World History: The Wars of Religion

A depiction of the Thirty Years' War

The last time we looked at World History we focused on the Reformation, here, but we only very briefly touched upon the Wars of Religion caused by the Reformation. These wars ravaged Europe and set Protestant against Catholic. However, the Wars of Religion are far more complex than just being about religion and they helped shape the European world today. Following the Wars of Religion Europe's wars started to be much less about religion and more about other factors, such as politics. Before we start we first have to define what exactly a War of Religion is.

Defining the Wars of Religion

There has been debate among historians about how the wars between Christians differ from other wars about religion, such as the Crusades. German historian Konrad Repgen has distinguished a War of Religion from a Crusade as he argues that Crusades are called for by popes, whereas Wars of Religion are not. However, he does argue that there is much overlap with them both being religious wars. This raises a new question: how is a War of Religion different to other religious wars? Repgen argued that a War of Religion was justified as being necessary to prevent the 'true religion' from being threatened or exterminated; to extend specific rights of religious practice; or to eliminate a 'dangerous heresy.' When the war was called by the pope for these reasons it becomes a Crusade. Of course Repgen's model only fits the Euro-Christian world, but for our purpose it fits well. Now let's look at the wars themselves.

The German Peasants' War

The Peasants' War broke out in 1524 following the Knights' Revolt of 1522. During the revolt free imperial knights had revolted against larger territorial princes using Lutheran ideas to justify their movement. All the Knights' Revolt succeeded in doing was make some princes wary of Lutheran and Protestant ideas. The Peasants' War started over grievances rising taxation levels, serfdom, laws limiting hunting and fishing rights, and imposition of labor obligations. In 1524 in Stuhlingen, just south of the Black Forest, it is believed that the uprising started over the limitations on fishing in a forbidden stream. Quickly a gathering of 1,200 peasants gathered listing their grievances which spread rapidly across southern Germany in what would become the largest peasant uprising in European history until the French Revolution. Regional revolutionary committees and military alliances were formed, and in March 1525 a union of them released the Twelve Articles of Memmingen. These twelve articles were heavily inspired by Lutheran theology calling for the abolishment of serfdom; hunting and fishing rights; and a reduction in taxes and labor services arguing that there was no precedent for these in the Bible. Furthermore, the articles called for the community to elect and dismiss pastors to ensure the 'pure gospel' would be preached. The War got many supporters, including Thomas Muntzer, and despite being clearly inspired by Lutheran ideas Martin Luther condemned the rebellion. Luther wrote Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants in 1525 writing that rulers 'as God's sword on earth to knock down, strangle, and stab the insurgents as one would a mad dog.' Huldrych Zwingli reaffirmed this idea in his 1526 publication Whoever Causes Insurrection arguing that spiritual reasons did not give individuals the right to oppose political authority. In 1525 the rebellion was put down causing the Reformation to lose much of its appeal in Germany. The merging of social and religious aspects of the Peasants' War shows the diverse background of the Wars of Religion. Friedrich Engels in The Peasant War in Germany wrote that the Peasants' War highlighted the issues concerning early German capitalism and served as a precursor to the 1848 Revolutions.

Wars of Kappel

Two brief conflicts erupted in the Swiss Cantons in 1529 and 1531 where economics, politics, and religion came together. In the sixteenth century Switzerland was made up of a loose confederation of thirteen autonomous cantons in the larger Holy Roman Empire. The cantons were deeply hostile to one another which the Holy Roman emperors, French kings, and popes exploited where they hired Swiss soldiers as mercenaries. Zwingli was very much against this saying that it was 'trading blood for gold' and he blamed Catholics for this. As the leader of the Zurich city council he started making treaties with other Protestant cantons which made the Catholic cantons formed an alliance under Ferdinand, the Habsburg ruler of Austria, to counter them. Open war was avoided until 1531 with the Second War of Kappel which resulted in Zwingli's death. With the exception of a few key areas after the Protestant defeat forced conversion to Catholicism did not happen. Reformed parishes and communities in Catholic cantons could remain Reformed, and cantons were free to be either Reformed or Catholic. Thus, Switzerland became one of the only places in Europe to offer recognition of Catholicism and a Protestant denomination. This highlights one key aspect of the Wars of Religion: limited religious tolerance. A key aspect of present European states, and many states across the world, is secularism. One view of the Wars is that it put Europe on the path to secular politics. For Switzerland itself to avoid fracturing between the Reformed and Catholic cantons it opted to largely remain neutral which has become a staple of Swiss international politics.

The Schmalkaldic War

Like the Wars of Kappel the Schmalkaldic War was a conflict between Catholics and Protestants. In 1530 Holy Roman Emperor Charles V called an Imperial Diet in Augsburg hoping to end religious divisions in the empire. An associate of Luther, Philip Melanchthon, made the Confessio Augustana (Augsburg Confession) criticizing Catholic principles which Protestant princes presented to Charles. Charles ignored the Confession, told Protestant princes to convert back to Catholicism, and ordered the return of confiscated Catholic lands. This backfired with the Protestant rulers forming the Schmalkaldic League with the Confession as its statement of belief. Several Lutheran colleges in the USA, such as Augustana, are in fact named after this Confession. Luther changed his beliefs about resistance saying that those with political authority were allowed to oppose those above them; one could argue that he only favored resistance when his own neck was on the line. Meanwhile, Charles could not respond to the Schmalkaldic League due to wars against France in Italy and southern France, and the besieging of Hungary and Vienna by the Ottoman Empire. With religion dividing the Empire and threats from outside Charles was spread thin. He did fight the League in 1546 and successfully captured several Protestant princes and cities which strangely worried the pope. Here politics comes into play. The pope feared that Charles' victories would strengthen the emperor and edge Papal authority out. An Imperial Diet was called bringing a temporary peace which the League used to regroup and even allied with France. Political power trumped religious identity.

Charles V sitting on the throne of the defeated Schmalkaldic League

In 1552 war broke out again with Henry II of France intervening on the side of the Schmalkaldic League. This war lasted until another diet at Augsburg in 1555. The papacy and emperor were not present at this diet so the Peace of Augsburg reflected the concerns of the princes. To bring 'eternal, unconditional peace' a principle was put forward: cuius regio, eius religio (Whose realm, his religion). For areas of the Holy Roman Empire this brought limited secularization. The Peace of Augsburg only gave religious tolerance to Lutherans and Catholics - other Christian branches and non-Christians were denied recognition. This issue would become very apparent in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Meanwhile, Charles abdicated in 1556 granting his imperial possessions to his brother Ferdinand, whereas the Spanish empire and the Netherlands were given to his son, Philip.

French Wars of Religion

Shortly after the Peace of Augsburg religious wars broke out in France. Francis I of France made a treaty with the papacy in the Concordat of Bologna where he would recognize papal supremacy over church councils in return for the right to appoint all French bishops and abbots. This gave the monarchy huge control over the French Church, and therefore, huge amounts of power. John Calvin was French and nobles turned to Calvinism to protest the monarchy's power. These French Calvinists were called Huguenots and deeply inspired by Calvinistic iconoclasm they started smashing windows in churches; burning paintings; and using religious images as cooking fuel, latrines or toys. Through fiery sermons and print literature Calvinism spread through the masses who eagerly partook in sermons and violent actions which caused Catholic retaliation. Things became worse in 1559 when Henry II died and his son, (who was aged fifteen), Francis only was on throne a year before dying of possibly meningitis, and his brother, Charles, came to power. If only for his mother, Catherine d'Medici, acting as regent, whose iron will beat back opponents, did the royal family survive. Catherine had to face court nobles using the religious conflicts and regency to try exercise their own power. Throughout the 1560s bloody conflict ravaged France where the monarchy tried to adopt conciliatory policies. In 1572 it appeared that Catherine wanted a truce so the Huguenot and Catholic leaders were invited to Paris to see the marriage of the Protestant Henry of Navarre to the king's sister. On St. Bartholomew's Day, August 24, the Protestant guests were assassinated which spread across the Parisian crowds and further encompassing France. It is believed that 2,000 Huguenots were killed in what has been called the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. This Massacre would make Protestant rulers fearful of Catholic plots for generations after. For another fifteen years wars would drag on until Henry III (Charles died young) was assassinated in 1589 by a Catholic fanatic named Jacques Clement. Clement hated Henry for trying to implement a policy of tolerance but by assassinating Henry this allowed Henry of Navarre to become king. 

A painting of the massacre by Louis Dubois

Henry knew that the current wars would ravage France and that applying Protestantism to an overwhelmingly Catholic state would be disastrous. He was pragmatic and subscribed to a position called 'politique.' Catholicism was declared the official religion of France and eventually converted to Catholicism horrifying radicals on both sides. Catholic propaganda doubted his sincerity accusing him of saying 'Paris is worth a mass.' Eventually fighting subsided so much that in 1598 Henry IV passed the Edict of Nantes which confirmed Catholicism as the state's religion, gave Huguenots freedom of worship, and gave them the right to maintain 150 fortified towns.

Dutch Revolt

Also known as the Dutch War of Independence and the Eighty Years' War economics and religion spilled over in the Spanish ruled Dutch provinces. Calvinism had spread rapidly across the Dutch provinces and Philip of Spain's regent, Margaret of Parma (who was his half-sister), began to repress Calvinism. As the cities of Bruges, Ghent, Amsterdam and Antwerp were also extremely wealthy taxes were also raised. These two factors enraged the Dutch who began a wave of iconoclastic riots in 1566. The Duke of Alva was sent to put down the revolts and he executed hundreds in a special court nicknamed the 'Council of Blood.' What was a series of small revolts became a full scale war. The Spanish reclaimed the southern ten provinces and prohibited Calvinism - which would become present day Belgium - while the seven northern provinces in 1579 formed a union later known as the United Provinces of the Netherlands. When the leader of the Dutch, William of Nassau a.k.a William the Silent, was assassinated by a French assassin loyal to Philip in 1584 the United Provinces looked abroad for support. In particular they looked for support from Elizabeth I of England who reluctantly sent money. Dutch independence would not be solidified until 1648 when it became entangled in another religious war.

Thirty Years' War

The Thirty Years' War was a destructive war which included most of Europe. Below is a timeline of when states got involved in the war:

It was a very confusing war 

I could write an entire post on the Thirty Years' War so I'll only give an overview here. It was the most destructive war to hit Europe until the First World War costing 8 million lives through war, famine, disease, and persecution. As a matter of perspective around five and a half million people died during the First World War. There are four stages of the war and it is curious as the first two stages are religious in nature whereas the last two are political. These phases are the: Bohemian/German, the Danish, the Swedish, and the French.

Bohemian/German phase. The Peace of Augsburg had left Calvinism unrecognized and it was largely limited to German lands. This left out Bohemia - parts of modern Czechia. In 1609 the Letter of Majesty granted some religious freedom to Protestants in Bohemia. In 1618 Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia Matthias was heirless so he had the fiercely Catholic Ferdinand of Styria elected to the thrones of Bohemia and Hungary. Ferdinand sent two councilors to Prague who were thrown out of a window on May 23 1618 in what has since been called 'the Second Defenestration of Prague.' They survived and Catholic propaganda portrayed them as being guided to safety by angels while Protestant propaganda had them land in manure. When Matthias died in 1619 Protestant rebels became emboldened and invited the Calvinist elector of the Palatinate, Frederick V, to be king. Ferdinand II asked the Spanish for assistance while Frederick called all the Protestant powers for assistance. However, none answered for several reasons - James VI and I of England and Scotland wanting to save money opted out of a costly war for example - but none wanted to act alone. By 1623 the Protestant armies had been defeated - until the Danish intervened.

Danish Phase. Denmark-Norway was a Lutheran state and king Christian IV was also the ruler of a duchy called Holstein in the Empire. Christian's involvement in the war was religiously and politically motivated. Catholic victory made him fearful that Catholics would threaten his Protestant state while the strengthening of the Empire under Ferdinand would threaten his new influence in northern Germany. In 1625 Christian sent his forces to aid the Lutheran state of Lower Saxony. This phase did garner some Protestant support internationally - Charles I was Christian's nephew - and even France. The Bourbon dynasty which took over France continued the old Valois hostility towards the Habsburgs - a powerful Protestant state was more favorable to the Catholic Habsburgs in Germany and Spain. However, despite English/Scottish aid and French money Christian's army was obliterated so he signed the Treaty of Lubcek in 1629. He could retain his lands in return for not intervening in the German states.

Gustavus Adolphus

Swedish Phase. Here politics started to override religion. King Gustavus Aldolphus of Sweden intervened in 1630. Although a Lutheran power Gustavus wanted to secure economic dominance in the Baltics, as well as push back Catholic influence. The Swedish war effort was heavily subsidized by the French which Gustavus used to hire mercenaries and use artillery to reduce pressure on the Swedish military. Gustavus has been called 'the father of modern warfare' for him merging infantry with artillery. The Swedish repeatedly won battles until the Battle of Lutzen in 1632; although the Swedish won Gustavus was killed. In 1635 the Peace of Prague largely took Sweden out of the war with some of its aims - Lutheran states in northern Germany would be secured. Then the final phase was ultimately politics driven.

French Phase. France viewed the Habsburgs as being too powerful so physically entered the war themselves in 1635. Although Sweden continued fighting they largely took a backstage to the French. Sweden would fund France this time around. The Portuguese also rose up against Spanish rule in 1640 which France sent money to support. Throughout the entire conflict the Spanish war against the Dutch was continuing further draining the Spanish coffers - something made far worse by rising inflation caused by the influx of silver and gold from the Americas. Then in 1643 Denmark-Norway intervened again in the war, fighting the Swedish instead. In 1648 all sides were exhausted.

A 17th C. depiction of the mass executions of religious opponents during the War

Treaty of Westphalia. After thirty years of conflict the German lands were ravaged, up to 40% of the German population had been killed. A wave of witch-hunts of swept Europe again, diseases like typhus and cholera had ravaged the population, while raiding armies had destroyed crops leading to mass famines. In 1648 the Treaty of Westphalia brought an end to both the Thirty Years' War but also the Dutch Revolt. Politically the Dutch and Swiss gained their independence, the borders between the combatants were formalized, and the member states of the Holy Roman Empire were granted increased autonomy. Meanwhile, in religious terms cuius regio, eius religio was applied across the Empire with recognition being expanded to Lutherans now. The Thirty Years' War can be seen as the last Medieval war and the first modern war. Civilians were affected like few other wars in Europe, religious toleration was partially implemented, and the idea of the sovereign state started to be implemented. Now we have one last conflict to discuss.

Wars of the Three Kingdoms

This refers to three conflicts: the Irish Rebellion, Scottish Bishops War, and English Civil War. Here religion, autonomy and sovereignty coalesced into a series of conflicts which ravaged the British Isles. For most of his reign Charles I had ignored parliament and ruled in his own right, but he had largely focused solely on England - despite becoming king in 1625 he waited until 1633 to be crowned in Scotland. The Three Kingdoms each also had their own religion - England was largely Anglican, Scotland was largely Calvinist, and Ireland was mostly Catholic (although some areas were largely Calvinist, like Ulster). After 1633 Charles had been implementing Anglican rites in Scotland angering many Scots which came to ahead in 1639. Many Scots resented English intrusion and there was friction as the stricter Presbyterian church saw the Anglican church as being too Catholic influenced. When the Anglican Book of Common Prayer was read out in St. Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh a riot broke out which escalated into a full conflict called the Bishops' War. Charles wanted to raise an army to fight the Scots so asked parliament who basically refused as they disliked the idea of the king using an army against his own subjects, especially as a third of parliament was similarly religiously inclined as the Presbyterian Scots. Parliament had resented Charles ruling with the Divine Right of Kings - that kings ruled with God's blessing - and the reforms of Archbishop Laud who seemed to Catholicize the Anglican church. Parliament gave Charles a series of grievances and declared that it will now forever be in session. Meanwhile, in Ireland Charles' Lord Deputy Thomas Wentworth promised Catholic Irish rights if they would form an army to help fight the Scots. This angered the ruling Protestant class and the British who feared a Catholic conspiracy. In 1641 Irish Catholics rose up and in 1642 a Civil War erupted in England.

An anti-Irish engraving to demonize Catholics during the Irish Rebellion

From 1639 to 1651 several wars between royalists, English parliamentarians, Scottish covenanters, Irish Protestants, and Irish confederates broke out. These include the two Scottish Bishops' Wars, the three English Civil Wars, the Irish Rebellion, and Oliver Cromwell's genocidal invasion of Ireland. In 1649 Charles I was executed and his sons were sent into exile forming the British republic. Religion was a deep issue in this. Irish Catholics were deeply dehumanized during since 1641, so much so that when Cromwell invaded Ireland a genocide took place. In England Cromwell offered religious tolerance to all non-Catholic Christians and let Jews back into England (after they had been expelled by Elizabeth I) in order to pave the way for the return of Jesus. Doing so would increase the power of parliament and ingrain the idea of parliament's sovereignty in Britain - Charles II when restored would remain fearful of parliament repeating what it did to his father, and his brother, James VII and II, was deposed at the behest of the English parliament by William of Orange (although the Scottish weren't consulted and William had plans to oust James anyway). Again religion was partially behind the 'Glorious Revolution' as James was Catholic - James had been exercising power over parliament to improve the rights of Catholics not long after Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes. Although religious tolerance for Catholics was not to be achieved until 1823 (for Jews and atheists it would take much longer) the British parliament would remain one of the most powerful in Europe until the nineteenth century. Marxist historian Christopher Hill and John Morrill, who was partially inspired by Hill's ideas, use the term the English Revolution to highlight the societal shifts behind the Civil War with Hill in particular describing it as a bourgeois revolt - or a revolt allowing a bourgeois revolt.

Conclusion

The Wars of Religion show the wide origins for wars. Wars never have just one singular origin and despite being called Wars of Religion economics, ethics, sovereignty and politics were deeply entrenched in the wars. Following the wars religion started to be less and less of a determining factor in the origins of European wars while economics and politics became more and more important. Meanwhile, the wars helped shape the countries that they ravaged. The destructive wars led to limited religious tolerance for the religions which fought, and the political landscape was drastically changed - Britain, for example, seeing the strengthening of parliament's power which would shape Britain's future. Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan was written in 1651 to oppose the new power of parliament in favor of the Divine Right of Kings. Despite the destruction the wars helped shape Europe.

The next World History post will focus on Russia during this time period and how it slowly became a complex, multi-ethnic empire. For other World History posts please see here. The sources that I have used for this post are as follows: 

-Myron Gutmann, 'The Origins of the Thirty Years' War,' The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 1988, 18:4, 749-770

-Merry Wiesner-Hanks, Early Modern Europe, 1450-1789, (Cambridge, 2006)

-Geoffrey Parker, The Thirty Years' War, (London, 1984)

-Geoffrey Parker, Europe in Crisis, 1598-1648, (London, 1990)

-Thomas Munck, Seventeenth Century Europe, 1598-1700, (Hampshire, 1990)

-Mark Kishlansky, Monarchy Transformed, Britain 1603-1714, (London, 1996)

-Philip Benedict, Early Modern Europe: From Crisis to Stability, (Newark, 2005)

-Christopher Hill, The English Revolution, 1640, (London, 1940)

Thank you for reading. For future blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.

World History: The Little Ice Age

Peter Breughel the Elder's Hunters in the Snow

When we think about history we often forget about the climate and environment, but it has been incredibly influential in shaping human history. The last time we looked properly at the climate as a part of World History it was our very first post describing the evolution of humanity; there changing global climate caused grasslands to encroach on forests and forced our ancestors to walk upright, (please see here). Climate has never stopped affecting human history and today I want to focus specifically on a period of climate history named the Little Ice Age, something which lasted from the mid-fifteenth century to the mid-nineteenth century. First coined by Francois E. Matthes in 1939 historians now have taken note of the significance of the Little Ice Age and its impact on our history.

How do we know it happened?

Changing Global Temperature

Quite often historians have been criticized for making statements with the idea 'we weren't there so we can't be certain.' Although at times this is a valid criticism but for the Little Ice Age we do have evidence that it took place. Climatologists and meteorologists have used ice-cores and dendrochronology (looking at tree rings) which show us that from around 1300 the world's climate got much colder, reaching a peak in the seventeenth century, and then getting warmer in the 1800s. Geoffrey Parker in his article Crisis and Catastrophe has shown through a series of graphs how fewer sunspots were seen, temperatures were lower, and increased volcanic activity happened during this time period. Not only that, we have cultural evidence that global temperatures dropped during this time period. Pictured at the top of this post if Peter Breughel the Elder's Hunters in the Snow painted in 1565 depicting hunters walking through thick snow as people ice skate on a frozen ponds. A painting by Abraham Hondius in 1676 depicted hunters chasing a fox on the frozen Thames, and until the mid-nineteenth century carnivals on the frozen Thames were a regular occurrence. We have written records also of severe climate and weather conditions. In 1641 Enomoto Yazaemon wrote that on New Year's Day 'ice lay in the fields one foot deep. From that time, I observed seven snowfalls until the spring.' Chronicler Benedikt Kuen in the 1680s wrote about the glacier Vernagtferner moving south from the Alps:

in 1600. so our ancestors tell us, the big glacier behind Rofen after it had come into the valley according to its habit, broke out on the feast of St James [25 July], did great damage to the fields in the Ezthal, spoilt the roads and streets and carried away all the bridges. In the parish of Langenfeld the water flooded the ground from Rethlstain to Lener Kohlstatt.

In the 1640s governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony noted in his journal: 

The frost was so great and continual this winter that all the Bay was frozen over, so much and so long, as the like, by the Indians' relation, had not been so these forty years ... To the southward also the frost was as great and the snow as deep, and at Virginia itself the great [Chesapeake] bay was much of it frozen over, and all of their great rivers.

Volcanic eruptions, independent of global climate, added to global cooling periodically. 1816 was described by contemporaries as 'The Year Without a Summer' following the eruption of Mt. Tambora the year prior. We can even use wine harvests to provide evidence for the Little Ice Age; before 1469 wine was actually cultivated in England which ended through colder temperatures.

A Thames Frost Fair

How It was Explained

Today we know that the adverse climate was due to the Little Ice Age, but we have the benefit of hindsight and decades of scientific research on climate. Contemporaries did not have that benefit so looked at ways which they understood the world to explain the floods, hail, and storms. We'll look at two areas of the world and how they understood the causes: Europe and China.

We'll discuss China first. Throughout World History when we've discussed China one phrase has repeatedly cropped up, 'the Mandate of Heaven.' For those who are new to the term the Mandate of Heaven was the idea that the ruling dynasty only ruled thanks to a mandate directly from Heaven. However, if the ruling dynasty was seen as being corrupt or decadent, abusing its citizens, or just generally inept it was believed that the mandate would leave the ruling dynasty. Any new dynasty which ousted the old one could now claim that they have the Mandate of Heaven. Since the fourteenth century the Ming had ruled China and by the seventeenth century Chinese society had changed. Years of relative peace and prosperity had caused a population boom in the countryside putting pressure on the land, a thriving domestic (and a smaller external) trade had caused merchants to become wealthier than farmers, and inflation was rapidly rising through the importation of silver from the Americas and Japan. The floods, hail, storms, and cooler temperatures brought on by the Little Ice Age led to crop failures compounding the issue, and nothing causes a revolt quicker than starving people. To contemporaries it was clear that the Mandate of Heaven had left the Ming and they pointed to the weather as a sign of it. The violent weather was seen as a sign that the Ming were no longer protected by Heaven, and that this was a sign that the Ming should be replaced. In 1644 the Ming were overthrown and their successors, the Shun, were overthrown shortly after by the new Qing Dynasty.

A depiction of a witch burning from England in the 1640s

Europe did not point to their rulers as the cause of bad weather, hail and red suns but instead turned to the Bible. Wolfgang Behringer has linked the Little Ice Age to the spike in witch hunts. From 1560 to 1600 somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 people were accused of witchcraft where 40,000 to 60,000 were executed. Before Pope Innocence VIII released his papal bull Summis desiderantus affectibus on 5 December 1484 the Church did not link witchcraft to the weather, and Innocence only did this at the request of Dominican friar Heinrich Kramer. Often the sins of the populace were blamed for the weather but smaller political entities were more susceptible to the idea of witches. A very severe thunderstorm hit central Europe on 3 August 1562 during a time of meteorological events which people in the Barony of Illeraichen blamed on witches which forced Count Hans von Rechberg to imprison several women who confessed to witchcraft under torture. Between 1562 and 1565 in Wiesensteig there was an attempt to eradicate 'the evil' in society where 63 women were burnt as witches. A chronicler in the Franconian town of Zeil in 1626 wrote:

Everything froze, something which had not happened as long as one could remember, causing a big rise in prices. […] As a result, pleading and begging began among the rabble, who questioned why the authorities continued to tolerate the witches. […] Thus the prince-bishop punished these crimes

Accusations were heavily gendered. Between 75 and 85 per cent of those accused were women, but in Northern Europe more men were accused than women. However, there were pushbacks against the idea of witches causing the bad weather. As mentioned many in the Church blamed the sins of the people and at times ridiculed the idea of witches. The idea of familiars was mocked with some clergy commenting if Satan really wanted to cause damage; wouldn't he become a dragon instead of a cat? Humanists looked to secular reasons and centers of secularization like Nuremburg and the Swiss and Italian-republics, despite ruling lots of rural land, saw little to no witch burnings. Scholar Albrecht Durer produced woodcuts presenting the subject as a way for people to portray beautiful women naked. Across Europe reaction to the Little Ice Age varied.

The Crisis of the Seventeenth Century

Historians Eric Hobsbawm and Hugh Trevor-Roper argued in the 1950s that the 1600s saw a 'Crisis' where the world was plunged into increased violence. Hobsbawm, a primarily European historian, argued this crisis was part of Europe's transition from feudalism to capitalism, whereas Trevor-Roper linked this to a political crisis where the modern political state started to emerge. The 1600s were a violent time in history: over a million took part in revolts in China, peasant revolts swept over Switzerland and Germany, rebellions hit Russia in 1648 and 1649, a series of revolts in Brazil, the overthrow of the Kongo Kingdom, the brutal collapse of the Ming, the Mughal Civil War, a spike in the amount of people made slaves for the Atlantic Slave Trade, the Fronde in France, a succession war in the Ottoman Empire, the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in the British Isles, and the Thirty Years' War are just some of the violence to strike the world. Geoffrey Parker reopened the debate but spoke of a global crisis, not just a European one. He went on to link this to the Little Ice Age. Although the Little Ice Age did not cause these conflicts and bouts of violence it helped contribute to them. Using the example of China the collapse of the Ming was down to poor harvests and other factors, and the Manchus who succeeded them, (excluding the brief Shun Dynasty), moved south to China as they believed that China would have better harvests than Manchuria. Parker himself can sum this idea best:

How, precisely, can historians link the harsh winters, cool summers, droughts, and floods of the 1640s […] with individual cases of state breakdown such as the revolts of Scotland, Ireland and England against Charles I, or the collapse of Ming rule in China? We must not paint bull’s-eyes around bullet holes and argue that since climatic aberrations seem to be the only factor capable of causing simultaneous upheavals around the globe, therefore those aberrations “must” have caused the upheavals.

Depiction of the Thirty Years' War

The Little Ice Age amplified causes for war and violence throughout the world. A two per cent drop in global temperatures can halve a rice harvest, which happened. This would help explain some of the origins of a revolt but not all of them. Despite rice or grain harvests becoming smaller taxes on land remained the same and often crops were sent to the cities instead of staying in the countryside. When more crops remained in the countryside riots broke out in cities as the price of food, like bread, rose. Furthermore, the various wars which swept the world added to these issues. Soldiers would pillage the countryside for food helping cause famines, and with less food your immune system is weaker so this helped spread disease. War, disease and famine during the Thirty Years' War caused a population decline of up to 40 per cent in the German states and in China the word binghuo (soldier calamity) was coined to describe the pillaging of the country by soldiers. 

Image of the Fronde

Before we conclude I just want to talk about the demographic shift thanks to the Little Ice Age. When people were tired of war, persecution and famine they moved. The 1600s saw the largest surge of colonists to the Americas and, unfortunately with it, slaves from Africa as well. A Chinese diaspora also began in the early 1600s with many settling in areas like Malaysia and the Philippines which would open up these areas for migration in the 1800s. At times when food was in short supply through bad harvests family sizes decreased and in some areas, like northern Europe, they largely remained small. We can see as well the difference in wealth as well. A general trend in Europe was that wealthy families, who could afford food, had larger families whereas less wealthy families had smaller families. There also began a trend of marrying later, and in Renaissance Europe quite often widows did not remarry. However, there were darker sides to this. In the 1680s the Qing passed a decree to prevent widow suicides indicating that it must have been an endemic problem and several European states, like France, passed strict laws against infanticide. Children who died under the age of five were sometimes checked to make sure they died naturally and were not murdered. 

Conclusion

New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina

The Little Ice Age offers a prime example for us to learn from history. As I am writing we are faced with dramatic climate change caused by global warming. During the last hurricane season the United States was hit by several destructive hurricanes - Harvey, Irma and Maria to name just three - most likely as a result of climate change. Alongside these hurricanes we had intense wild fires in California and floods in Chad, India, Nepal and Nigeria. Geoffrey Parker put forward the Little Ice Age as one of the causes of the Crisis of the Seventeenth Century a few years after Hurricane Katrina and was deeply influenced by this. It is widely believed that the reason why the Little Ice Age ended was because of the Industrial Revolution which poured carbon dioxide in unprecedented numbers into the atmosphere causing global temperatures to rise. By looking at how the Little Ice Age affected communities of the past we can find ways to cope with the climate issues which we face today.

The sources I have used are as follows:

-Geoffrey Parker, 'Crisis and Catastrophe: The Global Crisis of the Seventeenth Century Reconsidered,' The American Historical Review, 113:4, (2008), pp. 1053-1079

-Wolfgang Behringer, 'Climate Change and Witch-Hunting: The Impact of the Little Ice Age on Mentalities,' Climate Change, 43:1, (1999), pp. 335-351

-Crash Course World History: The Little Ice Age

-Brian Fagan, The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850, (New York: Basic Books, 2000)

-Tom Bristow and Thomas H. Ford, (eds.), A Cultural History of Climate Change, (New York: Routledge, 2016)
-Wolfgang Behringer, A Cultural History of Climate, (London: Wiley, 2009)

-Jean M. Grove, The Little Ice Age, (London: Methuen, 1988)

Thank you for reading. Next time we'll be looking at one of the most significant events in European history which saw its 500th anniversary this October: the Reformation. For future blog updates we have a Facebook or you can get me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.

For other World History posts we have a collection of them here. 

World History: The Atlantic Slave Trade

The Slave Trade

The Atlantic Slave Trade is one of the darkest parts of human history. Last time on World History when we discussed colonialism we touched very briefly on the slave trade. However, the Atlantic Slave Trade is such a devastating part of world history that it deserves to be spoken about by itself. You may be wondering why we are looking specifically at the Atlantic slave trade instead of other slave trades, most notably the Arab Slave Trade which enslaved more people over a longer period of time compared to the Atlantic counterpart. The reason for this can be perfectly described by Paul E. Lovejoy 'the impact of the European market for slaves was more intense over a much shorter period'. Before we look at the Atlantic Slave Trade we need to look at slavery before the trade, and exactly what a slave is. I must stress that this post will not be pleasant at all and some readers may find it upsetting.

Defining and Origins

An Indentured Servant

Actually defining slavery is difficult as it has been used so much, and often incorrectly, over the years. When Revolutionaries in the Thirteen Colonies shouted that they were becoming slaves to Britain the author of the dictionary Samuel Johnson sarcastically replied 'How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes'. Lovejoy gives us a good definition which we shall use for the rest of this post. He characterizes slaves as being: outsiders denied their heritage through judicial or other sanctions; coercion could be used at will; could be bought or sold; slave status was inherited unless provision ameliorated their status; no right to their own sexuality; and their labor was at complete disposal of a master. Slavery often coincided with other forms of labor ranging from serfdom to wage labor.

In The Slave Trade: The History of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1440-1870 Hugh Thomas gives a good account on the history of slavery in Europe and the Islamic World centuries before the Atlantic Trade. Most societies which we have looked at so far on World History have used slavery in some form or another. The Greeks and Romans extensively used slavery. Aristotle himself argued that some people are naturally inclined to be slaves, and the Romans pioneered the slave plantation. Centuries later Muslim states would establish a slave trade where they would have sub-Saharan Africans traded across the Islamic world from the Empire of Mali to the Indian Ocean. In the early centuries the zanj were used. These were large gangs of slaves from Africa until 869 when there was a huge revolt in Iraq. Although the Koran made no reference to the color of someone's skin, and encouraged Muslims to free slaves, the most degrading form of labor became associated with black slaves, ('ahd). Eventually Arabic writers started showing contempt towards black Africans. When Europeans encountered the Muslim world during the Crusades they took many ideas with them, including racial prejudice. The origins of the European slave trade emerged during this time as well. During the ill-fated Fourth Crusade the Crusaders took Slavs, Georgians, Armenians and Circassians as slaves to Italy where they were forced to grow sugar. As the Atlantic Slave Trade emerged this combined Ancient, Arabic and European ideas of slavery together. Plantations and racial contempt emerged. Portuguese chronicler Gomes Eanes de Zurara used the Bible to justify the enslavement of black Africans. He argued that when Noah was naked, drunk and passed out his two sons, Shem and Japheth, looked away while the last son, Ham, looked at him. Noah then cursed Ham and his descendants saying 'a servant to servants shall he be unto his brethren'. Zurara argued that Ham was black so it was therefore 'right' to enslave sub-Saharan Africans.

The Atlantic Slave trade changed greatly over the centuries, in place and numbers. We'll be using W.E.B. Du Bois' data for numbers and looking at them from 1450-1600 409,000 people were shipped across the Atlantic, 3.6% of the people shipped over the centuries. Why then was this number so small? Many historians view colonialism as one of the starting points of modern capitalism and it is easy to see why. For every person seeking a new life there was another there to gain a profit. Slaves from Africa were expensive so Europeans enslaved Native Americans instead. As we saw last time colonialism wiped out 90% of the Native American population through disease, ethnic cleansing and slavery itself. Quickly the population of Native Americans meant enslaving them became difficult and, both Spain and Portugal made it illegal to enslave Native Americans, (unless at war so many abused this loophole), after agitation from figures like Bartolome de Casas. Africans were seen as being more resilient to European diseases and were seen as hardier than Native Americans based on racial ideas. Meanwhile, in the English colonies they had been enslaving poor English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish but calling it 'indentured servitude' (as well as enslaving Native Americans). Many in Britain were too poor to make the crossing to the Americas so richer colonists would pay for their voyage in return for their labor. For around five years an indentured servant would basically be owned with them not even being able to get married or have kids without permission from the planter. If they disobeyed they could be beaten and have years added to their contract. When their contract ended they would receive money and land but appalling conditions meant that many died before this ended. This was cheaper than importing slaves from Africa. However, by the end of the seventeenth-century things had changed. More servants were surviving and many formed a key role in the 1676 Bacon's Rebellion. Slaves from Africa were seen as being more desirable: no option of releasing them, no rights as they were not English, and as they were 'heathen' and 'barbarians' it was not sinful to enslave them. By 1700 African slaves made up 10% of Virginia's population and in 1750 it was nearly 50%.

Who were made slaves?

Portugal and the Slave Trade

Many people have an image taken from the book or TV series Roots where Europeans, or Africans overseen by Europeans, capture Africans and force them into slavery. This is inaccurate as it took until the late nineteenth-century for Europeans to be powerful enough to penetrate further into the African continent. Spain, Portugal, England (later Britain), France and the Netherlands were isolated to the coasts where they would trade with local African kingdoms. Although occasionally these European raids did happen. The Portuguese called these raids 'razzias' and had occurred throughout the Middle Ages by both Christians and Muslims. During the Reconquista Iberian forces had performed razzias against Muslim states in Iberia, and later during invasions of North Africa they had did it again, (sometimes seizing slaves owned by Muslims). On August 8 1444 235 slaves landed at Lagos, Portugal forming the first of many European slave markets from Africa. How then did Europeans obtain slaves then? West Africa had a range of states ranging from empires like Songhai, (which was connected to the Arab slave trade), to stateless clans. Like their European counterparts the African states often went to war and captured prisoners who were taken as slaves. States would also trade slaves in an internal slave trade if they could not obtain them via war, (although the slaves were most likely originally captured via war to start off with). In these states the slaves could have many roles ranging from sacrifices to farmers to bureaucrats. It is inaccurate to claim that Africans 'enslaved their brothers'. Occasionally criminals could be enslaved, or social outcasts, but the vast majority were enemies, (or civilians of a rival state), taken during war. Less than half of those from West Africa were sold their own society. Europe, however, were interested in certain types of people to buy.

African and Muslim states wanted different slaves primarily compared to Europeans. Women and children were more likely to be bought/traded by African and Muslim states as they were often not used for manual labor. Also, it was sometimes believed that women and children were easier to assimilate into society post-slavery, or even during slavery itself. In contrast European colonies were more interested in chattel slavery. This is the type of slavery which we think of. Chattel slavery is when slaves are the personal property of a master and in the Americas they were used on plantations, farms or mines. This is quite evident in where slaves were taken. 48% were taken to the Caribbean and 41% to Brazil where they were often forced to work on plantations growing things including sugar, (in the Caribbean mainly), and coffee, (in Brazil mainly). As a result men were overwhelmingly taken to the Americas. For every one woman two men were taken. 

What was Traded?

Ivory in Zanzibar in the 1800s

Unfortunately enslaved people were seen as property so were traded just like any product. It was once thought that Africa only received useless and cheap items such as liquor, beads, and bangles although starting from the 1960s archival research, (and archaeological evidence), has disproved this. Cowries were imported to the Gold Coast, the Bight of Benin, and the Niger Basin where states like Dahomey, Oyo and Akwamu used them as currency. By the end of eighteenth-century cowries constituted between 20 to 25% of imports. In what is now Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Côte d’Ivoire, where kola nuts were grown, iron bars were imported as it was used as currency in the region. Sometimes gold from one part of West Africa were imported to another region, strangely even to Asante in what is now Ghana which produced gold itself. The most important thing to be traded were firearms. From 1750 to 1800 between 283,000 and 394,000 guns a year were sent by Britain to West Africa. Another 50,000 a year were sent to the Loango Coast. As we'll see this will be very important. Luxury goods like Brazilian coffee were also traded. Slaves were not the only exports, (as they were seen), from Africa. Ivory in particular was popular and one reason why African societies were eager for firearms was that it made it easier to hunt for ivory. Gold was another eagerly sought good. Not only for trading with other African states but also to enrich either the colonies or Europe. We often hear of a triangular trade. Firearms, textiles and glass were created in Britain, Spain, France etc. taken to Africa in return for gold and slaves, then to the Americas where they would be swapped for goods like tobacco, coffee and sugar. The city of Liverpool became a major port in Britain thanks to the slave trade. I live in Edinburgh and much of the New Town was built through the profits of slavery in the Caribbean.

Slave Trade and Africa

Walter Rodney

In his landmark work How Europe Underdeveloped Africa Walter Rodney argues that European exploitation of Africa began with the slave trade. Although not perfect his thesis is accurate in many places and should be read. He argues that states, such as Asante, who traded in slaves experienced a one-sided trade. Even though firearms were useful to states it made their economies dependent on acquiring ivory and slaves but to do so they required more firearms. He even cites an example where an asantehene of Asante tried to get Britain to build a firearms factory for them, (which Britain refused to do). This can be seen along the Guinean coast where elephants became rarer through overhunting creating a trade deficit. Rodney argues that as states geared their economies toward slaves and ivory this prevented them from developing as European economies had done. 

The slave trade caused great social and political changes in primarily West Africa. Europeans started fighting over having a monopoly of African trade, even Scandinavia took part in this. This would pave the way for future European domination of Africa. The Portuguese region of the Kingdom of Kongo, Angola, became so linked to Brazil that three governors of Angola came from Brazil. Elsewhere the Atlantic trade created a crisis in some states and prosperity for others. Kings, such as in Asante, emerged who were able to secure tribute from other societies in the form of slaves developed an African feudalism. In some states a 'merchant class' emerged which challenged the traditional aristocracy. However we cannot understate the demographic loss in West Africa. Rodney highlights this in his landmark work but looking at the figures itself shows this as well. Between 1450 and 1900 over 11 million people were shipped across the Atlantic, (half between 1701 and 1800), and this does not include those taken in the Indian Ocean and Arab slave trade. This figure is derived from Du Bois' data but it is in fact inaccurate. The number is actually higher. Du Bois only counted those who arrived in the Americas; between 20-25% died on the voyage. Africa's population rose in spite of the slave trade but this was insignificant compared to European and Asian population increases.

Slave Ships

A Slave Ship

The slave ships are famous and for good reason. As mentioned above up to a quarter of slaves died on the voyage, called the 'middle passage'. The Portuguese accurately called them 'floating tombs'. On average one ship could carry 400 people but the largest could carry 600. In regards to the Portuguese empire the voyage could last up to 120 days from Luanda/Benguela to Brazil. With four square foot per person conditions were terrible with disease spreading rapidly. A big part of slavery was treating the enslaved as being non-human and slaves on the ships were treated less than human. In fact many did not see slaves as being human. Incidentally the game limbo is thought to have originated in these conditions and is shown in Edward Kamau Brathwaite's excellent poem Limbo. Many of the later abolitionists started their activism protesting the slave trade. However, this letter from Jose de Silva Lisboa to Dr. Domingos Vandelli in 1781 shows the attitude concerning the ships

If only a few die in the middle passage, one's profit is certain; if many perish, the investor is lost, as he is then required to pay for the exorbitant risk he took upon himself.

The concern was not conditions but instead profit.

The Slave State

A slave family on a Southern US cotton farm in the 1860s

Slavery differed across the Americas. They do have the same themes of intense repression, hard work and racism. In Brazil with humid weather, intense sun, and aggressive masters mortality for a slave was very high with the average age being 23. Hence, this is why slavery, and the slave trade, lasted until the 1880s/1890s in Brazil. Conditions were better in the British Caribbean but just barely. Sometimes unruly slaves in British North America were sent to the Caribbean. Slaves could hold many different jobs depending on their master ranging from nannies to sailors but generally they went onto plantations. In the Caribbean this was mainly sugar, Brazil coffee and tobacco, and the Southern US tobacco and cotton. If you notice all of these products are luxury goods. In the colonies the slave trade created a 'planter class' which would in many areas inherit leadership when the European powers left. All the Founding Fathers happened to be slave owners. Many in Europe got very wealthy through slavery. The Bertram family in Jane Austen's Mansfield Park famously were wealthy through their plantation in Antigua. Glasgow and Liverpool became wealthy centers, and later key industrial regions, through slavery. Slaves were bought at auction tearing up any families which had not already been torn apart and many would later be marked like they were cattle. 

Early racism started to creep in. The Spanish and Portuguese empires created distinctions, (as seen last time), for people who were white, African, Native American, Native American-African, and white-African. Laws were passed forbidding 'mixing' of races. Virginia in 1670 forbade Native Americans and Africans from owning Christian slaves and in 1691 made it illegal for Native American, African or mixed race men from marrying white women. In Brazil escaped slaves formed communities called quilombos and some ignored racial prejudice by later accepting religious dissenters and Native Americans. However, in Mexico Native Americans did encourage the enslavement of Africans over Native Americans based on racial stereotypes that Africans were stronger. It is important to note that enslavement of Native Americans and indentured servitude did continue in many areas even after African slavery was widespread. Bacon's Rebellion of many indentured servants in Virginia in 1676 happened as the number of slaves in the colony was sharply rising. Also sexual abuse was prevalent in slave society. Particularly young women were sexually abused by their masters and what is even more traumatic is how they had no chance to help themselves. Unlike many West African societies the slave society was patriarchal. Being an African woman made slavery even worse.

There was a demographic shift in the Americas thanks to slavery. It is important to note how the states with the highest African-American population prior to the Second World War were in former slave states. Brazil thanks to the quilombos today has a large black population and many Caribbean islands, such as Jamaica and Barbados, have a large Afro-Caribbean population thanks to slavery. Several religions were born through the African diaspora. Haitian vodou was born through the combination of Taino, French Catholic, Yoruba, Fon, Ewe and Kongo religious beliefs. Centuries later Rastafarianism emerged in the Caribbean creating a link between Africa and the Caribbean, (Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie was seen as a prophet).   

Conclusion

The Atlantic Slave Trade is one of the darkest parts of human history alongside the Holocaust and Wars of Religion. It destroyed families, devastated cultures, caused untold suffering and it was all done in the name of profit. The Atlantic trade saw the beginning of Europe's exploitation of Africa, racism which would plague millions for centuries and laid the seeds for the capitalist world order. Although chattel slavery may be long gone slavery is unfortunately with us. Forced labor in sweatshops, child soldiers in Joseph Kony's army, sex slaves from impoverished regions in wealthy countries, and the enslavement of black Africans in Libya reminds us that yesterday's horrors are still with us. Even more unfortunately the legacy of the Atlantic Slave Trade still affects societies across the world. Next time on World History we shall look at the weather instead of events or trends with the Little Ice Age.

The sources I have used are as follows:

-Virginia laws, 1643-1691

-Philip D. Morgan, 'Origins of American Slavery', OAH Magazine of History, 19:4, 2005, pp.51-56

-Give me Liberty! An American History, Fourth Edition by Eric Foner

-Transformations in Slavery: A History of Slavery in Africa, Second Edition by Paul E. Lovejoy

-A History of Africa by J.D. Fage and William Tordoff

-The Slave Trade: The History of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1440-1870 by Hugh Thomas

-Way of Death: Merchant Capitalism and the Angolan Slave Trade, 1730-1830 by Joseph C. Miller

-The Penguin History of Latin America by Edwin Williamson
-How Europe Undeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney

Thank you for reading. For other World History posts please see here. For other posts and other tidbits please see our Facebook page or follow me on Twitter @LewisTwiby

World History: The Origins of Russia

Novgorod Marketplace

We briefly talked about Russia in the post about Vikings and the Mongols. In Western imagination and history Russia has always been seen as the 'other'. Not quite Europe, and not quite Asia. This has been the case throughout history: the Russian Empire was seen as 'Oriental', by the mid-nineteenth century the empire was seen as backward, the USSR was the ideological enemy which almost led to nuclear war, and even today Putin's Russia has been seen as the 'other'. This is a shame as Russia has had a vibrant, unique history as great as any place in Western Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. This post will summarize the origins of Russia from the first Russian state with the Kievan Rus up to the formation of the Tsardom of Russia in 1547. However, the period we are covering if we called the land Russia a contemporary would have no idea what we were talking about. For simplicity we'll refer to it as Russia.

Origins of the Kievan Rus

Kievan Rus at its height

You may be wondering why we are starting with the Kievan Rus considering that Kiev is Ukraine's capital. Over a thousand years ago there wasn't an idea of Ukraine and Russia, and without the Kievan Rus there would be no Russia. There is some historiographical debate around the origins of the Kievan Rus. There are two schools of historiography: the 'Normanist' and the Nationalist schools. The Nationalist school states that the Kievan Rus was founded by Slavs, whereas the Normanist school states that the Rus were Vikings who founded trading posts along the Dnieper. There is strong evidence to suggest both. Archaeological evidence and written sources indicate that Vikings, called Varangians, were in the area while if we look at Russian and Ukrainian they sound nothing like Swedish. Elizabeth Howe has suggested that the subjects were Slavic and the Grand Princes (not kings) of Kiev were originally Varangian but became Slavic. Using the Russian Primary Chronicle we go from Rurik, to Oleg, to Igor showing a clear shift from Scandinavian names to Slavic names. The Slavs entered written history during the reign of Byzantine Emperor Justinian where they appear across the Danube from the direction of the Carpathians. In 626 with the Avars, either a Turkic or Mongol people, they even attacked the Empire, and the following two centuries they settled the Balkans. Others settled north along the upper Dnieper where they mingled with the Baltic and Finnish tribal peoples. There they encountered the Varangians. 

The Varangians possibly came from Ruslagen in eastern Sweden and for years had been collecting tribute from the Baltic, Finnish, and Saami peoples. They also were big traders where a quarter of a million Islamic coins have been found in the Baltic. The Varangians started forming trade posts from Lake Ladoga, the Dnieper, and the Volga giving them access to the Black and Caspian Seas. Quite often they would go to Baghdad to access the very lucrative Islamic markets. Arabs even went north with Ibn Faldan in the 900s describing a Viking-style ship burial. The Russian Primary Chronicle, 'Tale of Bygone Years', (written by eleventh-twelfth century monks so they are not primary sources and must be taken with a pinch of salt) talk of the Varangian growing control over the locals:

859. The Varangians from beyond the sea imposed tribute upon the Chuds, the Slavs, the Merians, the Ves, the Krivichians. But the Khazars imposed it upon the Polianians, the Severians and the Viatichians, and collected a squirrel-skin and a beaver-skin from earth hearth.

860-2. The tributaries of the Varangians drove them back beyond the sea, and, refusing them further tribute, set out to govern themselves. There was no law among them... And they began to war one against one another. They said to themselves: 'Let us seek a prince who may rule over us and judge us according to law'. They accordingly went overseas to the Varangian Russes: these particular Varangians were called Russes, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans, Angles and Goths, for they were thus named. The Chuds, the Slavs and the Krivichians then said to the people of Rus, 'Our whole land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come to rule and reign over us'. They thus selected three brothers [Rurik, Sineus and Truvor] with their kinsfolk, who took with them all the Russes, and migrated.

A Russian historiography places the founding of the Kievan Rus in 882 when Oleg of Novgorod became Grand Prince (although the settlement itself existed long this date). Oleg moved the capital from Novgorod to Kiev. We shall then continue the story of Russia from here.

The Kievan Rus

The Baptism of the Kievans by Klavdiy Lebedev

Like with their origins the Kievan Rus was built on trade. According to Arab traveler Ibn Rusta:

[The Rus] have no cultivated land. They eat only what they carry off from the land of the Saqlaba [the woodland Slavs, Balts and Finns]...They have no landed property nor villages nor cultivated land; their only occupation is trading in grey squirrel and other furs.

As shown in this quote trade was integral to the Rus. Coins and amber came from the extremely rich cities of the Islamic Caliphate and the Byzantine Empire, and slaves came from all over. Slavery was prolific in the Rus where even one of the possible origins for the English word 'slave' coming from 'Slav'. A 'Varangian Guard' was even made for the Byzantines indicating that the reputation of the Rus made them the best bodyguards for the Second Rome. The Kievan Rus lacked the class institutions and autonomous towns of traditional feudal societies although they had their unique structures. Merchants, laborers, and artisans in urban areas could exercise some political influence through a council called the veche. There was even an entire class of peasants who paid tribute directly to the princes so traditional serfdom was not present in the Rus. Despite the conception that women had no place in society during this time period there were several powerful regents who were women. In 945 Grand Prince Igor was killed fighting rebellious tributaries and his widow Olga (Helga) ruled until her son, Sviatoslav, came of age in 962. Olga was sent to Byzantium in 957 where she personally met with Emperor Constantine VII to organize trade. Rus relations with the Empire was marked by conflict and cooperation. War between the two broke out in 907, 941 and 971 leading to treaties giving the Rus trading rights in 911, 944 and 971 (notice how they did not seize land during these treaties). 

In 980 Vladimir became Grand Prince after conflict broke out among the sons of Sviatoslav with the aid of Novgorod. What I would argue is the most important event in Russian history occurred in Vladimir's reign. The Kievan Rus had various religions within its borders with most being polytheistic. Upon becoming Grand Prince Vladimir had erected idols to Norse, Slav, Finn and Iranian gods to bolster support for himself following the succession conflict. However, he would make a huge impact on religion in the area: he converted to Orthodox Christianity. In the 860s the Byzantines sent two missionaries, Cyril and Methodius, to convert the Slavic peoples. When Bulgaria converted they adopted a script similar to Greek, Cyrillic, which would spread to Russia. Orthodoxy was not the only Abrahamic religion to convert to. Trade had exposed the Rus to Islam through the Caliphate, Judaism from Khazaria, and Olga had invited a Catholic mission from Holy Roman Emperor Otto I. The Russian Primary Chronicle states that Vladimir had emissaries find out about Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Judaism and Islam to see which was best. It stated that Catholic ritual was without beauty, Judaism passed over in silence, Islam banned alcohol which was required in the primary bonding ceremonial of the druzhina (retinue in service of a chieftain) but Orthodoxy's divine service was described as being so beautiful that 'we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth'. Although closer ties with the Byzantines was likely the true cause for conversion to Orthodoxy. Thus Russia became Orthodox. In 1019 Yaroslav the Wise came to power who created the Russkaya Pravda. This was a major law reform which even made no reference to corporal or capital punishment in reference to the old Norse law code. This code was so successful that it would last for centuries. Finally, Yaroslav granted Novgorod more independence for helping place both him and his father on the throne thus forming the groundwork for the Novgorod Republic. After Yaroslav's death the Rus went into decline as principalities started fighting over power. In 1136 Novgorod dismissed the prince (which had been appointed by the Kievans) and formed the Novgorod Republic, Constantinople went into decline, and the Crusades sapped further power away from Constantinople. Novgorod even started to replace Kiev as a major economic center. Then in 1223 the Mongols invaded and the Kievan Rus was conquered by 1240.

Mongols and Novgorod

Alexander Nevsky

In 1240 Kiev fell although several major centers of power like Novgorod had submitted before being overrun by the Mongols. The Russian lands of the Mongol empire was organized into a khanate called Kipchak, or the Golden Horde in European and Russian sources, with a capital at Sarai on the lower Volga. Despite many fleeing to the relative safety of Tver and Moscow the structures of power remained the same in many cities. The Mongols were relatively tolerant in religious matters so the Orthodox church retained its power, and the princes still ruled. However, they ruled at the pleasure of the khan, such as Prince Yaroslav of Vladimir in 1243 being made Great Prince of Kiev and Vladimir for paying tribute. Mongol rule has often been described as 'the Tatar Yoke'. The princes actually gained more power through Mongol rule as the Mongols prevented fighting by appointing princes, and the veches were given less power in return. The seeds for the autocracy of the Russian Empire were sown here. Many resented the stripping of the veche's power, and enslaving/conscripting householders who failed to pay their dues. Electing princes, diplomacy over war and peace, taxation, and recruitment into the militia were now controlled by the Mongols where they had been controlled by the veche forging an alliance between the veche and people. There were several risings, such as in 1262, which the Mongols put down. As the years went on the Mongols started giving more autonomy to cities to collect taxes.

We now need to talk about Novgorod. Like Kiev it had been founded as a major trading city and had been the capital before Kiev was. It became so powerful that it managed to choose the princes of Kiev. As their overlord Kiev had appointed the Novgorod prince until 1136 when they ousted the Kievan prince, appointed their own, and formed the Novgorod republic. Often overlooked Novgorod was a fairly democratic society compared to the other societies of contemporary Europe. A traditional narrative states that the Novgorod government ran through the veches, posadniks (mayors),  tysyatskys ('thousandmen' who originally were militia heads but later were judicial and commercial officials), archbishops and boyars (aristocrats). A Soviet (and a Marxist) historiography has described Novgorod as a 'feudal republic' although it has been contested whether Russia was ever feudal in the same sense as the West which the historiography implies. The most famous Novgorodian prince is Alexander Nevsky who has become a cultural icon in Russia. The same year that the Mongols sacked Kiev (1240) he won the Battle of Neva against a Swedish army, (although this battle is not mentioned in non-Russian sources). Nevsky opted to subordinate Novgorod to the Golden Horde. The Roman Curia had hoped that Novgorod would go to war against the Mongols, which would forestall an invasion of the rest of Europe. Historians have debated why. Some have argued that Nevsky saw Catholicism as a greater threat to Russia while the more tolerant Tatars could aid Russia. Others have argued that it was more self-serving pragmatism; aiding the Mongols would preserve his power while a war would certainly end it. Either way it further placed Russia in the Orthodox camp.

Rise of Moscow

Dormition Cathedral, Moscow

As we all know Moscow is the capital of Russia today. Until the creation of St Petersburg, and after the Russian Revolution Moscow was Russia's capital. How did Moscow usurp Novgorod and Kiev as the most powerful city? Founded in 1147 Moscow remained largely insignificant until the thirteenth century. Thanks to the Mongols many had fled to Moscow boosting the city's population. It was well situated being on the Movska River, (good for trade), and has a relatively high elevation (making it easy to defend). Quite fortuitously the princes of Moscow produced male heirs (like many societies it was patriarchal) and curried the favor of the Mongols. Ivan I of Muscovy was granted the responsibility for collecting the tribute from the Rus and he became very wealthy as a result. In fact he earned the nickname 'Kalita' which literally translates to 'Moneybags'. Ivan used his wealth to buy land from other principalities and to fund the construction of churches. Princely power in Muscovy became heavily linked to the church. Meanwhile, Mongol power was slipping. Collapse of the Mongol Yuan Dynasty in China separated the Golden Horde from the rest of the empire and the various khanates warred against one another. In Europe growing powers like Lithuania started to chip away at the horde. Also Russia loathed the Mongols. The Mongols were seen as punishment from God and were begrudged for the raids/tributes. Moscow had gotten powerful and in 1380 Dmitrii Ivanovich led a coalition handing the Mongols a major defeat at the Battle of Kulikovo Field. Although the Mongols regrouped and sacked Moscow in 1382 the idea of Mongol invincibility was shattered. They besieged Moscow again in 1408 but it could not save the Horde. It became split between the Crimean Khanate (1430), the Kazan Khanate (1436), the Astrakhan and the Great Horde. 

Moscow's predominance almost ended in 1431 in what Roger Bartlett described as a Muscovite equivalent of the Wars of the Roses. In 1431 Vasily II's reign was challenged by his uncle, Yuri, and a civil war erupted. During the war Vasily captured his cousin, Vasily the Cross-Eyed, and blinded his cross-eyed cousin only for later on to be blinded by his other cousin. In the end Vasily II won the war. His son, Ivan III, became Grand Prince and continued to expand the realm. Under Vasily and Ivan Moscow's control expanded by 1,000,000 kilometers squared. In 1478 Ivan III captured Novgorod destroyed the veche, massacred the population and, destroyed the library and archives. Ivan died in 1505 after a successful war with Lithuania. In 1533 Ivan's grandson, Ivan IV, would not be crowned Grand Prince as his father was. Instead he was crowned Tsar or 'Caesar'. After the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453 Moscow became the main seat of Orthodoxy. As a result Moscow claimed to be the Third Rome (Rome being the first and Byzantium being the second). With Ivan crowned Tsar the Tsardom of Russia was formed. Ivan would be known as 'the Great', 'the Awesome', 'the Awe-inspiring', and most famously 'the Terrible'. However, that is for a future post.

Conclusion

Russia has often been described as one of the 'in-between lands'. Kiev was founded through the actions of Slavs and Scandinavians of the West while Russia was founded thanks to Slavs and Mongols in the East. However, this description is often used negatively. For centuries Russia has been portrayed as being 'backward' or 'archaic' in Western culture. By looking at the origins of Russia we see a rich culture born through trade and diplomacy. We see a state born through clever political maneuverings. This is something often overlooked in world history. Next time we will look go to West Africa to look at Mali and Songhai, and a man reported to be the richest man in history.

Thank you for reading and the sources I have used are as follows:

-A History of Russia by Roger Bartlett

-Russia and the Russians: From Earliest Times to 2001 by Geoffrey Hosking

-'The Volga Vikings', BBC In Our Time podcast

-The Mongols by David Morgan

-Crash Course World History: Russia, the Kievan Rus and the Mongols

For a full list of the World History posts please see here