Muscovite Manorialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Origins of Russian/Muscovite Manorialism
2 Contrasts between European feudalism and Kievian manorialism
3 Tartar invasions
4 Chucking the Yoke
5 References

[edit] Origins of Russian/Muscovite Manorialism

At the passing of the first millennium after Christ, Europe was experiencing the full effects of the order and advances in social structure begun during the early Middle Ages; however, the structure and development(s) offered by medieval European society were not found beyond the Carpathian Mountains and the Rus' was left as a disordered regionalist "state". The early development of feudal society in the absence of a strong central government helped the European states overcome the harshness experienced in the dark ages, be enabling the creation of strong governments. Western Europe's creation of the manorial (economic)/feudal (political) system, which spawned the full development of their feudal society spreading across Europe and bridging the gap to England; a society which divided land, top to bottom, from the monarch to his immediate trustee or vassal, to the peasant or serf, who worked the fiefs in tribute, in return for protection from invaders. This symbiotic system created the first central governments throughout Christendom since the fall of Rome. Unfortunately the concept of feudalism did not cross Carpathia and the Rus' found itself lacking the necessary manorial (seigneurialist) or feudalist institutions to develop a strong government, which undo the regional tendencies of its peoples.

By the end of the 900s, Russia was dominated by Kiev in a loose federation of city-states. During this Kievian period the Rus' experienced a period of great economic expansion. The people began to open trade routes with the Vikings to the north and west and the Byzantine Greeks to the south and west; traders also began to travel south and east eventually making contact with Persia and the peoples of Central Asia. Prince Vladimir's choice of Eastern Orthodoxy as his state religion, reflected his close personal ties with Constantinople; a power which dominated the Black Sea and hence trade on Kiev's most vital commercial route, the Dnepr River. Adherence to the Eastern Orthodox Church had long-range political, cultural, and religious consequences. The existence of translated, Greek to Cyrillic, literature facilitated the Rus' conversion to Christianity and introduced them to rudimentary Greek philosophy, science, and historiography without the necessity of learning Greek. In contrast, educated people in contemporary medieval Western and Central Europe learned Latin. Since the educated people of the Rus' learned neither Greek nor Latin, they found themselves isolated from some of the nuances of Byzantine culture and their European neighbors; an isolation that would later prove extremely detrimental.

Due to the expansion of trade and its geographical proximity, Kiev became the most important trade center and chief among the communes; therefore the leader of Kiev gained political "control" over the surrounding areas. This princedom emerged from a coalition of traditional patriarchic family communes banded together in an effort to increase the applicable workforce and expand the productivity of the land. This union developed the first major cities in the Rus' and was the first notable form of self government. As these communes became larger, the emphasis was taken off the family holdings and placed on the territory that surrounded. This shift in ideology became known as the verv'. The change in political structure led to the inevitable development of the peasant class or smerdy. The smerdy were free un-landed peoples that found work by laboring for wages on the manors which began to develop around 1031 as the verv' began to dominate socio-political structure. The smerdy were initially given equality in the Kievian law code, they were theoretically equal to the prince, so they enjoyed as much freedom as can be expected of manual laborers. However in the 1200s they began to slowly lose their rights and became less equal in the eyes of the law.

[edit] Contrasts between European feudalism and Kievian manorialism

The major difference between the Kievian manorial system and European feudalism is vested in the fact that lands granted by a prince to a knight held no obligation; that is to say if the knight wished to leave the service of the prince, which usually expect loyalty, he was able to do so with no obligation whatsoever and was also able to retain possession of the granted land. Therefore, the political structure created by the Western European feudalism was not transferred to the Rus' by its manorial system. Rather, the manorial system was more of an economic control.

The Russian manor owners usually relied on direct production of their land and chose not to rent it out which proved a stark contrast to feudal Europe in which by the High Middle Ages had most of its land claimed by monarchs, which in turn parceled it to vassals who rented the land to serfs. Even though it became increasingly common for one knight to have landholdings in several different princedoms, due to the use of direct production, the land of the Rus' was still largely in the hands of the peasants during the 1100s.

In 1100 it started to become more apparent the smerdy were considered lower than their totally independent counterparts in Europe (free traders), however, it is important to note the smerdy still had remarkably more freedom than the growing peon/serf class, or the serf class of Europe. Even though this indentured class grew greatly in numbers, the economy of Kievian Russia blossomed until 1125 the year of the death of Prince Vladimir Monomakh.

Through its history, the Kievian coalition had relied on lateral succession to the princedom; that is to say, that when a prince died, he was replaced by his brother, then he by the next brother, etc… with this repeating until the fourth brother was reached and then succession transferred back to the original prince's son. Unfortunately for the Kievians, when Vladimir died, there was no clear line of succession and political infighting ensued; the resulting anarchy and civil war made trade difficult and invasion inevitable.

Politically, the structure of the Kievian Federation left the people without the tools necessary to ward off invaders and prosecute a winnable war. The aristocracy had no real power to deal with foreign states and there was not seat of true power as was found in feudal Europe. The Kievian Federation lacked the land-grant vassal-lord system which made England and France strong. In those two states, the king granted land to his loyal knights in return for cooperation, loyalty and tax revenue. The knight, or vassal, would then parse the land out to renters, or serfs in order to bring in wealth. The king offered protection to the knight by control of an army to ward off invaders and the knight afforded safety to the serfs by local protection. The Kievian federation, however, took the path of the German Empire and still contained characteristics of city-state independence; the individual family communes still thought of themselves as independent entities. In Europe as often happened, independent states often banded together and formed a strong central power in efforts to achieve a common goal, such as defense. Unfortunately for the people of Rus' they found themselves with no strong government, no clear successor, and no foreseeable way to ward off the invasions of its enemies. It would not take long for sorties in the north and west by the Norse and Poles to begin the weakening of the Kievian state to a point the Tatars were able to conquer the country unopposed.

[edit] Tartar invasions

1237 marked the beginning of a period of decline for the Rus', as both a culture and as a people. The first through Fourth Crusade, which effectively halted trade with the Byzantine Empire and cut off the Middle Eastern trade routes, began the decline of Kievian importance. The Mongol invasion of 1237 also helped mark the passing of free Kievian society. The Taters sacked Kiev and all major towns; their practice of total destruction led to the dismemberment of the Kievian princedom and an end to Russian society as their people knew it. With the annihilation of Kiev and every city west of it all the way into Central Europe, Russian trade with the west and south was curtailed. With the destruction of its trade base and its trade routes curtailed, Kiev's role as an important seat of power ended. The people found it necessary to move to the northeast where they found a new home in the princedoms of the upper Volga River and Oka River.

As the invading Mongols ravaged the countryside, entire populations were wiped out. The peasant and serf classes were nearly destroyed en totalium; the continuation of the historical family commune social structure was broken and proved ineffective for large-scale governmental control. Most of the minor princedoms were destroyed. Most cities in the Rus' were razed and the population found it necessary to flee to the northeast in hopes of escaped the wrath of the Golden Horde. Initially the destruction of Kiev caused the main Byzantine influence on Russian society, the metropolitan (archbishop), to move to Vladimir. However the metropolitan found that location unsafe also and soon moved to Moscow, perhaps because it was a city traditionally founded by Iuriz Dolgorukii in 1152 in honor of St. George, the patron saint of the Byzantines, by. The move to Moscow and the belief in the Byzantine Church helped form a long lasting tie between Grand Prince and Eastern Orthodoxy. The flight of the Grand Prince to Moscow helped increase Moscow's influence and importance in the Rus' and helped usher in a new period of Rus' history, the Muscovite Era. Even with Byzantine Church's influence in later Muscovite policy and culture, it was the Tatars, which dominated their lives for two centuries lent greatly to their cultural, societal, and governmental development.

As the Golden Horde expanded across Asia, the Khanate found it necessary to incorporate different governing aspects of the peoples it conquered; from these, much was taken from the Chinese. Their philosophy on autocratic dual government was carried from the Tatar state all the way to Muscovite Rus. The ruling Khanate injected the Mongol governing ideology into the Rus, formed its princes to this mold and exacted control on the society as dictated by their synthesized theorem of government and established dominance over the Rus' political structure.

The Mongols realized the importance of cultural assimilation and local government. Mongols borrowed the political and cultural ideas from the societies they conquered. The Qipchaq idea of duel government, a principle of duel civil-military administration used to affect control over a large area, was initially developed by the Han Chinese. Han civil code, with the synthesis of Islamic iqtā, a system of decentralized cavalry control (power dispersion), proved to be an effective way of governing the Mongols' empire. After the death of Chingis Khan it was obvious the succeeding khans needed to implement effective government control over their subjects; the importance of local government, run by the natives, became evident.

By the early 1300s, the prince of Moscow was seen as one of the chief princes of the Rus', and by the late 1300s recognized as the chief prince of Rus, or Grand Prince. Consequently the Khanate granted him the governing power of the Mongolian basqaqs, or governor. Power was laid to the prince to collect taxes and use military force to maintain order. When the Khan was thoroughly convinced the Grand Prince could perform all the duties of the basqaqs effectively, he was given total control and the Mongol basqaqs were withdrawn from the Rus. Although the Khan removed his governors due to acquiescence and acceptance of Qipachaq authority, he did maintain an envoy to the Rus' to keep open dialogue with the Grand Prince. In concession to the khan for this near autonomy, a monetary payment based on population, military service and of course compliance to Qipachaq whim was demanded. In effect the Rus' was commanded as a tribute state to the Mongol Empire.

Taking advantage of a peaceful situation with the Mongols, the Grand Prince was able to look again to his princedom and began extending his power further from Moscow. Grand Princes of Moscow ruled the Rus' for much of the rest of the century in near peace. As the Grand Princes extended their power, it became increasingly obvious to all who cared pay attention that land ownership was assuming a more dominate role in deciding ones true worth in the social strata. Throughout the 14th and 15th centuries there were no restrictions on land ownership, as men of every class were able to hold a piece of dirt and call the other their equal. Since primary production was still the chief means of working the land, the serf class, as was seen in England, did not develop quickly. Instead the land was worked by the owner and his family, slaves, and those he paid for labor.

Internal consolidation of power accompanied outward expansion of the Rus' state. Even though the occurrences of private land ownership were increasing, the Grand Prince and his subservient princes considered all the lands of their realms their personal property. Traditionally the Grand Prince was forced to recognize private ownership of land, because the prince was not able to wield enough power to push his belief in supreme ownership. Later, when the Grand Prince was able to consolidate power, the idea of Princely land ownership would not be forgotten and would have consequences on the future.

[edit] Chucking the Yoke

It was under Grand Prince Dmitri Donskoy (1359-1389) that the Grand Prince of Moscow became strong enough to do the unthinkable: fight the Mongols and win. In 1378, self-assured in his power, he stopped paying tribute. Pro-Byzantine and pro-Mongol factions began to develop among the people. Some saw the Byzantine Church and the Byzantine Emperor as the direction the Rus' should take; one not allowing for Tatar administrative and military dominance. The others saw the Mongols as a supreme way to organize and stay away from non-secular governmental influences.

In response to the lack of tribute, the Mongols gathered 200,000 troops of both Tatar and pro-Tatar Rus' men, for their usual punitive expedition. Ironically, even though some of the Rus' fought for the Khan, for the first time, when faced by a common enemy, the other Russian city-states stopped their petty bickering and helped Moscow assemble an army of 150,000, in order to confront the common enemy. The Orthodox Church sent its blessings as well. At the Battle of Kulikovo Pole (Snipe's Field), the Mongols were all but routed, but at a great cost to the Rus'; only 40,000 survived. The victory did not bring any short-term benefits; Tokhtamish, ruler of the Qipchaq two years later, in 1382, sacked Moscow hoping to reassert his vested authority over his vassal, the Grand Prince, and his own Mongol hegemony, killing 24,000 people. Nevertheless, Dmitri became a national hero, the memory of Kulikovo Pole made the Russians start believing in their ability to end Tatar domination and become a free people.

Helping the Rus' cause, in the time of Dmitri and his successor Vasili I (1389-1425), was the fact that the Golden Horde was crippled, first by a civil war, then by a devastating invasion by Tamerlane. Afterwards, Vasili I never paid full tribute, rather, he just sent the Khan "gifts" when he cared to. The next prince, Vasili II (1425-1462), reversed the roles of lord & vassal by putting a Mongol prince in charge of one of his cities. By the time of Ivan III of Russia's ascension to power, various semi-independent princes still claimed specific territories, but he forced the lesser princes to acknowledge the grand prince of Muscovy and his descendants as unquestioned rulers with control over military, judicial, and foreign affairs. Ivan also (strongly) implemented the philosophy of all the land being the Grand Prince's personal property. As the consolidation of power continued, the Muscovite ruler emerged as a powerful, autocratic ruler (read self governing), a czar. By assuming that title, the Muscovite prince pronounced he was a major ruler/emperor on par with the emperor of the Byzantine Empire or the Mongol khan.

Along with his declaration of Czar, Ivan reorganized the land of Rus' in such a way as to impose his power and authority over Muscovy. Among his most important accomplishments was the unification under Moscow of the entire Rus'. Much like his predecessors, Ivan used every trick imaginable to gain more land: cash purchase, inheritance, forced treaties, and of course war. He started by buying Yaroslavl in 1463, and Rostov in 1474. He also conquered Tver in 1485, and persuaded many Russian nobles in Lithuania to transfer their allegiance to Ivan; this move started the rolling back of the Polish-Lithuanian frontier. Before Ivan III assumed the crown of Moscow, most of the land of Russia was in the hands of a small group of men; twenty-seven men controlled one third of the land not owned by the Church (when he died, Ivan passed to his son Vasili III, a great nation covering 55,000 square miles. 110 times the size of the 500 square mile fief that Alexander Nevsky had given Daniel more than 200 years before). Perhaps Ivan's greatest triumph, other than backing down the Kahn, was the conquest of Novgorod, the last stronghold of Kievian Russian culture. "Lord Novgorod the Great" had always been the largest Russian city-state, with colonies in Finland and even the northern Urals. Ivan's covetous eye upon Novgorod's wealth, combined with large numbers of Muscovites moving to Novgorod's lands in the Urals, brought a war in 1478. In 1480 Ivan was able to cause a withdrawal of the Mongols horde along the banks of the Ugra River, marking an end to Rus' Tatar domination; while not a true battle, this pseudo-battle was probably the most important fight for early Muscovy.

Between 1484 and 1505 Ivan III systematically took all the land of Novgorod's aristocracy. As his personal land holdings increased (read the size of Rus'), it became ever obvious to Ivan that the administration system of the land would have to be altered to suit such holdings. He also began to realize the importance of a true national army. To remedy both situations he began settling his devoted warriors in Novgorod, about twenty-three thousand in all. He vested the warriors with ample estates in return for devoted military service. By doing this, Ivan planted the first true roots of feudalism in Rus'. In contrast to Europe where feudalism created a strong central power, it took a strong central power to develop feudalism in Rus'. He also broke the European tradition of only giving fiefs to aristocratic knights. Perhaps 60 percent of his new estate holders were regular servicemen were only five percent were formerly aristocratic. His pomestie system became the new norm for the administration of land in Rus'. Obviously holding land is worthless unless you put the land to good use. Peasants soon had restrictions placed on free movement and began to see their rights dwindle. Land parcels were rented to serfs/peasants in return for their labor and service to Ivan III's vassal.

The main conclusion that can be drawn from the history of Rus' expansion and power consolidation from the time of Kiev until the founding of the czar is that a lack true central power weakened and doomed the Rus' to outside domination. The Rus' developed its system of land/lord/worker, loosely called feudalism, after it had created a strong central power. Lacking a feudal system of vassal loyalty made it impossible for any prince, early on, to gain enough influence and power to project a strong force against any invaders. Conversely, even though much of the population was destroyed by ravaging Tatars, what would traditionally be called the serf and peasant classes in England and France found they had a life of virtual equality to an aristocrat; whereas in Western Europe they would have been subject to land and lord. The people of the Rus' paid for their early liberty with 200 years of Tatar domination.