Ivan maybe not so terrible The western world always like to make assumptions on outsiders who governments are run differently. A clear example of this is the outlook on Ivan IV or more famously know as Ivan the terrible. This is from tales from him murdering many of people in very creatively gruesome ways. Also in ways travelers who met with Ivan IV the saw a man calling his elites as slaves and making them bow before him like he was some sort of God. In the Russian point of view Ivan is not seen in such a negative light. There are many of argument that historians ponder and argue. To fully understand why this is we need to first look at what his views and beliefs were during his reign, then secondly see what the actual government structure …show more content…
One change was that he was one of the first Tsars that actually believed in Christianity and that he was the judge against those who sinned. This comes from the fact that at a young age the Tsar was seeing boyars doing actions that he deemed as wrong. The Tsar did not agree with this from what we can see in a letter to his former friend, now trader prince Kurbsky “Then they attacked towns and towns and villages, tortured the people most cruelly, brought much misery upon them, and mercilessly pillaged the possessions of the inhabitants” (Zenkovsky 375). This is examples of before his power and how the boyars pillage the poor and slaughter the poor. This then brought change when Ivan IV took over. The boyars began to get judge like all the rest as stated in the same letter “Inspired by God, undertook to rule our own realm and, with the aid of Almighty God, we ruled our realm in peace and undisturbed.” (Zenkovsky 375). This is statement that show the Tsar a deeply religious man was going to change the dynamic of how socially people were treated. This is going to be to seeing how Ivan IV created new structures in the government. As well as how this change and shift or ruling would then change the outlook of the …show more content…
One aspect of this could be that he was deeply religious. Because if you look to the fact that he truly believed he was doing God’s work. This could have effected how people view him because he was deeply in bed in the church and when we see this in other past events usually people look past the things many leaders did. An example of this is the crusades, and how many people still argue that it was justified. Also looking back on how Muscovy was run during the period before Ivan IV took power we can see a lot less order and many deaths and fights between the boyars. While yes there was this during Ivan IV reign there was still more order or perception of order. When looking from the outside it is easy to assume that this was solely ran by one mad man but looking internally we can see that the boyars really did hold a lot of weight with what happened. This could be a reason why we view Ivan IV differently they do because it is easier to judge if you believe he had full power but if you add in the factor of other parties advising or doing atrocity too you start to not be so definite on his cruelty. Also the boyars dealt with most of the common folk or controlled or ruled over them more than he did. He also used the way they developed local administration with people choosing who governed over themselves. This shows to the people
Both monarchs had a royal background and were put in power with high expectations to continue the stability that the country possessed. Citizens aspire for all government officials to keep the peoples best interest in mind. But sadly, due to Ivan’s brutal childhood, he grew up observing and learning from the mannerisms of the corrupt elite. Ivan predominately gained power through fear and with this tactic was the first to exercise a despotism in Russia. One example of this is the story of the peasants who disturbed Ivan during one of his retreats. They came to him to complain of their governor who they believed was unjust but Ivan was so upset that they had troubled him with such a petty matter that he punished them. The men had their hands tied behind their backs, boiling hot alcohol poured on their heads and then their beards lit on fire with a candle. Apprehension and terror were Ivan’s main tools for keeping his people under control. Despite his totalitarian state of mind, Ivan believed that his decisions were still best for the country and the only way to keep it safe was by leaving it in constant fear. Although not always the most rational, the czar still made the suitable choices to keep the kingdom together. Similar to Ivan, Charles was not always under the influence of his mental disability. During his 42
He was not popular with those who supported the Tsar because he made him look like a “weak autocrat unable to control his wife or hold onto his moral and political authority.” This weak, inept image of the Tsar created by Rasputin is supported by one of his ministers stating that “he did not like to send Rasputin away, for if Alexei died, in the eyes of the mother, he would have been the murderer of his own son.” This shows how great an impact Rasputin had over the Tsar and the
m taking place in Russia, some aspects of life stayed the same. Generally in Russia, there was some kind of repression occurring. Although the Duma was meant to represent the people of Russia, the tsar still had the power to simply over rule any decisions. Also, the average peasant life was not much better than pre emancipation as they were crippled by redemption payments. In conclusion, Russia changed immensely between 1856 and 1894.
It was due to its great resources and population that Russia was able to compete with the other world powers in war and in commerce. Russia did not have the succession of leaders that supported industrialization like Japan did. Therefore, Russia, with Alexander II as czar, made few reforms to encourage industrialization. It was only through the multiple peasant revolts that Russia began to change. Both of these nations experienced changes in government, an increase in economic strength and transportation, and radical changes in the structure of the social classes.
I can use this source in my research project to defend why Czar Nicholas II is innocent to the abuse of power of the office of Czar.It reveales to me that even thouch Nicholas struggled with being the new Czar he truly did a lot for Russia to improve in learning abilities.Above all else, Nicholas loved Russia first and then his family; He thought the fate of the two was inseparable. No one knew the fault of the Romanov Dynasty better than him. Czar Nicholas sincerely felt his responsibility for the country, He thought that his destiny was within the country he ruled. I think it was really difficult for him but it was the only way to admit his mistakes and to say "sorry" to his people.
Ivan IV and Hitler were both rulers of their societies because they had supporters to get them there. People like to follow someone who reflects confidence in everything they do.
Ivan the Terrible was the fist tsar of Russia whoes reign, one of the longest of the Russian tzars, transformed the medivial nation state into a Russian Empire .In order to understand what made Ivan the Terrible ruthless and feared, it is important to know his background. Ivan IV Vasilyevich was born on August 25, 1530 in Kolomenskoye, Moscow, Russia. His father died at age 3 from a blood infection, but on his death bead requested that Ivan become the ruler of Russia when he turned 15. After his father died, the boyars took over and paid no attention to Ivan, denying is right to the thrown. Boyars were the highest ranked members in the upper class of medieval Russia, second only to the prince. His mother queen Elena died mysteriously died1538, they believed from an assassination by poison and this left Ivan an orphan at age eight. Ivan remained isolated through out all of this, and his behavior later in life was thought to be a result from being forgotten as a child and also from the abuse that he suffered.
The Slavophile and westernizer conflict is an inherent cultural question that Russians must answer about their country. Russian thinkers have long been fragmented between the Westernizer and the Slavophile viewpoint. Both disagreed about the true nature of the country as well as its relation with the West. It is a problem that has plagued Russia for centuries, and continues to do so to this day. Adopting the mindset of recognizing this conflict is essential to better understanding Russian history as well as the motives and thought processes of Russian leaders today.
The Bolsheviks had a very negative view of the royal family, their reason for this is because Tsar Nicholas ll still was a threat to returning to power even though he abdicated. The family servants view the royal family in the highest regard and loyalty, their reason for this is that the servants had been practically working for the Romanovs for their whole life, that was their job and they weren’t going to leave even if that meant dying with the royal family. The kitchen boy has a positive view on the Romanovs, his reason for this thinking is that he knew Tsar Nicholas was not the best ruler but he understood that the Tsar loved and cared for his country and his family to the end.
Although Stalin had been tyrannical and crazy, he made Russia seem stronger, and is still seen as a good person today. Many people look at him like he was a murderous person, but other look at him as the man who made Russia better. He was a great leader, in a way, but that only depends on what the Russians believed in, and whether or not they (or someone they know) worked for Stalin.
Before the word for the usual brutality of a leader came about, called Communism, Ivan IV was born on August 25,1530. His abnormal behavior started to show after the death of his parents; both deaths occured before he hit the early age of 9. Ivan bore witness to a lot of horrible things like murder and beatings of people who didn't comply to the Boyars requests. He was molested along with his deaf-mute brother, Yuri. Ivan took out his anger on animals by "ripping hair and feathers off, piercing the eyes, and slitting open their bodies. When he became ruler, he sent 100,000 troops to beseige the Tartar and not too long later he launches an attack on Novgorod. His Oprichniki rode around wearing black and on black horses abducting priests and even murdering them in front of their congregation. He turned on his daughter-in-law and attacked her because she was "immodestly dressed" and caused her to miscarry her baby. When his son stood up to protect her, Ivan killed him. His son was the heir to the throne and now Ivan didn't have an heir. Finally his reign of terror ended when he had a heart a attack while waiting to play chess.
Through these decrees we see how Russian social class is very stratified and there are more high official roles but more people in poverty. Russia still had to serfs until 1861. Also the state of the Russian economy was probably very limited to do the fact that there was no manufacturing company to provide for the empire. The Russian economy was very isolated and they go to areas where they can trade. With Russia’s subsistence economy, they were not able to specialize in other areas.
Why does the story begin with the death? Most books use mystery in the beginning and announce the death at the end. But Tolstoy used a different chronology, he started with the death of Ivan and then uses a flashback to show the reader what really happened. Also he chooses to start with the death to make the story seem real and not fictional. At Ivan’s funeral, nobody seemed devastated by the loss of Ivan, which gave the reader an understanding of how little Ivan’s life meant to the people even the ones close to him. Later in the reading, but before his death Ivan questions how he lived his mortality life and what if he lived his life properly. Before his death he had come to the realization that his death would benefit all the others around him. "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" begins with the death of Ivan in order to get it out of the way. In essence the
Consequently they were not susceptible to some of the Tsars. discrimination. Also the Nobility who made up just one 1% of the 128. million population owned 25% of the land therefore meaning they had a large amount of power within the country. To try and console his power. The Tsar banned all political parties, thus allowing him to do what ever he wanted to.
The government and reform; the actual character of Nicholas II hindered his time in office, for example his outlooks on situations meant he did not trust a lot of his advisors, he was also seen to have been very lazy with respects to making decisions, other observations included him being, weak, timid and lacked guts. This all adds up to a very weak leader that is vulnerable to opposition, due to his tunnel vision and un-ability to see the main needs of the country. The duma was another challenge to the tsar; after the 1905 revolution the tsar had set up an elected body called the duma, this was a way of showing the public that he could be open minded in that delegating decisions to other people, looking back in hindsight this would also be seen as a challenge to the tsar as he never gave the duma any real power, and were easily dissolved, this meant that people were further angered and he was receiving opposition from all sides, it did however hold off opposition for a small period of time in order for the tsar to retain his power. Other individuals had an influence to the challenges facing the tsar, Nicholas had brought some new people in to try and conquer some problems, these included Rasputin who he had originally appointed to become saviour of family, he managed to influence the tsar in many of his decisions, this inevitably caused there to be conflict as the he was relying on Rasputin to relay details of the state of the country, these were not accurate which meant that tsar could not act upon opposition. Other people did help the tsar for example stolypin and his reforms.