How accurate was the commonplace 17th century European view that Russia was a backward, weak, isolated and barbarous state?

Authors Avatar

How accurate was the commonplace 17th century European view that Russia was a backward, weak, isolated and barbarous state?

        It must be said that in a broad sense the view (held by most Europeans in the 17th century) that Russia was broadly accurate. Russia was definitely a less developed state that those in Western Europe in several ways. The most widely published works on the subject (Herbertstein’s Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii, and Olearioys’s Neue Bechreibung der Moscowitschen), both draw a picture of a socio-political order which stood in sharp contrast to west European societies on critical counts. In these works the essential features of the Russian state were: the tsar’s undisputed rule of the country and its inhabitants, the status of the people (whether of high or low degree) as his slaves and serfs; the recognition of his will as the will of God, and his possessions of all his subjects’ property. Thus the question is now to see exactly to what extent the Russian state was “backward, weak, isolated and barbarous”, and to find the causes for it.

        Backwardness is essentially the measurement of the social and technological development of a country. Due to the total subordination to nature that existed in the 17th century, the two most decisive factors in these two areas were the soil and climate of a nation.

        In terms of soil, Russian can be divided into two zones. The north zone occupies the northern half, from the Arctic Circle to between 45 and 50 degrees. The predominant type of earth here is pozdol, a soil that requires deep ploughing to be of use. In the southern zone the prevailing soil is fertile black earth. The climate of Russian is of the Continental type (high temperatures in the summer and low in the winter). The coldest regions in Russia are found in the most northern but also most eastern parts. This is due to the diminished effect of the warming Gulf Stream. As a result Siberia, a potentially inexhaustible reservoir of agricultural land is for the most part unsuitable for farming. Rainfall is heaviest in the northwest, where the soil is poorest. The rain also tends to fall heavier in the second half of the summer. This can cause drought in spring and early summer, followed by disastrous downpours during the harvest. The Russian farming season is as a result exceedingly short, ranging from four month in the north to five and a half near Moscow. In contrast West European seasons last as long as nine months.        Simple climatic facts such as these have numerous social and economic consequences. For example, the short growing season means that livestock must be kept indoors for longer and must miss out on early spring grazing. As a result, once released it is in an emaciated condition. Indeed the poor quality of Russian livestock has hindered the development of meat and dairy farming. However the most obvious consequence is simply the low yields gained.

Join now!

        The typical grain yield in medieval Europe was 1:3; that is to say that every grain cast would yield three at harvest. This is the lowest level at which agriculture is worthwhile. However with the development of cities in Western Europe, the trading and manufacturing population gave up growing food, buying it from farmers instead. The emergence of a rich urban market encouraged landlords to raise surplus. By the 16th and 17th centuries yields had risen to 1:6 and 1:7. Theories relating grain yield to population development have been laid down as such:

“Civilisation begins only where one grain of seed ...

This is a preview of the whole essay