Was Ivan the Terrible really 'terrible'?
>>1255628
As in striking terror?
Yes.
As in being a bad leader?
No.
>>1255628
He committed many horrible acts but was actually a great ruler. He expanded Russia by conquering several steppe khanates and transitioned Russia from a kingdom to an empire as the first tsar. He probably deserves the moniker for incidents like the Massacre of Novgorod, killing his son, and his policy of purging nobles, but he set Russia on a path for greater power.
Terrible used to mean glorious and powerfull, not bad.
He was 16th century Stalin. Think of that what you want.
>>1255628
More like Ivan the Terribly Efficient.
Stalin cosplayed as him so much that he ordered a director to make a film trilogy based on Ivan the Terrible for him
>>1255777
Is it good and is it subtitled in english
>>1255628
Terrible to his enemies, yes. this correct in a sense>>1255691
terrible as in striking terror, being imposing - so a kind of powerful
He got paranoid and murdery over the course of his rule, but that seems to be the trajectory with Russian rulers
My favourite thing about Ivan was that he wanted to marry Elizabeth I, going as far as sending her letters
>>1256046
Two of the greatest films ever made desu. The director never finished the third part, but parts 1 and 2 are beautifully filmed.
>>1256697
weird how official reasons for party line criticism of part 2 (which led to cancelation of part 3) is that Oprichniks are not depicted as positive "progressive" army
like what
>>1255628
polish sources calls him Ivan the Coward
>>1255640
>>>1255628 (OP)
>As in striking terror?
>Yes.
>As in being a bad leader?
>No.
Terrible at being a bad leader? No? So he was pretty good at being a bad leader then?
>>1256769
>>1256766
>p*lacks
>human
>>1256777
Nice trips Boris
>>1255628
"grozny" translates roughly to ugly, or grotesque
>>1256766
>polish sources
topkek
>>1255628
No he was great
>>1256870
or fearsome, or rampant
>>1256883
John please
>Implying killing people is bad
>>1255628
He transformed Russia into a minor Empire,he annihilated the Asiatic filth but then again,he has also killed his son,purged many nobles who didn't agree with him and he has also sacked Novgorod,one of the greatest bastions of Russian civilization.
>>1257134
>Purging Nobles
What's so bad with that?
>>1255628
Yes. The retard sacked Novgorod, Russia's cultural capital reducing it to forever irrelevance. He did the same to Moscow except it survived. Worst of all were his fits of rage where he accidently killes his own son, having to heir to the throne. This launched the Tsarsom into a civil war and general time of shittyness called "The times of trouble". Poland took a shitton of land from the Russians due to their invunrability and it got so bad to the point where Poland installed a Polish king as Tsar and ran a puppet government on Russia.
>>1257152
It all worked out in the end though when the based Romanovs saved the day.
>>1255628
Well, for starters, the Russian name "Ivan Groznii" would be better translated as "Ivan the Formidable" or "Ivan the BAMF".
>>1256654
Ivan wasn't alone in that regard. He held a rivalry with the Duke of Finland (later King of Sweden) Johan III. They both vied for the hand of Elizabeth at one point, though for the most part they sent insults to one another.
Well he was loved by common people and hated by nobles.
>>1257152
He had another son. Retarded though he was. They tried that, before giving up on it.
Ivan IV. or Ivan the “Terrible” is a complicated historical figure. Even though the byname “Terrible” seems somehow fitting today, comparing with other rulers of his time, like Richard III. and Henry VIII in England, Phillip II. in Spain or Cesare Borgia, one might feel that those were the times ripe for such monstrous rulers. Also the today’s meaning of word “Terrible” (Grozny) creates a philological problem.
“While grozno or groza were used to indicate ‘horror,’ the chief meaning of Grozny, particularly in the context of rulership, was ‘awful,’ that is, awe-inspiring. To rule one's principality with ‘awe,’ grozno, meant to inspire awe, and to implant fear in malefactors.”
Also, the byname “Terrible” appeared in literature in much later periods, and it was first used in Russian when mentioning Ivan’s grandfather Ivan III. in a positive way, as “Formidable.” Ivan IV. first appears as “Ivan the Terrible” in German and Polish anti-muscovite pamphlets (as “Schreklich” or “Gruzny”) in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
In long term, Ivan’s reign created framework for a politically centralised state with a big military and economic potential, at a great cost in short term period and astonishing suffering of many of his subjects. By the end of his rule, large parts of land and cities were abandoned, commoners and elites fleeing to neighbouring countries from danger and taxes. His main objective – strengthening of the power of the tsar over the boyars and the clergy and conjoining forces with the local leaders – was not achieved due to lack of proper institutions and infrastructure and the chaos, caused by the marauding oprichniki.
>>1257152
>Worst of all were his fits of rage where he accidently killes his own son, having to heir to the throne. This launched the Tsarsom into a civil war and general time of shittyness called "The times of trouble". Poland took a shitton of land from the Russians due to their invunrability and it got so bad to the point where Poland installed a Polish king as Tsar and ran a puppet government on Russia.
Actually Ivan's other son ruled for 14 years after him. He was weak and left no heirs, but he had good minister Boris Godunov at his side. After Fedor's death Boris became the Tsar. Boris faced internal struggles because he was not Rurikid. Then Polish intervened with their imposter and real troubles began.
>>1255628
excellent leader
unified country
smashed boyars
kicked tatar ass
what more could one ask for?
inb4 muh human rights
>>1257152
>The retard sacked Novgorod, Russia's cultural capital reducing it to forever irrelevance
Not true. Ivan arranged some purges against separatist elite in Novgorod, but Novgorod still remained as big city. Novgorod really fell only after the wars with Sweden during Romanov's early time. After Swedish occupation Novgorod had only around 500 citizens and the city was cut from the sea.
>>1257430
subhuman slav
>>1257147
kill yourself
>>1257447
(You)
>>1255628
9 out of 10 Russian leaders were terrible so this doesn't say much
Ivan established local self-government institutions across the country and started to assemble Zemsky Sobor, advisory council with representatives from different social estates, from different parts of the state, first time in Russian history.
"Terrible" didn't originally mean "very bad" like we use it. And "terrific" doesn't mean "very good." They're actually synonyms for "terrifying." As in, "Ivan is such a badass that people are terrified of him."
Ivan did very much for Russian culture too.
Under his order Illustrated Chronicle of Ivan the Terrible was created, great book about Russian and world history, first Russian typography started to work, Saint Basil's Cathedral was build.
Grozny comes from word 'groza' which means 'thunderstorm'. And as you know thunder was the sign of god's wraith. So 'grozny' is something you afraid of and what you revere at the same time. Closest modern translation for 'grozny' in context could be word 'formidable'.
>>1257174
Romanovs were the greatest disaster for Russia. Alexander II tried to clear the karma of his family, but his descendants fucked up again.
>>1257547
There's that famous meme story how he blinded the architects who built it.
Really Ivan IV was no worse than any Western monarch of that time.
>>1257642
>There's that famous meme story how he blinded the architects who built it.
That's just a legend, because the architect constructed other buildings after St. Basil's Cathedral.
>>1256769
How's that reading comprehension going, anon?
>>1257254
>All that shitposting
That's a hilarious read, I'm sure.
>>1257430
>what more could one ask for?
Stalin
