Russia: A History

THE formative centuries of the Russian state are perhaps best divided into three main periods: the era of Kievan Rus from its roots in the ninth century to the Mongol invasion of 1237–40; a century of ‘Mongol dominance’ from 1240 to c.1340, during which Kievan traditions and structures lost their potency and the Rus principalities adapted to Mongol or Tatar suzerainty; and the period from c.1340 to the mid-fifteenth century when the foundations of the new state of Muscovy were laid.

Kievan Rus

The lands that made up Kievan Rus were located in the forest zone of Eastern Europe along a group of rivers, the Dnieper, the western Dvina, the Lovat-Volkhov, and the Volga, the headwaters of which all emanate from the Valdai hills. They were populated mainly by Slavic and Finnic tribes. The members of those tribes supported themselves, to some degree, by fishing, hunting, and gathering fruits, berries, nuts, mushrooms, honey, and other natural products in the forests around their villages. But the Slavs were primarily agriculturalists. In natural forest clearings or in those they created by the slash-and-burn method, they typically cultivated one or more cereal grains and also raised livestock as well as supplementary crops, such as peas, lentils, flax, or hemp.

Although each tribe followed its own leaders and worshipped its own set of gods, they interacted with one another, at times exchanging goods, at others fighting one another. The more adventurous among their members transported the most valuable goods their societies produced (for example, fur pelts and captive slaves) to the markets of distant neighbours—Bulgar on the mid-Volga, the Khazar capital of Itil at the base of the Volga, and the Byzantine outpost of Kherson on the coast of the Crimean peninsula. There they exchanged their goods for oriental finery and, most conspicuously, silver coin.

The transformation of these tribes into the state of Kievan Rus is shrouded in uncertainty. Legends and literature recorded much later, archaeological evidence, and the notations of foreign observers, however, suggest that by the early ninth century Scandinavian adventurers (known variously as ‘Varangians’ and ‘Rus’) had entered the Slav lands. Primarily attracted by the silver at the Volga market centres, they plundered Slav villages and carried their booty to the same markets that the Slavs themselves had visited. In the course of the ninth century the Varangians established more permanent ties to the native populace: each band of Varangians protected its own group of Slavs from competing Scandinavian pirates in exchange for regular tribute payments. Those stable relationships were mutually beneficial. The Slavs were relieved of the sporadic, violent raids, while the armed Rus bands received regular supplies of goods used in their exchanges for silver and oriental luxury products. Gradually, the Rus leaders acquired the character of princes, and the Slav populace became their subjects.

According to a legend in the Primary Chronicle (compiled during the eleventh and early twelfth centuries) one of the first Rus princes was called Riurik. The legend states that Riurik and his brothers were ‘invited’ by Slav tribes to rule their lands. Tribes that dwelled in the general vicinity of the Lovat and Volkhov rivers and the lands to their east had ejected previous Scandinavian protectors, but then became embroiled in warfare among themselves. Unable to reconcile their differences, the chronicler explained, they called upon Riurik in 862 to restore peace and rule over them.

Riurik, the legend continued, survived his two brothers to become sole ruler until his own death in 879 or 882. A regent, Oleg, then ruled on behalf of Riurik’s young son Igor. After Oleg’s death (912) Igor reigned until 945; a tribe called the Drevliane killed him after he attempted to collect more than its standard tribute payment. Igor’s wife, Olga, assumed the regency and took cunning revenge upon her husband’s murderers. Their son, Sviatoslav, claimed his father’s place in 962.

By that time the realm of the Riurikid clan had expanded substantially. According to the Chronicle, the tribes subject to the Riurikids had increased to include the Krivichi (in the region of the Valdai hills), the Poliane (around Kiev on the Dnieper river), and the Drevliane (south of the Pripiat river, a tributary of the Dnieper). The Riurikids, furthermore, had taken command of the Dnieper, a major commercial artery. From the vantage-point of Kiev they could control all traffic moving down towards the Black Sea, the Byzantine colony of Kherson, and towards the sea route to the Don river and the Khazar Empire. Oleg in 907 and Igor, less successfully in 944, conducted military campaigns against Constantinople, which resulted in treaties permitting the Rus to trade not only at Kherson, but at the rich markets of Constantinople itself, where they mingled with merchants and had access to goods from virtually every corner of the known world.

Sviatoslav (962–72) continued to expand his forefathers’ domain. He first subdued the Viatichi, who inhabited lands along the Oka and Volga rivers and had previously paid tribute to the Khazars, and in 965 he launched a campaign against the Khazars themselves. His venture led to the collapse of their empire and, subsequently, the destabilization of the lower Volga and the steppe, a region of grasslands south of the Slav territories. Although he did rescue Kiev from the Pechenegs (a nomadic Turkic population that occupied the steppe) in 968, Sviatoslav devoted most of his attention to establishing control over lands on the Danube river. Forced to abandon that project by the Byzantines, he was returning to Kiev when he was killed by the Pechenegs in 972.

Shortly after Sviatoslav’s death his son Iaropolk became prince of Kiev, but conflict erupted between him and his brothers. After one died in battle against him, another brother, Vladimir, fled from Novgorod, the city that he governed, to raise an army in Scandinavia. Upon his return in 980, he first engaged the prince of Polotsk, one of the last non-Riurikid rulers of the East Slav tribes. Victorious, Vladimir married the prince’s daughter and added the prince’s military retinue to his own army, with which he then defeated Iaropolk and seized the throne of Kiev. Vladimir also subjugated the Radimichi (east of the upper Dnieper river), and in 985 attacked the Volga Bulgars; the agreement he subsequently reached with the latter was the basis for peaceful relations that lasted for a century. Vladimir’s triumphs over competing rulers and neighbouring powers established him as the sole ruler of the East Slav tribes and gave his heirs a monopoly over the right to succeed him. His family, which traced its lineage to Riurik, the progenitor of the dynasty, ruled the lands of Rus until 1598.

Over the next generations Vladimir and his successors continued to extend their domain and to create an apparatus to govern it. The political structure they devised for Kievan Rus was based on the concept that its lands were the possession of the dynasty. Thus, as his father had done, Vladimir assigned a portion of his realm to each of his principal sons. Thereafter, the Riurikid princes continued to share the lands of Kievan Rus and the responsibilities for administering and defending them.

Princely administration gradually replaced tribal allegiance and authority. As early as the reign of Olga, officials representing the Kievan ruler began to replace tribal leaders. Vladimir extended this practice by assigning particular lands to his sons, to whom he also delegated responsibility for tax-collection, for protection of communication and trade routes, and for local defence and territorial expansion. Each prince also had his own military force, which was supported by tax revenues, commercial fees, and booty seized in battle. After Vladimir’s son Grand Prince Iaroslav (d. 1054) issued a law code known as the Russkaia pravda, the Rus princes also became enforcers of Riurikid law. The administration of justice, which upheld both Riurikid authority and social order, yielded revenues in the form of court fees and fines. The Russkaia pravda, as amended by Iaroslav’s sons and later provisions that continued to be added to it until the thirteenth century, remained in force long after the Kievan era; it was not formally replaced until the law code (Sudebnik) of 1497 was adopted.

Over the two centuries following Vladimir’s death (1015), Kievan Rus became an amalgam of principalities, whose number increased as the dynasty itself grew. The main principalities in the centre of the realm were Kiev, Chernigov, and Pereiaslavl. Galicia and Volhynia (south-west of Kiev) gained the status of separate principalities in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, respectively. During the twelfth century Smolensk (north of Kiev on the upper Dnieper) and Rostov-Suzdal (in the north-east) similarly emerged as powerful principalities. The north-western portion of the realm was dominated by Novgorod, whose strength rested on its lucrative commercial relations with Scandinavian and German merchants of the Baltic as well as on its own extensive empire that stretched to the Ural mountains by the end of the eleventh century. After 1097 each of these principalities (with the exceptions of Novgorod and Kiev) was identified with its own branch of the dynasty.

The Riurikid dynasty also converted Kievan Rus to Christianity and thereby provided it with a uniform religious and cultural framework. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam had long been known in these lands, and Olga had personally converted to Christianity. When Vladimir assumed the throne, however, he set idols of Norse, Slav, Finn, and Iranian gods, worshipped by the disparate elements of his society, on a hilltop in Kiev in an attempt to create a single pantheon for his people. But for reasons that remain unclear he soon abandoned this attempt in favour of Christianity. He thereupon gave up his numerous wives and consorts and married Anna, the sister of the Byzantine emperor Basil. The patriarch of Constantinople appointed a metropolitan to organize the see of Kiev and all Rus, and in 988 Byzantine clergy baptized the population of Kiev in the Dnieper river.

Christianity was not confined to Kiev. When Prince Vladimir dispatched his sons to their portions of his realm, each was accompanied by clergymen and charged with establishing and defending Christianity as well as the dynasty’s own authority. In some regions the introduction of the new religion and its clergy met overt resistance. When representatives of the new Church threw the idol of the god Perun into the Volkhov river in Novgorod, for example, their action provoked a popular uprising. Elsewhere resistance was passive; the populace simply continued to honour their traditional gods and practise their rituals in relatively private settings. Thus, although the lands of Rus formally entered the Christian world in 988, it was centuries before the population transferred their faith and loyalties to the Christian Church.

In the mean time, however, the Church, supported by the Riurikid princes, transformed the cultural face of Kievan Rus, especially in its urban centres. The change occurred first in Kiev, which was not only the seat of the senior Riurikid prince, but also the ecclesiastical centre of Kievan Rus. Vladimir removed the pagan idols he had previously erected and in their stead ordered the construction of Christian churches. The most notable was the Church of the Holy Virgin (also known as the Church of the Tithe), which was built in stone and flanked by two other palatial structures. The ensemble formed the centre-piece of ‘Vladimir’s city’, which was surrounded by new fortifications. A generation later Prince Iaroslav expanded this sector of the city by replacing the walls built by his father with new fortifications that encompassed the battlefield on which he defeated the Pechenegs in 1036. Inset into its southern wall was the Golden Gate of Kiev. Within the protected area he constructed a new complex of churches and palaces, the most imposing of which was the stone-built Cathedral of St Sophia—the church of the metropolitan and the symbolic centre of Christianity in Kievan Rus.

These projects brought Byzantine artists and artisans to Kiev. Following Byzantine architectural models, they designed and decorated the early Rus churches and taught their techniques and skills to local apprentices. The visiting artisans were most heavily concentrated in Kiev, which became the centre of craft production in Kievan Rus during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Native and visiting artisans—blacksmiths and stonecutters, carpenters and potters, leather workers, goldsmiths and silversmiths, glassmakers and bone-carvers—produced an array of products, including stone blocks and bricks for the new cathedrals, armour and weapons for the princes’ retinues, fine jewellery for members of the élite, and pottery and buttons for commoners. The adoption of Christianity also stimulated an expansion of Kievan commerce: marble and glazed tiles, icons and silver frames, and numerous other items used in the construction, decoration, and rites of the churches were added to the silks and satins, wines and oils, and other staple imports from Byzantium.

The expansion of Kiev’s commercial and craft activity was accompanied by an increase in its population. By the end of the twelfth century between 36,000 and 50,000 persons—princes, soldiers, clergy, merchants, artisans, unskilled workers, and slaves—resided in the city. Kiev, the political capital of Kievan Rus, had become the ecclesiastical, commercial, and artisanal centre of the realm as well.

Other towns underwent similar, but less dramatic development. Novgorod was also influenced by Christianity and Byzantine culture. Although it had initially been a centre of violent opposition to Christianity, its landscape too was quickly altered by the construction of new, wooden churches and, in the middle of the eleventh century, by its own stone Cathedral of St Sophia. Although Novgorod’s economy continued to be centred on its foreign trade, by the twelfth century some artisans were emulating Byzantine patterns in new crafts, such as enamelling and fresco-painting. Novgorod’s flourishing economy supported a population of 20,000 to 30,000 by the early thirteenth century. Similar developments occurred in Chernigov, where the Church of the Transfiguration of Our Saviour (1035) had heralded the arrival of Christianity. The construction of the stone Church of the Mother of God in Smolensk (1136–7) and of the Cathedral of the Dormition in Vladimir (1158) proclaimed that wealth and Christianity were spreading across the Riurikid realm.

While architectural design and the decorative arts of mosaics, frescos, and icon-painting, all associated with church construction, were the most visible aspects of the Christian cultural transformation, new literary genres, including chronicles, saints’ lives, and sermons, also appeared in Kievan Rus. Although much of the ecclesiastical literature was translated from Greek originals, the clergy of Kievan Rus also began to make their own contributions. The outstanding products of indigenous literature from this era were the Primary Chronicle or ‘Tale of Bygone Years’ (compiled by monks of the Monastery of the Cave which was founded in the mid-eleventh century outside Kiev) and the ‘Sermon on Law and Grace’, composed (c.1050) by Metropolitan Hilarion (the first native Rus to be head of the Kievan Church). By agreement with the Riurikids the Church also assumed legal jurisdiction over a range of social practices and family affairs, including birth, marriage, and death. Ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction over church personnel and responsibility for the enforcement of Christian standards and rituals in the larger community. Although the Church received added revenue from its courts, the clergy were only partially successful in their efforts to convince the populace to abandon their pagan customs. But to the degree that they were accepted, the spiritual guidance, the promise of salvation, and the social norms and cultural forms of the Church provided a common identity for the diverse tribes comprising Kievan Rus society.

As the Riurikid dynasty and Christian clergy displaced tribal, political, and spiritual leaders, their political and religious–cultural structures transformed the conglomeration of East Slav tribes into a dynamic and flourishing state. The political system balanced a diffusion of administrative and military power against principles of dynastic sovereignty and seniority; it elevated Kiev to a position of centrality within the realm; and it provided an effective means of defending and expanding the realm.

Within this system each prince supported his own military retinue, and had the authority and the means to hire supplementary forces; he was also responsible for conducting relations with his immediate neighbours. Thus the princes who ruled Novgorod in the eleventh century pushed the Rus border west to Lake Peipus, provided security for the trade routes to the Gulf of Finland, and also participated in the creation of Novgorod’s northern empire. Similarly, the princes of Suzdal in the twelfth century extended their domain to the north and east—at the expense of the Volga Bulgars. And, through the first half of the eleventh century, the grand princes of Kiev conducted relations with western neighbours (Poland and Hungary), Byzantium, and the Pechenegs on the steppe.

The dynastic system, however, also encouraged co-operation among the princes when they faced crises. Concerted action was prompted particularly by the Polovtsy, another population of Turkic nomads that moved into the steppe and displaced the Pechenegs in the second half of the eleventh century. Prince Vsevolod Iaroslavich of Pereiaslavl, who commanded the first line of defence for the southern frontier, was defeated by a Polovtsy attack in 1061. When they launched a new campaign in 1068, Prince Vsevolod and his brothers, Iziaslav of Kiev and Sviatoslav of Chernigov, combined their forces. Although the Polovtsy were victorious, they retreated after another encounter with Sviatoslav’s forces. With the exception of one frontier skirmish in 1071, they then refrained from attacking the Rus for the next twenty years.

When the Polovtsy did renew hostilities in the 1090s, the Riurikids were engaged in their own intradynastic conflicts. Their ineffective defence allowed the Polovtsy to reach the environs of Kiev and burn the Monastery of the Caves. But after the princes had resolved their differences at a conference in 1097, they once again mounted impressive coalitions that not only repulsed Polovtsy attacks, but pushed deep into the steppe and broke up the federation of Polovtsy tribes responsible for the aggression. These campaigns yielded comparatively peaceful relations that facilitated trade between Kievan Rus and the Polovtsy and kept the trade route linking Kiev and Constantinople secure for the next fifty years.

But the political organization of the Riurikids also contributed to repeated dynastic conflicts over succession to the throne of Kiev. Although the princes were dispersed, it was understood that the senior member of the eldest generation of the dynasty was heir to the Kievan throne. Succession thus followed a lateral pattern, with the throne of Kiev passing to a grand prince’s brothers and cousins, then to their sons.

The proliferation and complexity of the Riurikid family however, generated recurrent confusion over the definition of seniority, the standards for eligibility, and the lands subject to lateral succession. Disagreements over succession provoked intradynastic warfare; the outcome of the conflicts refined the ‘rules’. For example, a challenge to the seniority of Iaroslav’s sons was mounted by a grandson of Iaroslav’s elder brother (concurrently with the Polovtsy attack on the Rus lands in 1068–9); following its failure, eligibility for succession was restricted to those princes whose fathers had been grand prince of Kiev. In 1097, when wars over lands to be transferred along with the Kievan throne became so severe that they impaired a successful defence against the Polovtsy, a princely conference resolved that each principality in Kievan Rus would henceforth be the possession of a single branch of the dynasty. The only exceptions were Kiev itself, which in 1113 reverted to the status of a dynastic possession, and Novgorod, which had asserted the right to select its own prince by 1136.

But even as confrontations and conferences resolved disputes, the evolving rules of succession to the grand princely throne failed to anticipate new disputes stemming from the growth of the dynasty and state. As a result, throughout the twelfth century the dynasty was embroiled in numerous controversies, often triggered by attempts of members of younger generations to bypass their elders and to reduce the number of princely lines eligible for the succession. These conflicts escalated as dynastic branches formed rival coalitions, drew upon the enlarged populations and economic resources of their own principalities to enhance their military capabilities, and also fought for control over secondary regions, especially Novgorod, whose wealth and power could give a decisive advantage in the battles for the primary objective, Kiev.

The greatest confrontations involved the heirs of Grand Prince Vladimir Monomakh (1113–25). By the time of his death, his sons had become the exclusive heirs to the grand princely throne; first Mstislav (1125–32), then Iaropolk (1132–9) ruled as grand prince. An attempt by Iaropolk to arrange for his nephew (Mstislav’s son) to be his successor provoked objections from his younger brother, Iurii Dolgorukii, the prince of Rostov-Suzdal. The struggle persisted until 1154, when Iurii finally ascended to the Kievan throne and restored the traditional order of succession.

An even more destructive conflict commenced after the death in 1167 of Grand Prince Rostislav Mstislavich (who had appropriately succeeded his uncle Iurii). When a member of the next generation (Mstislav Iziaslavich, the prince of Volhynia) attempted to seize the throne, a coalition of princes formed to oppose him. Led by Iurii’s son Andrei Bogoliubskii, it represented the senior generation of eligible princes, but also included the sons of the late Grand Prince Rostislav and the princes of Chernigov. The conflict culminated in 1169, when Andrei’s sons led a campaign that resulted in the flight of Mstislav Iziaslavich and the sack of Kiev. Andrei’s brother Gleb, as prince of Pereiaslavl (traditionally the main seat of the house of Monomakh), became grand prince of Kiev.

Prince Andrei personified the growing tensions between the increasingly powerful principalities of Kievan Rus and their centre Kiev. As prince of Vladimir-Suzdal, he concentrated on the development of Vladimir and challenged the primacy of Kiev by building the Church of the Dormition in 1158 and his own Golden Gate. He also constructed his own palace complex of Bogoliubovo outside Vladimir, conducted campaigns against the Volga Bulgars, celebrated a victory over them in 1165 by building the Church of the Intercession nearby on the Nerl river, and extended his influence over Novgorod. Andrei used his power and resources, however, to defend the principle of generational seniority in the succession to Kiev. But his victory was short-lived: when Gleb died in 1171, Andrei’s coalition failed in its attempt to secure the throne for another of his brothers. The renewed struggle ended instead with a prince from the Chernigov line on the Kievan throne; his reign and the accompanying dynastic peace lasted until 1194.

By the turn of the century, eligibility for the Kievan throne was confined to three main lines: princes of Volhynia, Smolensk, and Chernigov. When the prince of Volhynia (representing the junior generation) claimed the throne, the rules of eligibility and succession were temporarily waived due to the sheer power that he was able to muster. Although the primacy of the senior generation was restored upon his death in 1205, new rivalries emerged. By the mid-1230s, princes of Chernigov and Smolensk were locked in a prolonged conflict over Kiev. But in this case the combatants were of the same generation and each was the son of a grand prince; dynastic traditions were offering little guidance for determining which prince had seniority.

The dynastic contests of the early thirteenth century had serious consequences. During the hostilities Kiev was sacked twice more, in 1203 and 1235. The strife revealed the divergence between the southern and western principalities (which were deeply enmeshed in the conflicts) and those of the north and east (which were indifferent). Intradynastic conflict, compounded by the lack of cohesion among the components of Kievan Rus, undermined the system of shared power that had previously ensured the integrity of the realm. Kievan Rus was thus left without effective defences when it had to face a new, overwhelming threat from the steppe—the Mongols.

The Rus Principalities under Mongol Domination

In 1237–40, the Mongols extended their empire, founded by Genghis Khan, over the lands of Rus. Their first victim was the north-eastern principality of Riazan. After besieging and sacking its capital, the Mongols next destroyed the fortified outpost of Moscow and then advanced northward towards the capital of the main principality in the north-east, Vladimir. By the time they arrived there in early February 1238, its prince, Iurii Vsevolodich, had left the city to gather an army; meeting little resistance, the invaders laid siege, stormed, and sacked Vladimir as well as the neighbouring town of Suzdal. When Prince Iurii belatedly brought up his army to face the Mongols, it suffered a crushing defeat in a battle on the Sit river (4 March 1238). The Mongols then proceeded westward towards Novgorod, but broke off their campaign to summer in the steppe. The following winter they subdued the Polovtsy and the peoples of the North Caucasus.

The Mongols resumed their assault on the lands of Rus in 1239, when they conquered Pereiaslavl (March) and Chernigov (October). A year later, after conducting additional campaigns in the steppe and the Caucasus, they laid siege to Kiev. The date of its fall—December 1240—marks the collapse of Kievan Rus. The Mongols continued their advance westward, subduing Galicia and Volhynia and pressing into Poland and Hungary. They halted their advance only in September 1242, when their leader Batu was recalled to Mongolia for the selection of a new great khan.

The Mongol campaigns devastated the lands of Kievan Rus. Among its major towns, Riazan, Vladimir, and Suzdal in the north-east, and Pereiaslavl, Chernigov, and Kiev in the southwest had been severely damaged. The ruling élite was also decimated. At the Battle of Sit alone, Prince Iurii Vsevolodich, three sons, and two nephews had all been killed. The invaders also ravaged the villages and fields in their path; peasants who were not slain or enslaved fled to safer locales. Where the Mongols passed, farming, trade, and handicrafts ceased. The Mongol invasion shattered the economic vitality and cultural vibrancy characteristic of Kievan Rus.

The Mongol invasion, however, did not disturb all the norms and traditions of the Kievan Rus. The devastation was neither ubiquitous nor total. In the north-east some towns, such as Rostov, Tver, and Iaroslavl, had not been touched. Although initially strained by the influx of refugees, these communities ultimately benefited economically from the labour and skills brought by their new residents. Novgorod, which similarly escaped the Mongol onslaught, continued to engage in commercial exchanges with its Baltic trading partners and import vital goods, including silver, to the Rus lands.

Lines of authority also remained unbroken: the metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus was still the leader of the Orthodox community, and the Riurikid dynasty remained the ruling house of Rus. While the Mongols pursued their westward campaign, the Riurikid princes were left to restore order, organize recovery efforts, and attempt to avert further invasion and destruction. They followed dynastic custom: the senior surviving prince of the eldest generation assumed the highest position in the northeast. When Prince Iurii Vsevolodich of Vladimir was killed at the Battle of Sit, his brother Iaroslav succeeded to his throne; their younger brothers, sons, and nephews assumed the thrones of other principalities—Suzdal, Starodub, Rostov, and Novgorod—in accordance with the dynastic rules of succession. In the southwestern principalities the princes of Volhynia and Chernigov similarly resumed their former seats.

The distribution of lands and resources among the remaining princes facilitated effective defensive measures against other foes. As early as July 1240 Prince Alexander, son of Prince Iaroslav Vsevolodich, earned the epithet ‘Nevsky’ by defeating the Swedes in a battle on the Neva river, thereby repulsing their attempt to seize control over Novgorod’s routes to the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea. In another battle at Lake Peipus in 1242, he halted an eastward drive of the Teutonic Knights, who had been threatening the frontiers of Novgorod and Pskov.

When Batu returned to the steppe, he organized his realm as the Kipchak khanate or Desht-i-Kipchak, but commonly called the Golden Horde. It encompassed not only the Rus principalities but the steppe lands, extending from the Danube river in the west through the northern Caucasus and across the Volga river to the Sea of Aral. Its capital was Sarai, built on the lower Volga river. The Golden Horde constituted one component of the much larger Mongol Empire, which, at its peak, spanned an area stretching from Rus, Persia, and Iraq in the west to China and the Pacific Ocean in the east. The khans of the Golden Horde were subordinate to the great khan of the Mongol Empire (at least until the end of the thirteenth century), and their policies were shaped by imperial politics and their interactions with other components of the empire.

These factors influenced the nature of the khans’ relationships with the Riurikid princes. The khans assumed the right to confirm the Riurikid princes’ right to rule; to obtain a patent of authority (iarlyk), each prince had to present himself before the khan in symbolic recognition of his suzerainty. But to accomplish their broader goals, the khans also demanded from the Rus princes obedience and tribute—initially in the form of men, livestock, furs, and other valuable products, later in silver. The Church also recognized the khan as the supreme secular authority in Rus.

The practice of issuing patents reflected the new association of the Riurikid princes with the Mongol khans; that association gradually altered the political, especially dynastic, structures inherited from Kievan Rus. In 1243 Batu issued a patent to Iaroslav Vsevolodich to rule in Vladimir; similarly, c.1245, he confirmed Daniil Romanovich as prince of Galicia and Volhynia. Only Mikhail of Chernigov, the last of the Riurikids to go to the horde, met a different fate: when he refused to perform the rituals of obeisance, the khan had him executed (September 1246). The Riurikids confirmed in office, however, collaborated with the khan and his agents (baskaki) in the implementation of his orders and policies. And, when Riurikid princes competed for seniority, they appealed to the khan for arbitration and support. Thus, when Prince Alexander Nevsky’s brother Andrei seized the throne of Vladimir from their uncle in 1248, and later conspired with Daniil of Galicia and Volhynia against the Mongols, Alexander turned to the Mongols for support. By placing Alexander (the elder of the two brothers) on the throne, the khan was upholding dynastic custom. Alexander subsequently obediently served the Mongol khan: he not only helped to remove his brother, but forced Novgorod in 1259 to submit to a Mongol census that then became the basis for tribute collection.

When Alexander Nevsky died in 1263, the khan passed over the rebellious Andrei (who had become prince of Suzdal), and conferred the office of grand prince on their younger brothers—first Iaroslav Iaroslavich (d. 1271/2), then Vasilii (d. 1277). When the throne passed to the next generation, however, Alexander Nevsky’s sons competed to become grand prince of Vladimir. Like their father, they each appealed to the Mongols for help. But the horde itself was engaged in a power struggle that lasted through the 1280s and 1290s. As a result, Mongol support was divided: Alexander’s eldest son and legitimate heir received a patent and military assistance from Nogai, a powerful Mongol chieftain in the western portion of the horde’s lands, while his younger brother obtained the support of the khan at Sarai. The contest lasted until the elder brother died in 1294, and the younger legitimately succeeded to the throne. By 1299 the Mongols’ internal dissension ended with the military triumph of Khan Tokhta, the death of Nogai, and reassertion of the khan’s authority over the entire horde.

Even as Nevsky’s two sons waged their battles, two other princes—their younger brother Daniil and their cousin Mikhail Iaroslavich of Tver—emerged as influential political figures in north-eastern Rus. With Daniil’s death in 1303, followed by that of the grand prince in 1304, the throne of Vladimir passed with the approval of the khan to the next eligible member of their generation—Mikhail of Tver. But then a radically new situation arose. The princes of Moscow refused to recognize Mikhail. Under the leadership of Prince Iurii Daniilovich they went to war against him in 1305 and again in 1308. In 1313 Mikhail went to pay obeisance to the new Khan Uzbek. In his absence Iurii extended his own influence over Novgorod, whose commercial wealth was critical for satisfying the khan’s demand for tribute. When summoned to appear before the khan and account for his behaviour, Iurii deftly used his new resources to outbid and outbribe Mikhail. He not only avoided punishment, but won the hand of Uzbek’s sister in marriage as well as the patent for the throne of Vladimir. For his refusal to acquiesce Mikhail was recalled to the horde and in 1318 he was executed. Iurii held the throne of Vladimir until 1322.

According to dynastic rules, however, Prince Iurii of Moscow lacked legitimacy; his authority depended solely on the endorsement and military support of Uzbek. The khan’s favour was contingent upon Iurii’s ability to perform his functions as senior prince—to collect and deliver the tribute from Rus. But Iurii did not have the support of all the Riurikids; four times in as many years Uzbek had to dispatch military expeditions to assist his brother-in-law, and in 1322 he returned the throne of Vladimir to the legitimate heir, Alexander of Tver. Five years later an anti-Mongol uprising in Tver forced Alexander to flee. In the aftermath Iurii’s brother Ivan (known later as ‘Ivan Kalita’ or ‘Money-bags’) secured the Vladimir throne. With the exception of a few brief interludes later in the fourteenth century, the princes of Moscow retained the position of grand prince until their dynastic line expired at the end of the sixteenth century.

By the time the princes of Moscow had gained seniority in northern Rus, the south-western principalities were wholly detached. Like their northern neighbours, they too had recognized the suzerainty of the Golden Horde after the Mongol invasion. But by the middle of the fourteenth century, Galicia and Volhynia had been absorbed into the realms of Poland and Lithuania. During the following decades Lithuania added Kiev, Chernigov, and Smolensk to its domain as well. The lands of Rus lost their territorial integrity.

Simultaneously, the unity of the metropolitanate was also being threatened. Despite the broadening political gulf between the northern and south-western principalities, they had all continued to form a single ecclesiastical community. After Metropolitan Maxim moved from Kiev to the north-east in 1299, however, the unity of the see was repeatedly challenged. First, the prince of Galicia secured the establishment of a short-lived metropolitanate (c.1303–8); later, the rulers of Poland and Lithuania urged the creation of separate metropolitanates for the Orthodox inhabitants of the lands they had incorporated. Church patriarchs established a series of sees (c.1315–1340s), but under pressure from the metropolitans in north-eastern Rus, disbanded each of them.

Thus, a century after the Mongols destroyed Kiev, the institutions that had given cohesion both to Kievan Rus and to the post-invasion principalities were crumbling. The state had fragmented, and the unity of the Church was in jeopardy. Furthermore, the dynasty’s complex rules of seniority and succession had been supplanted by the authority of the khans, who had begun to confer the throne of Vladimir not on the dynasty’s legitimate heirs—the senior, eligible princes—but on the princes most likely to fulfil their demands: the Daniilovichi of Moscow.

The Foundations of Muscovy

Daniilovich rule was not automatically accepted by the rest of the dynasty. Although the legitimate heir, Alexander of Tver, had been soundly defeated, opponents of Daniilovich dominance surfaced repeatedly through the fourteenth century. Their pressure compelled the Muscovite princes to adopt policies aimed at retaining Mongol favour, neutralizing the dynastic opposition, and developing domestic sources of legitimacy. As a result of such efforts to stay in power, they also strengthened their own territorial, economic, and military base. The Daniilovichi thus transformed the distribution of power in the lands of northern Rus and laid the foundations for a new state—Muscovy.

The adversaries of the Daniilovichi were also Riurikids. Their domains, known as apanages (udely), had been carved out of older, larger principalities in accordance with a custom, dating from the Kievan Rus era, of subdividing the lands ruled by a dynastic branch to accommodate all its members and also to share the responsibilities for administration and defence. The practice was particularly pronounced among the Rostov clan, whose lands were carved into numerous apanages, including Iaroslavl, Beloozero, and Ustiug. The apanage princes of Rostov joined the various coalitions against the Daniilovichi and in support of the legitimate princes from the house of Tver.

Their protests, however, made virtually no impression on the Mongol khans, who maintained the Moscow princes—Ivan Daniilovich, then his sons Semen (ruled 1341–53) and Ivan II (ruled 1353–9)—in power. Only once did an anti-Daniilovich coalition achieve success: when Ivan II died and the Golden Horde itself entered a period of internal conflict, a coalition secured the confirmation of the prince of Suzdal as grand prince. Within three years, however, the Moscow line in the person of Dmitrii Ivanovich (later known as Dmitrii Donskoi) had recovered the Vladimir throne.

Although the Mongol khans paid little attention to them, the Daniilovichi themselves did respond to their dynastic opponents. One strategy they adopted to neutralize them was to form marital alliances. Ivan I arranged marriages for his daughters with the sons of two of his most vocal opponents, the princes of Beloozero and Iaroslavl; his niece became the wife of Prince Konstantin Mikhailovich of Tver, a champion of the anti-Daniilovich group. Ivan’s son Semen married the daughter of the late Alexander of Tver despite the Church’s disapproval of this, his third marriage. In 1366 Prince Dmitrii followed the pattern by marrying the daughter of his former rival, the prince of Suzdal. These marriages, all concluded with dynastic branches whose members had been reluctant to recognize the predominance of Moscow, created bonds of kinship and alliance. Although they could not transform the Daniilovichi into the senior dynastic line, they did have the effect of elevating the Daniilovichi’s informal status with their in-laws and, thereby, helped to mute, if not completely neutralize, their opposition.

Another strategy adopted by the Daniilovichi was to subordinate princes from other branches of the dynasty and simultaneously to expand their own territorial domain. The Moscow princes ruled two sets of territories: lands that belonged to their patrimony (otchina) of Moscow and lands that were attached to the grand principality of Vladimir. Even before they became grand princes of Vladimir the princes of Moscow had extended their realm to include Serpukhov, Kolomna, and Mozhaisk; through the fourteenth century they continued to acquire new territories and add them to their patrimonial domain. Ivan Kalita is credited with aggressively expanding his family’s domain and acquiring the principalities of Beloozero and Uglich (formerly Rostov apanages) and Galich. His grandson, Dmitrii Donskoi, consolidated control over Galich, absorbed the principality of Starodub, and also brought the independent principality of Rostov under his influence.

Territorial expansion provided a variety of assets and advantages. One was control over rivers, which had strategic as well as commercial value. By acquiring Serpukhov, Kolomna, and Mozhaisk, Muscovy encompassed the entire length of the Moscow river as well as the segment of the Oka between Kolomna and Serpukhov that formed the southern boundary of the principality. Dmitrii Donskoi later sponsored the construction of walled monasteries at these towns and, thereby, fortified the border. The Moscow princes also controlled a significant section of the Volga river from Kostroma (part of the grand principality of Vladimir) to Nizhnii Novgorod. The principality of Uglich, located between two of the remaining independent principalities, Iaroslavl and Tver, contained another segment of the Volga. Remote from the main body of Moscow’s holdings were Beloozero and the independent but subordinate principality of Ustiug, which commanded the main trade routes that spanned the lands of the north.

Territorial expansion also brought a larger populace under the direct rule of the Muscovite princes. Moscow’s economic and tax base was, correspondingly, broadened. Retainers of subordinated princes, furthermore, were motivated to transfer their allegiance to Moscow, whose own military force and administrative staffs were thereby enlarged and strengthened. The Muscovite princes were able to collect transit and customs fees from the traffic and commercial transactions conducted along their roads and rivers and in their towns. Their control over segments of the Volga also gave them a greater role in the transport of goods down that river to Bulgar and Sarai, hence in the Mongols’ extensive trade network.

Even though it was growing, Moscow’s territory was divided into relatively few apanages. During the reign of Dmitrii Donskoi (1362–89), only one apanage principality (Serpukhov) was carved out of Muscovy’s lands for his cousin. After Dmitrii’s death in 1389, his eldest son (Vasilii I) inherited the throne; each of Dmitrii’s other four sons then received an apanage principality. But due to their failure to produce sons of their own, most of their lands eventually reverted to the grand prince. The only one to survive was the apanage principality of Mozhaisk (later divided into two principalities, Mozhaisk and Vereia). At least until the death of Vasilii I (1425), the few apanage princes of Moscow as well as their senior advisers and military commanders (who held the rank of boyar) were loyal supporters of the grand prince. This internal territorial and political cohesion provided a central, unified core for the expanding state of Muscovy.

The wealth Moscow derived from its increased population, extended lands, and commerce was reflected in the introduction of monumental stone buildings into the wooden town. After the Mongol invasion the princes in north-eastern Rus could not afford to construct major buildings. Tver was the first to accumulate sufficient wealth (by the end of the thirteenth century) to resume the construction of stone cathedrals. Moscow followed: in 1326 its Prince Ivan (the future Grand Prince Ivan Kalita) and Metropolitan Peter co-sponsored the construction of the Church of the Dormition. Soon afterwards four more stone churches were built inside Moscow’s kremlin. Prince Dmitrii rebuilt Moscow’s kremlin fortifications in stone in 1367, fortified some towns and outposts on Muscovy’s frontier, and also ordered the restoration of the Dormition Cathedral in Vladimir. In conjunction with the renewed construction activity, the arts of fresco- and icon-painting also revived. In the 1340s the walls of the kremlin churches were painted with frescos by Byzantine and Russian artists. Those of the Dormition Cathedral in Vladimir were painted with frescos at the commission of Vasilii I by Andrei Rublev, one of the greatest artists of the era.

Half a century after the Mongols set them on the throne of Vladimir, the princes of Moscow had transformed their realm. In addition to its visual signs, their growing power was manifested in Prince Dmitrii’s military victories first over a challenger from Tver, and then over a general from the Golden Horde itself—Mamai. These confrontations occurred while the discord within the Golden Horde, begun concurrently with his own ascension to the throne, intensified. Dmitrii, indeed, had obtained his patent from Mamai, to whom he had pledged to deliver the tribute gathered from his lands. Yet Dmitrii found it increasingly difficult to make those tribute payments for at least two reasons. As the conflicts in the horde disrupted the Volga markets in the 1360s and 1370s, Moscow’s revenue from commercial customs and transit fees collected from its Volga trade correspondingly declined. Second, Novgorod, whose commercial activities were responsible for importing silver into the Russian lands, was quarrelling with its Baltic Sea trading partners, who restricted the flow of silver to Novgorod and even temporarily suspended trade with Novgorod.

Mamai gambled on the supposition that he might receive larger tribute payments from another prince, and transferred the patent for the Vladimir throne twice, in 1370 and 1375, to the prince of Tver—Dmitrii’s chief rival. These actions provoked open warfare between Moscow and Tver in 1371–2 and 1375. Despite the fact that Tver received support from Mamai as well as Lithuania, both outbursts of hostility ended in victory for Moscow. In 1375 the prince of Tver agreed to recognize Dmitrii as his ‘elder brother’ and as the legitimate grand prince of Vladimir; Mamai also returned the patent for the throne to Dmitrii.

Nevertheless, within a few years Dmitrii and his patron Mamai were at war. Because of the mounting discord in the horde and the seizure of Sarai by Tokhtamysh (a Mongol khan from the eastern half of the horde’s territory), Mamai’s own situation had become desperate. To defeat Tokhtamysh he had to obtain supplementary troops, his own forces having been weakened by a bout of bubonic plague. For that he required funds. Mamai, therefore, demanded that Dmitrii pay the tribute in full. But Dmitrii, whose revenues had been reduced, hesitated. Mamai raised an army and, with promises of assistance from Lithuania, advanced upon his former protégé. Dmitrii gathered an army drawn from the numerous principalities over which he and his forefathers had established ascendancy. On 8 September 1380 the two armies fought in the battle of Kulikovo; it was here Dmitrii earned the epithet ‘Donskoi’. Dmitrii’s armies were victorious over Mamai, whose Lithuanian allies failed to arrive. Mamai suffered another defeat in an encounter with Tokhtamysh the following year. Having restored order in the horde, Tokhtamysh launched his own campaign against Dmitrii and the other Russian princes in 1382. He laid siege to Moscow, which had been abandoned by Dmitrii, and restored Mongol authority over the Russian principalities. He reasserted the horde’s demand for tribute and reconfirmed the Rus princes on their thrones.

The battle of Kulikovo did not terminate the Muscovite princes’ subordination to the Mongol khans, but it did reduce their dependence upon them for legitimacy. The battle demonstrated Moscow’s pre-eminence among the principalities of north-eastern Rus; no other branch of Riurikids ever again challenged the seniority of the Muscovite line and its claim to the position of grand prince of Vladimir. Although the princes of Moscow formally recognized the suzerainty of the khan of the Golden Horde, their practice, begun by Dmitrii Donskoi, of naming their own heirs implicitly minimized the significance of the khan’s right to bestow the patent to rule.

The Daniilovich success, however, was still incomplete. Although Dmitrii Donskoi had been able to mobilize a large number of northeastern principalities to defeat Mamai in 1380, some important lands remained beyond the range of his authority. One was Nizhnii Novgorod, whose prince refused to place his retainers under Muscovite command at the battle of Kulikovo. Another was Tver; despite its prince’s recent recognition of Dmitrii’s seniority, its forces did not join Dmitrii’s army. A third land, Novgorod, had similarly declined to participate.

Dmitrii’s successors set about to remedy that situation. Vasilii I gained control over Nizhnii Novgorod and made a concerted, but less successful, effort to take control of parts of Novgorod’s northern empire. Even before his reign, a monk, known as Stefan of Perm, had created a new bishopric for the far north-eastern portion of Novgorod’s realm; the newly converted inhabitants (the Zyriane or Komi tribes) transferred their tribute payments from Novgorod to Moscow. Vasilii I attempted to gain control of another region subject to Novgorod—the Dvina land, rich in fish, fur, and other natural products that constituted major sources of Novgorod’s wealth. Although his repeated efforts to annex the Dvina land failed, Vasilii did acquire Ustiug, which controlled access to both the Dvina and Vychegda rivers. Continuing pressure on its northern empire did, however, gradually undermine Novgorod’s control over its economic resources; Vasilii II then defeated the weakened Novgorod militarily in 1456 and his successor Ivan III finally absorbed it into Muscovy in 1478. Ivan III continued the process by also annexing Tver in 1485.

The efforts of the Muscovite princes to consolidate their position within their growing realm benefited from the Church, which, already in the fourteenth century, was advocating unity and centralization. The Church’s indirect endorsement of the Daniilovichi of Moscow provided a measure of domestically based legitimacy, which initially supplemented, but ultimately replaced Mongol favour as a justification for holding the throne of Vladimir.

Church support for the Daniilovichi was neither automatic nor explicit. Indeed, in the early fourteenth century Metropolitan Maxim (d. 1305) used his influence to discourage Iurii of Moscow from challenging the succession of Mikhail of Tver to the Vladimir throne. Although Metropolitan Peter, who succeeded Maxim, had sharp differences with Grand Prince Mikhail, he too did not unambiguously support Moscow. But he did co-sponsor the Church of the Dormition in Moscow, and when he died a few months after its construction had begun, he was buried in its walls; a shrine dedicated to him subsequently arose on the site. The association of Peter (who was canonized in 1339) with Moscow contributed to the city’s growing reputation as an ecclesiastical centre.

For Metropolitan Peter and his successor Theognostus, however, the political fortunes of various princes were secondary to ecclesiastical concerns, the most pressing of which was maintaining the integrity of the metropolitanate of Kiev and all Rus. For the metropolitans of the second half of the fourteenth century, Alexis and Cyprian, that issue became a preoccupation. Just as Alexis became metropolitan in 1354, the Lithuanian prince Olgerd succeeded in establishing a metropolitanate over the Orthodox bishoprics in his realm, including Kiev and western Chernigov. The Lithuanian metropolitan was related to Olgerd’s wife, a princess from the house of Tver. Alexis responded by formally transferring his seat from Kiev to Vladimir (a move made, de facto, by Maxim). Subsequent efforts to reunite his see took him to Constantinople, Sarai, and Kiev (where he was held in captivity from 1358 to 1360). Only in 1361, when the metropolitan of the Lithuanian see died, did he succeed in bringing the south-western Rus bishoprics back under his jurisdiction.

In 1375 the metropolitanate of Kiev and Lithuania was revived; its metropolitan, Cyprian, was expected to succeed Alexis and reunite the two sees. But when Alexis died in 1378 and Cyprian arrived in Moscow, he was humiliated and expelled by Prince Dmitrii. The prince gave his support to Pimen, who became metropolitan in 1380. Cyprian and Pimen competed for dominance within the Rus Church until the latter, as well as Prince Dmitrii, died in 1389. Cyprian was then able to return to Moscow; he led the Church until his own death in 1407.

Cyprian, supported by monastic spiritual leaders of northeastern Rus, was an exponent of ecclesiastical unity. That theme was expressed in icons and frescos sponsored by the Church. It was also articulated in literature, which, like architecture and painting, was recovering from the decline it had suffered in the aftermath of the Mongol invasion. The Laurentian Chronicle, copied by the monk Lavrentii in 1377, for example, incorporated the Primary Chronicle and a second component covering events to the year 1305. Its broadly inclusive subject-matter and character, which drew upon sources from northern as well as southern Rus, affirmed the continuity and unity of the Orthodox community in all the lands of Rus.

Once Cyprian had become the unchallenged head of the Church, he placed even more emphasis on the themes of unity and continuity. His Life of St Peter (the former metropolitan) highlighted Peter’s relationship with Prince Ivan Kalita, whom he praised specifically as the initiator of the process of ‘gathering the Rus lands’. The Trinity Chronicle, compiled at his court, similarly praised Ivan Kalita and his grandson Dmitrii Donskoi. Its underlying premiss was that all the principalities of Rus formed a single ecclesiastical community and that Moscow had replaced Kiev as its centre. Although these themes were meant to relate to the Church, they implicitly promoted the concept of a politically unified secular state as well; such a state was envisioned as a necessary aid in the creation and protection of the ecclesiastical unity of the see.

By the mid-fifteenth century Church texts characterized Dmitrii Donskoi as the hero of Kulikovo and stressed his role as the prince who had gathered an army drawn from many of the lands of Rus, to oppose the Tatars. They also likened his grandson Vasilii II to Vladimir; the latter had introduced Christianity to Rus and had subsequently been canonized as a saint, while the former was depicted as the protector of the Orthodox faith for rejecting a union with the Roman Church (1439) and supporting the Russian prelates’ decision (1448) to name their own metropolitan without confirmation by the patriarch of Constantinople.

The deep concern of the Church to preserve the territorial and, after 1439, the spiritual integrity of the metropolitanate enhanced the prestige of the Muscovite princes, whose political policies were compatible with the causes of the Church. The Church, while pursuing and justifying its own ecclesiastical goals, furnished the Daniilovichi with ideological concepts that legitimized their rule.

By 1425 Muscovy had strengthened both its material and ideological foundations. The new domestic sources of legitimacy, however, remained secondary as long as the Golden Horde continued to be powerful and to support the Daniilovichi. Despite a devastating attack by Timur (Tamerlane) on Sarai and its other market centres in 1395, the horde was able to maintain its dominance over the Rus princes, to collect tribute from them, and even to launch a major campaign and besiege Moscow (1408). Lithuania similarly exerted a strong influence over the lands of Rus. It incorporated Smolensk (1395) and became increasingly involved in Novgorod, Tver, and Riazan. Vasilii I, who had married the daughter of Vitovt, the grand prince of Lithuania, not only met Lithuania’s expansion with relative passivity, but named Vitovt one of the guardians of his son, Vasilii II.

Shortly after Vasilii I died in 1425, however, the balance of power in the region shifted. Muscovy’s neighbours, Lithuania and the Golden Horde, had imposed internal order and external limits on the Rus lands. But in 1430 the Lithuanian grand prince died, and his realm fell into political disarray. At virtually the same time the Golden Horde, which had never fully recovered from the economic disruptions caused by Timur, began to disintegrate. During the next two decades the Golden Horde split into four divisions: the khanate of Kazan on the mid-Volga, the Crimean khanate, the khanate of Astrakhan, and the remnant core—the Great Horde.

Once Muscovy’s neighbours had weakened, the Daniilovichi reverted to intradynastic warfare. At issue, as during the Kievan Rus era, was a principle of succession. In the second half of the fourteenth century the princes of Moscow (in the absence of living brothers and eligible cousins) had regularly named their eldest sons as their heirs. Although this practice established a vertical pattern of succession, it was adopted as a matter of necessity, not as a deliberate plan to replace the traditional lateral succession system. When Vasilii I died, however, he left not only his son Vasilii II, but four brothers. As long as his son’s guardians (who included Vitovt of Lithuania and Metropolitan Photius) were alive, no one quarrelled with his succession.

But in 1430–1, within a year of one another, Vitovt and Photius both died. Shortly afterwards, the eldest of Vasilii II’s uncles challenged his nephew for the throne of Vladimir. He and Vasilii each appealed to the Mongol Khan Ulu-Muhammed. Although Vasilii was awarded the patent, his uncle none the less contested the decision and seized Moscow in 1433. When he died in 1434, his sons continued the war even though, according to the principle of seniority their father had invoked, they had no claim to the throne. The prolonged war was both brutal and decisive. By the time it was concluded, Vasilii had blinded one cousin and had in turn been blinded by another; he had been captured and released by the Tatars of Ulu-Muhammed’s horde (1445) as it migrated to the mid-Volga where it subsequently formed the khanate of Kazan; he had welcomed into his service two of the khan’s sons who assisted him against his cousins; he had established Moscow’s control over the vast majority of the northern Rus lands and increased its authority over Novgorod; and he had subdued his relatives—apanage princes in Muscovy—and restricted succession to his own direct heirs.

The triumph of Vasilii II over his uncle and cousins enabled him and his heirs to continue, virtually without restraint, the process of consolidating Muscovite authority over the northern Rus lands and forming a centralized, unified state to govern them. The principle of vertical succession, confirmed by the war, limited the division of lands to the formation of apanage principalities for the grand prince’s immediate relatives. It correspondingly restricted the proliferation of large, competitive armies under the control of autonomous princes. In addition to subordinating most of the northern principalities to Moscow, the altered succession system served to unify and consolidate the Russian lands around Moscow. By the mid-fifteenth century the princes of Moscow had fashioned a new political structure, centred around their own enlarged hereditary domain and their dynastic line, within which eligibility for the post of grand prince had been narrowly defined. Built upon territorial, economic, military, and ideological foundations that displaced both the traditional heritage of Kievan Rus and Tatar authority, the new state of Muscovy was thus poised to exploit the disintegration of Golden Horde and the reduction of Lithuanian expansion and to become a mighty Eastern European power.