#livonian war

[venicepearl]

The Battle of the Ula or Battle of Chashniki was fought during the Livonian War on 26 January 1564 between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Tsardom of Russia on the Ula River [be] (tributary of the Daugava River) north of Chashniki in the Vitebsk Region. The Russian troops, unarmed and moving in a loose formation, were taken by complete surprise and defeated, losing their large wagon train.

[shtoproishoditemae]

Poland again

[elkieselkiewrites]

Happy STS! assuming your OCs have been invited/broken in to a super fancy party - what are they wearing, what are they there for, are they having a good time or have they been dragged in protesting?

Happy STS!

I'll answer for Postmaster characters today. Assuming this is mid-canon, they have likely been invited somewhere as guests and friends of Renia or Bolek (what with them being aristocracy).

Ida would, of course, be wearing her uniform: a white linen shirt under a brilliant blue woolen doublet with brass buttons and matching breeches, marigold stockings, a marigold one-shoulder mantle, and a blue cap. She wouldn't be dragged kicking and screaming there, but she'd rather be in her bed at a reasonable hour than drinking and dancing. She can't dance, for one, but could be persuaded to attend with some guilt-tripping and the promise of good food.

Renia and Bolek would be dressed to the nines, given their stations. Renia would be in a Gorian-style satin gown with full sleeves and a lace-trimmed smock with a broad, starched collar, probably in a forest green or midnight blue. She'd, of course, wear her hair up, and decorated with a lace cap. Bolek would be in black or dark grey himself, as he dislikes fancy clothes at the best of times. He would be in a traditional Gorian robe, tied with an embroidered sash, and would probably also be wearing a traditional cloak with arm slits and a stiff collar. Neither of them are social butterflies, but that's part of why they'd invite the rest of their travelling companions. You don't feel out of place when surrounded by your friends.

The Favalan are the most elaborately dressed, and the happiest to be there. Favalan love a fancy social gathering, and Luus and Neer are no exception. They are the most gregarious, they drink the most, are dressed in the most lace and embroidery, though the style is quite different to their Theden companions. Even Til and Nol, who are less social, more serious and socially awkward (respectively), wear the fashion from the Weterlands: regardless of gender, bodices have high necklines, slashed sleeves, and plenty of brocade and beading. Rather than skirts or breeches, Favalan have fashion to suit their long tails, and all genders wear "pumpkin" hose and colourful braies with high boots (to keep their legs dry when walking the Weterland canals). Luus and Neer will be drunk and dancing and socialising a lot, while Til will be watching her wife from afar with fond exasperation, and Nol would be most likely found with a sketchbook in a corner somewhere hoping to find fashion inspiration while avoiding any and all conversation.

Muin culture does not prize clothing as much as Favalan or Theden do, so much of what Fannan wears would look simplistic to those accustomed to elaborate satin, silk and wool. Most Muin clothes are made of bast fibre from nettles or flax, even their armour is usually a kind of linothorax - hardened layers of twined linen constructed like scales or plates - but that's not to say it can't be as intricate and beautiful as Theden designs. Fannan would likely be wearing a long linen tunic dyed bright orange by polypores, with a mixture of drawn threadwork and needlepoint embroidery along the neckline and edges, fastened by a woven belt. Fannan is a diplomat by trade, and loves Theden art and music, so would be delighted to be at a Theden party, taking in the sights and sounds, and making as many connections as he can manage.

Aarna would be likely wearing a doublet and breeches similar to Ida, but padded with wool, as is Delvish fashion, to appear softer and less "stone-like". Unlike Ida, Aarna's doublet and breeches would be made of leather, likely pinked with intricate patterns of stars (also the fashion out of the Delflands). Aarna is not much for Theden-style dancing, but is more than willing to strike up a conversation or two over a mug of something more alcoholic than wine. No one would dare try and match him drink for drink, though. He's literally made of stone, and has a constitution to match!

[danaa-scully]

TATYANA LYALINA as Tsaritsa Anastasia Zakharyina-Yurieva 

The Terrible (2020)

↳ Episode 3: Livonian War

[glup3]

Ilya Repin, Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on 16 November 1581, 1883-85

Ivan Ivanovich, son of Russian tsar Ivan the Terrible, had a good relationship with his father, and even once slayed an assassin who was about to attack his father, thereby saving the tsar’s life. Their relationship began to grow sour when the younger started questioning the tsar’s military strategy during the Livonian War. The tsar struck down Ivanovich’s pregnant wife at this time for wearing light clothing, causing a miscarriage. When Ivanovich confronted his father about it, the tsar struck him down with a scepter. The blow proved fatal. The tsar is reported to have cried out “May I be damned! I’ve killed my son! I’ve killed my son!”

[barbucomedie]

Armour of King Stephen Báthory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth dated between 1550-1560 on display in the Weltmuseum in Vienna, Austria

This ensemble is formed of a Turkish helmet and armour thought to be from Prague. It is not known when and how Bathory came into possession of the helmet, though presumably it came to Transylvania as an honorary gift from the Ottoman Sultan (perhaps Sultan Selim II) in order to tie the recipient to himself. Stephen Bathory was elected Grand Duke of Transylvania in 1571 and in 1575 he became King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. By conquering Pskov he won the Livonian War (1578-1582) alongside Denamr, Sweden and Norway against the Russian ruler Tsar Ivan IV, the Terrible.

Photographs taken by myself 2022

[unhonestlymirror]

America: I wonder how you four ended up being relatives, you look so... diverse.

Lithuania: *facepalm*

Latvia: Dude, THAT'S racist.

India: Wow, you sound just like your father, it gives me nostalgia! :D

Estonia: *tries not to laugh*

India: About 10 000 years ago, there lived a family of a hundred sons and one daughter. After a big war, the father, whose name was Bharata, was severely wounded and passed away without having time to write a will, so a squabble for power began. Brother turned on brother, everyone wanted to be the next ruler and marry their only sister, as pretty as lotus flower, the only woman who possessed the magical powers. The youngest son, a boy of extraterrestrial beauty and a kind heart, skin as an ivory, hair the ancient darkness of Vidisha, face a sculpture from Sravasthi, he didn't want to participate in those horrors, so he took his bow, arrows and Madu, and he went west to seek his fortune, leaving behind the saddened sister, who was too cowardly to give up everything she knew and leave, even if it meant losing all the power over her body. For many centuries, he wandered around the world like sun, saw thousands of different miracles, participated in thousands of different battles, made thousands of friends - but nowhere he felt like staying forever, nothing brought him a feeling of home. His soul and body were tired, he hated the sun itself, so he went north.

Lithuania: Oh, I know the rest, Curonia told me when I was little! Once, your brother reached the sea merging with the sky itself, bluer than turquoise. He couldn't have but fall into temptation to reach the Heaven Castle. He kept going many miles further ahead, and seeing that the sea didn't go any deeper, he lost his vigilance and track of time. Tired but inspired, he decided to catch himself some fish to eat. No one told him that sea was the local witch's property, whose peace no one dared to disturb for a long time.

Lithuania: Lightning of all colours scorched his ivory skin and long black hair, and the undercurrents dragged his limbs down the water. Jūratė was an asocial introvert, and she really didn’t like the smugglers who took all her amber and killed her fish. At first, she wanted to punish the stranger, but seeing his exhausted bloodless face, her heart was filled with pity, so she brought him to her Amber castle for interrogation.

India: I never liked that wicked daayan.

Lithuania: Well, mom wasn't that evil. After having a hearty lunch in a house made of sun, both made by a beautiful woman with golden hair and sapphire eyes, dad said he immediately fell in love with her. This made her laugh a lot, so she decided not to tell him that she almost killed him and the storm was her doing, and she put all the blame on the Thunder God.

Lithuania: However, when mom asked what his name was, he said something so difficult to pronounce that she asked: "Kas ir ta tauta?" - which means "What is your nation?" Dad didn't know any Baltic language back then, so he thought "kastaut" was some sort of friendly greeting. This word, eventually, became his new nickname. Nowadays, however, its form is Kastytis.

Latvia: Estonia called him Aesti, btw.

Lithuania: The moral of the story is that serious misunderstandings can not only destroy human relationships but also create them! :D

America: What a beautiful story.✨️

Latvia: And then they got married, had 10 children, and died in one day. Happy end.

Lithuania: You sound sarcastic.

Latvia: Wow, no way.

India: So basically, you three are the only alive sons of my brother.

Latvia: Nuh-uh, it's Liet only. Estonia is the oldest of us all, and he's our bro not by blood but by soul, we went through a lot of shit together during Livonian Order occupation, russian empire, nazis, soviets... I'm the proud child of Kurzeme and Latgale. Zemgale as well, but it's complicated.

India: Wait, so you're the grand kid? ...Why do Lithuania and Latvia call each other brothers then, not "nephew" and "uncle"?

Lithuania: It’s complicated.

Latvia: He's too Polish to be my uncle.

Lithuania: Shut up, my German nephew.💢

Latvia: Uno reverse, Estonia is your uncle.

Estonia: Please stop, I don't want to be anyone's uncle XD

[fideidefenswhore]

I hope this isn't stupid, but did Henry really do the Great Matter the right way? I just feel if he'd used a normal argument instead of making it a religion problem it'd be easier for him. If he said "I have no son, so I want to make a new marriage and get one, to protect my people from war" then wasn't that a reason other kings had, and they got annulments? That would be just a fact and everyone at the time knew no son had problems. Sure Catherine would still fight but she couldn't really say he was wrong. But instead if he says it's all Leviticus and God's mad it gives her the out to say she never slept with Arthur so God's not counting that as a real marriage. Then Henry has to say she's lying and so she looks the injured party and right to be offended, and nobody knows what to believe so it just drags out hoping someone dies.

Precedentially and in hindsight, making it a "religion problem" might not have been the best course; but I think it was genuinely his belief and also he had been so highly respected as "Defender of the Faith" (literally) up to that point that he saw an opportunity for fame and acclaim in (what he believed to be) the "righteousness" of his case, and a way to shore up the image, power, and prestige of the English monarchy; even when it became clear it would be one from a position of defiance. We have to place his belief in the context of his acclaim as a scholar and theologian up through the 1520s...it was bold, but so was Henry, and while the common narrative is that his case was facile; after further reading I found that to be reductive:

"In Henry’s obsession with an idiosyncratic interpretation of natural law and his apparent indifference to the strength of his own case on Deuteronomy we may discern a litigant who seems determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of possible victory. Nevertheless it is hard to resist the conclusion that the biblical texts themselves support Henry’s claim that his marriage contravened divine law as expounded by Moses. [...] In the field of legal codes Henry’s view, whether treated as a matter of divine or human law, held a strong position. Among other examples the Council of Neo-Caesarea and the regional Council of Agde followed the Levitical injunction by forbidding the marriage of men to their brothers’ widows. Faced with such arguments, Bishop Fisher usually asserted that the prohibitions did not specifically forbid all dispensations – yet nor did they specifically allow any. As on the Leviticus/Deuteronomy dilemma, Fisher reasoned that in cases of ambiguity the pope should interpret the matter. Yet such a papal interpretation had been given by Innocent III in a rider to his judgement on the Livonian issue discussed below: that, whatever the validity of pagan marriages to which the Deuteronomical exception might apply, a man’s marriage to the widow of a deceased childless brother should not be permitted to baptised Christians." HADWIN JF. Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Henry VIII. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 2019

I don't think there's really anything he could've done to assure a 'secure' outcome, tbh (besides the possible counterfactual of applying for an annulment circa, say, 1520 rather than 1527, he did seem to have a better understanding and alliance with Leo X). The final judgement from Clement was that Henry had lived too long in matrimony with Catherine by principle of the dispensation granted to be able to legitimately protest the dispensation.

Precedent ran against Henry in the specific matter of Popes erasing former dispensations. That was not something they had done; but arguably Popes did reverse decisions of their predecessors in other matters, or sometimes reverse their own decisions-- there are many cases, for instance, of Popes granting annulments and then reversing them. This can make better sense of Henry's decision to reify the legitimacy of both his annulment with Catherine and his marriage with Anne via Parliament, even before the Pope has made declaration (because, even if he had made one in his favour, it might not have stuck...the sands were always shifting, too, even if, say, Clement had died without declaration and his successor had been an anti-Imperial candidate, like the later Paul IV, that did rule in his favour, was it not possible he himself would die and his successor reverse that decision? It is plausible to consider, also, a counterfactual where Henry made his application late 1525 or 1526, had it granted January 1527, and Imperial troops stormed as they did by May, pressurizing Clement to reverse...):

"And here it must be acknowledged that, while a substantial case could be built to support Henry’s challenge on the issue of the bull, the fact of that issue had significantly changed the situation and the canonical context within which it might be viewed. On the question of possible rescission of the bull the critics seem to have been right: on balance, precedent would appear to run against the king. Neither a dissolution nor an annulment would seem likely to have been granted. No previous marriage had been ended on the grounds that a pope had acted ultra vires; nor, as David d’Avray notes, ‘was any dispensation to my knowledge … ever revoked because the alleged political ills that it was meant to cure were later shown to be imaginary’. The application of the principle of dissimulatio – the turning of a blind eye to the legal weaknesses of a long-standing union in view of the greater good that would accrue by leaving well alone – could also have favoured the queen’s cause; a similar canonical rule held that ‘doubtful cases ought to be resolved in favour of the marriage’. Most significant of all might be the maxim asserted by Gilles Bellemère in the count of Armagnac’s case, that if the pope asks for advice before taking action, he should be told that the dispensation should not be granted; however, if he has already acted, then he should not be opposed. Thus, even if Henry had succeeded in convincing an impartial court of the impropriety of Julius II’s granting the dispensation, all [of his] lengthy campaign might well have gained him not that triumphant solution for which he had striven but merely the cold comfort of a Pyrrhic victory." HADWIN JF. Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Henry VIII. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 2019

And, that's actually a misconception; it was probably the predominant of his arguments/case, but hardly the only one or aspect:

"Like many other litigants, Henry adopted a ‘scatter-fire’ approach to his task of seeking an annulment, attacking a vast array of targets, hoping that at least one shot might reach its mark. His opponents tended to follow suit, thus a comprehensive analysis of each pellet might seem desirable to do the parties full justice. This has not been attempted in the present study. Instead it has seemed best to concentrate on three of the most serious and most often cited defences of the queen’s case, those based on the questions Henry asked of the universities in 1530-1, thus setting the agenda for the debate. The first of these was that, while forbidden by the texts of Leviticus, marriage to a brother’s widow was prohibited by the Church only if the previous marriage had been consummated, whereas Katherine insisted that she came to Henry 'virgo intacta'. Secondly, it was argued that the Levitical prohibition should be interpreted as being limited by the command in Deuteronomy requiring a man to marry a childless brother’s widow, exactly what Henry had done. Lastly, the king’s critics cited a number of what they considered relevant precdents for the dispensation granted to Henry and Katherine by papal bull in 1503.

Each [argument of the Queen's side] appears to have serious weaknesses. The strict application of canonical procedures in the case would appear to favour a verdict that Arthur and Katherine had indeed consummated their union. On Deuteronomy, not only had the Church generally regarded the command as obsolete and inapplicable to Christians but the contentious verse does not on close examination cover Henry’s case at all. Finally, none of the oft-cited papal dispensations involved a clear-cut breach of the Levitical injunctions: the bull really does seem to have broken new ground and might not have been issued had all the facts been known." HADWIN JF. Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Henry VIII. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 2019

Royals being anti or pro papal tended to be a matter of political timing, and this wasn't unique to Henry VIII. Hell, Mary I's spouse was excommunicated (not just threatened with excommunication, as her father had been circa the Great Matter era) by Paul IV because he had sent the Duke of Alva to occupy the papal states in retaliation for his alliance with France, and deprived her councilor and Archbishop of Cantebury, Reginald Pole, of his legateship and ordered him to return to Rome to answer charges of heresy ; and she chose to defend them rather than repudiate them in kind.

So, for the matter of claiming Catherine wasn't a virgin when he married her...I don't think he anticipated that she'd confess otherwise to Campeggio and unseal the confession; or use the trial of Blackfriars for the opportunity to repeat her own claim otherwise and then refuse to attend the rest of the hearing of evidence. For the hearing in Dunstable in 1533, she refused to attend, as well, and so did her supporters, so there's some revionism in the narrative that the Henrician side of the divide refused to hear her own evidence and supporters. They clearly did not regard it highly; arguably they gave it short shrift, but the political tactic of refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of any proceedings or hearings outside strict papal jurisdiction (not that all of Catherine's supporters adhered so strictly to that, when it suited them...see: Trial of Zaragoza) by Catherine and her supporters precludes the accusation, reified by Marian Parliament, that Henry and Cranmer "refused to hear evidence" from oppostion. This was a convenient fiction, underrating agency and choice and emphasizing a narrative of corruption vs "godly truth".

But at the same time, I think that aspect of it was a matter of principle for both of them and yet a nothingburger both legally and politically: it was impossible to prove or disprove. There was ambiguity on the matter because the dispensaton covered any possibility ("forsan"); even Clement's declaration did not really fully vindicate her side because he didn't comment on the matter of her virginity upon her marriage to Henry. It was, ultimately, a non sequitur. Henry pursued it because he vehemently believed it was true, and that the proof was in his deceased children by the marriage, that they had died because of the Levitical 'curse', for lack of better word...

And Henry had legal/canonical precedent on his side (see excerpt from JF Hadwin's excellent article on the case above, and this one: "[...] the canonical procedures for determining non-consummation suits would have worked against her. As in any such dispute, witnesses were questioned. Not surprisingly, their stories differed according to their nationality: like the decisions of the universities this was a case of what Hans Thieme delightfully described as cuius regio, eius opinio. English ones remembered a raunchy young prince boasting of his having ‘been this night in the midst of Spain’. Most of the interrogation records of the queen’s Spanish servants have been lost, but they seem to have agreed with the implications of the leading questions that they were fed by recollecting only an immature wimp. Canonical rules, however, held that in such controversies, the husband’s view was to be preferred to the wife’s. Furthermore, in the absence of sound evidence to the contrary, in any marriage that had lasted more than a few days, consummation [would] be presumed. This is why neither Mendoza, the Spanish ambassador, nor his successor, Chapuys, was enthusiastic about Katherine’s claim and probably why Campeggio felt relief that the question was not to be argued at Rome. As Gardiner had warned the queen earlier, presumption would run against her: rightly or wrongly, in any court operating under standard canonical rules and procedures, she would probably have lost this argument."), but not circumstance.

My unpopular judgement is that Henry was actually far more judicious in his timing of the Great Matter than he's given credit for; as early as 1529 he's saying he's "about to undertake the annates", he delays the cessation of paying the annates until Easter 1533; he waits to pass the Act of Kings alone nominating Archbishops and consecrating bishops until Cranmer is elected Archbishop by the Pope (a fait accompli, because it does mean that Cranmer's annulment of his marriage can be viewed as an act of the papacy, by extension; and forces Clement's hand...arguably this backfired, but not fully, he did not excommunicate Cranmer, probably because doing that to someone he had so recently promoted would call his judgement into question); and he doesn't pass the Act in Absolute Restraint of Annates until 1534, after Clement declares for the validity of his marriage with Catherine. Was the timing different (annates are forbidden by law irrevocably, and then Clement declared for the marriage), one could argue otherwise (that Henry had been too hasty); but Clement could've secured annates from England for the rest of Henry's reign had he done the opposite, or possibly delayed their total annihilation had he just continued to not declare on the matter.

[lietpolski]

Summary: When Eduard's land is given to Sweden, he suddenly has to deal with his new position as a subordinate in his household. Luckily for him, there's an easy way to improve his situation: all he has to do is make Sweden fall for him.

Takes place in the 1580s, soon after the conclusion of the Livonian war.

Pairings: Estonia/Sweden (with hints of Finland/Sweden)

my contribution to estonia week! ❤ it doesn't follow a prompt because i had to write it in advance ):

if you think the ship is random, you're sort of right, but give it a shot!! maybe i can convince you :,) we love a rarepair that makes historical sense

[mai-von-weissenfels]

I would like to establish myself as the biggest hater of August II of Saxony (1670 - 1733).

Below is a list of everything I don't like about him (warning: long thread):

Stole the Polish throne not once but twice, and his son stole it for a third time.

I know Poland's elective monarchy system is a bit fucked up (they have had a bunch of foreign monarchs before) but still August didn't even win the election. He was backed by several powerful surrounding states, like the HRE and Russia, but he still got his way onto the Polish throne by various shady shenanigans, involving a lot of bribery.

Now I'm not saying he's responsible for the fall of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, but I'm saying he's partially to blame. The time period he was in was about after Poland won a major war (Great Turkish War 1683 - 1699). But he only saw Poland as an extension of Saxony, and a place where he could legally have the title of King while still being in charge of territory within the HRE. And he got it into another war that it didn't need to be in (more on that in a bit). Now, the war, the Great Northern War (1700 - 1721), it went pretty badly for the Saxons, and August was forced to give up the Polish throne. I would say even Karl XII had more regard for the Polish people than August, since he took the effort to find a suitable Polish candidate for the Polish throne instead of appointing one of his own. But as soon as Karl was defeated in Russia, August just stole the throne back. And after his death another war broke out in Europe over whether his son or a Pole would succeed the throne. The Polish throne became a spot for greater European powers to try gain influence. Which then led to the Partitions of Poland. So yeah. Not a fan.

2. Undeservedly won the Great Northern War

Oh boy, where do I even start. I guess I'll start from even getting into it in the first place. He knows his rule on Poland is illegitimate. He has to bribe the local Polish nobility to support him. And now, he wants to bribe the Livonian nobility to declare him the legitimate King of Poland. How does he do that? He promises to liberate them from Swedish rule. And put them under Saxon rule perhaps! Well anyways, he employs not only the Saxon army, but also the Polish army to fight in the war. It's not even their fight!

Well, now onto the actual war. I've got to give props to Denmark for surrendering within four months and thus saving Saxony from the "worst performance in the GNW" title, but honestly it's not much better. I compiled a list of battles in the GNW once, and I kid you not, Saxony never won a single battle by itself, they only win when they're joined by Russia. Saxony even lost and signed a peace with Sweden in 1706. They only came back to win the war when Russia defeated Sweden in 1709. Karl's mistake of neglecting the Russian front was his own fault. If he went for Russia first, defeated them, then went one on one with Saxony, I believe he would win.

3. Just a genuinely bad person

Hear all those stories about monarchs improving some aspects of their countries for the better? August does none of that. He could care less about the people and more for a luxurious lifestyle of collecting paintings and mistresses. Yes, the grandiose palaces full of high class art in Dresden are his. Granted, he reigned before the Age of Enlightenment and only caught a tiny bit of the very beginning, but Peter the Great lived during exactly the same time as him, and he cared for his people.

And about the mistresses, he was a notorious womanizer, and is said to have fathered over 300 children. Only one was legitimate. One. He once sent a consort, Aurora von Königsmarck, to try to persuade Karl XII to sign peace. She was refused, but still, that wasn't a very respectable move from August.

So yeah, in conclusion, I don't like him. Easily one of the worst monarchs ever in my opinion. Even his victories weren't legit. Thanks for reading my rant

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 3.5

363 – Roman emperor Julian leaves Antioch with an army of 90,000 to attack the Sasanian Empire, in a campaign which would bring about his own death. 1046 – Nasir Khusraw begins the seven-year Middle Eastern journey which he will later describe in his book Safarnama. 1279 – The Livonian Order is defeated in the Battle of Aizkraukle by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 1496 – King Henry VII of England issues letters patent to John Cabot and his sons, authorising them to explore unknown lands. 1616 – Nicolaus Copernicus's book On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres is added to the Index of Forbidden Books 73 years after it was first published. 1766 – Antonio de Ulloa, the first Spanish governor of Louisiana, arrives in New Orleans. 1770 – Boston Massacre: Five Americans, including Crispus Attucks, are fatally shot by British troops in an event that would contribute to the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War (also known as the American War of Independence) five years later. 1811 – Peninsular War: A French force under the command of Marshal Victor is routed while trying to prevent an Anglo-Spanish-Portuguese army from lifting the Siege of Cádiz in the Battle of Barrosa. 1824 – First Anglo-Burmese War: The British officially declare war on Burma. 1825 – Roberto Cofresí, one of the last successful Caribbean pirates, is defeated in combat and captured by authorities. 1836 – Samuel Colt patents the first production-model revolver, the .34-caliber. 1850 – The Britannia Bridge across the Menai Strait between the island of Anglesey and the mainland of Wales is opened. 1860 – Parma, Tuscany, Modena and Romagna vote in referendums to join the Kingdom of Sardinia. 1868 – Mefistofele, an opera by Arrigo Boito, receives its premiere performance at La Scala. 1872 – George Westinghouse patents the air brake. 1906 – Moro Rebellion: United States Army troops bring overwhelming force against the native Moros in the First Battle of Bud Dajo, leaving only six survivors. 1912 – Italo-Turkish War: Italian forces are the first to use airships for military purposes, employing them for reconnaissance behind Turkish lines. 1931 �� The British Raj: Gandhi–Irwin Pact is signed. 1933 – Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party receives 43.9% at the Reichstag elections, which allows the Nazis to later pass the Enabling Act and establish a dictatorship. 1936 – First flight of K5054, the first prototype Supermarine Spitfire advanced monoplane fighter aircraft in the United Kingdom. 1939 – Spanish Civil War: The National Defence Council seizes control of the republican government in a coup d'etat, with the intention of negotiating an end to the war. 1940 – Six high-ranking members of the Soviet politburo, including Joseph Stalin, sign an order for the execution of 25,700 Polish intelligentsia, including 14,700 Polish POWs, in what will become known as the Katyn massacre. 1942 – World War II: Japanese forces capture Batavia, capital of Dutch East Indies, which is left undefended after the withdrawal of the KNIL garrison and Australian Blackforce battalion to Buitenzorg and Bandung. 1943 – First Flight of the Gloster Meteor, Britain's first combat jet aircraft. 1944 – World War II: The Red Army begins the Uman–Botoșani Offensive in the western Ukrainian SSR. 1946 – Cold War: Winston Churchill coins the phrase "Iron Curtain" in his speech at Westminster College, Missouri.

[ptseti]

The Coat of Arms of The Brotherhood of Blackheads ___ The Brotherhood of Blackheads is an association of local unmarried male merchants, ship-owners, and foreigners that was active in Livonia (present-day Estonia and Latvia) in the mid-14th century… The Brotherhood of Blackheads originated as a military organization, but the non-military aspects of the association gradually became more pronounced until the Brotherhood became a predominantly social organization after the end (1721) of the Great Northern War… The brotherhood traces its origin to a group of foreign merchants who, according to the legend, had participated in the defence of Reval (present-day Tallinn in Estonia) during the Saint George's Night Uprising between 1343 and 1345 when the indigenous population of Estonia unsuccessfully tried to exterminate all foreigners and eradicate Christianity from Estonia… According to the Great Rights in Tallinn, the Brotherhood of Blackheads committed itself to defending the city from any enemy invasion… Among other duties, the Brotherhood provided the city with a cavalry detachment… The Blackhead cavalrymen patrolled the city wall and six of them made rounds inside the wall every evening after the city gates were locked at sunset… In 1526 the Brotherhood presented the city council of Tallinn with 8 rock-hurling machines, 20 cannon carriages, and 66 small-calibre guns… Money was donated for making cannons for Narva, and it was stipulated that the Blackheads' coat of arms be on all the guns… During the 25-year-long Livonian War (1558-1583), members of the Brotherhood of Blackheads in Tallinn participated in many battles and successfully helped to defend the city against the Russians who unsuccessfully besieged Tallinn in 1570–1571 and again in 1577… The military aspect of the Brotherhood can be attributed to its founding during the days of the last great anti-Christian revolt of the indigenous people of Northern Europe in the wake of the Northern Crusades…

[lightdancer1]

Wrapped up the third and last book on the Baltic region:

Wrapped up my third and last book in the Baltic history series. This one brings that history to the end of the USSR, and by the time it reaches the 20th Century it proceeds on dual tracks, one Sweden-Denmark-Norway, one Lithuania-Latvia-Estonia. This is in no small part a logical result of the difference between more or less independent states and states that were absorbed into first Romanov and then Bolshevik versions of Russian imperialism.

This book also lays out very plainly how the Nordic model of social welfare came about, spares no pains (not that the US advocates ever pay attention to this part) to note how it's actually funded, and that Nordic peoples are willing to pay that price. US wannabes, OTOH, would be a case of 'wait and see but doubt vehemently.'

One of the most key points, though, is that at least to the first half of the 20th Century Scandinavia was as backwards as Russia if with better PR. Large portions of its countryside were still very much in a medieval to 1600s model of shitty housing and miserable lives and the none too pleasant conditions of the cities were still miles beyond the horrid life of a Scandinavian farmer, which is why so many people fled as fast as their little legs could carry them.

Too, the political system remained until surprisingly late absolutism in the true sense with the monarchy holding all the political cards and democracy and socialism alike seen as radical innovations. And in all this Scandinavia had it astronomically better than the war-ravaged Baltic regions under Romanov rule, though the local nationalities used the Romanovs like the Yishuv used the Mandate, a means to pry off the Baltic Germans who were the legacy of the Teutonic Knights and the Livonian Order and to establish self-determination and then independence.

This, ultimately, is what Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania all have in common. Where they differ is that the Finns got all the good and very little of the bad, outside WWII, where the Baltic states, like Ukraine, Belarus, and Soviet Central Asia were cosmic chew toys in the mouth of a rabid dog.

9/10.

[pinklocksoflove]

Jessice in her armor and her faithful Zweihander "Daneslayer" it eaned it's name from many wars such as the Livonian war where she lent her blade for the kingdom of Livonia.

[autodidact-adventures]

Siberian History (Part 5): Khanate of Sibir

By the end of the 1500s, a large part of the world had been mapped well, but not Siberia – its ice-laden seas along the northern coast had hindered mariners who were searching for China or “Cathay”. Map-makers labelled Northern Asia as Tartary or Great Tartary, but gave it no geographic detail.  The Ob River (thought to have its source in the Aral Sea) was as far east as people had got from the west.

When shown on maps, Tartary was filled in according to the stories and legends the mapmakers had heard – Asiatic nomads among camels and tents, or worshipping idols and pillars of stone.  Sometimes there were accompanying inscriptions identifying them as cannimals, or claiming that they “doe eate serpentes, wormes and other filth”. Other customs ascribed to them were copied from Central Asian tribes that the mapmakers knew about.

Siberia was also seen as an other-worldly, mythological land that extended even as far as the sunrise.  From one contemporary source, “to the east of the sun, to the most-high mountain Karkaraur, where dwell the one-armed, one-footed folk.”

However, a little was known about Siberia.  The Russian Chronicles (chronological records kept by monasteries since the beginning of Russian history) mentioned the territory.  Russian merchants who traded in furs with tribes along the Ob River had long been familiar withYugra (meaning “the land of the Ostyaks”, a local tribe now known as the Khanty).  This was a collective name for the lands & peoples between the Pechora River (west) and the Ural Mountains (east).

In 1236, an itinerant Brother Julian mentioned a “land of Sibur, surrounded by the Northern Sea”.  In 1376, St. Stephen of Perm established a church in the Kama River Valley (west of the Urals), where a former missionary had earlier been skinned alive.

Russia began to give the missionaries military backing in 1455, and soldiers swept along the frontier in 1484.  They captured some tribal chieftains, who were then forced into a treaty that acknowledged Moscow's suzerainty and made them pay tribute.

Khanate of Sibir

The Khanate of Sibir had been established in 1420 when the Mongol Empire was breakking up.  It was a semi-feudal state just east of the Ural Mountains.  It was dominated by the Siberian Tatars, who descended from one of the Mongol fighting groups, or “hordes”. The khanate included Siberian Tatars (Turkic & Muslim), Bashkirs, and various Uralic peoples (including the Khanty, Mansi and Selkup peoples).  Its ruling class was Turco-Mongol.  The khanate's territory stretched east of the Urals to the Irtysh River, and south to the Ishim steppes.

Approximate extent of the Khanate of Sibir in the 1400s - 1500s.

Now it came within the orbit of Muscovite political & military relations.  Moscow had become familiar with the northern sea route from Archangel, although only as far as the northern end of the Ural Mountains.  But there wasn't a southern route into Sibir until Kazan (another Mongol succession state on the Volga River) was captured in 1552.  In 1555, the Taibugid Khan Yadigar acknowledged Ivan the Terrible's suzerainty; Ivan immediately began calling himself the “Tsar of Sibir”.

But Russia still didn't known that beyond the Ob River, Siberia stretched as far as Northern Asia, from the Ural Mountains to the Pacific Ocean.

Sibir was a coherent, loosely-confederated state, with trade along ancient caravan routes to western China.  However, it was beset by internal problems as was basically living on borrowed time.  The Siberian Tatars (who had converted to Islam in 1272) clashed with other ethnic groups.  There were inter-tribal hostilities, particularly between the Khanty and Mansi (or Ostyaks and Voguls, as they were called at the time).  From the founding of Sibir, there had been a dynastic struggle between the Shaybanids (descendants of Genghis Khan) and the Taibugids (heirs of a local prince).  Until 1552, the Kazakh Khanate (also Tatar) stood between Sibir and Russia, but now that was not the case anymore.

Along with acknowledging Russia's suzerainty, Yadigar also agreed to pay annual tribute (in the form of furs) to Ivan.  This was an unpopular decision.  It may well have been the reason that in 1563, he was desposed and killed in on the banks of the Irtysh River, in his capital of Qashliq (also called Isker), by Khan Kuchum, who claimed descent from Genghis Khan.

Kuchum then surrounded himself with a palace guard composed of Uzbeks, purged the local leadership of opponents, and tried to impose Islam on the pagan tribes (with the help of mullahs from Bukhara, now in Uzbekistans.

By 1571, Russia was struggling and appeared to be in the process of falling apart.  Kuchum took the opportunity to renounce the tribute to Moscow.  In 1573, he sent a punitive expedition against the Khanty people in Perm (west of the Urals), who had recognized Russian suzerainty.  Moscow gave no response, so in 1579 he also intercepted and killed a Muscovite envoy that was en route to Central Asia.

The Stroganovs

During the Livonian War (1557 – 1581), in which Ivan the Terrible tried to force his way to the Baltic, Moscow's government had handed the defence of their eastern frontier and Urals dominions to the Stroganov family.  They were a powerful family of industrial magnates and financiers.  According to legend, they were descended from a Christianized Tartar called Spiridon, who had introduced the abacus to Russia.  Their wealth was founded on furs, ore, salt and grain (the mainstays of the economy).  They had accumulated a great deal of assets & properties over the past 200yrs, extending from Kaluga and Ryazan eastwards to the current Vologda Oblast.  They traded with the English & Dutch on the Kola Peninsula, established commercial links with Central Asia, and had foreign agents who travelled as far abroad as Antwerp and Paris for them.

They were originally centered on their saltworks at Solvyechegodsk (Russia's “Salt Lake City”), but a rapid series of land grants secured their absolute commercial domination of the Russian north-east.  In 1558, Ivan the Terrible authorized a charter giving Anikey Stroganov and his successors large estates along the eastern edge of Russian settlement, along the Kama and Chusovaya Rivers – this gave them access to much of Perm, on the Upper Kama River almost to the Urals.

Map of the Kama River Basin.  A black diamond shows the location of Perm; grey rectangles show the Kama and Chusovaya Rivers.

The 1558 charter served as a model for future dealings with the Stroganovs.  In each case, the Stroganovs pledged to fund and develop industres; break the soil for agriculture; train and equip a frontier guard; prospect for ore and mineral deposits, and mine whatever was found.  In return, they were given long-term tax-exempt status for themselves and their colonists.

The Stroganovs had jurisdiction over the local population, and had the right to protect their holdings with garrisoned stockades and forts equipped with artillery.  A chain of military outposts and watchtowers was soon growing along the river route to the east.

Colonization was advancing to the foot of the Ural Mountains, and the Stroganovs tried to subject a number of native tribes to their authority, including the Khanty and Mansi peoples, who lived on both sides of the Urals.  The native peoples fought back – they destroyed crops; attacked villages, saltworks and flour mills; and massacred settlers on the western slopes of the Urals.  Soldiers were sent to deal with uprisings, but they couldn't be spared for very long from the tsar's western fronts.

Meanwhile, prospectors had found silver and iron ore deposits on the Tura River, east of the Urals.  It was assumed (correctly) that the districts it was found in also had sulphur, lead and tin.  Also, scouts had seen the rich pastures by the Tobol River where the Tatars' cattle grazed.

In 1574, the Stroganovs petitioned for a new charter “to drive a wedge between the Siberian Tartars and the Nogays” (a tribe to the south), by means of fortified settlements.  In return, they would be given a licence to exploit the region's resources.  Moscow (in response to Kuchum's aggression) agred.

Because the Livonian War meant that soldiers couldn't be spared for long, the Stroganovs were also given permission to enlist runaways or outlaws in their militia; and to finance a campaign against Kuchum “to make him pay the tribute”.  The campaign would be spearheaded by “hired Cossacks and artillery”.  The government promised that those who volunteered would be rewarded with the wives & children of natives as their concubines & slaves.

Cossacks

“Cossacks” were independent frontiermen who lived along the empire's fringes.  Some were solitary wanderers, or mixed-race peoples.  There was also a turbulent border population of itinerant workers, tramps, runaways, bandits, adventurers and religious dissenters, who had been forced to move to this no-man's-land of forest & steppe by taxation, debt, repression, famine, or refuge from Muscovite law.  Here they mingled and clashed with the Tatars, adopted Tatar terminology, and created a new independent life for themselves.  The term “Cossack” comes from the Turkish kazak, meaning “rebel/freeman”.

Some Cossacks had banded together under elected atamans (chieftains) into semi-military groups along the Volga, Dnieper and Don Rivers, in order to protect their homesteading communities. They raided Tatar settlements, poached on Tatar land, preyed on Moscow river convoys, and ambushed government army patrols who had been sent to catch and hang them.

Vasily “Yermak” Timofeyevich was the leader of a Cossack band. He was a third-generation bandit, and the most notorious pirate on the Volga River of the time.  He was powerfully-built, medium height, and had a flat face, black beard and curly hair.  According to the Siberian Chronicles, “his associates called him 'Yermak,' after a millstone.  And in his military achievements he was great.”

Regular army patrols (with gallows built on rafts) attempted to enforce the tsar's authority along the Volga trade route.  There was a series of expeditions intended to crush or subdue outlaw bands, culminating in 1577 in a great sweep along both sides of the Volga. Many Cossacks were forced to flee, with the tsar's cavalry after them – some fled downstream to the Caspian Sea; some scattered across the steppes.  According to legend, a third group under Yermak raced up the Kama River into the wilds of Perm, where they joined the Stroganovs' frontier guard and were enthusiastically welcomed into it.

The Expedition

A few years later, the Stroganovs organized an expedition to secure the Kama frontier, bring part of the Siberia within their mining monopoly, and gain access to Siberian furs.  This did not fall under the tsar's commission.

The expedition began on September 1st, 1581.  A Cossack army of 840 men (including 300 Livonian POWs, two priests, and a runaway monk impressed into service as a cook) assembled under Yermak's leadership on the banks of the Kama River near Orel-Gorodok, south of Solikamsk.  According to the Chronicles, they set off “singing hymns to the Trinity, to God in his Glory, and to the most immaculate Mother of God,” but this probably didn't happen.

The military force had a rough code of martial law.  Insubordination was punished by being bundled head-first into a sack, with a bag of sand tied to your chest, and being tipped into the river.  About twenty people were tipped in at the start.

It is not certain whether the Stroganovs voluntarily provided full assistance to this expedition, or were coerced into it.  However, they always drove a hard bargain, and intended their aid to be a loan “secured by indentures”.  The Cossacks rejected this, and agreed to compensate them from their plunder; or if they failed to return, to redeem their obligations “by prayer in the next world”.  The Siberian Chronicles portrayed this military expedition as a holy crusade against the infidel, so this sarcastic promise was reinterpreted as genuine and as religious fervour.  One passage in the Siberian Chronicles states, “Kuchum led a sinful life.  He had 100 wives, and youths as well as maidens, worshipped idols, and ate unclean foods.”

The army was organized into disciplined companies, each with its own leader and flag.  Although they were vastly outnumbered by the khanate's troops, it wasn't as bad as it seemed.  They were well-led, well-armed, and well-provisioned (with rye flour, buckwheat, roasted oats, butter, biscuit and salt pig).  It was their military superiority through firearms that would prove decisive.

They moved along a network of rivers in doshchaniks (flat-bottomed boats that could be rowed with oars, mounted with a sail, or towed from the shore) to the foothills of the Urals (from the headwaters of the Serebryanka River to the banks of the Tagil River, at a site known today as Bear Rock).  This was a distance of about 29km.  Yermak then stopped and pitched his winter camp.

In spring, Yermak dammed the water with sails so that he could float the boats over the river's shallows.  He boarded his boat downstream, swung into the Tura River, and for a some distance advanced without resistance into the heart of Kuchum's domain.

There was a costly skirmish at the mouth of the Tobol River.  Then downstream, where the river surged through a ravine, the Tatars had laid a trap.  There was a barrier made of logs and ropes, and hundreds of warriors hiding in the trees on either side of it.  The first of Yermak's boats hit the barrier at night.  The Tatars attacked, but in the darkness most of the boats managed to escape upstream.  The Cossacks disembarked at a bend in the river, made mannequins out of twigs and fallen branches, and propped them up in the boats, with only skeleton crews at the oars.  The others (half-naked) crept around to surprise the Tatars from behind.  At dawn, they opened fire just as the flotilla floated into view.  It was a complete rout, a great success for Yermak's men.

Kuchum resolved to destroy the Cossacks before they could even reach the capital of Qashliq.  Yermak knew that he had to capture the town before winter, or his men would die from the cold.  Their provisions were low, and ambush & disease had reduced their force by half. But they kept going towards Qashliq.

The decisive confrontation was in late October, at the confluence of the Tobol and Irtysh Rivers.  Here, the Tatars had erected a palisade at the base of a hill.  The Cossacks charged, firing their muskets into the densely-massed defenders, killing many.  Many of the Tatars, conscripted by force, immediately deserted.  More fled as the palisade was stormed.  The battle continued until evening with hand-to-hand fighting.  107 Cossacks died, but they won the battle.

Kuchum is said to have had a vision on that day: “The skies burst open and terrifying warriors with shining wings appeared from the four cardinal points.  Descending to the earth they encircled Kuchum's army and cried to him: 'Depart from this land, you infidel son of the dark demon, Mahomet, because now it belongs to the Almighty.'”

The Cossacks arrived at Qashliq a few days later.  It was deserted, with few of its fabled riches left behind.  However, they found stocks of flour, barley and dried fish.

Soon afterwards, Yermak began accepting tribute from former subjects of the khan, and there were scattered defections to the Cossacks' side.  Yermak needed reinforcements & artillery to consolidate his position, so he sent his second-in-command Ivan Koltso (also a renowned bandit) to Moscow with 50 others.  They took the fabled “wolf-path” shortcut over the Urals (up the Tavda River to Cherdyn), travelling on skis and reindeer-drawn sleds.  This path was shown to them by a Tatar chieftain who acted as their guide.

But the tsar was not pleased with the expedition (he didn't yet know of Yermak's success).  In response to the invasion, the Mansi had been burning Russian settlements to the ground in the Upper Kama Valley.  Apparently on the day Yermak set out, they'd attacked Cherdyn and burned neighbouring villages.  The military governor of Perm then accused the Stroganovs of leaving the frontier undefended, as they'd stripped the frontier guard for their expedition.

In a letter from November 16th, 1582, the tsar reproved the Stroganovs for “disobedience amounting to treason”.  And the Livonian War, as it drew to a close, was being lost by the Russians.  Narva had fallen to the Swedes, and the Poles were tightening their blockade on Pskov.

Koltso arrived in the capital, where the tsar was planning to hang him.  He prostrated himself before Ivan, announced Yermak's capture of Qashliq, and proclaimed Ivan lord of the khanate. Then he displayed his spoils before the stunned court – these included three captured Tatar nobles and a sledload of pelts (2,400 sables, 2,000 beaver and 800 black foxes).  This was equal to five times the annual tribue the khan had paid.

Ivan immediately pardoned Koltso, and Yermak in absentia.  He promised reinforcements, and sent a suit of armour embossed with the imperial coat of arms to Yermak.  Koltso kissed the cross in obedience to the tsar.

Failure

Back in Siberia, Yermak was struggling to extend his authority up the Irtysh River.  He forced the native peoples to swear allegiance by kissing a bloody sword.  The penalty for resisting was to be hanged upside-down by one foot, an agonizing death.

Yermak also tried to Christianize the tribes.  In one contest of power, the local wizard ripped open his stomach with a knife, then miraculously healed the wound by smearing it with grass. In response, Yermak simply tossed the local wooden totems onto the fire.

By the end of summer 1584, Yermak had managed to extend his jurisdiction almost as far east as the Ob River.  One sortie had surprised and captured Mametkul (Kuchum's nephew and minister of war).  Things appeared to be going well.

Meanwhile, however, the Tatar raiders who had been attacking the Russian settlements returned.  Yermak's strength declined by attrition.  500 Russian reinforcements tramped into Qashliq on snowshoes in November, but they'd brought no provisions of their own, and rapidly used up Yermak's resources.  During the long winter, part of the garrison starved; some were forced to resort to cannibalizing their dead companions.

Kuchum's followers were aware of all this, and in the spring they increased their attacks on foraging parties.  There were two major blows to the Russians: 1) 20 Cossacks were killed as they dozed by a lake, and 2) Koltso and 40 others were lured to a friendship banquet and killed.

Then in early August 1585, the Tatars laid a trap for Yermak himself.  Yermak was told that an unescorted caravan from Bukhara was nearing the Irtysh River, so he hurried to meet it with a company of Cossacks.  He found that the report was false, and the men had to bivouac on an island in midstream for the night.  There was a wild storm during the night, which drove the watchmen back into their tents.

A party of Tatars disembarked without being seen, and managed to kill nearly all of the Cossacks.  Yermak struggled into his armour and fought his way to the embankment, but the boat floated out of his reach.  He plunged into the water after it, but sunk beneath the waves due to the weight of his armour.

1,340 Cossacks had started out on the expedition to Siberia, and now only 90 remained.  They retreated to the Urals, and as they made their way through a mountain pass, they met 100 Russian streltsy (musketeers) with cannon moving east.

Reconquest

Whatever the Stroganovs intended, Yermak hadn't intended to conquer Siberia, merely to carry out a typical Cossack raid for spoils.  He'd probably not intended to hold Isker, just to sack it and withdraw before deep snow & ice prevented him from escaping upstream.  But despite this, the way had been shown.  The Khanate of Sibir had been dealt an irreversible blow, and it would never be able to pull itself back together.  Within two decades of Yermak's death, the “colourless hordes” of Russia (as the natives called them) would have taken much of Western Siberia.

The Livonian War ended with an armistice with Poland and Sweden, which allowed Russia to plan an organized reconquest of the territory Yermak had taken.  They used river highways to make their advance easier, and immediately retook Isker and destroyed it.

In 1586, they founded Tyumen to consolidate Russia's position on the Tura River.  In 1587, Tobolsk was established where the Tobol and Irtysh Rivers met, about 19km from where Isker had been.  Now no tribe could doubt that the Russians were there to stay.

By 1591, they'd extended southwards down to the Barabinsk Steppes.  There, they founded Ufa (between Tobolsk and Kazan), to secure a new trans-Urals route for the movement of troops and supplies.  For the next decade, Russian outposts continued to be built further and further eastwards.

In 1593, Pelym and Beryozov were founded, in order to control and Khanty and Samoyed population in the north.

The historical town of Pelym is in the modern-day Garinsky District. Beryozov is now Beryozovo.

In 1594, the fort of Tara was founded between the Ishim and Barabinsk steppes.  The largest expedition ever sent to found a new Siberian fort was sent – 1,200 cavalry soldiers and 350 foot soldiers, including Tatar auxiliaries, and Polish & Lithuanian POWs.

In 1596, Surgut, Obdorsk and Narym were founded, in order to strengthen Russia's hold.

Obdorsk is now called Salekhard.

Verkhoturye was established in 1598 on the Tura River as a gateway to Siberia.

Verkhoturye is in the middle Ural Mountains.

In 1600, Turinsk was established as an ostrog (a small fort usually made of wood), in place of Yepanchin, which Yermak had razed to the ground.

Verkhoturye, Turinsk and Tyumen are marked with grey rectangles.

Also in 1600, 100 Cossacks sailed down the Ob River in four ships, from Tobolsk to the Arctic Coast.  From there, they went north-east towards Taz Bay.  They had a shipwreck, and then an ambush by Samoyeds, reducing their party by half.  However, they still found a spot near the Taz estuary that was suitable for building the fort of Mangazeya.

By 1600, Russia had a fortified route into Siberia, with Verkhoturye, Turinsk and Tyumen standing guard over it.  They had secured the Lower Ob basin (in the north) with Berezov, Obdorsk and Mangazeya. Its middle and upper courses were secured with Surgut, Narym and Ketsk (a fort built a few miles above the Ob in 1602).

The forts were headquarters for the army of occupation, and bases for further expansion.  Giles Fletcher, the English ambassador to Russia at the time, wrote: “In Siberia, [the tsar] hath divers castles and garisons...and sendeth many new supplies thither, to plant and to inhabite as he winneth ground.”

In 1604, the major outpost of Tomsk was established, in order to guard the Ob River basin from Central Asian nomads raiding across the borders from the south.  Now “the cornerstone of the Russian Asiatic empire had been laid.”

Results of the Conquest

The Stroganovs received more trading privileges, and new grants of land west of the Urals, where their empire of trading posts, mines and mills could grow.  But they weren't given any of the lands Yermak had advanced into, and got less out of his conquest than they'd hoped. The government realized what a great opportunity Sibir was, and its reoccupation became a state venture.  Blockhouses and forts were built to dominate the rivers and portages (paths where craft or cargo are regularly carried between bodies of water).

Russia chose sites for their outposts that had previously been used by Tatar princelings to wield their own authority, thus helping them with native recognition of their legitimacy.  They also exploited local enmities – for example, the local Khanty helped the Russians to subdue the Mansi in the neighbourhood of Pelym.  For the most part, the Khanty were consistent allies of the Russians (apart from a considerable uprising of their own in 1595).

However, for the most part the natives were not happy with Russian rule, and the Tatars least of all.  Khan Kuchum had escaped south to the steppes before the capture of Qashliq, and continued to harass them for the next 14yrs.  The Russians undertook campaigns against him in 1591, 1595 and 1598.  Most of Kuchum's followers and family were eventually captured or killed, but he refused to be defeated.  He continued to fight a futile rear-guard action, attacking isolated Russian companies and posts.

Kuchum offered to negotiate a just peace at one point, one that would allow his followers to live according to their ancient ways in the Irtysh Valley.  Instead, Russia tried to tempt him with money, property, and recognition of his royal rank.  In response, Kuchum burned a Russian settlement.

Kuchum died in 1598.  He was almost blind by then, and he was kiled by the Nogai assassins whom he had turned to for help.

After Kuchum had died, Moscow took steps to prevent his heirs from trying to take the khanate's throne.  His heirs had settled in Russia, where they were indulged as royal exiles, and adopted by the Muscovite elite as their own.  Kuchum's daughters were married to young nobles, and the sons were given noble rank.  One grandson was given the town of Kasimov on the Oka River (this had long been a showcase for puppet Tatars).  Kuchum's nephew Mametkul was recognized as a prince, and became a general in the Russian Army.

Yermak became an important figure in both Russian and Tatar folklore.  The Cossacks who fell in the battle for Sibir had their names engraved on a memorial tablet in the cathedral of Tobolsk.

There is a legend that sometime after Yermak's death, a Tatar fisherman dredged his body up from the Irtysh, recognizing him by the double-headed eagle emblazoned on the chainmail hauberk.  Upon removing the armour, it was found that Yermak's flesh was uncorrupted, and that blood gushed from his mouth and nose.  His body and clothing could work miracles, and mothers & babies were preserved from disease.  The natives buried him at the foot of a pine tree by the river, and for many years afterwards the spot was marked by a column of fire.

[awesome-casuallyfamouscollector]

Cēsis Castle, Latvia, July 15, 2006. Photo by D.P.