Ivan the Terrible - Bloodiest Tsar?

[C.J._Griffin]

I think Ivan the Terrible would be it. Reading about the horrific atrocities his forces committed at Novgorod make your hair stand up on the back of your neck:

"Every day for five weeks a thousand citizens were brought into the main square where they were systematically tortured and slaughtered. The Oprichniki variously flogged their victims, broke their limbs, cut out their tongues, slit their nostrils, castrated them and roasted them over slow fires. Then they were flung into the icy waters of the River Volkhov, whole families at a time. Those who rose to the surface were dispatched with boat hooks, lances and axes by the Oprichniki in boats. By the end there were so many bodies clogging the Volkhov, that it overflowed its banks." - The Most Evil Men and Women in History by Miranda Twiss, pg 107

But I've seen Peter the Great mentioned on these boards as Russia's most "evil" Tsar. I know he was a brutal autocrat (like all the Tsars) but was he really worse than bloody Ivan?

[Annie]

It HAS to be Ivan! I also read once that Stalin was said to have been the bloodiest leader, killing more Russians than any Tsar since Ivan the Terrible, so no one beat him until Stalin.

[Elisabeth]

I think Ivan was by far the bloodiest, a genuine psychopath. Peter the Great would probably come in second place, however, given the wars fought during his reign and the tremendous brutality with which he enacted so many of his reforms.

[C.J._Griffin]

It HAS to be Ivan! I also read once that Stalin was said to have been the bloodiest leader, killing more Russians than any Tsar since Ivan the Terrible, so no one beat him until Stalin.

Well considering Stalin murdered over 20 million people I'd say he's definitely Russia's bloodiest leader. But I have not seens any estimates on Ivan's mass murders (or any other Tsar for that matter), except that tens of thousands were butchered at Novgorod in about a week.

Stalin also idolozed Ivan the Terrible, during the hight of the Great Terror of 1937-38, Stalin is supposed to have said:

"Who's going to remember all this riffraff in ten or twenty years' time? No one. Who remembers the names now of the boyars Ivan the Terrible got rid of? No one...The people had to know he was getting rid of all his enemies. In the end, they all got what they deserved." - quoted in Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore, pg 231

[Elisabeth]

C.J., you probably already know this story, but I'll share it with everyone else:

When Eisenstein was making his great film about Ivan the Terrible, Stalin told him that while Ivan was an admirable ruler he was nevertheless "weak," because "God got in his way" ("Emy meshal Bog").

He was referring of course to Ivan's bouts of remorse and prayers for his victims.

Pretty scary.

[olga]

Anna Ivanovna was pretty bad.

[Belochka]

Well considering Stalin murdered over 20 million people I'd say he's definitely Russia's bloodiest leader.

Stalin also idolozed Ivan the Terrible, during the hight of the Great Terror of 1937-38, Stalin is supposed to have said:

"Who's going to remember all this riffraff in ten or twenty years' time? No one. Who remembers the names now of the boyars Ivan the Terrible got rid of? No one...The people had to know he was getting rid of all his enemies. In the end, they all got what they deserved." - quoted in Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore, pg 231

Stalin would have to win on numbers. It is difficult to state whether Ivan Grozny was more of a psychopath. Stalin did his best to surpass his mentor.

As Stalin once quoted:

A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic

[JaneEyre5381]

I would have to agree with the majority.  Ivan IV (Groznii) was probably the bloodiest Tsar.  Stalin, however, in my opinon would be the bloodiest non-monarchist ruler to have power in Russia (USSR in his time).

Dsha

[Romanov_fan]

I agree with the person above! This makes any of Nicholas II's alleged crimes look trivial.

[wox24]

Find me facts about his bloody in Russian chronicle.

The time of Ivan IV. is a full of lies.

For example:

1. Ivan IV. killed his son Ivan.
LIE.
In 1963 y. there were opened four thombs in Archangelsk cathedral. The opened tombs were: Ivan IV., tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich, tsar Fyodor Ivanovich and an army-leader Skopin-Shuyskiy. Scientist found that arsenic in skelet does not transcend norm and it is similar in all skelets. But corrosive sublimace severalfold  severalfold norm in the skelets of Ivan IV. and tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich.
In 1990 y. scientists didstudies of Moscow grand duchess. They found that skelets of mother Ivan Ivanovich, Yelena Vasilyevna Glinskaya (died in 1538) and Anastasiya Romanova (died in 1560) had severalfold superior corrosive sublimace to norm.
Simply said, Ivan IV., tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich, Yelena Vasilyevna Glinskaya and Anastasiya Romanova were toxicated.

besides, the chronicles do not say about Ivan Ivanovich`s murder only about his dead.

2. Ivan IV. killed 700 000 people of Novgorod.
LIE
The true is that 40 000 people of Novgorod died for plague. Besides, Nogorod was on the brink of the commontion. When Ivan IV. came (in 1569) there died 2800 people. (all rosters are in synodics).

3. Ivan IV. was "a bloody tsar".
LIE
According ivan IV. times:
- entrenched tribunal with dicast
- free basic education (church schools)
- medecal quarantine in the borders
- local votes governance
- regular army (first in the history)
- stopped Tatarian incursion
- owelty of walks of life
- denied slavery (lok at juridic of Ivan IV.)
- emmigration from Europe was more than 30 000 FAMILIES (documents existed)
- all sentenced people were tried at first (I hope i wrote it good)
- people which was reprisal were 3 000 - 4 000 people.
- increase of poeple - 30 - 40%

etc. etc.

and now West Europe:

1572 - Bartolomei night - 80 000 killed protestants
first half in XVI - England: - I was hanged only for vagancy - 70 000 people
1525 - Germany - elimination of commontion -    confinement 100 000 people
army-leader Alba - Antverpy - 8 000 killed, Haarlem - 20 000 killed people

Etc, etc.

4. Ivan IV. was drinker.
LIE
ivan was an abstinent and he hated drinkers. He prohibited alcohol in Moscow and pubs (nalivky) could be only behind Moscow. The source: Kazimir Walishewski, France

[Alixz]

Peter the Great would probably come in second place, however, given the wars fought during his reign and the tremendous brutality with which he enacted so many of his reforms.

And add the way that he tortured and then killed his own son.  Today we would probably see Peter as a horrible ruler, like Saddam Hussein.

[wox24]

Peter the Great would probably come in second place, however, given the wars fought during his reign and the tremendous brutality with which he enacted so many of his reforms.

And add the way that he tortured and then killed his own son.  Today we would probably see Peter as a horrible ruler, like Saddam Hussein.

Today and last is difference. Besides, look at West in this time. Or you think you were better?

[Alixz]

I don't understand what you are asking me. 

But I have never thought of Peter as Great.  He was brutal to his subjects.  He killed 100s of thousands to build St. Petersburg.  He fought wars for expansion.

He tortured his own son and then had him killed.  He left Russia without an heir.

In general we was not a likable man let alone "great".

[RomanovsFan4Ever]

Today and last is difference. Besides, look at West in this time. Or you think you were better?

wox24, if I understand your post correctly...

Actually, the title of this topic is "Ivan the terrible -Bloodiest Tsar?", not "West VS East".
It's obvious that cruelties happened EVERYWHERE in the world, not only in the East, nobody is saying the contrary, and nobody is saying that the West it's better than the East.

[wox24]

I don't understand what you are asking me.  

But I have never thought of Peter as Great.  He was brutal to his subjects.  He killed 100s of thousands to build St. Petersburg.  He fought wars for expansion.

He tortured his own son and then had him killed.  He left Russia without an heir.

In general we was not a likable man let alone "great".

I know how Peter was "humanist" (and I think the nick "Great" is bad for him, "Bloody", or "Terrible" would be better). I only want to underscore that you cannot always merit-rate according today criteria. He was not exemption in these times. That is all.

Btw, you forgot on gunners and people which did not agree with reform of orthodox christianity by patriarch Nikon.