Ivan the Terrible - Bloodiest Tsar?

[wox24]

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.

Sorry my reaction but I often read on the forums as West was democratic (in these time too!!!) and Russian cruel, that Russian are drinkers, lowbrows and similar. So, it is reason my reaction, maybe premature.

[wox24]

Another "humanist" was Vladimir "Fair Sun" or "the Great" or the Holly", who killed 70% population of Kiev Rus and destroyed the most towns of Kiev Rus becasue they did not want to accept Christianity. Before destroying Kiev Rus by Vladimir it was knew as The land of towns on the West.

[RomanovsFan4Ever]

Sorry my reaction but I often read on the forums as West was democratic (in these time too!!!) and Russian cruel, that Russian are drinkers, lowbrows and similar. So, it is reason my reaction, maybe premature.

I understand, thank you for the clarification.

About the reply #16.

Was he Vladimir I Grand Prince of Kiev?, that he is venerated as Saint Vladimir of Kiev?

[wox24]

Sorry my reaction but I often read on the forums as West was democratic (in these time too!!!) and Russian cruel, that Russian are drinkers, lowbrows and similar. So, it is reason my reaction, maybe premature.

I understand, thank you for the clarification.

About the reply #16.

Was he Vladimir I Grand Prince of Kiev?, that he is venerated as Saint Vladimir of Kiev?

Yes, this "humanist" was Vladimir I. known as "Saint" Vladimir. As you see, the christians did not pine at the destiny of "heathens".

[Alixz]

I think we agree on Peter.

I am sorry if my post came across as looking like I thought that the West was better than the East.  I have never believed that.  I was just saying that, while Peter is venerated now, if he lived now, we would probably call him "bloody" and compare him with the tyrants and dictators of the 20th century.

[wox24]

I think we agree on Peter.

I am sorry if my post came across as looking like I thought that the West was better than the East.  I have never believed that.  I was just saying that, while Peter is venerated now, if he lived now, we would probably call him "bloody" and compare him with the tyrants and dictators of the 20th century.

If Peter would live now he could make it. Whether he would want it is another question.

[burger queen]

You can watch the last film of Pavel Lungin, "Tsar", to realize his "bloody aspect".
This is cinema but not fiction.

It's also important to know how Ivan became "Terrible". Younger, he was a "nice" boy. But the atmosphere of Russia at this time was absolutely awful. All the boyards wanted to become tsar, dreaming to kill the little Ivan (that's what happened later with his son Dimitri). He became tsar and got married with Anastasia Romanova. Anastasia died from illness but Ivan was convinced that boyards killed her. That's how he became completely paranoid and it worsened year after year.

Impossible to compare Stalin and him.
The country, the time, everything was different.

Edit : At the end of XX century, scientists analysed the corpse of Anastasia. They realize that Ivan was probably right...

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

Why would the boyars want to kill Anastasia?
To prevent her having more children (heirs)??
Or to hasten Ivans paranoia & madness???

Larry

[burger queen]

Hi,

Why would the boyars want to kill Anastasia?
To prevent her having more children (heirs)??
Or to hasten Ivans paranoia & madness???

Larry

Anastasia's family wanted to share the power with Ivan. The tsar loved very much his wife, so the boyards became less and less influential. They killed her (and her mother) to keep the control.

[wox24]

Hi,

Why would the boyars want to kill Anastasia?
To prevent her having more children (heirs)??
Or to hasten Ivans paranoia & madness???

Larry

And who claimed Ivan was madness? His foes. And these lies repeated historics.

[agordon2000]

Ivan was clearly insane which has been attributed to his rheumatoid arthritis remedy which was mercury that he kept in his room all the time. Stalin killed 20 million. Peter was not insane though he was very intrusive. Ivan killed his well loved son by hitting him with an iron cane during an argument. Peter's son was the center of opposition to his father and all progressive movements and his father was terrified that if he were to become Tzar the state would be run by the church and aristocrats. He was not insane and he did not kill randomly. But he was harsh as were he not he would not be effective. He was progressive and understood his job was to do things to promote the Russian economy.   He was dealing with a very conservative group who were resistant to change. He said that "those who say I am harsh and brutal do not know what I have to deal with."

[agordon2000]

There is no doubt he was crazy. They say he had rheumatoid arthritis and the "cure" at the time was to drink mercury, which he kept in his room. This made him increasingly crazier and he ruled  for 37 years. He never trusted the aristocrats and became crazier as he got older. He had the Oprinchnina kill them and confiscate their estate. He stopped when he wanted to be king of Poland so his reputation would be better. He killed all the people of Novgorod because he thought their independence was dangerous. The number he killed is somewhere between 60,000 and his number of 3750 that he said he killed. In contrast they say Anna Ivanovna killed 20,000 but all for stupid reasons. She killed those who talked about her.  Elizabeth the Empress said she would kill none. Her father Peter the Great is quite miss categorized here as a modern Saddam Hussein which is totally untrue. But he was the ruler during the Great Northern War and so who knows how many deaths he caused on both sides. His men went out of control and killed everyone in the second battle of Narva and plague and hunger killed millions in Latvia, Finland  and Estonia. He directly killed those who were corrupt and who opposed his changes but he was not  at all irrational or as he said cruel. He was harsh but not a psychopath in any sense.