5. expansion of Muscovy 1613-1689

Motives for expansion: historians

• Fear of encirclement:

  • James Harris - continuity of encirclement starting from Ivan IV to Stalin, psychological issue - would be harder to argue

  • Eurasian plain - no geographical barriers

• Kliuchevskii - argued muscovy was constantly expanding to the frontier, as there is no fixed borders

• Energy and drive out of 'the heartland'

Motives for expansion:

• Defend of borders - time of troubles foreign troops invading, serious political concerns about security

• Control of unstable frontier: different Cossack communities who changed their regions depending on concrete politics

• How muscovite army functioned - service land system = every member of the court received certain portion of land from the tsar, they would take things from the land, but had to perform something in exchange (military, diplomatic, political etc)

  • Land played an important role in the political system = tsar needed more land to sustain the growing army

• Time of troubles - lost fortresses on baltic coast line - undermined their security of Romanov regime in North west (border of Sweden + want to regain control over Baltic coastline)

  • Issues with trade and access to western tech.

    • Military, medicine, etc

• Religion - Early Romanovs saw themselves as defenders of Orthodoxy against Catholicism

• Regain 'patrimonial lands' - lands your ancestors had and you lost

  • Russians saw themselves as successors and reclaiming what belonged ot them in the past (Poland/Lithuania 'little Rus', Ukraine - Kyiv)

Muscovy International rival:

• Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth:

  • Biggest country in EU

  • Elective monarchy

  • All members of their diet had liberum veto

  • Lands of modern Ukraine + Belarus (Orthodox population, Catholic and Protestant magnates) - normally peasants

  • Social and cultural division within the Slavic speaking population

• Sweden:

  • Evident as a great power after 30 yrs war

• Khanate of the Crimea:

  • Girei dynasty tracing back to Monghol empire (Genghis Khan)

• Ottoman empire:

  • Supported Crimea

  • Got protection from French diplomatic protection under Louis XIV

• China

  • Colonisation of Siberia, Russians came into contact with China

Problem and challenges facing Muscovy

• Huge territories - issues providing troops, weapons, when fighting with more than one front (Severely problematic)

• Different types of warfare was necessary to fight with different armies (western vs eastern)

• Diplomacy was important - there was no permanent embassies abroad for Russia - had to send a special delegate to deal with issues

• No marriage links between Moscow + west

Smolensk war vs Poland-Lithuania 1632-34:

• Came from the time of trouble

• Polish prince was invited by boyars (Wladyslaw styled himself in the style of Muscovy)

• Recapturing Smolensk was necessary strategically

• Orthodox rivalry with Catholicism

• Easier to fight in Poland than in Sweden - needed approval from commonwealth, Muscovite took it as advantageous

• Mid 1620 - there was a simplified household taxation for private ahd church land

• Iron and lead imports were increased

• Increase want in west expertise - recruited foreign officers:

  • Alexander Leslie fought for both Commonwealth and Sweden - knew Russias enemies

• New model for regiments: were for foreigners, 66k men and 2.5k officers

• Swedes offered military advice and equipment in return for grain subsidies 1628

• Muscovy continued to depend on old, traditional cavalry (musketeers)

• Was called the 'military revolution' which was evident in Europe: changes in military tactics transformed society

  • Well drilled soldiers

  • Group cohesion with very good fighters

  • However: foreign officers wanted higher salaries = taxes were increased and it was extremely expensive

  • Cooperation with ruler and elite necessary

Why did Muscovy fail the Smolensk war?

• Patriarch Filaret launched the invasion

• Stalemate, even though they had an advantage

• 1633 OCT - FILARET died

• New cannons and weapons were too heavy to manoeuvre in mud

• Extremely distant places

• The Polish were better equipped and trained

• Some old cavalry refused to serve (believed the new model got better salaries, were jealous, didn’t want to serve under foreigners)

• However, Wladyslaw dropped his claim on the crown, but Poland kept west territories and was paid significant reparations from Russia

Southern defence vs Crimean Khanate 1635-53:

• Crimean tatar Incursions into Muscovy

• 1635-54: Belgorod defence line was created (500 miles) = more were created in the region later

  • Traditional wooden fortresses with soldiers would be watching

• Government invested cash and human resources into this: coordinated by one body called Chancellery of Fortress Construction

• 25 sections that each required 1k men

• 'a new king of regional military administration' C. Steven - new military innovations

Thirteen years war vs Poland + Sweden 1654 - 67:

• New use of fire power: extremely high number of casualties

• Several military draughts during the war

• Gov. had to recruit 100k untrained peasants in final years

• Peasant burden increases - tax and conscription

• New type warfare was expensive - payment to troops

• 'by 1663 the active army alone cost 4x more than it was in 1630' Stevens

• Russia finally got: Smolensk, significant parts of Ukraine was annexed

• Triggered by a Cossack rebellion:

  • saw themselves as defenders as Orthodoxy against Catholicism

  • had grievances with the Polish government - lost autonomy

  • Issues with statues - members of elite attempted to claim higher status + income

  • Conflict with Jews in Ukrainian cities

• 1654 - Pereiaslav agreement

• Muscovy sends 4k troop to Ukraine

• Tsar Aleksei led main army of 41k to Smolensk = fall of Smolensk

• 1667 - after extremely bloody battle - Peace of Andrusovo: ukraine divided, Kyiv went to Russia, was happy due to kyiv 'heritage' claim by Russia

Crimean campaign of 1687 - 89

• The ottoman empire had conflict after annexation of Ukraine, Turks invaded Polish Ukraine in 1670s, but Russia had a passive approach to the empire (Ottoman was tolerant to other religions)

• Joined Holy league of 1686 between Russia, Poland-Lithuania, Austria + Venice

  • Agreed to support common struggle against Ottoman Empire

• Headed by prince Golitsyn who was experienced commander in South

• 100k men - supplies and mobilisation both slow

• 300-400 miles was taken; no food for humans so food was taken in train

Why did they fail:

• Prince was reluctant

• Logistics - fodder ran out

• Tatar put steppe on fires

• Second campaign also suffered from shortage of water + fodder

• Most men (20k) suffered from disease

Russian Expansion in Siberia (17th c.)

Expansion:
By the early 1600s Muscovy controlled western Siberia and continued pushing east until reaching the Pacific coast. Indigenous peoples were forced to pay yasak (fur tribute). Expansion halted near China after the Treaty of Nerchinsk, which fixed the border and denied Russia access to the Amur River.

Motives & Methods:
Justified as bringing Christian civilisation and “gathering Russian lands.” Expansion relied on annexation and assimilation of local elites, economic exploitation (fur, gold, silver, ivory), and establishment of Orthodox churches.

Results:

• Control of vast natural resources

• Subjugation of indigenous tribes

• Emergence of a multinational, multicultural empire

• Further exploration eastward

Overall Significance (17th c. Muscovy):
Territory expanded dramatically (~5.4m km² in 1598 → ~16m km² by 1678), population grew (~7m → ~10.5m), and administration and army (new model regiments) improved—yet Muscovy still struggled to defeat major external enemies.

According to Brian Davies, what mattered more for Muscovy’s 17th-century expansion: internal reform or the weakness of its rivals?

Davies argues both internal reform and geopolitical opportunity mattered, but Muscovy’s biggest gains came when it exploited the weakness of rival states.

Internal reforms strengthened the state:

• Reconstruction after the Time of Troubles under Michael I of Russia and Patriarch Filaret.

• Repopulation of state lands, improved tax collection, and updated cadastral records.

• Military modernisation from the 1630s with foreign officers from Sweden and the Netherlands training European-style regiments.

• Expansion of frontier defence systems such as the Belgorod Line and military colonisation of the steppe.

• Financial reforms and the abolition of the noble ranking system (mestnichestvo) in 1682, allowing more efficient military command.

However, expansion depended heavily on external conditions:

• Major rivals such as the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Crimean Khanate were weakened by internal conflict and war.

• Events like the Khmelnytsky Uprising destabilised the Commonwealth, enabling Muscovy to intervene in 1654.

• The Russo‑Polish War (1654–1667) allowed Muscovy to secure Smolensk, Kyiv, and eastern Ukraine.

Davies concludes Muscovy’s greatest territorial gains came when it waited for favourable geopolitical moments to exploit rival weakness, rather than through reform alone

According to Erika Monahan, what facilitated and hindered the colonisation of Siberia?

Monahan argues Siberian expansion was driven by economic opportunity and trade networks, but limited by geography and weak state capacity.

Factors facilitating expansion:

• Siberia was sparsely populated, allowing relatively small Russian forces to advance.

• The Muscovite state viewed Siberia as a source of two kinds of wealth: fur tribute and trade with Asia.

• Strategic position between Europe and Asian markets (Persia, Central Asia, China).

• Establishment of forts and towns such as Tobolsk, Tyumen, and Tara to administer tribute and regulate trade.

• River systems flowing north–south made eastward travel and settlement easier.

• Cooperation with local groups (Tatars, Bukharan Muslim merchants, and indigenous peoples) who traded with Russians in exchange for protection and privileges.

Factors hindering expansion:

• Harsh climate, permafrost, steppe fires, and difficult agriculture.

• Seasonal river freezing disrupted travel and trade.

• Nomadic raids and insecurity on the frontier.

• Few Russian settlers willingly migrated east.

• Weak communication between Moscow and Siberian towns and corrupt or abusive governors.

• Frequent fires, famine, and fragile infrastructure.

Monahan concludes that Russia’s rule in Siberia was real but fragile, relying heavily on local cooperation rather than strong direct control.