The Tartar Yoke and the Rise of Russia

David Trenholm100077949

HIST 2183 X2March 19th, 2008Dr. David Duke

When the history of Russia is ever discussed or considered, there can be little

doubt as to the overwhelming significance the Mongols had on the course and nature of

Russian development. The decisive defeat of the Kievan-Galician-Cuman coalition on the

Kalka River in 1223 A.D. heralded in a new era for the peoples of Rus, and certainly,

altered the very course of Russian history and natural development (as it did for many

political entities that survived the Mongolian conquests). Although the Mongols did delay

the eventual domination of the Russia until some years later, their crushing defeat at the

Kalka would not be the last, and by the mid-13th century the Tatars had a strong hold on

all of the principalities and regions of Rus, and it would remain that way for

approximately two hundred years. One may be negligent when weighing the significance

of two hundred years of subservience to the Mongols under the broad timeline of human

history. To many there might be little difference in the significance of twenty years

compared to two hundred years; one can forgot the immense passage of time when

comfortably reading from the pages of a textbook. Using Canada as an example, a nation

of only one hundred and forty years, the degree of significance of, say, a British victory

in the Seven Years War versus a French victory would be astoundingly immense—

indeed, such a reversal would change the very face of Canada as a political and social

world-player. In much the same manner one must consider the potential for impact where

a two hundred period of Mongol rule is concerned (a period of rule that extends beyond,

in time, the age of Canada as a nation), be it from a social, political, economic or cultural

perspective. The very rise and fall of specific political powers within Russia may also be

attributed to Mongolian influence; the prominence of the principality of Muscovy may be

directly linked to the invasion and subsequent administration of the Golden Horde. Just as

the centre of power shifted from Quebec City to a more English-preferred settlement

following the Seven Years War, so did the political make-up of Russia shift after the

invasion of the Mongols. Both events have defined the respective future and identity of

each nation. Perhaps the most controversial of all is the discussion of whether or not the

Tatar yoke was beneficial or detrimental to the development of Russia; many historians,

both contemporary and from years past, have disputed the merit of both arguments. There

can be no question, as will be seen shortly, as to the value or significance of that

enormous impact.

From the initial conquest in the 13th century, to the eventual emancipation of

Muscovy and the emergence of a unified Russia, the Mongols played an immense role in

the evolution and development of Russia from a political, social and economic

perspective. Having endured a two hundred year period of rule, it can be hard to imagine

how an independent Russian government could emerge unscathed from any Tartar

influence. The simple truth is that, regarding the political situation in Moscow, Russia

maintained many Mongolian practices and rituals that would later define the court and

management of the central administration. George Vernadsky, on his narrative on the

history of Russia, cites one example involving court ritual and the treatment of

ambassadors. While westerners, Vernadsky writes, were used to paying for transportation

and lodgings when conducting an embassy, Russians regarded ambassadors as guests,

and their stay and whatever expenses associated with it would be paid for by the state

(namely, Russia)1. This was a practice maintained by the Russians that they inherited

from the Mongols, obviously due to the close relationship they shared during Mongolian

1 Vernadsky, George. A History of Russia: The Mongols and Russia. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1966), 388.

rule. Russian princes and envoys would be subjected, and indeed, would be required to

adhere to Mongolian court ritual and practices. Many of these customs would

undoubtedly remain after Russian emancipation. Politically speaking, the Golden Horde

was most certainly an administration rooted in absolutism. Once free, the princes and

rulers of Moscow applied the very same principles of rule to their own governments—it

is here where the origin of serfdom, and that of universal service to the state, is often

seen.2 These are all qualities of a Mongolian government that have been inherited by the

principality of Muscovy.

The social situation of the average Russian, the peasants, was forever changed

from the quasi-independence they enjoyed in Kievan Rus—the liberation of Russia from

the Tartars, as mentioned above, led to the development of serfdom, which, as is well

known, was a dreadful system for the vast majority of Russians. Before the Mongolian

conquests, many people of Rus enjoyed a degree of political freedom through the veche;

a great deal of Russians had quite a bit of influence over the administration of their

respective city or town (such as the deposing of a ruling prince). With the advent of

Mongol rule, however, the veche became largely useless, and as a result those Russians

involved lost what voice they may have had. As to serfdom, it is difficult to over-

exaggerate the impact it had on Russian development, from the many military campaigns

(where the concept of universal state service is most important) to the management of

noble and boyar wealth within the Russian elite. Indeed, even when one considers the

Bolshevik Revolution of the 20th century, and the impact the legacy of serfdom had on

that social movement, the significance can be difficult to express. Culturally speaking,

the Mongols had a great deal of influence where the church was concerned—the Golden

2 Charques, Richard. A Short History of Russia. (London: Phoenix House, 1962), 39.

Horde was incredibly tolerant of the Orthodox Church within Russia, and it is within that

institution that many creative and literary ideals were maintained and protected, and from

the Church where many initiatives were launched to promote education and literacy

among the Russian populace.3 Many great artists, such as Andrei Rublev, and authors

emerged under the umbrella of the Orthodox Church during the Mongolian period.

Economically, the tribute and taxes the Mongols demanded from the Russians

exhausted the peasantry of the region—it both drew the moveable wealth out of the

realm, as well as the skilled tradesmen and craftsmen. With little else to sustain a ravaged

economy, Russians migrated from a pseudo-cosmopolitan lifestyle to an agrarian one.4

Vast amounts of land was settled and put under the plough, meaning that much of the

peasantry was involved in the development of an agriculturally centred economy. This

cultivation of land led to a surprising amount of expansion and growth within Mongolian-

dominated Russia, “several settlements became towns and several old towns took on new

life as centres of trade and manufacture”.5 It may be argued that by driving the populace

into an agrarian economy, the rate of expansion and urban growth could only increase.

The Mongols out of Sarai also had a hand in the development and encouragement of

trade routes and commercial interaction within the cities under their control—the

resources and contacts throughout the Mongolian empire led to a certain degree of trade

and commerce within Russia, and Russia certainly benefited from access to new trade

and commercial arteries.6 Without question, the Tartar yoke had a sweeping influence on

the political, social and economic identity of the region. The nature of this manipulation

3 Charques, 39.4 Charques, 38.5 Dukes, Paul. A History of Russia: Medieval, Modern and Contemporary. (London: The Macmillian Press, 1974), 36.6 Dukes, 37.

would ultimately lead to the growth of power within Muscovy, and the rise of Moscow as

the centre of Russian absolutism.

One of the more noticeable changes that contemporary historians can appreciate is

the rise and power of Moscow as the centre for Russian government and administration.

Moscow, being the capital of Russia, owes it prominence to the relationship cultivated

between the princes of Moscow and the Golden Horde at Sarai. Just as it had prior to the

Tartar invasions, the principalities of Russia engaged in petty conflicts and skirmishes

amongst themselves over countless issues. It is from this petty arguing that the Golden

Horde was able to control and maintain the growing and declining power within Russia.

With that said, however, one principality began to accrue a degree of respect and trust

from the Golden Horde, and with it an advantage over its fellow principalities. John I, or

“Kalita” of Moscow, was the first Grand Prince under the Golden Horde given the right

to collect and deliver the tribute owed to the Mongols.7 This was a right that the Mongols

had exercised themselves, unwilling to trust any resident prince to faithfully and

accurately perform this function.8 Likewise, one of John’s descendents and heirs, John II,

was granted another power over his peers—the right and ability to convey and administer

justice upon his fellow princes.9 It was through this continual doting of responsibility and

power, and indeed, along with the clever machinations of the princes of Moscow, that led

to the eventual rise of the principality as a strong and powerful political, economic and

military entity. When political strife and uncertainty struck the Golden Horde in the

fourteenth century, it was Moscow who exploited this opportunity by playing one

khanate against another, in a bid to further expand the influence and power of the

7 Vernadsky, George. “Feudalism in Russia.” Speculum, 14, 3. (1939), 313.8 Pares, Bernard. A History of Russia. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1958), 81.9 Pares, 81.

principality—just as the Mongols had done to Russian princes.10 It is no surprise that

when Russian independence was finally achieved in the late 15th century, that Moscow

was the one who rose as the most powerful principality in Russia and the bona fide leader

of Russian affairs; indeed, it was the princes of Moscow that determined the drumbeat for

the rest of Russia.

One issue that has left historians polarized is the culminating affect the Mongolian

impact has had on Russian development. It is with this subject that there is a significant

divide where a very strong presence of controversy exists. Russian historians during the

Soviet era often take the position that the Mongolian period was overwhelmingly

negative and was of little benefit to Russia as a whole.11 Other scholars of the “Eurasian”

perspective, such as George Vernadsky, attribute many positive facets of Russian

development to the Mongols.12 In the realm of trade and the economy there have been

both positive and negative ramifications. Certainly the exacting of tribute and taxes from

Russia depleted national wealth and burdened the peasantry, but a significant amount of

trade was introduced to the Russian economy due primarily to Mongol administration—

the Golden Horde at Sarai had a vested interest in the exchange of goods, from Persian

silks to Indian luxury items and semi-precious stones. The trade relationships facilitated

by a centralised Mongolian empire allowed for the development of commercial arteries

the diversifying of Russian trade. It is worth revisiting the issue of agricultural expansion

due to the absence of skilled tradesmen, here, as while the cosmopolitan appeal of Kievan

Rus most certainly disappeared, the expansion and urban growth of Russia climbed

during Mongolian domination. Bernard Pares, however, in his monograph A History of 10 Charques, 35.11 Halperin, Charles J. “Soviet Historiography on Russia and the Mongols.” Russian Review, 41, 3. (1982), 322.12 Moss, Walter G. A History of Russia: Volume 1: To 1917 (London, UK: Anthem Press, 2005), 76.

Russia, describes the Tartar invasion as a “wholesale calamity”13, an argument that is not

without merit. The initial invasion of Russia in the 13th century resulted in both heavy

losses in terms of population, as well as infrastructure. Entire cities were destroyed

during the conquest, destruction that would take decades to recover from (and in some

cities they never quite recovered). The nature of Mongolian conquest undoubtedly

resulted in the massive loss of life and stability within the region—Russia was no

exception, and many cities and regions that did not surrender were subjected to the brutal

retribution exacted by their Mongolian conquerors. Russia did recover, and while the

people of Russia struggled and fought through two hundred difficult years of Mongolian

subjugation, they did emerge stronger and more unified than they had been in 1223 when

the Horde struck at Kalka. When the Tartars were thrust back, Russia rose as a politically

and militarily unified body of principalities, with a strong and certain leader seated in

Moscow. In this manner, then, the Mongols most certainly had a positive influence on the

integrity of a centralised Russian government—it may be argued that without the

Mongols, the principalities of Rus would never unite to form a single, unified

government. There were, of course, obvious hardships endured by the Russians due to the

Tartar yoke, one being the widespread development and legacy of serfdom. Very few

Russians benefited from the concept of universal state service through the system of

owned serfs attached to a given parcel of land. For hundreds of years the peasantry

suffered under a cruel and oppressive system that owes its origins to the absolutist

regimes of the Mongolian khanates. It is hard to say with any certainty that Mongolian

rule was wholly negative or positive; the nature of the Tartar yoke meant that the

Russians benefited in some manner, while they suffered in another. It is very true that the

13 Pares, 78.

course of Russian development may have been very different if the Mongols never

invaded, but it would be a superfluous task in speculating how. Russia benefited from a

strong, unified government, from a diverse and varied trade network, yet suffered socially

through an oppressed and maltreated peasantry and through the destruction of a

cosmopolitan Russia that showed a remarkable potential.

The invasion and subsequent subjugation of Russia at the hands of the Mongols

most certainly had a significant impact on the development and rise of the Russia known

and recognized today. It is certain that the domination of Rus for two hundred years by a

foreign entity, such as the Golden Horde, would impart some degree of influence over the

social, political and economic spheres of Russia. The Tartars left the Russians more

politically unified than when they initially invaded; they broadened and diversified

Russia’s trade network, and they expanded and sponsored the Orthodox Church, giving

the organisation more power and influence than it had previously enjoyed. It is

unfortunate that the Mongols contributed to the prominence of serfdom within Russia, a

legacy that has had a significant impact on recent history. One of the more significant

results of Mongolian-rule was the rise of Muscovy as the strongest principality in Russia,

heralding a new era of a Moscow-centred Russian government; an era that would have a

lasting impact on the development of modern Russia. It is hard to determine, with any

certainty, whether Mongolian rule was either positive or negative. There were certainly

beneficial elements to the Tartar yoke, and there were areas where the Russian people

most definitely suffered. It is fair to say, then, that while Russia had been damaged in

many ways by the Golden Horde, Tartar-subjugation imparted many political and

administrative reforms on the region that, ultimately, left Russia in a far better position to

establish a strong, unified and centralised government—a far cry from the divided and

petty infighting that had plagued Russia before the Golden Horde arrived.

David Trenholm

Bibliography

Charques, Richard. A Short History of Russia. London: Phoenix House, 1962.

Dukes, Paul. A History of Russia: Medieval, Modern and Contemporary. London: The Macmillian Press, 1974.

Halperin, Charles J. “Soviet Historiography on Russia and the Mongols.” Russian Review, 41, 3. (1982): 306-322.

Moss, Walter G. A History of Russia: Volume 1: To 1917 London, UK: Anthem Press, 2005.

Pares, Bernard. A History of Russia. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1958.

Vernadsky, George. “Feudalism in Russia.” Speculum, 14, 3. (1939): 300-323.

Vernadsky, George. A History of Russia: The Mongols and Russia. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1966.