Tag Archives: mongols

The Mongol Yoke

Posted on by

The excerpts from Halperin and Sakharov are drastically different. Halperin’s article, Interpreting the Mongol Yoke: The Ideology of Silence, sheds a harsh light on the church, and those who seek to discredit any innovation the Mongols might have brought to Rus. Evidence demonstrates that the Rus people borrowed from nearly all aspects of Mongol life, with the one exception being religious culture. Rus princes married Mongol princesses, and the conquered peoples borrowed Mongol political and military institutions, as well as adopting the postal network of the Mongols. On the other hand, Sakharov’s article suggests that he blames Mongols for a lack of craftsmanship during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. He claims that the Mongols destroyed a “vast number of artifacts of the written world” (137). Sakharov goes on to blame the Church for blocking Moscow’s connections with the Western world during the second half of the fifteenth century, which he perceived to be the time period of a ‘pre-Renaissance.’

Upon closer reading, Sakharov seems as if he’s grasping at straws while simultaneously making sweeping generalizations. He takes the Chronicles as complete fact, citing a few stories about destroyed books as an indicator of “how seriously Russian writings suffered from the onslaughts of the Mongol-Tatars” (137). His entire excerpt completely slams the Mongols, deciding that nothing good could have come from the Mongol-Tatar Yoke.

Upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that his article, entitled The Mongols and Cultural Change, comes from a larger book entitled Soviet Studies in History. Most likely, Sakharov wrote his article with a tremendous bias. It seems unlikely that the Soviet Union would admit that anything good came from the Mongol Invasion, let alone a political system or military institutions (which would have been pivotal to society during the thirteenth century).

What kind of bias was Sakharov writing with? Is there more evidence of his bias? Was he even biased at all?

Debates over the Effects of the Mongol Invasion

Posted on by

Halperin’s and Sakharov’s articles offer different historical intepretations of the reception and effects of the Mongol invasion in Rus’. Halperin argues that, contrary to teachings perpetuated by the Church, the Rus adapted many aspects of Mongolian life which advanced Rus’ society. For instance, during the Mongol occupation, Rus’ society learned to use the Mongols’ efficient military structure and postal service. The Mongols also “rerouted the fur trade to extract greater revenue” (Halperin 106) for Rus’, thus assisting the culture they had conquered. Halperin makes the point, however, that the Mongols did not force every aspect of their culture onto the Rus’ people, such as their religion. Such an interpretation portrays the Mongol invasion as a kind and enriching period in Rus’ history. On the other hand, Sakharov, in a study of Rus’ culture after the Mongol occupation ended, argues that the Mongols had no positive effect on Rus’. He explains that the Mongols, in taking away Rus’ best craftsmen, created centuries of a Rus’ with inferior architecture. Sakharov then contends that, after the Mongols left, Rus’ culture became much more sophisticated and enlightened, thus underscoring the dark period that had been the Mongols’ reign.

Sakharov writes, “Reborn and developing Russian culture regained its national character in full. The Mongol-Tartars enriched it with nothing whatever, and their influence was quite insignificant in practice” (Sakharov 138). I find this claim to be a little too broad and definitive to be taken as fact. Even disregarding the period after the occupation, the Mongol invasion was clearly significant in its empowering of Moscow and ultimate depowering of Kiev. But moreover, the fact that Rus’ culture exploded in literature and architecture after the occupation also signfies that the Mongols affected Rus’. Perhaps, Rus’ culture wouldn’t have advanced as quickly as it did if the Mongols had not stunted it (if indeed they did stunt it) for so long.

I wonder how the effects Mongol occupation is viewed in other parts of the world. Does the Middle-East and China contend that the Mongols had a positive or negative impact on their cultures? Furthermore, do different geographic sections of Russia today claim different interpretations about the Mongol invasions?

Capitalization

Posted on by

It seems like the Kievan Rus’ empire just dissolved under unfavorable circumstances. The general population became dissatisfied with their Grand Prince in Novgorod, and the Mongols’ invasion of the region further extinguished the flame of Rus’ society. Kievan Rus’ again proved to be highly religious in its political endeavors, and although a split between Prince Ivan and his people occurred – it arguably proved to be a step in the right direction for Rus’ society. Even Kaiser and Marker argue that the kingdom of Rus’ deserved the pummeling it received by the Mongols as punishment for the careless and selfish princes who ignored the wise words of Iaroslav (100).

In line with the ‘princes’ punishment,’ one thing that I questioned throughout the reading was – why was that the reason – the sole heavy hitting reason for the Mongol invasion? Even if Rus’ society was incredibly religious, were they in denial of the Mongols’ strength? Were they in denial of their situation? Was the Mongol invasion a ‘wake up call’ of sorts? The list of questions like this can go on and on, but that’s because the number of lacking answers to questions about this transitional period in Kievan Rus’ society goes on and on. Most of the explanatory language used by the authors is highly religious and ‘mythological’ to an extent, which leads me to assume they don’t know too much about these occurrences (they being the authors and members of Rus’ society).

Development of the Post-Kievan State and the Mongal Conquest

Posted on by

Novgorod and Muscovy became one united state under the command of a Grand Prince, Ivan III. The chronicles assigned for this evening depict the development of Ivan’s control over a span of territory that would eventually become a state in and of itself instead of a loosely united set of principalities with no strong connection to a secular leader. Ivan executed his control with a complete political force, ranging from military intimidation to religious conviction. The Grand Prince also employed a tactic favored by Assyrian generals in the days of humanity’s first civilizations in the fertile crescent; a technique known as ‘calculated frightfulness’. Much like Assyrians did to conquered people, Ivan proposed (and eventually succeeded in) moving people from his own ethnicity into conquered territories (Muscovites into Novgorod) and taking potentially threatening members of the Novgorod community and sending them into military service in the Nizovskaia land, far and away from their homeland and any potential of uprising in the land recently acquired by the Grand Prince.

The chronicle jumps out of order. Following the addressing of Post-Kievan Rus, the chronicle in RS tackles the history of the Mongol invasion that lasted from 1235 to 1238. This period in Russian history completely redefined the way in which the Rus people identified themselves, as well as the society as a whole functioned. The chronicles describe the Mongols as an all destroying devil-race, “from whose beginning wished no good to the human race.” The chronicles go on to describe the ways in which the Mongols shed Christian blood, as well as a plethora of other atrocities, including the dethroning and subsequent murder of multiple Rus princes, effectively ending the governmental structure of the land which now lay in Mongol control.

Christian Rus

Posted on by

I think that this reading really helps to give a sense of how ingrained the Russian Orthodox Church was in early Rus society. The most obvious example of this is clearly the Chronicles themselves and how they are written. For instance, when Novgorod did not want to submit to the rule of the Grand Prince, the Chronicles portrayed it as not a political schism, but one of deep religious controversy. Instead of saying that the people of Novgorod had betrayed the Grand Prince, the Chronicles claim that Novgorod betrayed the commandments of God himself. As such, the battles between the Novgorodians and the armies of the Grand Prince are horribly skewed in favor of the Muscovites, making ridiculous claims that an army of 4000 Muscovites was able to defeat the Novgorod army, which mustered nearly 40,000 men.

Another indicator of the power the church had during this time period are the records that we have from after the Mongol invasion. In the analysis given by Kaiser and Marker, they talk about how the Mongols were viewed as pagans sent by God to punish the people of Rus for the infighting going on at the time. In spite of these views and the Chronicles consistent criticizing of the Mongols as being “godless pagans” the Orthodox Church was allowed to survive under Mongol rule and was given vast amounts of power. As long as the khan’s tax was paid, the Orthodox Church was allowed to continue its existence and it was able to develop a level of influence among the people that would never truly vanish. I believe that this was the point in Russian history were the Orthodox Church began to latch onto the power it now holds. Very few places in the world show so much dedication to their religion as Russia does; despite decades of oppression by the Soviets, the Orthodox Church immediately resurfaced after the fall of the Soviet Union and is still heavily influential in the government. I believe that without the Mongol invasion this may not have happened.