An Evaluation of the Time of Troubles in Russia - Article Example

213067 Time of Troubles in Russia Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century The following is a discussion as well as an evaluation of the time of troubles in Russia during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. There will also be a discussion of how Russia had become both more powerful as well as united before the Time of Troubles, territorial expansion that apparently continued unaffected by political and constitutional instability. Russia had experienced only a relatively short period of effective and unified rule before the onset of the Time of Troubles, which would prove to be a period that witnessed foreign powers such as Poland-Lithuania and Sweden weaken the Russian state. Given the impact that a revitalised Russia had upon such countries it was certainly a sound strategy upon their part. Russia as will be examined emerged stronger than ever after the Time of Troubles came to an end during the course of the seventeenth century. Some have argued that it did not finally end until Peter the Great secured his highly autocratic grip upon power in the late 1690s. Internal weakness as well as foreign intervention and invasions of Russia was not an experience unique to the Time of Troubles during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was in the interests of other countries to keep Russia weak, even if none of these countries had accurately predicted how powerful Russia would become from the eighteenth century onwards (Roberts, 1995 p. 188). For instance, between the thirteenth and the fifteenth centuries, the Russian fought long and eventually successfully against the Tatar invaders. For a time it had seemed that the Russians would not succeed in regaining their independence. The Mongol yoke was an unmitigated disaster: a calamity of such great proportions that Russians have never forgotten it (Woodruff, 2005 p. 69). A separate sense of a Russian identity was maintained by passively accepting total control by the Tatar invaders of their country, whilst looking forward to regaining independence. Until the Attars were expelled from Russia it would not develop properly as a country (Roberts, 1995 p. 188). Indeed such was the weakness of Russia that “only by submissively paying tribute and fighting for the Mongol Golden Horde were they tolerated” (Woodruff, 2005 p. 68). The emergence of Russia as a major power had to begin with removing the Tatars from its own territories (Roberts, 1995 p. 188). An impressive Russian victory over a Mongol army at Kulikovo on the Don during the year 1380 was highly significant, as it was the first time that the Russians had defeated the Tatars. It remains to the modern era a hallowed day in Russian history (Woodruff, 2005 p. 68). The Russian victory at Kulikovo thus marked the eventual waning of Mongol power and the waxing of the emerging Russian state centered upon Moscow and its Duke (who eventually became the tsar). Ivan III, known to Russians as the Great (1462-1505) was responsible for Russia breaking the vice-like grip of Mongol rule at the end of the fifteenth century. By that time the Mongols had killed at least one-tenth of the Russian population, and had deported many thousands into slavery. Another enduring legacy of Mongol rule was that it was believed that Russia always has to be ruled by a strong and highly autocratic leader. Arguably that believe was strong before, during, and after the Time of Troubles. Indeed it was a period known as the Time of Troubles as Russia lacked a very strong autocratic leader that held undisputed and long-term power between the death of Ivan the Terrible and the emergence of Peter the Great. Brutality would also be a feature of native Russian regimes from the late fifteenth century through to the end of the Russian Empire itself in 1917. The Soviet Union and the Russian Federation in the present day also demonstrated a propensity towards autocracy (Woodruff, 2005 p. 68). The Russian Dukes of Moscow held a great deal of ambition in the period before the onset of the Time of Troubles. That ambition did not go away even when no one was able to effectively wield all the powers that went with the position of being tsar (Roberts, 1995 p. 189). When, in 1453, Constantinople perished at the ands of the all-conquering Ottoman Turks, it was taken for granted that Moscow, the strongest of the Russian principalities, would become the center of Eastern Orthodox Christianity and it provided a further excuse to extend Russian authority as well as its territories. Moscow becoming the center of the Eastern Orthodox Church gave Ivan the Terrible the pretext for becoming the tsar instead of the less prestigious title of duke (Crystal, 1998 p. 482). When Ivan III came to the Russian throne in 1462, by which time the Russians had already successfully repulsed the attempted invasions or interventions by Lithuanians, Poles, Germans and Swedes - he played up the Russian State’s connection with Byzantium. He did this by declaring himself to be the only true heir of the last of the Greek Byzantine emperors who had killed in 1453. He adopted the imperial insignia of the Byzantine double-headed eagle. The main problem was that the stability of Russia depended upon the smoothness of dynastic succession, when it faltered political instability was the result (Woodruff, 2005 p.68). In 1471 the rival states of Novgorod and Kiev were subdued by Moscow; in ver suffered the same fate; the fall of Pskov, and Ryazan followed. Underpinning Ivan Ills autocratic rule was the class of the gentry’s cavalry, which became the corps of his army, which reduced his dependence on the feudal lords. He also introduced the practice of recruiting infantry from the towns. The English via imports landed at the port of Archangel on the White Sea met his need of weapons. By 1547 old the Kievian tradition of a confederation of equal sovereign rulers gave way to the absolute rule of Ivan IV, the Terrible (Woodruff, 2005 p. 69). Ivan the Terrible being increasingly powerful showed his power by being crowned the first Russian tsar during 1547 (Marsh & Carrick, 2007 p. 117). In 1560, on the death of his wife Anastasia, who he thought had been poisoned, he became paranoid. Suspecting conspiracies everywhere, he tolerated no one who questioned his authority. He wiped out individuals and whole groups who opposed him; in 1570 the citizens of Novgorod, of sympathizing with the Poles and Lithuanians were death. Ivan is said to have also killed his eldest son and heir apparent. The killing of his eldest heir would prove to be a significant factor in the causes of the Time of Troubles as it meant his eventual successor would need a regency as he was only a child when he became the tsar. Political opponents were exiled to the recently acquired territories (1581-3) of Siberia. As his reign progressed, he decided to rule Russia single-handedly and highly autocratically. Ivan fought the very exhausting Livonian War between 1557 and 82, against and Swedes and their Polish-Lithuanian allies, Ivan seized the ports of Narva and Dorpat in the eastern Baltic (Marsh & Carrick, 2007 p. 117). In 1578, in the ongoing struggle against the alliance of Sweden and Poland –Lithuania for the disputed Baltic territories, Russia was convincingly defeated. The peace treaties that followed forced the tsar to renounce his previously hard won territorial gains and cede additional territory to Sweden (Woodruff, 2005 p. 70). Ivans underage son Feodor I inherited the throne, which led to increased levels of political instability as rival members of the nobility contested to gain control as regent until he came of age. However political power and authority was formally exercised by the regent Boris Godunov. He had been a close confidant of Ivan IV. When Feodor died during the course of 1598, Boris became the next tsar, a logical step to take after already been the regent. The new tsar Boris ensured his reign delayed the worst consequences of the Time of Troubles as peace was obtained with Poland-Lithuania as well as with Sweden (Woodruff, 2005 p. 69). When Boris died during the year 1604, Russia was then definitely caught up in the Time of Troubles in which political instability, foreign intervention, and natural disasters combined to halt Russia’s political and economic development. of utmost confusion the crown was fought over by rival claimants (Woodruff, 2005 p. 69). Two of the pretenders claimed to be Ivan the Terrible’s murdered son Dimitri. In the next decade or several would-be tsars were murdered, deposed or died in dubious or unexplained circumstances (Marsh & Carrick, 2007 p. 117). One of the Polish pretenders, supported by Poland – Lithuania went on to receive widespread popular support and in 1605 was actually crowned tsar. This pretender had the misfortune to be removed from his undeserved lofty position by another piece of foreign intervention (Woodruff, 2005 p. 70). That sudden was achieved during 1610 when Moscow was successfully attacked by a rival Swedish force, which had its own candidate for tsar installed upon the increasingly worthless imperial throne (Woodruff, 2005 p. 71). The Swedish imposed tsar did not even last as long as his rival previously appointed by the Polish-Lithuanian armies. For in 1612 a national militia rid the city of Moscow of the rival Polish-Lithuanian and Swedish approved candidates for the Russian crown. The following year in 1613 an urgently convened national assembly offered the throne to Prince Mikhail Romanov who deceptively brought a return to political and dynastic stability (Woodruff, 2005 p. 71). Mikhail Romanov provided a link to the previous royal dynasty as he was in fact the grand-nephew of Ivan IV. The Romanovs for a time stabilized the government of Russia and fought off the Polish-Lithuanian and also the Swedish invaders. The Romanovs would remain the Russian royal dynasty until 1917 when the Russian Revolution brought about a republic. Bibliography Marsh & Carrick, (2007) Read More