#house of rurik

Ivan IV and Richard III-Part 2

e)The posthumous reputations. As was established here the Godunovs didn’t manage to hold on to power and the Time of Troubles was a bad period. The Romanov dynasty which came and marked the end of the Times of Troubles in 1613 managed to claim the throne on the grounds that the first Tsar of the Romanov dynasty was great-nephew of Anastasia Romanovna, Ivan the Terrible’s first beloved wife. Because of that the Romanovs never essentially did or attempted to do with Ivan’s image what was done to Richard’s image under the Tudors. As many historians point out for the sake of political capital and to extra prop up Tudors’ ascension on the throne Richard III was described not simply as a bad King-usurper and a tyrant, but according to the numerous Tudor chronicles essentially as some form of evil abomination, so Tudors looked like heroes who defeated this almost-Antichrist and saved England. The Romanovs per the official narrative weren’t saving Russia from Ivan the Terrible (Ivan was dead for 29 years by the time the Romanovs came to the throne). They were saving Russia from the consequences of the Times of Troubles and the legacy of the Godunovs, who fucked up. Besides the Romanov dynasty had their own share of familial conflicts, and thus they were not inclined to overly demonize Ivan (or Rurik dynasty in general). Peter I the Great, one of the most prominent and respected rulers of Romanov dynasty, imprisoned his son and heir Alexei on accusations of conspiring rebellion against him, Alexei was tortured and condemned to death – but he died because of inflicted torture, before his execution. Then Catherine (later known as Catherine the Great) deposed her husband Peter III and he promptly died/was killed. Then Alexander(future Alexander I) knew that they’d depose his father Paul I – but Paul was not just deposed, he was assassinated. Alexander’s accession to the throne was announced by one of the conspirators who took part in the coup. Historians still debate to this date if Alexander knew his father was going to get murdered or he wanted to simply remove his father from power and become Emperor himself but wanted to spare his father’s life. So, while numerous historians wrote various accounts about Ivan’s reign during the rule of the Romanovs and some of them’re quite critical of Ivan and some of his actions, Ivan didn’t become the prime villain in the Romanovs’ story, like Richard III became in Tudors’ story and remained conflicted, complicated, debatable, feared but respected figure both in Russian history and among many of the Romanovs themselves.In fact, Romanovs used Ivan for self-political propaganda too, but often they used him for establishing continuity and elevation of royal power. Peter the Great himself openly respected and appreciated Ivan as the ruler and for example when Peter became Emperor, he used Ivan’s image during one of major celebrations, there was large image of Ivan IV (as first Tsar) on one side of triumphal arch with inscription “Started it” and on the other side large image of the Peter the Great himself (as first Emperor) with inscription “Improved it”. Catherine the Great also respected Ivan the Terrible, and praised him.  Romanovs, as you see, in many ways stressed that they’re continuing after Ivan the whole state-building and state-governing. Richard III didn’t get such posthumous respectable edition.
So, here’s the difference, basically.

Continue reading:
Ivan IV and Henry VIII- Part 1
Ivan IV and Henry VIII- Part 2
Ivan IV and Richard III - Part1

Ivan IV andRichard III-Part 1

About Ivan IV and Henry VIIIreadhereandhere.

a)The significance of reigns. Ivan IV reigned for 37 years (as Tsar), while Richard III’s reign was extremely short, only 2 years. So trying to compare them as rulers is pretty difficult. Ivan’s achievements during his reign are incompatible with ones of Richard III - Ivan was the first Russian Tsar, the one who established Tsardom of Russia, transformed the country from Medieval state to a large reformed centralized imperial state, etc. Richard III simply didn’t manage to have any really important achievements during his short reign. Of course, it all has the impact as well of how these rulers and their reigns are viewed by academia and public in general. Ivan’s impact and achievements are too significant for Russian history to downplay them, just because of some of his dubious or questionable or even brutal actions.  However, what was similar between them that they both belonged to old ruling dynasties, which, unlike Tudor dynasty, ruled for several hundreds of years (Plantagenets and Ruriks/Rurikids, respectively). What Ivan and Richard have also in common is the debates around them, like if they were truly despicable, maligned, to what degree, etc. Yet I might say, that while Ivan has his rich share of such debates, it’s still not comparable with debates around Richard III and, like, passion in these debates. But then frankly speaking I don’t think any other historical figure can compare in this regard with Richard III, from what I saw and read. He is some sort of curious anomaly.

b)The descriptions. Both Richard III and Ivan IV were somewhat similar in that they were given pretty radical and scary description at times in some historical accounts : for example, according to one Tudor chronicle Richard III retained within his mother’s womb for 2 years, was born with teeth and hair to his shoulders and was called scorpion. In another one he was called monster with talons. According to one of Russian historical accounts it was said that Ivan IV also was born with teeth, that the day he was born was a great storm with Moscow trembling in the flames of lightning and sounds of thunder. In another one it was said that Ivan ate human flesh and was referred to as vampire. Of course, such descriptions affected how these men were seen by people throughout the history. Needless to say, some of that stuff is clearly made up or exaggerated – and some stuff, like being born with teeth (if it was true), is just a show of outdated thinking and superstition when people thought that babies born with teeth were bad omen and evil.

c)The family affairs. And another prime similarity of course the controversy about what they did with their relatives. While Richard’s controversy is if he killed or didn’t kill his deposed nephews, Ivan’s controversy is if he killed or not his son and heir, also named Ivan. According to some sources Ivan IV had a very heated quarrel with his son and was believed to strike him on the head with his sceptre in a fit of rage and due to the wounds his son died several days later. Ivan was horrified of his own actions and crushed with grief. 3 years later he died himself and his another son Feodor succeeded him on the throne as new Tsar and ruled for 15 years. Other sources (and historians) dispute this version and point out that Ivan the heir was ill for quite some time and simply died because of it, and then rumours were spread that it was actually his father who killed him. While historians debate over this issue to this date, those who believe that Ivan indeed killed him (that’s frankly speaking the most popular version) usually view the situation (and Ivan himself) in the following way: 1) it was a very tragic accident; 2) it’s seen in a wider context of the Rurik dynasty as a whole - Rurik dynasty from the very beginning had succession built on  agnatic seniority (a patrilineal principle of inheritance where the order of succession to the throne prefers the monarch’s younger brother over the monarch’s own sons. A monarch’s children (the next generation) often succeed only after the males of the elder generation have all been exhausted). Due to this, male members of Rurik dynasty repeatedly fought each other in order to take the throne and power – brothers against brothers, uncles against nephews, cousins against cousins and even fathers against sons (and vice versa) – and sometimes some of them succeeded and killed one another. That lasted almost as long as Rurik dynasty existed. So, in context of his forefathers, Ivan the Terrible really didn’t stand out that much. And while for Richard III the whole discourse “whodunit”, it seems, is the prime moment for focus on him as historical figure, for Ivan the whole deal with his son is significant, but ultimately doesn’t cancel out his other very important moments as historical figure.

d)How they came to the throneand how they left it.Ivan was the eldest son and heir of Grand Prince Vasily III, he simply got the throne from him and was crowned as first Tsar of Russia. Thus Ivan was an undisputable legitimate ruler. Richard III on the other hand seized the crown from his nephew, Edward V.Richard’s father wasn’t King,Richard himself wasn’t prince and his nephews were above him in the line of succession.So it affected of course how they were/are viewed as rulers. Richard was/is seen and presented by quite some as usurper , while Ivan wasn’t/isn’t. Another key difference between Richard and Ivan is that Richard’s dynasty, Plantagenets, ended on him and he’s succeeded by the new dynasty, Tudors, which defeated him. Ivan’s dynasty, the Ruriks/Rurikids, ended on his sons. His son Feodor succeeded him, but died childless. His another son, Dmitry, was still young at the moment of his father death and died  under mysterious circumstances years after his father’s death. Dmitry was the son from Ivan’s last uncanonical wife Maria Nagaya and his claim to the throne was weaker than those of Ivan’s sons from his canonical first marriage, but in the absence of any  other living  sons  Dmitry would have become a new Tsar, and one of the most popular historical versions is that Dmitry was murdered by Boris Godunov, prominent courtier, whose sister was Feodor’s wife and Tsaritsa, Godunov after the end of the Rurik dynasty ascended the throne as new Tsar, tried to establish his own dynasty, failed and that led to years of  instability and strife known as the Times of Troubles.

Continue reading:
Ivan IV and Richard III - Part 2

Ivan IV and Henry VIII- Part 2

Continuation ofPart 1 here.

c)The evaluation of reputation as rulers. Both Henry and Ivan ruled their countries for a long period of time, both carried out large groundbreaking reforms and important changes, which changed the course of their countries forever (and often with hardships, force and blood), both were known during the lives for their education, wits, talents (both composed music, for example), but also for their tempers, paranoia, fits of rage and sensuality. Both were considered to be tyrannical. However again, the roots of their behaviour and actions were different, as Henry VIII had a pretty good stable childhood, and later adult life, for the time period (until his problems with having living male children truly kicked in), so a big factor in his paranoia and in many of his OTT actions was the short existence of Tudor dynasty by that time and fear of instability of said dynasty as he needed male heirs to prop it. In case of Ivan he didn’t have such dynastical turmoil - Ivan’s dynasty, the Rurik dynasty, has ruled for hundreds of years, and he didn’t have a problem with siring male heirs, who lived. If anything, Ivan created a sort of dynastical crisis for himself at the end of his life, when his heir died (presumed to be killed by his father in a heated quarrel), but still at the moment of Ivan’s death he had two other living sons. Yet, unlike Henry’s life, Ivan’s life was anything but stable from the very start, and that’s what shaped him and his OTT actions: he lost his father when he was 3, his mother ruled as regent for him but died when he was 8 (she was poisoned by nobles who wanted to remove her from power), Ivan was abused as a child by the nobles who raised him as guardians from then on (they didn’t even feed him or give him new clothes sometimes), he would grow older, avenge his mother, become first Tsar of Russia, marry his first wife for love, fight with some of his relatives and powerful nobles who wanted to depose him, lose his wife (most likely to court intrigues and poison) after 13 years of marriage. And that’s all happened by the time Ivan turned only 30. It really didn’t make him kinder or softer as a ruler or a more emotionally stable person as you may understand. All those factors contributed to how Ivan’s reign is viewed, all controversies included, including how he is viewed in academia and in popular culture. Despite many different opinions and evaluations of his rule, Ivan IV’s reign in Russia, all debates and his deeds considered, is still quite respected and there is a big chunk of appreciation, understanding and even sympathy towards Ivan himself as a complex but important ruler and individual. If to make comparisons, then you might say that Russians have much more sympathy for Ivan both as a ruler and individual, even with all his controversies, and there is a lot of inspection, both in academia and popular culture, of his numerous nuances as Tsar, statesman and person with all pros and cons, while if you look up British academia, there isn’t that much sympathy for Henry VIII as a ruler and individual himself, with his controversies - there is a lot for his wives (Anne Boleyn is the prime example), or his children (Henry definitely doesn’t get that much sympathetic evaluation in popular culture too, to be honest). So here’s the difference.

Continue reading:
Ivan IV and Richard III - Part 1
Ivan IV and Richard III - Part 2

To anonymous wholeft the ask in my inbox about Ivan the Terrible, Henry VIII and Richard III, and their controversies, and how those match. I tried to make a long reply to your ask, but tumblr doesn’t allow long replies, I didn’t manage to post it and in the process deleted your ask by accident and didn’t manage to print screen it. *Facepalm*. I’m making separate posts as reply to your ask as I promised.

As for your question. Well, my blog is dedicated to women in Russian history, so I prefer asks about them, naturally, but I’ll try to answer your question here, especially since you asked about the wives as well. Also it’s a bit difficult to make such comparisons between those monarchs - different countries, different cultures, traditions, mentality, etc. Plus, while Henry VIII andIvan IV the Terrible were indeed contemporaries (Ivan was crowned in January 1547, while Henry VIII died in January 1547), Richard III died 45 years before Ivan was even born. As for controversies, indeed all of these rulers are controversial one way or another, and there are some similarities between them but also big differences. I’ll try to make a break down of those in an accessible manner.

Ivan IV and Henry VIII-Part 1

a)The moniker. First of all you should note the English word “terrible” is usually used to translate the Russian word Грозный (Grozny) in Ivan’s nickname, but that is a somewhat-archaic translation. The Russian word Грозный reflects the older English usage of terrible as in “inspiring fear or terror; dangerous; powerful; formidable”. It does not convey the more modern connotations of English “terrible” such as “defective” or “evil”. Just to get it out of the way.

b)The wives. While you asked me about the wives issue, yes, Ivan is similar to Henry VIII in regards that he had multiple wives throughout his life as Henry VIII had, there were quite different reasons for it. Henry VIII was trying to have a legitimate son and heir. Then he tried to replace wife, who died after finally giving him son, so he could have even more sons. Ivan had two sons by his first wife, and he actually wasn’t that desperate for more heirs, like Henry was (although of course the more sons the better). His constant remarriages after the death of his first wife, Anastasia Romanovna, happened either due to some boyars (nobles) at first thinking that Tsar absolutely needs a wife besides him and that wife could have a soothing influence on Ivan, as Anastasia had a very positive influence on him and his reign in general (Ivan really went off the rails after Anastasia’s death), or due to his unstable temper, or due to some political reasons. Ivan’s second marriage was a political match to Circassian  Princess, whose beauty he also appreciated. They were married for 8 years and then she died. His third wife fell ill and died just after two weeks after the wedding. His fourth wife was a barely legal match as Russian church allowed only 3 marriages in one’s lifetime and refused to give the blessing initially. Ivan had to plea with them on the grounds that his third marriage was not consummated. Then the church finally agreed. Basically, under Russian laws only these 4 women were considered Ivan’s true legal wives and Tsaritsas. All other women he “married” were not actually considered as real canonical wives/Tsaritsas by the church, but were seen more like elevated mistresses/concubines or uncanonical wives at best. Also despite Ivan’s ruthless and unpredictable character, he actually never executed his wives, unlike Henry VIII.Ivan’s three canonical wives (Anastasia Romanovna, Maria Temryukovna, Marfa Sobakina) all died by themselves (in case of Anastasia it’s the most accepted version that she was poisoned by her court enemies), his 4th (canonical) wife (Anna Koltovskaya) and 5th (uncanonical) wife (Anna Vasilchikova) were sent to the monastery. His 6th and last (uncanonical) wife (Maria Nagaya) outlived him. There were also attempts to attribute or invent two more uncanonical wives for Ivan, and that’s why you’d see Ivan mentioned having seven or eight wives, but these were highly questionable and disputed instances, based on unsupported sources, many not even contemporary ones, and now it’s mostly  believed by Russian historians those two women simply didn’t even exist.

Continue reading:
Ivan IV and Henry VIII- Part 2
Ivan IV and Richard III - Part 1
Ivan IV and Richard III - Part2