- stitution of a reign of terror against the boyars.

Ivan IV divided the entire territory of the realm into two parts: the z&mhchina, which was governed by the boyars’ duma, under the direction of the tsar, and the oprichnina, which was governed by the tsar himself. The oprichnina consisted of the finest regions located in the centre of the realm, territories which were of great military or economic significance. The city of Moscow was similarly divided. The oprichnina and the zemahchina boyars and waywodes functioned side by side. There were administrative bodies {prikazi) which governed the zemshchina and administrative bodies which gov- erned the oprichnina. The capital of the oprichnina was Alexandrova Sloboda (the village of Alexandrov) where the tsar felt himself more secure. The oprichnina was designed to crush the power of the great feudal lords and create a corps from among the small landowning nobility, which could be relied upon to support a strong centralized state authority.

The rich feudal lords, especially the descendants of the appanage princes, had by no means lost their political power. ‘The state/* Lenin points out, “broke up into separate lands, sometimes even into principalities which preserved the living traces of their former autono- my, and the peculiarities in their administration; sometimes they kept their own special troops (the local boyars went to war with their own regiments), special customs lines, etc/** Such a situation was incom- patible with the interests of the centralized feudal realm which was in the making. All princes and boyars weie therefore removed from the territory of the oprichnina. Their patrimonies were taken over ^for the sovereign’*; in exchange they were given other, by no means equivalent, estates in remote regions where they had no political ties whatever. Their former patrimonies were distributed among the petty nobility, who formed a select corps of oprichniki. The oprichnina was headed by Malyuta Skuratov, who enjoyed the confidence of the tsar* The chief task of the oprichniki was to uproot the remaining vestiges of feudal and boyar disunity. The oprichniki were selected from the small landowning nobility. With the help of the oprichniki the tsar inaugurated a reign of terror against the boyars. Ivan IV ruthlessly executed his enemies, and massacred the upper strata of the feudal lords including even their infants, and sparing neithe' their servants nor peasants.

The attempts of the poweiful secular and ecclesiastical vassals to rally against the tsar failed. The metropolitan Philip, who belonged to the noble family of Kolychev, tried to intercede on behalf of the boyars, but was removed from office and exiled to a monastery, where he was secretly put to death. About 1567 the boyars entered into a far-reaching conspiracy, but it was discovered and the conspirators were executed. Kovgorod, in which the traditions of its former polit- ical independence were still alive, was also involved in the conspiracy. Some of the Kovgorodians, including the archbishop, were ready to betray their sovereign and transfer their allegiance to Lithuania, In January 1570 the tsar headed a large punitive expedition against Novgorod. For five weeks the oprichniki tortured the population of Novgorod and drowned them in the River Volkhov. The city itself was pillaged. From Novgorod, the tsar moved to Pskov; although he pillaged^ the city, no cruel executions took place here.

The oprichnina satisfied the class interests of the petty and middle nobility. By means of the oprichnina the nobility extended their land holdings, receiving as they did the patrimonies ^confiscated from the boyars. The nobility also used the ofriohrmia to bring pressure to bear on the peasantry. The ojprichnihi seized the lands of the peasants, raised quitrents, increased the corvee, transferred peasants from other Jands to their own, and committed acts of violence.

Strengthening the Tsarist Autocracy

The ruination and par- tial extermination of the powerful feudal lords considerably strength- ened the power of the tsar and his nobles, and resulted in the estab- lishment of an autocracy.

Prince Kurbski expressed the feelings of the boyars who had been the victims of the oprichnina. He entered into a correspondence with Ivan IV from Lithuania, in which he accused the tsar of wanton cruelty, and attempted to vindicate the boyars accused of treason. A tsar should govern jointly with the boyars and listen to their counsel, Kurbski urged upon the tsar.

In his replies Ivan IV argued that the royal power was ordained by God. It was a heinous sin to disobey the tsar; all the tsar ^s subj'ects were his servants, whom it was his will to pardon or to execute. Any attempt to limit the power of the tsar was a crime, since it weakened the defence of the country.

The struggle among the feudal lords grievously affected all sections of the population. When the estates belonging to the disgraced boyars were devastated, the peasants were the first to suffer. The expedition against Novgorod was attended by such widespread desolation that for a long time the peasant households could not recover from the effects. One of the participants of this expedition, a German in the service of the oprichnina, named Heinrich Staden, boasted that whereas he had set out on the Novgorod campaign with a single horse, he had come back with forty-nine horses and twenty-two carts laden with booty.

In 1571 the Crimean khan, Devlet Girai, made an unexpected incursion. The khan marched xmopposed on Moscow, burnt the entire city with the exception of the Kremlin, and carried off an enormous number of captives. On attempting to repeat the raid the following year Devlet Girai was stopped at the Oka River by the zemski waywodes, who saved Moscow from being ravaged a second time (1572).

The tsar realized the importance of uniting all the feudal lords against the coimtry’s external enemies. The oprichnina had by this time served its purpose. The last traces of feudal disunity had been eradicated. The boyars had been sufficiently weakened. Not only was the oprichnina no longer necessary, but it was even harmful, for it proved to have traitors in its midst. Executions began among the oprichniki themselves. In 1672 the oprichnina was abolished.

Despite its negative aspects, the opriohnvm had promoted the centralization of the realm. ‘‘Nevertheless,” says Staden, "the present Grand Prince lias secured tlie establislinient of a single faith, a single weight, and a single measure throughout the land of Russia, through- out his realm! He governs alone. Everything that he commands is carried out, and everything that he forbids, does really remain forbidden. No one gainsays Mm, neither the clergy nor the lay- men.”

The autocracy promoted the consolidation of a centralized feudal realm and increased its powers of defence. It is therefore to be regarded as a beneficial influence in comparison with the former conditions of national disunity. The establishment of an autocracy was in the interests of the majority of the feudal class. The petty and middle nobility were able to secure their domination over the peasants and extend their estates only by means of the imlimited autocratic power of the tsar.

The autocracy also served the interests of the merchants, since the survivals of feudal disunity hampered the development of trade among the various regions of the country. The merchants therefore vigorously supported all the ejfForts of the tsar to strengthen the unity of the realm. On the other hand, a powerful state facilitated the seizure of new markets in the east and the west. The autocratic state was built up at the expense of the toiling peasantry. To the latter the autocracy brought heavier feudal oppression, and permitted the nobility to enthrall the peasants on their lands still more. But in those days the people believed in a benign tsar, and looked upon him as their protector against the evil boyars. The people therefore gave Ivan IV the imposing title of Grozny (the Dread), which to them signified mighty, just, and mercilessly cruel to the enemy.

End of the Livonian War

Progress of the Livonian War

The interference of Sweden, Poland and Lithuania in the Livonian war extremely complicated the situation in the Baltic. Muscovy now had to contend not with an enfeebled Order, hut with three powerful states. Ivan IV was sup- ported by the National Assembly, consisting of representatives of the ruling classes, which he had convened in 1566. The assembly was attended by the church prelates, the military servitors of the capital, landlords from the Lithuanian border districts, and the rich merchants. The assembly insisted upon continuing the war until the whole of Livonia was annexed. Meanwhile a temporary truce was signed.

At the Diet wMch met at Lublin in 1569 a new union was formed, by which Poland and Lithuania constituted a single Polish-Lithuanian state, known mRizeczPos;poUta,xvil.^A by an elected king. The powerful Lithuanian feudal lords reluctantly consented to this arrangement, which threatened to curtail their own rights and privileges, but, as they them- selves said, **the enemy was at their heels.” Stohermore, they not only received no support from the Byelorus- sian and Ukrainian feudal lords, who were subject to Lithuania, but even from their own szlachta (gentry). The szlachta advocated a rapprochement with Poland, because they counted on receiving Poland^s help against Mus- covy. The Lithuanian gentry also endeavoured to secure for themselves the privileges which the Polish gentry enjoyed. The Union of Lublin consid- erably strengthened the Polish-Lith- uanian coalition in the struggle against Bussia.

After the death of Sigismiind-Au- gustus, the Rzecz PospoUta elected Stephen Bathory as king (1676), With- in a short time he reorganized the army, creating a trained infantry of German and Hungarian mercenaries, and a good artillery. He replaced Polish-Lithuanian defensive tactics by a policy of active offensive.

In 1579 Bathory suddenly ap- peared before Polotsk. After nearly a month’s siege, Polotsk was captured.

Bathory did not confine himself to recovering the cities previously con- quered by the Bussians; he crossed the old frontier of the Bussian state, with the aim of conquering Bussia— ‘'rich India” as he called it. In the autumn of 1581 he invested Pskov with an army of 100,000, and after surrounding the city with a netwoik of trenches, proceeded to bombard it. When a breach had been made, the besiegers stormed the walls and seized two towers. The Bussians blew up one of them and drove the enemy out of the other. The Poles withdrew after sustaining heavy casualties. Although the siege became a protracted one, Bathory was unable to take Pskov.

Ivan IV was simultaneously obliged to wage war against Sweden, who likewise laid claim to the Baltic province and had captured the city oi ReTel. The attempts of the Russian troops to capture Revel failed. The Swedes had carried their arms into Russian Karelia, and were conquering Russian cities. Thus Ivan IV met with failure on all fronts.

Conclusion of Peace

The heroic defence of Pskov made possible the opening of peace negotiations. A truce was concluded with Poland in 1582, Ivan IV renounced all his conquests in Livonia; Bathory returned the Russian cities he had taken. The next year a truce was also signed with Sweden, at the cost of abandoning to it the cities captured by the Swedes (Yam, Koporye, Ivan-gorod). Thus, the 25 years ’ war (1558-1683) for possession of the Baltic seaboard came to nothing. Here was reflected the backwardness of the Russian state. This war was, however, inevitable— -the blockade of Russia by Poland, Sweden and Germany had to be broken at all costs. The war also demonstrated to Western Europe the strength of the new realm and its readiness to fight for the Baltic.

Ivan IV

Ivan IV died in 1584. He was a man of great natural ability and foresight. Well-educated for his time, he liked to write and wrote well, and possessed a keen and subtle intellect. Both in his home and foreign policy he mapped out the country’s aims and tasks with sagacity and profound judgment and prosecuted them do^?gedly and indefatigably. His conception of Russia’s needs of tlie Baltic seaboard does credit to bis farsightedness, but his idea was not realized until the reign of Peter I. In his conflict with the boyars Ivan IV espoused the cause of a centralized feu- dal state, at the head of which he stood. He wrote to Kuibski: "Who can wage war against the enemies if the realm is rent by inter- necine strife Unbalanced and turbulent, Ivan IV was not always responsible for his actions. In a fit of ungovernable fury he struck his eldest son, Prince Ivan, a blow with his staff, which proved fatal. The reign of Ivan IV marked a very important period in the history of Russia- Under him the Russian state put an end to feudal partition and became a united, powerful state capable of defending itself against its external enemies. During his

rule the international prestige of Russia grew immeasuiabl3\

Ivan IV has gone down in folk songs and legends as a "dread” tsar who dealt out punishment to the boyar traitors.

Subjugation of the People of Western Siberia at the End of the 16th Century

The Stroganov Domains

At the close of Ivan IV's reign Russia commenced the subjugation of Western Siberia, The first steps in this direction were undertaken by the rich salt traders, the Stroga- novs. Six years after the conquest of Kazan (1558) they secured permis- sion from the Moscow goveimnent to seize the lands akng the Kama. Having ousted the natives, the Mansi (Voguls), the Stroganovs started to set up salt works on which they employed the gratuitous labour of serf settlers. Por the protection of their domains the Stroganovs built foitified settlements, equipped with artillery, and gmrded by volunteers. The tsar made the Stroganovs absolute sovereigns on their patrimonies. The Mansi and other peoples whom the Stroganovs had robbed of their lands and salt mines frequently attacked the settlements. On occasions they united uith the Stroganov peasants against their common exploiters. In this struggle the Mansi were , aided by their tribesmen living east of the Urals.

The head of the Siberian khanate at that time was Khan Kuchum. He killed Yediger, the vassal and tributary of the Moscow tsar, and took possession of Siberia. Ambitious to strengthen the Siberian khanate, Kuchum Khan endeavoured to extend his possessions west of the Ural Moimtains. He adopted the Moslem faith as a means of consolidating his power.

The Expedition of Yermak

In the 16th century there were many ‘‘Kree Cossacks”* living in the Bon steppes on the outskirts of the Eussiau state. In the main they were peasants and thralls who had fled from the oppression of their feudal lords. The Stroganovs enlisted their services and organized them into military detachments for the purpose of protecting their existing possessions and extending them fuither eastward. In 1581 the Stroganovs fitted out a detachment of Cossack mercenaries whom they supplied with food, arms, and boats, and sent across the Urals under the leadership of ataman Yermak Timofeyevich. The detachment sailed up the Chusovaya Eiver, a trib- utary of the Kama, and after spending the winter in a mountain pass, hauled their boats in the spring by portage to one of the tributaries of the Tura River, which flows into the Tobol. The country was sparse- ly populated and the Cossacks advanced without hardly meeting any opposition. Coming out on the Tobol, they entered the territory ofthe Siberian khanate. They encountered their first serious resistance not far from the capital of the Siberian khanate, where the Tobol Eiver flows into the Irtysh. Here Kuchum had erected a fortified outpost and rallied a large lorce among his subject Tatar and Ural-Altaic tribes— the Mansi (Voguls) and the Khanti (Ostiaks), who met the Cossacks with a rain of arrows. The Cossacks retorted with their fire- arms and attacked the fort. A hand-to-hand fight ensued. The Khanti and Mansi were unable to withstand the onslaught and were the first to take flight, throwing the ranks of the Tatars into confusion. The Cossacks pursued and slew the fleeing enemy After this defeat Kuchum abandoned his capital and fled south into the steppe; Yermak and his Cossacks entered a deserted town. The neighbour- ing population hastened to submit to the conqueror. Realizing that it would be impossible for a small band to hold out among a hostile people Yermak sent messengers to Moscow informing the tsar of the conque^ of the Siberian khanate and asking for help.

Wbfie waiting for assistance, the Cossacks went on with their subjugation of the outlying lands. The natives, armed only with spears and airows mostly tipped with bone instead of iron, were unable to contend against the Cossacks’ firearms. Despite its swift success, Yermak’s small detachment soon found itself in difficulties. Even the arrival of an auxiliary detachment of the tsar’s troops did not save the situation. Owing to a shortage of food, the Russian men succumbed to scurvy, Yermak himself perished after falling into an ambush laid for himby Kuohum. Yermak missed his footing in attempting to leap into his boat and was drowned in the Irtysh. The survivors were forced to abandon Siberia. The khanate capital was once more occupied by the Tatars.

Annexation of Western Siberia

It was not imtil after Ivan IV’s death that waywodes were sent into Siberia at the head of a strong force* In 1586 they built the city of Tyumen on the ruins of the Tatar city bear- ing the same name, whence they commenced the gradual conquest of the land. The following year a small settlement, Tobolsk, was founded on the Tobol not far from Kuchum ’s former capital, which had been completely abandoned by its inhabitants. Tobolsk be- came the centre of tsarist dominion in Western Siberia. The years that followed saw the conquest of the neighbouring tribes of JVIansi and Khanti.

However, the struggle against Kuchum was not yet over. He contin- ued to roam the Baraba steppe and constantly harassed the frontier re- gions. It was not until 1598 that Kuchum suffered a complete defeat, one from which he never recovered.

The relatively quick victory over the Siberian khanate is accounted for not only by the technical superiority of the Russian troops, but also by the absence of political imity among the Tatars. The Siberian khanate was split up into a number of small domains loosely held together. Kuehum’s vassals deserted him at the first rebuff. Still weaker was the association between the Siberian khanate and its -vassal Ostiak and Vogul princelings who had taken part in the khan's war only under compulsion and had fled at the first opportunity.

The subjugated peoples were taxed with a tribute, which went into the tsar's treasury. The tribute was paid in sable skins and other valuable furs. In addition to the royal tribute the Siberian peoples* had to make gifts to the waywodes and the military. Hostages were taken to enforcethe payment of tribute. The government also resorted to bribes by rewarding the local princelings with miscellaneous gewgaws for regular payment of tribute and according them the "sovereign favour,” i.e., treating them with wine, etc. The Siberianfmrs were very valuable, and sold by the state in foreign countries they constituted an impor- tant source of revenue to cover military and other expenses of the realm.

The military penetration of Siberia was closely followed by the infil- tration of Muscovy merchants .They carried with them cheap merchandise such as little bells, fragments of fabric, and various other trifles in exchange for which they acquired valuable furs from the Siberian peo- ples. The merchants would shamelessly get the taiga people drunk and obtain their sables and other furs from them for a mere song. But Russian peasants and Russian artisans also came to Western Siberia. They brought with them the technique of the Russian crafts and the three- fiield system of tillage, which was unknown to the Siberians before the appearance of the Russians.

Thus in the 16 th century the dominion of the Muscovy tsars had extend- ed over a number of other peoples besides the Russians —the Kazan and Astrakhan Tatars, the Mordvinians, the Mari, Chuvashes, Udmurts, Bashfcirsand the peoples of Western Siberia. Thus Russia gradually became a multi-national state. The non-Russian, weaker peoples were forcibly incorporated into the powerful Russian nation.

Crafts and Trade in Russia in the 16th Century

The coalescence of Eastern Euiope into a centralized multi-national state was only possible with the development of economic intercourse between the various territories of the realm. The development of money- commodity relations that took place in the 16 th century stimulated the economic unification of the oountiy and facilitated the process of political consolidation.

Petty handicraft production was prevalent in the cities and villages of Russia in the 16th century. In large cities such as Novgorod and Kazan over a hundred different kinds of handicraft production existed. There were masters who specialized in the manufacture of metal implements and various kinds of metal wares such as earrings 3 pins, nails, etc., and the sewing of sarafans, mantles, warm sleeveless jackets, etc. The products of the artisans were bought up by merchants who conveyed them to Siberia where they were exchanged for furs, which were then resold to foreigners. In this way connections were established between the various markets, which eventually became amalgamated into a single all-Russian market.

Russia’s commerce with the East and the West developed con- siderably in the 16th century. With the conquest of Kazan and Astra- khan the entire Volga waterway proved to be in Moscow’s hands. This contributed to the stimulation of trade with Azerbaijan, Persia and Bokhara.

Intercourse between Russia and Western Europe was impeded by the intervening territories of a hostile Poland and Lithuania and the domains of the German Order.

The 16th century was the flourishing age of English commerce. English merchants were engaged in a strenuous struggle with the Spaniards and Portuguese, who had till then been masters of the sea. The sea route to India (around Africa) was in the hands of the Portuguese. The English merchantry equipped an expedition to seek a route of communication with India via the Arctic Ocean, that is, through that Great Northern Sea Passage which only became available for navigation under Soviet power. The expedition failed. But one ship, under the command of Captain Chancellor was carried by a storm into the White Sea and to the mouth of the Northern Dvina. Thus, in 1553 the English discovered a direct sea route to Russia. Chancellor entered into negotiations with the waywode of Kholmogor, who no- tified Ivan IV of the arrival of the English captain. The latter was summoned to the capital. Ivan IV fully appreciated all the advantages to be derived from direct relations with one of the richest mercantile countries of Europe. He granted the English the right of trading in the Russian empire on the most favourable terms. Russia’s own industry was poorly developed. The country received from England woolen and other fabrics, metals and metal wares, as well as spices and other re-exports from Asia, Africa and America. In exchange the English merchants took Russian raw materials such as furs, hemp, pork, etc., and also acquired eastern goods, especially Azerbaijan silks.

Upon the heels of the English came the Dutch, who also began to use the White Sea route for trade with Muscovy. Soon after the death of Ivan IV the city of ^Archangel was built not far from the

mouth of the Northern Dvi- na. Pairs at which Russian traders met foreign mer- chants were held here annu- ally, But the White Sea was covered with ice for a great part of the year, and could only be used in the summer months. This explains Rus- sia’s persistent efforts to obtain a footing on the Baltic seaboard.

Active commerce with West- ern Europe and the East had a verystimulating effect on the Russian home market. Traders were attracted east- ward, to the Urals, for valu- able furs; and nautical ex- peditions were equipped to the Gulf of Ob in quest of sable hunting grounds.

Life and Culture in the 16th Century

Russian Customs in the 16th Century

During the period of the Tatar-Mongol yoke civilization in the Russian state was behind that of Western Europe- Prevailing family customs were generally crude. The father was lord and master both of his serfs and his wife and children.

A book was written in the 16th century, called Domostroi^ which was a sort of code of household instructions and worldly wisdom for the edification of the ruling classes. Much space in this volume is devoted to the upbringing of children and the schooling of a man’s wife, in *''the ways of virtue.” The rules laid down by the Domostroi^ however, were not far removed from harsh reality. It recommended that one’s wife and children should be kept under rigorous constraint. The Domostroi was the favourite reading of literate Russians in the 16th century. It has come down to us in a transcription made by the priest Sylvester for his son.

Enlightenment and Art in the 16th Century

Very few Rus- sians were literate. Even among the clergy there were men who were barely able to spell. Books were manuscript, and therefore rare and costly. Ignorant transcribers made many mistakes and omissions which often distorted the meaning. The greatest demand was for fortune-telling. books, which were looked upon as some sort of magic. The crudest superstitions were prevalent.

Ivan IV realized that education was necessary in order to combat ignorance. In 1551 a synod (convocation of the clergy) was held in Moscow for the purpose of strengthening the authority of the church. At this assembly the tsar proposed that measures should be taken to remedy the more flagrant depravities in the life of the clergy (drunk- enness, etc.) and to spread enlightenment among the population. The clergy were directed to open up schools for teaching children to read and write. The decisions of the assembly formed a volume which was called Stoglm (meaning a hundred chapters), but these decisions were not carried out, Ivan JV did not succeed in creating his schools because there were too few people in Russia at that time sufficiently educated to teach.

Despite all difficulties, Ivan IV founded a printing press in Mos- cow, which struck off several scriptural books. Two Russian masters, Ivan Eyodorov and Peter Mstislavets, worked at this printing press. The first Russian printed book appeared in 1564. Technically, it was done well. Many people in those days regarded printed books as the work of the devil. The semi-literate copyists feared that with the development of printing they might lose their means of livelihood. They incited a mob to wreck the “'printing establishment.” Ivan Fyodorov and his colleague continued their useful activities in Byelonissia and tlie Ukraine and did mucli for the development of printing, Ivan IV was not to be daunted by his first failure. He set up a new printery in Alexandrova Sloboda, where the first Russian secu- lar book, a history of Russia’s and Poland’s international relations, was printed (1670).

Vftiile literacy among the masses was poorly developed, there were educated people among the Moscow clergy and boyars in the 16th century. They produced several outstanding writers, chief among whom was the metropolitan Makari. Under his patronage there arose a small group of literary men. Other books appeared, among them the Stepermaya Kniga (^'Book of Degrees,” or ‘Tedigrees”) being a history of the rise of Muscovy from the Kiev Prince, Vladimir, and his grandmother, Olga, down to Ivan IV, Tsar Ivan IV himself was a writer of no mean gifts. Prince Kurbski, who was well educated, was also a man of letters. He was the author of the History of the Qrand Prince of Moscow book of reminiscences on the reign of Ivan IV, written in defence of the boyars and sharply hostile to the tsar. Kurb- ski ’s epistles to Tsar Ivan showed remarkable literary merit for the times.

An original and vivid native Hussian art came into being in tlie 16tb century. An outstanding example of the architecture of those days is the church in the village of Kolomenskoye near Moscow and the St. Basil's Cathedial in Moscow, now turned into a museum. The cathedral, which was built by the Russian craftsmen Postnik- Yakovlev and Barma, is a veritable masterpiece of ancient Russian art. Pskov craftsmen were also famous as painters. Their work hears traces of Western influence.

The spread of education was hampered by the fact that Russia was out off from the more cultured countries of Western Europe by Poland and Lithuania. Bearing that with the spread of education Russia would grow too powerful, the. Polish and Lithuanian feudal lords, as well as the Pope, the German emperor and the Swedish king did their utmost to prevent the establishment of regular inter- course between Russia and Europe.

The Peoples of Russia in the 17th Century

The Peasant War and the Struggle against Polish and Swedish Intervention in Russia at the Beginning of the 17th Century

The Russian State before the Peasant War

Serfdom

In th© second half of the 16th century, the lot of the peasants became a very hard one. The landed proprietors, who were in financial straits, extended seignorial tilths and increased taxation of the peasants in money and kind. Formerly the extent of the peasant ’s servile tenures had been fixed by custom : the peasant tilled the seignori- al land and paid his quitrent ‘‘as of old.” Ignoring this established tradition, the landlords, in the 16th century, themselves determined the payments and tenures of their peasants. The royal proclamations required the peasants to obey their landlords in all things, to do whatever the landlords told them to do, pay their quitrent, etc. Great expenditures had been incurred by the Livonian war. The monetary taxes imposed on the peasants and the urban trading popu- lation and craftsmen were increased manifold. Seeking to escape from oppietofaue labours taxation and bLaxvation, the peasants left their homes and villages en masse and went to the east, beyond the Volga; even more went south, beyond the Oka River, where lay the almost uninhabited black-earth steppe, and where a fugitive peasant could not easily be found. This migration of the peasants caused a serious void in the central regions.

Deprived of labour hands the feudal estates of the landlords found themselves in a difficult plight. The landowners who suffered from a shortage of hands competed with others in trying to attract settlers to their lands. Every year on the eve of St. George’s Day this keen competition for peasant labour opened up anew. Most of the peasants lacked the moiiey to settle accounts with their landlords. The bai- liffs of competing landlords would then make the settlement on their behalf and convey the peasants to the estates of their new masters* Rich, powerful landowners would even organize raids on their neigh- hours’ estates, and carry off the peasants in chains to their new dom- icile. The lower and middle ranks of the nobles complained that they were unable to render the military service required of their de- populated estates.

In 1581, during the defence of Pskov, Tsar Ivan IV temporarily, "pending the royal ukase” prohibited peasants to migrate on St. George’s Day. The year when the peasants were forbidden to change then* domicile even on St. George’s Day was called the first zapovedni year (year of interdict). The peasants were still more strongly fet* tered to the soil of the landlords.

The Cossacks

With the growth of serfage in the central regions of Russia there occurred a notable swelling of the ranks of the Cos- sacks at the end of the 16th century, due to the influx of the Russian population to the outskirts of the country— to the upper reaches of the Oka, the Bryansk forests and to the Don. The steppe, which abound- ed in wild fowl, and the rivers teeming with fish could sustain a rel- atively large population on the Don, The Cossacks felt safe here from the tyranny of the landlords and the tsar’s waywodes. They did not engage in agriculture, but imported corn from Russian cities.

The Cossacks fought against Tatar and Turkish domination on the Azov and Black seas; when in luck they obtained good booty, which they divided among themselves. Sometimes the Cossacks also robbed Russian merchants on the Volga. All matters of common interest concerning expeditions, the division of spoil and relations with Moscow, were decided by the Cossacks at a meeting which was called Jcriog (circle). At these kncgs they also elected their chiefs-— atamam.

Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich

When Tsar Ivan IV (Grozny) died, he left two sons: Fyodor, a son by his first wife, Anastasia Roma- nova, and the infant Dimitry, by his last wife, Maria Nagaya. Fyodor Ivanovich became tsar (1584-1598). Tsarevich Dimitry, his mother, aud her kinsfolk, the Nagiye, were banished to the small town of XTglich, which was given the young prince as his ‘‘appanage.” Indeed Tsarevich Dimitry was the last of the appanage princes (1584-1591).

Tsar Fyodor was a sickly man of weak intellect and saintly char- acter, very ill-fitted to govern the country. He spent his days in constant prayer, had a special fondness for ringing the church bells and amused himself with his jesters. The people openly called the new tsar a “fool.” The power and government of the kingdom were seized by the tsar’s relatives and his chosen boyars. Before long the boyar, Boris Fyodorovich Godunov, came to the fore.

The Godunov family did not belong to the ancient Kussian peer- age. Boris Godunov had been intimate with Ivan IV during his last years chiefly because of his family ties. Fyodor Ivanovich was married to Godunov’s sister, Irene. Boris Godunov was a man of sterling qualities and ability,* but he had not received a “bookish” (i.e,, a theological) education. Unlike the well-born boyars he was no re- spector of time-honoured usage, nor did he shun foreigners. One of Boris Godunov’s first acts was to banish from the court those boyars who interfered with his rule. He himself received foreign ambassadors. He ran his household* on the lines of the royal court.

Boris Godunov was fully alive to the significance of the church in the empire. The Orthodox church in Russia was administered by the metropolitan, resident in Moscow. The supreme authority in the Russian church was the patriarch who had his diocese in Constanti- nople, in a country that was subject to the Turkish sultan. At the end of the 16th century the patriarchs began paying visits to Moscow on “errands of charity” to crave money or sable skins. Taking advan- tage of the arrival of the Constantinople patriarch Jeremiah on such an errand of charity, Boris Godunov secured his consent to the insti- tution of a separate patriarchate for the Russian church. In 1589 the first Russian patriarch was the metropolitan Job, one of Boris Godunov’s adherents.

During the last years of Tsar Fyodor’s life the direction of affairs passed entirely into Boris Godunov’s hands. He did much to strength, en the royal power and the authority of the nobility in the provinces.

The happy outcome of the second Livonian war (1590-1595) was of great significance. After the failure of the first Livonian war (1558-1583), Sweden had seized part of the Baltic seaboard that bordered closely on Muscovy’s domains. Sweden had cut Russia off from the sea and from economic and cultural intercourse with Western Europe, thus endeavouring to perpetuate Russia’s backward state of development.

The year 1590 saw the begximing of war with Sweden for an outlet to the sea, a war for the recovery of old Russian Baltic lands. Accord- ing to the terms of the peace treaty concluded in 1595, restitution was made to Bussia of her Kubsiaii territories on the coast of the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga (Ivan- gorod, Yam, Koporye, Karela). Besides military affairs, a problem that particularly disturbed the government was that of providing the landlords with peasants, for the latter still continued their spon- taneous migrations to the border- lands of the south, east and north. In order to return a runaway peas- ant to his landlord it had to be proved that the fugitive had really livedon that landbefore he abscond- ed. To facilitate this task, a new census was made of the land and population, the work being com- pleted during the years of the war (1592-1693). All peasants who were thus registered as belonging to a certain landlord were henceforth considered his adscripts, or serfs. In 1597 a ukase was issued, establishing a five-year term for seeking out runaway peasants. Those not found during these five years between 1597 and 1602),

remained at their new abodes.

In the second half of the 16th century, the population became so impoverished that many of the people borrowed money on the con- dition that they would work and serve on the estate of their creditor in lieu of interest. Such dependent people were called habalniye hho^ iopi— bondsmen, or serfs. After the death of their master they received their liberty. In this respect they differed from absolute bondsmen, whose servile tenure was hereditary. Formerly a freeman who worked for another in return for his bread and clothing was free to leave his master at will if he had not signed himself in bond. This ruling was now repealed. According to the ukase of 1597 any freeman who worked for another for his bread and clothing for more than six months became that personas serf. In this way Boris Godunov still further increased the servitude of the peasants and serfs in the interests of the landlords. The city poor likewise were increasingly oppressed.

In 1591 a rebellion broke out among the townsfolk of Uglich in coimection with the following incident.

The tsar’s younger brother, Tsarevich Dimitry, who had been living with his mother at Uglich, died on May 16, 1591. The morning of that day the nine-year-old Dimitry had been playing a knife game ^witH his playfellows, iinder the bupervision of his nurse and governess, when he suddenly dropped to the ground in an epileptic fit, and in doing so fell on the blade which he was holding in his hand, and cut Ms throat. The cries of the women brought his mother, Maria I^'agaya, out of the house. She began to shout that the boy had been muidered by some men sent by the Moscow scribe Bityagovsky. The crowd that gathered took advantage of the occasion to start a rebellion. The town poor demolished the scribe cpttage and destroyed all the records concerning their bondage. Bityagovsky and several of his friends were killed. Streltsi (soldiers) arrived from Moscow with a committee of enquiry, headed by Prince Vasili Shuiski. The latter pronounced that the tsarevich had accidentally inflicted the fatal wound upon himself. The Ts'iritsa Maria Nagaya was made to take the veil, while her relatives and many people of XJglioh were exiled for taking the law into their own hands. A rumour was spread among the people that the tsarevich had been killed on Boris Godunov’s orders.

Tsar Boris Godunov

With the death of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich in 1598 the Rurik dynasty of Russian, tsars came to an end.

On the death of Tsar Fyodor, Boris Godunov, having won the support of the nobility, had no dangerous rivals. The National As- sembly {Zemsky Sobor) which met in 1598 and on which the nobles and merchants were in the majority, elected Boris Godunov as the Tsar of Muscovy. Boris Godunov continued Ivan IV ’s policy of intro- ducing order into the realm. He too persecuted the descendants oi the ancient families of princes and boyars. The scions of the late boyar, Nikita Romanovich Zakharyin, or the Romanovs, as they came to» he called, gave him special cause for anxiety. The Romanovs were related to Tsar Fyodor, and the eldest of them, Fyodor Nikitich, had many followers among the nobility and part of the townsfolk. Boris Godunov made use of secret information against the Romanovs to accuse them of plotting against the tsar, and exiled all the brothers* to the north, The oldest of them, Fyodor Romanov, was tonsured under the name of ‘'Father Philaret.” Godunov triumphed over his boyar enemies. But he was now confronted with a new, ominous dan- ger— the peasant movement.

In 1601 a famine set in. Rains aud early autumn frosts had killed the harvest. The following spring the fields under winter rye yielded no crops. The peasants did not even have seed for the spring sowing. The starving population lived on weeds and birch bark, ‘\^ole villages died out. Even in Moscow corpses lay unburied about the streets. The terrible famine lasted three years (1601-1603). The landlords, monas- teries aud merchants, who had large stocks of corn, made the most of the high prices on corn to build up large fortunes. The boyars aud the uobles refused to feed their serf domestics aud drove them oiSF their estates. Fearing hunger riots, Boiis Godunov gave ordeis for corn to be distributed from the state granaries, but the distributors got more of it than the famine-stricken people. Government stocks were inadequate to feed the starving population. On the other hand the landowners, including the monks and the patriarch, had full granaries, but they delayed releasing corn for sale, in the expectation of prices mounting still higher.

The starving peasants and serfs started forming detachments and attacked the landlords and merchants. Others left for the Bon and the Bryansk forests. In 1603 a large detachment of peasants and seifs, under the leadership of IGilopko Kosolap made its way to the out- skirts of the capital. A fierce battle took place, during which the tsar’s waywode, Ivan Basmanov, was killed. The royal troops had great difficulty in driving off the insurgents from the capital. Khlopko Kosolap, covered with wounds, was taken prisoner and soon died. Many of the peasants and serfs were hung by the tsar’s waywodes on trees along the roads leading to Moscow.

Attempts of the Polish Gentry to Subjugate the Russian State. False Dimitry I

The Polish Minion, False Dimitry I

Soon after the conclusion of truce with Muscovy, the Polish king, Stephen Bathory, conceived a new plan for conquering Russia. However, after his death (in 1686) Poland’s internal condition did not permit her to begin open warfare. Under the new king, Sigismund III, Poland decided to take advantage of the peasant uprising in Russia to seize and subjugate the country. To accomplish this purpose Poland used the pretender— False Bimitry I as their tool. This plan of intervention was energetically supported by the Pope. The rumour that Tsarevich Bimitry had not been mur- dered at Uglich but had escaped and was living in Poland was spread soon after Boris Godunov ascended the throne. At this time a man. appeared at the castle of Adam Wisniowiecki in the Ukraine who declared himself to be Dimitry, the son of Ivan IV. When the Moscow government heard of the appearance of the impostor in Poland, it declared the False Bimitry to be no other than the former monk, Grigofi Otrepyev, born of a family of petty Kostroma nobles. In his youth he had wandered from monastery to monastery, had spent some time in Moscow, and then fled to Poland with three other monks. The identity of the False Bimitry is still obscure.

The news of the appearance of False Bimitry was enthusiastically greeted by the Polish gentry. False Pimitry was removed to a relative of Wisniowiecki ’s, the waywode Yuri Maiszek of Sambor. In the spring of 1604 King Sigismund III received the False Dimitry in Cracow. After negotiations with the gentry and szlachta it was decided not to begin open war against Kussia, but to permit all the gentry who wished to do so, to enlist in False Dimitry's army. All prepara- tions for the campaign were made in Sambor. Its organizers were powerful Polish magnates avid for conquest of new domains. They were readily joined by the petty Polish gentry who dreamed of rich spoils in Russia.

False Dimitry made specious promises to the Pope, the Polish king and the gentry. He adopted the Catholic faith and undertook to convert the Russian population to the Roman church. He also promised the king the city of Smolensk and the land of Seversfc (Cher- nigov). To Mniszek's family False Dimitry planned to turn over the administration of the Novgorod and Pskov regions, as well as money and jewels from the tsar's treasury. On these terms Yuri Mniszek agreed to the marriage of his daughter Marina to False Dimitry; Marina was to become tbe Russian tsaritsa.

Late in the autumn of 1604 False Dimitry and a Polish contingent of 4,000 soldiers and several hundred Russian Cossacks crossed the Dnieper near Kiev. The first cities surrendered to False Dimitry practically without offering any resistance. Cossacks, fugitive peas- ants, serfs, the petty military servitors— all who were dissatisfied with Boris Godunov— rallied to False Dimitry. At fii'st the misled peasants really believed that False Dimitry was the son of Ivan Grozny and hoped that he would free them from serf bondage. Towards the end of 1604 the tsar’s army went to the relief of Novgorod-Seversk which was besieged by the Poles and False Dimitry. A battle took place near this city, but without any decisive result. False Dimitry tried to avoid the tsar’s troops and headed for Sevsk. In January 1605 he was defeated at the village of Dobrynichi, near Sevsk and fled to Putivl with the remnants of his force.

In spite of his victory, Boi is Godunov’s position became increas- ingly worse, as ever new detachments of insurgents kept appearing in many places. The tsar’s main forces were engaged in besieging the small fortress of Kromy in which, a body of Don Cossacks who had joined False* Dimitry had entrenched themselves. But the tsar ’s troops refused to fight; many of the soldiers deserted from the army and went home.

In April 1605 Tsar Boris Godunov suddenly died. His sixteen- year-old son, Fyodor, was proclaimed tsar. The death of Boris Go- dunov removed the last barrier to the progress of the pretender. At Kiomy the remnants of the tsar’s troops, under Peter Basmanov, went over to False Dimitry,

The boyars, eager to see the downfall of the hated Godunovs, hastened to effect a coup in favour of the alleged Tsarevioh Dimitry, with the intention of subsequently seizing the power themselves. Prince Vasili Ivanovich IShuiski retracted his former testimony con- cerning the death of Tsarevioh Dimitry at Uglich, and declared that Godunov had wanted to kill the tsarevioh, but that the latter had escaped death, that he was alive and on his way to the capital. When False Dimitry’s heralds arrived in Moscow with his message to the people, the boyars assassinated Tsar Fyodor Borisovich and his mother. False Dimitry approached Moscow without encountering any further resistance. In June 1605 the Poles made their entry into the Russian capital.

False Dimitry in Moscow

Soon after False Dimitry, with the aid of the Poles, seized the throne of the tsar, he revealed his true aims. The lot of the peasants was in no way alleviated. The fugitive peasants, except those who had left during the famine because of their inability to feed themselves, were returned to their former landlords. The Polish gentry who had come with False Dimitry aroused the general indignation of the Russian population by their arrogant and insolent behaviour. False Dimitry surrounded himself with a bodyguard of foreign mercenaries. He sent large sums of money to Poland. In Moscow the people openly complained against the tsar.

In the spring of 1606 Marina came to Moscow, in the company of a huge suite and new detachments of the Polish gentiy. The marriage of Marina and False Dimitry was noisily celebrated and wassail was held for several days. The drunken szlachta committed new excesses. Hatred for the Poles, who conducted themselves so insolently in the Russian capital, reached such a pitch that a popular outbreak could be expected any day.

The boyars took advantage of this discontent on the part of the population to form a conspiracy, headed by Prince V. I. Shuiski .

At dawn on !May 17, 1606, the tolling of a bell gave the signal for an alarm throughout the capital. The Muscovites shouted to each other: *‘On against the LitvasI Down with the Litvas!” (The Russians called the Poles "Litvas.”}

False Dimitry learned of the danger when a crowd had already filled the square in front of the palace. In attempting to escape he leapt out of a window, and seriously hurt himself in the fall. He was found and killed. A few days later the body of False Dimitry was burnt, the ashes being rammed into a cannon and shot back in the direction whence he had come. Meanwhile, the populace throughout the city were engaged in a massacre of the Polish gentry, who had barricaded themselves in their houses. Using* knives and stones the Muscovites attacked the houses which the well-armed Poles had con- verted into small fortresses. About 2,000 of the Polish gentry and soldiers were killed; the others suriendered.

Fearing the popular rebellion, the boyars hastened to stem it. What they needed first of all was to lestoie the royal authority. They accordingly proposed making the boyar V. I. Shuiski, who came from an ancient princely family, the tsar. The boyars were reluctant to convene the National Assembly for this purpose, fearing that most of the nobles and townspeople would be opposed to the boyars, Vasili Shuiski was therefore proclaimed tsar without any election. His name was shouted out to a crowd of people that had assembled before the Kremlin on May 19, and which consisted for the most part of Shuiski faction.

Thus the first attempt of the Poles to place their own piotegS on the Moscow throne ended in utter failure. The Hussian people crushed the interventionists.

Tsar Vasili Shuiski (1606–1610)

Vasili Shuiski gave the boyars his pledge that he would rule the country in agreement with them. The tsar was sworn in on the cross, pledging himself not to pass sentence of death, or confiscate the property of a convicted man’s relatives without the consent of the boyars’ duma. Proclamations were promul- gated to the diflFerent cities, in which Shuiski proved his right to the throne. The wealthy boyars hastened to seize the best and most lucrative posts.

The ascension of Vasili Shuiski to the throne provoked a fresh out- burst of dissatisfaction in the country. The nobles would not be recon- ciled to the usurpation of power by the boyars. Disturbances broke out in Moscow itself, among the poor townsfolk. Fearing an uprising in the capi- tal, the boyars quickly prepared the ICremlin for defence, mounted can- non on its walls, and removed the permanent bridge which had been thrown across the moat at the fortress gates .

Peasant Insurrection under the Leadership of Bolotnikov

The Bolotnikov Movement

In the autumn of 1606 a peasant war broke out in the southwestern cities, where numerous fugitive peasants and serfs had collected. They were joined by Cossacks and the petty ranks of the military servitors. On the Middle Volga the Mordvinians joined in the rebellion together with the Russian population. An insurreotion broke out in the south, in Astrakhan, northwest of Moscow the peasants and townsfolk of Tver, Pskov and Novgorod, rose up in revolt. Thus, within a short space of time a considerable part of the country was swept by a wave of popular uprisings.

These rebellions, however, were sporadic and lacked coordination. They were simply isolated local outbreaks . While a rebellion was starting in one region it had already run its course in another. Thus the rebels were rarely in a position to help one another. The most powerful movement was that of the peasants, serfs and Cossacks led by Ivan Bolotnikov (1606-1607).

In his youth Bolotnikov had been a boyar’s serf. Having fled to the Cossacks on the Don, he fell into the hands of the Tatars, who sold him into captivity to the Turks. For a while Bolotnikov worked at the oar on a galley, where he, like the other prisoners, was chained to his seat and “encouraged” with a whip. Bolotnikov succeeded in escaping from Turkish captivity. After visiting various Euro- pean countries he made his way back to the Russian frontiei. An uprising against Shuiski having just been started in the southwest border territories, Bolotnikov took command of the rebels. According to the accounts of contemporaries, he was a stalwart man of great physical strength, and remarkable intrepidity and bravery. Foreigners called Bolotnikov a daring and experienced “knight errant.’^ In his battles against the tsar’s troops he revealed real military talent.

Wherever Bolotnikov’s detachments made their appearance the peasants rose up against the landlords and joined the insurgents. The poor townsfolk also went over to his side. Bolotnikov’s army movea swiftly on Moscow from Putivl, via Kromy, Serpukhov and Kolomna, routing the tsar’s detachments as it advanced. At Yelets the insurgents found large stores of arms which had been laid up by False Dimitry I, On the road to Moscow Bolotnikov was joined by Tula nobles (headed by Istoma Pashkov) , who were dissatisfied with the boyars ’ govern- ment, and also by the brothers Prokopi and Zakhar Lyapunov, who led the Ryazan landlords. Supplemented by these detachments of nobles, Bolotnikov’s army grew much larger, but it was less homogeneous and less reliable.

In the middle of October 1606 Bolotnikov appeared before Moscow. The capital was well protected by triple stone walls. Bolotnikov was unable to take it by storm, and he set down to a siege. He wrote appeals and circulated them among the population. The boyars called them *‘jprele8tfiiye^^ (“words of the tempter”) . Bolotnikov called upon the peas- ants and serfs to exterminate the boyars and landlords, and promised them the land which had been seized by the feudal lords. The nobles in Bolotnikov’s army realized that the peasants, their class enemies, represented a greater danger to them than the boyars’ government. The Eyazan nobles and the Lyapunov brothers went over to Shuiski.

In the beginning of December the tsar’s troops, having received large reinforcements, attacked Bolotnikov’s camp at the village of Kolomen- skoye, near Moscow. At the height of the battle the Tula nobles, under Tstoma Pashkov, also went over to Shuiski, their treachery facilitating the victory of the tsar’s troops. Bolotnikov with the remnants of his detachment retreated to the south and entrenched themselves in Kaluga. Desirous of winning the nobles over to his side, Tsar Vasili Shuiski extended the period for the search of fugitive peasants from five to fifteen years. In the spring of 1607 a large tsarist army laid siege to Kaluga, but fresh detachments of rebels came to Bolotnikov’s aid. Shuiski ’s troops suffered defeat and were forced to raise the siege. Bolotnikov movedtoTula, where he was joined by fresh Cossack contin- gents. Among them was a new pretender who claimed to be Peter, the son of I^odor Ivanovich, though Tsar lyodor had not had any sons.

The summer of that year Shuiski again tallied a big army.

Por four months Bolotnikov defended himself in Tula against an overwhelmingly superior foe. In spite of hunger and a shortage of arms, the besieged made daring sallies every day and inflicted heavy losses upon the tsar’s army. The tsar’s waywodes feared that their troops would be unable to endure a winter siege. A dam was therefore built near Tula, to stop the flow of the Upa Kiver . The water rushed into the city and flooded what remained of the food and powder supplies. Only then did the besieged enter into negotiations for surrender. Tsar Vasili Shuiski promised to give all the rebels their freedom. But he did not keep his word. Ivan Bolotnikov was sent north, to Kargopol, where he was blinded and drowned. Many of those who had taken part in the uprising were made Jcholopi (household slaves) and the serf peas- ants were handed over to the nobles.

The Bolotnikov rebellion, like all the other peasant uprisings in the period of feudalism, ended in the defeat of the rebels. These peasant uprisings were spontaneous outbreaks; the peasants and serfs were poorly armed; they had no military training, and could not wage a protracted • war against the better organized and better armed troops of the tsar. The peasants felt the injustice and oppressiveness of feudal power, but did not know how to overthrow it. They believed in a ‘^benign” tsar and hoped to obtain their emancipation from him.

Bolotnikov perished, his detachments were dispersed, but the revolt against Shuiski continued. On the Volga, the peoples enslaved by tsar- ism, the Mordvinians and the Mari (Cheremissi) , rebelled. Together with the Eussian peasants and serfs they besieged Nizhni Novgorod, The tsar^s troops drove the rebels away from the city, but in the autumn of 1608 the whole Middle Volga was once more in the throes of a rebel- lion.

Polish and Swedish Hostilities in 1608–1610

New Polish Minion, False Dimitry II

The Poles did not cease their aggressive activities against Russia. On the very day that False Dimitry I died, the Poles spread a rumour in Moscow that another per- son had been killed, instead of him. However, the Poles were not imme- diately able to send fresh troops to Russia owing to trouble within their own country where malcontents among the Polish gentry had raised an insurrection against the king for attempting to encroach on their liber- ties. The insurgents were defeated by the king ’s troops in 1607, when Si- gismund HI was once moie free to turn his attention to Russian affairs. In the autumn of 1607 a new Polish minion, who likewise assumed the name of Tsarevich Dimitry Ivanovich, False Dimitry II, appeared on the frontier of Muscovy .The Poles sent the new False Dimitry large mili- tary forces, including contingents of Polish regulars. A relative of the Lithuanian chancellor, Jan Sapieha, brought up a detachment of 7,500 soldiers (infantry and cavalry). Hetman Rozinski came with a detach- ment of 4,000 men. Detachments of Don and Zaporozhye Cossacks also joined False Dimitry H.

In the spring of 1608 the tsar’s troops were defeated in a two- day battle near Bolkhov. False Dimitry II^s main forces moved on to- wards Moscow by way of Kaluga and Mozhaisk. They made an attempt to seize Moscow, but were repulsed. The Poles then set up a fortified camp near the village of Tushino, on the high bank of the Moskva Rjver, not far from the capital. False Dimitry II was named the ‘T?ushino tsax^’ or the ‘"Thief of Tushino” after the name of the Tushino camp (political criminals in Muscovy were called thieves).

At Tushino False Dimitry II brought his army into fighting trim. Ivan Zarutsky, one of the Polish szlachtahj descent, took command of the Cossacks. The general command was left in the hands of the Poles.

Moscow’s position became very grave. Famine set in in the city. Discontent with the tsar increased. Many boyars and nobles foreseeing the speedy downfall of Vasili Shuiski, went over to the Tushino camp, where False Dimitry II granted them charters to certain estates, and other awards. Some of the nobles changed sides several times, going hack and forth between Moscow and Tushino. These people were called ^erelyoty (birds of passage).

EfeiVing invested Moscow the Tushino detachments began to spreaci in various directions from the capital. The Troitsk-Sergiyev Monastery (70 km. from Moscow, now called Zagorsk) behind whose high fortress walls the surrounding peasant population entrenched themselves, heroic- ally resisted the Polish invaders. The monastery’s defenders withstood the fierce cannon bombardment and bravely repulsed all attacks of the enemy, inflicting heavy losses upon the Poles during their sallies. But the Tushino troops met with considerable success in tbe region of tlie Upper Volga. The rich cities of the Volga and the north, such as \aroslavl, Vologda, Kostroma and others, recognized the power of False Dimitry II. Many people really believed they were fighting against the hated tsar of the boyars and for ‘‘Tsarevich Dimitry.”

Partisan War Against the Poles

Slowly people’s eyes were opened to the imposture. Poles began to make their appearance in the cities, confiscating the merchants’ goods and imposing heavy taxes upon the peasants and craftsmen. In the rural districts Tushino detachments robbed the peasants, took away their corn andhay, killed the inhabit- ants and burnt their houses and farms. The Polish gentry took Russian cities and estates on “indemnity,” that is, they collected revenue from them for their own benefit. The peasants in the countryside, and petty craftsmen, military servitors and tradespeople in the cities began to fight the invaders. Peasant detachments sprang up, commanded by peasants, serfs, or military servitors. They boldly attacked the well- armed Polish troops. By the end of 1608 partisan warfare was rife throughout the country.

Tsar Vasili Shuiski, realizing that he would not be able to cope with the rebels and Poles of Tushino and fearing the peasant disturbances in the country, had recourse to foreign intervention, soliciting the help of the Swedish king, Charles IX. According to the treaty concluded between them, the city of Karela (Kexholm) and its county were ceded to Swe- den who, on her part, promised Vasili Shuiski military assistance in driving out the Polish detachments and restoring the tsar’s power in the country, Sweden in fact had long been waiting for an opportunity to seize Russian frontier territory and again cut Russia off from the sea. The Swedish king sent a strong body of troops under Jacob Delagar- die to Novgorod in the spring of 1609. This force consisted of 15,000 mer- cenaries— Swedes, Germans, English, Scots, French, and others to which the tsar’s nephew, Prince M.V. Skopin-Shuiski attached himself with his Russian soldiers. The Russo-Swedish detachment left Novgorod for Moscow, advancing through Tver, and liberating on the way the towns which had been seized by the Tushino troops.

Outbreak of War Between Russia and Poland

The resistance offered the Polish aggressors by the Russian people proved to the Polish gentry that the support they were rendering the pretenders was not achieving its goal. Meanwhile, Russia was ruined by the protracted war. Vasili Shuiski ’s government was tottering. The Polish szlachta decided that this was an opportune moment to deal Russia a decisive blow, and extend Polish domains at the expense of her weakened neighbour. Throughout the summer of 1609 Polish detach- ments attacked Russia’s frontier lands and pillaged the Byelorussian peasants. In the autumn a large Polish army under King Sigismund III crossed the frontier and laid siege to Smolensk.

After Poland had comiiienoed open hositlities against Russia, she no longer had any need of False Dimitry II. Sigismund HI there- fore recalled the Poles who were in the service of False Dimitry II to his own army standing before Smolensk. In the winter of 1609 the Russo-Swedish troops of Skopin-Shuiski and Delagardie, who had marched out from Novgorod were drawing close to Moscow. At their approach the Poles lifted the siege of the Troitsk-Sergiyev Monastery. Early in January 1610 False Dimitry II, deprived of Poland’s support, fled from Tushino to Kaluga, followed hy some of the Poles, who still hoped to take Moscow with his help. The Russian boyars and nobles in the service of False Dimitry H decided to come to terms with the Polish king. They agreed to recognize the Polish Prince Wladislaus as the tsar of Muscovy, and on February 4, 1610, concluded a cor- responding agreement with Sigismund III. Sigismund, on behalf of his son Wladislaus, promised not to change the state system of Muscovy, to maintain the power of the nobles and their landed property, and to return the fugitive peasants to them. The Tushino camp broke up completely. In March 1610 Skopin-Shuiski and the Russo-Swedish troops entered Moscow. Skopin-Shuiski died suddenly soon afterwards. Both Shuiski and the Tushino boyars had resorted to foreign inter- vention because they feared the Russian people and had no faith in its powers.

Smolensk, besieged by the Poles, defended itself stubbornly. While continuing his siege of Smolensk, the Polish king decided to send an army under the Polish hetman Zolkiewski to take Moscow. The tsar sent an army, under the command of his brother, Dimitry Shuiski, against Zolkiewski. Both armies met near the village of Klushino in June 1610. During the battle the German and Swedish mercenaries betrayed the Russians and went over to the Poles. The tsar’s troops were defeated and the way to Moscow was open. The Poles granted the Swedes who had joined them a free departure. The latter went on to Novgorod region where they began preparations for the seizure of Novgorod.

In July 1610 the starving population of Moscow rose up against Vasili Shuiski. At that time False Dimitry 11 once more approached Moscow from Kaluga. The boyars and nobility seized Vasili Shuiski and forced him to take the monastic vow, thus ensuring his seclusion from all temporal concerns.

A boyars’ government was formed in Moscow, consisting of seven of the great boyars, mostly of ancient ducal lineage- This government was known as the Bemiboyarahchim (the Seven Boyars). Actually, however, it was the rule of the Poles that was estahlidied in Muscovy.

Seizure of Moscow by the Poles and of Novgorod Region by the Swedes

Fearing a popular uprising and the seizure of the capital by False Dimitry II ’s Cossacks, the boyars’ government hastened to come to terms with Zolkiewski. It agreed to recognize Wladislaus as the tsar of Muscovy, on the condition that he rule jointly with the boyars. After concluding this agreement the boyars’ government treacherously admitted the Polish troops into Moscow. A large dep- utation, which included the metropolitan Philaret, was sent to Sigismund III, outside the walls of Smolensk, to conclude peace. The Poles seized the Moscow envoys and sent them off to Poland. The nobles who were members of the deputation sent epistles to Moscow in which they described tlieir humiliating position; they called upon the Russians not to submit to the king and his son, the'^prince. ‘‘Take good counsel among yourselves concerning this,” they wrote, “and send om epistle to Novgorod and to Vologda and to Nizhni (Nizhni Novgorod), that it may be known to all.” The Polish king’s ambition was to become the tsar of Muscovy himself.

The Moscow boyars’ government found itself in a most humiliating position. The boyars had to render complete obedience to the new chief of the Polish detachment. Several of the boyars who attempted reoistance were inamediately arrested and placed under the surveillance of Polish commissaries. The Polish gentry robbed the tsar’s treasmy in the Elremlin of its valuables. They plundered the population of the capital and committed outrages. The situation in other cities was no better. A large Polish army headed by the king continued to besiege Smolensk. The Swedes seized thfe Russian southern coast of the Gulf of Finland, and threatened Novgorod. Trade between the towns prac- tically ceased. The craftsmen and petty tradesfolk were impoverished. The nobility too were ruined since they had no one to work their land. Entire regions were desolated. The Russian state broke up into separate parts. But the Russian people, even in this difficult period, did not submit to the invaders or lay down their arms.

Struggle of the Russian People against the Polish Invaders

The First Popular Levy

The Poles in Moscow tried their utmost to make the population of the capital declare their allegiance to the Polish king. The people, however, did not want to submit either to the king or to his son, the prince, nor to any other Polish authorities. Proclamations were circulated among the population, branding as traitors those Moscow boyars who had struck a bargain with the Poles. The head of the Russian church, the patriarch Hermogen, also came out against the Poles. At the end of the year 1610 he sent out proc- lamations to the cities, invoking the Russian people to rally to the capital’s liberation.

The appeals of the patriarch Hermogen inflamed the popular movement against the invaders still more. On learning of these proclamations, the Polec, thiew Hoimogea into a dungeon, but were unable to break his will.

In January 1611 the Ryazan waywode, Prokopi Lyapunov, began to organize a volunteer lorce for the liberation of Moscow. The basis of this popular levy was formed by detachments of nobles, chiefly from the southern districts. Lyapunov appealed to the Cossacks and serfs, promising the Cossacks remunera»tion and the serfs emancipation. The Cossacks who had formerly been in the Tushino camp likewise responded to this call. Various cities sent out proclamations inviting eacli other to join forces for effecting the liberation of Moscow. When the Poles learned of the rallying of a Russian popular levy they tried to make the people of the capital fortify the city. But far from helping the Poles the Russians hurled down the cannon which had already been set up on the walls. The Polish szlachta fell upon the populace and started a slaughter. The population put up a furious resistance. A detachment, commanded by Prince Dimitry Mikhailovich Po- zharski, began to press the Poles. The vanguard of the popular levy came up at an opportune moment. The Poles and the boyar traitors then set fire to Moscow. The battle continued among the burning buildings, but the smoke and flames forced the Russian detachments back to the outskirts of the capital. Prince Pozharski was wounded during the fighting. Several days later, in the middle of March, the main forces of the popular levy arrived upon the scene. They stood outside Moscow for some months, but were unable to liberate it.

On June 30 a covenant was drawn up defining the form of govern- ment and organization of the army. The popular levy, consisting of nobles and Cossacks was placed in the charge of three ‘^chiefs”: Lya- punov, as representative of the nobles, and Prince Dimitry Trubetskoi and the Cossack ataman Ivan Zarut sky — leaders of the Cossack detach- ments which had formerly been in Tushino camp. The nobles were mostly concerned with ensuring land and peasants for themselves. The covenant provided that serf peasants who had quitted their land- lords during the peasant war were to be returned to their original domiciles. Drawn up in the interests of the nobles, the covenant of June 30th aggravated factional strife within the popular levy. Colli- sions between the nobles and the Cossacks were a constant occurrence. The Cossacks slew Prokopi Lyapunov. After his death the popular levy fell to pieces. The detachments of nobles dispersed. Only a part of the Cossack troops, under Trubetskoi and Zarutsky, remained before Moscow.

For nearly two years the valiant garrison of Smolensk repulsed the furious onslaughts of a large Polish army. Neither the fierce bom- bardment, disease and lack of food, nor the alluring promises made by the king could break the resistance of the besieged. To all propos- als of surrender the Smolensk people retorted that they were determined to fight to the death. In the beginning of June 1611 the Poles succeeded in blowing up part of the fortress wall. The last ferocious battle was fought out in the streets of the burning city. The inhabitants put up a desperate fight. Many of them rushed into the flames rather than fall into the hands of the enemy. A powder maga- zine containing about two and a half tons of gunpowder was blown up. Many Poles and Russians perished under the debris of falling buildings during the explosion. Only a mere handful of the defendeis were taken prisoner. At about the same time the Swedes captuied Great Novgorod.

The stubborn defence of Smolensk was of signal value in that it kept the main forces of the Polish army tied up under the walls of that fortress, and facilitated the struggle of the Russian people for the liberation of their native land.

The Popular Levy of Minin and Pozharsk

The first pop- ular levy, which consisted chiefly of the nobility and Cossack units, broke up by the autumn of 1611. But the struggle of the Russian people against the Polish invaders continued with unabated vigour, Kuzma Minin of Nizhni Novgorod, elected by the townsfolk as the reeve of Nizhni Novgorod, took the lead in organizing a new people’s army. He made an ardent appeal to the population to rally in defence of their country, and to spare neither life nor property in its liberation. The people of Nizhni Novgorod drew up a covenant by which they pledged obedience to their chiefs, undertook to provide funds for the army’s maintenance and not to spare themselves. On Minings proposal. Prince Dimitry Pozharski, famed for his battle against the Poles at Moscow, where he had been wounded, was invited to take command of the people’s army.

From Nizhni Novgorod, as at one time from Moscow, proclama- tions were sent to other cities calling upon the people to join the strug- gle for the liberation of their native land, and to send men, arms, and money. The whole country, from the Maritime North to Ryazan, rose up in arms. The Poles in Moscow were alarmed by the news of the mustering of a large popular army. Their boyar satellites, scared of the popular levy, tried to persuade the people to submit to the Polish Prince Wladislaus, But these appeals of the boyars met with no response.

Early in the spring of 1612 the popular levy moved from Nizhni Novgorod to Yaroslavl. Its progress was greeted enthusiastically by the people, the city folk made generous donations in money, and ever new detachments oi warriors swelled its ranks from all sides. The popular levy stood about four months at Yaroslavl. Here it organ- ized a ze^hsJci (national) government, a "Government of the Entire Land.” Various government oflSces were set up for purposes of state administration, Minin and Pozharski, the leaders of the popular levy, devoted considerable time and energy to the organization of the mil- itary forces. The popular levy was made up of many heterogeneous units, including nobles from various cities, a miscellaneous urban population, Streltsi, Cossacks, and peasants. Besides Kussians the levy comprised Tatars, Mari, Chuvashes, and other nationalities. While the main forces of the popular levy were stationed at Yaroslavl, detachments sent out in various directions had, with the help of the population, liberated a large part of the country from the Poles and also from the Cossacks who had formerly gone over to the side of False Dimitry 11 and now refused to recognize the national government.

The population in various parts of the country continued of their own accord to fight the Polish detachments. Unfamiliar as they were with the locality, the Poles forced the villagers to act as their guides. However, many of these guides, at the sacrifice of their own lives, led the Polish detachments into forest jungles or decoyed them into the snare of the Russian troops. One of these national heroes was Ivan Susanin, a Kostroma peasant whom the Poles took as their guide. He led the Polish detachment into the Isupovskoye swamp. The infuriat* edszlachta slew Susanin, but they perished in the swamp themselves.

At the end of August 1612 the main forces of the popular levy marched to the walls of Moscow, Ataman Zarut&fcy, who had again joined the Poles, fled with some of his Cossacks to the south. The remaining Cossacks, encamped before Moscow with Prince Trubetskoi, though they did not immediately join the popular levy, put no obstac- les in its way. While the popular levy was marching on Moscow, Hetman Chodkiewicz, at the head of a Polish army, was hastening to the aid of the Poles with arms and food. In numerical strength his army was not inferior to that of Minin and Pozharski. Chodkiewicz fell upon the popular levy full tilt, supported by sallies from the Poles seated in Moscow. The popular levy found itself hard pressed. All day a furious battle raged. The men of the popular levy dismounted from their horses and closed in with the enemy. Some of Trubetskoi ’s Cos- sacks joined the volunteers without waiting for his permission, and together they threw back the Poles. The latter renewed their attack on the following day. They strove to break through to the ferries on the Moskva River. Kuzma Minin with a troop of four hundred of Pozliarski’s men, crossed the river, and came down precipitately on the Poles’ flank. The Poles wavered before the shock of this sudden impact, then turned and fled to their camp. Their entire baggage train (400 carts with supplies) fell into the hands of the victors. The remnants of the Polish troops took to their heels. The Polish garrison in Moscow was left without reinforcements and food; the Poles began to suffer from hunger. On October 26, 1612, after a battle at the Kremlin Gates, they surrendered. Moscow was freed.

Autocracy in Russia in the 17th Century

Reign of Mikhail Romanov

Election of Mikhail Romanov as Tsar

After Moscow was liberated the ^*National Government” convened the Zemeki Sohor (National Assembly) for the purpose of electing a tsar.

The assembly consisted chieny of nobles and burghers, the boyars and clergy forming a small group. There were also many represent- atives of the Cossacks, chiefly the Cossack atamans. Among the boyars were followers of the Polish ^own Prince Wladislaus and the Swedish Crown Prince Gustavus. The bulk of the assembly, however, were opposed to the interventionists..It was therefore resolved not to elect a foreigner to the throne. The most popular of the boyars, well regarded among the nobles and the Cossack atamans, were the Komanovs, relatives of Tsar Ivan IV and Pyodor. From them the nobles and the Cossack atamans hoped to obtain land, peasants, and other favours. Philaret, the metropolitan of Rostov, the oldest representative of this family, was a prisoner in Poland, and, moreover, being a monk, was not eligible as tsar. The Zemski Sohor therefore elected as tsar his sixteen-year-old son Mikhail, though he was a mere youth of weak character and inferior intellect. Tne elections were held at the begin- ning of 1613. The boyars are said to have made Mikhail give them a written pledge that he would act only with their consent. The new tsar was too young and miwise to rule independently. The country was virtually governed by his mother and relatives. Theie were still traitors among the ruling boyars such as Prince Fyodor Mstislavski, It was they who dismissed the ‘National Government” of Minin and Pozharski from power.

The new government did not immediately succeed in establishing a firm footing in the country. Zarutsky and Marina Mniszek, acoompanied fey some of the Cossacks j fled to Astrakhan where the former proclaimed himself Tsar Dimitry, and Marina’s little son the Tsar- evich Ivan Dimitrievioh. The mass of the Cossacks did not support Zarutsky, and the residents of Astrakhan even started an uprising against him. Zarutsky then went to the Yaik, but there the Cossacks seized both him and Marina and handed them over to the Moscow authorities. Zarutsky was executed in Moscow. Marina died in prison; her young son was hanged.

The landlords took advantage of the restoration of a central govern- ment to crush the peasant movement completely and re-establish their own power over the serf countryside.

The government made generous awards of land and serfs to the atamans and other wealthy Cossacks. In this manner the upper strata of the Cossacks were turned into landed proprietois. The poor element of the Cossacks was dealt with peremptorily. The tsar’s waywodes rounded up and annihilated the Cossack detachments everywhere. In 1616 a rather powerful movement broke out among the peasants and seifs in the Nizhni Novgorod district. The insurgents killed the nobles and burnt the villages. The same year saw an outbreak among the Tatars and the Mari in the Kazan district. They came close to the cities and tried to join forces with the rebels in the Nizhni Novgo- rod district. The uprising was suppressed.

The insurrection quelled, the victorious landlords set about tighten- ing the shackles of thralldom. Under pressure from the nobles and the monasteries the government issued a number of ukases lengthening the period of search for fugitive peasants from five to fifteen years, and thus paving the way to the complete abolition of the fixity of term that had heretofore existed. The war against the peasantiy re- tarded the struggle against foreign intervention.

The Swedes who had seized Novgorod continued their military operations. The Swedish king, the famous general Gustavus Adolphus, was defeated at Pskov in 1615. This presented an opportunity for beginning peace negotiations with Sweden through the mediation of England and Holland. These countries were incurring losses as a result of falling trade with Russia due to hostilities. In the beginning ■of 1617 peace was concluded at Stolbovo. The Swedes retained the entire shoreline of the Gulf of Einland and the Russian cities of Oreshek, Ivan-gorod, Yam and others, but evacuated the Novgorod region. Once more Russia found herself cut off from the Baltic Sea.

The war against Poland continued. Wladislaus was not disposed to give up the Muscovy throne. He marched on Moscow in 1618, but the assault of the Polish troops was repulsed. On his retreat from Moscow Wladislaus approached the Troitsk-Sergiyev Monastery and demanded its surrender. The monastery walls opened cannon fire OH the Polish army and forced it to withdraw.

At the end of 1618 Moscow and Polish plenipotentiaries con* eluded an armistice for 14^/2 years in the village of Deulino (near the Troitsk-Sergiyev Monastery)* Smolensk and its adjoining ter- ritory, and Seversk (Chernigov) Land were temporarily ceded to Poland.

Restoration of the State

The long war and intervention had reduced the country to a state of ruin. In the early years of Mi- khairs reign the Zemshi Sohor^ which functioned uninterruptedly, rendered the government considerable assistance in restoring the state administration . All the current needs of the state were discussed at these assemblies, new taxes were imposed, etc. Widespread min and desolation made it difficult to collect taxes from the population. The Zemshi Sobor sent its representatives to the provinces to help the royal tax collectors. After the conclusion of the armistice with Poland the tsar’s father, Philaret Romanov, returned from his Polish captivity. On his arrival in Moscow he was immediately made the patriarch and became the virtual ruler of the state (1619-1633). All ukases were issued in the name of the tsar and his father. Philaret even accepted the title of Veliki Ooaudar — the Great Lord. He virtually combined in his person the ecclesiastic and secular power —the power of the patriaich and of the tsar. This greatly strengthened the central government.

Foreign Policy after the Peasant War

War with Poland for Smolensk

Russia could not reconcile her- self with the .loss of Smolensk, a first-class fortress that protected the crossing over the Dnieper and was of great commercial significance. The Muscovy government, therefore, throughout the period of the Deulino armistice, made active preparations for a new war.

Events of the early 17th century strikingly revealed the technical backwardness of the Russian state. The government of Tsar Mikhail made urgent effoits to build up the military strength and improve the organization of the Russian army. Despite all difficulties a large quantity of arms was purchased abroad. New regiments were formed of foreign mercenaries, and peasant recruits from the monastery and landlord demesnes and volunteers were used to form Russian regiments of "foreign formation,” trained according to European methods under the command of foreign officers.

In 1632 the army of Muscovy under the boyar Shein began its siege of Smolensk. Shein had already won glory in 1610-1611 during the heroic defence of Smolensk. At this time Sigismund'III of Poland died. A new king had not been elected and the country was in the throes of intestine strife. Smolensk was strongly fortified and the siege became a protracted one. Discipline among the foreign soldiers in Muscovy’s seivice was very lax. They constantly bickered among themselves and frequently went over to the enemy.

The Poles succeeded in persuading the Crimean Tatars by gifts and bribes to commence hostilities against Muscovy. The Tatars raided the southern border regions of Russia. On receiving news of the Tatar raid, the nobles of the southern districts abandoned the army and hastened to defend their estates.

In 1633 the patriarch Philaret died. The Moscow boyars did not want war and did not supply Shein with reinforcements. Demoral- ization set in in the Russian army. Shein himself openly voiced his doubts as to the possibility of victory and, very likely, missed the opportunity of capturing the fortress. The son of Sigismund m, Wla- dislaus rV, who was elected king of Poland, hastened with an army to the aid of the besieged Polish garrison. The Russians were trapped between Wladislaus’ troops and the Smolensk fortifications. After several attempts to break through, the Russians were forced to sur- render on onerous terms— ^11 their cannon were handed over to the enemy.

The Moscow boyars, who did not like Shein for his haughtiness, made this failure an excuse for charging him with treachery. Shein was executed, although it was the boyars, and not he, who were the traitors. Purther progress of the Poles was stemmed at the fortress of Belaya. On, being demanded to surrender, the small garrison holding the fortress declared that it would defend itself to the last man. The threat of war with Turkey and the resistance encountered at Belaya compelled KingWladislaus to seek a speedy peace, which was concluded at the frontier river of Polyanovka in 1634. Poland kept Smolensk and the other cities seized during the intervention, but agreed to recognize Mikhail as the Russian tsar. Wladislaus renounced his claim to the tsar’s throne for all time.

Relations with Crimea and Turkey

One of the reasons for the failure of the Russian troops at Smolensk was the attacks of the Crimean Tatars on the southern districts. After the termination of the war the Moscow government energetically began to repair and build a line of fortifications to protect the southern frontier against the Tatar raids. These fortifications ensured Muscovy’s possession of the fertile steppe, which Russian landowners had begun to lay hands on.

In 1637 the Don Cossacks attacked the Fortress of Azov, held by the Turks, which barred the exit from the Don to the Azov Sea. After a siege lasting two months the Cossacks took Azov by storm.

In 1641 the Turkish sultan sent a large army with a powerful artil- lery to Azov. The small Cossack detachment located in Azov coura- geously repulsed twenty-four assaults and forced the Turks to raise the siege. In expectation of new attacks being undertaken by the Turks, the Cossacks appealed to Moscow for help.

The government of Tsar Mikhail hesitated to begin war with Turkey for the possession of Azov without first obtaining the support of the Zemald 8dbor. When the National Assembly convened in 1642 the military and merchants, though in favour of having Azov brought under the tsar’s power, bitterly complained about the burden of taxa- tion, the bribery rampant among the government cleiks, the tyranny of the waywodes and other irregularities in the state administration. Seeing that it could not safely rely on the active support of the ruling classes, the government ordered the Cossacks to abandon Azov.

Feudal Serf Economy

The Condition of the Peasants

In the 17th century, as in the preceding centuries of feudalism, the land of every feudal demesne was divided into the lord’s land and the peasants ’. The peasants tilled not only their own plots with their own implements but also ih^ land of their lords, who alone enjoyed its harvest. As Lenin pointed out, in order that this system of economy, which was called barsJichina economy, might exist , the following conditions were necessaiy: ‘‘Firstly , the predominance of natural self-sufficing economy. The serf owner’s estate had to represent a self-contained, isolated whole, having very weak contacts with the outside world.”* Se'feondly, such an economy demands that the peasant be consigned to a piece of land and attached to it so that he cannot leave the landlord. The third condition is the personal dependence of the peasant on the landlord: “If the landlord did not exercise direct power over the person of the peasant, he could not compel him, as possessor of land and a tiller on his own account , to work for him.”* The fouith condition which was also a result of barskchina economy is ‘Hhe extiemely low and loutine state of technique, for the land was tilled by small peasants who were crushed by poverty and degraded by per- sonal dependence and ignoiance.”** In the 17th century the lural population of Russia was divided up into several categoiies: pri- vately-owned peasants living on the lands of the clergy, boyars and landloids, peasants adsciibed to the tsar ’s palace who supplied products for his needs, called dvoitsoviye (palace peasants); and finally all the other peasants who lived on crown lands, called chomiye or chernososhniye (the “black” people or the rabble). All the peasants vere heavily taxed by the tsar.

In the 17th century the number of privately-owned peasants continued to grow. The government of the first tsars of the Romanov dynasty granted laige estates together with chernososhniye and dvor* peasants, to the palatine aristocracy and nobles. Large demesnes together with the peasants and craftsmen living on them were seized by the relatives of the tsai . By the end of the 17th century the dijSFerence between the estates held in fee and the patrimonies practically van- ished; most of the estates became of hereditary tenure, like the pat- rimonies.

The condition of the privately-owned peasants was particularly onerous. The landlords kept on increasing the manorial tillage which the peasants were obliged to work. The latter paid the landowner quitrent in kind, consisting of various products of agriculture and the domestic crafts. The products obtained fiom the peasants went to feed the family of the landlord and his servants. The peasants had to pay their landlord, in addition to the products of their land, a money tax generally varying from fifty kopeks to one ruble for every peasant housebold.

With, the onset of autumn and the winding up of farm woik, many peasants usually engaged in various crafts: they wove linen cloth, fulled wool, curried hides, made mittens and wooden utensils, forged agricultuial imple- ments, etc. Part of these articles remained in the peas- ant household or was given to the landlord in payment of quitrent. The rest was sold on the market. In order to raise money to pay the crown taxes and their quitrent to the landlords, the peasants became increasingly depen- dent upon the maiket.

The development of peas- ant trade led to social di- vision among the peasantry. Peasant factors appeared in the villages. Some of them abandoned husbandry and became merchants.

The landlords in the 17th century were no longer content with the products which they received from their peasants, serfs and crafts- men, The rich boyars and the nobles of the capital made themselves clothes of Italian velvet or English woolens, woie sable hats, were fond of expensive ornaments, drank imported wines and introduced foreign articles into their households. All these things could be ob- tained only for money received from the peasants or from the sale of the products of the peasant economy.

Seif economy in the 17th century began to adapt itself to the developing market.

An example of a large serf economy in the middle of the 17th century was that of the boyar Boris Ivanovich Morozov. Morozov had about thiee hundred villages with a population of over 40,000 serfs on his extensive demesnes, which yielded him a revenue, in money alone, of 10,000 rubles annually (equivalent to 170,000 rubles at early 20th century parity). His numerous granaries contained hundreds of thousands of poods* of corn. During the war with Poland Morozov took advantage of pievailing higli prices on corn to amass a huge foiijune. His serfs had to supply huge quantities of various products for the upkeep of the 700 servants on his estate. Morozov established ironworks and potash factories and compelled his peas- ants to do the most difficult woik. The potash was sold to foreign merchants.

Manufactories

Side by side with the growth of handicraft pro- duction, the first manufactories made their appearance in Hussia in the 17th century. In manufactories a number of people worked to- gether, depending upon the size of the enterprise. They performed different parts of a common job. Work in the manufactory was per- formed by hand w>th the aid of simple instiuments (the term ‘‘'manu- factory’* comes from the Latin words manus meaning hand^ and factura meaning a 7haJcing). Compared with the labour of the artisan, the manufactory permitted greater productivity of labour. In 1632 a Dutch merchant, Andrew Vinnius, was granted a concession on the iron ore near Tula; there he built the first iron manufactory, thus laying the foundation for the futuie Tula Ironworks. A few years later a Swede by the name of Koet founded a glass factory near Moscow. During the second half of the 17th century the crown, merchants and landowners organized ironwoiks, copper foundries, glass woiks, paper mills and tanneries. Tor the most part, the woikers in these manu- factories were di awn at that time from among the seifs or other depen- dent people- The manufactories also employed fiee hired ‘Voikpeople” from the ranks of the city poor.

The Crafts and Trade

In th© 17th century regular trade inter- course was established between the village and town marts. In some places the city and village population had begun to specialize in the manufacture of one or another article. The black-eaith districts sup- plied the central regions of the country with their corn. Yaroslavl was renowned for its mirrors, which were shipped even to Siberia, Vologda produced various ironware. Kaluga was famous for its fine work in wood, and so on. In the southern cities one could meet merchants from the Maritime North; in the northern cities various tradesmen collected who had bought goods for shipment to Aichangel, Siberia and other places. Thus regions and cities ceased to be economically isolated as they had been before.

In the 17th century, as Lenin points out, small marts merged into a single ^*all-Russian market.’^* With the development of trade he^ tween regions, there was bi ought about a virtual amalgamation of all the territories that had formeily been part of separate principalities. The old local peculiarities vanished everywhere. Through her commerce Russia in the 17th century established still closer ties with many foreign powers. Archangel became the chief port of trade with Western Europe. Every summer large numbers of English, Dutch and German ships arrived at the port of Aiohangel, bringing miscellaneous cargoes of woolens, silk fabrics, expensive utensils, arms, metals, etc. Eussian merchants navigated the Northern Dvina with shiploads of Siberian furs, hides, hemp, hax, pitch, potash, pork, and the wares of peasants and city craftsmen. Trade with the East was carried on chiefly via Astrakhan, to which Bokhara and Persian merchants brought their Eastern wares.

Towns

The development of the crafts and trade stimulated the growth of towns. In the 16th.l7th centuries the Eussian town consisted of several sections. The central part of the town, the Kremlin (or citadel), was usually surrounded by wooden walls; some big towns had stonewalls aboutthem, with battlements and towers. The administra- tive offices were housed withinthe fortress where the supplies of food and gunpowder were also kept, as well as special isha^ (huts) for sheltering the population in times of a siege. Adjoining the citadel were settle- ments of craftsmen and petty tradespeople. Beyond these settlements, amid the fields and meadows, were scattered villages belonging to the monasteries and boyars.

The growth of domestic and foreign trade promoted the develop- ment of a merchant class. The upper stratum of merchants in the capi- tal who enjoyed great privileges were called ‘"guests.” This title was conferred by special royal charter. The Eussian merchants had to compete with foreign merchants (the English, Dutch, Germans, and others) who tried to gain control over the Eussian market. The Russian merchants succeeded in getting the government to prohibit duty-free trade by foreigners in Russia.

The townsfolk were divided into several categories, according to their financial status. The wealthy merchants formed the highest category . Craftsmen and petty tradesmen as well as people who made their living by casual employment constituted the lower strata. Taxes were imposed on the townsfolk in money and in services. This assessment did not apply to people living on the lands of the church, boyars and nobles. The wealthy city taxpayers, the ‘‘best people” as they weie called, held elective offices and tried to reduce their assessment. The condition of the lower estates in the towns, on whose shoulders rested the main burden of state taxation and who were virtually in thrall to the rich merchants, was a pitiful one.

Uprisings in the Cities in the Middle of the 17th Century

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich

After the death of Tsar Mikhail, his son, the sixteen-year-old Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), ascended the throne of Muscovy. The young tsar was very fond of falconry and other sports. His guardian, the boyar Boris Ivanovich Morozov, assumed the administration of the state. He appointed his own people to the most important posts. To strengthen his influence, he procured the marriage of the tsar with the daughter of Miloslavski, a boyar of humble origin, himself marrying another of his daughters.

At the time of Tsar Mikhail’s death the situation in the country was very grave. The unsuccessful war with Poland had completely ruined the country, which had not yet recovered from the effects of interven- tion. The first thing Morozov did was to improve the country’s finan- cial position. Forthesake of economy he reduced the salaries of the mili- tary, and imposed a new and very high tax on salt. Thousands of poods of fish rotted because of the high price of salt, and the government was obliged to hastily repeal the salt tax. Other taxes ^ were intro- duced, the burden of which fell on the poor part of the population, especially on the city craftsmen, unskilled labourers and petty tradespeople.

The rich merchants (guests) to whom the farming of taxes was entrusted, enriched themselves at the expense of the poor. The trades- people from among the peasants, being the seifs of the boyars and the church, were exempt from taxation, though many of them carried on very big transactions. There were large settlements near the towns be- longing to the boyars and monasteries the entire population of which engaged in trade and the crafts, and competed effectively with the townsfolk, without, however, having to pay taxes.

Insurrections in the Cities

The plight ol the lower strata of the urban population led to a number of uprisings and disturbances during the first years of Alexei Mikhailovich’s reign. On June 1, 1648, when the tsar returned to Moscow from a religious pilgrimage, the populace who went out to meet him lodged complaints against the extortions of Moro- zov’s people. The petitioners were dispersed with whips. The next day a crowd broke into the Kremlin and made its way to the palace, demand- ing that Leonti Pieshcheyev, who was in charge of the police in the capi- tal, be turned over to them. Pieshcheyev had a reputation among the people of being a savage oppressor and a brute. The boyars who came out of the palace to pacify the crowd were forced to Cee. The people attacked the homes of the boyars and officials. An important functionary was killed. The insurrection assumed threatening dimensions. Fires broke out over a large section of the city. The terrified tsar handed over to the throng the most hated of the grandees— Pieshcheyev andTrabhaniotov. These were killed. Then the rebels demanded the head of Morozov him- self . The tsar sent his boyars to the Red Square,’*' who, in the name of the tsar, swore that Morozov would be dismissed from the government. During the night he was taken out of Moscow and sent to a distant monastery.

The uprising became all the more menacing when the nobles, who had arrived in the city to take up service, also took advantage of the situation. The townsfolk and nobles submitted a petition to the tsar asking him to convene the Zemski Sohor in order to draw up a new code of laws {Olozheniye),

Simultaneously with the uprising in Moscow, disturbances broke out in a number of other cities: Kursk, Solvychegodsk, Ustyug, and others. In the autumn of 1648 the government hurriedly convened the Zemski Sohor, The assembly was well attended. The great majority con- sisted of the provincial nobility and townsfolk. All their demands were met. In January 1649 a new Code of Laws was confirmed, fixing the duties and rights of the various social estates, the conditions of the nobles’ service and the assessment of the townsfolk. To conciliate the nobles on the much vexed question of repealing the ‘‘ fixed period” that is, the term during which fugitive peasants could be sought, this issue was finally settled in the landlords’ favour, thus making serf- dom a statutory established fact. According to the new legal code, fugitive peasants, in the event of their being caught, were reinstated together with their families and property to their former owners, irrespective of the time that had elapsed. Thus the feudal depen- dence of the peasants was legally established as the law of serf- dom. The townsfolk secured a decision by which all boyar andchurdi settlements were annexed to the towns, and their population placed on an equal footing with those of the towns in regard to taxation and ser- vices. The townspeople themselves were completely attached to the set- tlements in which they lived. At the same time the code consolidated the tsar^s power by establishing a death penalty for crimes against the tsar’s person and harsh punishments for an insult to the tsar.

Tae movement which had spread throughout the cities of Russia during the summer of 1648 did not subside immediately. In 1650 a very strong outbreak occurred in Novgorod and Pskov, in response, as it were, to the Code of Laws of 1649,

The uprising in Pskov was especially serious. The Pskov people deposed the tsar’s waywode and set up a self-government. They sent a petition to Moscow in which, among other things, they demanded that their own representatives be permitted to sit in the waywode ’s court of justice. In reply they received from Moscow a letter of reprimand. “Never has it happened that muzhiks have sat in court together with boyars and waywodes, nor will it ever be.” At the same time troops were dispatched against Pskov.

The people of Pskov defended themselves bravely for almost three months, and inflicted heavy losses upon the tsar’s troops. In the Pskov district the insurgent peasants assaulted the landlords .The upris- ing assumed such serious proportions that the tsar again convened the Zemshi Sohor in Moscow. The assembly sent a delegation to Pskov with the promise of an amnesty. There was no complete unity in Pskov. The rich people persuaded the populace to cease their resistance and give their allegiance to the tsar. In expectation of the amnesty the Pskov people obeyed, but they were cruelly deceived. When the disturbance was over, executions and exiles began. The rich Pskov people themselves helped the tsarist administration and betrayed the ringleaders.

The future patriarch Nikon especially distinguished himself in quelling the disturbances of 1650.

Organs of Government of the Russian State

The Power of the Tsar

The state structure of Russia as a system of feudal serfdom took final form in the 17th centuryimder the Romanovs. Lenin describes this feudal state in the following way: ^Tn order to maintain his domination, in order to retain his power, the landlord had to have an apparatus which would unite, under his rule, a tremendous number of people and would subordinate them to certain laws and regulations— and all these laws essentially boiled down to one —the retention of power by tlie landlord over tbe serf.”* At tbe bead of the Eussian state was an autociaiic tsar who was himself the first anc foremost landlord of the realm. The nobles had need of a strong tsar who could protect their class interests. The will of the tsar was law foi the entire land. All military servitors, even the aristocratic boyars called themselves the servants of the tsar; and assessed people— the townsfolk and peasants —could not even call themselves* that. They were the tsar’s ‘Tittle orphans.” When addressing the tsar, everyone had tc refer to himself in the diminutive; Petrushka^ Ivashha (Peteikin, John- ny). They did obeisance to the tsar as to a deity, touching the groun<3 with their foreheads.

The tsar’s power was also sustained by the splendour wdth whid he surrounded himself. On ceremonious occasions, when receiving for- eign ambassadors or attending church, the tsar appealed in sumptuous “full-dress,” in a brocaded kaftan embroidered in pearls, the roya] shoulder-mantle richly ornamented with images of the saints, the Monomakh cap, and a sceptre in his hands.

The Boyar Duma

To decide important matters the tsar had a council consisting of his court boyars, which was called the “boyar duma.” The tsar, however, was not obliged to consult the boyar duma. More often than not he would confer with several of his trusted servants or make a decision without consulting anyone. The boyar duma was an aristocratic institution, and only people of “noble pedigree” were ap- pointed to it. However, in the 17th century people of relatively obscure origin became members of the boyar duma more and more frequently.

Government Offices

Current administration was handled by special institutions, called •prihazi, at the head of which stood a boyar, assisted by one or two cleiks called dyahi. The ofS.ce routine was carried on by under-cleiks called podyacMye. The cleiks and under-cleiks were people of humble origin, who lived on the royal salary, on fees from petition- ers, and often on bribes (gifts) which were banned by law. They were the obedient tools of the royal power and the esecutives of centialized government. There were over forty of these offices. The work was divid- ed among them without organization or system. Military affairs were handled by several offices at once. The Razryadni Prihaz (Mili- tary Office) discharged the functions of the Chief Staff; the Streletehi Office dealt with the affairs of the Streltsi troops; the Foreign Office took care of foreigners in the service of Muscovy; the Beiter Office was in charge of reiter regiments (ihe cavalry, trained on foieign lines and armed with sabres and muskets); the Gunnery Office had charge of the manufacture and storage of arms. The distribution of estates to the nobles was taken care of in the Estate Office. There were offices which administered separate and, at times very extensive, regions, such as, the Sibeiia Office, tbe Malorossia (Little Kubsia or Ukraine) Office. There was no definite system in handling the affairs of the various •prikazi^ a fact which greatly hampered the woik of administration. Even the best organized office, the Posohhi Prikaz, which dealt with foreign affairs, not only had charge of diplomatic matters but also collected taxes from the towns under its jurisdiction.

Every government office dispensed justice and imposed penalties. Legal procedure in those days was a cruel affair. The defendants were subjected to painful toitures. For minor offenses the guilty person was stretched out on the ground and beaten with a rod. For more serious offenses he was ‘"unmercifully’’ scourged with a whip on his bare backs. The cutting out of tongues, hacking off of hands, and death sentences were common practices. Offenders against religion were burned alive.

By means such as these was the power of the tsar and the feudal lords maintained. Such cruel punishments were characteristic of medieval justice in the 16th and 17th centuries everywhere, including the countries of Western Europe.

Local Administration

Waywodes from among the boyars and nobles were sent to govern the cities. The waywode was in command of the city garrison, he administered justice, and collected taxes from the resi- dents of the city and the adjacent district. The elected staroati (reeves) became the subordinate agents ofthewaywodes. The gubernia (regional) reeves still existed, but only as assistants of the waywodes. In this way all branches of the administration weie concentrated in the hands of the waywodes, a circumstance which provided wide opportunities for abuse. The waywodes regarded their posts merely as a means of private upkeep.

The Army

The old cavalry of the nobilitygradually lost its former military significance. In peacetime the nobles were busy with their es- tates.Only at rare intervals did they pass under review for military pre- paredness. In case of war they had to appear for service “mounted, manned and armed.” They weie variously armed, sometimes with fire- arms and sometimes with bows and arrows . Discipline among the nobles ’ levy was lax. Many of them evaded service on various pretexts. For absence during inspection the offenders were beaten with rods and some- times deprived of their estates. In view of the weakness of the nobles’ levy a body of Streltsi was organized in the 16th century. The Streltsi received pay in money, were equipped with firearms (arquebuses) , and went to war in proper “battle array.” But even the Stieltsi were not really regular troops. They lived in Moscow and other laige cities in special settlements, and in peacetime engaged in the crafts and petty trading. In their mode of life the Streltsi hardly differed from the petty townsfolk, andthey frequently took part in the outbreaks among the city populace.

The government of Muscovy, making preparations for war against Poland, enlisted the services of several mercenary regiments. Tlie siege of Smolensk in 1632, however, revealed the inefficacj^ and unreliability of these ill-disciplined mercenaries, who sold their sword to the highest bidder. Therefore, during Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich’s reign another method was adopted, one that had been tried and tested in his father’s reign. Eegiments were formed of Bussian recruits and volunteers, with foreign -instructors invited to train them according to ‘‘foreign” ways. Thus “regiments of foreign formation” were organized consisting of horse and foot units, only the officers of which were foreigners.

In the years immediately following the death of Aloxei Mikhailo- vich there were 63 regiments in the Russian army, trained according to European methods and comprising sixty per cent of all the troops, not counting the Cossacks. In this way the reorganization of the army was begun in the 17th century, and its efficiency improved. An attempt was also made under Alexei Mikhailovich to create a fleet. Foreign masters built the ship “Oryol" (Eagle), but it was destroyed during Razin’s uprising.

Nikon's Church Reform and the Schism

Church Reform

The Russian autocracy needed a strong church which would still further enhance the power of the tsar and the domi- nation of the nobles. For this purpose it was necessary to subordinate all church organizations more strictly to the highest church power and to eradicate certain local peculiarities in the church service and ritual.

Nikon, a man who exercised great influence over the tsar, became the patriarch during the reign of Alexei Mikliailovich, Nikon disposed of the vast possessions of the patriarch and the monasteries as though they were his own estates. His wealth was tremendous. Nikon treated the clergy under him with great severity. The priests called him “a wild beast.”

Upon Nikon’s orders, a general revision was made of the church service-books and rituals with the object of unifying them. The Greek church served as the model for this. The revision of the church service- books and rituals was conducted under the guidance of Greeks and learn- ed Kiev monks. Nikon gave orders that people make the sign of the cross not with two fingers, as formerly, but with three, as the Greeks did, that icons be painted like the Greek models, and so on. Nor did ho confine himself merely to changing certain rituals. He propounded the doctrine that the spiritual is higher than the temporal power, the former corres- ponding to the sun and the latter to the moon in the firmament, which receives its light from the sun. Nikon assumed the official title of “Fe/iK Gosudar ^ — ^the "Great Lord,” interfered in the aiFairs of the realm, and even issued orders affecting military operations.

The excessive enhancement of Nikon’s power evoked profound dis- content among the court aristocracy and the nobles. While lending his support to Nikon’s measures for strengthening the church, the tsar was loath to have the royal power eclipsed. Conflicts arose between the tsar and Nikon, ^ivhich soon ended in a complete rupture. Think- ing he would frighten the tsar and the boyars, Nikon unexpectedly discarded the patriarchal vestments and shut himself up in the Vos- kresensky ]\Ionaster 5 r (New Jerusalem). Nikon expected the tsar to call him back* but his hopes were doomed to disappointment. In 1C66 the tsar convened the church assembly, at which two Greek patri- archs a,ssi&ted. The assembly blamed Nikon for attempting to subordi- nate the royal power to himself, 3 ^et confirmed all his chuich reforms. Nikon was exiled to one of the northern monasteries as an ordinary monk.

Thus, Nikon’s attempt to raise the church power above the mun- dane ended in failure. In the struggle between the patriarch and the tsar all the advantages were on the side of the latter. The tsar was supported by the landowning nobles, who regarded the existence of an independent church possessing such vast demesnes with disfavour.

The Beginning of the Schism in the Orthodox Chttreh

Nikon’s reforms resulted in a great schism in the Russian church. His opponents refused to recognize the innovations introduced by Nikon and demanded that the old ritual be retained. The schismatics were called Baskolniki (from the Russian word raskoh meaning schism) or Old Believers.

The higher clergy and the monasteries, wkich possessed vast demesnes and a large population of serfs, ruthlessly exploited their peasants, amassed great wealth and deceived the people means of "miracle- working” icons, sacred relics, etc. With rare exceptions, the monasteries and higher clergy were in favour of Nikon’s reforms, which enhanced the power of the ecclesiastical feudal lords still more.

The lower clergy were considerably worse off, and were themselves the victims of the tyranny of the church prelates. The first opponents to Nikon’s reforms appeared among the lower clergy. One of them was the protopapas Awakum of Moscow. For active opposition to Nikon and his church reform Awakum was exiled to Eastern Siberia where for nearly ten years he was cruelly persecuted and maltreated by the tsar’s wa 3 rwodes. Upon his return to Moscow Awakum renewed his war against the church reforms. This time he was banished to the north, to Pustozersk, as a prisoner in an undergroxmd dungeon. In 1681 Avva- kum W'^as burnt at the stake. His advocacy of ancient ritual and observ- ances was reactionary in character. But Awakum also looked upon his opposition to innovation as a struggle against the tyranny and abuse of the strong and of the ecumenical authorities. The defenders of the ‘'Old Belief” who came from among the petty urban population— the craftsmen, traders and army people —were chietly opposed to the strong power of the dominant chinch and extortions by a greedy clergy. Among the peasants the struggle against a dominant church was combined with the struggle against feudal serfage. The peas- ants and petty townspeople sought refuge from feudal oppression in the northern forests, and southern steppes and on the Don, where they formed sectarian communities. They believed, in this mannerj to be able to rid themselves of the oppiession of serfdom.

Nikon’s church reforms were a Iso opposed by a small conservative group of the court nobility and some of the higher clergy, who feared that these innovations would shcike the position of the church.

The Ukraine and Byelorussia in the 17th Century

The Ukraine and Byelorussia under Polish Dominion

Seizure of Ukrainian and Byelorussian Lands by the Polish Gentry

After the conclusion of the Lublin Union between Lithuania and Poland in 1569, a large part of Ukrainian territory (the lands of Volhynia, Kiev, and Chernigov) passed to Poland. The big Polish landed gentry energetically set about helping themselves to Ukrainian and Byelorussian lands. At first they seized the lands of Western Ukraine, but at the end of the 16th century, they crossed to the left bank of the Dnieper. Large holdings of Polish magnates, the Zol- kiewskis, Potockis^ and others, weie formed on Ukrainian territory.

The rapid development of agriculture among the Polish landlords followed increased exports of corn fiom Poland and Lithuania to Western Europe. Corn from the estates was shipped by water to the ports of the Baltic Sea, the most important of which was Danzig. The condition of the peasants in Poland at that time was worse than in any other European country. The Polish landlords destroyed the peasant communities, which had large sections ol land at their disposal. The Polish gentry seized the best community lands, settled the peas- ants on small plots and imposed heavy taxes and duties upon them. They introduced Polish methods and customs on their Ukrainian and Byelorussian estates.

The Polish landlord enjoyed unlimited power over the population on his estates. He could with impunity appropriate the peasant’s Ukrainian peasants. Ficm a drawbig of the IHth century. According to Rigelman property, inflict whatever punishment he saw fit, and even take his life. The peasants dared not complain to anyone about their perse- cution or wrongs. The landloids contemptuously called the peasants slaves and cattle.

The Poles suppressed the Ukrainian and Byelorussian national culture. The Polish gentry made use of the Catholic church to strengthen their own position in the Ukraine and in Byelorussia. The spread of Catholicism met with strong resistance from both the peasants and the city population, and some of the Ukrainian and Byelorussian landlords. Thereupon, on the proposal of the Jesuits, a plan was drawn up for the union of the Catholic and Oithodoschuiches.Accoid- ing to this union, most of the church rituals of the Oithodox believers were to remain unchanged, but the Orthodox chuich was to be brought under the Papal authority. A chuich assembly was convened in the city of Brest in 1596 to settle the question of effecting this union. The majority of the assembly were opposed to a union and insisted on the complete independence of the Orthodox church. Their will, however, was overruled by the minority who, despite the opposition, proclaimed the union, which was confirmed by a special edict of the Polish king. The object of the union was to help subordinate the Ukrainian and Byelorussian lands to Poland, and signified the further intensification of Polish-Papal aggression against Russia.

The urban population also suifered from Polish oppression. In the 15th and 16th centuries many Uk ainian and Byelorussian cities had been granted self-government. With the growth of Polish land tenure in the Ukiaine and Byelorussia, the cities became dependent upon Pol'sh authority and the Polish landlords. According to Polish law, all landlords had the right to export the products of their estates and to buy whatever goods they needed duty-free. This privilege dealt a serious blow to city trade. The Polish authorities set aside the cities’ rights to self-government; the Polish landlords seized the city lands and hampered the crafts and trade.

The fJki ainian and Byelorussian population in the cities united in ‘T)rotheihoods,” organized under the churches, which fought for the preservation of their national culture and waged war against the Catholic church. The brotherhoods opened their own schools and printing shops, published books,

and rendered assistance to their .

needy members. ?5ome of the Ukrainian and Byelorussian feu- dal lords copied the Polish gent- ry and nobles , adopted the Polish language and Polish customs and usages ; but the mass of the people remained true to their native language and country, and the Poles were unable to destroy the national culture of the Ukraine and Byelorussia.

The Uki ainian and Byelorus- sian peasants, to escape the op- pression of the Polish landlords, Went south, to the still unsettled steppes of the Lower Dnieper. At the same time Russian peas- ants, to escape the oppression of Russian landlords, migrated to the Don. A fortified camp of Cossacks and runaway peas- ants from the Ukraine was organ- ized on the Island of Khortitsa,

near the Dniepor falls. These B>eJonissian peasant. F/om a people came to be called the dra^ving of the l^th rfiyifurn Zwparozhyt {backfalls) Cossacks. Abatises of hewn trees were erected as protection against attacks, whence these fortified Cossack camps came to be called from the Enssian word for

abatis. The chief pursuits of the Cossacks were fishing, hunting, and various crafts. The Cossacks often waylaid the Tatars returning home to the Crimea after their raids and recaptured their captives and booty.

As^ a reprisal against Tuikish and Tatar inroads on Ukrainian lands the Cossacks carried out raids on the Crimea and Turkish towns situated on the Black Sea coast. Zaporozhye practically had no permanent population. The Cossacks gathered at the Bmh early in the spring when the high tide had fallen. At such times the island became a noisy, populous camp. The Cossacks elected an ataman and other military captains. Hundreds of people were busy building the long Cossack row-boats of willow and linden, called “gulls, repairing their weapons and putting in a stock of provisions. When all prep- arations had been completed, large numbers of Cossack boats would move swiftly down the Dnieper out into the Black Sea. Usually the Cossacks made for Tuikish shores, sometimes reaching the very capital of the sultan— Constantinople, The Cossacks crossed the sea so quickly that the Turkish sentry posts rarely had a chance to warn the sultan of the imminent danger. The strength of the Cossacks lay in the daring and unexpectedness of their attack. In the winter the Za'gorozhskaya Bedh was deserted. The Cossacks left for Ukrainian and Polish cities ' where they sold the booty they had obtained on their raids and their own products. Only guards remained on Kkortitsa Island. Cannon, firearms, boats, etc., were carefully hidden away until.the following spring.

At the end of the 16 th century the number of Zaporozhye Cossacks increased considerably. Under King Stephen Bathory part of the Cossacks were entered in special lists (registers) and were called “reg- isteied CossacL.” The Polish government endeavoured to use them to defend the frontier Polish lands and for purposes of war. The “reg- istered Cossacks'" therefore received a salary from the king and were quartered in the cities. Only an insignificant number of Cossacks, consisting of the more wealthy elements, were included in the register. It was the intention of the Polish government to make serfs of the other Cossacks and return them to the landlords.

At the end of the 16t^ century a process of class stratification set in among the registered Cossacks, with the appearance of an upper stratum of petty landed proprietors, who acquired their own home- steads, had their own seifs and owned various industries.

The registered Cossack troops were under the command of a hetman, confirmed by the king, with a staff of chiefs, called the ‘'general star- shiTia,^^ elected by the Cossacks and consisting of well-to-do members of the Cobsack community.

Popular Uprisings Against Poland

Polish oppression in '*he Ukiaine and Byelorussia evoked a number of spontaneous popular outbreaks at the end of the 16th century. 1 1 these uprisings the Za- porozhye Cossacks usually joined foices with the peasant rebels. Sometimes a part of the registered Cossacks also joined them. During the uprisings the peasants set fire to Polish castles and killed the landlords, who, if they managed to escape, fled to Poland, whence they returned with Polish troops and cruelly avenged themselves on the peasants. The rebels sought refuge in the vast, dense forests along the middle reaches of the Dnieper, from where they waged a pro- tracted partisan waifare.

The first big insurrections took place in the nineties of the 16lh centuiy. In 1595 Severin Nalivaiko, the son of a fur-di‘e.-ser, headed a rebellion which bioke out in Volhynia. Nalivaiko's detachments moved to Byeloiussia and stirred up the Byelorussian peasants. The rebels captured several cities: Slutbk, Mogilev and Pinsk.

The Polish king, Sigismund m, sent a large army under Hetman ZolkieWbki to suppress the uprising. Nalivaiko^s detachment was surrounded near the city of Lubny. During an armistice the Poles treacherously killed the disarmed people and transported the leader of the uprising, Nalivaiko, to Warsaw, where he was tortured to death. The peasant movement against the Polish gentry continued into the beginning of the 17th century.

In the thiities of the 17th centuiy the Zaporozhskaya Seek rose up once moie against the Poles. The uprising was suppressed owing to the treachery of the eldeis. After this the Poles, with the help of a Flench engineer, built the foitiess of Kodak above the falls to prevent Zaporozhye from having any intei course with the Ukiaine. The Polish hetman invited the Cossacks to look at the fortification that had been put up against them.

“What do you think of Kodaks’’ he asked mockingly.

“What human Lands have built human hands will destroy ” Bogdan Ivhmelnitski, the chief of a Cossack hundi*ed, replied to him.

A few years later another upiising occuired, during which the Cossacks actually destroyed the fortiess of Kodak.

Xot until 1638, however, did the Polish troops succeed in crushing the popular rebellion m the Ukiame, The Polish Diet abolished "Tor all time” all Cossack privileges and self-gov- ernment . The hetman was replaced by a commissary of the Polish government . The number of registered Cos- sacks was reduced. They were placed under the command of the szlachta, the Ukrainian cities were garrisoned by Polish troops.

The Struggle of the Ukrainian People against Poland

Bogdan Khmelnitski

After the rebellion of 1638 was suppressed there were no new peasant outbreaks in the Ukraine and Byelorussia for a period of ten years. Punitive expeditions of the Polish szlachta went deep into the Ukraine, on the left bank of the Dnieper, and the resistance of the peasants was broken. The Polish nobles called this a time of ‘^golden peace.” However, the hatred of the oppressed Uk- rainian and Byelorussian population for the Polish power grew all the more intense.

In the spring of 1648 the Ukraine rose up once more against the oppression of the Polish gentry and the power of Poland. The move- ment was initiated by the Zaporozhye Cossacks under the leadership of Bogdan Khmelnitski.

Bogdan Khmelnitski was a popular figuie in the Ukraine. He was an educated person, had studied at the Kiev Academy, and knew the Latin language. He had more than once been participant and leader of daring Cossack campaigns. As far back as the ’twenties Bogdan had fought together with the Poles against the Turks, the common enemy of the Ukraine and Poland. Bogdan’s father fell in the battle of Chechora near Jassy; Bogdan himself had been taken prisoner by the Turks who kept him in captivity for nearly two years. The Cossacks often elected him to carry on negotiations with the Polish government, at which times Bogdan defended the interests of the Cossacks.

Bogdan KHimelnitski was a prosperous Cossack and was includ- ed in the army register. His estate was situated not far from Chigirin . The dire condition of the Ukraine under Polish domination aroused Khmelnitski ’s indignation and wrath. Such indeed was the state of mind of many of the well-to-do registered Cossacks, who were better off than the peasants and rank-and- file Cossacks. Soon Bogdan Khmel- nitski personally experienced the savage tyranny of the Polish author- ities A Polish squiie by the name of Chaplinski unlawfully obtained an investiture from the Polish authorities to Khmelnitskies estate, suddenly took possession of his homestead and put Khmelnitski ’s whole household in chains. When Bogdan Khmelnitski sought justice against the offender, Chaplinski flogged Khmelnitski ’s ten-year-old son to death. Khmelnitski likewise failed to obtain redress at the king ^s court. This incident strikingly demonstrated to the Cossack elder the defenceless state of the Ukrainian people at the mercy of arbitrary Polish rule.

lieturning home after his failure to obtain justice at Warsaw, Bogdan Khmelnitski gathered his Cossack friends in a secret confer- ence, at which he called upon them, for the first time, to raise a re- bellion against Polish domination.

*Uan we leave our biothers in such distress^” he asked. have seen dreadful persecution everywhere. Our unhappy people ask for help.”

The old Cossacks replied: ‘Tt is time to take up the sword, time to throw off the Polish yoke.”

The Polish gentry, learning of Khmelnitski ’s plans through some traitors, imprisoned him. Khmelnitski succeeded in escaping to Za- porozhye, where he fortified himself on one of the islands. Meanwhile, peasant outbreaks had begun in the Ukraine. There was not a village or hamlet where the call to rise was not heard. One Polish squire confiscated several thousand firearms which had been hidden by his peasants. The gentry hastily left their castles, abandoning their property, and fled to Poland. There was every sign of an imminent general uprising in the Ukraine.

Bogdan Khmelnitski realized that the struggle against the well- armed, numerous Polish troops would be a difficult one. He therefoie hit on the expedient of forming an alliance with the Crimean khan. Edimelnitski left Zaporozhye for the capital of the Crimea— Bakhchi- sarai. At that time the Crimean khan's displeasure was roused against the Polish king, who had not paid him any tribute for several years. The khan sent a body of Tatars with Khmelnitski xmder the command of one of his princes. Zajporozhshaya 8ech welcomed Bogdan's return from the Crimea with acclamation, and at an assembly of the Cossacks proclaimed him the hetman of the Cossack troops and presented him the insignia of hetman's office— the bulava^ or baton.

In the spring of 1648 Khmelnitski and his Cossacks set forth from Zaporozhye. The Polish troops under Hetman Potocki went out to meet them. In the beginning of May Khmelnitski defeated a detached Polish army corps at Zheltiye Vody (Yellow Waters). The Cossacks serving in this corps had gone over to Khmelnitski before the battle started. News of the defeat caused Potocki to beat a hasty retreat, Khmelnitski pursued the enemy, and in the middle of May com. pletely routed him at Korsun. Hetman Potocki was taken prisoner- The Cossacks and Tatars obtained rich booty.

The Uprisings of the Peasants

The victories over the Polish troops won by the Cossacks under Bogdan Khmelnitski were followed by a wave of peasant uprisings that spread throughout the Ukraine. Landlords abandoned their castles and property and fled to Poland, The rebellious peasants found brave leaders in their own midst, notable among whom was Maxim Krivonos, or as he was called in folklore, Perebiinos (Broken Nose). Jeremiah Wisniowiecki, a rich Polish- Ukrairdan magnate, used incredibly cruel means in his attempt to crush the rebellion. But he was unable to withstand the encounter with the Cossaek-peasant detachments led by Maxim Krivonos, who appeared with astonishing rapidity at rallying points of the Polish gentry. The Ukraine was followed by Byelorussia, where dozens of peasant detachments were also formed. A contingent of Byelorussian peasants wder Krivoshapka operated daringly and efectively.

Bogdan Bdimelnitski started his war with Poland in the interests of the registered Cossacks. He demanded from Poland that she increase the number of registeied Cossack troops, restore the Cossacks the rights they had been deprived of, pay up overdue salaries, and cease her persecution of the Orthodox church. The mass uprising of the peasants and the support rendered by the urban population showed Khmelnitski that it was not the Cossacks alone who were fighting Poland, but the entire Ukrainian people, Bogdan Khmelnitski headed the liberation novement of the Ukrainian people.

Together with Maxim Krivonos, who had joined him, he inflicted another, even more terrible defeat upon the Polish royal troops in September 1648, on the Pilyavka Itiver.

The victory over the main Poli&h foices on the Pilyavlca Piver opened the way to Warsaw before Klimelnilski. KJimelnitski contin- ued his offensive, and diiving the Poles befuie him out of the TJ]a*aine, he advanced as far as Lwow and Zamostye, then returned to Kiev. The people acclaimed him che hborator of the Ulcraine from Polish bondage. After l^eariiig a yoke for thioe bundled years, Kiev was liberated and retiuned to the Ukraine.

The Polish goveinmeiit sent envoys to Kiev to conclude peace, hoping thereby to gain time to collect a new army. Khnielnitski, bearing in mind the successes of the peasant uprisings, demanded that the Ukraine be freed of Polish troops. “I shall wrest the entire Ukrainian people from Polish captivity,” he said to the Polish envoys. The peace negotiations came to nothing.

The Zborov Peace

Khmelnitski opened a new campaign in the summer of 1649. He was joined by the Crimean khan, who came with a large Tatar force. Near the city of Zborov the Cossacks and Tatars sur- rounded the Polish troops. However, the Polish gentry sueeeded in bribing the Crimean khan, who, upon receiving a large amount of gold from them, suggested to Khmelnitski that he conclude peace with the king. Appreciating the danger the Tatars represented in the event of his failing out with the khan, Khmelnitski consented and concluded a peace treaty which has become known as the Zborov Treaty. By this treaty part of the Ukraine was set up as an independent administration with its own hetman, Bogdan Edimelnitski . The number of registered Cossacks was raised from 6,000 to 40,000.

With the conclusion of the Zborov Peace Tieaty in 1649 ended the first stage in the Ukraine’s war of liberation. The peace terms satisfied the main demands of the rich registered Cossacks. It was otherwise, however, with the rank-and-file Cossacks an^ the peasants. Many peas- ants who had fought against the Polish gentry and had not been includ- ed among the 40,000 registered troops provided for by the peace treaty, had to return to their former places , to their former owners . The peasants remained as of old feudal sens of the landlords. After the conclusion of peace the Polish gentry began to return to their Ukrainian estates. The Zborov Peace Treaty did not satisfy the peasants, who therefore did not wish to cease their struggle and refused to let the gentry return to their estates.

Renewal of War

Poland regarded the Zborov Peace as a respite which it needed for reorganizing its defeated army. The gentry also took advantage of this respite to crush the peasant movement. The fields were strewn with the corpses of peasants and city people, who had been tor- tured and murdered. Many peasant leaders lost their lives, among them Maxim Krivonos. In the beginning of 1651 Polish troops invaded western region of the Ukraine before Kbmelnitski had a chance to assemble his Cossacks to repel the attack. The valiant Nechai fell in the beginning of the new war.

In the spring of 1651 a large Polish army headed by the king took the field. The Pope absolved of their sins all those who took part in the war against the Ukrainian people. Kbmelnitski once more joined forces with the Crimean khan. The battle began in June 1651, near Berestechko, but during the course of the fighting the Tatars suddenly deserted the Cossacks and withdrew. Bogdan Kbmelnitski hastened to the khan to urge him to return to the battlefield. But the khan not only did not return, but detained the hetman. The Cossacks and peasants, left leaderless, entrenched themselves in their camp and for several days bravely repelled the attacks of the Poles. Bo- gun, known alike to the Cossacks and Poles for his extraordinary strength and courage, especially distinguished himself in these clashes. The Cossacks elected Bogun as their leader. He organized sallies and amazed the enemy by his military cunning and the daring of his unexpected attacks.

However, the forces were unequal, and the necessity of effecting a withdrawal became obvious to the Cossacks. During the night some of them left unnoticed by a wooden paving laid across the swamp. When dawn came the Poles rushed the camp, and wreaked cruel vengeance upon the few remaining defenders, among whom were many poorly- armed peasants- About three hundred Cossacks entrenched themselves upon a small island and stubbornly continued to defend themselves. The Poles proposed that they smTender and promised to spare their lives, but the answer they got from the Cossacks was: ‘We do not hold our lives dear, and we abhor the favour of the enemy.” Saying which the Cossacks embraced each other and rushed at the Poles. All the Cossacks died the death of heroes.

It was not until a month later that the Crimean khan released Kbmel- nitski . By that time the Poles had taken Kiev, and the Tatars had rav- aged the country ruthlessly. The hetman had to agree to the onerous terms of a peace treaty signed in the autumn of 1651 at Belaya Tserkov. Almost everything that had been won in hard struggle was now lost again. The number of registered Cossack troops was reduced to 20,000. The Cossacks were deprived of the rights they had received under the Zhorov Peace Treaty.

When the Polish landlords returned to the Ukraine, they cruelly avenged themselves on the peasants for their participation in the struggle. Fleeing from persecution the peasants thronged to the left bank of the Dnieper and pushed on further into the territory of the Russian state.The Ukrainian territory xmder Polish power became quick- ly deserted. Meanwhile the Ukrainian population colonized the fertile regions along the upper reaches of the Northern Donets, where dozens of new Ukrainian settlements sprang up. This region came to be called the ^"^SldbodsTcaya Uhraim.^*

Despite the peace of Belaya Tserkov, detachments of the Pol'sh geiitry continued to pillage Ukrainian villages and settlements, to rob and kill the inhabitants, sparing neither old people, women, nor children. The Polish king made peace with the Crimean khan and gave him leave to despoil the Ukrainianpopulation during a period of forty days .An end- less stream of fettered captives filled the roads to the Crimea. The Cri- means carried off tens of thousands of men and women, doomed to a

life of slavery. An ancient Ukrainian song says of those times:

VhraiTLe^s people grieving^ they have nowhere to hide,

The hordes of normd horsemen o^er children's bodies ride,

The tender babes they trample, the old they lead away.

With arms behind them shachhd to be the dread khan's prey,