Considering the fact that he loosed the Oprichniki on the populace regardless of status, which resulted in extortion,mass murder and confiscation of land. On top of that he favored foreigners to the point they got free land for a time and couldn't be taken to court accept for one religious day. With all of this and the subsequent sack of Moscow, why wasn't there a major attempt to overthrow Ivan, unless people were terrified to what might happen from the Oprichniki or Crimean Tartars to do something?
Plausibility Check: Revolt against Ivan the Terrible
- Thread starter BBadolato
- Start date
Not really. To be more exact it's rare for them to succeed. Although I think a big part of why there was no rebellion was because the Ivan was pretty popular among the peasants.
He beat back Mongolian slave raiders, destroyed the corrupt feudal nobility for the service nobility which was good for the serfs, and was very well known for being an extremely pious ruler. In general the peasants didn't have much to worry from him.
Wasn't there? I was under the impression the conspiracies he was so afraid of had a basis in fact. After all, it's the boyars and citypeople that had a reason to hate him, not the peasantry.
To overthrow Ivan?
How could you overthrow a natural born ruler of Muscovite Russia?
I mean there is no way to change the dynasty of Moscow Grand Prince. So the only choice left is to put his son on the throne.
That was something Ivan was afraid of - conspiracy to murder him. He was paranoid about it. By the way there is a possibility that his death was not natural, he might have been poisoned by his courtier.
Speaking of extortion,mass murder and confiscation of land...
There was always some amount of injustice and atrocities in Russia. Especially to common people. Ivan the Terrible was mostly rude to the boyars.
The rest of the populace appreciated what Ivan did - the conquest of the Khanates of Kazan, Astrakhan, and Siberia. These achievements of his massively outweighed all the wrongs of Ivan.
For centuries the Russians struggled for survival surrounded by the aggressive neighbors. Ivan the Terrible started to kick asses of these neighbors for what he was remembered by the majority of the Russians as one of the greatest rulers for centuries.
Oh, horse caca.
Ivan IV was not some sort slightly bloodthirsty social reformer--he issued the first laws in Russia restricting the movement of peasants, and the Oprichnina hit the peasants living there as hard as the nobles. So, no, he didn't JUST kill nobles. Ivan killed Russians. Poor Russians, rich Russians, noble Russians, common Russians.
As for increasing the power of his nation against foreigners--well, he did quite well in the beginning attacking the weakened hordes of Khiva and Astrakhan, back when he actually seemed to trust and work with those supposedly corrupt service nobles he just had to get rid of. But when he started turning against them and calling the shots, he got Russia involved in a lengthy war against all its western neighbors that dragged on for most of his reign and ended with Russia losing territory. Partially due to his constantly escalating the stakes, and partially due to his starting up that Oprichnina thing, which I have to stress was a horrible idea. So again, no not really, especially as not that long after his death, Russia is getting invaded by those nations it was fighting against not that long ago. (And hell, while he's alive, the Crimean Tatars are raiding Moscow. Yeah, brilliant success there.)
Let's move on to that 'western neighbors invading' issue. While part of what started the Time of Troubles was the whole dynastic failure issue--which can be landed squarely on Ivan's shoulders--another part would be that this was a society where bonds of trust had been eroded. And yep, that can also be blamed on Ivan, who did everything he could to foster suspicion and fear among his people. That was Ivan's legacy--not a stronger nation, but a nation weakened.
Now, returning to the opening question, why didn't people rise up against him? Well, it's complicated. The position of Grand Prince of Vladimir and Muscovy held a great deal of spiritual heft, something that Ivan exploited mercilessly. Further, Russia had just emerged from a troubled regency, and before that, a lengthy period of internal strife. Early on, there seems to have been a general feeling that strong rule was needed, and putting up with Ivan's oddities was just the price of that. Later on, Ivan had set up enough mechanisms to nip anything in the bud--and people probably didn't trust each other enough to start anything.
Oh, and as for Ivan being poisoned--he was a 54 year old man with numerous bad habits, among them heavy drinking. A stroke in those circumstances is hardly suspicious.
My apologies if this has gone on a bit, but Ivan apologetics rival Lost Causers in my mind in their efforts to make the evil seem acceptable.
Ivan IV was not some sort slightly bloodthirsty social reformer--he issued the first laws in Russia restricting the movement of peasants, and the Oprichnina hit the peasants living there as hard as the nobles. So, no, he didn't JUST kill nobles. Ivan killed Russians. Poor Russians, rich Russians, noble Russians, common Russians.
As for increasing the power of his nation against foreigners--well, he did quite well in the beginning attacking the weakened hordes of Khiva and Astrakhan, back when he actually seemed to trust and work with those supposedly corrupt service nobles he just had to get rid of. But when he started turning against them and calling the shots, he got Russia involved in a lengthy war against all its western neighbors that dragged on for most of his reign and ended with Russia losing territory. Partially due to his constantly escalating the stakes, and partially due to his starting up that Oprichnina thing, which I have to stress was a horrible idea. So again, no not really, especially as not that long after his death, Russia is getting invaded by those nations it was fighting against not that long ago. (And hell, while he's alive, the Crimean Tatars are raiding Moscow. Yeah, brilliant success there.)
Let's move on to that 'western neighbors invading' issue. While part of what started the Time of Troubles was the whole dynastic failure issue--which can be landed squarely on Ivan's shoulders--another part would be that this was a society where bonds of trust had been eroded. And yep, that can also be blamed on Ivan, who did everything he could to foster suspicion and fear among his people. That was Ivan's legacy--not a stronger nation, but a nation weakened.
Now, returning to the opening question, why didn't people rise up against him? Well, it's complicated. The position of Grand Prince of Vladimir and Muscovy held a great deal of spiritual heft, something that Ivan exploited mercilessly. Further, Russia had just emerged from a troubled regency, and before that, a lengthy period of internal strife. Early on, there seems to have been a general feeling that strong rule was needed, and putting up with Ivan's oddities was just the price of that. Later on, Ivan had set up enough mechanisms to nip anything in the bud--and people probably didn't trust each other enough to start anything.
Oh, and as for Ivan being poisoned--he was a 54 year old man with numerous bad habits, among them heavy drinking. A stroke in those circumstances is hardly suspicious.
My apologies if this has gone on a bit, but Ivan apologetics rival Lost Causers in my mind in their efforts to make the evil seem acceptable.
No, no, you got me wrong. As for me personally I am not at all apologetic about Ivan the Terrible. Not at all. He was a mentally sick person on the throne. A hideous creature.
My point was his perception by the Russians. You know that after his death he was glorified in the Russian folklore for centuries as a fearsome but just and good ruler, like a father to his people.
I am sure that he was seen the same during his lifetime by the overwhelming majority of the Russian populace. Yes, everybody knew that because of him a lot of the Russians were killed. But that did not matter too much. Life was cheap in Russia.
Ivan had his shortcomings, he was a bloodthirsty bitch, but he was loved by the Russians, that was my point.
You know that is something to say about the Russian mentality - if a ruler tried real hard to beat the enemies of the Russians and had some success - the Russians loved him. No matter how many Russians were killed by this ruler.
By the way, when the Oprichniki lost the war to the Crimean Tartars they were disbanded by Ivan himself. So the Russians saw that their tsar admitted his mistake.
So, my point is that there was no way that there could be any general revolt against Ivan the Terrible. It was just impossible. A murder - yes, might be, by some assassins - in order to put his son on the throne. But no general uprising.
My apologies if I misunderstood you.
Still, I think it was less the idea of Ivan as a basically just ruler who was for the peasants--which I feel dates back to Soviet Russia, specifically Stalin, who was eager to get the idea around that Russia needed strong rulers who only beat Russia because they loved her--and more the 'this man was selected by God', and as I noted, Ivan's skill at creating a sense of fear and uncertainty. It's hard to start a rebellion when you aren't sure that a possible co-conspirator won't inform on you.
Still, I agree--an uprising is highly unlikely. A murder--possible.
Russian folk song about Ivan the Terrible, "On what street you're father was ride, those that on the right - hanging, those on the left - on a stake planted."
It is true to say that in comparison with his contemporary colleagues, Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth II, he did not stand out too much, not to mention the massacre of St. Bartholomew, of which he wrote the German Emperor, the French are absolutely crazy, so many people in one night killed.