William Tyler
A Time of Troubles 1598-1613
William Tyler | A Time of Troubles 1598-1613 | 05.16.22
- Right, okay, well, welcome everyone. The time, towards the end of World War II. The place, the Kremlin. The event, a meeting between Stalin and his closest advisors and the film director, Sergei Eisenstein. The purpose of the meeting, well Eisenstein was making a film about Ivan the Terrible and the Russians that Stalin had seen, he disapproved of. And so Eisenstein has been asked to come into the Kremlin. Now we have a record of their conversation because all conversations and meetings that Stalin held were recorded by the Regime. And Martin Sixsmith, in his History of Russia, tells us what was in that record. It’s Stalin speaking to Eisenstein and says, “Have you studied history?” To which his answer is, “Well, more or less.” And Stalin says, “More or less? Well, I know a bit about history. You have made that the Czar,” Ivan the Terrible, “You have made the Czar too weak and indecisive. He resembles Hamlet. Everybody tells him what to do. Ivan the Terrible was a great and wise ruler. He always had our national interest at heart. He did not allow foreigners into his country. He was a nationalist czar and farsighted. By showing Ivan the Terrible the way you do, you have committed a deviation and a mistake.”
Eisenstein doesn’t get an opportunity to get a word in, edgeways. Stalin says, “You have to show him in the correct historical style. It is not correct that Ivan the Terrible kissed his wife for so long. At that time, it was not permitted. It is true that Ivan the Terrible was extremely cruel, but you have to show the reasons why he had to be cruel. One of Ivan’s big mistakes is he didn’t finish off his enemies, the big feudal families. If he destroyed these people, then he wouldn’t have had the time of troubles. If Ivan the Terrible executed someone, he repented and prayed for a long time. God disturbed him on these matters, but it is necessary to be decisive.” Well, when Eisenstein remade the film, he clearly had in mind Ivan the Terrible as a model for Stalin. And in that piece of the conversation, which is, as far as we are aware, a correct record, Stalin refers to Russian nationalism and Stalin refers to the need for cruelty in a Russian autocrat. And I’ve been saying in the last two weeks that some of this older history of Russia pertains through the Russian leadership DNA, right up to Putin. And nationalism has been a curse of Russia.
Patriotism can be a good thing, but rampant nationalism can be a bad thing. And in a later talk, I shall talk about nationalism, in a Russian context. And Stalin makes reference there to the topic I’m talking about today, the time of troubles. But he gets his history incorrect, even though he tells Eisenstein that he knows about history. There’s a gap between the death of Ivan IV and the troubles that start. It wouldn’t have helped. Martin Sixsmith comments on this conversation. “It is clear from Eisenstein’s film that he’s partly portrayed Stalin in the figure of Ivan. And from the record of their conversation, it seems Stalin was aware of this. The final version of the film shows Ivan as cunning and decisive, not shrinking from repression of murder. One of its most dramatic scenes,” and some of you may well remember seeing this on television and clips of the film. “One of its most dramatic scene shows Ivan having his own cousin stabbed to death in the Kremlin, but always acting in Russia’s interest, unifying the country by the strength of his autocratic rule. Stalin thought the film should have made Ivan look even tougher, but he knew its vast propaganda value for a Russian nation locked in a life and death struggle with Nazi Germany.”
It throws light on that long-lasting Russian leadership characteristic autocracy. You might even want to say ruthless Russian autocracy. In this case, the distant past, Ivan the Terrible, whose story I told last time we met, links with the recent past, Stalin. And indeed you can make a case for it linking with the present in Putin. History is important. It doesn’t tell us precisely what is going to happen in the future, but it does help to explain the present. And so it is with Ivan the Terrible that we ended last time that I begin this time. There is a difficulty with autocracy, particularly a monarchical, hereditary autocracy, in that you cannot guarantee a strong leader, or as in Ivan’s case, can you guarantee a moral leader. The idea of the philosopher king is wonderful in theory, but difficult to attain over a period of time in reality. You remember of course that Ivan had his eldest son murdered from last time we’d spoke and was succeeded by a younger son called Feodor. And Feodor, to be honest, was not particularly interested in becoming czar, but like Prince Charles and Prince William, they have no choice in the matter if the monarchy is hereditary.
But it creates enormous problems if the monarchy is not only hereditary but an autocracy. Because Feodor wasn’t interested in becoming czar because his great interest was campanology, or church bell ringing. Not really the sort of thing you would put on a CV to become a czar. So we reach with Feodor an unsuitable czar. But the most important thing of hereditary monarchy is that they produce children and in the past, if possible, a male child. Excuse me, a son to inherit the throne. Now Feodor didn’t produce a son to inherit the throne and the dynasty begins to die out. I’ve got my window open, I hope it’s not stuff coming in that’s making me sneeze. The House of Rurik comes to a dead stop with Feodor. There isn’t an heir from the family to succeed, a blood relative of Ivan the Terrible and of Feodor I. In the magazine, the All About History that I’ve mentioned on the Romanovs, I read this. “The Rurik Dynasty of which Ivan the Terrible was a member and of which Feodor was the last, the Rurik Dynasty traced his origins to the ninth century and from its base in Novgorod went on to play a starring role in Russian history for 700 years,” as we’ve talked about in the last two talks. “With the arrival of Ivan the Terrible, who reigned from 1547, it reached its zenith. Unfortunately, Ivan’s son and successor Feodor was of feeble mind and failed to produce an heir.”
I don’t know about you, but I didn’t think feeble minds had anything to do with procreation. I rather like that. The truth is he didn’t produce an heir whether it was ‘cause he was feeble minded, whether he was homosexual, or whether he was feeble in other ways. “With his death in 1598, the story of the House of Rurik came to an end.” He is the last czar of that ruling family that had ruled from Novgorod for all those hundreds of years. Now let me introduce you to a book, it’s a very new book that’s just come out in the last week or so and it’s on my supplementary book list on my blog. It’s simply called a Short History of Russia. It’s short and it’s, I think actually, brilliantly written. It’s by a man called Mark Galeotti and Galeotti tells of an account by the Venetian ambassador to Moscow at the time of Ivan the Terrible and of his son, Feodor. Now the Venetian ambassadors seem to be prolific in writing back reports to Venice. You find Venetian ambassadors writing back to Venice from all over Europe. They were always writing at this period from Tudor, England and it’s very interesting to read what they have to say. In this case, it was a man called Ambrogio Contarini and Contarini had been amazed at markets which had been established on the Moscow River in the bad winters that Moscow endured, when the ice is so thick you could hold a market on it.
And some of you know, who are British, that there were markets held on a frozen Thames in the 17th century. It doesn’t freeze now for a variety of reasons, but the Moscow River froze, they held markets on it. And obviously to a Venetian, this was something extraordinary, so he obviously went down to have a look. And he wrote back to Venice that he was particularly struck by the spectacle of butchered livestock, stacked by the stores. In other words, butchered cows. But they were frozen. And so although they’d been skinned, they were still standing up. So you’ve got these skinned cows standing up, ready to be cut into whatever, steaks and so on, for the populace. “It is curious,” and this is his own words, “It is curious to see so many skinned cows standing upright on their feet.” And Galeotti, the historian and author of this book, A Short History of Russia, comments, I think very, very interestingly and amusingly. Galeotti said, “By 1584, the system of Ivan III and Ivan the Terrible had put time and blood into creating seemed much like one of those cows, dead, skinned, still standing because it was frozen, but ready meat for the butcher’s axe.”
In other words, in other words, Russia was moving towards a political crisis and it was in need of a political reset. Across Europe, as we enter the 17th century, think of England and Queen Elizabeth, things are changing and even Russia needed to change. A reset is what I’ve called it. And it did achieve this under the early Romanov czars. But there isn’t an easy passage from the death of Feodor I to the accession of Michael, the first Romanov czar. In fact, there’s a period of 15 years between the one event and the second event. Between 1598 and 1613, in those 15 years, we call that period the Time of Troubles. It was a period of political constitutional breakdown in Russia. 1598 to 1613 from the death of the last Rurik czar Feodor I, and the accession of the first Romanov czar, Michael. But at the beginning of that period, it seemed as though things would settle down. Boris Godunov, there’s a name to conjugate, Boris Godunov took the throne at Feodor’s death. He was Feodor’s brother-in-law. But because he was the brother-in-law, he did not have royal blood. And there had been a struggle, as you know, and as indeed Stalin pointed out to Eisenstein, between the czars and the boyars, the aristocracy, who was going to control Russia.
Was it going to be an autocracy of the czar or were the boyars to have greater influence? And because Boris Godunov had no royal blood, but only by marriage, he wasn’t accepted by all the aristocracy because they thought, “Well, if Boris could be czar, well, why can’t I be czar?” And the reality of the situation there was a very large and important and influential family, besides that of the Godunovs and that were the Romanovs. But it isn’t until 1613 that the Romanovs actually managed to grab the crown. This is Galeotti again, in the book A Short History of Russia. And he writes this, along the lines of what I’ve been saying. “Godunov was crowned as the new czar in 1598. He was smart and ambitious, ruthless and competent, but he had been elevated not by God.” Remember, they believed the hereditary business of the czar succeeding czar, son, father, or whatever. The hereditary business is the divine right of kings. Think about Charles I and the Stuarts in England. They believed that the hereditary blood in them allowed them to say that they had been appointed by God. “But he had been elevated not by God,” says Galeotti, “But by men and all his qualities seemed to count for little compared with this handicap.”
Because the others are saying, as I’ve just said, “If he’s good enough to be czar, then so am I.” It did not help that his reign was characterised by famine. And so the other autocrats say, “Look, God is punishing Russia with famine because this man should not be czar.” And because there were famines, there were peasant revolts, all of which undermines Godunov’s power. And a year before Godunov’s death, he died in 1605, a man came forward. He was in fact a monk who had fled his monastery and he claimed to be Feodor, Boris Godunov predecessor czar, Feodor’s half brother, Dmitry. 1604. But Dmitry had actually died in 1591, so this is not particularly clever of the monk who came to be Dmitry, but it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because Poland sees Russia in a bad way and so Poland supports what historians call the False, F-A-L-S-E, False Dmitry. It gives them an excuse. They will invade Russia, depose Godunov, and plot the False Dmitry on the throne as a Polish puppet. And Godunov couldn’t resolve this because he himself died a year later. And as a chronical of the time wrote, of his death, it wrote this “In Holy Week, 1605, on the day before the feast of the women bearing myrrh, as Czar Boris,” Boris Godunov, “Got up from the table after a meal, he was suddenly taken violently ill so that there was scarcity time to tontray him,” to make him a monk, that’s what they did. “And he died of that illness within the space of two hours.”
Probably a stroke or a heart attack. “He was buried in St. Michael’s Cathedral in Moscow in the chapel of St. John Clamarkasse, where Czar Ivan and his children are buried. Czar Boris died in April, 1605, having reigned for seven years.” Now what happens? Now what happened? First of all, let me share a further piece here, if I may. This is from the editor of the Russian Chronicles. “The last year of Boris’s reign were troubled by the appearance of the pretender, the False Dmitry who, with Polish help, raised an army with which he contended for the Russian’s throne.” And so there’s a Polish army still in Russia at the time of Godunov’s death. So what happens now? What happens now is more chaos, chaos with a capital C. True, but Boris Godunov’s son managed to take the throne as Feodor II. But he only lasted two months before he was strangled to death by rival aristocratic families. I’ve written here, “17th century Russia had real chaos”. It’s the sort of chaos that might have led to the breakup of the Russian state. But there was a czar that emerged who had loose connections with the Rurik dynasty, but not blood connections, through marriage, who reigned as Czar Vasili IV. But he failed even more dramatically than Boris Godunov to get support from the boyar’s aristocratic elite Russians. Moreover, with the first Dmitri gone, a second False Dmitri emerges.
I mean this is, this is bizarre. You can imagine this being reported by TV news. “The czar has been, the czar has died, we believe, by strangulation.” They wouldn’t of course have been able to say that. Then they say that a new czar has seized the throne, Vasili IV, with some connections to the previous royal family, but he is not supported by all and a second False Dmitry has appeared. This is real sense of breaking apart of the Russia that had been so carefully put together, first as Muscovy, then as Russia by Ivan III and Ivan the Terrible. It’s simply coming apart. This is what the magazine book on the Romanovs says, and I’ll read this to you because I think it sort of short circuits it. “The first False Dmitry, who wouldn’t retain power for long because he was seen as being a Polish puppet and someone who had allowed Polish influences to shape Russia’s future. In 1606, Moscow rose in protest in Vasili, who could claim kingship with the mighty Ruriks was made Czar Vasili IV. Needless to say, he didn’t please everyone. And so the cavalcade of pretenders continued. A second False Dmitry observed and again, support from Poland.”
So Russia is delicately poised. It might be conquered by Poland. In the west, it also has another enemy, Sweden. Shades of where we are today. And in the south, it has the Tartars. So it’s got real problems of holding the country together. And you’re clearly not going to hold the country together if there are myriad claimants to the throne, all basically without support, without full support. And Poland advances again into Russia and this time takes Moscow. Moscow at the time was largely wooden. It’s burnt to the ground. But the Russians counter attack and the Poles find themselves trapped inside. But so do many Russians. Sieges are like that. Think of the dreadful Siege of Mariupol, where civilians are caught up in it. Well, these civilians in Moscow are actually Russians, whereas the defenders of Moscow are Poles. We are very fortunate because an Englishman, we don’t know his name, happened to be in Moscow and wrote an account of it. We don’t know who he was. He’s either a trader, remember the Muscovy Company, or he’s a diplomat. My guess is he was a businessman who simply got trapped in the situation.
And he wrote this. “But the just hand of heaven gave retribution to Russia for the bloody tragedy that the Poles had inflicted on Moscow. Russia raised two armies. They set a close siege on the city and blockaded it and the Poles inside it. The siege lasted two years until extreme famine forced the Poles to surrender the capital city and with it, the prince of Poland’s claim to the throne of Russia and empire of Russia. Out of 35,000 brave men, not 20 persons returned to Poland.” And I think you take that with a pinch of salt. “In this siege, a loaf of bread was sometimes sold for a thousand rubles,” which is 500 pounds sterling. You take a bit of that with a pinch of salt. But he was there. He also writes this of the siege of Moscow. “During the time of this cruel siege in which I was involved for 22 months being launched in the Imperial Palace,” well launched in the Imperial Palace because it was one of the few buildings that was still standing after the Poles had sacked the city, because it was of stone. “I observed several causes and instances of misery and wretchedness on the part of the besiege. These included the eating of the flesh of horses, dogs, and cats and of all sorts of leather, boiled in ditch water, which served instead of tripe. But what left the deepest impression and most aroused my compassion was to see many ladies of noble birth and fair, young gentle women, who not long before would’ve scorned the idea that the earth should touch their feet, but who are now constrained to go barefoot and to prostitute their bodies to every mean person in order to obtain food. Truly when they were discarded by sun, I’ve seen them proffer their services to others.”
And then in a very sort of English way, he writes, “Now I recalled the old Proverbs, 'Pride must have a fall and hunger will break stone walls.’” And the siege ended. Just let me inter pose at that point. Russia and Poland today are like that. Russia and Poland have always been like that. And here is the beginning of that Russian-Polish story. Poland sacked Moscow and a bitter siege. Understand history. Poland is subsequently, as we shall find in later talks, became part of the Russian Empire until the end of the first World War and then became part of Eastern Europe after ‘45. And Poland today is the closest ally of Ukraine, deeply opposed to Russia. We’ll come to more of the Polish story, but if you want to know when it began, then it began in the Time of Troubles when Poland made an attempt to seize the throne of Russia itself. This situation can’t go on. There has to be some sort of resolution to it. Either the emergence of a new Russian autocrat or the complete destruction of everything that the Rurik czars, Ivan III and Ivan IV, that is Ivan the Terrible, had created.
Let me read you a short piece here. “It had been a terrible period. Leaving aside Poland’s actions, the Swedes had also made territorial gains on Russian soil.” And I just mentioned Sweden. “And the Tartars from the south had not been slow to exploit the situation in Russia. Even armies that had attempted to aid the Russian cause had inflicted damage, one such as a contemporary record, had only augmented the miseries of Russia, since who can stay an army from spoil and rape, not only on a nation’s goods and gentles, but even on its wives and daughters, which in all places were made a prostituted prey to the lustful appetites of its soldiers.” Nothing changes, does it? The Russian army in Ukraine and all the dreadful reports coming out of it. Nothing different. So let’s take a breath and ask ourselves why there was all this chaos, the sort of question that you might have been asked in an examination at university on the Time of Troubles. What was the root causes of this chaos? Well, Galeotti in the book that I’ve been using tonight writes this. He makes an analysis and I’ll share his analysis with you because I think it’s a very good one.
Mark Galeotti says, “This was the culmination,” the years of chaos, the Time of Troubles. “This was a culmination of three long-term processes. It was a dynastic crisis. Having established a notion of a sacral ruler,” i.e., a ruler appointed by God, “Legitimated by heavenly mandate, the system could not accommodate a dynastic break,” the end of the House of Rurik, “Especially as a willful and ambitious aristocracy were emboldened by this in their struggle against an emerging centralised autocracy.” In other words, the aristocrats do want to control the autocrat, the czar, and the czar, under the two Ivans, Ivan III and Ivan IV, want a strong autocracy that controls the aristocracy. “It would take the Time of Trouble,” says Galeotti, “To break the nobility. It was also a socioeconomic crisis because we saw a flight of peasants from the land and it would take the Time of Troubles to force the regime to address these challenges squarely, in effect, making the aristocrats servants of the state. Finally, it was a geopolitical crisis. As Russia rose, it found itself facing new and formidable threats, Crimean Tartars and Ottomans to the south and above all the Poles and Swedes to the west. It would take the Time of Troubles to turn Russia into the kind of modern, tax-raising, and army-building machine that was emerging in western Europe.”
As I say, this was a time of crisis. Russia needed a new political reset. Let me read you one more thing and then I’ll take the story forward again in a moment. And I want you to read this little piece here. “Russia was in a financial crisis. Ridden by factional disputes, it was evident that a new czar was required. Among a host of candidates, some eyes fell on the brother of the Swedish king, but the consensus was that someone who was Russian was a much safer option. No fewer than 800 delegates,” aristocrats, “Finally settled the matter after weeks of discussion.” They came to their senses. That’s not to say they didn’t think they might control the czar and pull his strings, but they came to their senses. They needed a czar. In their minds, maybe a simply a figurehead for Russia. But they need a czar. “And after weeks of discussion, they decided upon Michael Romanov. He was an impeccable pedigree and he could even claim a link to the sorely missed Rurik dynasty because an ancestor had been married to Ivan IV.” But no blood connection. “He was also, to be frank, something of a compromise candidate. Michael was far from sure he wanted the job and his mother wasn’t particularly keen either. At first, she was adamant that such a mighty burden should not be imposed upon her son.” Well, of course you would be nervous in Russia. Strangulation, poison? It’s everywhere. “Ultimately though, Michael gave way and in 1613, at the age of 16,” he’s 16.
That’s why the aristocrats think they can manipulate him, pull his strings like a puppet. He was elected as czar. He’s elected by the Council of Aristocrats and he therefore has, to all intents and purposes, full support. And the question of whether he’d been ordained by God is lost. Well, until he establishes the Romanov Dynasty, because then it is appointed by God all the way through until the overthrow of Czar Nicholas II, the last of the House of Romanov in the Revolution of 1917. “At the coronation of Michael, the officiating priest made Michael’s duties abundantly clear, quote, 'Oh God-crowned Czar.’” So they are using God in the religious ceremony of the coronation, nobody objects. “‘Oh God-crowned Czar and Grand Prince Michael, autocrat of all Russia, the sceptre is given to you to govern Russia, guard it, and keep it. Rule the kingdom according to the will of God.’” So the Romanov Dynasty is now fully in charge in 1613, but it’s only headed by a 16 year old teenager whose mother didn’t want him to have the job and who’s now got to work out a way for Russia to be ruled. But of course it’s not going to be ruled. As the Stuart kings were eventually forced to rule in England alongside a parliament by the 1660s and Charles II, it’s going to be ruled instead by an autocrat, an autocrat way beyond the autocracy of even Charles I, an autocrat like Louis XIV in 17th century France.
And that autocracy survived right through, into the 20th century, well beyond its sell by date. And we’re going to have a look in the weeks ahead of how the Romanov Dynasty failed to modernise and why its failure to modernise led to revolution and one revolution led to a second and we have a Marxist autocracy and the Marxist autocracy falls and we have a just a glimpse under Yeltsin, of a possible move to democracy crushed in the last 20 years by Putin, and we’re back to an autocracy again. Michael was a reluctant czar. And I want read just a of couple of pieces, if I may. This is from a Russian Chronicle of the time. “The metropolitans and the archbishops are all conditions a men came to Moscow from all the towns and monasteries and they set about choosing a sovereign.” This is the choosing of Michael. “Not only the great lords and the state servants, but ordinary people and even the children as well, they all cried out with a loud voice that they desired Michael Romanov to reign over Russia. There was great joy in Moscow on that day. All the people went to the Cathedral of the Mother of God and sang prayers and rang bells and wept as if they had come out of darkness into light.”
Well the Time of Troubles they believed was over and indeed the Time of Troubles is over when Michael becomes czar. “Czar and Grand Prince Michael Romanov of all Russia approached Moscow and the people came out to meet him with bread and the Lords and boyars met him outside the city with crosses. The Czar Michael came to his throne in Moscow on the second Sunday after Easter, 1613. And there was again great joy in Moscow and they sang services.” He is established as czar, the Romanovs, as a dynasty they’re established and the Time of Troubles and the chaos that Russia is in is brought to a halt. Of course, it does not mean that Romanov Russia doesn’t have problems with its borders. And we’ve talked about in previous weeks the problem that Russia has always had with borders. It’s not the last we shall hear of the Swedes by any means. It’s not the last we shall hear of the Poles, it’s not the last we shall here of the Tartars. It’s not the last we shall hear of the problem of borders. It’s not the last that we shall hear of nationalism in Russia. And it’s not the last we shall hear of autocracy. These themes are threads running through the whole of Russian history.
Now, I’d like to introduce you, if I may, as I come to the last bit this afternoon, well, afternoon here in Britain, is to introduce you to Michael Romanov’s father, a man called Filaret, F-I-L-A-R-E-T, Filaret. And his life during the Time of Troubles really encapsulates everything. And if I was writing an essay for a degree or I was teaching you to write an essay for a degree, I would say you can do no better than to begin the essay about the Time of Troubles by talking about Filaret. Now I’ve chose not to begin with that but to end with that and you’ll see why I’ve ended with it in a moment or so. Filaret Romanov, the father of Michael Romanov, the first Romanov czar, was born in 1553. He died in 1633. “Hang on,” you say, “But he was alive when his son became czar.” He was, but the aristocrats did not want an experienced adult. They preferred the 16 year old son to the father. And anyhow, the father wasn’t available because he was a prisoner. So let me tell you the story of Filaret. When Feodor I died, that’s the son of Ivan the Terrible, Filaret Romanov was a serious candidate for the throne, but he didn’t push himself and he acquiesced in Boris Godunov taking the throne. And Godunov was frightened of the power of the Romanovs and he came down hard on the family. And three years later, he forced Filaret and Filaret’s wife, a woman called Xenia, to take monastic vows and that’s how Filaret got this rather odd name, Filaret.
Before that, he was Feodor, and his wife took the name, Xenia took the name Martha, and they were placed in monasteries right up in the north of Russia, long way away. Not Siberia because that’s not in the story, but up in the north of Russia. Think the White Sea area, think Archangel. And there are monasteries there and nunneries and these two are packed off there. Godunov, of course, could have had them murdered, but he didn’t do that, he didn’t, well, maybe he thought that if he had them murdered, there would be a backlash. So they were simply made to become a monk and a nun and carted off to the north. They exposed Filaret, Michael Romanov’s father, to every indignity you could think of. You remember the False Dmitry I, who in 1604 rebelled against Boris Godunov? Godunov dies in 1605 and in that year, 1605, the False Dmitry releases Filaret from the monastery and his vows and makes him Bishop of Rostov. He clearly wanted the support of the House of Romanov to his own claim to the throne of Russia. So he makes him a bishop. To have the power of bishops behind you is always good. But in the chaos of the Time of Troubles, Filaret was captured by the False Dmitry II.
The False Dmitry II said, “Look, you can now support me. I will make you Patriarch of all Russia, the head of the Orthodox Church in Russia.” But his jurisdiction only covered the area that the False Dmitry controlled. This is chaotic. So Filaret’s been imprisoned by Boris Godunov, he saw him as a threat, he’s been released by False Dmitry I to give his rule some sort of credibility, then he’s captured by False Dmitry II and given a more important role to underline. If he’s the Patriarch of all Russia, then he can say Dmitry II is appointed by God. But he didn’t last long because he was appointed by the False Dmitri II in 1609 as Patriarch of Russia. In 1610, poor Filaret’s captured by the Polish king Sigismund III. Remember the Poles are in Russia. Oh, this is so complicated. You don’t need to worry about the complications. All you need to think about is that there’s chaos in this period and Filaret is really sort of like Pass the Parcel in a children’s game. “Who’s going to have Filaret next?” “Well, I will because he’s going to be useful to me.” And all the while he’s being promoted in the church. Bishop of Rostov, then Patriarch of all Russia. But it doesn’t do him any good as he’s a prisoner of Sigismund of Poland.
When the aristocrats decide that Michael Romanov should become czar in 1613, Filaret, his father, is still a prisoner of the Polish king and he doesn’t get released for a further six years because Michael is fighting the Poles and the war does not come to an end until 1619. And as part of the truce, Filaret is released and comes back to Russia. There he is properly enthroned, because Michael controls Russia, he’s properly enthroned in Moscow as the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia. He’s now the most important clergyman in Russia. And the church matters in the 17th century. But it’s more important than that. Although Michael is now 23 years of age, he’s not a strong ruler. Filaret, between 1619, when he returns to Russia, and 1633, when he dies, is co-ruler. He’s not co-czar, he’s a co-ruler. In other words, Russia is ruled between 1619 and 1633 by the czar, Michael Romanov, and by the Patriarch of all Russia, Michael’s father, Filaret. But if you want to know where power lies, Filaret made decisions without even telling his son.
So it’s Filaret that gives the, well, let’s put it another way, it’s Filaret that puts the steel into the Romanov backbone of this new autocracy of the House of Romanov. And that’s something we’re going to look at as we come to next week’s talk about Michael and the beginnings of the house of Romanov. Filaret is a key figure. This is the magazine-style book on the Romanovs. “It’s important that Feodor made full use of his role as Patriarch.” That is, to say, Filaret. “Is it important that Filaret made full use of his role as Patriarch to flex his autocratic muscles and establish the church as an alternative power base in state.” Church and king. Now, if you remember your English history right back in the time of Henry II, Beck challenges the power of the king. In England, it’s resolved. The king rules okay. In Russia, up to the time of Peter the Great, there’s a clash. The czar does not rule okay. There is this continuing clash between church and state.
Now Peter the Great revolts and the church in made a department of state and we’ll come to that. But it doesn’t mean to say, it certainly does not mean to say that the church isn’t without power. I think of Rasputin in the court of Nicholas II. But think, and this is why I told the story of Filaret at the end of this little speech tonight instead of the top, come forward to the war in Ukraine. This is from the National Catholic Reporter newspaper and an article published in March of this year, after the start of the Ukraine War, by Peter Smith of the Catholic News Service, a journalist. And I’m going to read part of what he wrote. “The Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, leader of Russia’s dominant religious group, has sent his strongest signal yet, justifying Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, describing the conflict as part of a struggle against sin and pressure from liberal foreigners to hold gay parades as the price of admission to their ranks.” The Russian Orthodox Church is conservative, underlined three times, on social affairs. It’s always been conservative on social issues and it’s always been theologically involved, such as it’s a struggle against sin.
Peter Smith goes to say, “Kirill, a longtime ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin, had already refrained from criticising the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This alienated many in the Ukrainian Orthodox churches who had previously stayed loyal to the Moscow Patriarch.” Now Ukraine has two churches, a Ukrainian Orthodox church and a Russian Orthodox church. And because of the stand made by the Russian Patriarch in Moscow, many of the Russian Orthodox churches in Ukraine have moved across to the Ukrainian Orthodox church. Wow. “Several of these former loyalists in Ukraine are now snubbing Kirill in their public prayers, with some demanding independence in Moscow Church, even as their country’s political independence is impeded.” As I say, they’re moving across to the Ukrainian Orthodox church. Nationalism in terms of churches. The Church of England born in a sense of nationalism, anti-European, anti-Catholic, and controlled by the state. The Church of England, a state church. The role of churches in the development of nationalism, post-17th century is immense. And here it is operating today in Russia, much the same as it operated in 1619, with Filaret and Michael. “On March the 6th, the Patriarch Kirill spoke of the war like this. ‘We have entered into a struggle,’ he said, ‘That has not a physical but a metaphysical significance.’”
The Russian, the Orthodoxy is very, unlike the Catholic church, the Protestant church, or Judaism, it isn’t actually, it isn’t actually tuned in to do social work, education, medicine, all those other issues that churches and synagogues are involved in. It’s all about spiritual matters. He says, “‘We have entered into a struggle that is not a physical but a metaphysical significance.’” And Peter Smith said, “Kirill contended that some of the Donbas separators were suffering from their fundamental rejection of the so-called values that are offered today by those who claim world power. He claimed that this unnamed world power,” in the past, you might have thought this was very anti-Semitic. I don’t think it’s anti-Semitic, I think it’s anti-NATO, anti-western Europe. “He claimed that this unnamed world power’s posing a test for the loyalty of countries by demanding they hold gay Pride parades to join a global club of nations with his own ideas of freedom and excess consumption.” Wow. It’s as mad as Putin.
So as I come to the end of this Time of Troubles, and we have Michael Romanov on the throne, suffice it for me to say, in conclusion, Russian history is now set on a single track from 1613 to 1917, the Romanov track, a track of autocracy that, by the 20th century, can only end in one way, and that is by revolution. And the hope of many was that that revolution would lead to democracy in the same way that the collapse of the Soviet Union, many hoped that that would lead to democracy. And in neither case did it. Because all the things we’ve been talking about over these three talks about autocracy is still deep in the DNA of Russian leadership. I’ll stop there and see if there are any, oh, there are, oh dear, there are rather a lot of questions. Let me see if I can answer some of them.
Q&A and Comments
Well that, Jennifer says, to all of us, “Thank you, you’ve encouraged me to read, listen, and learn.” Oh, thanks ever so much. That means a great deal to me if people take their own learning further than what I’ve said. Oh, that’s, some people are being nice. Ah, I’m not sure if I’m pronouncing your name correctly, forgive me if I’m not. Hindi says, “Putin certainly is scary and a danger in our world. It was a fascinating documentary and will probably be replayed all week.” I think that’s the one that Wendy referred to. Name again of the author of A Short History. His name is Mark Galeotti, G-A-L-E-O-double T-I, Galeotti. And I think it’s an excellent book and I always like small books, but they need to be well written, and this one is. It’s published by Penguin and it’s bound to be available in other countries other than in Britain. Amazon has it all and it’s not expensive.
Oh, I’ve just done that. Somebody else asked me the name, Mark Galeotti. But it is on my supplementary blog. I’ll check that it is. If it isn’t, I will put it on. There it is. It’s got a rather nice bear with a crown on. Let’s get back to the questions.
Q: “So who was running Russia during those 15 years?” A: A very good question. The answer is no one. It’s down to local boyars on their local estates. This is the problem. The central government has collapsed, to all effect, in all effects, through these various claimants. So you mustn’t think that Russia was, Russia was even like England at the time when there needs to be someone running it. So 20 years later, is it Charles I or Cromwell, is it Parliament, or what is it? Well, no, there isn’t anyone running it. That’s the problem. It was in such chaos that politically and constitutionally, it could have fallen apart. It’s only when the boyars, the aristocrats say, “Come on, we can’t go on like this.” And it let Michael, that we begin to have stability, which is the story next week. I think I’ve spelled the name.
Q: Irene, “Germany’s policies had not changed since the pact in 1939, so how did Stalin justify having made a pact with the people he later condemned?” A: Oh, well, if you’re Stalin, you don’t have to justify anything. And the justification is the same as the justification for Chamberlain is it enabled Russia to prepare for war and to be better equipped when war actually came in 1941.
Q: Valerie says, “Wasn’t Britain better off being an island nation, making it difficult for European countries to expand except by crossing the sea?” A: Yes, absolutely. Didn’t help the Scots, of course. Didn’t help the Welsh or the Irish because the English, well, actually, it’s the Normans that take Wales and Scotland and Wales and Ireland and make inroads into Scotland. So yes, Britain is better being an island. Anywhere that has dodgy borders, that is to say borders that can be contested, has always in history been in difficulties.
Oh, bless you, Saul, you’ve put everything up. You, bless you.
Q: Tim says, “Were they in Europe?” A: Yes, Tartars, yes, out of the Crimea, coming along with the Mongols, it’s all the same sort of group from the east. We’ll talk about the Tartars when we reach Catherine the Great, who launches wars against them. I will come to that. From Ivan the Terrible, who is that, sorry.
Saul says, “From Ivan the Terrible to Vladimir Putin, Galeotti’s accessible and informed history of Russia reveals complex national identity. Yet can anyone truly understand Russia? Well, he says Russia is a country in no natural borders, no single ethos, no true central identity. At the crossroads of Europe’s nature, it is everyone’s other. And yet it is one of the most powerful nations on earth, a master game player on the global state with a rich history of war and peace, poets and revolutionaries. Galeotti takes us behind the mist to the heart of the Russian.” Exactly, that’s what I’m trying to do in all my talks, to take you into Russian history so you have a better understanding of Russia today. And whether that helps us judge the future, I’m not sure. It’s very difficult to judge Putin. I went to a, well, I spoke at a conference in London last Friday and we were addressed at dinner by the head of the, last head of the British Army, General Carter. And he’s maintained that Putin was not mad. I’m not so sure about that. It depends how you define madness. But he was also saying it’s impossible to tell what the future might be. Incidentally, his view of Ukraine would be the war would come to a grinding halt simply because Russia and the West can’t afford it. And he was saying that, in terms of some of the British ammunition that’s been sent to Russia, we produce 10 per day in northern Ireland, the ammunition factory in northern Ireland, 10 per day. He then says the Ukrainians are firing more than 10 every 30 minutes. We can’t actually produce the ammunition, nor can the States produce the ammunition, and the States and us and everybody else supplying material to Ukraine are running short themselves and that’s dangerous. But the Russians are running short.
Q: “What constituted the geography of Russia when the Romanovs began?” A: Good question. Answer next week and I’ll get everyone a map for next week of the beginning of Romanov Russia.
Q: “Did primogeniture apply?” A: In theory, yes. In practise, we shall see what happens.
Q: “The population of Russia in this time?” A: I haven’t got a figure off my head. I’ll bring you a figure next week, but it won’t be an accurate figure because no one, we don’t know. There’s no census in any sense at all.
I can’t provide details on the documentary, Harriet, because I don’t know it. I wasn’t here in Britain.
Q: “How is the population spread?” A: Well, it’s very western and it’s very much around the cities like Novgorod and Moscow. I’m just grabbing a piece of paper because I’ve just promised you a map and I’ve promised you population and I will do that next week. If I don’t make a note, I shall forget.
[Wendy] William, William?
[William] Yes?
[Wendy] Just to answer their question, it was on Fareed Zekaria. Now Fareed has political, he’s a political commentator and usually he’s on at 10 o'clock and one o'clock in the mornings on Sunday. So, CNN, but last night he was on at nine o'clock in the evening. So if you go to Fareed Zekaria, you should be able to access it.
Oh, bless you. Thank you Wendy, that’s great.
Pleasure.
One of the benefits of Zoom is that people can interrupt and give information that I haven’t got, and I really appreciate that. The House of Rurik, R-U-R-I-K. Somebody asked, I can’t see where that is. Helene has asked that. Nikki asked, a byword, they recently, “I recorded two programmes on Putin and Russia broadcast by PBS America. Both were scrambled with multiple lines, obscuring images, and audio interruptions.” I don’t know anything about that at all.
Q: Monique and Danny say, “With a resurgence of Russian Orthodox, is it likely they will see their God-given mission as bringing peace to the Middle East?” A: Um, no. I think if we accept that there is a resurgence of Russian Orthodoxy and there is, I think that’s true, whether Putin is himself religious or is using religion, I really can’t say, but the God-given mission is to recover Constantinople, Istanbul, where Orthodoxy began. Now, whether that is in any sense feasible over the next 50 years, your guess is as good as mine. But access to the black, access to the Mediterranean from the Black Sea will be more on the agenda of Putin and Russia because of the results of the Ukrainian War. And it may be that at some point Putin or somebody succeeding Putin will be mad enough to try for Istanbul. But, remember that Turkey is a member of NATO and it remains to be seen whether Putin would, I don’t think he would dare attack NATO because the retaliation would be, if not quick, would be overwhelming. You must make your own minds up. I don’t think he’s going to risk nuclear war.
Oh, people are making nice comments about Trudy and I. I will pass that on to Trudy if she isn’t listening. Oh, that’s an interesting question. I hope you’re not in prison because you’ve just given a number, 839-9852. So if you are, Libby, if you’re listening from prison, the answer is,
Q: “Did Poland feel intellectually superior to Russia or was it just a grab for resource-rich Russia that gave it the impetus to rule Russia?” A: They didn’t feel intellectually superior, it’s just a land grab. It’s just a land grab. Because, I think the answer has to be, because Russia had become such a powerful neighbour of Poland, then Poland wanted to take Russia out of the equation.
I think it’s that. Oh, the people are just being nice. I don’t believe, you can’t ever, in this game, ever rely upon people being nice because next time, you fail dreadfully. I think that’s the end of the questions. I think I’ve come to the end, Wendy.
[Judi] Yeah, I can, yes, William, you have. Thank you so much. I think we just–
Thank you for the questions.
[Judi] We just seem to have lost Wendy.
Some of those were very interesting and not easy to answer. And I must never pretend I can answer everything because I can’t and you must judge for yourself. But the questions like, “Will I provide a map? Will I talk about population?” I’ll do both of those next week for you, certainly.
[Judi] Great, thank you so much, William and thank you to everybody who joined us today and we’ll see you next week, William. Thank you.
See you, bye! Bye-bye everyone, bye-bye!
Bye, bye!