Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Muscovy
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Walenty Neothebel, Acrostichis własnego wyobrażenia kniaża wielkiego moskiewskiego, cura e redazione di Grzegorz Franczak, Biblioteka Dawnej Literatury Popularnej i Okolicznościowej, t. XXV, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Sub Lupa, Warszawa 2016

100%
Nosilia V.
pl.it / rassegna italiana di argomenti polacchi
|
2016
|
issue 7
199-200
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Who Is Lying About Where “Russia” Lies? Some Notes on 16th-century Polish Ghostmapping of Muscovy

88%
Franczak G.
pl.it / rassegna italiana di argomenti polacchi
|
2021
|
issue 12
133-162
EN
This paper focuses on one particular aspect of the way in which 16th-century Polish authors ghostmapped the European East: the semantics assumed by the choronym “Russia” in Renaissance cartography which reflected the long‐lasting rivalry between Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Muscovy for the possession of the territories of the former Kievan Rus’. After a brief sketch of the theoretical and historical framework, I provide an overview of European cartographical texts, from Beneventano to Waldseemüller and Mercator, influenced by the Polish ghostmappers of Muscovy – Wapowski, Miechowita, and Strubicz – who tried to narrow the toponym “Russia” to the lands controlled by Poland and Lithuania.aciej Miechowita, Bernard Wapowski.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Role of the Religious Factor and Patriarch Nikon in the Unification of Ukraine and Muscovy

88%
Tairova-Yakovleva T.
Acta Poloniae Historica
|
2014
|
vol. 110
EN
The reasons of the unification of Ukraine and Muscovy in 1654 are of great importance for historians. The judicial nature of the union has been the topic of various discussions and polemics. A detailed study of the issue was done by J. Bassarab in 1982.1 The modern Ukrainian historiography has done a lot in studying Khmelnytsky’s reasons for choosing Muscovy’s tsar. In this essay, I focus on another issue: What was the main reason for Tsar Alekseĭ Mikhaĭlovich to take Ukraine under his ‘high hand’? Did he actually think about a ‘reunification’ or ‘gathering of the Rus’lands’ (these ideas being quite popular in Russian historiography)? What was the role of the religious factor, Russian Orthodox Church and, particularly, Patriarch Nikon in the tsar’s decision? Why did Muscovy break the Polyanovka Treaty with Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and started a war for Ukraine?
4

“Olen su sõbra sõber ja su vaenlase vaenlane” – Vene riigi ja Krimmi khaaniriigi diplomaatilised suhted Ivan Julma valitsemisajal

88%
Kupp-Sazonov S., Sazonov V.
Mäetagused
|
2023
|
vol. 88
121-144
EN
The Russo-Turkish stand-off, which began under Ivan IV the Terrible, was largely motivated by the rising imperialism and ambitions of Muscovy, which the no less ambitious Ottoman sultans, who in turn were expanding their Ottoman Empire, wished to oppose in order to maintain and extend their influence also in the Black Sea, Caspian regions and the Caucasus, where Russian troops were slowly ‘infiltrating’ and to which Moscow’s foreign policy was also increasingly turning its attention. Tsar Ivan IV conquered and destroyed all the Tatar states (including Astrakhan, Kazan, the Siberian Khanate, the Nogai Horde), with the exception of Moscow, which was increasingly subjected to the Russian occupation. Although he eventually achieved military supremacy over Crimea, Ivan IV was unable to subdue Crimean Khanate. In order for Crimea to survive, the Crimean Khan had to accept in the 1580s that Crimea, already formally a vassal of the Ottomans since 1474/1475, would become even more dependent on the Ottoman Empire. This article examines Ivan the Terrible’s eastern policy ambitions, as well as Muscovy’s relations with the khanates, especially the Khan of Crimea, and the diplomatic correspondence between the rulers (the Khan of Crimea and Ivan IV). In addition to excerpts from the letters of the various khans and the Russian tsar’s replies, we present commented translation into Estonian of a letter of 1572 from the Crimean khan Devlet-Girei to Ivan the Terrible, about a year after his raid on Moscow and just after the Battle of Molodi in the summer of 1572. More recently, the history of Russo-Tatar-Turkish relations has shown that the existence of the Crimean Khanate in the 17th and 18th centuries depended to a large extent on the support of the Turkish Sultan, and that eventually, after a series of Russo-Turkish wars (often involving Crimea), the Russian Empire absorbed the Crimean Khanate. Admittedly, this took place 200 years after the death of Ivan IV, in 1783, when the Russian Empire was ruled by Catherine II. However, it was Ivan IV who laid the foundations for the conquest of the Tatar lands, and this was only the first episode in a series of Russian-Turkish wars and the Russian-Turkish confrontation, which in fact continues to some extent to this day.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.