‘Three Romes’: City-state, Imperium and Christian Capital
The concept of the ‘Three Romes’ was formulated by the monk Filofei (Philotheus) of Pskov, who wrote an epistle on the subject to Grand Prince Vasili III of Moscow (1505–33). In this the monk made the following assertion:
The First Rome fell because of the Apollinarian heresy,1 the second Rome, Constantinople, was captured and pillaged by the infidel Turks, but a new Third Rome has sprung up in thy sovereign kingdom. Thou art the sole king of all the Christians in the world.
Filofei then concluded his epistle with an apocalyptic statement: ‘Two Romes have fallen, but the Third Rome, Moscow, will stand, a fourth is not to be.’2
The ‘Romes’ about which Filofei was talking were, of course, the three successive centres of European power during its long conflict with the Asiatic empires. It was the Greeks who first made the distinction between ‘Europe’, by which they meant the Hellenic world, and ‘Asia’, the eastern lands which since the sixth century BC had been dominated by the huge and menacing empire of Persia. The Great Kings Darius and Xerxes had both attempted to subjugate the Greeks but neither of them had been successful, and this proved in the end to be the Achaemenid dynasty’s greatest failure. The second Persian Empire, that of the Sassanians, found itself very soon up against the Romans, the powerful successors to the Greeks and heirs to Hellenic civilization. Like the Greeks, a Mediterranean people, the Romans were ambitious to dominate the Middle East, and by the second century AD the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire had reached the Euphrates. From the outset, the new Persian Empire was forced to look westwards to confront this danger to their historic hegemony over Mesopotamia. For much of their existence these two empires were in conflict with one another, a conflict which very often led to open warfare.
While Persepolis and its surroundings remained sacred space to the Sassanians, as a result of this threat from the west they moved their capital and principal base of operations to Ctsesiphon in Mesopotamia. This city was just north of Babylon and on the other side of the Tigris from Seleucia, the colony established by the Hellenistic Seleucid kings. Its choice reflects the western orientation of the empire and its preoccupation with the conflict with Rome. It was thus in, Vaughan Cornish’s terminology, a ‘forward capital’ – a capital close to the endangered frontier, designed to mobilize the resources of the state to remove the threat and secure the vulnerable frontier regions.3
Rome had begun life as a city-state, much like those of Greece, but it soon diverged from the classical city-state model and was successful in achieving a position of dominance over Italia, the name at that time given to the Italian peninsula south of the Rubicon river. The Italian urbs had never been quite the same as the Greek polis and in any case the situation in the Italian peninsula was very different from that of Greece.4 It was this difference which enabled Rome to achieve a dominating position of a kind in Italia which Athens had attempted but never achieved in Greece. Using this as a springboard, and defeating Carthage (its main rival in the western Mediterranean), by the first century BC Rome had secured control over almost the whole of the inland sea. As a result, this became Mare Nostrum, ‘our sea’, and it soon resumed the role it had fulfilled in the time of the Greeks and Phoenicians as a great routeway for maritime trade. However, this time it was not divided and the main beneficiary from the trade was Rome. The major trade routes of the Mediterranean now converged on Portus, the port of Rome, and the supply of the growing metropolis with its increasing needs became its most important function. All roads, by land and sea, soon led to Rome.
Rome had evolved from a city-state into an empire and so, unlike Persepolis, it was not one of those cities built for this specific purpose. The ‘Seven Hills’ of Rome each display different facets of the city and the successive stages in its evolution. The oldest was the Palatine Hill, retaining its vestiges of the old city-state, while the adjacent Capitoline Hill was the location of the Capitol from which the consuls and senators governed Rome and its possessions. As Edward Gibbon puts it, ‘The hill of the Capitol was the head of the Roman Empire, the citadel of the earth, the terror of kings.’5 Besides this, as the site of the all-important temple of Jove (Jupiter) it was also a sacred place. In between the hills was the Forum, and many other principal state buildings and temples to the gods of this polytheistic empire were located around this. At its centre was the Lapis Niger, the black stone which was by tradition the tomb of Romulus, the legendary founder of the city. Nearby also was the Coliseum which was the foremost place of mass entertainment, much of it involving gladiatorial combats. Grand as they were, these buildings had been constructed over a period of time and gave the impression of being thrown together in a jumble rather than set out to produce an impressive ensemble at the heart of the empire.
Although Rome was far from being a city built as a symbol of empire, it is scarcely possible to pass over it when dealing with the subject of imperial cities. As has been observed, the basic concept of empire as understood in the western world derives from Rome and most of the terminology of empire and imperialism used in the west is of Latin origin. The city of Rome, the urbs romana, was transformed within a century into the Imperium Romanum. Initially this imperium signified the authority granted by the senate to officials of the Roman state for the performance of specific tasks in its name. During the period of the Roman Republic, imperium could be exercised only outside Italia itself, and under the strict supervision of the senate, but this all changed when Julius Caesar began the transformation of a limited and specific imperium into total authority throughout the domains of Rome. In 49 BC he led his army across the Rubicon river, the northern boundary of Italia, and by this act defied the power of the senate in Rome. This precipitated a political crisis during which Caesar was assassinated. After the civil war which followed, Octavian, Caesar’s designated heir, was in 27 BC accorded the title of Princeps and the right of unlimited imperium was bestowed on him. This was the imperium maius and from then on its holder styled himself Imperator. Octavian took the imperial name ‘Augustus’ and began the process by which emperors asserted their power more and more and justified this by claiming divinity. The religious and political authority of Rome had become fused into one.
In this way the last vestiges of the city-state were removed and Rome was transformed into a vast and tightly controlled territorial state. The Mediterranean world dominated by Rome had become in many ways very similar to Persia, which had been so reviled by the Greeks for its authoritarianism and lack of freedom. This was part of what the Greeks called ‘Asiatic’ and which they condemned for the total absence of those features they considered ‘European’. These they considered essential to the civilized life.
Many new cities were built in the Roman Empire but these civitates were closely bound up with overall Roman rule and never possessed the independence and freedom that was a principal feature of the Greek polis. They were little more than municipal towns with Roman magistrates as their governors. At the same time Rome itself was being transformed with grand buildings but it soon grew so enormous and unsanitary that it was not a place in which the emperors wished to spend much time.
In many ways Rome’s continuing strength was less as a city than as an idea. This arose from the internal peace existing within the empire and the protection it afforded, initially in the Hellenic world but subsequently northwards into Europe and eastwards to the Middle East. ‘Civis Romanus sum’ became a guarantee of safety throughout the vast territories of the empire. Such was the power of this idea that by the third century it had become virtually impossible for those living within its boundaries to conceive of a world without Rome as its unifier and protector. It was widely believed that ‘quando cadet Roma, cadet et mundi’ (when Rome falls, the universe will fall with it). In other words the stability of everything was increasingly seen as being dependent on the existence of the great city itself.
From early in its history, the Roman Empire had been faced with two major problems, one outside and the other inside its boundaries. Outside were its enemies who coveted the territory it had occupied and pacified. Initially, the most dangerous of these were the Persians in the east and the barbarians in the north. Inside the Empire the problem was the arrival of a new religious sect, Christianity, the origins of which were almost coincidental with those of the Roman Empire itself. It was a Middle Eastern religion and from the outset it presented a totally different model of life from that of Rome. While the Romans, like the Greeks, were polytheistic, the new religion was monotheistic and had evolved a system of beliefs quite different from those of Rome. Unlike the Achaemenids who had been tolerant and even supportive of the many religions practised by their subject peoples, the Romans encouraged and even expected their subjects to worship their gods. Since the emperor himself claimed divinity, the fusion of the political and religious meant that the worship of the Roman gods was seen as being a basic requirement of loyalty to the Empire.
These external and internal conflicts plagued the Roman Empire for the greater part of its existence. The singular antipathy to Christianity had its origins in Rome’s relations with the Jews who had from the outset been very reluctant to accept its hegemony. The fact that relations were so bad may have contributed to the savage persecution of the Christians which followed. This included the use of Christians as victims in the bloody entertainments that took place in the Coliseum, involving gladiators and lions. Such persecutions continued until the fourth century AD but, despite this, Christianity continued to make inroads throughout the Empire and its inexorable advance was noted in the highest imperial circles.
In 303 the emperor Diocletian staged what was to be the last persecution of Christians. Three years later Constantine was proclaimed Caesar in York.6 He had a very different attitude to Christianity from that of his predecessors, realizing that it would be more sensible to come to terms with Christians rather than persecuting them. Ten years later Constantine defeated his rival Maxentius at the battle of the Milvian Bridge. According to the legend, before the battle he had seen the vision of a cross in the sky above the battlefield bearing the words ‘In hoc signo vinces’.7 If his victory was the work of the Christian God, then it certainly seemed propitious to have this God on the side of Rome rather than against her. The following year all persecution came to an end and in 314 the Edict of Milan gave official toleration to Christians. After some 300 years, Christianity had attained the same legal status as paganism. This acceptance of the Christian God was the most profound ideological change ever to take place in the Roman Empire. It also heralded the most fundamental geopolitical change ever to take place and this was the definitive transfer of the centre of power away from Rome.
By the third century Rome was already losing its significance as the heart of the Empire. By then the real centre of government was where the emperor happened to be at any particular time, and this had often been with the army in the frontier zones. A line of important cities close to the most vulnerable frontiers stretched southeastwards across Europe and into the Middle East. These were the main bases of military operations and they included Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium (Cologne), Mediolanum (Milan), Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica), Sardica (Sofia), Nicomedia (Izmit) and Antioch (Antakaya). It was among these cities that the real military and political power of the Empire lay and for a time they came to possess the joint role of ‘forward capitals’ in the sense understood by Vaughan Cornish. Diocletian himself rarely visited Rome. He is said to have come to the capital in his official capacity only once and that was in 302 for his formal Triumph. This was the last such great imperial ceremony ever held in Rome. It is significant that Diocletian was also the first emperor to move his official capital eastwards and for this he chose Nicomedia on the extended frontier line. This city was on the eastern shore of the Propontis (Sea of Marmara) and so was actually in Asia Minor. As the city of Rome itself became more and more irrelevant, the Empire became increasingly focused on the eastern threat.
Constantine likewise did not make Rome his capital. To him Rome was not only badly located for the running of the Empire but was too full of associations with paganism. He immediately determined to embark on the building of a new city and for this he chose a site close to Nicomedia but on the European shore of the Propontis. It was named after the emperor himself and its official designation was ‘Constantinople, New Rome’. From the outset it was seen as a second Rome. To Constantine the city was the new ‘Christian capital’ of the Roman Empire, as opposed to Rome which had been the old pagan one. It was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin much in the way that pagan cities had their own patron gods or goddesses. He maintained that the choice of site was inspired by divine intervention. In the words of Emil Ludwig, ‘According to legend the Emperor began to lay the foundations of his city in Scutari on the far shore. But eagles snatched the surveying lines, carrying them across the Sea of Marmara and dropping them in Europe.’8 However, just to be sure, Constantine is said to have consulted the Delphic oracle as well.
There were also sound geographical and geopolitical reasons for moving the capital to the east. The place chosen was the site of the old Greek city of Byzantium which had an important commercial role in the Hellenic world. It was a port with excellent maritime communications between the Black Sea and the Aegean and was also on the land route to the east across the Balkans into Asia Minor. While this sea route across the Black Sea led to Colchis, the land of the Golden Fleece, there was another maritime route northwards to the mouth of the Dnieper river and this connected with the great river route via the Dnieper and the Volkhov to the Baltic Sea. This route was later followed by the men of Rus’, the first Russians, who travelled along it from their Scandinavian homeland and founded the first Russian cities. Along this ‘Route from the Varangians to the Greeks’ came not only trade with the capital of the Empire but a host of other Greek influences, political, cultural and religious.
In this way, the new capital was well located both with a trading system which had existed over the centuries and one which would gain importance in the centuries to come. Its site also confirmed that eastern orientation which had long underlain Rome’s foreign policy. From the outset, the Roman Empire had justified itself as being the protector of the Hellenic world and now, at the beginning of the fourth century, it was moving its centre of power into that world and so becoming more a part of it than ever before. In addition to this, the Greek lands were among the richest parts of the Empire, with valuable commodities like precious stones and spices carried there from the east on the trade routes. The centre of political power was now also moving into the centre of economic power.
Finally there were, of course, specific military reasons for the move. The greatest external dangers to the Empire came from the east. The Persians had been the age-old enemy of the Greeks and by this time the Sassanians ruled over the most powerful state with which Rome had to contend. Most of the emperors had fought, and some had died, in the eastern campaigns. It was the object of the Romans to defeat this old enemy conclusively and so to secure a dominant position in the Middle East. Another factor reinforced the military reasons for the move and this was the appearance of a further external danger – the barbarians, who had begun moving westwards and by the fourth century had reached the frontiers of the Empire. It was also a reason for the increasing importance of the great line of cities from Colonia to Antioch and it is significant that Constantine, like his predecessor Diocletian, chose to build his new capital on this line. This particular external danger to the Empire was most in evidence in the eastern frontier regions where the barbarians had begun to move southwards towards the Danube. The site chosen for the new capital was thus very suitable to deal with the threats on both the Danubian and the eastern – Mesopotamian – frontiers.
Besides its strategic position, the site of the new city was spectacular. It was maritime, lying between the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea. It also had its own protected harbour, the Golden Horn, which allowed the sea to stretch well into the heart of the city. The city was built with great care and splendour. Very little of the old Greek city remained except for the Acropolis which was one of the few earlier buildings to be incorporated into the new city. The Roman city centred on the Forum Augusteum and close to this was the imperial residence facing the sea. This was subsequently joined by a number of other residences built by later emperors. To the west of the Acropolis was the Hippodrome; other forums, including the Forum of Constantine, were also located nearby. Although designated by Constantine, as ‘the Christian Capital’, many signs of the old paganism continued to survive. Initially, at least, the new Christian empire was tolerant of other religious beliefs and was disinclined to abandon its pagan past completely. The glory of Rome itself was certainly not to be completely forgotten in the new capital. The Hippodrome incorporated the temples of Castor and Pollux and on one side of it was the tripod belonging to the Delphian Apollo, on which stood an image of the deity. Indeed, paganism persisted to such an extent that nearly half a century after Constantine, the emperor Julian was motivated to bring back the old religion. By that time the hold of Christianity was such that his attempt proved unsuccessful. Nevertheless, paganism was never far below the surface of the early Christian empire.
What is most significant about Constantinople is the fusion of Greek and Roman which can be seen in both religion and architecture. The Greek names ‘Byzantium’ and ‘Byzantine’ were used from early on and eventually, following the fall of the western empire to the barbarians, the name Byzantine Empire came to be generally adopted.
That the city built by Constantine and embellished by his successors was indeed a new Christian capital was evidenced by the large number of churches and other religious buildings which it contained. At its centre was the greatest Christian church of all, the cathedral known as Hagia Sofia in Greek and Santa Sophia in Latin. Although it can now be seen as the epicentre around which the city’s life revolved, it was actually built well after the reign of Constantine, during that of the dynamic sixth-century emperor Justinian who is best remembered for having made one last attempt to reclaim the western regions of the empire from the barbarians.
Hagia Sofia was the largest Christian church ever to have been built up to that time and was designated as the mother church of Christianity in both the city and the Empire. It was built between 533 and 537 and its architects claimed that its design derived not from them but from ‘the celestial inspiration of the Emperor’. It is indeed considered the supreme example of the Byzantine church form and was clearly intended as a demonstration of the power and splendour of the Eastern Roman Empire. Gloag commented that ‘the arch principle employed with mathematical precision and intellectual felicity … gave to the interior of Justinian’s church that vivacious interplay of ascending and expanding curves. The masterpiece was never repeated.’ Overall the result, wrote Gloag, was to produce ‘a grave richness of effect … the light descending from above, light pouring through innumerable arched windows, [which] gives new and exotic values to form and colour’.9 No other building encapsulates so well both the splendour of the new Christian empire and its theocratic character. From then on most of the great ceremonies of state of the eastern empire took place there and it gained a significance far greater than that of any of the secular buildings in the city.
The basileus – emperor – was and remained closely bound up with the Christian Church, which came increasingly to have the role of principal justification for the existence of the state. The basileus and the patriarch, respectively heads of state and Church, took on the role of its joint leaders. In the words of Browning, the emperors ‘saw the Empire as a unique political entity, the heir of the Roman Empire of pagan times, with its pretensions to universality. They also saw it as a unique theological entity, a part of God’s grand design for the salvation of mankind.’10 This fact is emphasized in icons in Hagia Sofia and elsewhere that depict emperor and patriarch together with Christ.
At the end of the fourth century the emperor Theodosius divided the increasingly unwieldy Empire into two distinct parts for purposes of administration. On his death in 395 this division became a permanent one along what came to be known as the ‘Theodosian line’. Justinian’s attempt to bring back the western empire was a complete failure as by then the barbarians were firmly in control of the western half. Yet the eastern empire was to last for another 1,000 years. Its longevity compared to the western empire was remarkable. It owed much to the wealth of its territories and its possession of a readily defensible core area centring on the Aegean Sea. Constantinople, although a latecomer, rapidly became pre-eminent among the line of frontier cities stretching from Colonia to Asia Minor. Indeed, it was transformed into what in the Middle Ages came to be regarded throughout Europe as the greatest city in the world. While it was a forward capital, it was also well located as both a political, economic and military centre of power.
Unlike Rome, which had been abandoned early on, Constantinople was to remain the centre of both political and religious authority until its fall. The nature of the Byzantine Empire is clearly seen in a mosaic depicting the emperor Justinian presenting a model of Hagia Sofia to the Virgin. It is also evident in a marble sculpture nearby depicting the emperor in a triumphant pose mounted on a horse. According to Browning this emperor could be either Justinian or his predecessor Anastasius. Below him are subjects bearing tribute and above him is the figure of Christ bearing the Cross. The comparison with the tribute bearers in Persepolis, bringing their tribute to the Great King protected by Ahuramazda, makes very clear the similarity between the two empires by this time. Their religions may have been very different but the use made of them for political purposes was virtually identical. While retaining its Hellenic features and appearance, what had been the bastion of Europe against Asia had itself become orientalized.
It was during the reign of Heraclius (610–41) that the name of the eastern Roman Empire was officially changed to the Byzantine Empire, representing the completion of the process of at least a linguistic Hellenization. By that time it had detached itself completely from the barbarian-dominated west in all except religion, where the authority of the pope, the bishop of Rome, was still recognized. In 1054 this situation came to an end and the Orthodox Christian Church declared itself autonomous. The patriarch was now head of a completely independent church with Constantinople, and the great church of Hagia Sofia in particular, as its undisputed centre.
Heraclius was soon victorious over the Persians but the Byzantine triumph was to be short lived. The biggest change since the establishment of the Persian Empire more than a millennium earlier was soon to take place in the Middle East. In the early seventh century a new religion came into being in the Arab world, arising from the revelatory ideas of the Prophet Mohammed. This was Islam and in 632, following the death of the Prophet, the Arabs began the process of creating their own theocratic empire. Both Byzantium and Persia were attacked by increasingly powerful Arab armies imbued with the new faith. While the Byzantines successfully resisted the onslaught, the Persians did not. In 637 the Persian capital, Ctesiphon, fell and within twenty years their empire had ceased to exist, becoming absorbed into the growing Arab empire which soon covered most of the Middle East. Although the Byzantine Empire lost a good deal of its newly acquired eastern territory, it was able to hold the Arabs at bay and survive their onslaught. The forces of Islam, successful across the southern shores of the Mediterranean and Spain, were halted well before the gates of Constantinople. The following centuries, however, were to be turbulent ones and in 1204 Constantinople was occupied by the Crusaders who established a Latin kingdom there. Although this lasted less than 60 years, the empire had been greatly weakened by the episode and its boundaries continued to contract. The relative smallness of its territory now made it easier to defend and this, in part at least, accounts for its endurance.
Mosaic of Emperor Justinian presenting a model of Hagia Sofia to the Virgin.
By the eleventh century a new and dynamic people had arrived in the Islamic world. These were the Seljuk Turks from Central Asia. Moving westwards against the Byzantines, they wrested control of Anatolia from them, something the Arabs had never succeeded in doing. There they became sedentary and established their own version of Rome, the Sultanate of Rum, which for a time coexisted relatively peacefully alongside the Byzantine Empire. The desire to replicate Rome was present even in these Islamic people.
Finally, in the thirteenth century a new and still more warlike Turkish tribe moved southwards. These were the Osmanlis, the men of Osman, who were to become known to history as the Ottomans. They established themselves in Anatolia on the frontiers of the Byzantine Empire and in so doing defeated and replaced the Seljuks. Moving westwards, they made the old Byzantine city of Bursa their capital and this positioned them to endanger Constantinople itself. By the middle of the century they had reached the Sea of Marmara and were soon able to threaten the Byzantine heartland. In 1355 they crossed the Hellespont – Dardanelles – and were soon occupying much of the Balkan peninsula. Constantinople, stripped of most of its possessions, had contracted to a small strip of territory around the old Propontis, surrounded by the fast-growing might of the rapidly forming Ottoman Empire. It was perhaps a fitting conclusion to the second Rome, and to the whole Roman imperial enterprise, that the empire which had set out to protect the Hellenic world of city-states should, in its final stages, revert to being one itself.
Its powerful walls and the great chain across the entrance to the Golden Horn made Constantinople a formidable city which for most of its history had proved to be virtually impregnable. Only the shortage of foodstuffs and supplies could force its surrender and for a time it was able to retain sea communications with its few remaining possessions. Finally, in 1453 the Ottomans mounted a successful attack on the city which fell with little resistance. Not only was this the end of the Roman Empire but of Constantinople as the centre of the Orthodox Christian Church. Yet Orthodoxy was alive and well in other parts of Europe, and a third Rome was waiting in the wings to take over its role.
This third Rome was, of course, Moscow. The first Russian state, Kievan Rus, had become virtually a northern mirror image of Byzantium. While the main Russian city-states had been established along the great routeway ‘from the Varangians to the Greeks’, by the twelfth century Kiev, ‘Byzantium on Dnieper’, had established a quasi-imperial hegemony over the whole of the southern section of these Russian lands. Around its extensive boundaries, and in particular in the forests on its eastern flanks, was a smaller line of settlements, and Moscow began its life as one of these. The first mention of it was in 1147 as an ostrog – a wooden fort – built deep in the mixed deciduous forest by Prince Yuri Dolgoruky, son of Vladimir II Monomakh, Prince of Vladimir. Over the years a gorod – a small fortified town – grew up around this. Unlike the cities of the north–south routeway which looked southwards towards the Black Sea and Byzantium, Moscow was on the eastern side of Kievan Rus and was naturally oriented eastwards. This was because it was in the basin of the Volga, the largest river in European Russia, which flowed southeast-wards into the Caspian Sea. It was actually located on the banks of the small Moskva river which is in the mezhdurechie, the Mesopotamian land between the rivers Volga and Oka. Although loosely within the boundaries of Kievan Rus, it was subject to far less influence from Byzantium than was Kiev itself.
Unlike Byzantium, the first major danger to confront Kievan Rus was neither from Persia nor Islam but from a people from much further to the east. These were the Mongols, known to the Russians as ‘Tatars’, who in the early thirteenth century under their great leader Genghis Khan began a process of expansion which was to lead to the creation of an enormous empire stretching across Asia and into Europe. Genghis Khan soon conquered much of Central Asia and by the time of his death in 1227 the Mongols were poised to invade the Russian lands. This they did after the death of the Khan under his son and successor Ogedai and in 1237 Kiev itself was attacked by a massive Mongol army. The city was quite unprepared to withstand the onslaught. It soon fell and Kievan Rus fell with it. This cataclysm produced a huge influx of refugees fleeing from the Mongols into the forest lands to the north and this increased the significance of Moscow and the other similar gorod in the forested upper Volga region. With Kievan Rus gone, this area, together with Novgorod on the Volkhov river to the west, was almost all that was not in the hands of the Mongols. Although Moscow and the other towns in the forest area were forced to pay tribute to the Mongols, and were punished if they failed to do so, they were never permanently occupied by them.
The Mongols were a people of the steppes, the great temperate grasslands, and their huge armies of cavalry were not able to cope well with the unfamiliar forest environment. As a result, Moscow was able to retain a degree of independence during these hard times which came to be known in Russian history as the ‘Tatar Yoke’.
At first the gorod became a centre of resistance to the Mongols but, realizing that this was futile, the princes cleverly changed their policies and took on the role of collectors of jassak, the tribute exacted by their overlords. This arrangement was accepted by the Mongols and the princes of Moscow were expected to make the annual journey to Sarai, the Mongol capital on the lower Volga, to deliver it in person. This arrangement enabled them to build up their strength secretly, unbeknown to their Mongol overlords who just required the tribute and were not concerned with how it was gathered. This was all perfected during the reign of Ivan Danilovich ‘Kalita’ (the Moneygatherer), who secretly retained part of the tribute collected and used it to strengthen the fortifications of Moscow. After the fall of Kiev, the metropolitan had initially fled to Vladimir but in 1326 he saw that it was in his best interests to move to Moscow. He still styled himself ‘Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia’ and from this time the princes began to style themselves ‘Prince of Moscow and All Russia’. This was the beginning of Moscow’s leading role which led to the term ‘Muscovite Russia’ being used for this period in Russian history. It was characterized by the steady expansion of Muscovite power across the great forests of northern Russia and eventually southwards to confront the Mongols themselves.
This rise of Moscow to a pre-eminent position had certainly much to do with the tactics of its princes, but there were also sound geographical reasons for the assumption of this role. Hunczak went so far as to be quite deterministic about the significance of the location of the city. He maintained that:
In retrospect there seems something inevitable about the expansion (of Muscovy). From its situation on the Moskva river in the Russian heartland – the mezhdurechie – bounded by the upper Volga and the Oka, Moscow had access to the Volga, the Msta, the Dnieper, the Western Dvina and the Lovat. To the west and north of the Valdai hills, three routes led to the Baltic … To the northeast of Moscow, tributaries of the Volga brought contact with the northern Dvina basin with its egress to the White Sea.11
Most importantly, this relationship to the river system also facilitated communication with Novgorod, the greatest and most prosperous of the free Russian cities, and later on the advance eastwards down the Volga. Moscow was located in the area of rich black forest soil in the middle of the mezhdurechie which enabled agriculture to flourish and so support a larger population than elsewhere in the forests. There were certainly many powerful geographical reasons for the rise of Moscow to a pre-eminent position among the Russian cities and, eventually, over the whole of Russia itself.
Although the people of this Muscovite Russian state were, like Kiev, culturally part of the Byzantine world, they had by the thirteenth century become geographically quite isolated from it. Direct contacts with Byzantium, so important in earlier centuries, had now been cut off by the Mongols who occupied the great steppe lands stretching across what is now Ukraine. This isolation was gradually made greater by the fact that the Byzantine Empire was continuing to contract under pressure from the Arabs and Turks. This made Muscovy look more to its own potential than had Kiev and the state that emerged can be seen as more truly the beginnings of the Russian nation.
In 1453 Constantinople finally fell to the Turks and the Russians, now led by the prince of Moscow ‘and all Russia’, rapidly moved to assume the legacy of Byzantium. The great change actually took place during the reign of Ivan III (1462–1505). He used the insignia of Byzantium, and was crowned ceremonially with the Cap of Monomakh. By tradition, this had been presented by the emperor Constantine IV Monomachus (1042–55) to Prince Vladimir of Kiev. From then on the double-headed eagle of Rome also became the new symbol of Muscovite Russia. In his dealings with the outside world Ivan also styled himself ‘tsar’ (Caesar), indicating the new status he had assigned himself. In his assertion of power over both Church and state he also used the title samoderzhets, the Russian form of the Greek autokratos. He ensured the continuation of the bloodline when he married the niece of the last Roman emperor, Constantine XI Palaeologus. Ivan, known as the ‘Gatherer’ then continued to extend the territory of Muscovite Russia, including Novgorod in 1478, and making Moscow the capital of a very large state.
As the most tangible confirmation of the pre-eminent role of his capital, Ivan began the building of a new Moscow, replacing wood with stone and brick. Although rising on the site of the old wooden gorod, this was very much a new city and its grandeur was in keeping with its greatly enhanced status. It was built on the northern bank of the Moskva river in the form of a Kreml, a stronghold surrounded by a wall. At its centre was the Granovitaya Palace (the Palace of the Facets), which was the residence of the prince himself. This was designed by Italian architects in the Italian style but the churches that sprang up around it were still very much in the Byzantine architectural style. The first of these was the Uspensky (Assumption) Cathedral which took on the primary role as the state church. Towering over the new complex was the magnificent Ivan III bell tower, begun in Ivan’s reign and becoming the most striking feature of the skyline of the Kremlin. The word Kremlin, from Kreml, also came to be used at this time.
Ivan’s son and heir, Vasili III, continued his father’s building project. During his reign the magnificent cathedrals of the Archangel Michael and the Annunciation were added, together with a second royal palace intended for assemblies and the reception of foreign dignitaries. The close proximity of religious and secular buildings demonstrated the closeness of the link between tsar and metropolitan, state and Church. In the last years of the reign of Ivan III the foundations of bigger Kreml walls had been laid and this project was continued by Vasili. These formidable red brick walls with their huge towers put the finishing touches to the massive impressiveness of the Kremlin. In this way, within a matter of decades, a new and splendid capital had risen on the site of the old wooden gorod. The frontier fortress had been transformed into a powerful symbol of the new Russia. From the outset this Muscovite state was highly centralized and the Kremlin was its undoubted centre. Besides being a formidable stronghold, it was also the principal royal residence and the place from which ecclesiastical, administrative and military power was wielded.
The Moscow Kremlin, a magnificent display of the combined power of state and Church.
Vasili was followed by his son Ivan IV who was given the name Ivan Grozny – ‘the Dread’; in the English-speaking world this tsar has always been known as ‘the Terrible’. He was the first prince actually to be crowned ‘tsar’ of all Russia. He continued his father’s policy of the expansion of the Muscovite state, deciding that it was time to make a move against the Mongols. By this time this warrior people had become much weakened but they still occupied a great deal of territory west of the Urals. The empire of Genghis Khan had long broken up and the western branch, known to the Russians as the Golden Horde, had become an independent Khanate centring on the lower Volga. Muscovite Russia was well placed to advance eastwards against them and in 1552 Ivan’s army captured the great Mongol stronghold of Kazan on the Volga. Advancing on down the Volga, Ivan’s army reached the Caspian and occupied the important port of Astrakhan. They attacked the Mongol capital, Sarai, which soon surrendered to them. After 300 years the power of the Mongols in Russia had at last been broken.
When Ivan returned to Moscow, there were great services of thanksgiving for the defeat of the old enemy and the end of the Tatar Yoke. As a culmination to this thanksgiving, the tsar decreed that a new Cathedral should be built and work on it soon commenced. This was the Cathedral of St Basil the Blessed which was built between 1555 and 1560. Named after the Russian saint Basil Yurodivy, it is significant that this new cathedral owed a great deal more to traditional Russian architecture than to the Byzantine. With its central tent-shaped spire, it resembled the old Russian wooden churches found in villages throughout the land. St Basil’s is situated just outside the walls of the Kremlin on the eastern side of the great open space known as the Red Square.12 At the same time this cathedral and other buildings adjacent to it were incorporated into the city by the extension of the walls to include the newer parts of the city. This was Ivan’s major addition to Moscow and for the time being completed the building of the spectacular capital of Muscovite Russia. Few coming upon it could now doubt the power of the Muscovite tsar.
The Cathedral of St Basil the Blessed in Moscow, built to commemorate the defeat of the Tatars by the forces of Ivan the Terrible.
In 1589 the metropolitan enhanced his status and powers by becoming the patriarch and the Kremlin became the heart of the autonomous Russian Orthodox Church. At the same time the tsar of the ‘third Rome’ was pronounced the successor to the Roman emperors and protector of the Church. Ivan proceeded to take autokratos to an extreme degree by creating the oprichnina, a huge secret organization which he used to achieve his obsessive aim of bringing everything in the state under his direct control. This led to considerable conflict with the boyars, the Russian aristocracy, but Ivan maintained his position and set tsarist Russia on that autocratic path which it was to retain into modern times. This oprichnina was the ancestor of many later secret organizations of state, leading eventually to the KGB of Soviet times.
At this time the Uspensky Cathedral was greatly embellished with further decoration. It contained the throne on which Ivan had been crowned and this was used for the same purpose by all later tsars. It was in this cathedral that many of the great ceremonies of state were subsequently held. Although an emulation of the Byzantine practice, this took place in architectural and artistic surroundings which had become far more indigenously Russian. These included paintings, and especially icons, by great Russian painters, notably Rublyev and Feofan (Theophanes). From then on the cathedral of the Archangel Michael, built in 1509, became the burial place of the tsars.
The splendour with which Ivan surrounded himself was evidently observed by an English delegation arriving in Moscow in 1555. These were the remains of the expedition led by Willoughby and Chancellor to find the legendary ‘northeast passage’ to China and the East. When this failed, the survivors led by Richard Chancellor travelled south to Moscow instead. There they were clearly impressed by the splendour of the Kremlin and the magnificence of the Russian court. This initial contact led to the beginning of trading relations between England and Russia and the setting up of the Muscovy Company to handle them.
Moscow now had no rival in the Russian lands although its expansionist policies had earned it many enemies in Europe, notably its neighbours Sweden and Poland. Poland was a Catholic country, Sweden had become a Protestant one and neither was at all sympathetic to Moscow’s assertion of its role as the ‘third Rome’. From this time on, as protector of the Orthodox Church the country also came to be known as ‘Holy Russia’, thus adding strongly to the religious justification for its actions.
While Ivan had been mainly preoccupied with enemies in the east and west, it was from the south that the greatest long-term danger to Muscovite Russia was about to come. The Mongols had been so weakened that they represented no danger at all, but by the sixteenth century another powerful people had arrived on the scene. These were the Ottoman Turks who had defeated Byzantium and attained a dominant position within the Islamic world. In the later stages of its existence, the Golden Horde had become Muslim, as had another remnant of the Mongol Empire, the Khanate of the Crimea. This encouraged the Turks to look northwards and after the conquest of the Balkans they were poised to invade the northern shores of the Black Sea. They subsequently moved into the Ukraine and eventually converted the Black Sea into what was virtually a Turkish lake. In so doing they became close neighbours of the Russians.
Moscow considered itself the third Rome and so the protector of Orthodox Christians everywhere, but by the seventeenth century the new Islamic power had moved uncomfortably close. Even more disturbing, Constantinople, for 500 years the Orthodox Christian capital towards which the Russians had looked for their religion and culture, had now been transformed into the capital of this Islamic power. The Cross and the Crescent were in close proximity and this fact was to have a profound influence on the histories of both powers during the next two centuries.