Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political

¶ … Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political Institutions

There have for centuries existed arguments both for and against the effect of the Mongols on the Muscovite Political Institutions on the 13-16 centuries. Arguments exist which support the effect of Mongol khans on Muscovy yet there are some who believe that the effects which are attributed to the Mongols come into effect far to late to be considered truly attributable to Mongol origins and instead represent some sort of modernization or alteration of Byzantine Practices. In his article, The Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political Institutions" Donald Ostrowski puts forth a compelling argument regarding what he believes to be the extensive effect of the Mongols on Muscovy and the resultant development and derivation of Russian political institutions.

From the beginning it is probably important to say that by no means in Ostrowski an absolutist in his theories. He takes great pains to explain that he has no significantly vested interest in the influence of Mongols upon the sociopolitical bent of Muscovy and instead emphasizes that his theories are based upon conclusions which he has drawn after careful study and also, that the conclusions are made in the absence of any other absolute information. There is a remarkable paucity of historical records from this time, and Ostrowski bases his opinions on comparisons between the Mongol and Muscovite political institutions. He appears open to the fact that someone may come in at any time and raise other ideas which may at any time invalidate his argument or at least modify what he feels to be some of the essential truths of the sociopolitical text of the time. Some of his comparisons and constructs are quite interesting, however, and seem to make more sense than those put forward by other historians studying the period.

Ostrowski agrees that there is no significant consensus among historians as to when and where the most influential timing of Mongol on Muscovy occurred. It is interesting to note that according to the records which exist, there appears to be evidence of the Mongol influence on Muscovy in cases which show its effect only after the Muscovites were fully released from Mongolian influence and somewhat emancipated. Ostrowski explains this phenomenon in two ways; one which has been put forward by the historian Vedansky in which the Mongolian influence appears to be one caused mostly by some form of delayed action which is not clearly defined. In another case, Ostrowski refers to the possibility of an "institutional time bomb" which exerted a delayed effect upon the sociopolitical climate of Muscovy. Ostrowski is clearly willing to accept the fact that the spatial and temporal differences in the apparent influences of the Mongols on the Muscovite princes may cause many to reject the idea that Muscovy borrowed heavily from the Mongols, and is willing to consider the fact that it would appear somewhat ridiculous for a 16th century dynasty which is essentially a successful conqueror state to adopt the sociopolitical aspects of a system which it had just conquered. Nonetheless, Ostrowski is able to tie this all up neatly in several ways. He remarks upon the fact that many of the Muscovite rulers where in some ways ransomed to the Mongolian empire during their formative years, raised in the Mongolian court, and it would only make sense that their political and hierarchical leanings would be in a great way impacted by the Mongolian style of state. It is not under doubt that the style of Muscovite government as full scale bureaucracy comes directly from the style of division and local governing which was so common to the Mongol empire. Some of the practices which were used heavily in the Muscovite governments of the mid thirteenth century are so like obscure Mongol practices as to be indistinguishable. There is, however, no explanation for this borrowing and no easy explanation why as no sociopolitical texts from the era exist.

In Ostrowski's paper, it is noted that toward the end of the basquaq system of government, many of the Muscovite grand princes made frequent trips to the center of the Mongol empire, staying there in residence for extended periods of time. These visits are chronicled and in fact the Grand Prince Semen traveled to Sarai at least five times during his reign. As was previously noted, many of the Grand Princes had spent most of their formative years as "welcome hostages" in Sarai, and perhaps even felt more comfortable among those with whom they had grown. Is it any wonder that they would then telegraph the sociopolitical style of the Mongol empire to their own areas? The affect on the future of the Muscovite court system from this practice cannot be underestimated.

Ostrowski also refers to fourteenth century sources which describe Muscovite political practices which were very similar to those at Sarai. Far from speculation, this is historical documentation and as such is not usually to be ignored. Most interesting of these practices is the dual administrative structure of the management of lands by both Muscovy and the khanate. It should be noted that there are almost exactly the same institutions for secular administration of lands for the Muscovite system in the 14th century as had existed under the Kipchak Khanate, similar right down to the interrelations between bureaucracies and administrative practices. Even certain Muscovite administrative positions mirror those seen within the Mongol empire.