A history of Russia

ethical and cultural standards in rapid decline. We learn of new cruel punishments established by law, of illiterate princes, of an inability to erect the dome of a stone cathedral, and of other clear signs of cultural regression. Indeed, certain historians have estimated that the Mongol invasion and domination of Russia retarded the development of the country by some 150 or 200 years.

Constructive, positive contributions of the Mongols to Russian history appear, by contrast, very limited. A number of Mongolian words in the fields of administration and finance have entered the Russian language, indicating a degree of influence. For example, the term iarlyk, which means in modern Russian a trademark or a customs stamp, comes from a Mongol word signifying a written order of the khan, especially the khan's grant of privileges; similarly the Russian words denga, meaning coin, and dengi, money, derive from Mongolian. The Mongols did take a census of the Russian population. They have also been credited with affecting the evolution of Russian military forces and tactics, notably as applied to the cavalry. Yet even these restricted Mongol influences have to be qualified. The financial measures of the Mongols together with the census and the Mongol roads added something to the process of centralization in Russia. Yet these taxes had as their aim an exaction of the greatest possible tribute and as such proved to be neither beneficial to the people nor lasting. The invaders replaced the old 'smoke' and 'plough' taxes with the cruder and simpler head tax, which did not at all take into account one's ability to pay. This innovation disappeared when Russian princes, as intermediaries, took over from the Mongol tax collectors. Thinking simply in terms of pecuniary profit, the Mongols often acted with little wisdom: they sold the position of grand prince to the highest bidder and in the end failed to check in time the rise of Moscow. Rampant corruption further vitiated the financial policy of the Mongols. As to military matters, where the invaders did excel, the fact remains that Russian armies and tactics of the appanage period, based on

foot soldiers, evolved directly from those of Kiev, not from the Mongol cavalry. That cavalry, however, was to influence later Muscovite gentry horse formations.

Similarly, the Mongols deserve only limited credit for bringing to Russia the postal service or the practice of keeping women in seclusion in a separate part of the house. A real postal system came to Russia as late as the seventeenth century, and from the West; the Mongols merely resorted to the Kievan practice of obligating the local population to supply horses, carriages, boats, and other aids to communication for the use of officials, although they did implement this practice widely and bequeath several words in the field of transportation to the Russians. The seclusion of women was practiced only in the upper class in Russia; it probably reflected the general insecurity of the time to which the Mongols contributed their part rather than the simple borrowing of a custom from the Mongols. The Mongols themselves, it might be added, acquired this practice late in their history when they adopted the Moslem faith and some customs of conquered peoples.

Turning to the more far-reaching claims made, especially by scholars of the Eurasian school, on behalf of the Mongols and their impact on Russia, one has to proceed with caution. Although numerous and varied, Eurasian arguments usually center on the political role of the Mongols. Typically they present the Muscovite tsar and the Muscovite state as successors to the Mongol khan and the Golden Horde, and emphasize the influence of the Mongols in transforming weak and divided appanage Russia into a powerful, disciplined, and monolithic autocracy. Institutions, legal norms, and the psychology of Muscovite Russia have all been described as a legacy of Jenghiz Khan.

Yet these claims can hardly stand analysis. As already mentioned, the Mongols kept apart from the Russians, limiting their interest in their unwilling subjects to a few items, notably the exaction of tribute. Religion posed a formidable barrier between the two peoples, both at first when the Mongols were still pagan and later when the Golden Horde became Moslem. The Mongols, to repeat a point, were perfectly willing to leave the Russians to their own ways; indeed, they patronized the Orthodox Church.

Perhaps a still greater significance attaches to the fact that the Mongol and the Russian societies bore little resemblance to each other. The Mongols remained nomads in the clan stage of development. Their institutions and laws could in no wise be adopted by a much more complex agricultural society. A comparison of Mongol law, the code of Jenghiz Khan, to the Pskov Sudebnik, an example of Russian law of the appanage age, makes the difference abundantly clear. Even the increasing harshness of Russian criminal law of the period should probably be attributed to the conditions

of the time rather than to borrowing from the Mongols. Mongol influence on Russia could not parallel the impact of the Arabs on the West, because, to quote Pushkin, the Mongols were 'Arabs without Aristotle and algebra' - or other cultural assets.

The Eurasian argument also tends to misrepresent the nature of the Mongol states. Far from having been particularly well organized, efficient or lasting, they turned out to be relatively unstable and short-lived. Thus, in 1260 Kublai Khan built Peking and in 1280 he completed the conquest of southern China, but in 1368 the Mongol dynasty was driven out of China; the Mongol dynasty in Persia lasted only from 1256 to 1344; and the Mongol Central Asiatic state with its capital in Bukhara existed from 1242 until its destruction by Tamerlane in 1370. In the Russian case the dates are rather similar, but the Mongols never established their own dynasty in the country, acting instead merely as overlords of the Russian princes. While the Mongol states lasted, they continued on the whole to be rent by dissensions and wars and to suffer from arbitrariness, corruption, and misrule in general. Not only did the Mongols fail to contribute a superior statecraft, but they had to borrow virtually everything from alphabets to advisers from the conquered peoples to enable their states to exist. As one of these advisers remarked, an empire could be won on horseback, but not ruled from the saddle. True, cruelty, lawlessness, and at times anarchy, in that period characterized also the life of many peoples other than the Mongols, the Russians included. But at least most of these peoples managed eventually to surmount their difficulties and organize effective and lasting states. Not so the Mongols, who, after their sudden and stunning performance on the world scene, receded to the steppe, clan life, and the internecine warfare of Mongolia.

When the Muscovite state emerged, its leaders looked to Byzantium for their high model, and to Kievan Russia for their historical and still meaningful heritage. As to the Mongols, a single attitude toward them pervades all Russian literature: they were a scourge of God sent upon the Russians for their sins. Historians too, whether they studied the growth of serfdom, the rise of the gentry, or the nature of princely power in Muscovite Russia, established significant connections with the Russian past and Russian conditions, not with Mongolia. Even for purposes of analogy, European countries stood much closer to Russia than Mongol states. In fact, from the Atlantic to the Urals absolute monarchies were in the process of replacing feudal division. Therefore, Vernadsky's affirming the importance of the Mongol impact by contrasting Muscovite with Kievan Russia appears to miss the point. There existed many other reasons for changes in Russia; and, needless to say, other countries changed during those centuries without contact with the Mongols.

It is tempting, thus, to return to the older view and to consider the Mongols as of little significance in Russian history. On the other hand, their destructive impact deserves attention. And they, no doubt, contributed something to the general harshness of the age and to the burdensome and exacting nature of the centralizing Muscovite state which emerged out of this painful background. Mongol pressure on Russia and its resources continued after the end of the yoke itself, for one of the authentic legacies of Jenghiz Khan proved to be the successor states to the Golden Horde which kept southeastern Russia under a virtual state of siege and repeatedly taxed the efforts of the entire country.

I X

LORD NOVGOROD THE GREAT

The Italian municipalities had, in earlier days, given signal proof of that force which transforms the city into the state.

BURCKHARDT