Sophia (the daughter of Vitau-tas, the grand prince of Lithuania), metropolitan Photius, and a boyar, Ivan Vsevolozhsky. In 1425 the intercession of Photius stopped the outbreak of dynastic war: When Basil’s uncle Yuri Dmitrievich, the prince of Galich and Zvenigorod, laid claim to the grand-princely throne, the metropolitan made Yuri reconcile with his nephew. Basil II also owed much to Vsevolozhsky. When in 1431 the dispute over the Muscovite throne was transferred to the Golden Horde, this boyar managed to obtain the judgment of the khan favorable to Basil II.
Basil’s first actions on his own were far less successful. In spring 1433 he could not stop his uncle Yuri’s march on Moscow, and in the battle at Klazma River on April 25 Basil was completely defeated. Yuri seized grand- princely power, and only his unexpected death on June 5, 1434, allowed Basil II to supersede this strong rival.
Having grown up in the atmosphere of dynastic war, Basil II became suspicious and ruthless: He ordered the blinding of Vsevolozhsky, suspecting him of contacts with prince Yuri’s party. In 1436, having captured his rebellious cousin Basil the Cross-Eyed, Basil II also had him blinded. Later, the same means of political elimination was applied to Basil II.
The mid-1440s were the most troublesome years in Basil’s life. On July 7, 1445, in the battle at Kamenka River (near Suzdal), the Kazan Tatars defeated his army; he was wounded and captured. Having gotten this news, his cousin Dmitry She-myaka proclaimed himself the grand prince of Moscow. Only in October 1445 was Basil II released (on condition of paying a huge ransom) and returned to Moscow. Shemyaka fled but was prompt enough to organize a broad opposition to the grand prince, spreading rumors about the commitments undertaken by Basil II in captivity. As a result of a conspiracy, in February 1446 Shemyaka occupied Moscow, and Basil II was captured in the Trinity monastery (where he went for prayers) and blinded. Though exiled to Uglich (later to Vologda), the blind prince in February 1447 managed to return to Moscow as a victor.
The causes of Basil’s II final victory are open to debate. Alexander Zimin, the author of the most detailed account of his reign (1991), maintained that Basil was “a nobody” and that the victory of the blind prince was entirely due to his loyal servicemen. This social explanation seems highly probable, but the personal role of Basil II in the events should not be neglected. Though he lacked the abilities of a military leader, his courage, persistence, and devotion to his cause must be taken into account. See also: BASIL I; BASIL III; CIVIL WAR OF 1425-1450; GOLDEN HORDE; GRAND PRINCE; METROPOLITAN
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Crummey, Robert O. (1987). The Formation of Muscovy 1304-1613. London: Longman. Presniakov, A. E. (1970). The Formation of the Great Russian State: A Study of Russian History in the Thirteenth to Fifteenth Centuries, tr. A. E. Moorhouse. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
(1479-1533), grand prince of Moscow, sovereign of all Russia (since 1505), the eldest son of Ivan III and Sophia Paleologue.
Basil III continued the policy of his father in unifying Russian lands; under his rule, the last semi-autonomous polities, such as Pskov (1510), Ryazan (c. 1521), and Novgorod Seversk (1522), lost the remainder of their independence and were incorporated into the Russian state. Basil’s reprisals against Pskov resemble that of Ivan III against Great Novgorod: The Pskov veche (assembly) was abolished, three hundred families of townspeople were evicted from the city, and their homes were occupied by servicemen and merchants from Muscovy. The only important difference is that, unlike his father, Basil III
128
did not need to resort to military force: The Pskov inhabitants bemoaned their fate but made no attempt to resist.
An Austrian diplomat, Sigismund von Herber-stein, who visited Moscow twice (in 1517 and 1526) and left a detailed and reliable account of Muscovite affairs in the reign of Basil III, noted that “in the sway which he holds over his people, [the grand prince] surpasses the monarchs of the whole world . . .” (Herberstein, 1851, 1:30). Herberstein was especially impressed by the tight control that Basil III had over the nobility, including his own brothers. This system of permanent surveillance included special oaths of loyalty, encouraging denunciations, and inflicting political disgrace upon anyone suspected of disloyalty. Those who dared criticize the grand prince’s policy underwent harsh punishment, like Ivan Bersen-Beklemishev, who was executed in 1525.
Several factors contributed to Basil III’s ability to control the aristocratic elite. First, the composition of the elite changed dramatically during his reign due to numerous princely families from annexed Lithuanian lands who now entered Muscovite service. The growing tensions between the newcomers and hereditary Muscovite servitors precluded any possibility of united aristocratic opposition to the power of the grand prince. Second, Basil III relied on an increasing corps of state secretaries (dyaki and podyachie), and trusted upstarts, like the majordomo of Tver, Ivan Yurevich Shig-ona Podzhogin. Thus, the growth of bureaucracy and autocracy went hand in hand.
In foreign policy as well as in domestic affairs, Basil III followed in the footsteps of his father, Ivan III, though with less success. In the west, he tried to tear away from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania its frontier territories inhabited by east Slavic Orthodox populations. In two wars with Lithuania (1507-1508, 1512-1522) his only though important prize was the city of Smolensk (1514).
In the east, Basil’s major concern was to pacify or subjugate the bellicose khanate of Kazan on the Middle Volga, a splinter of the Golden Horde. In 1519 he managed to put on Kazan throne his vassal, Shah-Ali. But this achievement of Muscovite diplomacy irritated another Moslem polity, the Crimean khanate. In 1521 the khan of Crimea, Mo-hammed-Girey, invaded Russia. His unexpected raid threw the whole country into a panic. No defensive measures were taken, and the khan without hindrance reached the outskirts of Moscow. Then the Tartars withdrew, looting towns and villages on their way and carrying off thousands of captives.
Basil III married twice. His first wife, Solomo-nia, descended from the Muscovite boyar family of Saburov. When, after twenty years of conjugal life, no child was born, the grand prince forced Solomo-nia to take the veil and confined her to a convent (1525). In spite of opposition among the clergy and courtiers caused by this divorce, Basil III married again (1526); his new choice was Elena, the daughter of a Lithuanian ?migr? to Muscovy, prince Basil Glinsky. Four years later this marriage produced a long-awaited heir, son Ivan (future tsar Ivan IV the Terrible).
Basil III contributed significantly to building autocracy in Russia, but his unexpected death in December 1533 revealed the implicit weakness of this system: With a three-year-old heir on the throne, the country inevitably entered a period of political crisis. See also: CRIMEAN KHANATE; GOLDEN HORDE; GRAND PRINCE; IVAN III; IVAN IV; KAZAN; PALEOLOGUE, SOPHIA; SUDEBNIK OF 1497
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Crummey, Robert O. (1987). The Formation of Muscovy 1304-1613. London: Longman. Herberstein, Sigismund von. (1851-1852). Notes upon Russia, tr. R. H. Major. 2 vols. London: Hakluyt Society. Vernadsky, George. (1959). Russia at the Dawn of the Modern Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
The Basmachi were anti-Soviet rebels in Turkestan between the Russian Revolution and the early 1930s. The term, derived from the Turkic word basmak (to attack or raid), connotes banditry and was originally a pejorative term used by Russians. Soviet scholarship characterized the Basmachi as mere brigands and counterrevolutionaries in the pay of British imperialists. ?migr? memoirs and many scholarly works characterize the movement as a struggle for national liberation against a colonial power, although the extent to which participants overcame localism and factionalism is unclear. The Russian war in Afghanistan from 1979 to
129
1989 and subsequent events have renewed interest in the Basmachi rebels and given their struggle broader resonance.
The military humiliation and massacres that accompanied Russian conquest and occupation of Central Asia
