That was then, this is now
I very much like the new Michael Khodarkovsky book The Steppe and its Empires: The Russian Empire & its Eurasian Counterparts. Excerpt: Russia presented the most remarkable contrast to both Eurasian and Western empires. The oower of Moscovite tsars and Russian emperors seemed to be completely unconstrained by moral or ethical boundaries. Whereas religious authorities […] The post That was then,…
Michael Khodarkovsky's book "The Steppe and its Empires: The Russian Empire & its Eurasian Counterparts" offers a fascinating look at the Russian Empire and its Eurasian counterparts. One striking contrast between Russia and other empires was the complete lack of moral or ethical constraints on the power of Moscow's tsars and Russian emperors. Unlike religious authorities in Europe, the Islamic world, and China, the Orthodox Church in Russia stood firmly behind the autocratic rule of tsars.
The title of "samoderzhets," or "sovereign ruler," was first adopted by Ivan III and later used by his grandson Ivan IV to signify an exceptional, unrestrained power. This concept of a universal, non-national empire allowed Eurasian rulers to see themselves as the supreme sovereigns, destined to rule the world, at least in rhetorical terms.
The separation between metropolis and periphery, between different peoples within and outside the empire's boundaries, and the distinction between servitude and slavery blurred, with all considered to be in personal servitude to an emperor.
As a result, Eurasian societies did not develop the notions or institutions that could enshrine the idea of freedom. The universal monarchy concept allowed for little differentiation between internal and external territories, creating a homogeneous imperial vision.
Written by urgent.news from Marginal Revolution's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
