Chapter 1 - Introduction
A. Political entities on Russian soil until 1240
In the year 839 groups of Scandinavian traders gained a foothold in Kiev, an important trade hub in southern Russia and began to control the trade between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea (with the main trading partner being Constantinople) along the Russian rivers and establish their rule via a couple of outposts. This finally lead to the foundation of the first organized state on Russian soil: The Kievan Rus
(1).
In the late 9th century Rurik, who had his power basis in Staraja Ladoga, conquered Kiev and established the Rurik Dynasty, that ruled the Rus until its end. Another important event occurred during the late 10th century, when Vladimir the Great adopted the Byzantine Christianity. In the early 11th century whole Russia was christianized, although the connection to the Orthodox Church lead to irreconcilable contrasts with the Roman Church.
Fig. 1: The Kievan Rus around 1000
The Rus was not a unified country, but an assembly of principalities ruled by different branches of the Rurik Dynasty, with one of them inheriting the title of Grand Prince. A first invasion of the southern Rus by Cumans lead to a migration movement to the north and east. The result was the foundation of new principalities like Novgorod, Vladimir and Susdal and the beginning of the dissolution of the Kievan Rus, that was finished in the middle of the 12th century.
In the following years, the rulers of the different principalities were at war against each other. In the year 1169, the prince of Vladimir-Susdal conquered Kiev and attached the title of Grand Duchy to his own principality, thus illustrating the complete decline of Kiev`s importance.
This feud between the Russian realms eased the Mongol invasion of the Rus in the years 1237 to 1240, when all Russian realms except Novgorod fell under Mongol sovereignty.
B. Northern Russia until 1300
During the next decades, the Golden Horde
(2) controlled northern Russia, with the numerous principalities being their vassals. Important means of their policy was tolerance toward the Christian belief of the local population and the title of Grand Prince, that was granted to specific Princes of the Russian realms, that made them primus inter pares. This policy secured the obedience of the Russian princes toward their Mongol Lords as well as the constant rivalry between the Russian rulers.
During the next decades two Russian realms could gain a dominant position. First off Novgorod, that could maintain more independence from Mongol influence than their southern neighbors. On the other side it had to deal with threats from Sweden and the Teutonic Order until the early 14th century. Secondly the principality of Vladimir-Susdal, that usually did bear the title of a Grand Duchy and thus had a distinguished position among the Mongol vassals.
Although the Kievan Rus did split into even more principalities, some of them (like Smolensk) found their demise when the Grand Duchy of Lithuania expanded eastward throughout the 13th and 14th century.
C. The rise of Moscow in the 14th century
In the early 14th century the Grand Duchy of Vladimir-Susdal dissolved into several principalities due to a lack of heirs, one of it being Moscow. Juri I. Danilovitch expanded Moscows territory by conquering the principalities of Mozhaysk and Pereslawl-Salesski. At the same time a struggle concerning the title of Grand Prince occurred between the principalities of Moscow and Tver, but due to Moscows good connections to the Mongol Khan Uzbeg and an anti-Mongol revolt in Tver, Moscow finally received the title in 1328. Moscow got further support, when Peter, the "Metropolitan of Vladimir and whole Russia" transferred his see from Vladimir to Moscow in the same year.
During the rest of the 14th century, Moscow experienced an inner consolidation via measures like coinage, building projects (e.g. the Kremlin) and internal colonization. But the most important event, that greatly increased the political stability of the realm, was the rearrangement of the order of succession, that switched from seniority to primogeniture.
D. The Grand Duchy of Moscow in the early 15th century
In the first years of the 15th century, the Grand Duchy of Moscow was still a considerably small and economically weak entity with hardly more than 300.000 people amidst vast primeval forests. Although the first states on Russian soil could be compared to their West European counterparts, the developments during the late Medieval show, that a significant drop height began to evolve between west and east Europe, that should haunt the east for the centuries to come. Thus it is no surprise, that Moscow does not compare well on the Johan-scale
(3).
Fig. 2: The Grand Duchy of Moscow (red) around 1419
Although the Grand Princes had made some efforts in terms of centralizing the political power in their own hands and could still compare the current state of affairs to western countries, the Muscovy society completely lacked an upcoming middle class consisting of an urban citizenship. Additionally, the grasp of the Nobility on their peasants, who were de facto bondsmen, was even tighter than in the west.
Both facts severely crippled the Muscovy economy, since it lacked a progressive momentum. Thus, the economy focused on agriculture and forestry slightly above subsistence level.
(1) The word Rus probably described originally a group of Varangians from Sweden and thus the Scandinavian gentry that ruled over the Slavic population. During the 10th century the Scandinavians were completely slavified and the word Rus now described the whole population.
(2) The designation varied, since they were often referred to as Blue or even White Horde
(3) The Johan-scale (also known as "Societal Contrast Scale" - SCS), established in 2001 by the german-swedish historian and sociologist P.D.X. Johan, measures the state of development in specific societal departments with a value between -5 to +5. Although it is still used among the academia, the scale is accused to paint a black/white-picture based on a contemporary attitude to morality. For a complete overview about the critics` stance: King 2002 and Helmbauer 2005.