Without any doubt, Peter I is the most famous Russian monarch and one of the most notable and significant figures in Russian history overall. The first emperor who transformed his country into one of the leading European powers, founder of Saint Petersburg, and author of radical cultural transformations, he became a legend both in Russia and abroad even during his lifetime. Peter’s behavior was also unusual for a monarch: his disregard for ceremonies, his manner of exuberantly entertaining himself and dressing plainly, as well as his colorful personal life. It is not surprising that the most incredible rumors and legends about him arose among his contemporaries.
Peter I Was Swapped at Birth
Portrait of Tsarevich Peter Alekseevich, 1670s
“The sovereign was swapped” is one of the most common themes in popular mythology about rulers. Essentially, if a divinely appointed ruler does something we strongly dislike, there could be two explanations: either such a ruler was sent to us from above as punishment for our sins, or he is “not real,” meaning he was swapped. From the materials of the Preobrazhensky Prikaz and the Secret Chancellery, we know that both of these scenarios were widely discussed by contemporaries, and the unprecedented fact of the sovereign’s incognito trip abroad only added fuel to the fire.
However, to discuss this version seriously is not warranted: Peter I was the legitimate son of his father, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, from his second wife, Tsarina Natalia Naryshkina.
Verdict: This is false.
Peter I Was of Gigantic Stature and Had a Small Head
26-year-old Peter the Great. The portrait by Gottfried Kneller was presented by Peter in 1698 to the English king
Contemporaries unanimously noted Peter’s tall stature, but how tall he actually was is unknown. Whether the surviving mark in Peter’s Cabin, which suggests his height exceeded two meters, is a reliable source remains questionable. On the other hand, the clothing that has survived and undoubtedly belonged to him does not amaze with its size.
However, even by our standards, if Peter was a person of average height—over 170 cm—he still would have seemed very tall to his contemporaries, who were significantly shorter. As for the claim that he had an abnormally small head, there is no evidence.
Verdict: This is partly true.
Peter I Exchanged Chuvash People, Redheads, or Votyaks for Nails
The origin of this particular legend is unclear. But it is worth remembering that a significant part of Russia’s population consisted of serfs; the rest could be turned into serfs at any moment by a mere stroke of the sovereign’s pen. Selling, gifting, or exchanging a person or an entire populated estate seemed entirely normal to people of that era. This was especially true for “foreigners” and non-Christians, such as prisoners or those brought from abroad—often young Turks or Kalmyks.
Equally common was the “collection” of people by monarchs or even wealthy landlords who appeared unusual due to their appearance: “Samoeds,” “Arabs,” “giants,” “freaks,” “dwarfs,” and fools. This, however, was not only practiced in Russia: such live “curiosities” could be exchanged between monarchs. For instance, in 1717, Peter ordered “two Samoed boys, who were uglier and funnier,” to be found and sent as a gift to the Duke of Tuscany; the Duke gladly accepted the gift. However, Peter probably did not exchange people for nails.
Verdict: This is likely false.
Peter I Killed His Own Son
Streltsy uprising. Miniature from the manuscript of the 1st half of the 18th century “History of Peter the Great”, by Peter Krekshin
Peter threatened his son with death, after which the court he appointed did indeed sentence the tsarevich to execution. According to the official version, however, he died of a stroke, that is, a heart attack. Similarly, in the 18th century, the deaths of other rulers who died under suspicious circumstances were explained. Whether Tsarevich Alexei was secretly executed or died, for example, from torture to which he was subjected after the sentence, is not so important. His death in captivity in the Peter and Paul Fortress could not have occurred without the knowledge and at least tacit approval of Peter.
The sovereign was just as ruthless towards his other subjects. According to legend, during the mass execution of the rebellious Streltsy, he personally took up an axe. This legend originates from a report by a foreign diplomat, so there is no absolute certainty of its accuracy. However, it is precisely known that Peter personally attended interrogations in the dungeon for hours when those suspected of treason were tortured. The number of those tortured in dungeons, killed while suppressing revolts, or simply dead from hunger and disease on the battlefields or during the great construction projects of the era cannot be counted. What is clear, in any case, is that the era was bloody.
Verdict: This is true.
Peter I Was An Atheist or a Protestant
Of course, we cannot know for sure whether Peter (or anyone else) believed in God. Many contemporaries already considered Peter a non-believer, a Protestant, or even the Antichrist, and some of them paid for these views with their lives. Such a perception of the monarch is unsurprising, given his radical reform of the Church, his irreverent attitude toward the church hierarchy and rituals, and his personal behavior, which ran counter to church norms. However, the crude entertainments that Peter indulged in during the “All-Joking, All-Drunken Synod” would seem equally shocking to any modern atheist.
It is also true that Peter, it seems, attached less importance to the theological differences between Orthodoxy and other Christian denominations. And there is no doubt that Feofan Prokopovich, who determined Peter’s church policy starting from the mid-1710s, was under the strong influence of Pietism, the most important Protestant movement of that time. How much Peter delved into the doctrinal essence of the innovations proposed by Prokopovich is unclear, but he was clearly drawn to the model of state subordination of the Church, characteristic of many Protestant countries.
Nevertheless, it is utterly impossible to imagine that Peter I did not consider himself an Orthodox Christian, and even more so that he was an atheist in the modern sense. There is a wealth of evidence of Peter’s deep piety; while he mocked church rituals in some cases, he devoutly observed them in others. Finally, he naturally regarded God as the source of his own power.
Verdict: This is false.
Peter I Opened a Window to Europe
It is believed that this metaphor was first used by the Italian Francesco Algarotti in his notes after visiting Russia in the late 1730s, more than ten years after Peter’s death. In reality, Algarotti compared St. Petersburg to “a window through which Russia looks into Europe.” His metaphor was later picked up by Pushkin and popularized in “The Bronze Horseman” (where he, by the way, directly refers to Algarotti). In Pushkin’s poem, Peter expresses his intention to “cut a window to Europe,” and, judging by the context, the meaning of this “window” is somewhat different from Algarotti’s: it is more like an opening through which Europe flows into Russia.
Either way, the metaphor is quite accurate. Naturally, Russia was not isolated from Europe before the founding of the new capital on the Neva River.
But it was St. Petersburg that became Russia’s main trading port; many foreigners lived there; and it was through St. Petersburg that various cultural influences, novelties, fashions, new institutions, and behavior models from Europe penetrated Russia.
Verdict: This is more likely true.
Peter I Brought Potatoes to Russia and Forced Peasants to Eat Them
Peter may have indeed brought some potatoes to Russia as a curiosity — he ordered all sorts of oddities, like pickled mangoes, for instance — but no campaign to promote potatoes took place during his reign. Potatoes only started to take root in Russia much later, in the second half of the century.
Verdict: This is false.
Peter I Issued a Decree “On the Bold and Foolish Appearance” of Subordinates
During his reign, Peter personally wrote many decrees, often addressing the most insignificant matters and sounding, by our standards, strange and rather rude. For example, there was the 1707 decree requiring all members of the ministerial “conzilia” to sign meeting protocols, “for by this all foolishness will be revealed.” This meant that ministers who gave bad advice could not later deny it. Many decrees originated from the monarch’s oral orders, which explains the colloquial, even coarse, tone of some of them.
On the other hand, many of Peter’s sayings are known only through retellings by contemporaries or their descendants. By the end of the 18th century, two important publications had appeared that collected many of these sayings: “Stories of Nartov About Peter the Great” and “Deeds of Peter the Great, the Wise Reformer of Russia.” In both cases, the publishers — the son of Peter’s court turner and mechanic Andrey Nartov, and amateur historian Ivan Ivanovich Golikov, respectively — took considerable liberties with the sources.
Against this backdrop, it’s easy to attribute all sorts of sayings to Peter — including the decree for subordinates to have a “bold and foolish appearance in front of their superiors so as not to disturb them with their intelligence.” However, historians know nothing about the existence of such a decree. It’s a fake, apparently spread in the internet age. Its content contradicts everything we know about Peter: his genuine decrees, on the contrary, encourage subordinates to “disturb” their superiors and report them to the sovereign.
Verdict: This is false.
Peter I Chopped Off Beards with an Axe
Peter did indeed begin to fight against beard-wearing after his return from the Great Embassy in August 1698. There is evidence that in some cases, he personally cut off the beards of the boyars. The imperial envoy Count Guarient reported that the young tsar personally trimmed the long beards of many boyars, as well as other clergy and laypeople. There are other similar accounts, but an axe is not directly mentioned in any of them.
Most likely, the cutting of beards got mixed up with another episode involving Peter: during the infamous Streltsy executions, the tsar, according to the testimony of a foreign diplomat, wielded an axe himself. Such a mix-up is not surprising. The beard-cutting episode occurred immediately after the Streltsy uprising, in which Peter suspected many elite members of sympathizing, so beard-cutting apparently also served as a symbolic punishment through humiliation. It is possible, however, that the soldiers sent to enforce the beard-shaving decree in the provinces may indeed have used an axe.
Verdict: This is almost true.
Peter I Was an Alcoholic and Forced Others to Drink
It is impossible to say retrospectively whether Peter was an alcoholic in the strict medical sense, but descriptions by contemporaries and Peter’s own letters leave no doubt: yes, he and his entourage drank excessively, and yes, guests at Peter’s feasts were forced to drink liters of alcohol. One could argue whether there was a political intent — to loosen tongues, to elicit hidden thoughts. Moreover, it was not only at the Russian court but also at many European courts where people regularly drank themselves into a stupor.
It is also true that Peter’s customs matched the established European stereotype of “Russian drunkenness.” When preparing to become an ambassador to Russia in the late 1720s, the Anglo-Spanish aristocrat Duke de Liria was already convinced that “all matters in those lands are conducted over a bottle.” And yet, the fact remains: many of our contemporaries would have died from alcohol poisoning after just one of Peter’s parties.
Verdict: This is true.
Peter I Hated Russia and Moscow
The origin of this myth is understandable: the tsar eradicated Russian customs, was fascinated with all things foreign, and moved the capital to St. Petersburg. Does this mean he hated Russia and Moscow? Of course, there are no documents where he directly confesses his feelings.
Peter could not have hated Russia; he was deeply convinced that ruling Russia was a task entrusted to him by God, and that he would have to answer for the country’s fate on Judgment Day. Moreover, it was Peter who introduced the idea that the military and officials serve not only the sovereign personally but also the homeland. According to him, even the tsar serves.
However, Peter certainly hated many of the Russian ways. As for Moscow, it symbolized everything Peter wanted to change in Russia. Moreover, it was associated in the emperor’s mind with his childhood fears, uprisings, and conspiracies. Nevertheless, Peter acknowledged the symbolic significance of Moscow and spent quite a bit of time there even after the founding of St. Petersburg.
Verdict: This is more likely false.
Peter I Was Just, Severe, and Quick to Forgive
In popular mythology, “just, severe, and quick to forgive” are essential attributes of any strong ruler, a true tsar. How much do these attributes reflect reality in the case of Peter?
He certainly considered himself just and consistently emphasized his commitment to the law and the principle of fair reward for service. However, he often violated the very laws he had created.
He was certainly “severe”: being extremely quick-tempered, he could instantly sentence an offender to death or severe punishment. However, the opposite situation was also common: the tsar was aware for years of the crimes and theft of his close associates but did nothing. He could probably be considered quick to forgive, but this tendency was more often associated with the influence of his second wife, Catherine, who repeatedly saved guilty nobles from execution.
Verdict: In some sense, this is true.
Peter I Himself Worked on the Construction of St. Petersburg
Peter took pride in his calloused hands (literally): he enjoyed manual labor and had a deep understanding of the technological details of various crafts—from shipbuilding to metal forging—planting trees in gardens, and so on. In his spare time, he enjoyed working on a lathe, a hobby that was quite popular in Europe at the time. When in St. Petersburg, he regularly inspected construction sites and shipyards. During such visits, he could certainly grab a wheelbarrow or a shovel. However, it is unlikely he had the time or desire to shovel for an extended period.
Verdict: This is true.
Peter I Suffered from Syphilis, Epilepsy, and Mental Illness
Peter the Great on his deathbed, by Nikitin
Retrospectively diagnosing medical conditions is a thankless task. Nonetheless, rumors about Peter having a venereal disease were circulating even during his lifetime. Informed foreign diplomats reported that this very disease led to his death, which aligns well with the known circumstances of his demise: Peter died in excruciating pain caused by a urinary tract obstruction and associated bladder inflammation, which could have been caused or exacerbated by a long-standing venereal disease.
The version of epilepsy also does not contradict known descriptions of his behavior (contemporaries often mentioned convulsions, fits of rage, tics, and the like). As for mental illness, that, of course, is pure speculation. Did many of his contemporaries consider the tsar’s behavior abnormal? Certainly.
Verdict: Quite possibly, this is true.
Peter I Had a German Mistress
The relationship between Peter and Anna Mons was widely known to contemporaries and is reflected in many sources; even Anna’s letters to the tsar have been preserved. Peter broke off with his mistress after discovering she was cheating on him with a Saxon diplomat. She later even married a Prussian ambassador. However, Anna’s closest relatives continued to serve at court, and her younger brother Willem apparently even became the lover of Peter’s second wife, Catherine, which cost him his life.
Verdict: This is true.
Peter I Was the Father of Mikhail Lomonosov
Preobrazhensky Regiment with the Sukarev tower
Besides Anna Mons, Peter had many other love affairs: with court ladies who became his more or less permanent mistresses, with maidservants, or with random women he encountered during campaigns and travels. As with Peter’s relationship with Anna Mons, these affairs were described in reports by foreign diplomats and widely discussed among the people: we know about this from the investigative files of the Preobrazhensky Prikaz and the Secret Chancellery.
In court circles, it was whispered that Peter’s illegitimate children included the legendary military leader Peter Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky and Field Marshal Count Zakhar Chernyshev; both their mothers had at one time been the emperor’s mistresses.
However, substantiating the version that Lomonosov was among Peter’s illegitimate children is difficult. During the scholar’s lifetime, such rumors did not exist. This legend originates from the memoirs of Arkhangelsk sailor Vasily Korelsky, published in our time; in them, the author referred to family legends and a certain manuscript allegedly kept in their family before the war but then lost. These testimonies are highly dubious.
According to Korelsky, Lomonosov’s mother supposedly met Peter in early January 1711 in Ust-Tosno, but this period of Peter’s life is well-documented, and he was not in the North at that time. The assumption that Lomonosov owed his career and position at court to his status as a bastard is pure speculation and not supported by any evidence.
Even contemporaries of the early 17th-century events referred to them as the “Time of Troubles.” The word “troubled” (смутный) in pre-Petrine Russia had, as it does now, negative connotations: anxious, chaotic, full of discord, turbulent, and so on. It very accurately describes this period: a time of deep crisis in both governmental institutions and Russian statehood. Russia experienced a Polish military intervention, and the first civil war began.
This period can be compared to the beginning of the 20th century: it is no coincidence that General Anton Ivanovich Denikin, a contemporary of the October Revolution and the Civil War of 1917–1922, titled his memoirs written in exile “Essays on the Russian Troubles.”
Later in Russia, other political upheavals of the “rebellious” 17th century were also called “times of troubles.” Unlike the preceding and following centuries, the 17th century was full of political upheavals—not only the Troubles and the Razin rebellion but also numerous urban uprisings, streltsy (musketeer) revolts, and so on.
However, in historical memory, the term “Time of Troubles” or simply “Troubles” (with a capital “T”) became associated with the period from 1605 to 1612—from the accession of False Dmitry I to the surrender of the Polish garrison in the Kremlin. Nevertheless, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact beginning and end of the Time of Troubles, so other chronological boundaries are also legitimate.
Is Ivan the Terrible to Blame for Everything?
Reducing the causes of the Troubles to the personality of Ivan the Terrible alone is unjust, as various factors provoked it. However, it cannot be denied that many of these factors resulted from his reign.
It is not by chance that Russian writings often begin the narrative of the Time of Troubles with the death of Ivan the Terrible, even though he died much earlier, in 1584.
Ivan IV spent considerable effort creating Russian autocracy, characterized by the sole and unlimited power of the monarch. The results of his nearly half-century reign included both obviously positive innovations and negative consequences. Notably, there was no clear mechanism for transferring state power if the dynasty ended.
Ivan died, passing the throne to his son, Fyodor Ivanovich, a man openly incapable; it was already clear during his father’s life that he was unlikely to leave offspring. One of the key causes of the Time of Troubles was the dynastic crisis following the death in 1598 of Tsar Fyodor, the last of the Rurikids, and it was quite predictable. Nevertheless, as far as is known, Ivan left no instructions in case of such a development.
Furthermore, many of Ivan IV’s domestic and foreign policy decisions severely damaged Russia’s economy. Primarily, this concerns the Oprichnina and the Livonian War, the longest in the country’s history (it lasted 25 years). The consequences of the Oprichnina’s violent land redistribution, accompanied by numerous crimes and bloody excesses, and the exhausting war with significant economic and human losses, which ultimately yielded no positive results, affected Russia for many years after the Tsar’s death.
Was Tsarevich Dmitry Really Murdered?
Tsarevich Dmitry by Mikhail Nesterov (1899)
It is difficult to give a definitive answer to this question. Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich, the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible and the last representative of the male line of the Moscow branch of the Rurik dynasty, died in Uglich on May 15, 1591, at the age of 8. Among the people, the version that he was murdered became immediately popular, and the crime was supposedly organized by the Tsar’s favorite, Boyar Boris Godunov, who was counting on taking the throne after the death of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the elder half-brother of the young prince. At the same time, rumors began to spread that the Tsarevich had actually survived and gone into hiding.
The Boyar Duma, which included Godunov, ordered an official investigation by sending a commission to Uglich, led by Boyar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. After interrogating dozens of witnesses, the commission concluded that Tsarevich Dmitry had died accidentally, having fallen onto a knife during a game with his peers (a game similar to the modern knife game or “swiping,” as described in 19th-century ethnographic literature).
The commission also determined that rumors of his murder by Godunov’s agents—and the resulting unrest among the townspeople, who tore apart three of Godunov’s associates suspected of the murder—were provoked by the boyar’s ill-wishers. The investigation file from 1591 is kept in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts and is the oldest document of its kind in Russia to have survived to this day.
Nevertheless, the seemingly legally sound conclusions of the investigative commission convinced few. Many continued to consider Boris Godunov a murderer; others believed in the miraculous escape of the Tsarevich. The first circumstance greatly damaged Godunov’s reputation, forever tainting him with suspicion of regicide, while the second led to the appearance of several impostors claiming to be “Tsarevich Dmitry” during the Time of Troubles.
So, Was Boris Godunov a Villain, or Is He Being Demonized?
The delegation of the Zemsky Sobor marches to the Ipatievsky Monastery to inform Mikhail Fedorovich about its election (17th century). Image: Wikimedia
If he was a villain, the evidence from his reign does not confirm it. After Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich died in 1598 and the Rurik dynasty ended, Godunov was elected Russian Tsar at the Zemsky Sobor, and he ruled until his death in 1605.
Compared to the despotic Ivan the Terrible and the helpless reign of his son Fyodor, Godunov seemed to his contemporaries like an effective statesman, successfully handling both foreign and domestic policies. Modern historians also describe him as an extraordinary figure who did much to overcome the consequences of the Oprichnina and Russia’s international isolation under Ivan the Terrible.
However, in almost all writings from the Time of Troubles, Godunov is evaluated extremely negatively, and this is due to reasons beyond his control.
The 1598 election was an unprecedented event in Russian history, and the legitimacy of this procedure, about which we know little, was highly questionable to contemporaries: everyone was used to the idea that one could be born a tsar but not elected one. The third tsarist election, in 1613, which made Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanov the tsar, notably did not cause such doubts—the procedure had become accepted. Additionally, Godunov’s reputation was affected by persistent rumors of his involvement in the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry.
Moreover, during Boris Fyodorovich’s reign, a series of natural disasters caused crop failures in Russia, followed by mass famine, epidemics, increased vagrancy, crime, and other calamities. Contemporaries saw these Troubles as divine punishment for the sins of the Russian people, focusing primarily on the sins of the ruler—seemingly imagined ones. This perception firmly established Boris Godunov’s reputation as a villain.
Who Were the False Dmitrys, How Many Were There, and Why Did People Believe in Them?
There were three known individuals who claimed to be the deceased Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich: a greater concentration of impostors than in any other period in Russian history. The first was Grigory Otrepyev, a runaway monk from the Chudov Monastery in the Moscow Kremlin (hence, in Russian texts from the Time of Troubles, he was called Rasstriga, meaning “deprived of holy orders”). In 1604, an official investigation initiated by Boris Godunov identified his identity.
In 1603, he fled to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where he presented himself as the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry. A year later, he set out for Moscow with armed supporters to claim the “father’s throne” and unexpectedly received support and recognition from almost all segments of society.
Garrisons in most border fortresses surrendered without a fight, and the army, upon learning of Godunov’s death, swore allegiance to “Tsarevich Dmitry” instead of Boris’s heir, Fyodor Godunov. In 1605, False Dmitry I was crowned in the Dormition Cathedral of the Kremlin, but he died a year later during a city uprising. In May 1606, the townspeople and the army killed part of the Poles who had come to the impostor’s wedding with Marina Mnishek and killed False Dmitry himself. Contemporaries attributed the “people’s wrath” to the inappropriate behavior of the “Poles” who did not respect Russian traditions. A Zemsky Sobor hastily convened in June elected the boyar Vasily Shuisky as the new tsar.
There is no reliable information about the true identity of the second impostor “Tsarevich” or his real name; we only know that he claimed to be the saved False Dmitry I. Russian contemporaries called False Dmitry II the Tushino thief: in 1608–1609, his supporters’ camp—those who had supported the previous impostor, along with Polish mercenary detachments—was located in the village of Tushino near Moscow. At the end of 1609, losing the trust of most “Tushinites,” he fled to Kaluga, where he was killed in early 1610.
The last False Dmitry was called either Sidorka or Matyushka. He appeared in 1610 in the Pskov region, hence his nickname Pskov thief, claiming to be the saved False Dmitry II and attracting his supporters to his side. In 1612, he was arrested by the people of Pskov. The further fate of False Dmitry III is unknown: either he was executed in Moscow, or he was killed on the way to the capital.
The success of these impostors was due to distrust of the central authority and its official information, a result of a deep socio-political crisis in Russian society.
Who Was Marina Mnishek? Was She Truly a “Gray Cardinal” Behind the False Dmitrys?
A “gray cardinal” is usually considered a behind-the-scenes yet powerful political player. It is doubtful that Marina Mnishek was such a player, although she certainly played a role in the events of the Time of Troubles. In 1603, Marina Mnishek, the daughter of Polish magnate Yuri (Jerzy) Mnishek, met Grigory Otrepyev at her father’s castle in Sambor, where the impostor was hiding. In 1606, after False Dmitry’s enthronement in Moscow, they married, but a week after the wedding, Grigory was killed.
The new tsar, Vasily Shuisky, sent Marina back to her homeland, but somehow, finding herself in the camp of the Tushino thief False Dmitry II, Mnishek publicly recognized him as her husband and even bore him a son. When False Dmitry II was killed in 1610 and the Tushino camp disbanded, Mnishek fled to southern Russia with a band of Cossacks, but in the summer of 1614, the army of the newly elected Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanov captured her near Astrakhan. She died in captivity in Kolomna in 1614.
When assessing Marina Mnishek’s political influence, it is important to remember that we do not always know how independent her actions were. Her marriage to False Dmitry I could not have been concluded at her will—it required the sanction of her father and the Polish king. It is unclear how Marina Mnishek ended up in the entourage of False Dmitry II: it could have been a voluntary step or a direct abduction by the Tushino thief, who needed to confirm his legitimacy. It is also unknown whether she wanted to flee south or if this was the decision of the Cossacks surrounding her.
What Was the Involvement of the Poles in the Time of Troubles, and How Did They End Up in Russia?
Historians of the Early Modern and Modern periods refer to the subjects of King Sigismund III Vasa of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as “Poles.” Among them were ethnic Polish Catholics, as well as Orthodox Lithuanians (szlachta) and Cherkasy (Cossacks).
The Polish intervention was preceded by constant conflicts between Russia and its western neighbor, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, over border territories (particularly Smolensk). While Russia was an absolute monarchy, in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, royal power was significantly limited by the aristocracy, or magnateria, as it was called in Old Polish, as well as by the Sejm, the representative body of the nobility with broad powers.
Sigismund III sympathized with False Dmitry I, but the pretender did not actually receive support from him for his campaign against Moscow in 1604–1605, as the Sejm opposed it. False Dmitry I took the throne due to the crisis in Russia, not with the help of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
After the death of the first pretender, a civil war began (1606–1610) with two centers of power: in Moscow, led by Tsar Vasily Shuisky, and in Tushino, where False Dmitry II was located with his supporters. Among them were units of the Polish nobility under the command of hetmans, who came to Tushino as mercenaries. Unable to deal with the “Tushino people” on his own, Tsar Vasily Shuisky entered into an agreement with Sweden, which also had tense relations with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and in 1609 invited a detachment of Swedish mercenaries. Sigismund and the Sejm regarded this agreement as anti-Polish, which became the pretext for the Polish-Lithuanian army’s attack on Russia and the siege of Smolensk.
In the summer of 1610, the Moscow boyars deposed Tsar Vasily Shuisky and sent a delegation to Sigismund near Smolensk to invite his son, Prince Władysław, to the Moscow throne. After two unsuccessful attempts (Godunov and Shuisky), the boyars agreed not to elect a tsar from “among their own.” At this point, the Polish units near Moscow received the status of the army of the future Russian tsar, and one of them ended up in Moscow.
However, negotiations with Sigismund reached an impasse: the king likely decided to claim the Russian throne himself, and the negotiations were essentially going nowhere. In 1611, a liberation army, known as the Second Militia, was formed in Nizhny Novgorod, led by Prince Dmitry Pozharsky and zemstvo elder Kuzma Minin. The Second Militia marched to liberate Moscow, and on November 2, 1612, the Polish garrison surrendered. However, the intervention did not end there. In 1618, the Poles launched another campaign against Moscow, still hoping to place Prince Władysław on the throne, but they were defeated. The Polish intervention ended with a truce, which was concluded shortly thereafter in the village of Deulino.
Did Minin and Pozharsky Really Do Something Important?
The sources leave no doubt that they played a crucial role in liberating Russia from the Polish intervention and ending the Time of Troubles. Of course, the military victories and the restoration of order in the state were not solely their achievements.
There was no legitimate ruler in the country; it was devastated, and Polish intervention continued on its territory. In these circumstances, the idea of forming an army to end the Time of Troubles, liberate Moscow, and convene a Zemsky Sobor (Assembly of the Land) to elect a new tsar arose in Nizhny Novgorod in 1611. Under the leadership of Kuzma Minin, the zemstvo elder, who, according to some sources, was also a meat merchant, the people of Nizhny Novgorod raised funds to maintain military units and sent letters across the country calling for people to join their cause.
Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, an aristocrat and courtier who had served in command positions in the army, was recovering from wounds received in battles with the Poles in his village near Nizhny Novgorod at this time. A delegation from Nizhny Novgorod approached him with a request to take command of the militia and lead it to Moscow, and, as is well known, the plan succeeded.
Who Was Ivan Susanin, and Is It True That He Gave His Life for the Tsar?
Crowd at the Ipatievsky Monastery in 1613 imploring Mikhail Romanov’s mother to let him go to Moscow and become a tsar (17th century)
There is little information about the real Ivan Susanin, but it does exist. According to it, Susanin was a serf peasant, possibly the village elder of Domnino, located 60 kilometers from Kostroma, who was widowed by 1613 and had a son-in-law, daughter, and grandchildren (who were the recipients of the first royal charter). Knowing that Tsar Mikhail Romanov was in Kostroma, Susanin, subjected to terrible torture, refused to show the way to the city and was killed for it.
Ivan Susanin’s feat in the 18th–19th centuries in the Russian Empire was elevated to an official patriotic cult and acquired many unreliable details (which, however, does not negate the fact of his deed). For example, these events are presented quite differently in Mikhail Glinka’s opera “A Life for the Tsar,” renamed “Ivan Susanin” during Soviet times. In it, in the winter of 1613, a Polish detachment heads to Kostroma to kill Mikhail Romanov, elected by the Zemsky Sobor as tsar. The Poles take the local peasant Ivan Susanin as their guide, who leads the “Lyakhs” into the forest thicket and at the cost of his life saves the young tsar from death. No documents confirming this version of events exist.
How Did the Time of Troubles End?
It is difficult to pinpoint the end of the Time of Troubles to a single date or year. Several key events marked the end of the Troubles. Perhaps the most important of these was the unanimous election of a new tsar, Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanov, by the Zemsky Sobor in Moscow and his coronation with the Monomakh’s Cap in the summer of 1613 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin.
This established a new ruling dynasty in Russia, accepted by the vast majority of subjects, and ended the civil war.
The end of foreign intervention—military actions on Russian territory continued even after the new tsar’s election—came in 1619 with two peace agreements: the aforementioned Deulino Truce with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Treaty of Stolbovo with the Swedish Kingdom.
However, despite Mikhail Fyodorovich being elected tsar, Sigismund III refused to recognize the decisions of the Zemsky Sobor as legitimate: he held a document from the Boyar Duma, issued three years earlier in 1610, offering the throne to his son, Prince Władysław. The matter was finally settled in 1634 during negotiations in Polyanovka, when Władysław, who by then had become King Władysław IV Vasa, received a compensation of 20,000 rubles in silver from Moscow and officially renounced his claims to the Moscow throne.
Ivan the Terrible (1530–1584) is, for most of our contemporaries, a symbol of Russian history in the 16th century—a period when the separate lands and principalities of Northeast Rus were being united into a single Muscovite state, raising questions about how, by what means, and in what form this process would take place. The first crowned Russian tsar did much—both in words and deeds—to establish what he considered the only correct order.
He ruled for a very long time, and during this period, many important and tragic events occurred. Given that his era was remembered for a long time while authentic evidence about it has remained scarce, it is not surprising that various legends emerged. However, he had many opponents, and the prolonged struggle with neighboring Poland-Lithuania and Sweden led to a real information war.
In His Childhood, Ivan the Terrible Tortured Animals
The wild youth of the future Tsar, who allegedly threw animals off roofs and trampled passersby on horseback, was described in the History of the Grand Prince of Moscow by Prince Andrey Kurbsky—a former boyar, military leader, and later a political emigrant. On the one hand, children, even royal ones, can be cruel in their games. On the other hand, Kurbsky’s History aimed to expose the tyrant Tsar, and what better way to do so than with such a vivid illustration?
Verdict: Unproven
Ivan the Terrible Suffered From Seizures
What are seizures? Migraines are one thing, uncontrollable anger is another, and epilepsy is yet another. The Tsar was a superstitious man who frequently sought treatment, but attempting to diagnose him based on stories—especially those from people who never had access to his chambers—450 years later is a difficult and speculative endeavor. A study of his remains conducted in the 1960s revealed that the sovereign suffered from a range of musculoskeletal diseases. However, it is impossible to determine his mental state from his skeletal remains.
Verdict: Unknown
Ivan the Terrible Went Mad After the Death of His First Wife
Regarding the mental disorder aspect, as mentioned previously, the tsar seemed to have genuinely loved his first wife, Anastasia, whom he referred to as a “young maiden” in his second letter to Kurbsky. He continued to remember and speak of her fondly many years later, suggesting a deep and lasting affection. He either believed—or convinced himself—that she had been poisoned by his enemies.
While it is unlikely that he trusted absolutely no one (otherwise, how could he have managed the state?), it is true that his suspicions eventually led him to exile or execute those he once trusted. This was the case with his early advisors, like Alexei Adashev and the priest Sylvester, as well as the leaders of his oprichnina—Athanasius Vyazemsky, Mikhail Cherkassky, and Alexei Basmanov.
Verdict: False
He Constantly Took New Wives and Got Rid of the Old Ones
The tsar’s personal life was as convoluted as his politics. After the deaths of his first wife, Anastasia Romanovna, and his second, the Kabardian princess Maria Temryukovna, he married Marfa Sobakina, who died just 15 days after their wedding for unknown reasons. In 1572, the tsar forced the clergy to permit him a fourth marriage—despite the Church generally not approving even a third marriage, which it considered “swine-like living.” He then married a fifth time, but both Anna Koltovskaya and Anna Vasilchikova were subsequently sent to monasteries.
Vasilisa Melentyeva, it seems, was never a legal wife. The last tsarina, Maria Nagaya, married the tsar in 1580 and gave birth to Tsarevich Dmitry, who died in 1591 in Uglich under circumstances that remain unclear. However, shortly before his death, Ivan the Terrible was still making new matrimonial plans; he sent a special envoy, Fyodor Pisemsky, to England to seek the hand of Queen Elizabeth’s relative, Mary Hastings.
Verdict: He loved marrying, but the accusation is unfounded
Ivan the Terrible Was Actually Homosexual
According to foreign writers, Ivan Vasilyevich “began to incline” towards the “Sodomite sin” with his favorite, Fyodor Basmanov. However, no one held a candle to prove it. The tsar certainly did not become an “ideological” homosexual: in his military campaigns, he was usually accompanied by concubines, and near the end of his life, he boasted to the English ambassador Jerome Horsey that he had defiled a thousand girls. It seems Ivan the Terrible believed that no moral restrictions existed for his “absolute royal autocracy,” thus demonstrating his superiority to the court entourage.
Verdict: This cannot be verified
He Earned His Nickname “Terrible” for His Cruelty
16th century portrait of Ivan by Hans Weigel
The tsar executed people by impalement and other methods more than once. However, it is worth remembering that those were different times, and human life was valued differently than in our politically correct era. Moreover, the term “terrible” has a different connotation than “cruel” or “bloody” — it means “severe,” “dangerous to enemies,” or “strict.”
In those grim medieval times, executions were common both in the West and the East. Ivan’s atrocities stood out because they were deliberately theatrical. According to a contemporary, Ivan the Terrible summoned Boyar Ivan Fedorov to the palace, made him take his throne, and said, “You have what you sought, what you aspired to, to become the Grand Prince of Moscow and take my place,” after which he personally stabbed the old servant.
In the summer of 1570, at Chistye Prudy in Moscow, he first spectacularly pardoned more than a hundred “traitors” who had already said goodbye to life — releasing them to their wives and children — and then arranged a showy execution for the remaining 120, including many prominent clerks of Moscow’s administrative orders. And not just executions but with creativity. The “Piskarev Chronicle” reports that the tsar “ordered the execution of clerk Ivan Viskovatov by cutting him limb by limb and another clerk, Nikita Funikov, by boiling him in water.”
Along with them were executed Vasily Stepanov, who headed the Land Office, Ivan Bulgakov, head of the Grand Revenue, the main financial department of Russia at that time, and Grigory Shapkin, head of the Robbery Order (similar to the Ministry of Internal Affairs). Numerous executions were not seen as excessive cruelty — how could one not rejoice at the punishment of corrupt officials and traitors? Here was a sovereign who knew both how to execute and pardon!
The life of the oprichnina guard in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda was filled with a grim solemnity. After punitive expeditions, the tsar and his servants would don monastic robes. Ivan IV himself, acting as “abbot” with Malyuta Skuratov, would ring the bells in the morning, gathering the “brotherhood” for prayer; those who failed to appear were punished. During the long service, the tsar and his sons would pray and sing in the church choir, then proceed to the refectory, after which they would return to regular state affairs.
Verdict: He earned the nickname, but not for cruelty
Red Square Is Called So Because Ivan the Terrible Executed People There
The word “red” in the name “Red Square” means “beautiful,” just like in the phrase “red maiden.” It only began to be called this from the end of the 17th century.
Verdict: False
Ivan the Terrible Was Very Religious and Constantly Repented
From his royal height, Ivan the Terrible disdainfully called the Swedish King John III a “sufferer,” and even in his message to his adversary, King Stephen Báthory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, he found it necessary to state that he was the “Tsar of great states by God’s will, not by the rebellious human desire.” But from his immeasurable pride, he would suddenly turn to repentance: “… the body is weary, the spirit is in pain, the sores of the body and soul multiply… <…> … I fell into the robbers, both mental and sensory… For this reason, I am hated by all,” he described his mental state in his will in the summer of 1572 in Novgorod, where the Tsar awaited news of the decisive battle with the Crimean Khan Devlet Giray.
After the death of his heir, Tsarevich Ivan, the shocked Tsar ordered lists of those executed on his orders to be compiled and sent to monasteries along with large sums of money for monastic prayers for the deceased. According to these lists (“Synodiks of the disgraced”), about 4,000 people were killed.
Verdict: True
Ivan the Terrible Was a Strong Ruler and Raised Russia From Its Knees
The Oprichniki by Nikolai Nevrev (1888). The painting shows the last minutes of boyarin Feodorov, who was arrested for treason
Russia in the early 16th century was not “on its knees” but was a young, rapidly growing power. Different people have different interpretations of the phrase “strong ruler.” For some, it means cutting off the heads of enemies; for others, it means creating conditions for the country’s successful development. It was precisely during Ivan’s reign in the 1570s that a crisis began in the country. The devastation of the lands due to the hardships of the Livonian War and the introduction of the oprichnina led to frequent departures of peasants from private lands.
The cadastral books of the early 1580s indicate that in many districts, arable land was significantly reduced, and the population either died out or fled, as evidenced by such entries: “The oprichniks tortured, plundered livestock, burned down the yard.” Zemstvo districts paid two or even three times more taxes in the 1570s than householders. Cities suffered not only from repression but also from the “resettlements” of merchants to Moscow—thus, the layer of wealthy and enterprising people in provincial towns was eliminated.
The executions of voivodes and the “desolation” of noble estates undermined the army’s combat capability: nobles in the late 1570s were beaten with whips to force them to go to war.
Verdict: False
Ivan the Terrible Hated the Boyars
A boyar in the 16th century was not a special breed of harmful people but the highest rank among the then elite, the Tsar’s court. Members of the Boyar Duma, the Tsar’s voivodes, ambassadors, governors—all came from several dozen noble families whose ancestors had served the Moscow princes for generations. It was impossible to do without them. The descendant of the legitimate rulers, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, could execute a particular boyar, but it never occurred to him to appoint the most loyal but common men or even obscure provincial nobles in their place.
Therefore, in the oprichnina, the Tsar’s new servants were not of low birth. The oprichnaya Duma was headed by Kabardian Prince Mikhail Cherkassky, brother of the new Tsarina Maria; there were representatives of ancient families—boyars Alexei Basmanov and Fyodor Umnov-Kolychev; princes Nikita Odoevsky, Vasily Tyomkin-Rostovsky, Ivan Shuisky. Among other oprichniks were the Rurikids and Gediminids—Princes Rostovsky, Pronsky, Khvorostinin, Volkonsky, Trubetskoy, Khovansky.
There were also members of other old and honest Moscow families—Godunovs, Saltykovs, Pushkins, Buturlins, Turgenevs, Nashchokins. Even the chief executioner of the oprichnina, Malyuta Skuratov-Belsky, came from a quite respectable serving family.
Verdict: False
Ivan the Terrible staged his abdication because he was tired of ruling
On October 30, 1575, Ivan the Terrible placed the baptized Tatar Tsarevich Simeon Bekbulatovich on the throne. In his petition to Simeon Bekbulatovich, he modestly called himself “little Prince Ivanchik of Moscow” and settled “beyond Neglinnaya… on Arbat opposite the Old Stone Bridge.” However, he did not give up real power to anyone, and after 11 months, he returned to his previous place, appointing Simeon as the Grand Duke of Tver.
Historians still debate what this spectacle meant. Did the Tsar want to quietly revive the oprichnina? Use others to take away the privileges of the Church? Was he claiming the throne of the neighboring Polish-Lithuanian state?
Verdict: Unknown
Ivan the Terrible Killed His Son
Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan, Ilya Repin,1883–1885
Most historians mention conflicts between father and son, whether due to the Tsar’s dissatisfaction with his daughter-in-law (he believed she dressed inappropriately) or because of suspicions and jealousy of his son, whom the people wanted to see at the head of the army. We will never know for sure what happened on that November night in 1581, but it can be said that Ilya Repin’s famous painting does not correspond to reality.
Documents preserved and published in the late 19th century indicate that the Tsarevich “fell ill”; his father summoned doctors from Moscow to his quarters, but the treatment was unsuccessful, and after 11 days, Ivan Ivanovich died. What caused the illness, and whether there was indeed a fatal blow to the head with a staff, we will never know: when the Tsarevich’s grave was opened, it was found that his remains had turned to dust, with only the lower jaw of the skull remaining.
Verdict: Unknown
Ivan the Terrible Conquered Siberia
Firstly, the “conquest,” or rather the annexation, of Siberia was a long process that was only completed in the 18th century; its exploration and exploitation continue to this day. Secondly, there is no reason to believe that Tsar Ivan was the initiator or leader of this enterprise.
The salt producers, the Stroganovs, invited the daring ataman Yermak Timofeyevich and his detachment to protect their possessions in the Cis-Ural region from raids by the Siberian Khan Kuchum. In the autumn of 1582, Yermak’s detachment of 540 men moved beyond the Urals. A small group of people crossed the mountains and, via the Tobol and Irtysh rivers, penetrated the heart of the Siberian Khanate and captured its capital, Qashliq, from where Yermak sent messengers to Moscow with gifts and news of the victory.
In 1585, Yermak himself died, but new detachments of Cossacks and Moscow serving men followed in his footsteps. The development of Siberia began, with new towns appearing: Tyumen, Berezov, Tara; Tobolsk was built on the Irtysh as the Siberian capital; and the fortress of Verkhoturye became the gateway to Siberia through which the only overland route passed.
Verdict: False
He Was Well-Educated, Knew Many Languages, and Had His Own Library
Tsar Ivan undoubtedly possessed a literary gift that was, as they say, given by God. He had a rare talent for figurative thinking and a “biting” style, which was unusual for a medieval scholar. The Tsar was always capable of making a joke, a sharp remark, or an unexpected turn of phrase. For example, Prince Kurbsky solemnly declared to Ivan: “… I believe you shall not see my face until the Day of Judgment.” To which the Tsar mockingly replied: “Who indeed wishes to see such an Ethiopian face?”
The Tsar’s literary interests were not limited to his series of letters and correspondence with Boyar Kurbsky. One of the mysteries of the 16th century is the whereabouts and composition of the Tsar’s library. The chronicle of Riga’s burgomaster Nienstedt contains a story about how the Tsar’s close associates took several books in Greek, Latin, and Ancient Hebrew from a walled-up room and showed them to the Livonian pastor Johann Wetterman.
In 1819, Christoph Dabelow, a professor at the University of Dorpat, discovered an inventory of the library’s books that included works by Cicero, Tacitus, Polybius, Aristophanes, and other ancient authors. Unfortunately, neither the originals of this inventory nor the library itself have been found to this day, despite numerous attempts to search for them. However, even without these manuscripts, more than 100 books that once belonged to the Tsar are known to exist.
At the initiative of Ivan IV, the Illustrated Chronicle Codex was compiled—a monumental history of humanity from the creation of the world, including his own reign. Mysterious “additions” by an unknown editor on the margins of the last volumes of this codex contain unique information about events at the court of Ivan the Terrible. Even if these notes were not written by the Tsar himself (in the 16th century, writing was not considered a “royal” occupation), his role as a powerful and biased editor of the history of his reign is unquestionable.
The Tsar could suddenly start a theological dispute during a reception or, in frustration over a failed political alliance, write to the English Queen Elizabeth I in 1570 in response to her diplomatic explanation that such treaties require discussion in Parliament: “But it appears that other people, not you, rule over you, and not only people but merchants… And you remain in your maidenly status like a common girl.”
At the end of his life, under the pseudonym Parfeny the Fool, he wrote a canon to the “terrible warrior”—the Archangel Michael. His words express both fear of the appearance of the fearsome angel and hope for the salvation of his sinful soul: “Reveal to me my end, so that I may repent of my evil deeds, so that I may cast off the burden of sin from myself. The journey with you is long. Fearsome and terrible angel, do not frighten me, a feeble man. Grant me, O angel, your humble coming and beautiful walk, and I will greatly rejoice in you. Fill me, O angel, with the cup of salvation.”
Verdict: True
Ivan the Terrible Did Not Die a Natural Death: He Was Poisoned
The Death of Ivan the Terrible after a Game of Chess, 1844. Image: Adolf Russ (Czech, 1820–1911)
Dying in the 16th century, even for a Tsar, was not difficult given the state of medicine at that time, and Ivan Vasilyevich’s health had significantly declined by the end of his life. On March 18, 1584, the Tsar passed away; rumors of his violent death spread through Moscow, but it is impossible to prove or disprove them. Historians do not have a unanimous opinion on this matter. An examination of the Tsar’s skeletal remains revealed a high mercury content, but this could have been caused by the common medical ointments of the time, which Ivan used to treat syphilis.
In Rus, the adult life of princes and other noble people began very early. When Alexander was seven years old, he and his older brother, Fyodor, became deputies for their father, Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, in Novgorod. However, at that time, the affairs were actually managed by the boyar Fyodor Danilovich and the steward Yakim, who were left with the children. Alexander truly began to rule at the age of 26, after his father’s death.
He Was Cruel and Merciless: He Cut Off Noses and Gouged Out Eyes
Verdict: True
In the Middle Ages, human rights were perceived very differently than they are today; the lives of commoners were of little value. After liberating the captured fortress of Koporye in 1241, the prince took the knights of the Livonian Order prisoner and brought them to Novgorod. Alexander hanged the local residents who had submitted to the knights as a warning. During his campaign in the territory of the Bishopric of Dorpat in 1242, he allowed his soldiers to “live off the land,” meaning to plunder the farmers and fishermen living in enemy territory.
His opponents and other princes of that era also fought in this manner.
However, in 1257, when his son Vasily, who was then the prince of Novgorod, refused to pay tribute to the Tatars and fled to Pskov, Alexander indeed dealt harshly with his servants: “Some had their noses cut off, while others had their eyes gouged out.” This was a very severe punishment, but the situation was also dangerous: unrest had begun in Novgorod. The mayor, Mikhalko Stepanovich, was killed, and the Lithuanians launched a successful raid on the city of Torzhok, a major trading hub on the way to Novgorod from the southern regions of Rus.
He Was Called Nevsky During His Lifetime
Verdict: False
Alexander Nevsky. Image: malevus.com
The Battle of the Neva in 1240 between the Swedish and Novgorodian armies was indeed a significant victory for the prince, but the nickname “Nevsky” first appeared in a text titled “And These Are the Russian Princes” from the early 15th century. It began to be widely used even later, after Alexander’s canonization in 1547.
The nickname was finally established under Peter I, who moved the prince’s relics from Vladimir to Saint Petersburg. This was a symbol of the old victory over Sweden, with which Peter was at war. The emperor also ordered the commemoration day of Alexander Nevsky to be moved from November 23 to August 30, which was the day the victorious Treaty of Nystad was signed, ending the Great Northern War (1700–1721) between the Swedish Empire and a coalition of Northern European states (including Russia) for control over the Baltic lands and dominance in the Baltic Sea.
He Favored Peace With the Horde
Verdict: True
During the campaigns of Khan Batu against Rus in 1237–1238 and 1239–1240, as well as in the initial period after them, the young Alexander did not make any decisions; the senior princes — Mikhail of Chernigov, Daniil of Galicia, and Alexander’s father, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich — were in charge. The first soon died in the Horde, the second unsuccessfully sought help from the West, and the third eventually recognized the Khan’s authority.
Alexander’s brother, Andrei, tried to resist and had to flee to Sweden from a punitive expedition known as the “Nevryu’s Raid.” Alexander did not enter into conflict with the Horde. He was unlikely to have been pleased by this, but politics is a harsh affair. Moreover, he lacked the strength to oppose the Mongol Empire.
He Betrayed the Russian Principalities
Verdict: False
Alexander could be cruel, but it is unlikely he can be called a traitor who willingly entered the service of the conquerors. The legend that Khan Batu made the prince his “adopted son” and even heir to the Golden Horde is a fiction by Soviet writer Alexei Yugov, author of the novel “The Warriors.” Historian Lev Gumilev also claimed, without evidence, that Alexander even became a blood brother to the Khan’s son Sartaq.
There is an opinion that in 1252, Alexander went to the Horde with a complaint or denunciation against his brother Andrei — and that Nevryu’s campaign was a result of this. Historian Vasily Tatishchev wrote about this in the 18th century:
Alexander complained about his brother, the Grand Prince Andrei, saying he had deceived the Khan, took the grand principality under himself as the elder, seized the ancestral cities, and did not pay the Khan taxes and customs in full.
But it’s hard to trust this account: we do not know on what basis it was written. Moreover, there is nothing about it in other sources.
Like other princes, Alexander obeyed the Khan’s will, went to the Horde, paid tribute, and received a label to rule. Relying on the Novgorodian nobility, he forced the townspeople to comply with the Tatar census and the need to pay the Khan. Acting otherwise was impossible; otherwise, he would have had to flee, and a more compliant prince would have carried out the census (along with a punitive expedition).
He Said, “Whoever Comes to Us With a Sword Will Perish by the Sword”
Verdict: False
In the few surviving chronicles that recount Alexander’s battles with the Germans, there is no mention of such a speech. This legend most likely arose after the release of Sergei Eisenstein’s famous film “Alexander Nevsky,” in which the main character loosely quotes the Gospel of Matthew: “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
Nevsky Never Lost a Battle
Verdict: True
Prince Alexander Nevsky was raised from an early age to be a future warrior, accompanying his father on campaigns even as a child. In 1235, fourteen-year-old Alexander participated in the Battle on the Emajõgi River (in present-day Estonia), where the forces of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich defeated the Germans.
In addition to his well-known victories in the Battle of the Neva and the Battle on the Ice, the prince successfully repelled raids by Lithuanian leaders and in 1256 led a large campaign into Finland: “He came to the land of the Yem, some were killed, others captured; and the Novgorodians returned with Prince Alexander all in good health.”
He Won the Battle on the Ice Because the Germans Wore Very Heavy Armor
Verdict: False
The equipment of a fully armed cavalry warrior of that era (whether a knight of the Livonian Order or a princely retainer) was roughly the same, including in weight. Both sides had heavily and lightly armed warriors.
In reality, victory was achieved through a well-executed tactical maneuver and the effective distribution of forces.
The battle is documented in both Russian chronicles and the German “Livonian Rhymed Chronicle” of the 13th century. Although the anonymous German author praised the deeds of the “God’s knights” of the Livonian Order and downplayed their defeat, he did not deny the fact that the battle occurred and that the Russians were victorious. However, it was not an epochal battle that changed the fate of nations, even though more than a thousand and possibly several thousand people participated.
On the Russian-Livonian border, armed clashes and large-scale campaigns against each other were common. The forces of the Livonian Order often besieged Pskov, while Russian princes, in turn, led troops deep into German territories. For example, Svyatoslav and Mikhail Yaroslavich, together with the Pereyaslavl militia under the command of Dmitry Alexandrovich, the prince’s son, defeated a combined army of Danes and the Livonian Order.
Alexander Nevsky Corresponded With the Pope
Verdict: True
Prince Alexander Nevsky receiving Papal legates, 1870s. Image: Henryk Siemiradzki
The prince did indeed correspond with Pope Innocent IV. For example, in a letter from January 1248, the Pope praised Alexander’s wisdom, his adherence to Christianity, and his refusal to serve “Tatar barbarians.” Interestingly, Alexander was preparing to travel to the Horde at that time.
In another letter, Innocent IV expressed joy that the prince had agreed to convert to Catholicism and build a “cathedral for the Latins” in Pskov. It seems the Pope misunderstood one of Alexander’s letters, which, unfortunately, has not survived. While in the court of Khan Batu, the prince sent a firm refusal to the Pope: “…we do not accept your teachings.”
Before His Death, He Took Monastic Vows
Verdict: True
The prince took monastic vows under the name Alexius, and in 1547 he was canonized as a saint, revered as a monk, a righteous prince, and the ancestor of Moscow’s rulers. However, starting in the 18th century, the Synod banned depictions of Alexander in monastic attire: Peter I ordered that he be honored specifically as a warrior-ruler.
Alexander Nevsky was born on May 13, 1220, in the city of Pereslavl-Zalessky, Yaroslavl region. He was the second son of Grand Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, a descendant of Monomakh. His mother, Feodosia, was the daughter of the renowned Turov Prince Mstislav Mstislavich Udatny. He spent his childhood and youth mostly in Novgorod.
In 1225, Yaroslav “tonsure the sons into princes,” a rite of initiation into knighthood, and soon appointed Alexander and his older brother Fyodor to govern in Veliky Novgorod, one of the largest cities of medieval Russia. The boyars of Yaroslav, Fyodor Danilovich, and the princely steward Yakim remained with the children. However, they couldn’t cope with the Novgorod “veche,” and in February 1229, they had to flee with the young princes to Pereyaslavl.
In December 1230, the brothers returned to rule Novgorod. But in 1233, Fyodor unexpectedly died, and Alexander became the elder of the Yaroslavichs. However, the real power remained in the hands of their father. He soon started his first military campaign under his father’s flag against Derpt, which the Livonians were then holding, and won on the Omovzha River.
Three years later, Yaroslav moved to Kiev, which nominally continued to be considered the capital of all Rus. At that time, the sixteen-year-old Alexander became the independent Prince of Novgorod and spent his early years strengthening the city.
Alexander Nevsky’s Family
Spouse: Alexandra, the daughter of Bryachislav of Polotsk; Vassa.
Sons: Vasiliy (before 1245—1271) — Prince of Novgorod; Dmitriy (1250—1294) — Prince of Novgorod (1260—1263), Prince of Pereyaslavl, Grand Prince of Vladimir in 1276—1281 and 1283—1293; Andrey (around 1255—1304) — Prince of Kostroma (1276—1293, 1296—1304), Grand Prince of Vladimir (1281—1284, 1292—1304), Prince of Novgorod (1281—1285, 1292—1304), Prince of Gorodets (1264—1304); Daniil (1261—1303) — the first Prince of Moscow (1263—1303).
Daughters: Evdokia, who became the wife of Konstantin Rostislavich of Smolensk. The spouse and daughter Evdokia are buried in the Cathedral of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in the Knyaginin Monastery in Vladimir.
Battle of the Neva: Alexander Nevsky’s First Victory
The Battle of Neva, Saints Boris and Gleb in a boat. Fragment of the icon “St. Alexander Nevsky with scenes from his life.”.
Alexander gained universal fame with his victory on the banks of the Neva River, at the mouth of the Izhora River, on July 15, 1240, against a Swedish detachment. Shortly before that, the Germans approached Pskov, and the Swedes, who contested the Novgorodians’ possession of Finland, entered the Neva, reached the mouth of the Izhora, and moved towards Novgorod. The future ruler of Sweden, Jarl Birger, commanded the Swedish forces.
Alexander, with his retinue and a small group of Novgorodians, suddenly attacked the numerically superior Swedes on July 15, 1240. Caught off guard, the enemy suffered heavy losses. Under the cover of night, the remnants of the Swedish army boarded their ships and fled. This victory not only prevented the loss of Russia’s shores on the Gulf of Finland, stopping Swedish aggression on Novgorod-Pskov lands but also demonstrated Alexander’s talent and strength as a military leader.
It is considered that it was this victory that led to Alexander being called ‘Nevsky.’ Meanwhile, Livonian Germans were also approaching Novgorod. Without stopping at the conquest of the Baltics, they attempted to expand into Novgorod’s lands. Knights of the Teutonic Order captured Izborsk, then Pskov. The entire western part of Novgorod’s possessions was being plundered by German units. Alexander’s first strike was on Koporye, the invaders’ stronghold, and the fortress built by the enemy was taken.
Alexander traveled to Pskov in 1242 with his retinue, an army of Novgorodians, and a group under the command of his brother Andrei, who had come to help from Suzdal land. After liberating the city, Alexander headed to Livonia.
Battle on the Ice
Painting by artist G.I. Ugryumov. Alexander Nevsky’s triumphal entry into the city of Pskov after his victory over the Germans.
In April 1242, the battle took place on the border with the Livonian Order on Lake Peipus, known as the Battle on the Ice. This victory of Russian forces over the knights on the ice of Lake Peipus added to Alexander’s fame, and his successful military actions ensured the long-term security of Russia’s western borders. In the same year, the Germans sent an embassy to Novgorod, seeking peace. The Order renounced all claims to Russian lands and requested an exchange of prisoners. A peace treaty was concluded.
During the Battle on the Ice, Alexander Nevsky’s forces strategically lured the Teutonic Knights onto the frozen lake, where the Knights’ heavy cavalry became immobilized. This allowed the Novgorodians to engage in effective hit-and-run tactics.
After the Battle on the Ice, the Crusaders did not trouble Russian lands for eleven years. However, in 1253, they violated the peace treaty and approached Pskov but were repelled by the people of Pskov and the reinforcements from Novgorod.
The Battle on the Ice was a pivotal battle fought in 1242 between the Russian forces led by Alexander Nevsky and the Teutonic Knights. It is significant because it marked a decisive victory for the Russians and is celebrated as a symbol of Russian resilience against external threats.
Correspondence with the Pope
Prince Alexander Nevsky receiving Papal legates, painting by Henryk Siemiradzki (1870s)..
There is information about two messages from Pope Innocent IV to Alexander Nevsky. In the first, the Pope suggests that Alexander follow his father’s example and submit to the Roman throne before his death, citing the work of Plano Carpini, in which this information is absent. The Pope also proposes coordination of actions with the Teutonic Knights in the event of a Tatar attack on Rus.
In the second message, the Pope mentions Alexander’s agreement to join the Roman Church, stating, “You have earnestly requested to be united as a member to the head of the Church through true obedience” and to build a Catholic church in Pskov. He also requests the acceptance of his envoy, the Archbishop of Prussia.
In 1251, two cardinals arrived in Novgorod to meet with Alexander Nevsky, bearing a bull. In Vladimir, Metropolitan Cyril, a friend of Daniel of Galicia who had received the royal crown from the Pope in 1246–1247, crowned Andrei Yaroslavich and Ustinya Danilovna almost simultaneously. In the same year, Lithuanian Prince Mindovg converted to the Catholic faith, thereby securing his lands against the Teutonic Knights. According to the chronicler’s account, Alexander Nevsky, after consulting with wise men, recounted the entire history of Rus and concluded by saying, “We know all this well, and we do not accept teachings from you.”
Last Years and Death
Aerial view of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery (2016).
Together with his brother Andrei, Alexander went to the Horde in Batu to obtain permission for the grand princely rule after their father’s death. From there, they were sent to the Great Khan in Mongolia. They returned to Rus only after two years with charters for ruling. As a result, Alexander was recognized as the “senior” among the Russian princes; he received Kiev and “All Russian Land,” and his brother Andrei became the Vladimir Prince. However, Alexander did not go to Kiev, which had suffered greatly and lost all significance after the Mongol defeat, and continued to rule in Novgorod.
Andrey was unable to make peace with the Tatars, and therefore, he didn’t rule in Vladimir for long: Tatar forces moved against him, he was defeated, and he fled to Sweden. During these events, Alexander was in the Horde and received a charter for the grand princely rule in Vladimir. From that time until his death, he held the title of Grand Prince of Vladimir while also remaining the Grand Prince of Kiev.
Prince Alexander Nevsky. Miniature from the Tsarskiy titulyarnik (Tsar’s Book of Titles).
After establishing himself in Vladimir, Alexander became as much a defender of Russian lands against the Tatars as he had been against the Swedes and Germans. However, he adopted a different approach: on one hand, he restrained his subjects from rebelling against the Tatars, and on the other, he tried to secure possible privileges for Russian lands by showing submission to the Khan and paying a significant amount of gold to the Horde as ransom for prisoners.
Andrey soon returned and took up the rule in Suzdal, obtaining forgiveness from the Khan through his brother. Alexander also took steps to consolidate his authority in Novgorod. Previously, Novgorod’s nobility could invite princes from different Russian lands to rule over them, but Alexander established a new order: Novgorod recognized as its prince the one who occupied the grand princely throne in Vladimir. Thus, by becoming the Grand Prince of Vladimir, Alexander retained his rule over Novgorod. He left his eldest son, Vasily, there, but not as an independent prince but rather as his representative.
In 1262, the Golden Horde’s Khan Berke initiated a war against the Mongol ruler Hulagu in Iran and began demanding that Russian troops be sent to assist. Alexander went to the Horde to “save the people from that disaster” and stayed there for almost a year. Apparently, his mission was successful, as there is no information about Russian troops participating in the Golden Horde’s wars against Hulagu. On his way back to Russia in the autumn of 1263, the Grand Prince fell ill.
Alexander Nevsky navigated the complex relationship between Russian principalities and the Mongol Empire. His diplomacy and cooperation with the Mongols helped maintain some autonomy for Russian lands and ensured the safety and prosperity of his people.
“The transfer of the relics of the blessed prince St. Alexander Nevsky by Peter the Great to St. Petersburg.” Left: Peter the Great; from right: Menshikov, Apraksin, Yaguzhinsky.
Taking the monastic vows under the name Alexius, Alexander Nevsky passed away on November 14, 1263, in Gorodets on the Volga and was buried on November 30 in the Monastery of the Nativity of the Virgin in Vladimir. In 1724, by the order of Peter the Great, Alexander Nevsky’s relics were ceremoniously transferred to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra in St. Petersburg, where they rest to this day in the Holy Trinity Church. At the Moscow Council in 1547, Metropolitan Macarius had Alexander Nevsky declared one of the Righteous by the Russian Orthodox Church.
The Peter the Great Statue in Moscow is one of the highest monuments in Russia. The structure itself is 322 feet tall (98 m), while Peter’s statue alone is 59 feet tall (18 m). The Moscow government commissioned Zurab Tsereteli to build a monument to Peter the Great in 1997. Officially titled “Monument in commemoration of the 300th anniversary of the Russian Navy,” the monument is located on an artificial island created at the confluence of the Moskva River and the Vodootvodny Canal.
Well-known for his distaste for Moscow, Peter decided to relocate the country’s capital to St. Petersburg.
Design and Construction of the Peter the Great Statue
Monument to Peter the Great in Moscow.
The Peter the Great Statue is a one-of-a-kind engineering achievement. The monument’s bronze features are hinged to a stainless-steel framework that holds the monument aloft. The pedestal, which consists of the ship and a statue of Peter, was built in pieces and then attached to the lowest portion of the monument. The completed statue of Peter was directly placed on the pedestal.
The shrouds of the ship are corrosion-resistant stainless steel. They are all locked in place with a complex web of ropes that prevents them from moving at all. Inside the copper skin of the sails is a spatial metal structure to cut down on weight.
The bronze used in the Peter the Great Statue is top-notch, having undergone a rigorous process that included sandblasting, patination, and a coating of wax and varnish designed to withstand the elements. The Saltire symbol on the flags, which are meant to act as a weather vane, and the golden scroll Peter I is personally holding are both gilded objects.
Inside the Peter the Great Statue is a ladder for inspecting the structure. The iron-concrete base, which forms an artificial island on which the monument rests, is surrounded by fountains to give the impression of a ship cutting through the sea.
There is a Columbus statue in Puerto Rico with a similar style to the Peter the Great Statue, also designed by the Georgian sculptor Zurab Tsereteli. According to a popular claim, on the 500th anniversary of the Europeans’ discovery of the American continent, Tsereteli allegedly presented the Columbus statue to the United States, Spain, and Latin American nations in 1991–1992, but was rejected each time.
Therefore, he redesigned the monument into the Peter the Great Statue of today. However, Tsereteli disputes the veracity of this claim.
It is officially estimated that it cost 100 billion non-denominated rubles to set up the monument, which is almost $16.5 million at the exchange rate in 1997.
Design and construction of the structure took less than a year. The aerodynamic qualities of the monument were greatly enhanced in the wind tunnel at Moscow State University’s Institute of Mechanics. The same model statue is housed in the university’s history museum today.
Under the direction of head surveyor Valery Makhanov and head foreman Vladimir Maximov, 120 installers from the company 1st MSMU JSC “Stalmontazh” completed the erection of the Peter the Great Statue.
History of the Peter the Great Statue
The Peter the Great Statue’s aesthetic value was assessed by a public commission in 1997. And a few months before its unveiling, the commission claimed that the government and Zurab Tsereteli had “lied” about the Peter the Great Statue being a present to sailors to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Russian Navy.
According to the commission, the anniversary was in October of the previous year. Furthermore, in 1995, the sailors had petitioned the Russian government and individually petitioned Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin to have a new monument dedicated to the anniversary in Moscow. The petition had the signature of the acting Navy Commander, Admiral Selivanov.
Lev Kerbel, an academician and Soviet artist, had sculpted the statue.
A new pedestrian bridge across the Vodootvodny Canal was constructed, and the embankment was adorned, in preparation for the monument’s September 1996 unveiling in front of Tretyakov. However, Moscow declared to the government in a separate letter that it had undertaken to settle all issues with this monument on its own, without Russia’s assistance.
Peter the Great Statue and Moskva River.
Special committees were established by the city administration and the city’s previous head architect Leonid Vavakin to look into the plans of Kerbel and Tsereteli, and they concluded that Zurab Konstantinovich Tsereteli’s concepts were beautiful and unique.
On the advice of the Government of Moscow, the city committee tasked with commemorating the Navy’s 300th anniversary visited the Tsereteli studio to learn more about the Peter the Great Statue’s design.
The celebration committee requested that Tsereteli be recommended to make changes to the design, such as depicting Peter the Great in the traditional uniform of an early 18th century Russian sailor, installing busts of outstanding naval commanders inside the monument; removing the eagle from the bowsprit, etc., but these requests were not met.
As part of the festivities commemorating Moscow’s 850th anniversary, the Peter the Great Statue was dedicated on September 5, 1997. Prior to that, on September 3 and 4, respectively, the area surrounding the renovated Cathedral of Christ the Savior and the repaired Stoleshnikov Lane with the temple near the future Marriott Aurora Hotel was revealed by Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov and President of Russia Boris Yeltsin.
Criticism Toward the Peter the Great Statue
Architects and the general public both thought the Peter the Great Statue was ugly and pointless. In 1997, “Stolitsa” magazine published a series of articles and organized a petition drive to protest the monument’s planned placement in the city. About 5,000 letters of support were sent to the magazine in response to the request, along with a sticker depicting a defaced memorial to Peter I.
According to an article that “Stolitsa” magazine published after reading and evaluating reader responses, the primary complaints about the Peter the Great Statue were its enormous size and its inappropriate location.
Even though there was a lot of interest in the monument, sociological polling in Moscow by the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) and VCIOM in May revealed that only half of the city’s residents favored the structure. After reviewing the data, the commission conducted its own vote, with 13 members favoring maintaining the monument in its current location and 3 members opposing it.
Moscow residents were polled on their opinion of the city’s urban planning strategy as part of a large-scale sociological study that was contracted out to non-governmental organizations. Only 15% were in a low mood, 30% were upbeat, and 40% had mixed feelings.
Notably, the majority of the people (60%) who were hesitant about Moscow’s urban planning strategy openly despised the Peter the Great Statue.
After taking everything into account, it is found that Peter the Great Statue alone was 30% responsible for the poor reputation of the Moscow administration’s urban planning policies. This is a rare example of how one building can affect a whole metropolis of people.
The Peter the Great Statue is occasionally included in lists of the world’s 10 ugliest monuments. The City Council Building in Boston and the Montparnasse Tower in Paris often come on top of those lists since both seem like they belong in a nuclear bunker.
In an attempt to destroy the monument in July 1997, members of the Revolutionary Military Council planted explosives. They later claimed that the explosion was called off because of the risk of harming innocent bystanders. A different account had it that an anonymous phone call stopped the bomb from going off. From that point, visitors had been turned away from the landmark.
Five members of the “Revolutionary Military Council” were convicted guilty of terrorism and given prison terms by the Moscow City Court in 2002. In April 1997, they were accused of bombing a monument to Nicholas II (sculpted by Vyacheslav Klykov), and in the same month they were suspected of damaging a monument to Peter and a gas distribution station in the Moscow area.
The newspaper “Izvestia” reported that a proposal at the yearly exhibition “Arch Moscow” offered covering the monument in glass so that it would be invisible. In 2007, the architect Boris Bernaskoni displayed his creation at a gallery show. He proposed turning the Peter the Great Statue into a tower that would house a museum dedicated to the work of Zurab Tsereteli as well as provide a vantage point and recreational space for the people of Moscow.
The ART4.RU Museum of Contemporary Art also held an event in 2007 to raise money for the destruction of Tsereteli’s art, with contributions totaling about 100,000 rubles. Fundraising for the removal of all Zurab Tsereteli monuments in the city was advertised on a box left at the exhibition’s entrance.
The director of the museum claimed that more money was raised in contributions than was spent on admissions within a few days. Later, at the request of the sculptor’s grandson and director of the Moscow Museum of Modern Art, Vasili Tsereteli, the name “Zurab Tsereteli” was removed from the text, leaving just the inscription calling for the removal of the monuments.
Following the Moscow Mayor’s Resignation
Gallery owner Marat Gelman, who had previously condemned the Peter the Great Statue, urged its destruction on September 28, 2010—one day before Yuri Luzhkov was dismissed from office as Mayor of Moscow. At a meeting of Moscow’s administration on October 4, 2010, interim mayor Vladimir Resin proposed moving the monument.
According to the head of the Moscow Municipal Duma Commission, moving the Peter the Great Statue would cost the municipal budget 1 billion rubles ($34 million in 2010) and it was doubted that this amount would be found. Gelman said that he would obtain sponsorship money outside of the budget to facilitate the relocation of Zurab Tsereteli’s monument.
Some organizations voiced concern that the proposed relocation of the monument was motivated by populism. Another effort to mislead public opinion by relocating the monument and claiming it solves all issues with Moscow’s image.
Interestingly, St. Petersburg refused to host the statue, unlike many other cities. This is probably because the city already had a Peter I monument commemorated by Tsereteli (at a height of 41 ft; 12.6 m). There was also the already popular Peter the Great monument called “The Bronze Horseman,” erected in 1768–1782.
“Peter the Great Statue has stood and will continue to stand”, Sergey Baidakov, prefect of Moscow’s Central Administrative District, remarked during a news conference in July 2011.
Peter the Great Statue When It Comes to Culture
None of Moscow’s modern monuments has arguably become the symbol of the city. This is because they are neither part of the city’s legend nor the so-called “cultural text.” This includes the Peter the Great Statue.
Some people have seen parallels between St. Petersburg’s monument The Bronze Horseman, and the Peter the Great Statue in Moscow.
But other than that, the Peter the Great Statue has never found itself a prominent place in culture. Today, the monument is often remembered as part of the “Peter the Great Statues” in Russia.
Here is everything there is to know about the history of Ukraine. During a televised address in 2022—just three days before Russia invaded Ukraine—Vladimir Putin said, “Ukraine is an inalienable part of our own history, culture, and spiritual space.” He went on to say “modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia.” Ukraine, on the other hand, has a distinct past from Russia. Let’s find out more about its rich history.
1. Kievan Rus, 8th–12th century
The Rus’ of Kyiv
Viktor Vasnetsov’s The Invitation of the Varangians: Rurik and his brothers Sineus and Truvor arrive in the territory of the Novgorod Slavs (or Ilmen Slavs) Staraya Ladoga.
Between 730 and 820, Vikings, the warrior-merchants from Scandinavia, established trading posts in the region of Ladoga, Rostov, and the future city of Novgorod. They are referred to in Greek, Arabic, and Slavonic texts as Rous’ (a Slavic word “Роусь” that originally seems to have meant “rowers” or the Finnish name for the Swedes: Ruotsi) or as Varangians, probably derived from a Scandinavian term meaning “sworn comrades.”
Kyiv was founded in 882 as the seat of the Varangian Rurik dynasty, which gathered Slavic peoples for itself. It was ruled by Prince Igor (Ingvar), who married Olga (Helga) in 945, and after that, the city of Kyiv became the epicenter of a network of Rus’ dominance over the surrounding Slavic tribes thanks to the relations established with Constantinople at this time. The “road from the Varangians to the Greeks” was the name given to this trading route.
Kievan Rus or Kyivan Rus’ was established by Igor’s grandson Vladimir (Valdemar), who reigned from 980 to 1015 and oversaw a huge area stretching from the Baltic Sea south of Kiev (“Kyiv,” as in Ukrainian), to the boundaries of Galicia-Volhynia and the Oka River. Vladimir, who was baptized into the Byzantine Christian (Orthodox) faith in 988, is often credited as the driving force behind the establishment of the Russian Orthodox Church as a part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Kievan Rus’ expansion in an extremely sparse environment caused its breakup in the 12th century into many principalities, each centered on a fortified city; the most important of these were Novgorod, Vladimir, Suzdal, and Moscow, all of which were under constant attack from fearful Turkic nomads. Before the Mongol invasion in 1237–1240, Vladimir’s heirs ruled the lands in question as princes.
Crimea: the crossing point between Kievan Rus and Constantinople (10th–14th century)
Because of its proximity to the sea routes leading to Constantinople and the passages in the steppes, the Byzantine Empire, when it was strong enough, dominated the southeastern coastline of the Crimea (where the Tauri people of the ancient Greeks lived who turned into the Chersonese colony). Crimea was the mountainous part of the peninsula with a sheltered climate and rich port sites.
The position of Crimea was important in terms of controlling the coastal routes leading to Constantinople as well as the passageways through the steppes. This interest grew in prominence with the construction of the “way from the Varangians to the Greeks,” which connected the Baltic to the Black Sea through Kyiv (Kiev).
2. A frontier province of the Mongol Empire
Dominance of the Tatars (13th–16th century)
Kievan Rus around the 11th century. (Image: W. Commons)
Genghis Khan conquered the nomadic peoples of the steppe in 1206. He then turned his attention to the established empires of China and Central Asia, where he continued his conquests. In 1223, the Kipchak were the last nomads to stand up to the Mongols, so the Khan sent his generals Jebe and Subutai into the Caucasus to locate them. To no avail, the Kipchak united with the rulers of southern Rous’ and they were annihilated by Mongols at the Battle of the Kalka River in 1223.
From 1237 to 1242, Batu, grandson of Genghis Khan, defeated one Russian prince after another and burned the cities of Kiev Rus’, including its capital in 1240. The Russian principalities came under the suzerainty of the Mongol Khans of the Golden Horde. The Mongols are called Tatars in Russian sources, which is the name of a nomadic Turkic people from Central Asia. To the west was the vast Principality of Lithuania.
After two centuries of tax collection cooperation with the Tatars, Moscow declares its independence. After defeating the Emir Mamai in the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, the great prince of Moscow, Dimitri I, bowed to the Khan Tokhtamysh two years later. With his successors, especially Ivan III, “Russian lands” started to be gathered together (annexations of Novgorod in 1478 and Tver in 1485).
In 1480, Ivan III confronted the fleeing Mongol troops led by Khan Ahmed, marking the end of Mongol rule but not the end of peaceful coexistence between Russians and Tatars. He called himself “Sovereign of all Rous’” since he was a direct descendant of Vladimir of Kiev. His son, Vasily III, submitted the towns of Pskov and Ryazan and pushed back the Lithuanians from Smolensk in 1514 during the fourth Muscovite–Lithuanian War.
Khanate of Crimea, 1449
Tatar horsemen have dominated the steppes along the border of the Russian principalities and Poland-Lithuania since 1240. The Crimean Tatar Khanate emerged when the Golden Horde collapsed between 1430 and 1440, with the southern section of the peninsula staying under the influence of Genoese merchants until the Ottoman invasion in 1475. The Turks took control of the Khanate and made it a Turkish protectorate. The Khanate of Crimea was an ally of Moscow until 1514 when it turned against it.
3. Poland-Lithuania, 14th–15th century
Working together with the Golden Horde was crucial to Moscow’s success. The Muscovite sovereign presented himself as a unifier of the old Rus’ after the 1380 victory against the Tatars at the Battle of Kulikovo. Constantinople’s key position was diminished when it was captured by the Ottomans in 1453, and the union of Lithuania and Poland in 1386 pushed the West toward Catholicism.
It was at the cost of Poland and Lithuania that the Russian Empire expanded to the west. The Cossacks were the people they met there. The Kazan (1552) and Astrakhan (1556) Khanates were conquered by Ivan the Terrible (1533–1584). Ivan the Terrible was the first ruler of Moscow to be given the title “tsar,” which means “new Caesar” in Latin which made him a potential leader of the Orthodox world. This was also the moment when the idea of Moscow being the “third Rome” was first put out.
4. The birth of “Ukraine”: The Cossack era
The execution of Stenka Razin, (Sergei Kirillov, 1988).
The term “Cossack,” which has its roots in Turkish-Mongolian culture, is used to describe semi-nomadic peoples who live in self-governing military and agricultural communities along the borders of Russia and Poland-Lithuania, particularly in the areas surrounding the Iaik (later renamed the Urals), the Volga, the Don, and the Dnieper rivers. The word “ukraina” first originated at this time from the Old Slavic “оукраина,” meaning “march” which referred to each of the country’s constituent regions.
These communities, commanded by an elected general “Ataman” (meaning “ancestor of horsemen” in Turkic), consisted of free men and independent warriors who survived off of hunting, fishing, and pillaging and were too devoted to their customary privileges. They also accepted peasants who had escaped the expansion of serfdom.
The Razin Uprising (1670–1671) and Pugachev’s Rebellion (1773–1775) are only two examples of many that occurred when the Russian Empire was being formed and their military talents were put to use with autocratic authority to erode the liberties of ukrainas or marches.
5. Russian Ukraine, 17th to 20th century
Rapid growth of the Russian Empire between 1650 and 1800
This 1648 map is one of the first appearances of the name “Ukraine” for the region in history. (Source: Division of Geography and Maps)
Russia expanded between 1650 and 1800 to become the world’s greatest continental empire, including peoples and languages from all over the globe. Its territory covered an area from present-day Poland to the Pacific Ocean, and from the Arctic Circle to the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea. The Russian language, particularly in government, and obedient service to the tsar were central to the original concept of the empire. It is a modality of governance based on distinction, and it represents a flexible framework.
After 1650, territorial development continued in the same vein as earlier efforts. Eventually, in 1639, the conquering Russian fleet made it to the Pacific Ocean.
The southern Russian progression saw a heightened push into territory inhabited by a variety of Cossack groups. In the 17th century, the Hetman of the Dnieper Cossacks (Zaporozhian) became a de facto head of state, empowered to enlist the help of the Russian tsar in the fight against the Poles. This led to the Pereiaslav Agreement in 1654, whose meaning has been debated ever since. The Russian ruler considered the Zaporozhian and the Orthodox of Poland-Lithuania to be firmly under his power.
Therefore, he was the tsar of “all the Russias,” including “Great Russia” (the region inherited from Ivan the Terrible), “White Russia” (Belarus), and “Little Russia” (a devaluing name for Ukraine). Even though the Zaporozhians, Byelorussians, and Ukrainians believed they had selected a new common ruler, they wanted to maintain their existing level of political, economic, and religious autonomy.
Possible contemporary fault lines in Ukraine may be traced back to the 1654–1667 conflict between Russia and Poland. With the division of Poland (1772–1795), Catherine II became the one to “reconquer” the old Rous’ territories. The part of Ukraine that was to the west of the River Dnieper eventually became part of Russia.
While this was happening, Russian conquering efforts proceeded into Ottoman vassal Tatar territory. After the Crimean Tatars and the Moscow government signed the peace Treaty of Bakhchisarai in 1681, these lands were under Moscow’s firm control, but they became the focus of open conflict between the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 17th century and throughout the 18th.
The Don and Dnieper river mouths, as well as the strategically significant Crimean Peninsula, which is home to Tatars and has access to the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea, were the focus of the two nations’ battles in 1711–1713 and 1735–1739. With the signing of the Treaty of Belgrade in 1739, the Russians were finally able to retake the citadel of Azov.
Beginning in the middle of the 18th century, there was a growing interest in the southern lands, driven in part by a desire to secure a foothold on the Black Sea and in part by the need to halt the raids of the Crimean Tatars, who were located close to the imperial marches and remained a significant threat. Russia expanded its frontiers in this strategically important region during its two wars against the Ottoman Empire (1768–1774 and 1787–1791).
As a result of the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca in 1774, the Russians arrived on the Black Sea, annexed the Crimean Khanate in 1783, and established the port of Sevastopol the same year. The Treaty of Jassy, signed in 1792, put a stop to the second conflict and legalized the acquisition of territory in Moldavia. Odesa, a new city established in 1794 solidified Russia’s influence on the Black Sea.
In addition, beginning in the 1760s, when Catherine II created a formal protectorate there, the Russian advance paralleled or caused the collapse of Poland, which ultimately vanished by the end of the century. Indeed, the right bank of the Dnieper (including the Courland, Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine) became part of the Russian Empire during the three partitions of Poland in 1772, 1793, and 1795 between Prussia, Austria, and Russia.
Jews, discriminated residents
There were the Jews, the outcast locals who faced prejudice and had lived on the Black Sea coast since the Middle Ages, and by the end of the 15th century, they had been banned from staying in Muscovy, where they had been living illegally since the reign of Ivan III (1462-1505).
Since they were seen as a threat (particularly the merchants) to Russian markets in the 16th and 17th centuries, trading with Jews was banned. While they didn’t make it to the Moscow fairs, they still had extensive commercial networks and attended other fairs. Bohdan Khmelnytsky, a Cossack from Ukraine who rose to prominence as a resistance leader and national hero, led an uprising in 1648 that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Jews.
About 900,000 Jews, most of whom had relocated from Poland to Ukraine and White Russia (Belarus) between 1772 and 1795, were resident in the Russian Empire at that time. Jewish citizens were forced to relocate to Catherine II’s “settlement zone,” which corresponded to the expanded regions of the empire, except for a few places, such as Kiev, where they were strictly banned. Some Jews, however, including businessmen, manufacturers, physicians, etc., were granted permission to settle in major urban centers and therefore formed a bourgeoisie.
Alexander II’s murder in 1881 put an end to the liberal reforms he had begun. More pogroms erupted until 1884. (a Russian term meaning “to destroy everything” which entered other languages in the 1880s).
Cities in Ukraine were ground zero for the first instances of widespread persecution of Jews in the Russian Empire. An unparalleled magnitude of new pogroms occurred in 1905 and again in 1919–1920. The Ukrainian People’s Republic (1917–1921) is often linked to a time of mass murder of Jews that weakened the Ukrainian national cause, albeit not all of the murders occurred at that time.
The Crimean War, 1853–1856
The Crimean War has its roots in the competition between European countries for the strategic importance of the Black Sea and its straits. Four centuries after the fall of Constantinople, and much to everyone’s astonishment, Nicholas I authorized the military conquest of the Danube princes of Moldavia and Wallachia under the pretense of a theological disagreement between Catholics and Ottomans. As of October 4, 1853, the Sultan declared war.
France and Britain, fearful of Russian expansion, joined the Porte in 1854; the next year, Piedmont and Sardinia did the same. The Turks viewed it as a means of protecting their dwindling empire; the British saw it as a chance to undermine Russia before it became a dangerous competitor in Asia; Napoleon III hoped to reassert French power.
As soon as the Austrian Empire came between the Russian and Ottoman troops, the conflict moved to the Caucasus. From the Black Sea and the White Sea to the Baltic and the Bering Sea, the allies conducted a naval counteroffensive against the Russian coastline. The invasion of Crimea was the first spark that ignited the war. Typhus and cholera wreaked havoc on these already underequipped troops, killing an estimated 500,000 Russians (out of an army of 1.2 million), 100,000 French (out of 310,000), and 20,000 British (out of 98,000).
Russia’s expansionist ambitions were halted when a yearlong siege of Sevastopol resulted in the Empire’s first devastating loss in September 1855. Tsar Alexander II’s military reputation took a hit even though he had preserved the Crimea and only had to give up a portion of Bessarabia (returned in 1878), prompting him to modernize the army.
6. Independent Ukraine 1917–1921
A patriotic demonstration in Kyiv, Ukraine, 1917. (Image: W. Commons)
Similar to other European national movements, the Ukrainian one emerged around the turn of the 19th century. One of the most important people in Ukrainian literature, poet Taras Shevchenko’s (1814–1861) writings are essential to the Ukrainian literary canon. He is seen as a victim of Russian authority due to being exiled to Kazakhstan for his political beliefs.
The Eastern Front (1914–1918)
On August 1, 1914, Germany declared war on Russia and entered into World War I, prompting Russia to send soldiers to fight the country. However, the German Army was able to halt the Russian advance at Tannenberg.
The battle in the East was a war of mobility, with the front constantly shifting positions, in contrast to the static combat in the West during World War I. After seizing power in October 1917, the Bolsheviks were unable to expand their influence beyond the territory of the former Muscovy due to the Central Empires.
Polish–Ukrainian War and the Russian Civil War (1918–1921)
The Ukrainian national movement capitalized on the collapse of tsarism in 1917—amidst civil strife and the First World War—to establish a governing body, the Central Council of Ukraine, and to declare Ukraine’s independence. However, brutal warfare occurred throughout the country between various political and military groups including the national forces, the Red Army, anti-Bolshevik White armies, and foreign troops.
Several adversaries, including former allies and counter-revolutionary elements (the “White Russians”), confronted the new Soviet administration when it concluded a separate peace with Germany on March 3, 1918, in Brest-Litovsk. From August 1918 onward, the external powers (France, the United Kingdom, and Canada) that had not accepted the Russian withdrawal and wanted to contain the revolution with a “cordon sanitaire” backed the “White” anti-Bolshevik troops of the inner Volga, the Don, and the Kyiv plains as they attacked the Communist power.
Both the Poles who wanted their territory back and the Ukrainians who wanted to regain their independence called for the return of the eastern region of Galicia, which was once part of Poland before the partitions and then an Austrian state. The war in this area, which was annexed by the Bolsheviks in 1917 to form a popular Ukraine (1917–1920), was unaffected by the armistices that had been signed up to this point. After two weeks of battles in Lwow (Lviv), the Poles lost on November 21, 1918. These child soldiers of the Polish-Ukrainian War are known as the “Lwów Eaglets.”
Fighting between Poles and Ukrainians lasted until the middle of July 1919, with the Poles emerging victorious; a ceasefire was reached on July 17; and on November 21 of the same year, the Poles were given Eastern Galicia, and most significantly, they regained control of Lwow.
When peace was restored in 1921, the Bolsheviks took control of practically all of the formerly Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine (Western Volynia was given back to Poland) and ended the Ukrainian People’s Republic. After the establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922, Ukraine, with Kharkiv as its capital, joined the union.
7. A republic of the USSR
There were originally 4 SSRs when the USSR was created in 1922, but by 1936 there were 11, by 1945 there were 16, and by 1956 there were 15 independent republics inside the SSR.
The republics enjoyed some degree of autonomy, but the ultimate authority was in Moscow with the leadership of one party (Political Bureau and Central Committee) and the federal government (Council of People’s Commissars). In addition to having a right to secede, they also had their own councils of people’s commissars, representatives in the soviet of nationalities, and PCs with central committees and sometimes political bureaus, as in Ukraine. Education and justice were strictly Republican concerns.
However, it was acknowledged that these little homelands must serve the vast Soviet Union. After Lenin’s passing in January 1924, the iron rule changed to fealty to Stalin, who had been able to transform his role as General Secretary of the Party since 1922 into a true autocrat.
Stalin said in 1931, “We have to catch up, otherwise we will be beaten.” The violent uniformity of the intricate tapestry of historical lives and cultures was facilitated by the collectivization of the countryside, the forcible replacement of elites, and the mass population relocation.
The Great Famine of 1931–1933
Stalin’s regime aimed to take agricultural resources for the cities and export them with collectivization, but the burden of compulsory deliveries left few resources for families in kolkhozes, the collective farms. In 1932, three out of four households received less than 220 pounds (100 kg) of grain per year, compared to 660 pounds (300 kg) in the 1920s.
Many herders refused their forced sedentarization and the collectivization of livestock, leading to widespread starvation in Kazakhstan by the spring of 1931. By 1932, poor harvests in Western Siberia and Kazakhstan further weakened an already fragile productive system and put additional strain on the resources of Ukraine, Kuban, and the Volga regions.
Entire areas were rising up in Ukraine as the farmers did not want to part with their land, their crops, or their equipment. Ukrainian villages fled to Poland in masses, headed by women and children. However, for Stalin in Moscow, this was only the treachery of counter-revolutionaries, not the food and humanitarian crises that the coercive policies caused.
As a result of public opposition, the Stalinist government intensified its policy of compulsory levies and cracked down on the districts that did not comply with the collection plan. This included cutting off the supply of food and manufactured goods, imposing fines and jail time, and seizing the last of the nation’s food reserves.
The obligation to give the portion of the crop set aside for seeds, which was necessary to assure the next harvest, made the Great Famine of 1931–1933 worse. Peasants who attempted to run from starvation by relocating to cities, where rationing had been instituted, were apprehended by specialized Russian patrols. The first group of people to be deported in bulk to the Gulag is known as the “kulaks.” The word originally meant “well-off” peasants but it later applied to all who simply rejected collectivization.
Starving peasants on a Kharkiv street in 1933. (Image: W. Commons)
4 million Ukrainians and 1.5 million Kazakhs died as a result of the famine. Although it was a catastrophe for the population and an agricultural calamity, the Kremlin saw it as a chance to securely anchor the border republics. To make Ukraine a fortress, any possible disloyalties must be eliminated, whether they originated from intellectuals and communists who were too patriotic and not particularly respectful of the general secretary, or from peasants who were too committed to their property.
Since the fall of the USSR in 1991, the tragedy of the 1932–1933 famine played a central role in the political life of the new Ukrainian state, marked by the confrontation between supporters of a break with the USSR (and then with Russia), who were in the majority in the western part of Ukraine, and the supporters of maintaining close ties with the “big brother” who were in the majority in Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine.
The term “Holodomor,” which combines the words golod, “hunger” and mor, the root of the verb moryty, which means “to exhaust,” “to let suffer without intervening,” and “to kill by deprivation,” was coined in Ukraine to describe the mass starvation death of Ukrainians of an intentional nature. The Holodomor was not only at the center of the political debate but also became a crucial part of the post-Soviet Ukrainian national identity.
The “Orange Revolution” of President Yushchenko was dominant in the Ukrainian Parliament at the time, which decided to formally acknowledge the famine of 1932–1933 as a genocide committed by the Stalinist dictatorship against the Ukrainian people in November 2006. Currently, 24 nations (including the United States, Canada, Poland, the Baltic States, the Vatican, Brazil, and Argentina) recognize Holodomor as a genocide; however, neither the United Nations nor the European Parliament has done so. In 2008, the European Parliament did, however, declare the Holodomor a “crime against humanity.”
However, in Russia, very few historians who study the famines of the early 1930s unanimously reject the thesis of genocide and the national specificity of the Ukrainian case.
World War II
In violation of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941, which included the mobilization of 4 million soldiers, 3,300 tanks, and 5,000 aircraft. The Red Army was taken by surprise and unprepared by the sizable troops. Hitler wanted the Russian campaign conducted swiftly. “I need Ukraine,” Hitler said, “so no one can starve us out again, as they did in the last war,” in a 1939 interview with historian Carl Jakob Burckhardt.
On July 1, the German troops arrived in Minsk. Leningrad was under siege in September, and on September 19, Kyev or Kyiv was captured along with tens of thousands of captives.
After the Soviet Union was invaded, the Final Solution to the Jewish problem—which is to say, the deliberate killing of Jews—was put into action. The Einsatzgruppen, paramilitary death squads directed by members of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, the Reich’s top security agency, were given this order. Out of the four Einsatzgruppen, two were active in Ukraine. The forces stayed as close to the Wehrmacht (Nazi armed forces) as they could.
The first Jewish deportations to ghettos in the Baltic States and Belarus began in the middle of October 1941, moving people from the Reich and other parts of Western Europe. A total of 500,000 people were killed in the spring of 1942. In 1941 or 1942, most of the Soviet Jews were killed. Even though the SS and the police were primarily in charge of carrying out the extermination campaign, local volunteer battalions and regular Wehrmacht troops also played a significant part in these killings. With their mostly logistical support, almost 34,000 Jews were killed at Babi Yar, close to Kyiv, at the end of September 1941. Prisoners of war were also killed along with the Jews under the excuse of a bombing that destroyed the 6th Army headquarters.
Ukrainian nationalists hiding out in Germany as part of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) attempted to leverage the rapid Wehrmacht advance in Ukraine to cement their control over the land. There was an initial impression that their plan had worked. When the German troops arrived in rural areas, they were typically greeted with gifts of food, milk, fruit, and even flowers, in stark contrast to the chilly reception they got in the city, where sizable Jewish and Russian communities lived.
One of the primary justifications of modern Russian propaganda is based on this dark period in Ukrainian history, which was defined by the reconciliation between nationalists (particularly Stepan Bandera, accused of countless war crimes) and the Nazis.
The Nazis, however, rapidly destroyed this temporary peace. On July 13, 1941, when addressing the SS at Sczeczin, Heinrich Himmler classified the Slavs as “a population […] whose physique is such that they can be slaughtered without feeling either pity or compassion.”
A fortnight later, Hitler, who intended to make Crimea a German Riviera for the Aryan master race, proclaimed: “The Ukrainians are as lazy […] as the Russians. Like the Russians, they belong to the “family of rabbits” and must be treated as such. The German General Staff stated that “the Bolshevik soldier has lost the right to be treated as an honest soldier.”
In the event of any kind of hostage revolt or sabotage, all captives were brutally murdered. By the end of October 1941, the whole Ukrainian town of Obukhivka had been burnt to the ground and its inhabitants had been executed by firing squad. Following the orders, Wehrmacht troops sacked the homes of Ukrainian farmers and town residents, killing anybody who tried to protect their goods.
The seized Ukrainian territory was now partitioned. The region’s northernmost part, Eastern Galicia, was part of the General Government, Polish province was ruled by Hans Frank. Erick Koch ruled over the remainder of Ukraine as Reichskommissariat (Reich Commissioner.)
The local farmers and urban intellectuals were targeted by Nazi propaganda that attacked Jews and Communist political commissars to garner their support. But, from protesting against hunger to struggling while walking, any of these were sufficient grounds for immediate execution. Thus, the widespread terror caused by the occupation swiftly turned the majority of the people against Nazi Germany.
The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and the Soviet partisans began working together to harass the Wehrmacht and derail its trains in the summer of 1942, despite being old enemies.
The Germans, unprepared for a lengthy war, were halted before Moscow by the end of 1941 thanks to the onset of winter, the organizing of the Russian resistance, and the involvement of troops from Siberia. The Red Army pushed westward, taking advantage of German vulnerabilities. Kyiv had been retaken on November 6, 1943. And then, German forces were expelled from Ukraine in March 1944, and from Crimea in May.
Following the October 18th, 1944, crossing of the Carpathians by the Red Army’s 4th Ukrainian Front, the people of Subcarpathian Ruthenia, a region that had been part of the Hungarian Crown before being annexed by Czechoslovakia in 1920, quickly realized that they would be living in a Ukrainian-dominated Soviet Union. But neither Eastern Galicia nor Subcarpathian Ruthenia had ever been a part of the Russian Empire. These regions, the final parts of Ukraine, were now a part of the new empire’s western frontier.
The socialist republics of the USSR
Within the Soviet Union itself, the war also had a profound effect on the established order of things. The other Union countries looked to the Russians as their leader after Generalissimo Stalin appointed the country as such. The Belarusians and Ukrainians, the war’s primary victims and driving forces of resistance, were successful in having their republic granted a seat in the General Assembly of the United Nations at Stalin’s insistence and in direct violation of international law. While their republics were destroyed, the Crimean Tatars, Chechens, and other North Caucasus peoples were accused of working with the Germans and deported to Central Asia.
After Stalin died in 1953, an urban and educated Soviet populace emerged, far distant from religion, speaking Russian, and considering it normal for women to have a job. This was an acculturation and assimilation process that neither the Tsars nor Lenin had succeeded in carrying out.
Russian became the language of choice in Belarus and Ukraine after the gift of Crimea in 1954 boosted the number of Russian speakers in both countries.
Despite Homo sovieticus‘ homogenous lifestyle, the underlying national identities of Soviet people were never forgotten. The Russian regime’s modernization and decentralization efforts, as well as the emergence of the opposition, actually bolstered these trends.
Ukraine, Tatarstan, Georgia, Moldova, and Lithuania all participated in the “parade of sovereignties” between 1989 and 1991, a movement that exploited the Soviet Constitution and the ability to secede to declare independence from the larger Soviet Union.
The Kravchuk Era, 1990–1991
Despite the efforts of the Rukh (People’s Movement of Ukraine), which had been formed on the initiative of former dissidents (L. Lukyanenko, V. Chornovil, and Ivan. Drach), and which had been joined by members of movements for the defense of the Ukrainian language and ecological associations, particularly active since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in April 1986, the Soviet apparatus in Ukraine resisted change until the end of 1989.
A question that arose as a result of this incident was whether Ukraine, the second most populous Soviet republic, was destined to become the “nuclear wasteland” of the USSR after its resources had been overexploited under Stalin.
The Ukrainian Communist Party, led for 15 years by Vladimir Shcherbitsky until being succeeded by Leonid Kravchuk at the end of 1989, bowed to pressure from the large strike of the Donbas miners in the summer of 1989. The second group deftly used the Ukrainian national card to stave off the Rukh’s advance. In March 1990, after municipal elections that went in the communists’ favor, Kravchuk was placed at the helm of the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine.
Leonid Kravchuk was well-connected to Boris Yeltsin, the party’s star in Moscow. These two men, as leaders of the two most important Soviet republics, were destined to play pivotal roles in the Soviet Union’s ultimate crises.
There was a developing rift between Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin in the last year of the USSR’s existence. Boris Yeltsin advocated a swift transition to a market economy (“500 Days Plan”), whereas Mikhail Gorbachev favored a more gradual approach to end the state control of the economy and usher in free market principles. The second point of argument was the scope of the proposed New Union Treaty.
The republics were provided with a text on November 23rd, 1990. The discussions were attended by all the countries except for the Baltic States and Georgia. The document granted new rights to the republics and all references to socialism were removed. The Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics replaced the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and while the treaty did offer additional privileges to the republics, the federal prerogatives stayed quite powerful.
The bilateral agreement between Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kravchuk, signed on November 20, recognized the sovereignty of both Russia and Ukraine and committed them to economic cooperation.
A referendum on the proposed new Union treaty was conducted in March 1991 in 9 of the 15 republics that had not yet seceded, and it was accepted by an average of 77% of voters (70% in Ukraine), giving Mikhail Gorbachev the upper hand in the struggle between the two men. The vast majority of native Soviets still had strong ties to the federation.
Boris Yeltsin then decided to hasten the collapse of the Union and Russia’s subsequent march toward independence. On June 12, 1991, he received 57% of the vote in the first round of voting for President of Russia. He gained more credibility when pitted against Mikhail Gorbachev, who had been indirectly elected President of the USSR the year before.
Worried about these “populist” developments, and disgusted by Boris Yeltsin’s forced march towards the market economy, the most conservative groups incited a putsch on August 19 and 21, 1991, which failed miserably in the face of Boris Yeltsin’s determined resistance, supported by the population of Moscow and Leningrad.
As the putsch failed, the legitimately elected Russian president triumphed against his antagonist, who had been aiding the coup from his vacation spot on the Black Sea. Mikhail Gorbachev stepped down as CPSU general secretary, and Boris Yeltsin put a halt to the party’s operations. The last nail in the coffin was driven home by Leonid Kravchuk when the Ukrainian Parliament declared the country’s independence after a referendum on December 1 (in which 90% of voters said “yes”).
In a conference a week later in Belovezha (on the border of Belarus and Poland), Boris Yeltsin, Leonid Kravchuk, and Stanislav Shushkevich (the President of Belarus) approved a paper declaring that there is no longer any legal or political basis for the Soviet Union to exist. A Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) “open to all states of the former USSR” was established instead. The foundation contract of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was signed on December 21 by 11 of the 15 former Soviet republics (excluding the Baltic States and Georgia) in Alma-Ata, where Mikhail Gorbachev was not present.
The procedure to formally terminate the USSR and the departure of its president was finalized on December 23 when Mikhail Gorbachev met with Boris Yeltsin. On December 25 at 7 p.m., Gorbachev read a short farewell address he had prepared for television. The Russian tricolor flag and the crimson flag are raised atop the Kremlin towers simultaneously. Thus, 1991 goes down in history as the peaceful closing to a period that started in bloody revolutionary violence in October 1917, exactly 74 years before.
8. Ukraine’s independence
In 1991, pro-independence activists gathered in downtown Kyiv for a demonstration. (Image: The Guardian.
Ukraine, 1991
The territory of independent Ukraine in 1991 was the consequence of a violent history. The western Ukrainian territories were annexed between 1939 and 1945 at the cost of Poland, Romania, or Czechoslovakia, and the eastern regions were remnants of the previous Russian Empire. Nikita Khrushchev gave Crimea to Russia in 1954, and Russia seized it in 2014. Conflicts between separatist groups and the Ukrainian national government are still ongoing in the Donbas.
The “Orange Revolution”, 2004
Comparing Ukraine to the Baltic nations, for instance, the uniqueness of Ukraine might be attributed to the communist authorities’ appropriation of certain nationalist elements. Thus, Leonid Kravchuk, a prominent member of the Ukrainian Communist Party, became the first president of the republic to be chosen by universal suffrage after independence was granted by referendum on December 1, 1991, with more than 90% of the votes.
The outrage brought on by the election fraud, and a condemnation of the elites founded during the Soviet period who were now ruling the nation’s oligarchic clans were among the factors of the protests of November and December 2004 in Kiev known as the “Orange Revolution.” Even while it marked the presence of a “nation,” these protests were still more political than patriotic.
Russo-Ukrainian War, 2014
A thousand protesters assembled in Lenin Square on February 22, 2014, in Dnipropetrovsk, a major industrial city in eastern Ukraine. They encircled an impressive statue of Lenin that was placed there in 1957 to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the October Revolution in order to disprove it. The police, who were mostly inactive, and the few communists who were there, failed to stop the protesters. After seven hours of work, Lenin was knocked off of his perch at 1 in the morning.
The next day, it turned out that Viktor Yanukovych, the president of Ukraine, had just hurriedly departed the nation. Since February 20, there were 82 fatalities had been mourned in Kiev and since late November 2013, hundreds of thousands of protesters demonstrated against the government’s unwillingness to sign a cooperation agreement with the EU to promote a relationship with Russia.
Some members of this movement, soon to be known as the “Revolution of Dignity” (or Euromaidan), raised the matter of the Soviet legacy in Ukraine more forcefully than the “Orange Revolution” ten years ago. The Lenin statue, which had stood at the foot of Shevchenko Boulevard in Kiev since 1946, had been demolished in December at the behest of deputies and supporters of the nationalist Svoboda Party. Turning away from the Yanukovych administration and the elites educated during the Soviet period meant a major de-communization and de-Russification of Ukraine for an increasing number of Ukrainians.
The mining region of Donbas, one of the USSR’s economic and symbolic hubs, had become a border area between Russia and Ukraine in the years after independence. The place names from the Soviet era were still very much in use in these areas, there were still many ties to Russia, and Russian continued to be the language of choice. The events of 2014 put the locals to the test, revealed crucial realities, and pushed the local people to choose a side. The Russian invasion of Crimea, as well as the crisis and subsequent fighting in the eastern regions backed by Moscow, heightened public awareness.
Invasion of Crimea, 2014
Crimea was a part of independent Ukraine at the time of the dissolution of the USSR. The latter gave this mostly Russian-speaking area some autonomy, although, among Russians, Ukraine was known as “Little Russia.” Additionally, agreements with Russia permitted the partition of the former Soviet Black Sea fleet and the granting of a lease to Russia for the port of Sevastopol, which was established in 1783 after the invasion of Crimea by Catherine II.
Russian soldiers occupied the Crimean Peninsula as the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in Kiev after the protests in February 2014. After a self-determination referendum that the international community did not recognize, Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014. Eastern Ukraine, home to a sizable Russian population, witnessed the movement’s expansion. The separation of Donbas led to a war between the Ukrainian government and the rebels supported by Russia. The issue of Russian gas became a crucial problem for Ukraine.
Donbas: the upsurging
The Donetz river basin, a sizable coal-mining region, was integrated into the Russian Empire at the end of the 17th century and served as the focal point of Russia’s industrialization beginning at the end of the 19th century. During the Soviet era, propaganda heavily emphasized this region as the nation’s symbolic heart. The status of the area was altered in 1991 when Ukraine gained independence. The aging coal-mining sector was affected by economic change, and the Russian-speaking miners felt devalued and excluded.
The Donbas opposed the Kievan Revolution in November 2013. Donetsk and Luhansk were taken over by separatist activists in April 2014, and in May they proclaimed their independence after holding referendums that Kiev deemed invalid. Local militias commanded by Russian mercenaries engaged in combat with “volunteer battalions” and the Ukrainian army had initiated a military operation. 13,000 individuals lost their lives in all and at least 1.5 million people were forced to flee their homes as a consequence of the war. The war was “halted” by the Minsk agreements in February 2015 without resolving it. Despite not having a formal presence in Ukraine, Moscow is known to have supported the rebels.
De-Russification along with de-communization
The Russian annexation of Crimea in February 2014 and the subsequent crisis and conflict in the eastern territories, in which Moscow supported autonomy, hastened the de-communization and de-Russification.
While rivals of the Maidan often mobilized symbols of Soviet nostalgia (such as the orange and black Ribbon of Saint George, which represented the Red Army’s triumph over Nazi Germany), the Soviet elements of Ukraine were now fading. Thus, the year 2014 elicited a strong sense of national consciousness in Ukraine. The deconstruction of Lenin’s monument in Kharkiv in September 2014 was proof of this. While the mayor, Gennady Kernes, threatened anybody who attempted to touch the memorial a few months before, he relented. The conflict was concluded.
Four pieces of de-communization legislation were enacted by the Ukrainian Parliament in May 2015 with the Institute of National Remembrance’s help. The dismantling of Soviet statues and Russian street names, the complete opening of the Soviet archives, and measures in support of the Ukrainian independence fighters were among them. Between 2013 and 2016, 965 statues of Lenin were removed from public view in Ukraine. This event was referred to as the “fall of Lenin.” 52,000 streets were renamed, and 986 localities and 32 cities changed their names, including Dnipropetrovsk, named after the Bolshevik leader Grigori Petrovski, which is now called Dnipro.
Russian interference in Crimea and Donbas has given these reforms a new meaning, necessitating the removal of any references to Russia as well. Before being renamed the “Northern” bridge in 2018, Kiev’s Moscow Bridge was first repainted in the blue and yellow of the Ukrainian flag. The bridge spans the Dnieper. Both the square and the avenue of Moscow received new names, with the second inheriting the Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera’s name, which is detested by Russians. According to the idea that is becoming more prevalent in Ukraine and tends to paint the past as a time of Russian colonialism, de-communization is now being de-Russification.
References
Cover picture: Артур Орльонов, “Kyi, Shchek, Khoriv and Lybid found the city of Kyiv, 482, modern Ukrainian painter“, CC BY-SA 3.0.
