e2history

During World War II the continental United States was in the enviable position of being separated from the front lines by two oceans, but this still did not make them immune from attacks on their home soil. Both the Japanese and the Germans had several plans for bombing the U.S. mainland.

Of course the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was what spurred the U.S. into World War II, but the Japanese had bigger plans for their bombers. Most of these centered around the brand new H8K, a four-engine seaplane with a 192 ft. wingspan. It had a range of 4,400 miles and could carry four tons of bombs at a top speed of 289 miles per hour. In 1942 the Japanese planned to have six H8K’s fly to the California coast, land on the water to be refueled by submarines, bomb Los Angeles, and then fly back to safe territory. If this mission was a success, the Japanese wanted to take thirty H8Ks and refuel them off of Baja California, where they would then fly to Texas and bomb the oil fields there. The planes would then fly onward to the Atlantic where they would meet up with German submarines stationed there and stage terror raids up and down the east coast of the U.S. The Germans were eager to cooperate and had prepared the tanker subs to refuel the H8Ks. All of these plans were scaled back after The Battle of Midway and never came to fruition.

The Japanese had another plan for attacking the mainland: hot air balloons. These unmanned balloons carried one 15-kilogram antipersonnel bomb and two incendiary devices. The Japanese hoped that these balloons could set fire to the vast forests of the Pacific Northwest, again this mission really only had terror and propaganda value. Between November 1944 and April 1945 the Japanese released more than 9,000 balloons. It is estimated that about 1,000 made it to North America, they have been found in Alaska and Mexico and as far east as Kansas. On May 5, 1945, five children and a woman were killed in Lakeview, Oregon when they found one of the balloons and tried to drag it out of the forest. These six people are the only known causalties of the balloon bombs, but many of the balloons have been found with their payloads still operational, so they may remain a threat to the unsuspecting hiker.

Meanwhile the Germans were working on their own long-range bomber. In 1942 the four-engine Me-264, or the “Amerika Bomber” first took flight. It could carry two tons of bombs 9,500 miles. It could fly from Europe to New York and back without having to land and could stay in the air for 45 hours. But problems on the Eastern Front caused them to delay their bombing plans until 1944. Early in the year, a six engine Ju-290, a light recon plane, made a flight over New York City and took photographs of likely targets. The British knew about the recon flight from decoded German messages, but chose not to tell the Americans until after it took place. Upon learning of the German plan the Americans sent swarms of bombers and destroyed the Me-264 plant. Not that it made much difference, by this late in the war the Luftwaffe was in no position to make such long flights and the Germans didn’t have enough resources to make enough planes anyway.

Since the government basically abandoned the island in 1963, there have been three different occasions when the island has been occupied by Indians, culminating in the third which lasted from 20 November 1969 to 11 June 1971.

Many of the things they were attempting to do was to unify and assert their sense of identity as Indians and to protest the conditions many had to live under on reservations or due to Indians being lured to the big city with promises of jobs and support then receiving neither. Also the way the government handled " Indian Affairs" and programs such as "Termination" which was an attempt to end recognition of tribes. It was also the 60s and a growing awareness among all minorities about social causes was in the air.

First Occupation
The first took place on 8 March 1964. A group of five Sioux "took" the island and claimed it under the terms of the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie. Under it, the Sioux were promised surplus government land. Unfortunately for the group, the Sioux have no ancestral claims that far west. It lasted about four hours, while the group drummed and sang. They were then escorted away by Federal Marshals. The idea of taking the island and using it to the benefit of the Indian population was its most significant aspect.

Second Occupation
Five years later, that idea surfaced again and led to another action. After the burning down of the San Francisco Indian Center, a group of Indians made a proposal to the San Francisco City Council to turn the island into an American Indian Center (that year, the council had been listening to ideas about what to do with the property). It was turned down in favor of more "commercial" ideas. A group of Indian college students, led by Fortunate Eagle and Richard Oakes, feeling they needed to make a statement at the very least, arranged for boats to take them to the island for the occupation.

About 100 Indians showed up (about 80 from UCLA). Since the group consisted of members of several tribes, they named themselves "Indians of All Tribes." Problem is, the boats didn't show. They read from a proclamation (see below) stating that they claimed the island ("discovered" in the sense the Americas were "discovered" by the Europeans) and then offered $24 in cloth and glass beads (alluding to the sale of Manhattan to the Dutch for cloth, beads, and other trinkets worth 60 guilders in 1626—once worked out as being the equivalent to $24, though it was probably somewhat higher).

The group managed to get another boat which was able to take some of them around the island, during which a few dove overboard to swim ashore, Oakes among them. While few made it and some needed rescue by the Coast Guard, fourteen were able to successfully land, later that night. They were escorted off the island the next day after being found by the caretaker (playing with his guard dog). They were treated well and no one was prosecuted.

Third Occupation
That set the stage for the final occupation that lasted nearly eighteen months. Around 2 AM on 20 November 1969, about 80 Indians from nearly 20 tribes (including Oakes) landed three boats on Alcatraz. The caretaker claimed to be one-eighth Cherokee and allowed them use of the warden's residence.

The occupiers organized into an elected council and handed out jobs for the care and maintenance (and security, though it wasn't a military action by any means). Decisions required unanimous consent of the people.

Their motto became "We hold The Rock." Over the course of the occupation, some 5600 Indians spent at least some time on the island (some just for a day or so). One proposal was for $299,424 for a grant that would make the island into a cultural park and social/education center for Indians. It was denied ("unrealistic"). Other demands included the deed to the island, an Indian university, a cultural center, and a museum. Government negotiators refused and demanded they leave the island.

A pirate radio station broadcast from the island—"Radio Free Alcatraz"—through the help of local stations. (The head of the station and his wife had the only baby born on the island during the occupation. They named him Wovoka after the originator of the messianic Ghost Dance movement, seeing their son as symbolic of a rebirth of the Indian.) The response to the Indian occupation was very positive. Food and provisions were sent in to them, as well as money. Among those supporting the group was The Grateful Dead, Creedence Clearwater Revival (who played a concert for them on a boat, then donated the boat), Jane Fonda, and Marlon Brando. Not to mention other Indians, regular citizens, and even some politicians.

As 1970 rolled around, a certain amount of dissent and factionalism began to arise. Organization began to break down. Also, non-Indians from the San Francisco hippie population began to filter in, creating more disorganization. Other students left to return to school. In early January, Oakes' teenage daughter fell three flights down a stairwell and died. He left soon after, leaving a larger hole in the organizational system.

For the most part, the government did not interfere directly with the Indians and chose to wait them out. There was an offer to let them have another Fort if they left the island. But that offer was refused. They had come too far not to get what they desired. Deciding against an armed invasion, but determined to evacuate the island, the government took away the barge that provided fresh water for the people and turned off the electricity. A few days later, on 1 June 1971, fires broke out and burned some historical buildings. Members of the occupiers claimed it was the government trying to discredit them to take away their support. It isn't clear who was to blame, but since the buildings were not next to each other, the Indians reasoned it was deliberate and started by government agents.

The occupation was winding down by then and many had already left the island. Looking to earn money for food supplies, some people stripped copper wire and tubing from the buildings to sell (three members were eventually found guilty of the act). Public opinion was waning, as well. There were even stories published (without much substantiation) of beatings and assaults. One case was prosecuted.

On 11 June 1971, US Marshals removed the last remaining Indians (fourteen or fifteen) from the island.

Whether directly or indirectly (because of the way it brought the issues to people's attention), in the years that followed programs were enacted to better serve Indians in health and education and to promote self-determinism (how well this all worked in practice is another matter but it was a small step in the right direction). During the eighteen months, President Richard Nixon signed the papers ending "Termination" policy.

The occupation also was a spark that led to Indian movements throughout the United States and several of the people involved became activists following it. The Indians didn't achieve their main goals but were able to call attention to many things that needed to be and helped galvanize themselves in an effort to work for change.

Alcatraz was symbolic in the rebirth of Indian people to be recognized as a people, as human beings, whereas before, we were not. We were not recognized, we were not legitimate...but we were able to raise not only the consciousness of other American people, but our own people as well, to reestablish our identity as Indian people, as a culture, as political entities.
LaNada Boyer, (Shoshone-Bannock) student leader/occupier

We, the Native Americans, re-claim the land known as Alcatraz Island in the name of all American Indians by right of discovery.   We wish to be fair and honorable in our dealing with the Caucasian inhabitants of this land, and thereby offer the following treaty:

We will purchase Alcatraz Island for twenty-four dollars in glass beads and red cloth, a precedent set down by the white man's purchase of a similar island about 300 years ago.   We know that $24 in trade goods for these 16 acres is more than what was paid when Manhattan was sold, but we know that land values have risen over the years.  Our offer of $1.24 per acres is greater than the 47 cents per acre the white man is now paying California Indians for their land.

We will give the inhabitants of this land a portion for their own to be held in trust by the American Indian Affairs and by the Bureau of Caucasian Affairs to hold in perpetuity—for as long as the sun shall rise and the rivers go down to the sea.   We will further guide the inhabitants in the proper way of living.   We will offer them our religion, our education, our life-ways, in order to help them achieve our level of civilization and thus raise them and all their white brothers up from their savage and unhappy state.   We offer this treaty in good faith and wish to be fair and honorable in our dealings with all white men.

We feel that this so called Alcatraz Island is more than suitable for an Indian Reservation, as determined by the white man's own standards.   By this we mean that this place resembles most Indian Reservations in that:

1. It is isolated from modern facilities and without adequate means of transportation.
2. It has no fresh running water.
3. It has no adequate sanitation facilities.
4. There are no oil or mineral rights.
5. There is no industry and so unemployment is very great.
6. There is no health care facility.
7. The soil is rocky and non-productive and the land does not support game.
8. There are no educational facilities.
9. The population has always exceeded the land base.
10. The population has always been held prisoners and kept dependent upon others.

Further, it would be fitting and symbolic that ships from all over the world, entering the Golden Gate, would first see Indian land, and thus be reminded of the true history of this nation.   This tiny island would be a symbol of the great lands once ruled by free and noble Indians.

What use will we make of this land?

Since the San Francisco Indian Center burned down, there is no place for Indians to assemble and carry on tribal life in the white man's city.   Therefore, we plan to develop on this island several Indian institutions.   1. A center for Native American studies. 2 An American Indian Spiritual Center, 3. An Indian Center of Ecology, 4. A great Indian Training School, and 5. An American Indian Museum.

In the name of all Indians, therefore, we claim this island for our Indian nations, for these reasons, we feel this claim is just and proper, and that this land should rightfully be granted to us as long as the rivers shall flow and sun shall shine.

Indians of All Tribes

(Sources: www.nativepeoples.com , www.nps.gov/alcatraz/indian.html, the quote and proclamation are from ishgooda.nativeweb.org)

Iconoclasm was an 8th-9th century Byzantine heresy that briefly created a deep rift between the Church and the imperial government.

Dogma

The iconoclasts believed that the worship of icons (Greek εικων, image) was sinful--hence the name, which means "icon-breakers".

Icons have great significance for Orthodox practice, perhaps even more so than for the Catholic. This is plainly visible; in any Orthodox church, the iconostasis--a wall or screen of some kind consisting of or decorated with icons--shields the altar and draws all eyes. The walls and ceiling of the church are also covered with icons drawn with various techniques--in many churches, iconic frescoes dating back hundreds of years are still to be seen. There are icons in the majority of Orthodox homes. . Needless to say, icons are the Orthodox world's chief form of religious art, and many constitute cultural treasures.

It is commonly assumed that, much like the Muslims, iconoclasts were against icons because they were idolatrous. This is only partially true; this argument was used during the heresy's initial period. It was quickly abandoned, however, as it became apparent that the argument didn't hold water. Idols are images necessarily of deities; it is thought that they have power in and of themselves. This cannot apply to Christianity, because Christ is both completely God and completely man, and an icon is an image of Christ the man. Many or most icons are not even of Christ; they depict the saints, and are, for one thing, a good way to educate the flock about them, and a way of recognizing sainthood. The icon in itself means nothing, but the icon as a religious symbol means a lot of things.¹ Generally, by the latter stage of iconoclasm (the period 784-847, where it reached its peak), there was little argumentation to speak of: the emperors--bent on subduing the rebellious clerics--did not argue with words, but with swords and torches. A common argument of the more rational iconoclasts, though, concerned the great (perceived) excess of ritual in contemporary Byzantine society, which was seen to be replacing real faith. Interestingly, the Cross was still very much venerated by the iconoclasts. "They have removed the holy cross from the churches and replaced it with images," lamented one.

History

Sergius-John VI (610-714)

We worship only one will in Christ, for God has perceived
not our sin, but our substance, as it was before the Fall.
-from letter of Pope Honorius to Patriarch Sergius, 634

The first part of this period was marked with another heresy (or pair thereof): monophysitism/monothelitism. The orthodox doctrine stated that there was one Christ who consisted of two distinct natures, and was both human and divine. Essentially, the monophysites believed that Jesus Christ was of only one nature, both divine and human. The monothelites said that Christ's will was also one. To a layman, especially a modern one, it is difficult to understand the distinction between these views and the orthodox position, especially considering that Nestorianism, the doctrine of there being two separate natures of Christ, was also a heresy! Monophysitism, incidentally, began as an opposition to Nestorianism, but went a bit too far. The distinction between these three teachings lies in the number of hypostases and natures that they held Christ to have.

Nestorian	    orthodox		  Monophysite
 2		      2			   1	  Natures
 2		      1			   1	  Hypostases
 1		      1			   1	  Persons

The 'hypostasis' is a sort of underlying substance underneath the Natures of Christ. So, the Nestorians thought that Christ had two of them, as well as two natures, the orthodox held that Christ had one hypostasis and two natures, and the monophysites that Christ had one person, one hypostasis, and one nature.

In any case, the patriarch of Byzantium fell into this heresy (or, rather, monothelitism, which would add a single will as well as a single nature to the mix). Except it wasn't one patriarch, or even two. Four patriarchs were anathematized by the VI Ecumenical Council in Constantinople--Sergius, Peter, Paul II, and Pyrrhos. This severely damaged the authority and prestige of the patriarchate; the next three patriarchs met fates of varying degrees of misfortune. Patriarch St. Callinicus was blinded, then buried alive, while John VI had to go crying to the Pope when the emperor that was his benefactor was overthrown. This weakness set the stage for the first period of iconoclasm, driven by emperor Leo III.

Germanus-Paul IV (715-784 (787))

Hearken to us, emperor: abandon your present course
and accept the holy church as you found her, for matters of
faith and practice concern not the emperor, but the pope.
- from letter of Pope Gregory III to Emperor Leo III

Emperor Leo III the Isaurian was a warrior. He was a crusader; his religious reforms were as far-reaching as his campaigns. He persecuted and mandatorily-baptized the Jews and numerous smaller sects. He fought major battles with the Arabs, mostly successfully. He passed a code of laws that rivaled Justinian's in significance. He was also an iconoclast.

It is not clear how he came to be an iconoclast. Though this appears strange, there is some evidence (two letters of indeterminate authenticity) that the Arab khalif Omar II tried to convert him to Islam, and was not successful, except for instilling in him the hatred of images. It is said that he was also a rationalist who was put off by image-worshipping in general. In any case, he seized upon the idea and began to enforce it. The patriarch St. Germanus, who is revered as a sort of saintly and steadfast defender of icon worship, put up a rather meek defense, preferring to respond to less highly-placed theological opponents, such as Thomas of Claudiopolis. Germanus has a mythos associated with him; it is now clear that much of the legendary aura surrounding his defense of orthodoxy is due to later propaganda, which exploited his image for political purposes.

The period 726-730 marked a surge in Leo's repression of orthodoxy. In 726, Leo replaced the icon of Christos Chalkites, which sat above the gate of the Great Imperial Palace, with a simple cross and a self-adulatory inscription. This provoked tremendous riots and stirred the docile Patriarch Germanos into making a gesture of protest. This didn't exactly deter the emperor; he virtually forced the patriarch in 730 to sign a pro-iconoclast declaration, but Germanus refused and resigned from his post.

To replace him, the emperor named Anastasius, who was previously an official of the patriarchal court. He was a lapdog, pretty much. After Leo died and his son Constantine V took the throne, a rebel named Artabasdus briefly captured Constantinople. Athanasius made the wrong decision: he sided with the usurper. When Constantine came back into the the city in force, he had Athanasius publicly whipped, put backwards on an ass, and ridden around the hippodrome. This humiliation, as you might imagine, was a blow to the prestige of the patriarchate--considering that Constantine let him remain as patriarch. The rest of the period saw ever-growing encroachment upon and humiliation of the patriarchate by the state. This persisted until approximately 780, when the infant Constantine VI took the throne.

Tarasios-Methodius (784-847)

We, therefore ... define with all certitude and accuracy
that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so
also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic
as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of
God ... to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ,
of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honorable Angels, of
the saints and of all pious people.
-from the Definition of the VII Ecumenical Council

Irene promptly set about restoring orthodoxy. She did not do this altruistically; her political interests were at stake, since she would gain influence and support from the growing icon-restoration movement. She arranged an ecumenical council by framing it as the will of Patriarch Germanus. This council affirmed the veneration of icons, but expressly forbade their worship (the distinction is in the amount of significance ascribed to the icons themselves). Irene named Tarasios, a man from a wealthy patrician family, but who had no clerical connections, patriarch. She wanted a predictable person that she could influence easily, and she got him, since Tarasios had to depend on her support. Irene plotted a lot, mostly against her son. whom she eventually had blinded and killed. However, her clever use of religious issues (her son's controversial remarriage in 795, the return of the relics of St. Euphemia in 796) led Tarasios' prestige and that of the patriarchate as a whole to go up dramatically compared to the previous period--though it still remained tied to the throne.

The next emperor, Nicephorus I, was an usurper who killed and deposed Irene in 802. He was not opposed to orthodoxy; when Tarasios died in 806, Nicephorus appointed another Nicephorus to be the new patriarch. This patriarch was very similar to Tarasios; it is not unlikely that they were related. At any rate, they came from very similar backgrounds. The emperor made every effort to legitimize his patriarchal choice; he was fairly successful. In the first few years of his rule Nicephorus' main concern had nothing to do with icons, but with the restoration of a certain misbehaving bishop. This caused a huge schism, largely along secular/monastic lines, with the Studites and their powerful monastic faction standing squarely against the bishop's pardon. This was generally a poltical issue, though, and was soon taken care of after Nicephorus I died and a short-lived political crisis set in. Michael I, who emerged from it, did not last long, and Leo V , who succeeded him (supported by the iconoclast military), ushered in (like his namesake) a new period of iconoclasm.

Leo V was not, like Leo the Isaurian, interested in religious issues especially deeply. Mainly, he wanted to secure his power, and the military failures of the preceding emperors gave the army a desire to go back to the glorious days of Constantine V, and by extension to iconoclasm. Thus, he was on the army's side, and it was clear that supporting the iconoclasts was another method to gain power at the expense of the patriarchy. He cleverly manipulated the Church from within, using respected theologians as strategic weaponry. When the squabbles that he had seeded finally grew, he stepped in and asserted his power as emperor to establish iconoclasm. The patriarch saw through his plan, but was powerless to stop it, although he and his supporters delivered a number of crushing blows to the notion of the legitimacy of what the emperor was doing. The emperor was forced to resort to repression and violence, discarding any subtlety. Iconoclasm was instituted, but at great cost. to the iconoclasts.

When Leo was killed in 820, he was replaced by Michael II. The latter did not want any trouble; though he stopped the persecution and repression, he did not remove the ruling doctrine of iconoclasm from power. He wanted to save face for the throne. The iconodules' rejoicing was curbed by the deaths of the two greatest theologians in their ranks: St. Theodore Studite in 826 and the former patriarch Nicephorus in 828. Repression began again a year after Michael's son Theophilus took the throne.

In 842, the throne of Byzantium was taken by Michael III (the empress Theodora as regent) and, a year later, the patriarchate was taken by Methodius. He was orthodox; immediately, he began purging the ranks of the Church of any trace of iconoclasm. Twenty thousand clerics were deposed. In 847, with Theodora's help, Methodius triumphantly restored orthodoxy, this time for good. The day (February 19) is still celebrated in the Eastern churches as the Triumph of Orthodoxy.

Ivan IV Grozny's nickname definitely described his reign well: "Awe-inspiring". Whether it was awful or awesome is another question. He did help start Russian expansion and consolidated its rule into a somewhat stable autocracy, but he also cruelly killed thousands in a brutal reign of terror similar to Stalin's. Though he may have been a paranoid schizophrenic and was extremely sadistic, he was a very intelligent and educated man. This combination proved to make for a very interesting and strange Czar of all the Russias. (6)

Ivan became the Grand Prince of Muscovy when he was only 3 years old upon the death of his father, Basil(Vasily) III in 1533. Because he was too young to rule, his mother Helena seized power and ruled as a regent for him. She was ambitious and tried to secure her power through various intrigues and murders of relatives and other people who might be power hungry. After about five years of this the leading Boyars (upper nobles) had had enough of the insult and she was poisoned. This led to a fight over power between the two foremost Boyar families, the Shuiskys and the Belskys. The leader of the Shuiskys soon imprisoned the leader of the Belskys and let him starve to death. However that did not put and end to the turmoil. (1)

This period of his childhood was the most awful. Soon after his mother was killed, his beloved nurse was sent to a nunnery by the Boyars. This left nobody to take care of him and his younger brother, Yuri. The Palace was like a battleground for the Boyars and people were always being beaten or killed in the palace in front of the young Ivan. One time a fleeing noble ran through Ivan's bedchambers as other nobles proceeded to hunt the first one down and kill him. Ivan and Yuri were often left without food and nobody cared for them. One noble did befriend him but he was soon killed for some reason or another. (1, 2, 5)

During this time Ivan began to show his dark side. He would torture anything he had power over, because among the nobles he had no power. He and his little friends favorite playtime activity was dropping small dogs off the towers and rushing down to watch them die. As they got older he liked to ride through the crowded streets of Moscow on his horse trampling whatever he hit. Besides torturing the weak, his other, more insidious, childhood activity was reading. He read whatever books were lying around the palace. There were not many books but there was a considerable amount of religious books. This might have been why Ivan was so, in his mind, devout later on. (4)

Ivan executed his first political at the age of fourteen when he ordered Prince Andrei Shuisky to be fed to the hunting dogs. Not long after that he had thirty important Boyars hung. He gradually exerted more power and occasionally killed unruly Boyars. In 1547 he started gain actual power. It was this year that he asked the Metropolitan to give him the title of Czar of All the Russias, which was granted to him, and held a Miss Russia contest to find a bride. (2)

Much to the outrage of the Boyars he selected Anastasia Romonov who came from an upper middle class, formerly Prussian family. He loved Anastasia very much and she would play a very important role in the Czar's reign. (1)

Soon after this there was a huge fire in Moscow and Ivan's uncles, the Glinskys, who were the main people running the government, were killed in the riots afterwards. Ivan then used a common strategy to put down these riots. He asked to talk to the leaders and when they met him he had them immediately hung in the middle of the square. (1)

After this Ivan IV was completely in control of Russia. His first act was the calling of the first National Assembly or Zemsky Sobor. At this meeting he made confessions for the sins of his youth and promised good leadership. These assemblies would last throughout Ivan's reign and beyond advising Czars on domestic and foreign policy. Sometimes these assemblies were made up mostly of gentry and merchants. These were the first democratic institutions in Russia. (1)

Ivan also set up a close ring of advisors that would be very influential to him. Many of them were not Boyars, but just people who were politically active and he had heard of their deeds. The two most important were the Monk Sylvester and Alexi Adashev. (2)

He also made many military and political reforms during this period. The first reform was instituting a system of lower nobles who were tied to the Monarch to govern the provinces and collect taxes. This helped take the power away from Boyars and give the Czar more control. In the Military he reorganized it into six regiments, establishing strict discipline in the army, and making larger with more guns. He also started a nationwide census to help broaden the tax base. (2)

Ivan now had a strong state with a very good army and it was time to make use of it. For years the Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan routinely made raids on Russia for slaves and to plunder towns. They were now at a weak moment and part of the Kazan Khanate offered itself to Ivan. Upon hearing this Ivan, who had made previous unsuccessful attempts, took his army directly to the city of Kazan and successfully besieged it. After this they sent a message to Asrakhan by tying forty dead Kazanians to a log and floating down the Volga to Astrakhan. Astrakhan fell with little or no fighting.

Feeling like he was already successful he then took his army north. This left the Khanate of the Crimea, the greatest Tartar power, untouched. (1)

In 1553, a year after his Kazan campaign, Ivan fell terribly ill. The disease from which he suffered is unknown but it may have been Pneumonia. His condition was so bad that the doctors said there was nothing they could do and that he would soon die, therefore he had to write a will and name his successor. He named his one year old son Dmitri as the heir to the throne (Ivan's little brother was not an option because he was "simpleminded".). Almost all of his close council, including Sylvester and Alexi Adashev, refused to recognize his choice because they did not want another period of regents as there was with Ivan. Expecting him soon to die the Boyars also criticized his wife and his policy within earshot of Ivan. They said they would support a Boyar as the next Czar. (2)

However, Ivan made an unexpected recovery and now viewed all Boyars and advisors as enemies. The cruel traits that he had displayed as a boy now began to resurface. This was just aggravated by the fact that Dmitri was drowned later that year. (7)

Now a leading Boyar Prince Simon Lobanov-Rostovsky led a conspiracy for the Boyars to flee to Lithuania. He hated how Ivan was gradually taking away their power and giving it to the junior people (Nobility of service) or how a lowly Romanov might become a Regent. Ivan had this Boyar exiled. (1)

At this time the Russian State was stronger than ever. It had no enemies to the East and no possible invaders to the West. The only threat was Crimea to the south. However there still was a dilemma of what to do militarily. The problem lied to the West. Livonia controlled Russia's contact with the West through the Baltic. They would not let any doctors or anybody who might give Russia power or trade through to Russia. This greatly restricted Russia's development and they needed western money and technology. Also, Livonia was weak at this point and it looked ready to take. However a western campaign would leave the south open. Ivan's advisors first recommended that he defend the South but then said to go further and Invade Crimea. This would have been foolish and they would have had to attack from the unsettled steppe. Therefore Ivan refused that plan. (1)

He decided to go on the offensive with Livonia, beginning by demanding tribute and control. They refused and allied with Poland but Ivan invaded before Livonia could receive help. Russia easily won, but the war was not over yet. Livonia fragmented, but each different fragment asked a different country for help against Russia, and all of these countries would benefit greatly from obtaining Livonia. The countries involved were Denmark / Norway, Sweden, Poland, and Russia. (2)

First, Denmark and Russia made a treaty saying that Livonia was under the control of Denmark but a vassal to Russia. However, Sweden was already at war with Denmark, and Poland now claimed Livonia. In 1566 Poland offered Ivan portions of Poland in exchange for Livonia. Ivan called the Zemski Sobor to decide on what to do. The popular decision was to continue the war. This led to a long on and off struggle with the various powers contesting over its control which was eventually unsuccessful. (2)

Ivan did however obtain some access to the west when the British reached Arkangelskii. Ivan gave them a monopoly on Russian trade. This helped influence Peter I in his policies of westernization. (2)

In 1560 Ivan's Wife died which led to more paranoia and cruelty on Ivan's part. He suspected foul play and Anastasia who had previously pacified his temper could no longer help. In 1664 he moved his family to Aleksandrovskaia Sloboda and announced the next year his intentions to abdicate the throne. The people pleaded him to stay and he then presented them with the conditions upon which he would stay. He said that that he retained the right to punish anyone he suspected of treason without question. They agreed and thus began the Oprichnina. (4)

The Oprichnina was a state within the outside Russian State ( Zemschina ) controlled by the nobles. The Oprichnina and the officers of it, the Oprichniki, reserved the right to basically do whatever Ivan said. They began by finding all the Boyars who were suspected of treason (almost all of them) and kill or exile them anyone who opposed was exiled or brutally murdered. Sylvester was sent to a Siberian Monastery and Ivan's former council was gone. Ivan then began torturing random people and sending the Oprichniki on raids in towns killing and pillaging anything. Novgorod was sacked because of a suspicion of a revolt. Its leader were tortured and killed and many of its citizens were killed or raped. (1)

During this period Ivan acted as if he was a paranoid schizophrenic. He would hardly sleep and got to church in the middle of the nigh apparently hearing the word of god tell him who to kill next. He continually married wives, and then killed them or sent them to a nunnery. Though the atrocities he committed with the Oprichnina were unspeakably horrible he probably would have been considered a good czar if it were not for one unrelated action. (7)

His oldest son and only suitable heir, Ivan V was 27 and had a pregnant wife who was wearing and tight dress. Ivan IV came in and started arguing with her about the dress and soon started beating her. This caused a miscarriage of their baby, which Ivan V was very upset about. Young Ivan started arguing with Old Ivan about this and Old Ivan got so mad he hit his son this his metal tipped staff so hard that Ivan V had a concussion and soon died. (1)

This not only left Ivan IV a broken man but it also left Fyodor "the Bellringer" as his only heir. Fyodor was much kinder than his dad was but also probably at least semi-retarded. He had no interest in politics and only liked church and especially ringing the church bells. When he took over Boris Gudonov, a friend of Ivan IV, had to rule for him.

When Fyodor died so did the Rurik dynasty that had lasted ever since the Vikings first established Russia as a state. (4)

Ivan Grozny was a very conflicted man. This is most evident in the killing of his son. He had loved his son very much and he was completely miserable afterwards, but his awful childhood made it so that he would never stand for something that goes against him. He tried to work for the good of Russia, but disregarded the people that lived there at the time. That was how he ruled his country and that is why he was both Awesome and Awful.

References:

Books:

1. Carr, Francis: Ivan the Terrible, 1981.

2. Platonov, F.R.: Ivan the Terrible, 1923, 1974.

3. Encyclopedia Britannica: Ivan IV, 1959.

Web:

4. http://www.xs4all.nl/~kvenjb/madmonarchs/ivan4/ivan4_bio.htm

5. http://www.dana.edu/~dwarman/kmaas.htm

6.http://members.bianca.com/shacklet/Mad_Ivan_the_Terrible/terrible.html

7. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/ivan/ivanmain.shtml

Node Your Homework!

The Background:

In 19 CE, Tiberius expelled the Egyptian and Jewish residents from the city of Rome. The move was effective only within the city itself, not across the Empire, and it was not a permanent measure. What was it, then, that Tiberius was trying to achieve?

The Sources:

Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, 81:

There was a certain Jew, a complete scoundrel…He enlisted three confederates…they urged her [Fulvia] to send purple and gold to the Temple in Jerusalem. They, however, took the gifts.

Tacitus: Annals, II.85:

Another debate dealt with the proscription of the Egyptian and Jewish rites, and a senatorial edict directed that 4000 descendants of enfranchised slaves, tainted with superstition and suitable in point of age, were to be shipped to Sardinia and there employed in suppressing brigandage…The rest had orders to leave Italy unless they renounced their impious ceremonial by a given date.

Suetonius: Tiberius, XXXVI:

He suppressed the foreign cults and the religions of the Egyptians and the Jews, obliging those who practised such rituals to burn their religious garments and all their paraphernalia. The young men of the Jewish people he had sent to regions where the climate was severe, ostensibly on military service. The rest of that people, and others of similar beliefs, he banished from the city...

Dio: Roman History, LVII.18.5a:

As the Jews had flocked to Rome in great numbers and were converting many of the natives to their ways, he banished most of them.

The Readings:

So, for Josephus it was a case of blanket punishment because of the behaviour of a few reprobates towards a wealthy convert to Judaism. It seems a bit of an extreme move. Josephus was writing about sixty years after the event, and he was beholden to the Flavian Imperial Family for his life. As much he defended the Jewish people and Jewish values, he also had to protect himself and show a suitable degree of deference to the rulers of Rome. He might have been trying to keep in Vespasian's and Titus' good books.

If Tacitus had lived today, he would have read the Daily Mail. He was a staunch defender of all things Roman; if Rome were in trouble, then it was the fault of the disintegration of Roman moral values and the influences of outsiders. Importantly, he mentioned that it would have been citizens — 'descendants of enfranchised slaves' — who were shipped off to Sardinia on military service. A citizen could not be expelled unless they were sentenced to exile after trial; Tiberius and the Senate were taking advantage of a legal loophole to rid the city of a group of citizens. But if they relinquished their beliefs, then they were allowed to stay. Tacitus' implication was that Rome needed to be protected from pernicious 'outside' influences.

Suetonius, like Tacitus, implied that Rome felt threatened by some 'alien' influence. If these 'outsiders' were prepared to acknowledge themselves as 'Roman', then they would have been allowed to stay. Again, though, because citizens were involved, they had to be banished under the pretext of military service.

The picture presented by Dio is rather different; he gives proselytism as the reason for expulsion. It certainly fits with the idea of outside pressure being placed on Rome, but he was writing 200 years after the event: can he really be trusted? Moreover, at the time that Dio was writing, there was extensive Christian proselytising taking place. It would not have been unthinkable for him to associate Christian mission to Christianity's Jewish roots. Essentially, was he projecting his present onto the past?

The Conclusion:

What is clear from the sources is that the move was expedient. It was not permanent, and it was hastily enforced. If Tiberius had felt that Rome was being seriously and consistently pressurised by outsiders, then he would have conducted a far more thorough and consistent expulsion. The most likely explanation is that Rome was suffering from some kind of unrest; there are suggestions of a food shortage, or that Germanicus' death upset the population. By banishing a large group of people it could both relieve the pressure on the food supply and make it look as if the State was taking remedial action against perceived troublemakers. Like much of Roman policy, it was a pragmatic solution to a temporary problem. The expelled populations soon returned, that is if they actually left at all in any great numbers.

Based on chapter 5 of my dissertation: Inside-out: Racism and the Early Imperial Roman Cultural Ideal

Bibliography:

• Dio: Roman History, trans. E Cary (Harvard, 1914-1927).
• Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, trans. L Feldman (London, 1969).
• Suetonius: Tiberius, trans. C Edwards (Oxford, 2000).
• Tacitus: Annals, trans. J Jackson (London, 1943).