'presents' instead of the regular tribute, finally discontinuing even those. Mongol punitive expeditions in 1465 and 1472 were checked in the border areas of the Muscovite state. Finally in 1480, after Ivan III publicly renounced any allegiance to the Golden Horde, Khan Ahmad decided on an all-out effort against the disobedient Russians. He made an alliance with Casimir IV of Lithuania and Poland and invaded Muscovite territory. Ivan III, in turn, obtained the support of Mengli-Geray, the Crimean khan, and disposed his forces so as to block the Mongol advance and above all to guard river crossings. The main Mongol and Muscovite armies reached the opposite banks of the Ugra river and remained there facing each other. The Mongols had failed to cross the river before the Muscovites arrived, and they did not receive the expected Lithuanian and Polish help because these countries had to concentrate on beating back the Crimean Tartars who had made a large raid into Lithuania. Strangely enough, when the river froze, making it possible for the cavalry of the
Golden Horde to advance, and the Russians began to retreat, the Mongols suddenly broke camp and rushed back into the steppe. Apparently they were frightened by an attack on their home base of Sarai that was staged by a Russian and Tartar detachment. In any case, Khan Ahmad's effort to restore his authority in Russia collapsed. Shortly after, he was killed during strife in the Golden Horde, and around 1500 the Horde itself fell under the blows of the Crimean Tartars.
Another important event in Ivan Ill's reign was his marriage in 1472 to a Byzantine princess, Sophia, or Zoe, Paleologue. The marital alliance between the grand prince of Moscow and a niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI, who had perished on the walls of Constantinople in the final Turkish assault, was sponsored by the Vatican in the hope of bringing Russia under the sway of the pope and of establishing a broad front against the Turks. These expectations failed utterly, yet for other reasons the marriage represented a notable occurrence. Specifically, it fitted well into the general trend of elevating the position of the Muscovite ruler. Ivan III added the Byzantine two-headed eagle to his own family's St. George, and he developed a complicated court ceremonial on the Byzantine model. He also proceeded to use the high titles of
Although Ivan III asserted his importance and role as the successor to the Kievan princes, he refused to be drawn into broader schemes or sacrifice any of his independence. Thus he declined papal suggestions of a union with Rome and of a possible re-establishment, in the person of the Muscovite ruler, of a Christian emperor in Constantinople. And when the Holy
Roman Emperor offered him a kingly crown, he answered as follows: 'We pray God that He let us and our children always remain, as we are now, the lords of our land; as to being appointed, just as we had never desired it, so we do not desire it now.' Ivan III has been called the first national Russian sovereign.
Ivan III was succeeded by his son Basil III, who ruled from 1505 to 1533. The new reign in many ways continued and completed the old. Basil III annexed virtually all remaining appanages, such as Pskov, obtained in 1511, and the remaining part of Riazan, which joined the Muscovite state in 1517, as well as the principalities of Starodub, Chernigov-Seversk, and the upper Oka area. The Muscovite ruler fought Lithuania, staging three campaigns aimed at Smolensk before that town was finally captured in 1514; the treaty of 1522 confirmed Russian gains. Continuing Ivan Ill's policy, he exercised pressure on the khanate of Kazan, advancing the Russian borders in that direction and supporting a pro-Russian party which acted as one of the two main contending political factions in the turbulent life of the city and the state. Profiting from the new standing of Muscovite Russia, Basil III had diplomatic relations with the Holy Roman Empire - the ambassador of which, Sigismund von Herberstein, left an important account of Russia,
In home affairs too Basil III continued the work of his father. He sternly ruled the boyars and members of former appanage princely families who had become simply servitors of Moscow. In contrast to the practice of centuries, but in line with Ivan Ill's policy, the abandonment of Muscovite service in favor of some other power - which in effect came to mean Lithuania - was judged as treason. At the same time the obligations imposed by Moscow increased. These and other issues connected with the transition from appanages to centralized rule were to become tragically prominent in the following reign.
Incidentally, it was Basil III who forbade his merchants to attend the Kazan fair and established instead a fair first in Vasilsursk and soon after near the monastery of St. Macarius where the Vetluga flows into the Volga; the new fair was transferred in 1817 to Nizhnii Novgorod to become the most famous and important annual event of its kind in modern Russia.
The rise of Moscow was a fundamental development in Russian history. The ultimate success of the northeastern principality meant the end of the appanage period and the establishment of a centralized state, and the particular character of Muscovite government and society affected the evolution of Russia for centuries to come. Yet, while the role of Moscow proved to be in the end overwhelming, its ability to attain this role long remained subject to doubt and thus its success needs a thorough explanation. Moscow, after all, began with very little and for a long time could not be compared to such flourishing principalities as Novgorod or Galicia. Even in its own area, the northeast, it started as a junior not only to old centers like Rostov and Suzdal but also to Vladimir, and it defeated Tver in a long struggle which it appeared several times to have lost. Written sources, on their part, indicate the surprise of contemporaries at the unexpected emergence of Moscow. In explaining the rise of Moscow, historians have emphasized several factors, or rather groups of factors, many of which have already become apparent in our brief narrative.
First, attention may be given to the doctrine of geographical causation which represents both one of the basic and one of the earliest explanations offered, having already been fully developed by S. Soloviev. It stresses the decisive importance of the location of Moscow for the later expansion of the Muscovite state and includes several lines of argument. Moscow lay at the crossing of three roads. The most important was the way from Kiev and the entire declining south to the growing northeast. In fact, Moscow has been described as the first stopping and settling point in the northeast. But it also profited from movements in other directions, including the reverse. Thus, it seems, immigrants came to Moscow after the Mongol devastation of the lands further to the northeast. Moscow is also situated on a bend of the Moscow river, which flows from the northwest to the southeast into the Oka, the largest western tributary of the Volga. To speak more broadly of water communications which span and unite European Russia, Moscow had the rare fortune of being located near the headwaters of four major rivers: the Oka, the Volga, the Don, and the Dnieper. This offered marvelous opportunities for expansion across the flowing plain, especially as there were no mountains or other natural obstacles to hem in the young principality.
In another sense too Moscow benefited from a central position. It stood in the midst of lands inhabited by the Russian, and especially the Great Russian, people, which, so the argument runs, provided a proper setting for a natural growth in all directions. In fact, some specialists have tried
