Tell me about Ivan the Terrible
Was he the greatest leader of Russia?
>Was he the greatest leader of Russia?
Nah m8
He was pretty much a disaster, especially in terms of the succession. It wasn't long after his rule that Russia started getting repeatedly fucked by Poland.
no he was terrible
Bump for interest.
I've read that he either protected the peasants from the nobles (or played the peasants against the nobles, depending on your point of view). And that thi is the inspiration for the character in the movie Ivan the Terrible by Eisenstein. Ivan = Stalin, the peasants = the proletariat, nobles = bourgeoisie.
I've also heard that he was a pious orthodox and fasted before taking any decision, and considered the throne a burden, and retired to become a monk.
Who Russian history here?
>>1405471
He literally caused the fall of his dynasty, which led to the Romanovs
no
>peter the great
>>1405471
He's definitely the most interesting leader of Russia.
He fucked up pretty many things that backfired after his rules to basically even today, but he is also conqueror of Quasaria, so it was okay.
>>1405471
>>1405481
>>1405478
Terrible is kind of a mistranslation of grozny. It means more like fearsome, as someone that inspires horror, or fear. That's because he was batshit insane.
On another note. Under his reign russia expanded fastest and the most, so i think he was very good actually, apart from fucking up the succession.
>tfw murdered own son
What have I done...
Good things he did:
End the appanage system once and for all
Expand Muscovy's territory greatly
Begin some reforms, even if all the reforms he tried were crazy/unrealistic
Enable Russia's expansion eastward, although this can be tied to number two
Bad things he did:
The Oprichnina, all the deaths
Got into long protracted wars that resulted in little other than boatloads of debt
Acted on his insane paranoia all the time
Not curb the power of the boyars enough, which would harangue the Moscovite state until Peter the Great
Fail to do anything about the looming succession crisis after the death of his son
All in all, he was an effective leader. Not a good leader, or a just leader, but an effective leader. Life under his rule wasn't great.
pic of the horror
>>1406035
Oh, I forgot to mention that he was a total drama addict.
>>1405998
> expanded fastest and the most
It expanded into Siberia which wasn't really a his doing. His war against Europe was pretty shitty.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_of_Uglich
So... What it suicide? Was he even murdered?
Pretty shady murder mystery if you ask me.
>>1405492
>I've also heard that he was a pious orthodox
big whoop, everyone were
It still didn't prevent him from killing priests, or just killing in general -- both nobles and peasants and alike.
Ivan was raised in an atmosphere where boyars (nobles) were regents over him, calling the shots and he had to endure constant insults from them like being their cupbearer and the like
Once he came of age he took control back and established his own total personal power. He created "oprichnina" basically gangs of rovers who were all loyal to Tsar and only Tsar himself. They became his reliable fist in a campaign to take revenge in his citizens for all these slights real and imagined.
This has become an example for all russian tyrants through the ages who took his example in establishing complete and absolute authority (from Peter the Great to Stalin to the latest "vertical of power" latest incarnation of the same idea as defined by Putin).
Read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Novgorod
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II,_Metropolitan_of_Moscow
Philipp was Ivan's "turbulent priest" who tried oppose him but was eventually killed by oprichnik by order of the Tsar
If you want to read a proper book on the subject, Ivan the Terrible by Isabel de Madariaga is the apogee of the literature on him. Perrie and Pavlov know their stuff, but reading it is a goddamn chore.
>>1406040
He eliminated the two biggest obstacles in the way, the Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan. He needs to be in the discussion if nothing else.
>>1406040
Not only siberia. He subjugated the hordes, kazan and astrakhan. He opened the door east into siberia due to this.
He also had a very successful war against the turks and his vassals the crimeans.
Though yes, the war against the europeans were bad.
>>1406073
Fair enough
>>1405471
He trasnformed a country filled with Russians into a shit hole filled steppe niggers.
>>1405471
He trasnformed a country filled with Russians into a shit hole filled with steppe niggers.
>>1406035
>Not curb the power of the boyars enough, which would harangue the Moscovite state until Peter the Great
IDK /his/ aside from 48LoP, but he was pedofucked by them till 13 when he turned the tables and had them battle him for power ever since. Given his distinctive lack of repulsion towards killing, terror and torture, it doesn't seem likely that he wouldn't do absolutely everything possible to diminish them. They probably had too much power to be curbed too much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbH1BVXywY
>>1405471
Great man, with Stephen Bathory rivalised over who would lead the Slavs and won.
Oprichnina gave rise to much more known secret services and polices later on as am aware.
Purged the shit out of nobles not submissing to the sovereign, we should have done same - In fact Stephen tried hard.
>>1405471
>Was he the greatest leader of Russia
That would be Peter I.
>>1409225
What are they yelling when the Frederick guy was playing the flute?
>>1411587
Old Fritz.
It's his nickname.
>>1406024
But he was not the only Tsar who killed his own son, Peter the Great was another one. But in case with Ivan this was the Irresistible impulse, and the son even didn't die on the same day when was beaten, it happened some days after. While Peter did this absolutely intentionally and treacherously.
>>1411630
Alexei was a turbo cunt. Peter tried to fix him and the faggot ran away, only to be drawn into a treasonous plot because of his own incompetence. TIme and time again he was offered ways out and he refused.
His death was perfectly justified.
>>1411517
Oprichnina gave rise to much more known secret services and polices later on as am aware.
The word could be translated as "special". Today In Russia all secret services are called special services.
>>1411648
Peter didn't participate in bringing up his son at all, left this task to relative drunkard, then was disappointed that Alexei didn't meet his expectation. And when Alexei returned to father after was promised the forgiveness he was killed instead. This also caused the soon end of Romanov's direct male line, Peter II (Alexei's only son) died young.
>>1411568
Actually it should be Ivan the Great and Peter the Terrible.
>>1411810
At least Peter was able to defeat Swedes, while Ivan could wage good war only against Tatars in Siberia and was cucked in Europe.
>>1411828
Peter faced only Sweden, while Ivan faced Sweden, Poland and Crimean Khanate (backed by Ottomans) simultaneously and even that was OK, he took territories and met troubles only when Stephen Battory (very competent commander) became the king of Poland.
>>1411895
> Peter faced only Sweden
This clearly isn't true.
>>1411905
>Great Britain
>>1411905
Allies of Sweden were such mostly on words or were too weak or were too far away to give any serious pressure on Russia. Only exception is Ottomans, but it was Peter who started new war and it was after Poltava, when Sweden already posed no serious threat to Russia. And he lost that war to Ottomans by the way, the only Russian-Turkish war that was definitely won by Turkey.
>>1405471
>Peter the Great
>Catherine the Great
>>1411993
>Their family descendants forced all historians under control to call them "the Great", that makes them the best.
Nope.
Do you really think that just obtaining new territories while he/she fucked up in most other aspects make leader the Great?
>>1412028
> she fucked up in most other aspects
She didn't. Like try to name just one fuck up for Catherine.
>>1412038
She freed nobles from the service for the state, which created pure parasitic class.
Serfdom was the main obstacle for development of Russian economics, it continued to worsen and she silenced all who tried to point out the problem.
Allowed one of the biggest peasant uprisings in Russian history.
Russian language became only second among aristocracy, all preferred to speak French.
She fucked Poland which was perfect buffer state as it was and it brought more problems than benefits.
With new territories Russia also got big Jewish and Polish population, it had tragic consequences more than a century later when they became the main force of revolution.
>>1412028
>Peter the Great
>not a great person of history
>>1412230
He is great only in meaning "had influence on the flow of history", but not in meaning "did his country a better place".
>>1412110
What this guy said.
Not even mention that she allow Prussia to grow and let them take Danzing, all Vistula trade and best and richest polish lands.
Only this was enough for the biggest fuckup in history of Russia.
>lost perfect buffer state
>let Prusia grow
>Germany united.
>>1411689
Interesting, I'd like to learn more!
see we barely touch the topic of early rashka in school
I was mostly into civil war and sovok times, and something very early like battle of the ice
the stuff people blame stalin for like GULAG (not gulags, concentration camps) generally existed during lenin, which was a mere continuation of imperial ones
likewise natsis got blamed for campings - invented by the brits against afrikaners
Cheka, KGB, NKVD, FSB was well alive and kicking before likewise (first started by a Pole, who never killed any of his kin allegedly), we had that Okhrana famed from the "protocols falsery" (both hitler and stalin held to be authentic anyway)
so yeah, I know of oprichnina from basics (rather than say strelets, pole-axemen or vityazes), definitely should check it out!
in our language this word doesn't mean much, sadly(((
(more similar to english counterpart)
He made a cathedral in Moscow which looks cool from outside but is a claustrophobic warren of chambers and tunnels from the inside. Shit kinda sucks.
He's easily in my top 3 most important Russian rulers. I think he's the type of leader whose influence couldn't be recognized in his own time, or even 100 years after, but he laid the groundwork for almost every core aspect of the Russian Empire. He created massive de facto borders for Russia and cleared the way for Eastern expansion. He made a culture of hostility towards boyars and support for state centralization of authority and the Church that allowed the Empire to be formed. Granted, his later rule and legacy after Lithuania was tarnished because of losses, but his influence on Russian history cannot be understated.
