why did russia not break up?

why did tsarist russia not break up like so many other huge land empires did? the timeframe i have in mind is between when moscovy began to dominate the other russian states and railroads and the industrial revolution. i find it astounding that during the reign of ivan the terrible [roughly 1400s] there were no paved roads making communication even more difficult, yet russia was able to expand and absorb the muslim south as well as the steppe tribes in the east without having any kind of ethnic civil war or a breakaway state in the far east or something. i don't think the political ideology of the tsar being the equal of the apostles is the determining factor because there were many large land empires before then that had a similar absolute despotism [persian, rome, mongol] yet they alll eventually splintered. i can see the state holding together after modernisation because troops and ideas could travel along the railroads and help unite the country. but i don't understand how a guy, hundreds if not thousands of miles away in moscow, was able to prevent a cossack or a khan way in the east from declaring his own principality.

The only reason Russia stayed large and didn't devide was that they had not only expanded their reach militarily but also through populations. The only place where Russians half and half with a foreign population withi Russia is Chechnya, and you know how that is developing. As long as the majority of the populations of the republics in Russia remain mostly Russian then the country will stay sovereign throughout.

That policy of state-enforced migration is actually a Soviet idea, IIRC, so it can't be an answer to nokhor's question...

Personally I wouldn't know; my knowledge of Russian history is sketchy enough as it is...



~Wiz

Theres not even that many people in some places of russia most of its just land......

Well the steppe and native peoples of the Asian part of Russia were very unorganized because of their enormous land areas. In a way they wanted something to watch over them, like Russia. Not to mention they were scattered and few. In a way it almost didn't matter. They could have formed whatever principality they liked, they could never compete with Russia in that level, and even if they did we'd never know about it because they were so obscure.

Lenin

McCartney. ~D

Back in the USSR!

can't really answer your question nokhor, but, coincidentally, i just started reading about the late medieval russian monarchy (ivan III - peter the great). you might want to check out adrian's resources thread for russian links like this one:
http://www.shsu.edu/%7Ehis_ncp/365Read.html

here's another one i was looking at:
http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/russia/ru01.html

i suspect that russia actually wasn't all that unified at this time, and the boyars and cossacks pretty much ran their own show (had private armies, etc). i think the russian monarchies starterd to suppress the nobles under peter the great, but again, i'm just starting to learn about this stuff.

From the very beginning of Russia ( the XVth century) it was a despotic, centralised state.
Its citizens were almost the 'property' of the Tzar ( or Grand Duke) - it was the idea which was learnt from the Mongol rulers.

Also the state-controlled Orthodox Church + russian colonists were ESSENTIAL to the survival of the Russian Empire - at least in its absolutic form.

See how similar was Ivan the Terrible's Oprichnina to the methods of Peter the Great, Nicolas I or Lenin and Stalin.


Generally all these things mattered - despotic rulers, cesaropapism ( state controll over the religion) and russian colonists from the beginning to the present times.


You might see it as biased ( because I am Polish), but in fact I know quite much about the history of Russia so I am well informed at least...


Regards Cegorach :bow:

Maybe not strictly on the subject but the Russians always had terrible trouble controlling their minorities. Just look at the central Asians and the likes of Izzat Kutebar and Yakub Beg. Ultimately they kept them in line using force and fighting them to a standstill.

The thing with Russia, is that its most populated part is "European". As in it lies on the western side of the Urals. The Asian Russia has almost no population and was always a destiny for all those hiding from the rule of the Tzars as was the Sich where the cossacks finally united and starred quite a few rebellions (they even besieged Moscow).

Now as the communities on the East were so small (the huge amount of land available for hide made the people scatter), they did not organize any resistance that could defy the power of the Tzar. Basically they wanted to be left alone, and for the Tzar it was too costly to maintain armies in those wild areas. Peter I started a series of reforms: he traded with those communities that lived from producing some resource (metals, gold, wood for ships..) and sent small mobile forces to force the unproductive ones into submission, be it the army or labor in his mines, ship production, factories, etc.

Some of the communities were left alone and constituted the base of later town railroad nodes or further exploration to the East.

If you look at the Western part of Russia, however, there were quite a few uprisings and revolts.

On possible break up of the Russian lands: this was never (after Vasil the Great) an option.

Would those small "Russias" become indepentdent? Who would rule then? Me! no, wait, me! No, you stink, I shall rule...!

Should they join catholic Poland? Not an option.

Should they join muslim Turkey? Not an option.

So they just chose the only viable way: stick to the tsar de facto (those who were close to Moscow enough) or only de iure (those far away).

Vasil the Great?

Should they join catholic Poland? Not an option.

Poland was multireligious and multinational, but the Russian society was generally too conservative to join - but NOT everywhere, remember that Smolensk was in Poland as well and most of its citizens were not catholic ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokhor

Vasil the Great?

---

Sorry I meant Ivan III the Great, the one who changed Muscovy into Russia.
Somehow I always mix Ivan III with Vasili III.

Cegorah, I know that Poland was a very tolerant society, especially in 16c., but the Russians viewed it as a catholic powerhouse. Possibly, anything short of full-orthodox would be just too catholic for them... for their church hierarchy at least.

for their church hierarchy at least.[/QUOTE]

I agree ~;)