by Riazanovsky
described earlier in this chapter, successfully asserted full Russian independence from the Mongols. And it was in his reign that the position and authority of the grand prince of Moscow, continuing their long-term rise, acquired attributes of majesty and formality unknown in the appanage period. Ivan III, also called Ivan the Great, suited his important role well: while sources differ concerning certain traits of his character, the general impression remains of a mighty figure combining practical abilities of an appanage prince with unusual statesmanship and vision. Although only twenty-two years old at the time of Basil II's death, the new grand prince was fully prepared to succeed him, having already acted for several years as his blind father's chief assistant and even co-ruler.
Under Ivan III "the gathering of Russia" proceeded apace. The following catalogue of events might give some indication of the nature and diversity of the process. In 1463 - or about a decade later according to Cherepnin - Ivan III purchased the patrimony of the appanage princes of Iaroslavl, and in 1474 the remaining half of the town of Rostov. In 1472 he inherited an appanage, the town of Dmitrov, from his childless brother Iurii; and in the same year he conquered the distant northeastern land of Perm, inhabited by a Finnic-speaking people and formerly under the vague suzerainty of Novgorod. In 1481 the Muscovite grand prince obtained another appanage after the death of another brother, Andrew the Little. In 1485 he forced Prince Michael of Vereia to bequeath to him Michael's principality, bypassing Michael's son, who had chosen to serve Lithuania. In 1489 he annexed Viatka, a northern veche-ruled state founded by emigrants from Novgorod. And in 1493 Ivan III seized the town of Uglich from his brother, Andrew the Big, and imprisoned Andrew for failing to carry out his instructions to march with an army to the Oka river, against the Mongols. Around 1500 the Muscovite grand prince inherited, from Prince Ivan of Riazan, half of his principality and was appointed warden of the other half bequeathed to Ivan of Riazan's young son.
Ivan Ill's most famous acquisitions, however, were Novgorod and Tver. Novgorod, which we discussed in an earlier chapter, collapsed because of both the Muscovite preponderance of strength and its own internal weaknesses. After the treaty of 1456 imposed by Basil II on Novgorod, the boyar party in the city - led by the Boretsky family which included Martha the celebrated widow of a posadnik - turned to Lithuania as its last hope. The common people of Novgorod, on the other hand, apparently had little liking 'either for Lithuania or for their own boyars. In the crucial campaign of 1471 Novgorodian troops made a poor showing, the archbishop's regiment refusing outright to fight against the grand prince of Moscow. After winning the decisive battle fought on the banks of the Shelon river, Ivan III had the Novgorodians at his mercy. They had to promise allegiance to the grand prince and his son, pay a large indemnity, and cede to Moscow some
of their lands. The new arrangement, which meant a thorough defeat and humiliation of Novgorod but left its system and position essentially intact, could not be expected to last. And indeed the authorities of Novgorod soon refused to recognize Ivan III as their sovereign and tried again to obtain help from Lithuania. In 1478 the angry grand prince undertook his second campaign against Novgorod; because Lithuanian help failed to materialize and the Novgorodians split among themselves, the city finally surrendered without a battle to the besieging Muscovite army. This time Ivan III executed some of his opponents as traitors, exiled others, and transferred a considerable number of Novgorodian boyar families to other parts of the country. He declared, as quoted in a chronicle: "The veche bell in my patrimony, in Novgorod, shall not be, a posadnik there shall not be, and I will rule the entire state." The veche, the offices of the posadnik and the tysiatskii, and in effect the entire Novgorodian system were accordingly abolished; even the veche bell was carted away. Further large-scale deportations took place in 1489, and Novgorod became an integral part of the Muscovite state.
Tver's turn came next; and the principality offered even less resistance than Novgorod. Another Tver prince named Michael also tried to obtain Lithuanian help against the expanding might of Moscow, signing an agreement in 1483 with Casimir IV of Lithuania and Poland. But when Ivan III marched on Tver, Michael repudiated the agreement and declared himself an obedient "younger brother" of the Muscovite ruler. Yet in 1485 he tried to resume relations with Lithuania; his messages to Casimir IV were intercepted and his plans discovered by Moscow. Thereupon, Ivan III promptly besieged Tver. Michael's support among his own followers collapsed, and he escaped to Lithuania, while the town surrendered without battle to the Muscovite army. When Michael died in Lithuania he left no heir, and in this manner ended the greatest rival family to the princes of Moscow. In contrast to Novgorod, the incorporation of Tver, which was a northeastern principality, presented no special problems to Muscovite authorities. The sum of Ivan Ill's acquisitions, large and small, meant that very few Russian appanages remained to be gathered, and as a rule even these few, such as Pskov or the last half of Riazan, survived because of their co-operation with the grand princes of Moscow.
Ivan III's ambitions were not limited to the remaining Russian appanages. The grand prince of Moscow considered himself the rightful heir to all the former Kievan lands, which in his opinion constituted his lawful patrimony. Ivan III made his view of the matter quite clear in foreign relations, and at home he similarly emphasized his position as the sole ruler of the whole country. In 1493 he assumed the title of Sovereign - gosudar in Russian - of All Russia. Ivan Ill's claim to the entire inheritance of the Kievan state represented above all else, a challenge to Lithuania which, following
the collapse of Kiev, had extended its dominion over vast western and southwestern Russian territories. The Princedom of Lithuania, called by some the Lithuanian-Russian Princedom, which we shall discuss in a later chapter, arose in large part as a successor to Kiev: on the outcome of the struggle between Moscow on one side and Lithuania and Poland on the other depended the final settlement of the Kievan estate.
After Ivan III acquired Novgorod and Tver, a number of appanage princes in the Upper Oka area, a border region between Lithuania and Moscow, switched their allegiance from their Lithuanian overlord to him. Lithuania failed to reverse their decision by force and had to accept the change in an agreement in 1494. But new defections of princes to Moscow, this time further south, led to war again in 1500. The Russians won the crucial battle on the banks of the Vedrosha river, capturing the Lithuanian commander, artillery, and supplies. By the peace treaty of 1503, the Lithuanians recognized as belonging to the grand prince of Moscow those territories that his armies had occupied. Ivan III thus obtained parts of the Smolensk and the Polotsk areas and much of Chernigov-Seversk, a huge land in southern and central European Russia based on the old principality of Chernigov. Another peace treaty in 1503 ended the war which Moscow had effectively waged to defend the principality of Pskov against the Livo-nian Order. All in all, Ivan Ill's successes in other Russian states and in foreign wars enormously increased his domain.
The grand prince's growing power and prestige led him logically to a final break with the Mongols. This definitive lifting of the Mongol yoke, however, represented something of an anticlimax compared to the catastrophe of the Mongol invasion or the epic battle of Kulikovo. Ivan III became grand prince without being confirmed by the khan and, following the practice of his father Basil II, he limited his allegiance to the Golden Horde to the sending of "presents" instead of the regular tribute, finally discontinuing even those. Mongol punitive expeditions in 1465 and 1472 were checked in the border areas of the Muscovite state. Finally in 1480, after Ivan III publicly renounced any allegiance to the Golden Horde, Khan Ahmad decided on an all-out effort against the disobedient Russians. He made an alliance with Casimir IV of Lithuania and Poland and invaded Muscovite territory. Ivan III, in turn, obtained the support of Mengli-Geray, the Crimean khan, and disposed his forces so as to block the Mongol advance and above all to guard river crossings. The main Mongol and Muscovite armies reached the opposite banks of
the Ugra river and remained there facing each other. The Mongols had failed to cross the river before the Muscovites arrived, and they did not receive the expected Lithuanian and Polish help because these countries had to concentrate on beating back the Crimean Tartars who had made a large raid into Lithuania. Strangely enough, when the river froze, making it possible for the cavalry of the
Golden Horde to advance, and the Russians began to retreat, the Mongols suddenly broke camp and rushed back into the steppe. Apparently they were frightened by an attack on their home base of Sarai that was staged by a Russian and Tartar detachment. In any case, Khan Ahmad's effort to restore his authority in Russia collapsed. Shortly after, he was killed during strife in the Golden Horde, and around 1500 the Horde itself fell under the blows of the Crimean Tartars.
Another important event in Ivan Ill's reign was his marriage in 1472 to a Byzantine princess, Sophia, or Zoe, Paleologue. The marital alliance between the grand prince of Moscow and a niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI, who had perished on the walls of Constantinople in the final Turkish assault, was sponsored by the Vatican in the hope of bringing Russia under the sway of the pope and of establishing a broad front against the Turks. These expectations failed utterly, yet for other reasons the marriage represented a notable occurrence. Specifically, it fitted well into the general trend of elevating the position of the Muscovite ruler. Ivan III added the Byzantine two-headed eagle to his own family's St. George, and he developed a complicated court ceremonial on the Byzantine model. He also proceeded to use the high titles of tsar and autocrat and to institute the ceremony of coronation as a solemn church rite. While autocrat as used in Moscow originally referred to the complete independence of the Muscovite sovereign from any overlord, and thus to the termination of the Mongol yoke, the word itself - although translated into the Russian - and the attendant concept of power and majesty were Greek, just as tsar stemmed from the Roman, and hence Byzantine, caesar. Ivan III also engaged in an impressive building program in Moscow, inviting craftsmen from many countries to serve him. In 1497 he promulgated for his entire land a code of law which counted the Russian Justice and the Pskov Sudebnik among its main sources. It may be added that legends and doctrines emphasizing the prestige of Moscow and its ruler grew mainly in Ivan Ill's reign, and in that of his successor. They included the stories of the bringing of Christianity to Russia by St. Andrew the apostle, the descent of the Muscovite princes from the Roman emperors and the significance of the regalia of Constantine Monomakh, and even the rather well-developed doctrine of Moscow the Third Rome. Apparently, the Muscovite ruler took the attitude of a distant superior toward his collaborators, especially after his Byzantine marriage. Or, at least, so the boyars complained for years to come.
Although Ivan III asserted his importance and role as the successor to the Kievan princes, he refused to be drawn into broader schemes or sacrifice any of his independence. Thus he declined papal suggestions of a union with Rome and of a possible re-establishment, in the person of the Muscovite ruler, of a Christian emperor in Constantinople. And when the Holy
Roman Emperor offered him a kingly crown, he answered as follows: "We pray God that He let us and our children always remain, as we are now, the lords of our land; as to being appointed, just as we had never desired it, so we do not desire it now." Ivan III has been called the first national Russian sovereign.
Ivan III was succeeded by his son Basil III, who ruled from 1505 to 1533. The new reign in many ways continued and completed the old. Basil III annexed virtually all remaining appanages, such as Pskov, obtained in 1511, and the remaining part of Riazan, which joined the Muscovite state in 1517, as well as the principalities of Starodub, Chernigov-Seversk, and the upper Oka area. The Muscovite ruler fought Lithuania, staging three campaigns aimed at Smolensk before that town was finally captured in 1514; the treaty of 1522 confirmed Russian gains. Continuing Ivan Ill's policy, he exercised pressure on the khanate of Kazan, advancing the Russian borders in that direction and supporting a pro-Russian party which acted as one of the two main contending political factions in the turbulent life of the city and the state. Profiting from the new standing of Muscovite Russia, Basil III had diplomatic relations with the Holy Roman Empire - the ambassador of which, Sigismund von Herberstein, left an important account of Russia, Rerum moscovitarum commentarli - with the papacy, with the celebrated Turkish sultan Suleiman I, the Magnificent, and even with the founder of the great Mogul empire in India, Babar. Ironically, in the case of this last potentate, of whom next to nothing was known in Moscow, the Russians behaved with extreme caution not to pay excessive honors to his empire and thus to demean the prestige of their ruler. Invitations to foreigners to enter Russian service continued. It was in the reigns of Ivan III and Basil III that a whole foreign settlement, the so-called German suburb, appeared in Moscow.
In home affairs too Basil III continued the work of his father. He sternly ruled the boyars and members of former appanage princely families who had become simply servitors of Moscow. In contrast to the practice of centuries, but in line with Ivan Ill's policy, the abandonment of Muscovite service in favor of some other power - which in effect came to mean Lithuania - was judged as treason. At the same time the obligations imposed by Moscow increased. These and other issues connected with the transition from appanages to centralized rule were to become tragically prominent in the following reign.
Incidentally, it was Basil III who forbade his merchants to attend the Kazan fair and established instead a fair first in Vasilsursk and soon after near the monastery of St. Macarius where the Vetluga flows into the Volga; the new fair was transferred in 1817 to Nizhnii Novgorod to become the most famous and important annual event of its kind in modern Russia.
Why Moscow Succeeded
The rise of Moscow was a fundamental development in Russian history. The ultimate success of the northeastern principality meant the end of the appanage period and the establishment of a centralized state, and the particular character of Muscovite government and society affected the evolution of Russia for centuries to come. Yet, while the role of Moscow proved to be in the end overwhelming, its ability to attain this role long remained subject to doubt and thus its success needs a thorough explanation. Moscow, after all, began with very little and for a long time could not be compared to such flourishing principalities as Novgorod or Galicia. Even in its own area, the northeast, it started as a junior not only to old centers like Rostov and Suzdal but also to Vladimir, and it defeated Tver in a long struggle which it appeared several times to have lost. Written sources, on their part, indicate the surprise of contemporaries at the unexpected emergence of Moscow. In explaining the rise of Moscow, historians have emphasized several factors, or rather groups of factors, many of which have already become apparent in our brief narrative.
First, attention may be given to the doctrine of geographical causation which represents both one of the basic and one of the earliest explanations offered, having already been fully developed by S. Soloviev. It stresses the decisive importance of the location of Moscow for the later expansion of the Muscovite state and includes several lines of argument. Moscow lay at the crossing of three roads. The most important was the way from Kiev and the entire declining south to the growing northeast. In fact, Moscow has been described as the first stopping and settling point in the northeast. But it also profited from movements in other directions, including the reverse. Thus, it seems, immigrants came to Moscow after the Mongol devastation of the lands further to the northeast. Moscow is also situated on a bend of the Moscow river, which flows from the northwest to the southeast into the Oka, the largest western tributary of the Volga. To speak more broadly of water communications which span and unite European Russia, Moscow had the rare fortune of being located near the headwaters of four major rivers: the Oka, the Volga, the Don, and the Dnieper. This offered marvelous opportunities for expansion across the flowing plain, especially as there were no mountains or other natural obstacl
es to hem in the young principality.
In another sense too Moscow benefited from a central position. It stood in the midst of lands inhabited by the Russian, and especially the Great Russian, people, which, so the argument runs, provided a proper setting for a natural growth in all directions. In fact, some specialists have tried
to estimate precisely how close to the geographic center of the Russian people Moscow was situated, noting also such circumstances as its proximity to the line dividing the two main dialects of the Great Russian language. Central location within Russia, to make an additional point, cushioned Moscow from outside invaders. Thus, for example, it was Novgorod, not Moscow, that continuously had to meet enemies from the northwest, while in the southeast Riazan absorbed the first blows, a most helpful situation in the case of Tamerlane's invasion and on some other occasions. All in all, the considerable significance of the location of Moscow for the expansion of the Muscovite state cannot be denied, although this geographic factor certainly is not the only one and indeed has generally been assigned less relative weight by recent scholars.
The economic argument is linked in part to the geographic. The Moscow river served as an important trade artery, and as the Muscovite principality expanded along its waterways it profited by and in turn helped to promote increasing economic intercourse. Soviet historians in particular treated the expansion of Moscow largely in terms of the growth of a common market. Another economic approach emphasizes the success of the Muscovite princes in developing agriculture in their domains and supporting colonization. These princes, it is asserted, clearly outdistanced their rivals in obtaining peasants to settle on their lands, their energetic activities ranging from various inducements to free farmers to the purchase of prisoners from the Mongols. As a further advantage, they managed to maintain in their realm a relative peace and security highly beneficial to economic life.