e2history

When WWII commenced in 1939, Norway was in a situation which it had some experience handling. Strict neutrality had been maintained during WWI, and there was common agreement in the government led by prime minister Johan Nygaardsvold that it would be unwise to rise from a comfortable obscurity and take a stand.

This was just as well, considering the state of Norway's armed forces. The labour government that had shaped most of Norway’s policies had strong pacifistic tendencies, and defence was a post that was mostly considered as a source of funds for other projects. The army could, in theory, call upon thirty thousand men (there were 2,9 million Norwegians in 1940), although the real figure was close to seven thousand. They were armed with Krag-Jørgensen rifles, though there were not enough submachine guns or grenades to go around, and absolutely no anti-aircraft guns, armoured vehicles or tanks.

The navy had seventy smaller ships, incapable of covering the long coast, and the air force consisted of a handful of antiquated aircraft. Due to budget cuts, field manoeuvres and exercises were limited after basic training. The coastal fortresses, vital to prevent enemy access to the ports, were armed with obsolete guns and short on ammunition. Despite passionate pleas from the minister of defence, Christian Fredrik Monsen, the government had remained complacent and maintained that only by remaining harmless could Norway hope to remain neutral.

By April 1940, Germany had been at war with France and Great Britain for seven months, yet hostilities had been remarkably restrained, to say the least. Along the French-German border, only minor actions and a few long-range artillery duels punctuated an otherwise uneventful life. Only at sea were there any significant battles. Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty and a member of the war council, wished to mine the Norwegian Leads. The Leads lie between the islands that litter the sea just outside the Norwegian coast towards the North Sea and was kept free of ice by the Gulf Stream.

A few carefully placed minefields would force the ships that carried Swedish iron ore from the port in Narvik, where it had been taken by rail from Sweden in the winter. The Swedes had their own ports, but they were frozen shut in the winter. This would force the ships into international waters, where the Royal Navy could intercept them.

Such an operation would deprive Germany of vital resources necessary to continue the war for an extended period of time. It was estimated that six out of eight million tons of iron ore that the Germans imported came from Sweden. Furthermore, Churchill also proposed that a force should land at Narvik, march to Sweden and seize the mines in Kiruna and Gällivare. This would have the added benefit of cutting off Germany from the precious Swedish ore all year.

Despite Churchill's best efforts, however, the British war council was unable to make a decision. In the end, the Leads were mined on April 8, and some forces that could be used for an expedition to Norway were being assembled. But even while the mining was carried out, German forces were on their way to Norway.

During WWI, the effective British blockade of Germany had effectively confined the German navy to its home ports. It was determined not to let that happen again, and wanted to establish bases in Norway. Hitler considered any such moves far too risky. His opinion was that if Norwegian neutrality was breached, then the British would have an excuse to move against the ships that transported ore to Germany. Two events would make him change his mind.

The first was a meeting with Vidkun Quisling. Quisling, a former major in the Norwegian army, was one of the very few representatives of a Norwegian variant of Fascism. He had funded a party called Nasjonal Samling (National Union), although he had failed to gain a single seat in parliament. Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi party ideologue, recommended Quisling to Hitler, and a meeting ensued. Quisling insisted to the Führer that he had many sympathizers in Norway, and that it would be possible, with a little help from Nazi Germany, to establish a Fascistic government. In exchange, the Wehrmacht would be given access to bases in Norway. Hitler was impressed, but unwilling to take the risk, although he did offer to train Quisling's militia and fund the NS.

The other event took place on February 17. The Altmark, a supply ship for the Graf Spee, had taken refuge in Norwegian waters. Hidden inside of the ship were three hundred British prisoners, taken from Merchant Navy ships attacked by the Graf Spee. The Norwegian navy had inspected the ship without discovering the prisoners, and allowed it to move on. Soon afterwards, the British destroyer Cossack boarded the Altmark and liberated the sailors, causing a few German casualties in the process. Hitler took this as a sign that Norway was unwilling or unable to defend its neutrality.

In the end, the operation (with the code name Weserübung) was ready. German navy units would take key ports in Norway disguised as British ships. The troops they carried would then, supported by the Luftwaffe, hold their objectives until relieved. Some of the objectives, such as airports, would be taken by airborne assaults. Shortly before the operation started, the German ambassador would meet with the government and claim that the Germans had come to protect them from British aggression. Denmark would be occupied simultaneously. The plan would be initiated at April 9, 05:15.

By the end of April 9, the Germans had met all their objectives in Norway. Narvik, Trondheim, Bergen, Haugesund, Stavanger and Oslo (the capital) had been taken. Not everything had gone quite according to plan, though. A number of ships had been lost in engagements with the British. However, it was at Oscarsborg in the Oslo fjord that the Germans suffered their most serious setback. The heavy cruiser Blücher, together with a few smaller ships, were on their way towards Oslo, carrying troops to occupy the city and capture the government and the royal family. The defenders at Oscarsborg fortress opened fire with two of their 28 cm Krupp guns, hitting the Blücher and setting fire to the petroleum storage. Two further torpedo hits sealed Blücher's fate, and she went down with 1 600 men, among them the administrative officials and the members of the Gestapo who had been aboard. In the end, Oslo was taken by airborne troops landing later that day, but by then, the government and the royal family had fled, together with Norway's gold reserves and the secret papers from the foreign ministry.

Before they fled, the minister of defence ordered the military to mobilise. By some tragic misunderstanding, however, he apparently gave the impression that he wanted a partial mobilisation. This meant that the conscripts would receive a letter to notify them that they should report for duty. Fortunately, the foreign minister gave a quick interview before he left Oslo in which he stated that an immidiate mobilisation was under way, no doubt assuming that such was the case. At any rate, this prompted many men to report immediately, although the Germans had in several cases already captured the local army depot. Nevertheless, isolated groups of Norwegians soldiers and volunteers set about constructing roadblocks and digging trenches in the hope that they could delay the Germans long enough. They knew that the British were coming to their aid.

Throughout the invasion, the assistance Quisling had promised Hitler was conspicuously absent. Quisling himself did try to take advantage of the situation by broadcasting a speech in which he claimed to be forming a new government with himself as prime minister, and that all resistance should stop. He was completely ignored, and would not attain any power until 1943.

The German attempts to negotiate with King Haakon VII and the government met with failure. King Haakon refused to accept any government headed by Quisling, and would rather abdicate than see a man with so little public support rule the country. The king himself had scarcely any political power, but his words were a welcome source of encouragement for the government, which had been rather nervous and unwilling to resist the Germans, yet also unable to accept their terms. They sent away the German ambassador with the message that they would not surrender. Hitler was incensed when he understood that he was being defied, and ordered their elimination. Nevertheless, several other attempts to make the Norwegians change their minds were made the during following days.

The British had been caught by surprise, and spent a day discussing their alternatives. It was decided that Narvik should be taken as soon as possible. During the days following the invasion, the Royal Navy succeeded in destroying the German ships near the city and secured the waters in northern Norway, but failed to secure Narvik itself. It was decided that a combined navy and army force with the code name Avonmouth would operate in the Narvik area. In addition, two operations would be carried out in order to take Trondheim, some seven hundred kilometers south of Narvik. A group named Mauriceforce would land to the north of Trondheim and take the city with a pincer movement, while another group, named Sickleforce, would do the same from the south. If successful, the operation would cut off deny the Germans in the south any chance of reinforcing their position in Narvik.

While the Norwegian army fought to stem the tide of Germans advancing from the south, the British hurriedly loaded their equipment on to their ships. In the confusion, many formations were separated from such vital items such as anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, ammunition, vehicles and other heavy weapons, which arrived at the wrong place or not at all.

The command of Avonmouth was split between Major-General P.J. Mackesy and Admiral of the Fleet the Earl of Cork and Orrery. These two men had been given separate briefings and had received somewhat contradictory orders, and the system of joint command would prove to paralyse them at a time when time was working against them.

In Narvik, General Dietl found himself in command of the 3rd Mountain Division and approximately two thousand sailors who had been armed with weapons from the local Norwegian army base. Demoralised by the loss of his naval assets and much of the division's supplies, Dietl considered withdrawing from the city, but decided to hang on in the hope that relief would arrive in time. By the time the British took action, he had organized a strong fighting force.

On April 14, Mackesy landed his troops at Harstad, about fourty kilometers north of Narvik. He had considered the opposition too strong for an immediate landing in the city itself, and planned to advance on the city when he had sufficient forces. Lord Cork, on the other hand, pressed for an attack on Narvik with the forces at their disposal, in the belief that they should strike before the enemy recovered after the loss of their ships. After both commanders had conferred at length with their respective superiors in London, it was decided on the 22nd that the attack would commence two days later. The preceding bombardment by all their available warships did not seem to make any visible impression on the Germans, and the attack was called off.

During he following weeks, there were several skirmishes between the British forces, which also included some French Chasseurs Alpins and the Germans, although no decisive battles took place. Avomnouth was also reinforced by some Polish units. The most effective force in existence in the Narvik area was probably the Norwegians, though. Equipped with skis and white cloaks, they were capable of greater mobility than any of their allies, with the possible exception of the French.

Narvik was finally captured on May 28, principally by the Norwegian, Polish and French forces, and the Germans were forced out of the city towards the border to Sweden. Since the British operations in the south had been called off earlier, strong German forces would eventually reach Narvik. It was unlikely that the allies could hold the city on their own. Before the withdrawal was carried, the allies used the opportunity to demolish the port facilities.

On May 25, the War Cabinet considered the situation in Norway so unfavourable that they felt that the only action left was to withdraw (the formal decision was taken a few days later). Besides, the German breakthrough in France meant that nothing could be spared for the campaign in Norway. The Norwegian government and the royal family, which had moved to Tromsø in the extreme north of Norway, accepted London's offer of exile in London, although they were appalled when they discovered that the British had been unwilling to disclose this to them until the very last moment. In fact, none of the Norwegian commanders were told until the last minute, and many of them were left in a difficult strategic situation when the allies unexpectedly took their leave. They and their men, who had been fighting continually for almost two months, were bitterly disappointed, and many felt that their allies had betrayed them.

Mauriceforce and Sickleforce experienced similar fates. None of them made it to Trondheim. Both met strong German resistance, and were at times almost continually bombed and strafed by the Luftwaffe. South of Trondheim, Sickleforce was forced to move south in order to counter strong German forces that had been pushing the Norwegians northwards. The general lack of anti-aircraft weapons and the proper equipment needed to effectively operate in the snow were probably the two most important factors which led to their strategic withdrawal in early May. For the French Chasseurs Alpins, which had great potential in the snow, it was especially unfortunate that their skis had been mislaid. Nevertheless, they were considerably better prepared than the British to fight in the snow.

The battles above have been described rather briefly, mostly because delving into details would necessitate a lot of repetition. There was little in the way of exceptional tactics or strategies involved. The problems faced in the three operations were almost identical, namely a lack of friendly air cover (with a few exceptions) and a shortage of heavy weapons. They cold weather and snow storms also hampered them, although this affected both sides. Still, the allies only had access to whatever vehicles they had managed to borrow from the Norwegians, while the Germans were better prepared in this aspect. While the Luftwaffe was unable to effectively intervene in Narvik for much of the campaign, Mauriceforce and Sickleforce bore allied soldiers fought bravely against a superior enemy that received continual reinforcements from the south, but they could not hope to prevail.

The battle for Norway was an abysmal defeat for the allies, although they had suffered remarkably few casualties. In fact, the German navy now had their bases, but a drastically weakened force to take advantage of it. The British divisions that retreated from Norway could not make it to France in time, and would be used to defend against the expected German invasion that never came. For the Norwegians, there would be five hard years until the Wehrmacht surrendered unconditionally on May 8, 1945. The incompetence of government was conveniently forgotten.

However, as every cloud has a silver lining, the German occupation of Norway gave the allies one advantage: Hitler insisted that Norway would be the stage for the Allied invasion of German-occupied Europe, partially because the Allies staged several raids on German forces stationed by the coast. At most, about three hundred thousand soldiers were kept there, among them some of the Wehrmacht's best divisions. Few of them saw any action.

Sources
Jack Adams, The Doomed Expedition (ISBN 0 7493 0282 8)
William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (ISBN 0 330 70001 4)
François Kersaudy, Kappløpet om Norge (the Norwegian translation of Norway 1940) (ISBN 82-504-1754-2)

Roger Mortimer was what the kids these days like to refer to as a cad, scoundrel, or even rotten murderous villain. At least partly responsible for what came to be known as the War of the Roses, Mortimer tried his hand at everything from treason to homewrecking, with rumors of regicide tossed in as well. He escaped from prison, raised an army, controlled a king, seduced a queen, and dangled from the gallows. But he did it with style, and really, isn’t that what counts?

Born in 1287, Roger Mortimer was a veteran of the Scottish Wars, and the first Earl of March. In 1321 Mortimer made his first attempt at rebellion, gathering a number of barons in an attempt to displace his rivals, the Despencers from their position of influence with King Edward II. He was defeated, and promptly tossed in the Tower of London

In 1324, Mortimer escaped and fled to France followed soon after by his lover, Queen Isabella. I’d like to dwell on this point for a moment. Not only did he manage to escape from one of the most famous prisons in history, he managed to persuade the Queen of England to betray her husband (admittedly, Edward II was by all accounts a bit of a tool), and join him in exile in a foreign country. The best (and worst) was yet to come for Roger, though.

While in France, Mortimer raised himself a small army, consisting mainly of British exiles and mercenaries. In 1326, two years after he left, Mortimer returned to England. He and Isabella found allies at home, both in Henry, Earl of Lancaster, and the people of London who rose in support of their queen. Edward II and the Despencers fled London for Wales, hoping to raise an army of loyalists in what was traditionally Despencer land. They did not make it in time, and were soundly defeated by Mortimer and Isabella. Edward II was taken prisoner, and Despencer and his heir were executed.

In 1327, Parliament met, and forced the king to abdicate in favor of his son, Edward III. Edward II didn’t survive the year, and was murdered in Berkeley Castle that September. Mortimer and Isabella ruled England through their influence on the young king, and made a number of enemies in the process. These enemies included Lancaster, their former ally. Lancaster encouraged Edward III to assert his independence, and in 1330, when Edward was 18, he overthrew Mortimer, and had him hanged for treason.

The Mortimer line survived Roger’s ambitions, as in an impressive display of mercy, Edward III restored the family lands to Roger’s grandson of the same name, also naming him Earl of the March, and a Knight of the Order of The Garter.

further info: Mortimer is also the basis for the character of Jaime Lannister in George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, a fantasy epic loosely based on the War of The Roses.

In the Beginning…

The chain of events which led to the foundation of Muscovy and its eventual emergence as a sovereign power is lengthy and convoluted. Among the many difficulties it faced in its ascent were lengthy subjection to the Golden Horde, raids conducted by fragmenting Mongol khanates and Timur’s rogue lieutenants, a civil war (instigated by Iurii Dmitrievich, following a dispute over the system of succession instituted by Vasilii I) and the waning of Byzantine power (and so too the power of the Orthodox Church). Even then, Russian history is characterised by internal disputes, as each city strove to best its neighbours (although it must be remembered that each city claimed territory equivalent to that of a western European kingdom). Amid the clamour, Muscovy became the dominant power. It must be understood why this is the case and what ramifications this fact has before a chronology of events and policies can have any significant meaning.

Nobody could have predicted - even at the beginning of the 14th century - that Moscow would become the foremost power in Russia. It began life inauspiciously, as a mere fortified frontier post for the principality of Suzdal (first mentioned as such in 1147). It seems to have become an independent political entity around the time of Aleksandr Nevskii’s death in 1263 (as it was given to his two-year-old son, Daniil). Other principalities began to recognise its power in 1301-1304, as it expanded by annexing Mozhaisk, Pereiaslavl and Kolomna. It now had control of almost all of the Moscow River and its tributaries as far as the Oka confluence, as well as the upper basin of the Kliazma River, with sufficient (and relatively fertile) territory to provide access to Vladimir itself.

As a consequence of this confused origin, Muscovy seems to have displayed an acute schizophrenia in its first steps as a sovereign state. There were, after all, many questions to be answered as to the nature of the state itself and much confusion as to what or whom it owed its identity. Was it a European kingdom? The sheer geographical isolation of its position would suggest not, although political links with Byzantium, Lithuania, Poland, Germany (the Holy Roman Empire and Teutonic Knights) and other Russian cities ensured that it was not entirely cast adrift. Was it, perhaps, a steppe khanate? Two centuries of Mongol domination (and the constant press of nomads against its borders) must surely have left their mark, after all. Much more appealing than either, though, was the notion that Muscovy would become a successor to the city of Constantinople (lost in 1453 to the Ottoman Turks) as the heart of Orthodoxy (a ‘Third Rome’, as it was thought). This too engendered some confusion, however, as there was disparity over whether the greatest significance lay in the concept of imperial authority or fastidious Orthodox belief; it can certainly be seen that the prosperity of the Orthodox Church was linked to the will of the ruler.

---

Hierarchy and Geography

In truth a little of all three ideals was incorporated into the new nation, but the lattermost factor was the most symbolic with regard to the strengthening national ideal of Rus, for it meant that a strong political and spiritual authority became an inherent characteristic of the state. Despite the eagerness of the church to adopt the titles of samoderzhets (‘autocrat’) and tsar (‘basileus’, or ‘emperor’), however, there were some misgivings amongst the grand princes as to which of these titles they could legitimately lay claim and what exactly they engendered. At first, the title tsar (a derivation of Caesar, by way of Russian tsisari and Old Slavonic tsesari; further allusions to Roman heritage) was merely used in the same sense as ‘khan’ (meaning that they had authority to grant safe passage across the steppes, for it was seen that they had legitimately supplanted the Kipchaks in this regard). Thereafter the term was cautiously expanded and affiliated with gosudar vseia Rusi (‘sovereign of all Rus’, 1493). Small steps were taken (such as the adoption of the double-headed eagle, in its Byzantine form, on the princely seal) until Ivan IV’s coronation in 1547, at which point the term tsar became the official title for all grand princes of Moscow from that point onward. So too was the role of the peasantry cemented in tradition - the reverence shown toward the mir (‘village’, but also ‘world’ or ‘peace’), and the doctrine of serfdom (which attempted to ensure a settled population) would long be Russian characteristics.

Women were afforded a surprisingly broad gamut of rights. Any woman not directly provided for by a husband or father was able to inherit land in the interests of her subsistence. Her property was also kept distinct from her husband’s upon marriage, and for the same reason. Indeed, in contravention of the prevailing stance on gender equity at the end of the 15th century, women were able to own and dispose of property (both estates and transportable possessions) on a level almost on par with their male counterparts. Unfortunately, the rights of some well-enfranchised women were curtailed as the centralised state continued to grow in the 16th century; the line which indicated joint property ownership was blurred (generally to the detriment of the woman, although the same consideration for well-being was generally shown) and noble women were sequestered in such an extreme manner as nearly to prevent contact with any unwanted (or merely unknown) male visitors. This was probably derived from the Byzantine practice, and the Orthodox Church’s reprimands with relation to sexual impropriety were severe (exemplified by the handbook Domostroi).

The state’s identity, the rights of its people and the authority of its monarch having been settled, the immediate situation called for appraisal. Muscovy was situated in a unique position, tethered to Europe by political relations and simultaneously seated astride the nigh-endless steppes of Asia. The absence of natural borders and the semi-nomadic nature of much of its population meant that its borders were the least stable of any major power, but also that they had the greatest capacity to expand. Hence, Muscovy’s (and later Russia’s) greatest power and most crippling weakness would always be the vast space it occupied. This said, it must be noted that territorial expansion was not necessarily beneficial to Muscovy, for although such actions brought more lands and resources under its sway it also appeared to be threatening to the remnants of the Golden Horde (now merely a semi-agricultural realm, but with power enough to harm the state), Sweden, Lithuania-Poland, the Teutonic Knights, Denmark, the Ottoman Empire and the khanates of Crimea, Siberia, Kazan and Astrakhan. Muscovy was anything but secure, despite its new-found stability.

---

Ivan III and Vasilii III: Sovereignty of all Rus

Nonetheless, Ivan III (1462-1505) began a ruthless and effective campaign to gain control over all the lands of Rus. He had little emotional attachment to family members, at one stage marrying his daughter to a Lithuanian then abandoning her to imprisonment and death in that country. His son Vasilii III (1505-1533), although only chosen as heir after lengthy deliberation, proved a worthy successor. Between the two of them and a mixture of dynastic marriage, inheritance, political pressure and outright force the princely territories of Iaroslavl, Rostov, Tver and Riazan fell to Moscow’s sway. The greatest acquisition, though, was Novgorod (annexed in 1478). Weakened after centuries of feuding between boyar clans (there had been no single ruler since Aleksandr Nevskii’s death in the early 14th century) and capitulation between external powers (usually Tver or Moscow), it was held to be both an economic giant and a political weakling and although much of its wealth had been dependent on the Golden Horde’s patronage, it nonetheless permitted Muscovy direct access to the Baltic Sea, as well as some three million acres of populated agricultural land.

While these successes were achieved in the north, though, a threat was arising in the south. In the 1460s, Akhmat Khan (although not recognised as Kipchak Khan by any of the other successor states) gathered several clans and attempted to force Moscow to pay tribute. By 1480 he had concluded an alliance with Lithuania and made efforts to instigate dynastic conflict by asking for help from two of Ivan III’s brothers, Andrei and Boris. Ivan responded by forming an alliance with the Crimean Khan (thereby creating a similar threat for Akhmat as he faced from Lithuania) and gathering an army of comparable size to that commanded by his nemesis. Unable to force passage across the river into Muscovite territory, the Tatars quickly fell to anarchy and began to undertake petty raids in surrounding districts. Many people consider this (virtually nonexistent) war of the 1480s to be the official end of the Mongol Tatar yoke over eastern Europe and although for three centuries after this point they would continue to launch slave-gathering raids and even raze towns, they would no longer constitute a threat to the Russian state. In fact, it was immediately evident that none of the successor states was strong enough to mount a similar challenge for the collection of tribute. In 1502 overlordship of the Golden Horde passed to Mengli Girei, the Crimean Khan, and all of its nomadic resources were moved south and west into his territory.

Having captured all the foremost lands of Rus and removed whatever threat had existed in the south, Muscovy’s attention turned to Lithuania which, although far too strong to be annexed outright, could be slowly worn away. Indeed, a policy of steadily gnawing away its eastern territories was adopted and Smolensk was recaptured in 1514, assisted by the defection of several prominent Lithuanian boyar families.

In summation, Muscovy had systematically removed all immediate threats and was now in command of an immense territory. There was no question that it possessed all of the resources it required, but communication and transportation would inevitably be a problem. The issue was, essentially, getting the resources where they needed to go, so as to feed the population, raise armies to maintain order and continue to enhance the grandeur of the state. The institution of civil and military bureaucracies was now necessary, and it was no longer possible for the monarch to know all of his servants. It is said that the greatest triumph of the west during the Renaissance was the creation of governmental agencies which had outgrown the personalities of their leader, and so it was the case with Muscovy. The posts of dvorestskii (‘majordomo’), koniushii (‘equerry’) and kaznachei (‘treasurer’) were transformed from domestic posts to major governmental appointments, responsible for many state functions. Diaki (state secretaries) were charged with keeping detailed written records of all transactions and as it was important to reduce bias wherever possible, they were not recruited from among the boyar clans.

Furthermore, Ivan III instituted a postal system (obviously replicating that of the Mongols; he even used the same word - iam - to describe it). Each iam was comprised of a postal station and inn and couriers, foreign envoys or people with high status could produce a podorozhnaia (‘route pass’) in order to secure lodging, food, horses and coaches (or sledges, according to seasonal variation). Iamy connected important routes, radiating outward from Moscow to Pskov, Novgorod, Smolensk (via Mozhaisk and Viazma), Murom and the Oka-Volga confluence (and so to Nizhnii Novgorod and Kazan). Sigismund von Herberstein, a Habsburg envoy, reported that it allowed him to travel around 500 Kilometres in 72 hours and that it was therefore the most efficient road system in Europe.

The military also enjoyed a significant degree of advancement. Where previously it had been comprised of a smattering of druzhina cavalry and serf levies led by boyars and princes, it was transformed into a markedly more efficient force, able to mobilize and dispatch units swiftly (in a similar fashion to steppe armies). Nobles were required to provide a number of infantrymen and auxiliary troops, fully outfitted for battle, and as gunpowder weapons became more widespread, arquebusiers (then musketeers) and artillery operators were recruited from the urban population. Artillery was used sparingly (the first cannon foundry was set up in Moscow in 1475) as there was no equipment to transport it.

It is also significant that to the original Muscovite families whose scions led armies in battle (the Obolenskie, Saburovy, Koshkiny, Khovriny, Cherliadniny and Morozovy) were added the Kholmskie of Tver, the Iaroslavkie of Iaroslavl and the Belskie, Vorotynskie, Belevskie, Mezetskie and Novosilskie of Lithuania. This had the effect of consolidating conquered territories under Muscovite rule (there is a conspicuous absence of terms like ‘de’ or ‘von’, suggesting that families were not tied to any particular locality), thereby further solidifying the state, although the destruction of the powerful Patrikeevy family on Ivan III’s whim certainly bears evidence of the near-absolute power which resided within the grand prince’s grasp.

Near, say I, but it would be an erroneous assumption to say that the grand prince or tsar was able to bend all opponents to his will - the destruction of the Patrikeevy likely reflected the interests of prominent boyar clans, and the monarch was nevertheless bound to work always for the benefit of the state (albeit due to a divine mandate, as it was thought). It was the simple truth that both grand prince/tsar and boyar had a vested interest in projecting the all-powerful image of the monarch, and as boyars had the right of access to the court, it was common for the monarch and his underlings to work together (in the Boyar Duma, although the term was invented in the 19th century) - even to make compromises - in resolving conflicts; one example of such a compromise was the Subednik of 1497, which universalised legal proceedings. Essentially, the boyars made suggestions and the grand prince passed resolutions.

---

Ivan IV and the Kingdom of God

At any rate, Muscovy was becoming ever more grandiose and fervent when Ivan IV (known as ‘the Terrible’) ascended to the throne at the tender age of 3 in 1533. Novgorod and its subordinate territories had been completely assimilated and despite certain inherent weaknesses, Muscovy was seeking to be considered foremost among all Christian states; in fact, we could terminate the history of the principality of Muscovy here and commence the history of the Russian Empire, but it is important to illustrate the transition more fully. Unfortunately, the Teutonic Knights retained some power in the Baltic, Lithuania had a comparable claim to the heirdom of Kievan Rus (as well as more fertile soil), Sweden and Denmark were both rising and ambitious powers and the successor states to the Golden Horde - although diminished in their ferocity - were backed by the Ottoman Empire, ensuring a constant drain on Muscovy’s resources. It is obvious that Muscovy was still at risk of collapsing from within, as much political feuding (especially between the Glinskie, Belskie and Shuinskie boyar clans) had surrounded the circumstances following his father’s death.

Ivan disliked the boyar clans - a prejudice developed early in life from the poisoning of his mother, the exile of his nurse and (despite the fact that he was never directly threatened) the general climate of violence in which he was raised. He also believed implicitly in the divine mission of Muscovite Rus, forging connections with Byzantine coronation (including the shapka Monomakha and an official endorsement from the Patriarch of Constantinople). He believed implicitly in the Divine Right of Kings, coupled with the notion that he was responsible for the salvation - or damnation - of all people, and as such should be afforded unconstrained power - “though I am a sinner as a man, as Tsar I am righteous.”

Much of Ivan’s reign was concerned with the attempt to reduce squabbling between boyar clans (which he compared to the aristocratic disunity in the face of the Ottoman threat towards Byzantium, which culminated in the ill-portented fall of Constantinople). The establishment of the Council of Reconciliation (a term of modern invention; it had no such formal recognition at the time) in 1549 was designed to extricate the gosudavero delo (‘state’s affairs,’ such as military conflict) from court intrigues and it achieved significant success with the appointment of prikazy (bodies responsible for streamlining the state’s business by offering feedback from local communities). Other notable achievements of Ivan IV include the enlargement of the army (including a 1,000-man elite cavalry force which could be called to arms very rapidly and in a number of capacities), the issuing of a decree (Ulozhenie o sluzhbe) which stated the military duties of all who held landed estates (remarkable because it established the doctrine that all land was held at the monarch’s whim, the inception of new military tactics (which focused more on the use of gunpowder and infantry), the use of Cossacks in the annexation of Kazan and Astrakhan (although his plans to conquer other khanates were aborted), the commissioning of a new style of icon painting (the Church Militant) and the establishment of trading links with England (in 1553).

The expansion of Russian trade in the Baltic under Ivan IV deserves special mention because it is, in many ways, the reason that the Riurikovich dynasty failed. In 1558, Ivan demanded that Russia’s trade (passing, in the main, through Riga and Reval) no longer be left to Livonian merchants. Meeting with an unfavourable reply, he sent an army under A.D. Basmanov which captured the trading port of Narva and began construction of a new fortress-city, Ivangorod. In the next few years Polotsk and Derpt were seized and local landowners were stripped of their estates in order to reward Russian immigrants. Unfortunately, Denmark and Sweden were eager to participate in the dismantling of Livonia; Denmark seized the large island Ösel, while Sweden conquered Reval and north Estland. Worse still, Gustav Kettler (head of the Livonian Order) placed his state under the protection of Lithuania and, in 1569, Poland and Lithuania merged. Ivan’s successes gradually evaporated and he lost control of Polotsk, Narva, Ivangorod and Derpt, as well as strategically important territory in Karelia and in the Gulf of Finland. If this were not enough, a Crimean Tatar army under Devlet-Girei bypassed Muscovy’s fatigued southern defences and sacked Moscow itself. Church bells rang, then fell silent after crashing to the ground.

Although not a lethal threat, these seeming-failures began to drive boyar families away from Muscovy and towards Lithuania. People spoke out against the arbitrary nature of his rule and corruption was rife. He attempted to withdraw from Moscow and create a separate realm - an oprichnina (the word used for a widow’s inheritance; some have posited that he viewed it as being akin to the Spanish Inquisition or the knightly orders), where he could rule as he pleased. Boyars became brigands and by the end of his reign, much of central Muscovy was deserted for fear of taxes and of Ivan himself; he is renowned for murdering his son, Tsarevich Ivan, who endeavoured to protect his wife from his father’s violence. Ivan IV died, penitent and having taken the vows of a monk, in 1584.

The death in 1598 of his mentally retarded son, Fedor Ivanovich, terminated the Riurikovich dynasty. It might seem that, at this juncture, Muscovy was on the brink of collapse. This is deceiving, though, for it was merely a matter of it having overstepped its capacities - essentially, it failed to play an appropriate geopolitical role in attempting to be all things. It becomes evident that the death of the dynasty also symbolises the incontrovertible termination of the principality of Muscovy and the beginning of the Russian Empire. Boris Godunov, regent for Fedor, was elected tsar and during his reign attempted - in the face of extreme adversity - to rebuild Russia and to strengthen its empire.

---

Sources:
Books:

The Times Atlas of World History, various authors; edited by Geoffrey Barraclough.

Russia and the Russians, Geoffrey Hosking.

Internet:

http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/classes/muscoviteculture.html (‘Muscovite Culture’)

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/history.html (‘Russian History’)

The Moche or Mochica (also known, erroneously, as the Early or proto-Chimú) Culture was the dominant power in a series of valleys along the northern desert coast of Peru from approximately AD 0-800 (although there are many discrepancies as to precise dates). An early Intermediate Period (city-state based) society derived from the earlier Salinar (c. 200-50 BC) and Gallinazo (c. 50 BC-AD 300) cultures, their success in expanding their territories was due to their heavily stratified class system and militaristic culture. Subdued regions were linked to the central government by a well-developed network of roads and paths, with fortified garrisons installed to maintain authoritative rule. Situated at the political and ceremonial hub of the Moche Valley (near modern Trujillo), the capital (also named Moche, as it was a city-state) may have been home to a population of around 10,000, although it is now difficult to envisage or prove such a figure as centuries of looting, cultural suppression, flooding, desertification and sporadic (albeit extremely intense) rainfall have, understandably, taken their toll.

Moche craftspeople were highly skilled artisans and produced some rather striking artefacts (including pottery, cloth and metal objects of gold and silver, designed to accompany Moche nobles in the afterlife). Moche pottery was consistent with much of that produced in Peru at the time, as they utilised stirrup-spouted vessels (closed globular jars, featuring both a hollow loop of clay attached to both ends of the body and a vertically-inclined tubular spout). The term ‘Mochica’ (which refers to a dialect spoken in the region at the time of the culture’s rise) has been used interchangeably with ‘Moche’, although it is considered to be a less accurate term. There was no written language, so the surviving remnants of these handicrafts have been of pivotal import in revealing the origins and nature of the civilisation; it is of particular note that (in such a militaristic society) much of the pottery displayed images of daily village life, although the ‘low-born’ were accorded little regard (see below). Sexual activities were realistically depicted (in a number of rather imaginative ways, one might add), as were musical instruments, tools and many surgical operations; some have taken this to mean that pottery was itself an important communication medium.

The identity of the Moche ruler is still a subject of controversy, although it is likely that the graves of Sipán (detailed later) will reveal some information to this end. Indeed, the wealth and opulence of the funerary goods may indicate that the rulers themselves were interred here; the famed ‘Lord of Sipán’ could be one such individual. Further down the strata, priests and warriors were considered to be of far greater importance than any other caste save royalty and pots display the fact that mutilation and death were the punishment for those who refused to submit to their authority. They lived closer to the central authority than craftspeople or farmers and were accorded great honours. Priests are often shown being carried about in litters, bedecked with jewels. The craftspeople were still further down and the lowest classes were - despite the necessity of their role - the fishermen and farmers. One would be vindicated in describing the Moche culture as a militant theocracy, and one which appears to be distinctly patriarchal in nature.

During they heyday of the Moche, many architectural projects were undertaken. Highly advanced in construction and irrigation, they made many buildings of adobe brick and utilised aqueducts to assist farming. Also of significance is the fact that an indeterminate (but presumedly large) number of edifices were constructed, with the assistance of draft labour. The most notable of these were large, terraced adobe pyramids (a structural styling directly derived from previous cultures) such as the Huaca del Sol (Pyramid of the Sun) and Huaca de la Luna (Pyramid of the Moon), which were - at the time - the largest structures of their kind in the Americas and monuments of great cultural significance (as recorded by Antonio Vasquez de Espinoza in 1628):

In the time of the paganism of the Indians [the pyramids were] one of the most important sanctuaries that existed in that kingdom. People came in pilgrimage from many parts and to carry out their vows and promises and to pay homage and make offerings.

The Huaca del Sol, completed c. 450 AD, originally measured 345 metres (1130 feet) in length, 160 metres (525 feet) in width and rose 40 metres (130 feet) above the valley floor, containing some 143 million sun-dried mud bricks. This is no longer the case, though, as Spanish treasure-seekers diverted the waters of the Moche River and washed away most of the Huaca in 1602. Entry to the pyramid was probably gained via a ramp on the northern side (perhaps the worst damaged) and the monument was, at least predominantly, originally painted red. It is thought to have been the administrative centre, while the Huaca de la Luna (which it faced) had greater religious connotations. The latter pyramid measured 290 metres (950 feet) from north to south, 210 metres (690 feet) from east to west and stood 32 metres (105 feet) in height, containing a total of 50 million bricks. Interestingly, it took almost 600 years to fully construct, as its structure was markedly more intricate and featured more ornamentation (including many images of ‘the Decapitator’, a nightmarish sacrificial deity; rather characteristic of Moche religion in general).

On that note, evidence for human sacrifice is abundant and, in many cases, rather unnerving (although it does not appear to be a normal practice, but rather one undertaken in moments of extreme duress). Excavators uncovered an enclosure in the back of the Huaca de la Luna which contained the bodies of more than 42 men of ages 15 to 30. Many of the bodies were brutally damaged, with marks indicating that the men were beaten with maces (or similar blunt weapons) and pushed from a stone outcrop in the enclosure. Other bodies are splayed as though they had been tied to stakes, while others still show that bones (including the femurs and lower jaws) were forcibly removed; many have cut marks. It is interesting to note that each was buried in a thick layer of sediment, suggesting that they were sacrificed during a Niño event of particular ferocity - one which probably occurred once per century, at most. It has been concluded that the sacrifices were undertaken in order to halt the rains. This emphasises the importance of religion to the mindset of the Moche.

Frequently decorated with murals, friezes and the like (depicting deific entities and religious rituals), other pyramids (far less ostentatiously proportioned than the Huacas) were used to inter Moche nobles and while most of the richest sites - especially those nearest the central valley - have long since been pillaged (as the first modern discoveries were believed to have been made by looters in 1910), tombs have been found intact at Sipán (which is considered by many to be a microcosmic example of burials in general). The site of Sipán is situated in the Lambayeque Valley on the northern coast. Initially discovered by yet more looters in 1987 (which naturally produced some tense confrontations with the more historically-minded), it was subsequently excavated by Walter Alva and quickly declared to be a richer site than any previously discovered in the Americas. The number of tombs is as yet unknown, but it has been confirmed that all such interments were of high-status (or wealthy) individuals, as many were buried with elaborate funerary goods. Additionally, most of the deceased were garbed in ritual regalia (indicating that they either imitated the figures displayed at the Huacas, or that they were the subjects depicted), further suggesting a powerful religious undercurrent to the society as a whole. Some even hypothesise that those buried at Sipán were in some way connected with the sacrifice scenes displayed in the central valley. The site is, fortunately, open to public perusal.

The downfall of the Moche culture coincided with the rise of the Chimú (c. 800 AD). In much the same way as the concept of the Greek polis became obsolescent, the Moche were unable to adapt and were absorbed.

Sources:
Books:

Archaeology: the Definitive Guide, various authors.

The Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World: the Ancient Monuments and How They Were Built, Thames and Hudson.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology, Timothy Darvill.

Internet:

http://www.travelvantage.com/per_moch.html (‘Peru - Moche Culture’)

http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/M/Moche.html (‘AllRefer Encyclopaedia - Moche (South American Indigenous Peoples’)

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/latinamerica/south/cultures/moche.html (‘Moche’)

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/6426/10moche.html (‘Moche Culture’)

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/moche.htm (‘The Moche’)

The Balkans in the early 20th century were simply waiting for a match. The pressures imposed upon the area by the constantly expanding Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires and the power vacuum left by the rapidly declining Ottoman Empire created a nexus of conflicting claims within the area. It did not help that many of the newly risen nation states had conflicting borders and conflicting aims and that in the exact middle of the region and the claims sat Macedonia.

Macedonia was seen as a rightful claim by Bulgaria following the end of the First Balkan War. The removal of Turkish influence in the area, while achieving a long held goal of most all Europe had seriously destabilized the area. The major powers of Europe had no wish for one country to gain hegemony in the area and unfortunately for Bulgaria, their gaining too much land in Macedonia would make for an unbalanced region. The Treaty of London, on May 30, 1913, which ended the First Balkan War, was also a treaty that hoped to stop future Balkan wars. Unfortunately it was near hopeless, very little was accomplished and the hopes for peace where left almost completely in the hands of the Balkan states themselves.

Conflicting Claims

The main dispute rose up over which countries had gained what in the First Balkan War. Greece had taken Salonika, which the Bulgarians wanted and Bulgaria had gained Thrace, which the Bulgarians didn’t particularly want. Meanwhile, Serbia and Bulgaria had pretty much the same problem in northern Macedonia. Serbia had gained a province of Macedonia centered on Monastir, a section which Bulgaria had claimed their own.

Bulgaria tried to peacefully gain these areas from Serbia based on a treaty penned March 13, 1912. Unfortunately, the Serbians who had found their land grab denied in Albania, when Albania was made into an independent nation by Europe’s great powers under direction from Austria, found herself very unwillingly to part with any land. So stating that the creation of Albania invalidated the existing treaty with Bulgaria, Serbia kept the region.

Diplomatic Motions

Upon the return of diplomats and national leaders from London in early 1913, Serbia and Greece stepped up the tension one more notch. On June 1, 1913, Premier Venizelos of Greece and Premier Pashitch of Serbia agreed to a ten year alliance, both defensively and offensively, specifically geared towards Bulgaria. So the area became yet another step more dangerous and finally the heads of the great powers were forced to turn towards the area yet again.

When Serbia demanded that Bulgaria give up her rights under the treaty signed March 13, 1913, Russia stepped in. Czar Nicholas II sent two identical telegrams, to the Serbian government and the Bulgarian government, offering to arbitrate the conflict. Though neither country truly wanted the Russians to meddle in what they saw as their conflict, they had drawn too much attention and needed to show to make a show at peace. Thus the Russian offer was accepted.

War Is Engaged

The Russian delegation never even really got its feet wet in trying to solve the conflict. June 15th brought a proposal by the Bulgarians for demobilization of the area and for a mixed occupation of the disputed zones. June 29th though brought an end to any pretenses of diplomacy when Bulgaria declared war and assaulted Serb positions.

The war itself was short in duration. While Bulgaria assaulted the Serbians at the Battle of the Bregalnica, the Greeks advanced toward Bulgarian positions in the south. Meanwhile, Romania and the Ottoman Empire, who both were also strongly against Bulgaria becoming too strong, advanced into Bulgarian lands. Bulgaria, with almost all of its troops focused on the Serbs and the Greeks could not hope to stop the Turks or the Romanians. So it was that when the Battle of Bregalnica ended in a Serbian victory, on July 9, 1913, Bulgaria found itself already virtually defeated.

Aftermath of War

The Treaty of Bucharest was signed on August 10, 1913 by delegates from Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece. Bulgaria being the sole party on her side against many enemies was forced to take whatever was dished out. So it was that a very debilitating treaty was handed to Bulgaria, one, though Bulgaria was mainly to blame for the war, was much too destructive to Bulgaria for even that.

Through the treaty:

• Romania gained all of Dobrudja north of Turtukaia and between the Danube and the Black Sea coast south of Ekrene.
• Serbia would gain all of northern and most of central Macedonia, as well as Kosovo from the war.
• Greece was given southern Macedonia, as well as most of western Thrace, leaving Bulgaria with almost no access to the Aegean Sea. Greece was also given complete control of Crete at this time.
• Bulgaria did actually gain some land. Actually their positions that were left following the war were in truth just promised to them permanently. In all they retained a small portion of their First Balkan War gains, Macedonia and a slice of the Aegean coast centered on the town of Strumnitza.
• The Ottoman Empire was virtually ignored following the war.
• Albania was formalized as an independent state under a German prince.

Overall, Serbia gained what was rightfully hers. Though the Serb claim to Albania was again denied by Austria-Hungary, they had seized much of the Slavic lands in the Balkans (those Slavic lands not already under control of Austria-Hungary). Romania had gained all the Romanian populated lands left outside Russia and Austria-Hungary. Greece, though being given much land in reward for her participation never got southern Albania or the Aegean Islands, two areas she had greatly coveted. Overall, the boundaries drew were haphazard and did little to make peace in the region. No nation state outside of Serbia could be said to be content and even Serbia had been denied the claim of Albania she had long desired.

Diplomatically the scene in the Balkans also changed considerably. Bulgaria, who had angered the Russians by pursuing this war even in the face of arbitration by the Czar himself now, looked to Austria as its protector in the region. Meanwhile, Serbia who had once again been foiled in its attempts to add Albania to its domain, by Austria yet again, looked with much greater hostility to Austria and found itself protected by the Russians. The Russians themselves, now unwilling to support an aggressor state like Bulgaria would make Serbia their bulwark against Austrian expansion into the Balkans. The Ottoman Empire, once again thrown to the dogs was left with no place to turn and an embittered populace. One could see the lines being drawn for the next great war.