The Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible Part 1, Creation

Ivan IV of Russias oprichnina is frequently portrayed as some sort of hell, a time of mass torture and death overseen by sinister black-robed monks  who obeyed their insane Tsar Ivan the Terrible and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The reality is somewhat different, and although the events that created—and eventually ended—the oprichnina are well known, the underlying motives and causes are still unclear. The Creation of the Oprichnina In the final months of 1564, Tsar Ivan IV of Russia announced an intention to abdicate; he promptly left Moscow with much of his treasure and only a few trusted retainers. They went to Alekandrovsk, a small, but fortified, town to the north where Ivan isolated himself. His only contact with Moscow was through two letters: the first attacking the boyars and the church, and a second reassuring the people of Muscovy that he still cared for them. The boyars were the most powerful non-royal aristocrats in Russia at this time, and they had long disagreed with the ruling family. Ivan may not have been overly popular with the ruling classes - numerous rebellions had been plotted - but without him a struggle for power was inevitable, and a civil war probable. Ivan had already had success and turned the Grand Prince of Moscow into Tsar of All the Russias, and Ivan was asked - some might say begged - to return, but the Tsar made several clear demands: he wanted to create an oprichnina, a territory within Muscovy governed solely and absolutely by him. He also wanted the power to deal with traitors as he wished. Under pressure from the church and the people, the Council of Boyars agreed. Where was the Oprichnina? Ivan returned and divided the country into two: the oprichnina and the zemschina. The former was to be his private domain, constructed from any land and property he wished and run by his own administration, the oprichniki. Estimates vary, but between one third and one half of Muscovy became oprichnina. Situated mainly in the north, this land was a piecemeal selection of wealthy and important areas, ranging from whole towns, of which the oprichnina included about 20, to individual buildings. Moscow was carved up street by street, and sometimes building by building. Existing landowners were often evicted, and their fates varied from resettlement to execution. The rest of Muscovy became the zemschina, which continued to operate under the existing governmental and legal institutions, with a puppet Grand Prince in charge.   Why Create an Oprichnina? Some narratives portray Ivans flight and threat to abdicate as a fit of pique, or a form of madness stemming from his wifes death in 1560. It is more likely that these actions were a shrewd political trick, albeit tinged with paranoia, designed to give Ivan the bargaining power he needed to rule absolutely. By using his two letters to attack the leading boyars and churchman while also praising the populace, the Tsar had placed great pressure on his would-be opponents, who now faced the possibility of losing public support. This gave Ivan leverage, which he used to create a whole new realm of government. If Ivan had been acting simply out of madness, he was brilliantly opportunistic.The actual creation of the oprichnina has been viewed in many ways: an isolated kingdom where Ivan could rule by fear, a concerted effort to destroy the Boyars and seize their wealth, or even as an experiment in governing. In practice, the creation of this realm gave Ivan the chance to solidify his power. By seizing strategic and wealthy land the Tsar could employ his own army and bureaucracy while reducing the strength of his boyar opponents. Loyal members of the lower classes could be promoted, rewarded with new oprichnina land, and given the task of working against traitors. Ivan was able to tax the zemschina and overrule its institutions, while the oprichniki could travel through the whole of the country at will.But did Ivan intend this? During the 1550s and early 1560s, the Tsars power had come under attack from boyar plots, failure in the Livonian war, and his own temperament. Ivan had fallen ill in 1553 and ordered the ruling boyars to swear oaths of loyalty to his baby son, Dimitrii; several refused, favoring Prince Vladimir Staritsky instead. When the Tsarina died in 1560 Ivan suspected poison, and two of the Tsars previously loyal advisors were subjected to a rigged trial and sent away to their deaths. This situation began to spiral, and as Ivan was growing to hate the boya rs, so his allies were growing concerned with him. Some began to defect, culminating in 1564 when Prince ​Andery Kurbsky, one of the Tsars leading military commanders, fled to Poland.br/>Clearly, these events could be interpreted as either contributing to vengeful and paranoid destruction, or indicating a need for political manipulation. However, when Ivan came to the throne in 1547, after a chaotic and boyar led regency, the Tsar immediately introduced reforms aimed at reorganizing the country, to strengthen both the military and his own power. The oprichnina could well have been a rather extreme extension of this policy. Equally, he could have gone completely mad. The Oprichniki The oprichniki played a central role in Ivans oprichnina; they were the soldiers and ministers, the police and the bureaucrats. Drawn mainly from the lower levels of the military and society, each member was questioned and their past checked. Those that passed were rewarded with land, property and payments. The result was a cadre of individuals whose loyalty to the Tsar was without question, and which included very few boyars. Their numbers grew from 1000 to 6000 between 1565 - 72, and included some foreigners. The oprichniks precise role is unclear, partly because it changed over time, and partly because historians have very few contemporary records from which to work. Some commentators call them bodyguards, while others see them as a new, hand-picked, nobility designed to replace the boyars. The oprichniks have even been described as the original Russian secret police, an ancestor of the KGB. The oprichniki are often described in semi-mythical terms, and its easy to see why. They dressed in black: black clothes, black horses and black carriages. They used the broom and the dogs head as their symbols, one representing the sweeping away of traitors, and the other snapping at the heels of their enemies; it is possible that some oprichniks carried actual brooms and severed dogs heads. Answerable only to Ivan and their own commanders, these individuals had free run of the country, oprichnina and zemschina, and a prerogative to remove traitors. Although they sometimes used false charges and forged documents, as in the case of Prince Staritsky who was executed after his cook confessed, this was normally unnecessary. Having created a climate of fear and murder, the oprichniki could just exploit the human propensity to inform on enemies; besides, this black clad corps could kill anyone they wished. The Terror The stories associated with the oprichniks range from the grotesque and outlandish, to the equally grotesque and factual. People were impaled and mutilated, while whipping, torture and rapes were common. The Oprichniki Palace features in many tales: Ivan built this in Moscow, and the dungeons were supposedly full of prisoners, of which at least twenty were tortured to death everyday in front of the laughing Tsar. The actual height of this terror is well documented. In 1570 Ivan and his men attacked the city of Novgorod, which the Tsar believed was planning to ally with Lithuania. Using forged documents as a pretext, thousands were hanged, drowned or deported, while the buildings and countryside were plundered and destroyed. Estimates of the death toll vary between 15,000 and 60,000 people. A similar, but less brutal, sacking of Pskov followed this, as did the execution of zemschina officials in Moscow.Ivan alternated between periods of savagery and piety, often sending great memorial payments and treasure to monasteries. During one such period the Tsar endowed a new monastic order, which was to draw its brothers from the oprichniks. Although this foundation did not turn the oprichniki into a corrupted church of sadistic monks (as some accounts might claim), it did became an instrument interwoven in both church and state, further blurring the organisations role. The oprichniks also acquired a reputation in the rest of Europe. Prince Kurbsky, who had fled Muscovy in 1564, described them as children of darkness...hundreds and thousands of times worse than hangmen.Like most organizations that rule through terror, the oprichniki also began to cannibalize itself. Internal quarrels and rivalries led many oprichniki leaders to accuse each other of treason, and increasing numbers of zemschina officials were drafted in as replacements. Leading Muscovite families attempted to join, seeking protection through membership. Perhaps crucially, the oprichniki did not act in a p ure orgy of bloodshed; they achieved motives and aims in a calculating and cruel manner.br/> The End of the Oprichniki After the attacks on Novgorod and Pskov Ivan may well have turned his attention to Moscow, however, other forces got there first. In 1571 an army of Crimean Tartars devastated the city, burning large tracts of land and enslaving tens of thousands of people. With the oprichnina having clearly failed to defend the country, and growing number of oprichniks implicated in treachery, Ivan abolished it in 1572. The resulting process of reintegration was never entirely completed, as Ivan created other similar bodies throughout his life; none became as notorious as the oprichnina. Consequences of the Oprichniki The Tartar attack highlighted the damage that the oprichnina had caused. The boyars were the political, economic and social heart of Muscovy, and by undermining their power and resources the Tsar began to destroy the infrastructure of his country. Trade decreased and the divided military became ineffectual against other troops. Constant changes in government caused internal chaos, while the skilled and peasant classes began to leave Muscovy, driven out by rising taxes and almost indiscriminate murder. Some areas had become so depopulated that agriculture collapsed, and the Tsars external enemies had begun to exploit these weaknesses. The Tartars attacked Moscow again in 1572, but were comprehensively beaten by a newly reintegrated army; this was a small valediction of Ivans change in policy.What did the oprichnina ultimately achieve? It helped centralise power around the Tsar, creating a rich and strategic network of personal holdings through which Ivan could challenge the old nobili ty and create a loyal government. Land confiscation, exile and execution shattered the boyars, and the oprichniki formed a new nobility: although some land was returned after 1572, much of it remained in the hands of the oprichniks. It is still a matter for debate among historians as to how much of this Ivan really intended. Conversely, the brutal enforcement of these changes and the constant pursuit of traitors did more than simply split the country in two. The population was markedly reduced, economic systems were damaged, and the strength of Moscow reduced in the eyes of its enemies.For all the talk of centralising political power and restructuring landed wealth, the oprichnina will always be remembered as a time of terror. The image of black clothed investigators with unaccountable power remains effective and haunting, while their use of cruel and brutal punishments has guaranteed them a nightmarish mythology, only enhanced by their monastic connections. The actions of the opric hnina, coupled with the lack of documentation, have also greatly affected the question of Ivans sanity. For many, the period 1565 - 72 suggests that he was paranoid and vindictive, although some prefer plain mad. Centuries later, Stalin praised the oprichnina for its role in damaging the boyar aristocracy and enforcing central government (and he knew a thing or two about oppressing and terror).   Source Bonney, Richard. The European Dynastic States 1494-1660. Short Oxford History of the Modern World, OUP Oxford, 1991.

Why The Tecumseh Historical Society Will Be My Greatest Asset

When working on this project I intend to utilize the materials that I already have available to me as a starting point. The Tecumseh Historical Society has an extensive amount of information on the Hayden family. Because of the amount of information I will have to then sort out the information that would not be useful toward my project, and then focus on the information that will enrich the project. The Historical Society may also have contact information to reach descendants of the Hayden family who might be willing to set up a time to perform an interview. For this project, I believe the Tecumseh Historical Society will be my greatest asset. When attempting to answer the question, I would first start to search through the archives to find the information that addresses my question I plan to break it into the three categories of Ford’s influence on the the local community, the economy, and the technology. In these categories I can break them up in the many different sub-categories as well. When answering my question of Henry Ford’s influence on the community, I plan on breaking it up in to several sub- categories as well. The categories that I would like to break economics into are the following: the mill, economy of the citizens, and economy of the city as a whole. One sources that I have is a newspaper article that discusses the involvement of Henry Ford allowing citizens of the city to have a career. When looking at the company, I have some budget plans before

When do you become an adult free essay sample

When do you become an adult? Is it by age or maturity. I believe you become an adult when you are fully mature not at the age of eighteen. Even though the age of eighteen is considered adulthood in forty-seven states, it doesnt mean you will act like one. What makes someone an adult is not their age, it is a period of prolonged adolescence or emerging adulthood. Adulthood lasts into your twenties. There are many responsibilities in adulthood, that many adults don’t even know how to react to them. Do you consider yourself an adult?I believe you become an adult when you can show you are mature enough for the responsibilities of adulthood. There are many different ages for being an adult in many different countries. For example, in Dutch children are allowed to drink at the age of sixteen and drive at the age of nineteen. We will write a custom essay sample on When do you become an adult? or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Adulthood means getting a job, moving away from your parents, getting married, and having children. There many different ages to take to becoming an adult. For example, you must twenty one to drink, eighteen to vote and join the military, seventeen to watch an adult movie, and fourteen to hold a job. Adults need to take responsibilities for themselves, make independent decisions, and to have financial independents. There are many steps to becoming an adult.Did you know that when you stop developing, you are physically an adult? Your brain stops developing in your mid-twenties. Many people over the age of eighteen, feel like they are still children. This is because adulthood and childhood are both social construction. Social construction is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world. In the 1950s and the 60s, people did not become adults in any kind of predictable way. Do you think the age eighteen is when you become an adult? If you said yes, many people agree with you. Many people think the age of eighteen is the age of adulthood because that is the age you can vote and join the military. At the age of eighteen, you receive a more independent life because you can move out, get a job, and live your life. Even though you become more independent at the age of eighteen, it comes with many responsibilities. Some responsibilities of being an adult are getting a job, moving out, getting married, and having kids. I do not think the age of eighteen is adulthood. Do you?Do you think adulthood comes with age or maturity? I believe adulthood comes with maturity. Adults can have the responsibilities of moving out, getting a job, getting married, having children, and just living your life. I do not think adulthood comes with age because many eighteen-year-olds are not mature enough to take on life’s responsibilities. There are many different ages for adults in different places but they all have something in common, they all must be mature enough to take on life’s responsibilities. â€Å"Try not to become a man of success. Rather become a man of value’† Albert Einstein. I believe that adulthood comes with maturity, not age. Do you think the same way?

Macaroni Surprise free essay sample

It’s deja-vu all over again! Who would have thought that a phrase uttered by former baseball MVP, Yogi Berra in the early 1960’s could still apply to so many situations some fifty years later? Deja-vu, which translates from the French to literally mean â€Å"already seen†, is the phenomena in which a person believes that they’ve already witnessed or partaken in an event or situation. With that said, the phrase seems to be tailored made to describe what most moviegoers undoubtedly think after witnessing the â€Å"newest† Hollywood blockbuster. With creativity lacking in almost every aspect of the film industry, it is safe there is no hope for creativity making an appearance in future generations. But the true question remains unanswered: why? Where has the creativity gone and will it ever make an appearance again in film again? Over the last few years there’s been an increase in the number of sequels, remakes, reboots, and spinoffs in the entertainment industries and this is not necessarily a good thing. We will write a custom essay sample on Macaroni Surprise or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Sequels are the most notable of the four. A sequel typically picks up where the original left off. Sometimes sequels are placed a number of years following the original. At times the sequel is only slightly related to the original source. Remakes are self-explanatory; they’re a retelling of a film that was already released. For the most part remakes serve to reintroduce a film franchise to a new generation. Spinoffs are movies that derive from another source material. Typically, spinoffs hold some connection to the source material—some characters from the original even make cameo appearances in spinoffs. Reboots are fairly similar to remakes; the main difference is that reboots usually add new elements not found in the original source and tend to add a new twist or two to the film. As one can see, all four of these movie types are lacking one common factor: originality and, consequently, creativity. But what is pushing film studios to revisit old sources? It’s a well known adage; money makes the world go round. Maybe this is the motivation for film studios to revisit past material and invest in sequels and remakes. Some of the more recent remakes, such as Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween, have outdone their previous incarnates in terms of sales. Others, such as Friday The 13th, failed to generate more money than their older counterparts. According to data collected by Daniel Hom from â€Å"Box Office Mojo† and â€Å"The Internet Movie Database†, both reliable sources for anything film related, sequels do not necessarily ensure big bucks (Hom). It is shown in the data that, besides the original, only the first sequel seems to bring in any significant amount of money. By the time the third sequel (meaning the fourth installment) rolls out, the films are barely making a quarter of their original profit. Bearing that in mind it seems that money isn’t the only reason for the increase in rehashes of old fil ms. If it’s not about the profit, then why hasn’t creativity made an appearance in film studios in a very long time? If money isn’t to blame for the obvious lack of creativity in films, maybe it’s the lack of risk-taking film studios that is to blame. It’s a ubiquitous opinion; it’s almost always easier to sell something familiar than it is to sell something that has yet to prove its worth. Los Angeles Times writer Patrick Goldstein seems to share the same opinion, stating in his LA Times piece â€Å"THE BIG PICTURE, The thing about remakes† that commercial motives are the reason that Hollywood is riddles with so many remakes and sequels (Goldstein). Goldstein isn’t necessarily wrong in stating that â€Å"the whole mania for remakes tends to revolve around commercial motive† (Goldstein). In fact Goldstein’s words seem to hold some merit as seen by the increasing number of remakes and sequels. Instead of taking a chance on a new movie concept, entertainment studios would rather pump out countless sequels of movies that are none too deserving o f them. As stated by blogger, Chris Graham, it seems that film studios entertain the notion that if something works once it’ll work again (Graham). Reality tells us that this is very rarely the case. Have you ever tried to withstand being run over by a Mack truck? Just because you survived once doesn’t mean you will survive again. The same logic can be applied to movies: one hit comedy about the drunken misadventures of a groom-to-be doesn’t ensure that a second comedy about the drunken misadventures of yet another groom-to-be will be a hit. But maybe film studios aren’t the only ones that should bear the blame. Maybe it’s not them, maybe it’s us—the consumers. What if it isn’t only Hollywood that is lacking creativity, what if it is the world as well? A quote that would fit perfectly here is â€Å"it’s not you, it’s me†. This age old phrase is typically only put into use when someone is ending a relationship. Nobody like to hear it but to be fair, we cannot entirely blame the increase in sequels on the Hollywood film studios. Anybody who has ever taken a Business 101 class knows that business is essentially supply and demand. If people continue to support the countless rehashes, the principle of business tells the film studios that they should continue cranking out remake after remake. If we can continually watch and enjoy these hackneyed stories we are just as uncreative as the big film companies. Take note that â€Å"enjoy† is included in the previous sentence; enjoyment is a key factor in lending support to the â€Å"it’s not you, it’s me† mantra. If we’re content with watc hing the same actors play out the same story with the same effects, then we too deserve to carry the blame for the lack of creativity. At this point some people are undoubtedly wondering what we can do to bring back the creativity. It’s simple really; all we need to do to revive the creativity is stop for a minute and think creatively. The topic of missing creativity is further explored by writer Scott Adams in his piece â€Å"The Heady Thrill of Having Nothing to do† (Adams). In his piece, Adams states that the current lack of creativity is credited to the fact that people are so preoccupied with everything else in their lives that they have no time to think creatively. Like Goldstein’s, Adams’ words bare some truth. If everyone is too busy running errands or playing video games, when will they have time to think creatively? Once upon a time the notion of playing a game that pits birds against pigs from a mobile phone was a frivolous one. However, that notion has found its way into the world of reality. It would seem that nobody has time to sit around in a fit of boredom and think creat ively. With so much hustle and bustle in our daily lives and mobile games to fill up our free time, it’s no wonder that creativity is at a low. Adams’ opinion is holds a large amount of validity; boredom is needed to allow people time to think creatively. If one of the main sources of creative thinking is boredom, what happens when that source is gone? If people are too busy to be bored then by default they are too busy to think as creatively as they could. Put simply, no boredom amounts to no creativity. Aside from commercial motives, what’s causing the sudden increase in rehashed movie plots and subsequent decrease in creativity? Is it that we’ve come full circle? It’s just as it sounds; to come full circle means to have gone around completely and start back at the origin. To apply that to creativity it’s as if we’ve tried everything possible in a field, this one being film, and now there’s nothing left to do but retry exactly what we’ve done before. Take for example the movie series, Final Destination. The first movie is about a guy who has a premonition that many people will die in a bizarre twist of fate. He uses his newfound knowledge to save the lives of those around him. In the end almost everyone who was originally supposed to die, die anyways. In the second movie a girl has a premonition that many people will die in a bizarre twist of fate. She uses her newfound knowledge to save the lives of those around her. In the end almo st everyone who was originally supposed to die, die anyways. Sound familiar? There are 5 movies in this series all with the same plot. Do these movies keep getting green-lighted because we continue to support them or is it because the film companies have already tried everything else in the horror genre and there is nothing left to do but put out the same movie with a different Roman numeral at the end of it? Everyone can offer their own opinion as to why movies all seem to be a re-serving of last Tuesday’s â€Å"Macaroni Surprise†, but whatever the cause may be something must be done. Whether it is because film studios are looking to turn a profit or because they are afraid they won’t turn a profit, Hollywood needs a wakeup call. Just because something was funny once doesn’t mean it’ll be funny a second time around. On a global scale, we as a population need to do two things. First off we need to stop indulging in the pointless, hackneyed and stilted sequels. Secondly, we need to unplug from the plethora of technology we are currently hyped up on and take an hour or two to do nothing. At some point we the creativity will be left on the back of the milk carton asking â€Å"have you seen me?† The truth of the matter is there’s only so long we can enjoy last week’s â€Å"Macaroni Surprise† before we grow sick of it and want ano ther, more appetizing, dish. Works Cited Goldstein, Patrick. October 16, 2011. â€Å"THE BIG PICTURE; The thing about remakes† http://search.proquest.com/docview/898450121?accountid=13661 Adams, Scott. August 6, 2011. â€Å"The Heady Thrill Of Having Nothing To Do† http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903454504576486412642177904.html Hom, Daniel. August 18, 2011. â€Å"Are Movie Sequels Profitable?† http://www.tableausoftware.com/public/blog/2011/08/are-movie-sequels-profitable-1279 Graham, Chris. February 25, 2011. â€Å"Unnecessary Sequels Express Hollywood’s Lack of Originality† http://www.thebv.org/opinion/unnecessary-sequels-express-hollywood-s-lack-of-originality-1.2249777