The Golden Horde from Cambridge history of Russia, volume 1

North-eastern Russia and the Golden Horde (1246-1359)

JANET MARTIN

On the eve of the Mongol invasion two institutions had given definition to Kievan Rus'. One was the ruling Riurikid dynasty, whose senior prince ruled Kiev The other was the Orthodox Christian Church headed by the metropoli­tan, also based at Kiev Although the component principalities of Kievan Rus' had multiplied and had become the hereditary domains of separate branches of the dynasty, subjecting the state to centrifugal pressures, they all recog­nised Kiev as the symbolic political and ecclesiastic centre of a common realm and were bound together by dynastic, political, cultural and commercial ties.

The principality that comprised the north-eastern territories of Kievan Rus' was Vladimir, also known as Suzdalia, Rostov-Suzdal', and Vladimir-Suzdal'. Centred around the upper Volga and Oka River basins, its territories were bounded by Novgorod to the north and west, Smolensk to the south-west, and Chernigov and Riazan' to the south. The eastern frontier of Vladimir- Suzdal' stretched to Nizhnii Novgorod on the Volga; beyond lay lands and peoples subject to the Volga Bulgars.

Vladimir-Suzdal' was the realm of the branch of the dynasty descended from Iurii Dolgorukii (1149-57) and his son Vsevolod 'Big Nest' (1176-1212). When the Mongols invaded the Russian lands, Vsevolod's son Iurii, the eldest member of the senior generation of this branch of the dynasty, was recognised, according to principles common to all the principalities of Kievan Rus', as the senior prince of his branch of the dynasty. He was, therefore, the grand prince of Vladimir. Despite his detachment from Kievan politics, the legitimacy of Iurii's rule in Vladimir derived from his place in the dynasty. The sovereignty of the Riurikid dynasty extended to Vladimir and defined it politically as an integral part of Kievan Rus'.

Vsevolod's descendants also ruled in other towns and districts of the principality, which had begun a process of subdivision before the Mongol invasion. Prince Vsevolod had assigned the city and region of Rostov to his son Konstantin; when Konstantin died in 1218, Rostov and its associated towns became the inheritance of his descendants.[1] In 1238, it was ruled by Vasil'ko Konstantinovich (d. 1238).[2] At least half a dozen principalities had been defined in north-eastern Russia, but with the exception of Rostov they had not become the patrimonies of particular branches of the dynasty. They remained attached to the grand principality and were, accordingly, periodically distributed by princes of Vladimir to their relatives.[3]

Affiliation with the Orthodox Church also defined the principality of Vladimir as a component of Kievan Rus'. Until the early thirteenth century the bishop of Rostov was the ecclesiastical leader of the population of the principality of Vladimir. In 1214, while Konstantin, the prince of Rostov, and his younger brother Iurii, appointed prince of Vladimir by their father, were engaged in a dispute over the throne of Vladimir, the eparchy was divided. The bishop of Rostov retained his authority over Rostov, Pereiaslavl', Uglich and Iaroslavl'. But a second bishop, based in the city of Vladimir, assumed ecclesi­astical authority over Vladimir, Suzdal' and a series of associated towns.[4] Both bishoprics remained within the larger Russian Orthodox Church, headed by the metropolitan of Kiev.

The Mongol invasion did not immediately destroy the heritage left by Kievan Rus'. The two institutions, the Riurikid dynasty and the Orthodox Church that had given identity and cohesion to Kievan Rus', continued to dominate north-eastern Russia politically and ecclesiastically. But over the next century dynastic, political relations within north-eastern Russia altered under the impact of Golden Horde suzerainty. The lingering bonds connecting north-eastern Russia with Kiev and the south-western principalities loosened in the decades after the Mongol onslaught. North-eastern Russia separated from the south-western principalities of Kievan Rus' while the principality of Vladimir-Suzdal' fragmented into numerous, smaller principalities. Dur­ing the fourteenth century, furthermore, the Moscow branch of the dynasty, the heirs of Daniil Aleksandrovich, emerged as victors in the competition among the princes for Mongol favour and domestic power. Their political ascendancy violated the dynastic traditions, also inherited from the Kievan era, that had determined dynastic seniority and defined a pattern of lateral succession to the position of prince of Vladimir. In their quest for substitute bases of support and legitimacy the Moscow princes leaned heavily on their Mongol patrons. They also began processes of aggrandising territory, secur­ing dynastic alliances and nurturing ties with the Church that served to secure their hold on the leading political position in north-eastern Russia, the grand prince of Vladimir. These processes also laid the foundations for the state of Muscovy.

Demographic and economic dislocation

The Mongol invasion had a severe impact on the society and economy of north-eastern Russia. During the three-month winter campaign of 1237-8, the city of Vladimir was besieged and burned, and Suzdal' was sacked. Rostov, another of the main cities of the region, as well as Tver', Moscow and a series of other towns, were also listed among those subjected to direct attack.[5] The surrender of towns and defeat of the north-eastern Russian armies did not end the Mongol military assaults. During the quartercentury following the initial invasion, the Mongols conducted fourteen more campaigns against north­eastern Russia. The Golden Horde khans continued to send expeditionary forces, often in the company of Russian princes and at times at the Russian princes' request, into the region. The campaigns tapered off only after the late 1320s.[6]

The military campaigns took a heavy toll on the Russian population. Princes and commoners, urban and rural residents were killed or taken captive. Iurii Vsevolodich of Vladimir and Vasil'ko Konstantinovich of Rostov were among the numerous princes killed during the 1238 campaign.[7] Although population figures are unknown, George Vernadsky estimated that at least 10 per cent of the Russian population died or was taken captive during the invasion of 1237-40.[8] In north-eastern Russia the cumulative result of repeated military incursions was similarly a marked reduction in the size of the population. This effect was compounded by the Mongol khans' demands for human services. Russian princes took part in Mongol military campaigns; commoners were also drafted for military service. Skilled artisans and unskilled labourers were conscripted to participate in the construction of Sarai, the capital city of the Golden Horde built by Khan Baty on a tributary of the lower Volga River. They also contributed to the construction of New Sarai, which was located about seventy-seven miles upstream and replaced Sarai as the Golden Horde capital in the early I340s. Russian craftsmen were relocated to Sarai also to manufacture goods for its residents and markets. They were sent for similar purposes as far as Karakorum and China.[9]

The Mongol invasion not only depleted the population of north-eastern Russia. It resulted as well in the subordination of the region to Juchi's ulus, known also as the Kipchak Khanate or, more commonly, as the Golden Horde, which formed the north-western sector of the Mongol Empire. The khans of the Golden Horde required the Russian princes to recognise their suzerainty. They also demanded tribute in kind and, by the fourteenth century, in sil­ver from the Russian populace. Mongol administrative agents, known as baskaki, were stationed with military contingents in selected north-eastern Russian towns to oversee tax collection and ensure compliance with the khans' decrees.[10] The tribute or vykhod, which may have been collected on an annual basis, has been estimated to have reached 5,000 silver roubles per year by I389, the first year for which calculations are possible; it may have been even larger in earlier decades.[11] That amount has been interpreted as a drain on the economy of northern Russia and a hindrance to its economic development.¹²

Mongol military campaigns, seizures of captives, and demands for labour and tribute were not the only factors that adversely affected the demographic and economic condition of north-eastern Russia. Just over a century after the Mongol invasion, the Black Death or bubonic plague reached the region. Having spread through the lands of the Golden Horde in 1346-7 to Europe, it circled back to northern Russia and reached Pskov and Novgorod in 1352. The following year the epidemic reached north-eastern Russia, where it claimed the lives of the metropolitan, the grand prince, his sons and one of his brothers. After the initial bout, the plague returned repeatedly during the following century. Chronicles reported that as many as a hundred persons died per day at the peak of the epidemic. Scholars estimate that the Russian population declined by 25 per cent as a cumulative result of the waves of plague.¹³

Despite the debilitating effects of conquest and plague, north-eastern Russia experienced a gradual economic recovery. Residents fled from the towns and districts that were favourite targets of Mongol attack. Thus, the capi­tal city ofVladimir lost population and, despite the efforts of its prince Iaroslav Vsevolodich to rebuild it, recovered at a slow pace.¹⁴ But the refugees settled in other towns and districts, such as Rostov and Iaroslavl', that were situated in more remote areas. Five of eight districts that were fashioned into separate principalities between 1238 and 1300 were located beyond the former main pop­ulation centres of Rostov-Suzdal'. In addition, forty new towns were founded in north-eastern Russia during the fourteenth century. Thus the demographic shift, prompted by the devastation caused by Mongol attacks, also stimulated economic growth. Among the towns and districts that benefited from the

York: Random House, 1970), pp. 56-7; Michel Roublev, 'The Periodicity of the Mongol Tribute as paid by the Russian Princes during the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries', FOG 15 (1970): 7.

12 Ostrowski, Muscovy and the Mongols, pp. 108-9; Roublev, 'The Periodicity of the Mongol Tribute', 13.

13 PSRL, vol. x, pp. 217, 226; PSRL, vol. xi: PatriarshaiailiNikonovskaialetopis' (St Petersburg: Arkheograficheskaiakommissiia, 1897; reprinted Moscow: Nauka, 1965), p. 3; Lawrence N. Langer, 'The BlackDeathin Russia: Its Effects upon Urban Labor', RH2 (1975): 54-7,62; Gustave Alef, 'The Origins ofMuscovite Autocracy. The Age ofIvan III', FOG 39 (1986): 22-4; Gustave Alef, 'The Crisis of the Muscovite Aristocracy: A Factor in the Growth of Monarchical Power', FOG 15 (1970); reprinted in his Rulers and Nobles in Fifteenth-Century Muscovy (London: Variorum Reprints, 1983), 36-8.

14 Fennell, Crisis, pp. 119-20; A. N. Nasonov, Mongoly i Rus' (Istoriia tatarskoipolitiki naRusi) (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1940; reprinted The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1969), pp. 38-9.

redistribution ofpopulation were Tver' and Moscow, which became dynamic political and economic centres of north-eastern Russia during the fourteenth

century. [12]

One visible sign of economic recovery was reflected in production by craftsmen. Despite the transfer of artisans and specialists into Mongol service, carpenters, blacksmiths, potters and other craftsmen continued to manufac­ture their wares in the thirteenth century; in the fourteenth century they were producing more goods than they had before the invasion.[13] Building construc­tion, particularly of masonry fortifications and churches, was curtailed in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. Only one small church of this type was built in Vladimir in the twenty-five years after the invasion. But half a century later patrons of such construction projects, including princes and, to a lesser degree, metropolitans, were able to muster the finances and skilled labour to undertake them. From the beginning of the fourteenth century new construc­tion was occurring in north-eastern Russia. Appearing first in Tver', building projects were almost immediately also launched in its rival city Moscow. There the church ofthe Dormition, the cathedral dedicated to the Archangel Michael, and three other stone churches were erected within a decade. By the middle of the century, prosperity was similarly visible in Nizhnii Novgorod.[14]

Economic recovery was attributable, at least in part, to commercial activity. The Golden Horde, known for its brutal military subjugation of the Russians as well as their neighbours in the steppe, was part ofthe vast Mongol Empire that fostered and depended upon an extensive commercial network that stretched from China in the east to the Mediterranean Sea. Sarai became a key com­mercial centre in the northern branch of the segment of Great Silk Route that connected Central Asia to the Black Sea. Khan Mangu Temir (1267-81) was particularly active in developing commerce along the route that passed through his domain. To this end he granted the Genoese special trading priv­ileges and encouraged them to found trading colonies at Kafa (Caffa) and

Sudak (Surozh, Soldaia) on the Crimean peninsula in the Black Sea. Using the bishop of Sarai as his envoy, he also opened diplomatic relations with Byzantium. [15]

Northern Russia was drawn into the Mongol commercial network. Goods collected as tribute and gifts for the khan and other Tatar notables were con­ducted down the Volga River to Sarai. But the Mongols also encouraged Russian commerce, particularly the Baltic trade conducted by the north­western city ofNovgorod. Khan Mangu Temir pressured Grand Prince Iaroslav Iaroslavich (1263-71 /2), despite his unpopularity in Novgorod, to promote that town's commercial interaction with its German and Swedish trading partners and to guarantee its merchants the right to travel and trade their goods freely throughout Vladimir-Suzdal'.[16] Through the next century a commercial net­work developed that brought imported European goods through Novgorod into north-eastern Russia, then down the Volga River to Sarai. By the late thirteenth and first half of the fourteenth century Russian merchants were conveying those imports as well as their own products down the Volga River by boat and appearing not only at Sarai, but also Astrakhan' and the Italian colonies of Tana, Kafa and Surozh. At those market centres European silver and textiles as well as Russian luxury furs and other northern goods joined the commercial traffic in silks, spices, grain and slaves that were being conducted in both eastward and westward directions along the Great Silk Road.[17] The steady flow of tribute and commercial traffic through north-eastern Russian market towns from Tver' to Nizhnii Novgorod stimulated their economic recovery and development.

It was within the framework of the economic demands and opportuni­ties created by the Golden Horde that north-eastern Russia recovered. It was similarly under the pressures of Mongol hegemony that north-eastern Russia underwent a political reorganisation during the century following the invasion.

Table 6.1. The grand princes of Vladimir 1246-135 9

Vsevolod d. 1212

Konstantin d. 1218

Vasil'ko d. 1238

Boris d. 1277

Konstantin d. 1307

Roman d. 1339

I

Iurii d. 1238

I

Aleksandr Nevskii d. 1263

I

1

Andrei d. 1304

I 1

Iurii Ivan I d. 1325 Kalita d. 1341

J

1

Andrei d. 1353 I

I

Sviatoslav d. 1248 I

Dmitrii d. 1268/9

Mikhail d. 1318 J

Г

I

Aleksandr d. 1339

I

Konstantin d. 1355

Dynastic reorganisation and the Golden Horde

By 1246, when Prince Mikhail of Chernigov was killed during his visit to Khan Baty (d. c.1255), the princes in north-eastern Russia had already paid homage to their Mongol suzerain and had been confirmed in their offices.²¹ Prince Iaroslav Vsevolodich succeeded his brother Iurii Vsevolodich, who had died in 1238, to become the prince of Vladimir. His appointment conformed to the traditional, lateral pattern of dynastic succession. Iaroslav's brother Sviatoslav received Suzdal' along with Nizhnii Novgorod. Another brother, Ivan, became prince of Starodub. Iaroslav's son, Aleksandr Nevskii, was sent to Novgorod. (See Table 6.1.)

It nevertheless took several years for the political situation in north-eastern Russia to stabilise. When Iaroslav appeared for a second time before Baty in 1245, he was sent to the Great Khan at Karokorum. He died on the return

21 Nasonov Mongoly i Rus', p. 26. 134

journey.[18] He was succeeded by his brother Prince Sviatoslav (1247), who divided his realm among Iaroslav's sons. Konstantin Iaroslavich received Galich and Dmitrov. Iaroslav Iaroslavich received Tver'. The six-year-old Vasilii Iaroslavich became prince of Kostroma.[19] Starodub remained in the pos­session of Ivan Vsevolodich's descendants. The descendants of Konstantin Vsevolodich, who had died in 1218, continued to rule Rostov, which subse­quently fragmented into the principalities of Beloozero, Iaroslavl', Uglich and Ustiug.

This arrangement lasted only until 1249, when Iaroslav's sons Andrei and Aleksandr returned from Karakorum. At that time Andrei replaced his uncle Sviatoslav, who fled from Vladimir.[20] Andrei held his position for only two years. In 1251, when Mongke became the new great khan, the Russian princes were required to attend the khan of the Golden Horde to renew their patents to hold office. Although Aleksandr made the journey, Andrei did not. Aleksandr returned to Vladimir in the company of a Tatar military force and evicted Andrei, who fled first to Novgorod and then to Sweden. Aleksandr Nevskii became the prince of Vladimir in 1252.[21]

Initially, as Baty and his successors established their suzerainty over north­eastern Russia, they respected the dynastic legacy inherited by the Vladimir princes from Kievan Rus'. They confirmed the Vsevolodichi as ruling branch of the dynasty in Vladimir. In their selection of princes of Vladimir they also observed the principles determining dynastic seniority and succession that had evolved during the Kievan Rus' era. But Mongol suzerainty altered the process of succession. Although they tended to uphold Riurikid tradition, the Mongol khans assumed the authority to issue patents to princes for their thrones. They also demanded tribute from their new subjects, and established their own agents, the baskaki, at posts in north-eastern Russia to oversee its collection and to maintain order. As the princes of north-eastern Russia adjusted to these conditions over the next century, dynastic politics altered. Succession to the position of grand prince of Vladimir came to depend less on traditional definitions of dynastic seniority and more on the preference of the khan; the khan's favour could, in turn, be earned by the demonstration of a prince's ability to collect and successfully deliver the required tribute.

Aleksandr Nevskii's reign in Vladimir (1252-63) was marked by co-operation with the Golden Horde. One of the clearest examples of his policy related to Novgorod, located in north-western Russia beyond the borders of the princi­pality of Vladimir. The city of Novgorod controlled a vast northern empire that stretched to the Ural mountains. It was also a commercial centre that conducted trade with Swedes and Germans of the Baltic Sea. Unlike other principalities in Kievan Rus', Novgorod did not have its own hereditary line of princes. But by the early thirteenth century it regularly recognised the author­ity of the prince of Vladimir. It was in conformity with that practice that Prince Iaroslav Vsevolodich had sent his son Aleksandr Nevskii to govern Novgorod in the aftermath of the invasion.[22]

Novgorod had not been subjected to attack during the Mongol invasion, but in 1257, the Mongols attempted to take a census there for purposes of recruitment and tax collection. The Novgorodians refused to allow the officials to conduct the census. Nevskii, who had accompanied the Tatar officials, inflicted punishment on Novgorod, but was nevertheless summoned along with the princes of Rostov to the horde in 1258. Upon their return Prince Aleksandr, his brother Andrei and the Rostov princes joined the Tatars to enforce the order to take the census in Novgorod.

After these events and under the guidance of Prince Aleksandr Nevskii north-eastern Russia was drawn increasingly into the orbit of Sarai, the capital city of the Golden Horde built on the lower Volga River. Nevskii's successors, his brothers Iaroslav (1263-1271/2) and Vasilii (1272-7), followed his example of close co-operation with the Mongol khans. The princes ofVladimir lost interest in south-western Russia and confined their domestic focus to northern Russia, that is, Vladimir-Suzdal' itself and Novgorod.[23] In exchange Tatars aided them in their capacity as princes of Novgorod in a military campaign against Revel' (1269); they also helped Vasilii expel his nephew Dmitrii from Novgorod in 1273 and establish his own authority there.[24]

During the last quarter of the century the next generation of princes in north-eastern Russia appears to have taken advantage of political conditions within the Golden Horde to serve their own ambitions and challenge the dynastic traditions they had inherited. During the reign of Khan Mangu Temir (1267-81) another leader, Nogai, emerged as a powerful military commander with virtually autonomous authority over the western portion of the horde's territories. Nogai's power persisted through the reign of Tuda Mengu, who succeeded his brother in 1281, and who abdicated in favour of his nephew Tele Buga in 1287. Tele Buga was challenged, however, by the nephew of Mangu Temir, Tokhta, who eventually sought sanctuary and support from Nogai. Together Nogai and Tokhta succeeded in arranging the assassination of Tele Buga and the establishment of Tokhta as the khan at Sarai (1291). The alliance of Tokhta and Nogai did not survive; hostilities resulted in the defeat and death of Nogai in 1299.[25]

Prince Vasilii died (1277) during the reign of Khan Mangu Temir. The throne of Vladimir passed to Dmitrii Aleksandrovich.[26] Dmitrii was the eldest member of the next generation whose father had also served as prince of Vladimir. His succession thus followed dynastic tradition. But Dmitrii did not display the same willingness to co-operate with the khan that his father and uncles had shown. It is not known whether he presented himself before Mangu Temir to obtain a patent for his throne. When the Mongols called upon the north­eastern Russian princes to join a military campaign in the northern Caucasus, Prince Dmitrii, in contrast to his brother Andrei and the princes of Rostov, who obeyed the order, declined to participate. In 1281, when Tuda Mengu became khan, Dmitrii did not go to Sarai to pay homage and renew his patent for his throne. Tuda Mengu responded by appointing Dmitrii's brother Andrei prince of Vladimir and sending a military force of Tatars with Andrei and the Rostov princes against Dmitrii.[27]

The dual authority within the horde, however, enabled Dmitrii to gain support from Nogai, who issued his own patent to Dmitrii and helped him recover his position in Vladimir as well as control over Novgorod. Despite the ongoing hostilities between the brothers, Dmitrii held his post until Tokhta became khan at Sarai in 1291. Once again, Dmitrii declined to go to Sarai. He was joined in this act of defiance by Princes Mikhail Iaroslavich of Tver' and Daniil Aleksandrovich of Moscow. In contrast, Andrei and the Rostov princes presented themselves before Tokhta, reaffirmed their loyalty to the Sarai khan, and registered their complaints against Dmitrii Aleksan- drovich. When Tokhta undertook his campaign against Nogai in 1293, he also sent forces to help Andrei overthrow Dmitrii. Learning of the approach­ing army, Dmitrii fled. Andrei and the Tatars nevertheless staged attacks on a total of fourteen towns, including Vladimir, Suzdal' and Moscow. It was only Dmitrii's death in 1294, however, that resolved the conflict among the Russian princes. Andrei, who then became heir to the throne according to dynastic tradition and who also enjoyed the support of the khan, became prince ofVladimir. Despite the legitimacy of his position, his rivals prevented him from retaking possession of a key town, Pereiaslavl'-Zalesskii, which was held first by Dmitrii's son Ivan and then, after his death in 1302, by Daniil's son Iurii.[28]

Prince Andrei, supported by the Sarai khans, had unsuccessfully attempted to undermine dynastic tradition and usurp the Vladimir throne. The Rostov princes, who according to that tradition had lost their claim to the Vladimir throne, supported Andrei. But Dmitrii retained the support of his younger brother Daniil Aleksandrovich and, despite earlier conflicts with Tver',[29] of his cousin Mikhail Iaroslavich. The unusual political climate within the horde provided an opportunity for him to gain support from Nogai as well and thus defy both the Sarai khan and Andrei.

Although Daniil Aleksandrovich of Moscow supported Dmitrii and the traditional dynastic definition of seniority, his sons successfully challenged that tradition. Gaining support from the khan at Sarai, who had no rival such as Nogai during the first half of the fourteenth century, the Moscow princes ascended and gained control over the Vladimir throne. To achieve this position the Muscovite princes not only challenged the successor to the throne, but forcibly attached territories that had belonged to Vladimir to their own domain.

Andrei died in 1304. Daniil Aleksandrovich had died the year before, in 1303.[30]The dynasty's candidate to assume the Vladimir throne was thus Mikhail Iaroslavich, the senior member ofthe next generation; his father, Iaroslav, had been prince of Tver' and also prince ofVladimir (1263-71/2). Khan Tokhta approved Mikhail as grand prince ofVladimir. Despite the fact that Mikhail's legitimacy derived from both traditional dynastic and Mongol sources, Iurii Daniilovich of Moscow opposed him. Mikhail was forced to wage two military campaigns (1305 and 1308) against Iurii to secure his position.[31]

The competition between the princes of Tver' and the princes of Moscow continued through the first quarter of the fourteenth century. The princes of Tver' were the rightful heirs to the Vladimir throne according to the dynasty's traditional pattern of succession. According to those norms, the princes of Moscow were illegitimate. Daniil Aleksandrovich had not served as prince of Vladimir; his descendants were therefore ineligible for the grand-princely throne. Khan Tokhta followed his predecessors' example and confirmed the dynasty's selection for grand prince. Initially, his successor Khan Uzbek (1313­41) also followed this precedent. When Mikhail presented himself at the horde, Uzbek renewed his patent.[32] Mikhail remained at the horde for two years. His rival Iurii, taking advantage of his absence, attempted to enhance his own polit­ical power in northern Russia. Novgorod, whose commercial wealth made it particularly significant to the rivals, arrested Mikhail's governors and invited Iurii to become its prince. Uzbek nevertheless continued to support Mikhail and sent him back to Russia with Tatar forces to re-establish his authority; Iurii meanwhile was ordered to appear before the khan.[33] But Iurii Dani- ilovich won Uzbek's favour as well as the hand of the khan's sister in mar- riage.[34] Returning from the horde to Russia with his wife, an envoy from the khan, and an army, he waged war to remove Mikhail. Mikhail's forces won the battle. Nevertheless, for his defiance and for the death of Iurii's wife, which occurred while she was in Mikhail's custody, Mikhail was executed by Khan Uzbek. Iurii became the grand prince of Vladimir.[35] With the transfer of the patent to the Daniilovich prince the khan's favour replaced the dynasty's traditions.

Iurii held the Vladimir throne for four years (1318-22), but he did so uneasily and only with repeated military assistance from the horde. In 1322, Khan Uzbek restored the throne of Vladimir to the legitimate heir, as determined by the dynasty's norms of succession, Mikhail's son Dmitrii. Iurii prepared to protest and also present a large treasure, which he gathered in Novgorod, to the khan. But Dmitrii's brother Aleksandr robbed Iurii while he was travelling to the horde. When Iurii finally reached the horde in 1325, Dmitrii murdered him. Uzbek, in turn, condemned Dmitrii to death for his crime. But he transferred the patent for Vladimir to the next legitimate candidate according to the dynasty's norms of succession, Dmitrii's brother Aleksandr Mikhailovich.[36]

The dynasty's candidate lost the khan's favour, however, two years later when the population of Tver' staged a revolt against the khan's envoy who had led a force to that city, possibly to gather funds and recruits for a military campaign against the Ilkhans of Persia.[37] When Iurii's brother Ivan Daniilovich then presented himself before Uzbek, the khan sent an army back to north­eastern Russia with him. Joined as well by Prince Aleksandr Vasil'evich of Suzdal', Ivan launched a campaign against Tver'. Aleksandr Mikhailovich fled to Pskov (1327).[38] But when Metropolitan Feognost (Theognostos) excom­municated the entire population of the town for harbouring the fugitive, he moved on to Lithuania (1329). Aleksandr returned to Pskov in 1331 and served as its prince until 1337. He then once again visited the horde and recovered the throne of Tver'. Two years later, however, he was recalled to the horde and executed.[39]

After Aleksandr Mikhailovich lost the throne of Vladimir in 1327, the polit­ical, dynastic legacy inherited by north-eastern Russia from Kievan Rus' lost its potency. The norms of seniority and succession, which had been hon­oured by the Riurikids in north-eastern Russia as in all of Kievan Rus' for centuries and which had combined with the khan's patent to provide legiti­macy for the grand prince, were overruled. They were replaced by the khan's favour, which became the exclusive basis for the selection and retention of the highest political position in north-eastern Russia. Although Uzbek may have divided the principality of Vladimir and Novgorod between Ivan Daniilovich and Aleksandr Vasil'evich of Suzdal' in 1328, by 1331 Ivan Daniilovich was the sole grand prince of Vladimir.[40] Uzbek and his successors with rare exceptions bestowed the position on the Daniilovichi, the princes of Moscow. Thus, Ivan Daniilovich, also known as Ivan I Kalita ('Money-bag'), possessed the throne exclusively from 1331 until his death in 1341. Despite recurrent dynastic opposi­tion, which arose not only from the princes of Tver' but also from princes of Beloozero, Iaroslavl' and Suzdal' as well as from Novgorod, he was succeeded by his sons Semen (1341-53) and Ivan II (1353-9).

Territorial reorientation

As the princes of Vladimir developed close ties with Sarai and particularly as the princes of Moscow gained ascendancy in the principality, the bonds linking north-eastern Russia with the western and south-western portions of Kievan Rus' weakened. As they concentrated their attention more exclu­sively on northern Russia, the Daniilovichi also began the process of gathering patrimonial principalities within Vladimir and Rostov under their authority.

The bonds linking north-eastern and south-western Russia had noticeably loosened even before the Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus'. In the immediate aftermath of the invasion, however, Kiev continued for a brief period to be recognised as the symbolic political centre of the realm. Iaroslav, possibly as the first Rus' prince to present himself before Baty, may have been given a patent not only for Vladimir-Suzdal', but also for Kiev.⁴⁵ When Aleksandr and Andrei returned from Karakorum, Aleksandr had a mandate for the throne of Kiev. But the north-eastern princes no longer recognised the centrality of Kiev. While Andrei, presumably on the authority of the great khan, claimed the throne of Vladimir and evicted their uncle Sviatoslav, Aleksandr went to Novgorod. He never physically went to Kiev to assume his post.⁴⁶

Although the princes of Vladimir refrained from occupying the throne of Kiev and focused their attention on their north-eastern realm, they did retain personal and political ties with the princes in other parts of Kievan Rus'. Their relationships manifested themselves in a variety of ways. Prince Boris Vasil'kovich of Rostov, for example, displayed solidarity with Chernigov by attending his grandfather, Prince Mikhail, in Sarai in 1246.⁴⁷ Prince Fedor Rostislavich of Mozhaisk, the brother of Prince Gleb of Smolensk, married into the Rostov clan and c.1260 became the prince of Iaroslavl'.⁴⁸

The most dramatic demonstration of such associations, however, was the alliance forged between Prince Andrei of Vladimir and Prince Danylo (Daniil) of Galicia-Volynia. Prince Danylo had been confirmed in his position after visiting Khan Baty in 1245. He nevertheless sought assistance against the Tatars from his Western neighbours. Aided by his candidate for metropolitan, Kirill (Cyril), he arrangedthe marriage ofhis son Leo to the daughter of King Bela IV of Hungary. Danylo himself married the niece of the Lithuanian king (1251).⁴⁹ He also established close ties with Andrei of Vladimir. In 1250, Kirill, having been confirmed as metropolitan, travelled to northern Russia. He escorted

45 PSRL, vol. ii: Ipat'evskaialetopis'(Moscow: Iazyki russkoikul'tury 1998), col. 806; Fennell, Crisis, p. 100.

46 PSRL, vol. i, col. 472; PSRL, vol. iii, pp. 80, 304; PSRL, vol. x, p. 137; Fennell, Crisis, p. 107; Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 147; Kuchkin, Formirovaniegosudarstvennoi territorii, p. 111.

47 PSRL, vol. iii, p. 301.

48 PSRL, vol. x, pp. 153-4; Gail Lenhoff, Early Russian Hagiography: The Lives of Prince Fedor the Black (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997), pp. 41-52; Fennell, Crisis, pp. 121-2 n. 2, 125, 143.

49 Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 156.

Danylo's daughter to Vladimir, where she married Prince Andrei in 1251.[41]Andrei's refusal to pay homage to the khan the following year was perceived as an act of defiance undertaken in alliance with Prince Danylo. The Tatars sent armies against both princes.[42] Defeated at Pereiaslavl'-Zalesskii in 1252, Prince Andrei fled the country. Danylo persisted in his efforts to muster support from the West. He subsequently accepted a crown from Pope Innocent IV and entertained the possibility of uniting the Church in Galicia-Volynia with Rome in return for aid.[43] But when military support did not materialise, he abandoned those ties. By 1256, he was again at war with the Mongols and was forced to flee to Poland and Hungary in 1260.[44] Danylo received no assistance from the Riurikids of north-eastern Russia. By that time Andrei had returned from exile and accepted a submissive role towards his brother and the Mongols. Metropolitan Kirill too had shifted his allegiance to Prince Aleksandr Nevskii and spent long periods away from Kiev in Vladimir.[45]

Although active political co-operation between north-eastern and south­western Russia ended with the defeat of the allies, Andrei and Danylo, other princes ofthe two regions maintained relationships. Prince Iaroslav Iaroslavich, prince of Tver' and grand prince ofVladimir (1263-71/2), arranged a marriage for his daughter with Iurii of Galicia. Tver' also developed ties with Lithua­nia, its expanding Western neighbour. Prince Iaroslav's grandson Dmitrii Mikhailovich, who served as grand prince ofVladimir from 1322 to 1325, mar­ried Maria, the daughter of Gedimin of Lithuania. The Daniilovichi of Moscow did not maintain such relations. As they eclipsed the Tver' princes, the range of political interest and involvement of the Vladimir princes narrowed from Kievan Rus' as a whole and its western frontiers to their own domain in north­ern Russia. [46]

From the late thirteenth century Prince Daniil of Moscow and his heirs also began to reverse the trend of territorial fragmentation by attaching the patrimonial principalities of other Vsevolodichi to their own domain. The tendency to create patrimonial principalities had begun before the Mongol invasion. Rostov had become the realm of Konstantin Vsevolodich and his descendants. The trend continued after the invasion. The number of sub­divisions within Vladimir-Suzdal' as well as principalities detached from it multiplied. When Prince Iaroslav Vsevolodich succeeded his brother Iurii, he distributed territories to his nephews. During Aleksandr's reign Iur'ev Pol'skii, which had originally been assigned to Prince Sviatoslav Vsevolodich in 1213, was recognised as a hereditary principality. Upon Sviatoslav's death in 1253, it passed to his son Dmitrii.[47] Pereiaslavl'-Zalesskii became the domain of Alek- sandr Nevskii's son Dmitrii, and Moscow was apparently reserved for his son Daniil. Suzdal' was given to Prince Andrei after his return from his exile in

1255.[48]

Between I238 and I300, according to V. A. Kuchkin, eight new principalities were carved out of the north-eastern Russian territories to make a total of fourteen.[49] Some of these principalities became inherited domains, possessed by the descendants of the princes who had received them in these distribu­tions. Thus, Tver' became the realm of the dynastic branch descending from Iaroslav Iaroslavich; Moscow similarly became the possession of the heirs of Daniil Aleksandrovich. Other principalities did not become separate, heredi­tary principalities. Kostroma, for example, was considered a distinct principal­ity by the I250s and ruled by Prince Vasilii Iaroslavich, who also became grand prince of Vladimir in 1272. When he died in 1277, however, Kostroma ceased to be a separate apanage.[50]

The indefinite status of some principalities gave the princes of Moscow an opportunity to obtain permanent possession of them. The process began in the late thirteenth century, before the princes of Moscow made a bid for the throne of Vladimir. The status of the principality of Pereiaslavl'-Zalesskii, as noted above, was a matter of contention. It had been ruled by Prince Dmitrii Aleksandrovich, who had also been Prince of Vladimir. Despite the challenges from his brother Andrei for the Vladimir throne, Dmitrii had retained his authority in Pereiaslavl'-Zalesskii. When he died in 1294, his son Ivan succeeded him there. But Andrei did not recognise it as the patrimonial principality of Dmitrii and his sons and claimed it as a possession of the grand principality. The dispute persisted for a decade. Although Andrei repeatedly appealed to

Khan Tokhta for assistance, Princes Mikhail of Tver' and Daniil of Moscow successfully secured the town for Ivan Dmitr'evich at princely conferences assembled in 1296 and 1300 and militarily defended his position. When Ivan Dmitr'evich died in 1302, Daniil's forces prevented Grand Prince Andrei from taking control of the town. After Daniil also died in 1303, the town accepted his son Iurii as its prince. Pereiaslavl'-Zalesskii remained a possession of the house of Moscow until Iurii's brother, Ivan I Kalita, died in 1341. It was then once again regarded as a component of the grand principality, which by then was ruled by the princes of Moscow.⁶⁰

Daniil and his son Iurii also added Serpukhov, Kolomna and Mozhaisk to their domain. They thereby not only tripled its size, but also gained con­trol over the entire length of the Moskva (Moscow) River and the section of the Oka River extending from Kolomna to Serpukhov.⁶¹ Although Iurii was unable to establish his authority in Kostroma in 1304, the principality became subject to the Moscow princes after they gained the throne of Vladimir, to which Kostroma was attached.⁶² By acquiring these principalities, the Moscow princes increased the size of their own domain and gained control over the strategic and economic assets they contained. By taking possession of territo­ries associated with the Vladimir throne, they also symbolically strengthened their claim to that position.

Prince Ivan I Kalita was credited by his grandson Dmitrii Donskoi with purchasing more principalities, specifically Beloozero and Uglich, which were subdivisions of the Rostov principality, and Galich.⁶³ There is some evidence suggesting that Ivan sent his officials to oversee Rostov as well.⁶⁴ Although some scholars doubt that Ivan actually purchased these territories, he did arrange marriages of his daughters to princes of Beloozero, Iaroslavl' and Rostov and thereby established personal seniority, at least, over three major lines within the Rostov branch of the dynasty.⁶⁵ Kalita's heirs added territories north-east of Moscow (Iur'ev Pol'skii) and west of the city (the districts of Vereia and Borovsk) to their domain as well.

60 Cherepnin, Obrazovanie, pp. 459-60; Vernadsky, Mongols, pp. 193-4; Fennell, Crisis, pp. 151-2.

61 Fennell, Emergence, pp. 50-1; Crummey, The Formation of Muscovy, p. 35; Cherepnin, Obrazovanie, pp. 459-60; Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 193.

62 Fennell, Crisis, pp. 127-8; Fennell, Emergence, pp. 62,112.

63 WladimirVodoff, 'Aproposdes "achats" (kupli) d'Ivan Ier de Moscou', Journal des Savants (1974): 95-6; A. I. Kopanev, 'O "kupliakh" Ivana Kality', IZ 20 (1946): 24-37; Fennell, Emergence, pp. 177, 182-4, 191-3; Crummey The Formation of Muscovy, p. 49; Borisov 'Moskovskie kniaz'ia', 35; Cherepnin, Obrazovanie, pp. 510-11.

64 Ibid., p. 509.

65 Vodoff,A propos des "achats"', 109, 123; Kopanev, 'O kupliakh', 27; Fennell, Emergence, pp. 177, 180-4,193, 245; Cherepnin, Obrazovanie, p. 509.

In addition to their concerns with north-eastern Russia the grand princes of Vladimir consistently sought to maintain their position as prince of Novgorod. One of the first acts undertaken by Prince Iaroslav Vsevolodich upon assuming the position of grand prince of Vladimir in the midst of the crisis caused by the Mongol invasion was to send his son, Aleksandr Nevskii, to Novgorod. Nevskii undertook a vigorous defence of Novgorod and its neighbour Pskov against Lithuania, which had absorbed Polotsk and was encroaching upon Smolensk. Nevskii defeated Lithuania in 1245 and again in 1248.[51]

But Novgorod was not the hereditary domain of the Vsevolodichi or any other branch of the Riurikid dynasty. Although it had been accepting the princes of Vladimir from the early thirteenth century, it had a long history of selecting and ejecting princes. Thus, when it became dissatisfied with Grand Prince Iaroslav Iaroslavich and tried to evict him as its prince in 1270, it invited another prince, Dmitrii Aleksandrovich, to take his place. Dmitrii declined at that time.[52] But after Iaroslav died (1271 / 2), he did take the Novgorodian throne in defiance of his uncle Vasilii Iaroslavich, who had become grand prince of Vladimir and was obliged to wage war to secure the Novgorodian throne for

himself.[53]

By the fourteenth century, however, Novgorod's continuing efforts to con­trol the appointment of its princes and to limit their authority enabled the princes of Moscow to extend their influence over it. In 1304, Novgorod opposed Mikhail Iaroslavich of Tver' when he became grand prince and sent his gover­nors to represent his authority there. Although Mikhail successfully imposed his rule on Novgorod by 1307, the relationship was an uneasy one. In 1312, the year before he presented himself to the new khan Uzbek, Mikhail was once again engaged in hostilities with Novgorod, which he commercially blockaded in order to force its submission.

Novgorod's discontent with Mikhail provided Prince Iurii Daniilovich of Moscow with an opportunity, which he skilfully exploited. As a result Nov­gorod became involved in the rivalry between the Tver' and Moscow princes that lasted through the first three decades of the fourteenth century. While Mikhail was attending Uzbek, Novgorod invited Iurii to become its prince. Mikhail returned and, supported by a Tatar military force, was engaged in a lengthy process of forcing Novgorod to submit to him when Uzbek appointed Iurii grand prince. Even when Mikhail defeated Iurii's army in 1317, Iurii retreated to Novgorod. During the four years he served as grand prince, Iurii continued to devote himself to Novgorod and spent a major portion of his time there rather than in north-eastern Russia. His preoccupation with Nov­gorod gave his new rival, Dmitrii Mikhailovich, grounds to appeal to Uzbek to reverse himself once again and return the grand princely throne to the prince of Tver'. Dmitrii's plea was guaranteed a favourable response when his brother Aleksandr robbed Iurii of the treasure he had collected in Nov­gorod and was delivering to the khan (1322). Following that episode, Iurii again returned to Novgorod. He spent the years i323 and i324 serving its interests. He built a fortress at Orekhov on Lake Ladoga, concluded a treaty between Novgorod and the Swedes and led an expedition against Ustiug, which had blocked Novgorodians' transit to and from their north-eastern possessions. When he finally returned to the horde with a new treasure in 1325, he was killed by Prince Dmitrii.[54]

The critical importance of Novgorod in this political rivalry derived from its commercial wealth, which was the source of silver that the khan demanded in tribute. By the fourteenth century responsibility for collecting and delivering tribute was passing from the baskaki to the grand prince of Vladimir.[55] By successfully gathering and delivering the tribute as well as rich gifts for the khan and other influential Tatar notables a prince could gain credibility and the khan's favour. Failing to do so gave the khan reason to transfer the patent for the grand principality and the responsibility for delivering the tribute that accompanied that honour to another prince. Iurii's attention to Novgorodian affairs reflected his determination to control the sector of the economy that could satisfy the khan's demand for tribute. By securing Novgorod's supplies of luxury fur transported from the distant north-east through Ustiug and the trade routes used by the Swedes and Germans who bought those furs with silver, he supported Novgorod's commercial activities and gained access to its wealth.

When Ivan Daniilovich became grand prince of Vladimir, he too became deeply involved with Novgorod, from which he collected not only regular tribute payments but special assessments. Possibly in response to the Golden Horde's demand for increased revenue prompted by its wars against Ilkhans of Persia during the 1330s, Ivan placed greater pressure on Novgorod. In 1332, just after he received the sole patent for the grand principality, he demanded a special payment from Novgorod (zakamskoe serebro) and forced it to comply by setting up a blockade that cut off its contacts with north-eastern Russia.

Novgorod for the first time turned to Lithuania for a prince and welcomed Narimunt, the son ofGedimin, to the city. It again recognised Ivan as its prince only in i334-5. Ivan also applied pressure on Novgorod's northern empire. Whereas Iurii had compelled Ustiug to keep the transit route to the north­east open for Novgorod's benefit, Ivan attacked Ustiug as well as Novgorod to collect tribute. In 1337, he also sent forces against Novgorod's possession, the North Dvina land. In 1339, Ivan once again demanded unusually high contributions from Novgorod, prompting a renewal oftheir conflict that lasted until after Ivan's death in 1341.[56]

Despite Novgorod's resistance, the first Daniilovichi gained and held dom­inance over that city and thus had access to its wealth. There is broad schol­arly agreement that the Moscow princes' control over Novgorod's supplies of goods, such as luxury fur, as well as the silver that it received for them enabled them to pay the tribute demanded by the Golden Horde khans. The khans responded by awarding the post of grand prince of Vladimir to the Daniilovichi, who had thus demonstrated their reliability.[57]

By the end of the reign of Grand Prince Ivan I Kalita the territorial orienta­tion of the princes ofVladimir had been substantially altered. Their ties with western and south-western Russia were reduced. They concentrated their attention on north-eastern Russia, on Novgorod, and on the Golden Horde. The Daniilovichi, furthermore, had begun to expand their territories and extend their authority over patrimonial principalities in north-eastern Russia. They thus began to stem the tendency to divide the principalities ofVladimir and Rostov into multiple principalities that had prevailed in the thirteenth century. By curtailing the fragmentation and accumulating territories under their own authority, the Daniilovich princes subordinated and weakened their dynastic opponents while also gaining access to a larger pool of economic and human resources. They were better able to collect taxes, to assemble and support more military retainers, and to enforce the Mongol demand for tribute.

In addition to extending their authority over patrimonial principalities in north-eastern Russia, the Daniilovichi sought the position of prince of Nov­gorod. An important source of wealth, Novgorod was the object of contention between the princes of Tver' and the princes of Moscow. Even before the

Daniilovichi secured the throne of Vladimir they gained favour in Novgorod by defending its commercial interests and securing its trade routes. But while Iurii Daniilovich, who was competing with the princes of Tver', pursued such policies in the service of Novgorod's need to keep its routes open, Ivan Dani­ilovich did so to control Novgorod and its commercial resources.

Although in their capacity of grand princes of Vladimir and princes of Nov­gorod the Daniilovichi engaged in military campaigns against the Swedes and the Livonian Order, their focus was not on the western frontier of the Russian lands. While they were engaged in their struggle with the princes of Tver' and winning the support of the Golden Horde khans for the throne of Vladimir, Prince Gedimin of Lithuania (1316-41) was extending his influence over west­ern Russian principalities. Smolensk, Chernigov and Kiev all pledged their allegiance to him and his successor, Ol'gerd (1345-77). After Iurii II of Galicia and Volynia died in 1340, Volynia also fell under Lithuanian control. Gedimin also arranged the marriage of his daughter to Dmitrii Mikhailovich of Tver' (1320) and responded to Pskov's request for a prince (1323). When Novgorod turned to Lithuania for Prince Narimunt in 1332, it was clear that Novgorod too was considering Lithuania as an alternative to Vladimir. Lithuania's expansion was penetrating into north-western Russia and challenging the pre-eminence of the princes of Moscow.[58]

The Church

Although the Golden Horde had confirmed Iurii Dolgorukii's heirs as the ruling dynastic branch in Vladimir, it negated the Kievan Rus' legacy when it appointed the Daniilovichi to be grand princes of Vladimir. The Daniilovichi adopted policies, furthermore, that weakened bonds with the other princi­palities that had formed Kievan Rus' while they consolidated their authority within the territorial framework of northern Russia. In contrast to the dynasty, the Church, the other institution that had given identity and definition to Kievan Rus', did not narrow its range of interests or its field of operations. Its metropolitans continued to regard the Orthodox population throughout all the lands of Kievan Rus' as their flock and resisted efforts to divide their ecclesiastical realm.

The first metropolitans to head the Russian Church after the Mongol inva­sion were Kirill (Cyril; 1242-80/1) and Maksim (Maximus; 1282/3-1305). Despite the reported destruction of the city, Kiev remained their base of operation until the end of the century. Their activities and concerns, however, cov­ered the entire see. Thus, Kirill, although nominated for his office by Prince Danylo of Galicia, travelled throughout his domain during his tenure in office. He was reported to have been in north-eastern Russia on at least six occa­sions. He was in Vladimir to welcome Aleksandr Nevskii on his return to the city in 1252 and he officiated at Nevskii's funeral in 1263; Kirill himself died in Pereiaslavl'-Zalesskii. When not travelling, he remained at Kiev; after his death his body was returned there.[59] Maksim similarly served all sec­tors of his domain.[60] In 1299, Maksim moved the metropolitan's residence to Vladimir.[61]

Like the princes ofVladimir, the metropolitans attempted to accommodate the Golden Horde. In 1261, Metropolitan Kirill arranged for a new bishopric to be established at Sarai. Shortly after Mangu Temir became khan, he issued spe­cial privileges to the Church, relieving its personnel from tax obligations and military service. Clergy, in return, prayed for the khan, and thereby acknowl­edged him as the legitimate suzerain of their people.[62] In the 1340s, Metropoli­tan Feognost was obliged to deal with alterations in Church privileges made by KhanJanibek.[63]

But unlike the north-eastern Russian princes, who reduced their interaction with western and south-western Russian principalities and reoriented their political focus to northern Russia and the Golden Horde, Maksim and his suc­cessors, Petr (1308-25), Feognost (1328-53) and Aleksei (1354-78), became pre­occupied with preserving the integrity of their ecclesiastical realm. Attempts to divide the Rus' metropolitanate were initiated soon after Maksim vacated Kiev. The first challenge to the see's unity came from Galicia c.1303, when a metropolitanate was created for the bishoprics in south-western Rus'.[64] It was short-lived. When Prince Iurii L'vovich of Galicia, Danylo's grandson, pro­posed Petr as his nominee to become the second metropolitan ofthat see, his candidate was selected instead to succeed Maksim (d. 1305) as the metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus'. The Galician metropolitanate dissolved and with Galicia's candidate at its head the metropolitanate of Kiev and all Rus' was reunited.[65]Petr maintained that unity. But the Galician challenge did not permanently disappear. Towards the end of Petr's life, the Galician metropolitanate was re-established (1325). The new Russian metropolitan Feognost, however, reclaimed the south-western bishoprics when he passed through Galicia on his way to Vladimir (1327). He successfully defeated yet another attempt to form a separate see for the Galician bishoprics by travelling to that region in 1331, just months after the metropolitanate was re-established, and then to Constantinople in 1332. In 1341 a Galician metropolitanate, which lasted until 1347, formed once again, prompting Metropolitan Feognost to continue to devote his energies to abolishing it.[66]

In addition to the recurrent threat that the Galician bishoprics would be detached from the Kievan metropolitanate, a second challenge arose from Lithuania. By the second quarter of the fourteenth century Lithuania was incorporating Orthodox lands that had been parts of Kievan Rus'. During the reigns of Gedimin (1316-41) and Ol'gerd (1345-77) Lithuania extended its authority over Smolensk, Chernigov, and Kiev itself. After Iurii II of Galicia and Volynia died in 1340, Volynia also fell under Lithuanian control. Lithua­nia, which had provided Novgorod with Prince Narimunt in 1332, was exer­cising influence not only over Novgorod, but also Pskov and Tver'.[67] In conjunction with the extension of Lithuanian authority over the Orthodox populations of these principalities, a separate metropolitanate was created c.1315-19. When its metropolitan Theophilus (Feofil) died in 1330, no successor was named. Feognost, who was in Constantinople in 1332, may have influ­enced the decision to leave the post vacant.[68] In 1352, on the eve of Feog- nost's death, Lithuania urged the renewal of its own metropolitanate. When its appeals met little sympathy in Constantinople, the Patriarch of Trnovo (Bulgaria) consecrated Theodoret as metropolitan for Lithuania.[69] Theodoret claimed jurisdiction over all the Orthodox bishoprics within the lands ruled by Ol'gerd, including Kiev. Although Theodoret was formally deposed and excommunicated by the Patriarch of Constantinople, he continued to func­tion as metropolitan in the Lithuanian see until 1354, when Constantinople confirmed Aleksei as metropolitan of Rus' and also named a new metropoli­tan, Roman, for Lithuania (1355).[70] Roman included Kiev, which recognised Lithuanian suzerainty, in his ecclesiastical realm as well. Aleksei undertook intensive efforts to recover the Lithuanian bishoprics. They included trips to Constantinople and Kiev, where he was detained for two years. The metropoli- tanate of Kiev and all Rus', nevertheless, remained divided until Roman died in 1362.[71]

Thus, while the princes of Moscow were challenging Prince Mikhail Iaroslavich and his sons for the Vladimir throne and ingratiating themselves with the khan at Sarai to overrule the dynastic traditions guiding seniority and succession, the metropolitans were reaffirming the Kievan Rus' heritage as a basis for maintaining the unity of their see and were appealing to the patriarchs of Constantinople to support their position.

Although not necessarily motivated by the same goals as the Daniilovichi, some actions undertaken by the metropolitans aided the princes of Moscow in achieving political dominance in north-eastern Russia. In a general way the metropolitans' recognition of the Mongol khan as the suzerain of the Russian lands obliged them to accept the khans' decrees, including their choice of prince for Vladimir. Petr, who became metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus' when the patriarch selected him over the candidature of Prince Mikhail of Tver', is frequently regarded as a partisan of the Moscow princes.[72] Tensions between Petr, on the one hand, and Mikhail of Tver', who had also recently become the grand prince of Vladimir, and Andrei, the bishop of Tver', were intense. They reached a peak when Bishop Andrei brought charges of simony against Petr at a Church council, attended by a representative of the patriarch and the bishop of Rostov, in late 1310 or early 1311.[73] Petr's preference for Moscow was evident in his unofficial transfer of the metropolitan's seat to Moscow[74] and, most visibly, in his collaboration with Ivan Daniilovich in the construction of the church of the Dormition (1325), where he was buried.[75] When, soon after his death (December 1325), he was recognised as a saint, Moscow became the centre of his cult.[76] There is no record, however, as N. S. Borisov has pointed out, that Petr gave assistance to the Moscow princes between 1315 and 1325, the height of their conflict with the Tver' princes.[77]

Feognost's activities also contributed to Moscow's success at the expense of Tver'. When Prince Aleksandr fled to Pskov after the Tver' uprising in 1327, the metropolitan excommunicated the Pskov population for giving sanctuary to Aleksandr. His decision to take action against Aleksandr may have been motivated by Tver''s close ties to Lithuania, where his rival Metropolitan Theophilus claimed jurisdiction over the south-western Russian bishoprics.[78]His action nevertheless added the Church's approval to the khan's removal of the Tver' prince from the grand-princely throne. It thus provided another base of legitimacy to the transfer of that position to the Daniilovichi. By 1354, when Moscow formally became the seat of the metropolitanate, the city was rapidly becoming the ecclesiastical centre of north-eastern Russia.

Whereas these acts appeared to support the Moscow princes in their feud with the Tver' princes, others undertaken by the metropolitans were, if not politically neutral, at least not consistently biased in favour of north-eastern Russia orthe Daniilovichi. Donald Ostrowskihas suggested that Maksim aban­doned Kiev to avoid the dangers associated with the conflict between Nogai and Tokhta in the late thirteenth century. The decision to settle in Vladimir was made in the midst of his flight from Kiev, not to heighten the prestige of any particular princely branch in north-eastern Rus'.[79] N. S. Borisov pointed out that Metropolitan Maksim unsuccessfully tried to discourage Prince Iurii of Moscow from challenging the succession of Mikhail of Tver' in 1304.[80] He also argued that Metropolitans Petr, Feognost and Aleksei did not consistently lend their support to the Muscovite princes. Although the Moscow princes may have benefited politically from some of their actions, the metropolitans' motives were rooted in other concerns. Thus, when Feognost, who was just beginning his career in the Russian lands, excommunicated Prince Aleksandr Mikhailovich, he was acting out of obligation to the Mongol khan, not out of loyalty to Aleksandr's Muscovite rival. Similarly, at the end of his career, when he supported Aleksei to be his successor, he did so not because Aleksei, a boyar by origin, would loyally serve the Muscovite prince, but because he valued Aleksei's ties to both north-eastern and south-western Russia. Borisov similarly drew attention to actions undertaken by the metropolitans that did not serve the interests of the Muscovite princes. Feognost's absence at the consecration of churches identified with the transformation of Moscow into an ecclesiastical centre; his dissociation from the canonisation of Petr, who as a metropolitan and a saint was linked to Moscow; and his disapproval of Semen's third marriage, which was designed to improve Moscow's relations with Tver', are all examples of Feognost's political and ideological aloofness from the interests of the Muscovite princes.[81]

Although some actions undertaken by the metropolitans had the political effect of aiding the princes of Moscow in their quest for the throne of Vladimir, the Church and the Daniilovich branch of the dynasty did not share the same political agenda, nor were they consistent allies before 1359. This conclusion contrasts with the view articulated by A. E. Presniakov and adopted by a range of other scholars that emphasises close co-operation between the metropoli­tans and the Daniilovich princes.[82] Even after the metropolitans relocated the seat of the metropolitanate from Kiev to Vladimir and then to Moscow and even though they took part in Vladimir's domestic and dynastic politics, there were significant differences between dynastic and ecclesiastic outlooks and policies. In contrast to the princes of Vladimir who narrowed the range of their political attention to northern Russia, the metropolitans maintained a broader perspective. They continued to concern themselves with their entire ecclesiastic realm. Also, in contrast to the princes, who depended upon the khans for support and were closely linked with Sarai politically and commer­cially, the metropolitans engaged in relations not only with Sarai but contin­ued to look to the Patriarch in Constantinople for guidance and support. The metropolitans' primary objective was not rooted in Vladimir, nor did it revolve around the Daniilovichi; it was to maintain the integrity of their see, to prevent its division in conjunction with changing secular political boundaries.

North-eastern Russia in the mid-fourteenth century

By the middle of the fourteenth century the Daniilovichi had secured the position of grand prince of Vladimir. With the support of Khan Uzbek they were able to overcome the princes of Tver' and Ivan I Kalita had ascended the Vladimir throne. After both Ivan I and Uzbek died in 1341, Uzbek's successors, Tinibek (1341-2), Janibek (1342-57) and Berdibek (1357-9), placed Ivan's sons Semen (1341-53) and Ivan II (1353-9) on the throne of Vladimir. In the absence of firm support from the Church and other branches of the dynasty, which could have provided domestic sources of legitimacy for their rule, the princes of Moscow depended on the khans of the Golden Horde to hold their position.

Dynastic reluctance to accept the seniority ofthe Moscow princes persisted during and after the reign of Ivan I Kalita. Despite Uzbek's preference for the Daniilovichi, other Riurikid princes, clinging to dynastic tradition, with­held their support. Thus, when Aleksandr Mikhailovich appeared before Khan Uzbek in 1339, the princes of Beloozero and Iaroslavl' accompanied him. Alek­sandr was executed during this visit.⁹⁸ The fate of the Beloozero prince is unknown. But the prince of Iaroslavl', Vasilii Davydovich, joined the princes of Tver' and Suzdal' in 1341 to oppose the appointment of Semen Ivanovich to the grand-princely throne.⁹⁹ In 1353, Novgorod nominated the same prince of Suzdal', Konstantin Vasil'evich, to become grand prince of Vladimir. Khan Janibek nevertheless granted the patent for the throne to Semen's brother, Ivan Ivanovich of Moscow.¹⁰⁰

To neutralise his dynastic opponents Ivan I Kalita had arranged marriages for his daughters with members of their families. He followed the prece­dent of his brother Iurii who in 1320 had given his daughter in marriage to Konstantin Mikhailovich, the brother of his rivals Dmitrii and Aleksandr Mikhailovich of Tver'.¹⁰¹ After Aleksandr fled from Tver' in 1327 until at least

98 PSRL, vol. x, pp. 208-11; PSRL, vol. iii, pp. 349-50; PSRL, vol. xv, cols. 418-20; Fennell, Emergence, pp. 244-5.

99 Ibid., pp. 181 n. 2, 213, 225.

100 PSRL, vol. iii, p. 363.

101 PSRL, vol. xv, cols. 413-14.

I339, Konstantin ruled his principality in harmony with his wife's uncle, Grand Prince Ivan I Kalita.[83] Ivan I, similarly, gave one daughter in marriage to Prince Konstantin Vasil'evich of Rostov (1328). After the demonstration of support for Aleksandr of Tver' by the princes of Iaroslavl' and Beloozero in 1339, Ivan I arranged for two other daughters to marry the sons ofthe offending princes. By becoming their father-in-law, Ivan I gained personal seniority over members of those dynastic lines that were most resistant to accepting him as the senior member of the dynasty.[84] In 1347, his son Semen attempted to use the same technique to increase his influence in Tver', which after the death of Prince Konstantin Mikhailovich in 1346 was experiencing inter-princely feuds and civil strife. But Metropolitan Feognost refused to sanction the grand prince's third marriage. Semen's marriage to the daughter of the late Prince Aleksandr Mikhailovich thus took place under the shadow of the Church's disapproval.[85]

Semen and Ivan II were also less successful in the pursuit of the policy of territorial aggrandisement that their grandfather Daniil, their uncle Iurii and their father Ivan had fashioned to gain and consolidate their power in Vladimir. The extension of the Muscovite princes' authority over patrimonial principalities and Novgorod had enriched the assets available to them. They had a broader tax base as well as a larger pool from which to attract military retainers and courtiers.[86] Nevertheless, by the reign of Ivan II, expansion was checked. The Daniilovichi appeared to have a firm hold on the position of grand prince ofVladimir. Within their own patrimonial possessions, they kept to a minimum the internal subdivisions that characterised Rostov and in the 1340s also plagued Tver'. But, the authority of the grand prince ofVladimir was sharply delimited in the mid-fourteenth century. Neither his marriage nor his position of grand prince ofVladimir gave Semen authority over Tver'. Suzdal', which with the approval of Khans Uzbek and Janibek merged with Nizhnii Novgorod to form another grand principality in 1341, similarly continued to function independently and challenge the primacy of the Daniilovich princes ofVladimir. Riazan', which had previously displayed deference to its northern neighbour, engaged Moscow in a border dispute by challenging Moscow's control over the stretch of the Oka River between Kolomna and Serpukhov, which Moscow had incorporated early in the fourteenth century. The princes of Rostov and Iaroslavl' were also trying to remove themselves from Semen's authority.[87]

Semen and Ivan II were also losing the loyalty of Novgorod. The dispute that arose in 1339 between Novgorod and Ivan I Kalita was resolved only after Ivan's death by his son Semen, who threatened Novgorod by sending an army to its borders and obliged it to make a special payment to Moscow. Semen himself only arrived in Novgorod to claim its throne in 1346. Whereas Semen and Ivan II demanded high payments from Novgorod, they did not fulfil their obligations to defend Novgorodto the city's satisfaction. Just as Ivan I had failed to defend Novgorod from Swedish attacks in 1337-8, so Semen provided little effective aid a decade later when Lithuania and Sweden attacked Novgorodian territories in 1346 and 1348, respectively. Although he dispatched his brother to fight the Swedes, who had seized the fortress at Orekhov, which Prince Iurii Daniilovich had erected in 1323, Ivan Ivanovich left Novgorod without embarking on the intended campaign. The Novgorodians recovered Orekhov in February 1349 without assistance from Moscow and only after a six-month siege. They similarly launched their counter-offensive against the Swedish post at Vyborg, which led to a cessation of hostilities between Novgorod and Sweden, without support from the grand prince of Vladimir. Indeed, Iurii Daniilovich had been the last prince to actually lead Novgorod's armies.[88]As a result Novgorod not only objected to the succession of Ivan II to the grand princely throne, but delayed its own acceptance of him as its prince, then basically conducted its affairs without reference to him.[89]

By the time Ivan II died in 1359, the two institutions that had defined Kievan Rus', the Riurikid dynasty and the Orthodox Church, continued to shape north-eastern Russia. But under the suzerainty of the Golden Horde the dynasty in particular had changed significantly. The Daniilovichi, the Moscow branch of the dynasty, illegitimate by traditional standards, held the throne of the grand principality of Vladimir. Their political position was dependent upon the good will and the power of the khans of the Golden Horde. The grand princes accordingly curtailed relations with the south-western Russian principalities, which entered the political sphere of Lithuania, and geared their policies to accommodate the Golden Horde. They strove to dominate tribute collection and control trade as well as to increase the size and strength of their own court and military retinue. The authority of the Daniilovichi over north-eastern Russia was nevertheless circumscribed. They lacked control over the grand principalities of Tver' and Suzdal'-Nizhnii Novgorod as well as Riazan', their neighbour to the south. In addition, Lithuania was demon­strating influence over Novgorod and north-eastern principalities that had previously accepted the leadership of the grand prince of Vladimir.

The Church similarly retained its authority. But unlike the princes of Moscow, the metropolitans attempted to sustain the ecclesiastic unity of all sectors of Kievan Rus'. They repeatedly sought to suppress efforts undertaken by Galicia and Lithuania to divide the metropolitanate of Kiev and all Rus'. Rather than cut ties with south-western Russia, the metropolitans continued to travel to those areas as well as to Constantinople and Sarai. They maintained a broad focus that encompassed the entire Orthodox population inherited from Kievan Rus'.

In 1359, Khan Berdibek was overthrown and the Golden Horde entered a twenty-year period of political turbulence. The base of support upon which Daniilovich authority in north-eastern Russia rested was, correspondingly, destabilised. The heir of Ivan II, his young son Dmitrii, could turn neither to other princes, who had not fully accepted the legitimacy of the Daniilovichi, nor to Metropolitan Aleksei, whose preoccupation with the division of his see had drawn him away from Moscow, to compensate for the weakening of support provided by the Golden Horde. With the Golden Horde in disarray and without reliable support from domestic sources, the dynasty and the Church, the future of Dmitrii Ivanovich and the continued pre-eminence of the House of Moscow in both Vladimir and north-eastern Russia were in jeopardy.

The emergence of Moscow (1359-1462)

JANET MARTIN

During the century following the Mongol invasion and subjugation of the Russian lands to the Golden Horde the princes of Moscow, the Daniilovichi, gained prominence in north-eastern Russia. By winning the favour ofthe khans of the Golden Horde they were able to break dynastic traditions of seniority and succession and become the grand princes ofVladimir. But the Daniilovich princes lacked the full support of other branches of the dynasty in north­eastern Russia, whose members recalled traditional norms of legitimacy, and of the Church, whose hierarchs were preoccupied with securing the unity of the metropolitanate of Kiev and all Rus'. They were, therefore, dependent upon the continuing goodwill of the Golden Horde khans to maintain their position. But in 1359, Khan Berdibek (r. 1357-9) was overthrown and the Golden Horde entered a twenty-year period of civil war. The foundation upon which Daniilovich authority rested was destabilised.

The Daniilovich princes did not, however, lose their grip on the throne ofVladimir. Nor, despite the decline of the Golden Horde and sharp clashes with it, did they renounce their allegiance to the khan or lead north-eastern Russia to independence from Tatar hegemony On the contrary, the north­ern Russian princes, including the Daniilovichi, continued, albeit with greater reluctance and less frequency, to travel to the horde to receive their patents for office and to pay tribute to the khan.[90] It was not north-eastern Rus­sia, led by the princes of Moscow, that was emerging as the state pre­pared to replace the disintegrating horde as the dominant polity in East­ern Europe. Lithuania was a stronger, more dynamic state that assumed that role and exercised influence over western and northern Russia. Within their domain, however, the Daniilovichi came to depend less on the khans and to develop domestic sources of support, rooted in their own court, in their relationships with former dynastic rivals and in the Church. While the Golden Horde gradually fragmented, Dmitrii Ivanovich, who ruled to 1389, and his successors Vasilii I Dmitr'evich (1389-1425) and Vasilii II Vasil'evich (1425-62) nurtured and developed these foundational elements to establish their legitimacy as rulers of a state of Muscovy and to monopolise for their direct descendants the position of prince of its expanding territorial possessions.

The Daniilovichi and the Golden Horde

The political disorder within the horde was preceded and accompanied by mounting social and economic upheavals. One factor contributing to the dis­turbances was the Black Plague. In 1346-7, it had appeared in the Tatar capital Sarai as well as in Astrakhan' and port cities on the Black Sea coast. In 1364, the plague attacked Sarai a second time, and a decade later the horde was visited yet again.[91]

In addition, the commercial network that economically sustained the Mon­gol Empire was fraying. The Ottoman Turk capture of Gallipoli and expansion into the Balkans disturbed sea traffic into and out of the Black Sea. In the east the Yuan dynasty in China collapsed (1368). The Ming rulers who displaced the Mongols were less interested in promoting the intercontinental trade that had transported goods along the Silk Road and had been a major commercial base for the entire empire. As a result of disruptions at both ends of the trade route, the commercial activities of the Golden Horde, which controlled the northern branch of its western segment, and the revenues derived from them declined.[92]

The demographic and economic disturbances experienced by the horde contributed to mounting political tensions that erupted after Khan Berdibek was killed. During the next two decades the Sarai throne changed hands dozens of times. Some Tatar clans, furthermore, withdrew their support from the Sarai khan and recognised local leaders instead. In the most extreme cases as many as seven khans simultaneously ruled different sections of the Golden Horde. The situation was complicated as well by the appearance of powerful non-Chingisid clan leaders and notables, who placed their Chingisid proteges on the throne. The most prominent of them was Mamai, who controlled the western portion of the Golden Horde. Into this turmoil contenders from the eastern half of Juchi's ulus, the most important of whom was Tokhtamysh, entered the contest for dominance over the Golden Horde.[93]

The crisis began to subside when Tokhtamysh seized control of Sarai in 1378. In 1381, he defeated Mamai and brought temporary stability to the Golden Horde. A decade later, however, Tokhtamysh was defeated by his former patron, Timur (Tamerlane), a non-Chingisid conqueror who was fashioning his own empire around his capital Samarkand in Central Asia. Tokhtamysh lost control over the eastern portion ofJuchi's ulus, but retained his position at Sarai until 1395-6, when Timur launched a campaign during which he attacked not only Sarai, but also Astrakhan' and Azak (Tana) at the mouth of the Don River. Timur thus inflicted a destructive blow on the major towns and commercial centres of the Golden Horde.[94]

While Tokhtamysh fled to Lithuania, Edigei, another non-Chingisid, assumed the dominant role in the Golden Horde. Ruling through Khan Timur Kutlugh, he defeated Tokhtamysh, who was supported by the Lithuanian Prince Vitovt, in 1399. Edigei remained in power until 1411, when his son- in-law drove him from Sarai. Although he, like Tokhtamysh, had attempted to reunite the Golden Horde, its social and economic foundations had been seriously weakened. During the second quarter of the fifteenth century the Golden Horde fragmented into the Crimean khanate, the khanate of Kazan' and the Great Horde.

The political turmoil in the horde affected political conditions in north­eastern Russia. In 1359, the same year Berdibek was removed, Grand Prince Ivan II died; his heir was his nine-year old son, Dmitrii, later known as Dmitrii Donskoi. Following Berdibek's death, the Russian princes travelled to Sarai to receive new patents for their offices. But while they were making their journey, Berdibek's successorwas also replaced. The new khan, Navruz, issued the patent for the Vladimir throne not to Dmitrii Ivanovich, but to Dmitrii Konstantinovich, the prince of Suzdal' and Nizhnii Novgorod (1360).[95] After Navruz too was overthrown and replaced by Kudyr', the Russian princes returned again for their patents. Civil strife was so intense, however, that not only was Kudyr' killed, but the princes themselves were subjected to physical abuse and robbed of their goods.[96]

In 1362, the Muscovite prince Dmitrii Ivanovich finally received a patent for the grand principality of Vladimir from one of the two khans then claiming authority over the Golden Horde.[97] The figure behind the khan and Dmitrii's patron was Mamai. A key factor that influenced the extension of Mamai's favour to Dmitrii was his ability to deliver tribute payments, which were partic­ularly critical for Mamai as he was attempting to gain and maintain a position of dominance within the Golden Horde. As in earlier periods, commercial activity was the means by which northern Russia acquired silver. Security along the transportation routes was essential for the flow of goods that were traded to merchants of the Hanseatic League and the Order of the Teutonic Knights for silver and other European goods and for delivery of goods and tribute to the horde. But the discord within the horde had disrupted the trade routes leading southward from the Russian lands. As early as 1360, bandits or pirates, known as ushkuinniki, were raiding key centres along the Volga River. After an attack on Nizhnii Novgorod, Dmitrii Ivanovich placed pressure on Novgorod, the home base of the bandits, to control them.[98]

Dmitrii held Novgorod responsible not only for disturbances created by the pirates, but also for reduced imports derived from its trade with the Hansa and the Teutonic Order. By 1367, commercial relations were deterio­rating. Novgorod became involved in hostilities against the Order, which was encroaching upon the border of Pskov. In 1369, the Hansa imposed duties on Novgorod's silver imports. In 1373, it banned the export of silver to Novgorod for two years. By 1375, when both Novgorodian and German merchants were being detained and their goods were confiscated, commercial relations had deteriorated significantly. During this period Mamai, anxious to find an agent who could gather and deliver tribute to him, transferred the patent for grand prince of Vladimir from Dmitrii to Prince Mikhail Aleksandrovich of Tver' (1370), then returned it to Dmitrii (1371). When Dmitrii ceased making tribute payments after 1373, Mamai again issued the patent to Mikhail (1375).[99]

Dmitrii, in defiance of Mamai, refused to cede his throne and the city of Vladimir to Mikhail. Mamai, whose horde had been depleted by a bout with the Black Plague, could not enforce his order. Dmitrii militarily defeated Mikhail and kept his position. In the aftermath ofthis challenge he joined Prince Dmitrii Konstantinovich of Suzdal'-Nizhnii Novgorod to restore order along the Volga River (1377). He did not resume tribute payments, however, and in 1378, his forces clashed with a band subject to Mamai.[100] In 1378, Tokhtamysh was taking control of Sarai. Mamai's position as the unofficial, yet most powerful leader of the Golden Horde was seriously challenged.

Under these circumstances the tribute from northern Russia was important not only as a symbol of his authority, but as revenue he could use to raise forces against his rival. Arranging for support from Lithuania and Riazan', Mamai demanded the tribute from Dmitrii. When it was not forthcoming, he staged a campaign against Dmitrii. But the grand prince of Vladimir raised an army with contingents from Rostov, Iaroslavl', Beloozero, Ustiug, Kolomna, Kostroma, Pereiaslavl' and other principalities across northern Russia. When the two armies engaged at the Battle of Kulikovo (1380), Dmitrii, who there earned the epithet Donskoi, defeated Mamai. The next year the Tatar leader engaged Tokhtamysh, and was again defeated.[101]

Dmitrii Donskoi's relationship with the Golden Horde was complicated. He recognised the authority of the horde and the legitimacy inherent in a patent from the khan. Yet in the context of the internal discord within the horde, he depended upon Mamai and the khan Mamai placed in power. But Dmitrii also defied Mamai. He did not accept Mamai's decisions to transfer the patent for Vladimir to Mikhail Aleksandrovich of Tver' and, particularly, when the commercial source of silver had diminished, he did not make the required and promised tribute payments to him. Ultimately, he fought against Mamai and defeated him. But when Tokhtamysh seized Sarai and also defeated Mamai, Dmitrii Donskoi, like the other north-eastern Russian princes, immediately acknowledged his suzerainty as khan of the Golden Horde by sending their messengers and costly gifts. They did not, however, attend him personally. Tokhtamysh responded with a military campaign. In contrast to the situation in 1380, Dmitrii was unable to raise an army to oppose Tokhtamysh. Instead, he fled from Moscow, which Tokhtamysh besieged and sacked. Dmitrii, who remained the grand prince of Vladimir, sent his son Vasilii to Tokhtamysh with tribute payments; Vasilii remained as a hostage at Tokhtamysh's court.[102]

Dmitrii's actions and defeat ofMamai did not change the basic relationship between north-eastern Russia and the Golden Horde. Dmitrii and his succes­sors continued to rely on the khan for a patent that legitimised their right to hold the grand-princely throne of Vladimir. They also continued to pay tribute to the khan. Thus, the coins struck by Dmitrii after 1382 were marked by the words 'Grand Prince Dmitrii Ivanovich' on one side, but the other side bore the inscription 'Sultan Tokhtamysh: Long may he live!' On his coins Vasilii I proclaimed himself to be 'grand prince of all Rus''. But until 1399, when Tokhtamysh and his ally Vitovt of Lithuania were defeated by Edigei at the Battle of Vorskla, he repeated the phrase 'Sultan Tokhtamysh: Long may he live' or variations of it on the reverse side. Symbols honouring the Mongols reappeared on Vasilii's coins after 1408.[103]

The nature of the relationship between the Muscovite princes and the Golden Horde was nevertheless changing. Edigei, the non-Chingisid who became the dominant figure in the horde after Timur deposed Tokhtamysh, once again mounted a campaign against north-eastern Russia (1408). He found it necessary to use force to impress north-eastern Russia with his power and convince Vasilii I to show appropriate deference to his suzerain. Vasilii, it was alleged, had failed to appear personally before him, had withheld tribute and had given refuge to his rivals and enemies, the fugitive sons of Tokhtamysh.¹⁵

Even afterthe Golden Hordebeganto disintegrate during the second decade of the fifteenth century, the princes of northern Russia recognised the author­ity of the khan. In 1430, when Prince Iurii Dmitr'evich challenged his nephew Grand Prince Vasilii II Vasil'evich for the throne of Vladimir and Dmitrov, the two princes turned to Ulu-Muhammed. The khan confirmed the appoint­ment of Vasilii II as grand prince. His decision did not, however, have sufficient authority to resolve the dispute. Vasilii II fought a war against his uncle and cousins that lasted almost a quarter of a century before he secured his posi­tion.¹⁶ Vasilii II was the last Daniilovich prince to present himself before a Tatar khan to receive a patent for this throne and the first to name his own successor and bequeath his throne to him without prior approval of the khan.¹⁷

Several years after Ulu-Muhammed issued the Vladimir throne to Vasilii II, he led his horde northward from the region of the Crimean peninsula, where he had been located.¹⁸ The Tatars encountered a Russian army, led by Vasilii's cousins, near Belev on the Russian-Lithuanian border in 1437. The Tatar horde continued to migrate eastward down the Oka River. After clashing several times with Russian forces, they engaged Vasilii II, who was leading a small force, at the Battle of Suzdal' (1445). Vasilii II was wounded and captured. In return for his promise to pay a ransom of 200,000 roubles, according to one account, and make increased tribute payments, Ulu-Muhammed released him. The grand prince returned to Moscow in November 1445.¹⁹ Ulu-Muhammed's horde continued its migration, settling on the mid-Volga River to found the khanate of Kazan' (1445).

Despite the disintegration ofthe Golden Horde and the weakened condition of Ulu-Muhammed's horde, Grand Prince Vasilii II continued to acknowledge

15 PSRL, vol. xi, pp. 205-6; Ostrowski, 'Troop Mobilization', p. 38; A. A. Gorskii, Moskva i Orda (Moscow: Nauka, 2000), pp. 127-33; Charles Halperin, 'The Russian Land and the Russian Tsar: The Emergence of Muscovite Ideology, 1380-1408', FOG 23 (1976): 55-6; Crummey, Formation of Muscovy, p. 65; Vernadsky, Mongols, pp. 286-7; Nasonov, Mongoly iRus', p. 144.

16 A. A. Zimin, Vitiaz' na rasput'e. Feodal'naia voina v Rossii XV v. (Moscow: Mysl', 1991), pp. 43, 45-7.

17 Alef,'Origins', 40.

18 Vernadsky Mongols, p. 293; Gustave Alef, 'The Battle of Suzdal' in 1445. An Episode in the Muscovite War of Succession', FOG 25 (1978); reprinted in Gustave Alef,Rulers and Nobles in Fifteenth-Century Muscovy (London: Variorum Reprints, 1983), p. 12.

19 PSRL, vol. xii (St. Petersburg: Arkheograficheskaiakommissiia, 1901; reprinted Moscow: Nauka, 1965), pp. 63-5; PSRL, vol. iii: Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis' (Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul'tury, 2000), p. 426; Alef,'The Battle of Suzdal', 14-15,17-19; Ostrowski, 'Troop Mobilization', p. 22; Cherepnin, Obrazovanie, p. 787.

the suzerainty of the Tatar khan. But in 1447, two of Ulu-Muhammed's sons, Kasim and Iakub, fled from their brother, who had murdered and succeeded Ulu-Muhammed. They presented themselves to Vasilii II and entered his ser­vice. For his services Kasim was granted territory on the Oka River that became known as the khanate of Kasimov, a dependency of the state of Muscovy.[104]Kasim and his brother were only the latest in a series of individual Tatar nota­bles who from the 1330s had entered the service of the Daniilovich princes.[105]The appearance of these Tatars in the service of the princes of Moscow rep­resents the beginning of a shift in the balance of perceived and, possibly, real power between the remnants of the Golden Horde and emerging state of Muscovy.

Although they did not renounce the suzerainty of the Tatar khans or per­manently cease paying tribute, the Daniilovich princes gradually changed the nature of their relationship with their overlords whose own domain was dis­integrating. If measured by the military victories of Tokhtamysh, Edigei and Ulu-Muhammed at the Battle of Suzdal', the balance of power favoured the Mongol khans. But measured by the tendency of the renegade Tatar nota­bles to seek refuge with the prince of Moscow and to enter his service and by the ability of the prince of Moscow, by the end of the reign of Vasilii II, to ignore rituals of paying homage to the khans and display symbols of his own sovereignty, the balance was shifting in favour of the emerging state of Muscovy.

The Daniilovichi and the dynasty

When Grand Prince Ivan II died in i359, he was not immediately succeeded by his son Dmitrii. Khan Navruz issued the patent for the grand principality of Vladimir to Prince Dmitrii Konstantinovich of Suzdal' and Nizhnii Novgorod (i360). Despite the marriages that had been arranged by Ivan I Kalita to secure their families' loyalty, Prince Konstantin Vasil'evich of Rostov, an uncle of Dmitrii Ivanovich, and Prince Ivan Fedorovich of Beloozero, a cousin of the Moscow prince, supported Dmitrii Konstantinovich, as did Dmitrii Borisovich of Dmitrov.[106]

When Dmitrii Ivanovich did receive a patent for the grand principality, however, forces loyal to him, including those of his brother Ivan (d. 1364) and his cousin Vladimir Andreevich, drove his rival from Vladimir (1362-3) and prevented him from recovering the town.²³ Dmitrii Ivanovich then arranged for his rival's supporters to be removed from their thrones. In i363, Dmitrii Ivanovich expelled the princes of Starodub and Galich from their lands. The next year he forced the transfer of Prince Konstantin Vasil'evich from Rostov to Ustiug. Konstantin's nephew, an ally of Dmitrii Ivanovich, replaced him in Rostov.²⁴ In 1364, the two Dmitriis reconciled. Their alliance was sealed in 1366 with the marriage of Dmitrii Ivanovich to the daughter of Dmitrii Konstantinovich. Dmitrii Konstantinovich did not become a subordinate of the young grand prince of Vladimir, but having ceded the grand principality of Vladimir, he frequently supported Dmitrii Ivanovich and gave him critical military assistance.²⁵

By 1367, Dmitrii Ivanovich had cemented his alliance with the prince of Suzdal', demoted the latter's princely supporters, and asserted his authority over them. He had also been accepted as prince of Novgorod. The strength of his political position was paralleledby stone fortifications hebegan to construct around Moscow.²⁶ Grand Prince Dmitrii then turned against another potential challenger, Prince Mikhail Aleksandrovich of Tver'. The hostilities began just after an internecine conflict between two branches of the Tver' dynasty was resolved in favour of Mikhail Aleksandrovich. Dmitrii intervened to reverse that outcome and place Mikhail's rival on the Tver' throne. The conflict that began in 1367 lasted until 1375, when Dmitrii emphatically defeated Mikhail. Dmitrii was not able to unseat Mikhail from the Tver' throne. But neither were Mikhail and his powerful ally Ol'gerd of Lithuania able to defeat Dmitrii. Despite a three-day siege of Moscow (1368), they were unable to penetrate the stone walls protecting the city. Dmitrii's campaign into Tver' territory in i370 prompted Mikhail to appeal to Mamai, who transferred the patent for Vladimir to the Tver' prince that year.²⁷ Dmitrii, however, won back the

23 PSRL, vol. x,pp. 233-4; PSRL, vol. xi,p. 2; Cherepnin, Obrazovanie,p. 554; Nasonov Mongoly i Rus', pp. 120,124; Ostrowski, 'Troop Mobilization', p. 28; Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 252.

24 PSRL, vol. xi, p. 2; Wladimir Vodoff,'A propos des "achats" (kupli) d'Ivan Ier de Moscou', Journaldes Savants (1974): 115; Martin, Treasure,p. 132; John Fennell, TheEmergence ofMoscow 1304-1359 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968), pp. 182-3.

25 PSRL, vol. xi, p. 7; Cherepnin, Obrazovanie, pp. 554-5; Nasonov, Mongoly i Rus', pp. 120, 124-5; Vodoff, 'Achats', 115; A. I. Kopanev, 'O "kupliakh" Ivana Kality', IZ 20 (1946), 25; Ostrowski, 'Troop mobilization', pp. 28-30.

26 Lawrence N. Langer, 'The Medieval Russian Town', in Michael Hamm (ed.), The City in Russian History (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, i976), p. 26; Ostrowski, Muscovy and the Mongols, p. 129; David B. Miller, 'Monumental Building as an Indicator of Economic Trends in Northern Rus' in the Late Kievan and Mongol Periods, ii38-i462', American Historical Review 94 (1989): 370, 377, 379.

27 PSRL, vol. xi, p. 14; Kuchkin, 'Dmitrii Donskoi', 68; Presniakov, Formation, pp. 247-9; Borisov, Russkaia tserkov', pp. 84-5; Crummey, Formation of Muscovy, p. 46.

patent from Mamai, retained the support ofthe north-eastern Russian princes and Novgorod, and defeated Mikhail (1372).[107] Dmitrii and Mikhail reached an accord that lasted only until i375, when Mikhail once again obtained a patent for the Vladimir throne. But Dmitrii with the military support of his former rival, the prince of Suzdal', as well as numerous other north-eastern Russian princes and Novgorod, inflicted a decisive defeat on Mikhail.[108] In the subsequent peace treaty the two grand princes formally had equal status. But Mikhail acknowledged Dmitrii's seniority, renounced his claim to the throne of Novgorod, and agreed to refrain from conducting independent relations with Lithuania and the Golden Horde.[109]

Despite his youth and the turmoil within the horde that deprived him of the firm support from a powerful Mongol khan, Dmitrii Ivanovich did not lose the position of grand prince ofVladimir. On the contrary, he overcame challenges from the princes of Suzdal' and Tver', the last two rivals for the Vladimir throne. After the 1370s, no other branch of the dynasty disputed the Moscow princes' claim to the throne of Vladimir. By the end of his reign, Dmitrii Ivanovich was virtually able to name his own heir.

Dmitrii's strength rested on his ability to marshal the military support necessary to overcome his rivals. In the absence of assistance from the Mongol khan, whose forces had previously been used to enforce decisions regarding succession, Dmitrii relied even more heavily than his predeces­sors had on the military units supplied by his relatives and princely allies. The extension of his authority over some north-eastern Russian princes and conclusion of alliances with others thus had practical as well as symbolic significance. With their aid Dmitrii gained the capacity to raise substantial armies and to pursue even further and more successfully than his father Ivan and uncle Semen his grandfather's policy of extending the authority of the prince of Moscow. By 1360, Kostroma was attached to the Muscovite territo­ries, as was Galich.[110] By establishing Andrei Fedorovich as prince of Rostov in i364, Grand Prince Dmitrii gained not only his loyalty but also Rostov's military services, which in i360 had been used to support Prince Dmitrii Konstantinovich.[111]

As a result, when Dmitrii confronted Mikhail of Tver' in 1375, he was able to assemble an army consisting of forces of 'all the Russian princes', including the princes of Suzdal', Rostov, Iaroslavl', Beloozero and Starodub.[112] Similarly in i380, when he faced Mamai at the Battle ofKulikovo, Dmitrii's army was com­posed of forces collected from Beloozero, Iaroslavl', Rostov, Ustiug, Kostroma, Kolomna, Pereiaslavl' and other principalities as well.[113]

The efforts of Dmitrii's son and successor, Vasilii I, to continue his father's policies were tempered by the expansionist drive of his father-in-law, Vitovt of Lithuania. Vasilii did nothing to prevent Vitovt from seizing the western Russian principality of Smolensk in 1395, and he was unable to curb the exten­sion of Lithuanian influence in the northern Russian centres of Tver' and Novgorod.[114] Vasilii, nevertheless, acquired Nizhnii Novgorod, which in 1391, with the agreement of Tokhtamysh, was detached from Suzdal' and attached to Moscow.[115] He also acquired Murom and Gorodets. Although he failed, despite repeated attempts at the turn ofthe century and during the first quar­ter of the fifteenth century, to seize Novgorod's northern territory known as the Dvina land, in the process he did replace the prince of Ustiug with his gov­ernor.[116] Vasilii thus added Ustiug, Nizhnii Novgorod, Murom and Gorodets to his father's acquisitions of Galich, Beloozero, Starodub and Uglich. In his will Dmitrii had claimed possession of Vladimir, Pereiaslavl', Kostroma and Iur'ev, all of which he left to Vasilii I.[117]

In addition to military strength the extension of Muscovite domination over north-eastern Russian principalities afforded the grand prince access to greater economic resources. The demands for tribute by the Mongol khans and emirs imposed pressure on the grand prince. The tribute that has been estimated to have been 5,000 roubles per year in 1389, rose to 7,000 roubles by 1401 and remained at that level through the reign of Vasilii I.[118] Despite the pressures, which took the form of military campaigns in 1380 and with devastating results in 1382 and 1408, the princes of Moscow were able to use their responsibility to collect taxes and tribute levied by the Mongols to their economic advantage. Although they sent the required amount oftribute, they managed to keep various taxes, such as customs and transport fees, in their own treasuries.[119] The establishment of Muscovite hegemony over the Rostov principalities in 1364 involved the acquisition of the right to collect tribute from Rostov, Ustiug and portions of the north-eastern region known as Perm'. In i367, according to one chronicle account, the grand prince acquired similar rights over Novgorod's possessions in the extreme north-east. When Stefan of Perm' converted the inhabitants of Vychegda Perm' to Christianity and a new bishopric was carved out of the Novgorod eparchy for them (1383), Moscow consolidated its tenuous command over tribute and trade in luxury fur from their territory.[120]

The Moscow princes used the wealth they acquired in part to embellish their city. Masonry construction, which had reflected the economic recov­ery of northern Russia earlier in the fourteenth century, continued dur­ing the reigns of Dmitrii Ivanovich and his son Vasilii. David Miller has shown that between 1363 and 1387 sixteen such projects were undertaken in north-eastern Russia; the projects accounted for just over one-quarter of all those in northern Russia. During the next quartercentury another twenty- one masonry structures or 29 per cent of all those in northern Russia were built in north-eastern Russia.[121] The projects included the walls that protected Moscow.

New construction was also associated with the monastic movement that had begun in the mid-fourteenth century, partially in response to outbreaks of plague.[122] Walled monasteries were built to the east, south-east and north of Moscow. Although the walls of the Holy Trinity monastery were insufficient to withstand the attacks of Tokhtamysh and Edigei, the ring of monasteries surrounding Moscow provided defensive protection. Fortified monasteries at

Table 7.1. Prince Ivan I Kalita and his descendants (names of grand princes are in capitals)

IVAN I KALITA d. 1341

SEMEN IVAN II Andrei

d. 1353 d. 1359 d. 1353

DMITRII DONSKOI Vladimir

d. 1389 d. 1410

Andrei Petr Konstantin d. 1432 d. 1428 d. 1433

Ivan Semen d. 1410 d. 1426

Andrei Vasilii d. 1426 d. 1427

VASILII II Vasilii Dmitrii Dmitrii Ivan Mikhail d. 1462 Kosoi Shemiaka Krasnoi (Mozhaisk) (Vereia) d. 1447/8 d. 1453 d. 1440 d. 1454 d. 1486

Daniilovich princes were able to freely transfer their service from one member of the family to another.

This situation prevailed until 1425, when Grand Prince Vasilii Dmitr'evich died. He was survived by four brothers and his son Vasilii. For the first time since the Daniilovichi had become grand princes of Vladimir, a dispute arose within the dynastic branch. The disagreements developed into a civil war that was distinguished by its length and its ferocity. The war took place in three phases and was fought over two related points of contention. The first issue was dynastic seniority and succession.

Tradition established that the senior eligible member of the dynasty should succeed to the position of grand prince when that position became vacant. The senior prince was the eldest member of the senior generation. Succession, confined to those princes whose fathers had been grand princes, thus followed a lateral or co-lateral pattern. The grand-princely station passed from elder brother to younger brother or cousin. When all eligible members of one generation had served as grand prince or died, the position passed to the next generation. The sons of former grand princes then inherited the throne in order of their seniority within their generation. Even when the Mongol khans transferred the grand-princely throne of Vladimir to the Daniilovichi, who were ineligible by these norms because Daniil had never been grand prince, they regularly issued patents according to the lateral, generational pattern of succession.

It was thus according to these norms that Ivan I Kalita came to the throne after his brother Iurii. When Ivan died, his position passed to the next gen­eration and his eldest son Semen became grand prince of Vladimir. Plague claimed the lives of Semen, his sons, and his brother Andrei; his surviving brother, Ivan II, succeeded to the throne. Ivan II was the last member of his generation; when he died, the throne passed to his son Dmitrii. Due to the family's small size and early deaths these successions, while conforming to the lateral pattern, also defined a new vertical pattern of succession from father to son.

Although other members of the dynasty protested against their successions, the Daniilovich princes all accepted their senior members as grand princes. Only when Vasilii I assumed the throne in 1389 was there a weak protest from within the Moscow branch of the dynasty. Prince Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov, the cousin of Dmitrii Donskoi, evidently raised an objection to Vasilii's succession. It is not clear that Vladimir Andreevich was seeking the throne of Vladimir for himself. Although he did have seniority as a member of the elder generation, his father Andrei had died from the plague in 1353 and had never served as grand prince. Vladimir was therefore ineligible for succession.[123]

When Vasilii Dmitr'evich died in 1425, his brother Iurii was the legitimate heir according to the lateral pattern of succession. But in his will, dated 1423, Vasilii left the grand principality as well as Moscow and its possessions to his son Vasilii Vasil'evich. He thus asserted a vertical line of succession that bypassed his brothers and denied their seniority. To ensure that his wishes would be honoured, he placed his son, who was ten years old in 1425, under the protection of his brothers Petr and Andrei, two cousins, and Prince Vitovt of Lithuania, who was the boy's maternal grandfather.[124]

The second issue that generated the intra-dynastic war was the prerogatives of the grand prince, his authority over the family's territorial possessions and the relative status of the members of the ruling house. During the fourteenth century relations between the grand prince and his Muscovite relations were co-operative. Grand Prince Semen, for example, shared proceeds from customs fees with his two brothers; as the senior prince, however, he received half of the proceeds, not one-third.[125] Dmitrii Donskoi and his cousin Vladimir Andreevich similarly enjoyed cordial relations. The Serpukhov prince had autonomy within his principality, including the right to collect taxes from its inhabitants. He also had rights to one-third of the revenues collected from Moscow, the seat of the family's shared domain.[126]

The situation changed shortly after Vasilii II became grand prince. Vladimir Andreevich had died in 1410. All of his five sons had died by 1427; four of them were victims of an epidemic of plague in 1426-7. Only one grandson, Vasilii Iaroslavich, survived. When he was to inherit his family's lands, the regents for the grand prince intervened. They confiscated one portion of the Serpukhov patrimonial possessions for Vasilii II and gave another portion to the grand prince's uncle Konstantin Dmitr'evich.[127] In 1428, another of the grand prince's uncles, Petr Dmitr'evich of Dmitrov, died. Once again Vasilii II's government, ignoring the claims of the rest of the family to a share of Petr's principality, seized Dmitrov as a possession of the grand prince.[128]

The actions of Vasilii's regents secured the loyalty of the young prince's uncle Konstantin. His uncle Andrei, one of the regents, also favoured his nephew. After Andrei died in 1432, his sons, Ivan of Mozhaisk and Mikhail of Vereia, rapidly concluded treaties of friendship with their cousin. Petr died without heirs. But the same actions intensified the opposition of Prince Iurii Dmitr'evich of Zvenigorod and Galich. As the oldest surviving brother of Vasilii I, he regarded himself as the senior member of the dynasty and the rightful heir. He had expressed his discontent in i425, by refusing to come to Moscow to swear allegiance to his nephew and preparing for war. But he was dissuaded from initiating hostilities by Metropolitan Fotii (Photios), an outbreak of plague and the threat of intervention by Vitovt ofLithuania.⁵¹ Iurii accepted Vasilii as grand prince, but only until the matter was referred to the khan of the Golden Horde.⁵²

The issue was not brought before the khan until late summer 1431, after both Vitovt and Fotii had died. In June i432, Khan Ulu-Muhammed favoured Vasilii with a patent for the grand principality of Vladimir. He determined, however, that Iurii should receive the disputed principality of Dmitrov.⁵³ When Vasilii refused to cede Dmitrov, Iurii staged a campaign against him. This action, which resulted in the defeat of Vasilii, opened the first stage of the civil war. Iurii replaced Vasilii as grand prince and issued Kolomna to his nephew as an apanage principality. Vasilii, however, retained the loyalty of his courtiers, who moved to Kolomna in support of their prince. Iurii was obliged to withdraw and return the grand principality as well as Dmitrov to

Vasilii.⁵⁴

Iurii returned to Galich. But his two elder sons, Vasilii Kosoi (the Cross-Eyed) and Dmitrii Shemiaka, had not supported his decision or his subsequent agree­ment with Vasilii II. In September 1433, the restored grand prince launched an unsuccessful campaign against them. The renewed hostilities drew Iurii back into the conflict. After suffering another defeat in March 1434, Vasilii II fled to Novgorod, then to Tver' and Nizhnii Novgorod. In the meantime Iurii besieged Moscow and again occupied the capital. This time he received greater support, but he died suddenly in 1434.⁵⁵

51 Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 295; Zimin, Vitiaz', pp. 33-7; Crummey, Formation of Muscovy, p. 69; Presniakov, Formation, p. 323.

52 Dukhovnye i dogovornyegramoty, no. 24, pp. 63-7; Zimin, Vitiaz', pp. 39-40; Alef,'Origins',

34.

53 Zimin, Vitiaz', p. 47; Vernadsky, Mongols, pp. 299-300; Presniakov Formation, pp. 325-6.

54 Presniakov, Formation, pp. 326-7; Alef, 'Origins', 31; Crummey Formation of Muscovy, p. 70; Zimin, Vitiaz', pp. 57-8, 60; Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 300.

55 Zimin, Vitiaz', pp. 62-7; Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 300; Alef,'Origins', 31; Crummey, Forma­tion of Muscovy, p. 71; Presniakov Formation, p. 327.

The death of Iurii Dmitr'evich ended the first phase of the civil war. His son, Vasilii Kosoi, launched the second phase (1434-6). His attempt to replace his father ended in failure. Vasilii Kosoi, whose own brothers refused to fight on his behalf, could not gain sufficient support for his claim to the throne. Vasilii Vasil'evich, who had become the legitimate heir by traditional principles of seniority as well as his father's will and the khan's patent, recovered his position as well as Dmitrov and his cousin's principality, Zvenigorod. The two princes reached an accord in 1435. But in the winter of 1435-6, Kosoi attacked Galich, the seat of one of his brothers, Ustiug, and Vologda. He was captured in May 1436, blinded and sent to Kolomna. The defeated Vasilii Kosoi died in 1447/8.[129]

Vasilii II remained at peace with his relatives for the next decade. But in 1445, he was captured by the Tatars of Ulu-Muhammed's migrating horde. This situation provided an opportunity for his cousin, Dmitrii Shemiaka, Kosoi's brother, to renew his family's bid for the grand-princely throne. Dmitrii Shemi­aka had not joined his brother Vasilii Kosoi against Vasilii II in 1434-6, and after Kosoi's defeat, he had recognised the seniority of Vasilii II.[130] But the relation­ship between the cousins was tense. They disagreed about the distribution of lands that had been ruled by another of Iurii's sons, Dmitrii Krasnoi (the Hand­some), who died in 1440; about Shemiaka's participation in Vasilii's military campaigns; and about his contributions to the Tatar tribute.[131]

When Vasilii II was taken captive, Dmitrii, the senior member of the dynasty, emerged to fill the vacancy. But Ulu-Muhammed released Vasilii, who promised to pay a large ransom and returned to Moscow with a contingent of Tatars. When he went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Trinity monastery, however, Dmitrii Shemiaka began the third phase of the civil war (1446-53). He seized control ofMoscow while forces loyal to him captured Vasilii (1446). Vasilii was blinded and exiled to Uglich. Subsequently, in return for his promise to recog­nise Dmitrii Shemiaka as grand prince, he received Vologda as an apanage principality. [132]

Shemiaka was not, however, universally accepted as grand prince. The balance of military power had also shifted. The grand prince did not have his own army, but relied, as had his father and grandfather, on a combination of forces drawn from military units supplied by family members, independent princes, and the Tatar khans.[133] Although Vasilii II had retained the support of many of his courtiers during the first phase of the war against his uncle Iurii, he did not have the military strength to defeat him. His uncle used the military forces under his own command against Vasilii II. Other princes of north-eastern Russia remained neutral in the Daniilovich family quarrel. And Khan Ulu-Muhammed, who was preoccupied with problems associated with disintegration of the Golden Horde, did not provide military aid to enforce his decision to give the patent for the grand principality to Vasilii.

When Shemiaka seized power, he acted in alliance with Prince Ivan Andree- vich of Mozhaisk. But Prince Vasilii Iaroslavich of Serpukhov disapproved of his action and fled to Lithuania.[134] In addition, Prince Boris Aleksandrovich of Tver', who had previously remained neutral in the conflict among the princes of Moscow, favoured Vasilii in this phase of the dispute and promised his five-year-old daughter in marriage to Vasilii's seven-year-old son.[135] The Tatar tsarevichi Kasim and Iakub joined Vasilii while other supporters gathered in Lithuania and Tver'. Vasilii thus gained support from some of his relatives, independent princes and Tatars. He also won the support of Bishop Iona of Riazan', the most prominent hierarch of the Church.

Vasilii thus had forces strong enough to recapture Moscow. The grand prince triumphantly returned to his capital in February 1447.[136] The combatants concluded a peace agreement in the summer of 1447.[137] Vasilii nevertheless renewed hostilities by capturing Dmitrii's primary seat, the city of Galich, in 1450. Shemiaka fled to Novgorod and pursued the war, mainly in the northern regions of Ustiug, the Dvina land and Vychegda Perm', before returning to Novgorod where he was fatally poisoned in 1453.[138]

In the aftermath of the war Prince Ivan of Mozhaisk fled to Lithuania. Vasilii confiscated his principality as well as Galich, which had belonged to Dmitrii Shemiaka. In 1456, Vasilii also arrested his former ally and supporter, Prince Vasilii of Serpukhov, sent him into exile at Uglich and seized his lands as well.

Only Prince Mikhail of Vereia among Vasilii's cousins retained a portion of the Muscovite territories as his own apanage principality.[139]

During and immediately after the war Vasilii II was also able to assert dominance over princes and lands beyond the territories attached to Vladimir and Moscow. In 1449, he concluded a treaty with the prince of Suzdal', in which the latter agreed not to seek or receive patents for their office from the Tatar khan.[140] His position became dependent upon the prince of Moscow, not the khan. When the prince of Riazan' died in 1456, Vasilii II brought his son into his own household and sent his governors to administer that principality. By that time Vasilii had also entered into new agreements with the prince of Tver', who while not acknowledging Vasilii's seniority, nevertheless pledged his co-operation in all ventures against the Tatars as well as their Western neighbours; Boris also recognised Vasilii as the rightful grand prince and as prince of Novgorod.[141]

Vasilii also asserted his authority over Novgorod. In 1431, Novgorod had concluded a treaty with the prince of Lithuania, Svidrigailo, and accepted his nephew as its prince. But even though Svidrigailo was the brother-in-law of Iurii of Galich, Novgorod had been neutral during Iurii's conflict with Vasilii II.[142]When Vasilii II was engaged against Vasilii Kosoi (the Cross-Eyed), he nego­tiated with Novgorod to enlist its support; he indicated a willingness to set­tle outstanding disputes over Novgorod's eastern frontier. But after he had defeated Kosoi, he reneged on his agreement. He sent his officers to collect tribute and in 1440-1, after the Lithuanian prince had left the city, he launched a military campaign against Novgorod and forced it to make an additional payment and promise to continue to pay taxes and fees regularly.[143] During the 1440s, however, Novgorod was at war with both of its major Western trading partners, the Hanseatic League and the Teutonic Order. The Hansa blockaded Novgorod and closed its own commercial operations in the city for six years. Novgorod lost commercial revenue. It suffered from high prices and also from a famine. In the midst of these crises Novgorod accepted another prince from

Lithuania (1444).[144] When Vasilii II and Dmitrii Shemiaka took their conflict to the north and disrupted Novgorod's northern trade routes, Novgorod gave support and sanctuary to Shemiaka.

In 1456, as Vasilii II was asserting his authority over other Russian principal­ities, he also launched a major military campaign against Novgorod and once again defeated it. Novgorod was obliged to accept the Treaty of Iazhelbitsii. According to its terms, it had to cut off its connections with Shemiaka's family as well as with any other enemies of the grand prince. It was to pay taxes and the Tatar tribute to the grand prince; it was to accept the grand prince's judicial officials in the city; and it was to conclude agreements with foreign powers only with the approval of the grand prince. It was obliged, furthermore, to cede key sectors of its northern territorial possessions to the grand prince.[145]

The dynastic war ended in victory for Vasilii II. It resolved in his favour the issues of succession and of the prerogatives of the grand prince. The outcome of the war left Vasilii II with undisputed control over the grand principality and its possessions as well as the territories attached to the principality ofMoscow. His relatives, who had shared the familial domain when he took office, had all died or gone into exile or been subordinated. Only one cousin, Mikhail of Vereia, retained an apanage principality. The remainder of the apanage principalities, which had been the territories of Vasilii's Iurevich cousins, of Ivan Andreevich of Mozhaisk, and of Vasilii Iaroslavich of Serpukhov, along with their economic resources and revenues had reverted to the grand prince.

Vasilii's post-war policies towards his relatives and neighbouringprinces also provided the grand prince with more secure military power. Although he still relied on them to supply military forces, they had become subordinate to him or had committed themselves by treaty to support him. Vasilii, furthermore, established his Tatar ally, Kasim, on the Oka River. The Tatars of the khanate of Kasimov became available to participate in the military ventures of the Muscovite grand princes. Vasilii II thus ensured that the grand prince would not be as militarily vulnerable as he had been when the wars began. His policies gave him access to larger forces than potential competitors within north-eastern Russia without being dependent on support from independent princes and the khans of the Great Horde and emerging khanates of Kazan'

and Crimea.[146]

Vasilii II emerged from the war as the strongest prince in north-eastern Russia. Shortly after he recovered Moscow, Vasilii asserted his sovereignty by using the title 'sovereign of all Rus" on newly minted coins. In late 1447 or early 1448, he also named his young son, Ivan, his co-ruler; coins then appeared with the inscription 'sovereigns of all Rus".[147] While thereby making it more difficult for co-lateral relatives to challenge his son's succession, Vasilii II also confirmed a vertical pattern of succession for the princes of Moscow. When Ivan III assumed his father's throne in 1462, no other prince within the house of Moscow had the resources or the status to mount a military challenge for the throne, as Iurii Dmitr'evich and his sons had done. The Tatar khans also lost their decisive influence over succession. Vasilii II had appealed to Khan Ulu-Muhammed for a patent to hold the throne ofVladimir. But it was his own military victory over his uncle and cousins that confirmed the replacement of the traditional lateral pattern of succession with a vertical one. Vasilii II was able to leave the grand principality as well as his Muscovite possessions to his son without acquiring prior approval of a Tatar khan. Ivan III, followed by his son and grandson, would expand those core territories to build the state of Muscovy.[148]

The Daniilovichi and the Church

When the Daniilovichi became grand princes of Vladimir during the first half of the fourteenth century, they lacked legitimacy rooted in the dynastic traditions of seniority and succession. They depended upon the authority and favour of the khans of the Golden Horde to hold their position. When the Golden Horde entered a period of internal strife that began with the succession crises of the 1360s, continued with the invasion by Timur, and ultimately resulted in its fragmentation into several khanates during the second quarter of the fifteenth century, the princes of Moscow could no longer rely on the khans' power as a substitute for domestic legitimacy. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries they, therefore, sought to overcome or neutralise their dynastic opponents. They also expanded their own territorial domain and thus increased their economic and military power to become the strongest power in northern Russia. It was the ideological concepts developed by the hierarchs of the Church and the moral authority of the charismatic monastic leaders, however, that conferred a legitimacy on the princes who were shaping a new state of Muscovy.

During the century that followed the Mongol invasion and preceded the reign of Dmitrii Donskoi the outlook of the metropolitans of the Russian Church had diverged from that of the grand princes of Vladimir, particularly the Daniilovich princes. While the princes focused their policies on northern Russia and the Golden Horde, the metropolitans devoted themselves to their entire ecclesiastical realm that included all the lands that had formed Kievan Rus'. The metropolitans, Russians and non-Russians alike,⁷⁶ also maintained regular contact with the patriarch at Constantinople. When Ivan II died in 1359, the metropolitan of the Church was Aleksei, who held his office from 1354 to 1378. He began his tenure in office with an outlook that was similar to that of his predecessors. During the next century, however, particularly as the Russian Church assumed an autocephalous status in the mid-fifteenth century, its leaders developed concepts and mythologies that served their ecclesiastical interests, but also imparted a legitimacy to the Daniilovich princes and elevated their status above the other members of the dynasty.

Aleksei had been nominated by Metropolitan Feognost to be his succes­sor. Aleksei's father was Feodor Biakont, who had moved from Chernigov and entered the service of Prince Daniil. His brother was Aleksandr, who became a boyar in the court of Dmitrii Ivanovich. Aleksei, however, had become a monk, but had been selected by Feognost in 1340 to administer the metropolitan's court. In 1352, Feognost named him bishop of Vladimir. He also sent a delegation to Constantinople to nominate Aleksei for the position of metropolitan. By the time the delegates returned to Moscow, Feognost had died (1353). Aleksei personally went to Constantinople where he remained for a year before being confirmed in his office (1354).⁷⁷

76 Dimitri Obolensky, 'Byzantium, Kiev and Moscow: A Study in Ecclesiastical Rela­tions', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 11 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957), 33, reprinted in his Byzantium and the Slavs (London: Variorum Reprints, 1971) and his Byzantium and the Slavs (Crestwood, N.Y.: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994); Dimitri Obolensky, 'Byzantium and Russia in the Late Middle Ages', in J. R. Hale, J. R. L. High- field andB. Smalley (eds.), Europe in the Late Middle Ages (London: Faber andFaber, 1965),

p. 254.

77 Obolensky, 'Byzantium, Kiev and Moscow', 37-8; Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, pp. 166-7; Presniakov, Formation, pp. 239-40; Crummey Formation of Muscovy,

Later that year, however, another metropolitan, Roman, was named to lead the Orthodox Church in lands under Lithuanian control, including Kiev. The metropolitanate was not reunited until Roman died in i362. During the first years of his tenure in office Aleksei was thus primarily concerned with ending the division of his see. After his return to Moscow from Constantinople in 1355, he travelled extensively to the horde, back to Constantinople, and in 1358 to Kiev. Prince Ol'gerd of Lithuania held him there for two years.⁷⁸

While Aleksei was in Kiev, Khan Navruz issued the patent for the grand principality of Vladimir to Prince Dmitrii Konstantinovich of Suzdal'.⁷⁹ When Aleksei returned, the political competition for the position of grand prince was intensifying. Aleksei used the influence and prestige of his position as well as his close relationship to the Moscow boyars to secure the throne for Dmitrii Ivanovich of Moscow.⁸⁰ After Dmitrii Ivanovich successfully ascended his father's throne and Aleksei's rival, Roman, died (1361), the metropolitan devoted more of his attention to guiding the young prince. His unusual atten- tiveness to the secular affairs of the grand prince provoked complaints from Poland and Lithuania to the patriarch that Aleksei was neglecting their eccle­siastical needs. Tver' too objected that Aleksei displayed unmistakable favour towards Moscow in the conflict between the two principalities that began in 1368. In 1371, the patriarch re-established a metropolitanate for the bish­oprics in Galicia, which were subject to the Polish crown. He urged Aleksei to attend to his entire domain, but when complaints persisted, he sent his agent Kiprian (Cyprian) and other envoys to investigate the matter (1373) and then appointed Kiprian to be metropolitan for the lands subject to Lithuania (1375). It was understood, however, that when Aleksei died, Kiprian would succeed him; the metropolitanate of Kiev and all Rus' would be reunified under his

leadership. ⁸ⁱ

By the time Aleksei died in 1378, it was Kiprian, the metropolitan in Lithua­nia, who represented the policy of reunifying the metropolitanate.⁸² Aleksei, shifting the policy he had inherited from his predecessors and had pursued

p. 43; S. B. Veselovskii, Feodal'noe zemlevladenie v severo-vostochnoi Rusi (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, i947), p. 334.

78 Borisov, Russkaia tserkov', pp. 79-80; N. S. Borisov, 'Moskovskie kniaz'ia i russkie mitropolity XIV veka', VI, 1986, no. 8:41; Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, pp. 169-71,185-6; Presniakov, Formation, pp. 243-5, 253-4; Fennell, Emergence, p. 302.

79 PSRL, vol. x, p. 231.

80 Borisov, Russkaia tserkov', p. 81; Borisov, 'Moskovskie kniaz'ia', 41.

81 Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, pp. 184, 192-201, 287-9; Borisov, Russkaia tserkov', pp. 82, 84-7, 89-90; Obolensky 'Byzantium and Russia', 256; Presniakov Forma­tion, pp. 253, 257-8, 260; Crummey, Formation of Muscovy, pp. 44, 47-9.

82 Presniakov Formation, pp. 297, 299.

in the early years of his tenure in office, led the Church officially centred at Vladimir from 1354 to become closely identified with north-eastern Russia and, more particularly, with the lands subject to the Muscovite prince. Thus, when Kiprian attempted to assume Aleksei's seat, he was ejected from Moscow by Grand Prince Dmitrii Ivanovich. The grand prince nominated his confessor, Michael-Mitiai, to replace Aleksei. When he died on his way to Constantinople, a member of his entourage, Pimen, replaced him.[149]

Although Dmitrii had unceremoniously evicted Kiprian from Moscow when he arrived, he reversed his position after the Battle of Kulikovo. Kiprian assumed the role of metropolitan and remained in Moscow for two years. When Pimen returned from Constantinople, Dmitrii arrested him. Kiprian fled from Moscow, however, when Tokhtamysh approached the city (i382). Although he continued to claim the position, Pimen assumed the functions of metropolitan in north-eastern Russia. Contention between the two per­sisted until 1389, when a new patriarch in Constantinople confirmed Kiprian as metropolitan and both Pimen and Grand Prince Dmitrii died. Kiprian returned to Moscow in 1390.[150]

Kiprian re-established ecclesiastical unity of all the lands of Rus' in a single metropolitanate. He was supported in his efforts by the new grand prince Vasilii I and the most influential leader of the monastic movement in north-eastern Russia, Sergei of Radonezh. Vitovt of Lithuania, who gave his daughter in mar­riage to Vasilii I in 1391, the year after Kiprian joined the Lithuanian and Russian Orthodox communities, also regarded Kiprian and his policies with favour.[151]During the remainder of his tenure in office, Kiprian attempted to consolidate the unity of his see ideologically and symbolically. His triumphal entrance into Moscow, during which he was reportedly accompanied by two Greek metropolitans and five bishops representing north-eastern and south-western Russia, dramatically portrayed his commitment to unifying the metropoli-

tanate.[152]

The same theme was articulated in the Trinity Chronicle, compiled at his behest at the end of his life. The chronicle built upon the Primary Chronicle from the Kievan Rus' era and the 1305 codex that had been produced in Tver' during the reign of Mikhail Iaroslavich; it added information on events to 1408. Its sources and coverage were consistent with the image of the inclu­sive, unified Orthodox community promoted by Metropolitan Kiprian. The chronicle, furthermore, set Moscow at the centre of this community. It por­trayed early fifteenth-century Moscow, the cultural and ecclesiastical centre of north-eastern Russia, as the historical heir of Kiev, the original seat of the metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus'.[153]

Ecclesiastical unity of all the Orthodox Rus', however, raised the prospect of political unity. Ecclesiastical unity under the metropolitan based in Moscow, who was depicted as the heir of the metropolitans based at Kiev, implied that the grand prince in Moscow was the heir of his Kievan ancestors. This per­spective served the interests of the Church hierarchs, who sought to preserve the unity of the metropolitanate under the jurisdiction of the Moscow prelate. It was, perhaps, less acceptable to the Muscovite princes. Political unification of all the northern Russian lands as well as the Orthodox lands under Lithua­nian rule was not a realistic option in the early fifteenth century. In addition, although associations with Kievan Rus' endowed the princes of Moscow with status and respect befitting the descendants of the Kievan grand princes, those references also recalled the unsettling fact of the Daniilovich princes' illegiti­macy according to the norms of succession that had evolved during the Kievan

era.[154]

Representations of the metropolitan at Moscow as the sole legitimate head of the Orthodox community in the Russian lands nevertheless continued to appear and came into sharp focus in the mid-fifteenth century. They were expressed in the context of crises faced by the Church. These accounts, how­ever, not only associated the princes of Moscow with their Kievan ancestors. They imparted to them a moral authority and characterised them as the sec­ular rulers charged with the duty to protect the Orthodox community. They thus provided an ideological foundation for legitimising the grand princes of Moscow.

The population in Muscovite territories faced multiple crises during the second quarter of the fifteenth century. Those who survived the bouts of plague in the early decades of the century (1408-9, 1417, 1419-20) were beset by others, the most severe of which occurred in i424-7 and i448, as well as by accompanying famine.[155] War broke out in the 1430s between Vasilii II and his uncle Iurii and then with his cousin Vasilii Kosoi. The Tatars captured Vasilii II (1445); fire destroyed Moscow; and when Vasilii II was released, the war resumed, this time against his cousin Dmitrii Shemiaka.[156] During most of this period the Church was without a metropolitan; leaderless clergy were politically divided; and in the midst of these difficulties the Russian bishops broke with the patriarch in Constantinople.

The crisis within the Church began after Metropolitan Fotii (Photios), Kiprian's successor, died in i43i. His replacement, appointed by the patri­arch in Constantinople, died before reaching Moscow. The Russian Church lacked a metropolitan just as the war between Vasilii and his uncle began. Unofficially, Iona, the bishop of Riazan', assumed a leadership role. But the war delayed the formal submission of his nomination to the patriarch. Iona was not able to set out for Constantinople until i436, after the hostilities between Vasilii II and Vasilii Kosoi were concluded. But by the time he arrived, the patriarch and emperor had named Isidor to head the Russian Church (i437).[157]

Isidor's appointment had political motives. The Ottoman Turks, who had seized most of the territories of the Byzantine Empire during the previous century, were threatening its very existence. The emperor and patriarch des­perately sought military aid from Europe, but believed it would not be forth­coming without a resolution of the differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Churches. A council to consider terms for reunifying the two Churches was scheduled. Isidor, who had participated in making arrangements for the council and supported the goal of reconciliation, was chosen to become head ofthe Russian Church in orderto gain its co-operation and to lead its delegation to the council.[158]

Within six months of his arrival in Moscow, Isidor left, accompanied by a large delegation, to attend the council in Ferrara and Florence, Italy. The Russian Church was once again left without a resident metropolitan. When Isidor did return in 1441, he came, as a consequence of the union achieved by the council in 1439, as a cardinal and a papal legate. Three days later Vasilii II ordered his deposition and arrested him. Although they allowed Isidor to escape six months later and return to Italy, the grand prince and the clergy of Muscovy firmly rejected union with Rome.

For seven more years the Russian Church lacked a metropolitan. In 1448, shortly after he had recovered Moscow, Vasilii II convened the bishops of the Russian eparchies to elect Iona to be metropolitan of the Russian Church. By failing to follow the patriarch into union with Rome and by naming a metropolitan themselves, the bishops with Vasilii's approval were operating autonomously. The fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 appeared to be divine punishment, validating the conviction held by the Russian Church hierarchs that Constantinople's union with Rome had been heretical. It left the Russian Church as the sole bearer of the true Orthodox faith.[159]

Iona's position, which he held by virtue of election by the bishops and appointment of the grand prince but without consecration from the patri­arch, was tenuous. He and his supporters thus undertook a variety of mea­sures to bolster his claim to leadership over the entire metropolitanate and to justify the method of his selection. The latter involved depicting the princes of Moscow, particularly Vasilii II, as endowed with divine favour and chosen to rule and defend Muscovy, the bastion of the true Orthodox faith. The techniques employed to solidify the position of the metropoli­tan also offered an ideological basis for elevating the grand prince just as he was militarily defeating his rivals and politically consolidating his authority over northern Russia. They provided the domestic source of legitimacy that replaced the Tatar patronage on which the Muscovite princes had previously depended.

After his election Iona began to use the title 'metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus'', as Kiprian, Fotii and even Isidor had done. By doing so Iona asserted himself as the rightful heir of these predecessors and the leader of the entire ecclesiastical realm. He used the title until his death in 1461. In 1458, however, the exiled Uniate patriarch of Constantinople conferred the title on another metropolitan, Gregory (Gregorios Bulgar). Gregory arrived in Lithuania in 1459 and assumed ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Orthodox eparchies, including Kiev, under the secular rule of the king of Poland and Lithuania. The Russian metropolitanate was once again divided and Iona's goal of keeping it unified and Orthodox was thus frustrated.[160]

Efforts were also made to enhance the spiritual stature of the Russian Church. The sainthood ofthe monk Sergei of Radonezh (St Sergius) was recog­nised between 1447 and 1449.[161] In his vita of Sergei, the first version of which he produced in the late 1430s, Pakhomii recorded several miracles.[162] In one the Blessed Virgin, long associated with Kiev, appeared to Sergei and assured him that She would protect his monastery.[163] Images portraying this miracle began to be produced at the Trinity monastery in the 1450s.[164] In another Sergei is depicted as blessing Grand Prince Dmitrii Ivanovich and his army on the eve of the Battle of Kulikovo and as thus being instrumental in securing divine assistance for their victory. Scholars doubt that Sergei gave that blessing.[165] But by including it along with the miracle of the Holy Virgin appearing to Sergei, Pakhomii was able to suggest that the divine protection previously extended to Kiev was transmitted through the agency of Sergei to Moscow and its grand prince. This special favour enabled Dmitrii to defeat the infidel, Mamai and his host. This mythical account of Dmitrii's success contrasted sharply with the reality of the failing efforts of the apostate Byzantium to fend off the infidel Turks. The theme was echoed in the vita, also written by Pakhomii, of Nikon, a disciple of Sergei. In Nikon's case the infidel was Edigei, who invaded the Russian lands in 1408. Although Edigei's campaign had been devastating, in this account Nikon's prayers resulted in Sergei and also the metropolitans Petr and Aleksei interceding to save the Russian land.[166]

Ecclesiastical supporters of Iona thus made the case that divine protection and saintly intercession were reserved for Muscovy, the centre of the true

Orthodox Church. In this context the Muscovite princes were also depicted as divinely selected and endowed with the capacity to defend the Church and the Orthodox community from the infidel. In the vita of Dmitrii Donskoi, which may have been composed in the mid-fifteenth century, the prince's ancestry was traced back not just to Ivan I Kalita or even Daniil Aleksan- drovich, the founder of the Muscovite line of princes, but to St Vladimir of Kiev.[167]

By the late i450s and early i460s, even before chroniclers included Dmitrii's vita in their compilations, Vasilii II was also being depicted in chronicle entries and other tracts about the Council of Florence in elevated terms. Vasilii II was compared to St Vladimir. Whereas St Vladimir had introduced Orthodoxy to the Russian lands, Vasilii II had become its defender. He had the insight and the courage to reject the apostate Isidor and preserve Orthodoxy in Russia. He, therefore, also had the spiritual authority to name the metropolitan. The role assigned to the grand prince carried both glory and responsibility. The fall of Byzantium left Muscovy the largest Orthodox realm in the world. Its grand prince assumed the task of protecting the faith previously undertaken by the Byzantine emperor. The grand princes of Moscow, descended from St Vladimir, blessed with divine favour and charged with the responsibility to defend the true Orthodox faith, had acquired the basis for a claim to legitimacy and sovereignty.[168]

***

During the period 1359-1462 the princes of Moscow struggled to overcome dynastic opposition and hold the position of grand prince of Vladimir. Sur­rounded by the Tatar khanates, into which the Golden Horde subdivided, and Lithuania, they faced formidable powers. But by the time Grand Prince Vasilii died in 1462, they had accumulated sufficient territorial, economic and military resources to become the dominant political figures in northern Russia. Their achievements were solidified by the Orthodox Church that, having lost its battle to preserve a unified metropolitanate of Kiev and all Rus', nevertheless supplied the Muscovite princes with the legitimacy that had so long eluded them. Vasilii II, who fought a civil war to break the dynastic traditions of lat­eral succession and who also ended his ancestors' dependency on the khan for the throne, left his position and possessions to his son, Ivan III, who would transform his inheritance into the state of Muscovy.

Serpukhov and Kolomna that protected the southern frontier of Muscovy also had defensive functions.⁴⁴

The Muscovite princes' consolidation of power benefited from the small size and cohesiveness of their dynastic branch. Due to the effects of the Black Plague and other demographic factors the Daniilovich family remained small. Although each prince had his own principality, either inherited from his father or dispensed by the grand prince, the family's possessions did not, like those of the Rostov princes, become subdivided into numerous, weak patrimonial principalities. Grand Prince Dmitrii Donskoi shared his realm with only one cousin, Vladimir Andreevich, prince of Serpukhov (see Table 7.1). Relations among the Daniilovich princes also were relatively cordial. Unlike the ruling house of Tver', which divided into two, hostile branches in the mid-fourteenth century, the Daniilovich line not only peacefully shared the family's territorial possessions, but also the revenues derived from them. The courtiers of the

44 Miller, 'Monumental Building', 372; Borisov, Russkaia tserkov', p. 112; Nancy Shields Kollmann, Kinship and Politics: The Making of the Muscovite Political System, 1345-1547 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1987), pp. 32-3; Crummey, Formation of Mus­covy, p. 121.