Talk:Ivan the Terrible

Year of birth

From the article:

There isn't much known about Ivan so this will be a difficult article to add to!

Question: Was he born in 1534 or 1533? Sources talk I believe he was the czar in 1533, but i'm not sure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobadeba (talk • contribs) 15 February 2007.

---

Exact translation of Ivan Grozny's nickname and toning down of his presumably "mad" character, as well as the commentary about the goal of Oprichina was supplemented by G.N.Boiko-Slastion on Nov.30,2003.

---

Considering that many historians do indeed judge Ivan to have been deranged, I think this article should consider this view as well as the view that Ivan was a farsighted, sane statesman. As is the article is learning towards the sane side more than is appropriate.

---

A link to the Eisenstein films (or to Eisenstein himself until the articles are written) would be appropriate.

---

He was not born on janurary 18 1993

Semen Bekbulatovich

Ivan IV officially and publicly abandoned the title of tsar in 1547following the destruction of Moscow by Devlet Girey, the han of Tatars, and a Tatar Sain-Bulat, or Semen Bekbulatovich was proclaimed tsar (Muscove tsars were vassals of Cimean Tatars, who were heirs of the Khans of the Golden Horde). Does anyone have information about this event? Compay 00:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There is an article on Simeon Bekbulatovich --Ghirlandajo 08:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Moscow tsars were never vassals of crrimean tatars. Great dukes of Moscow were vassals of Golden Horde and called their sovereigns "tsar". Crimean khans were vassals of turkish sultans.

=Seva —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.113.40.130 (talk • contribs) 1 Feb 2006.

Captions

Why does the first picture have the caption "Tsar Ioann IV the Terrible"? In what relevant language is he Ioann? Is this Latin? I can't think what else it would be. In both English and Russian he is "Ivan", though of course the vowels have different values and the accent falls differently.

Ioannes in Greek, Ioann in Church Slavonic and lofty Russian parlance. --Ghirlandajo 20:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Church Slavonic and lofty Russian parlance sound worth a mention, but not an unexplained use in a caption; I'll deal with this one. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And for the second one: "In imitation of Henry VIII of England, Ivan married 7 times…" "In imitation of…" seems very unlikely, is there a citation for this? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Ivan maintained close ties with England, patronized the Muscovy Company, and built the Old English Embassy near the Kremlin, which still may be seen. He maintained a regular correspondence with Elizabeth I and proposed to marry her. As his own letters show, he was aware of the authoritorian policies of her father as well. See Skrynnikov for details. --Ghirlandajo 20:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

But is there any basis to say he married women in imitation of Henry VIII? Is there a citation for that claim, because it seems a bit bizarre to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been over a month and I still don't have an answer to this. I'm very inclined to change this caption. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Tsar or Czar?

Why are both used in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harris0 (talk • contribs) 16 Dec 2006.

No good reason. Both are acceptable, though I think contemporary usage is leaning towards "tsar" for the literal meaning and "czar" for the metaphorical (such as "drug czar"). Within one article, we ought to stick to one or the other. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Tsar is used by Oxford Dictionary, Czar in Merriam Webster

=Seva

Very Primitive Article

Ioann Grosny was the first Russian tsar. Prior to him the title tsar (from latin Caesar) was used in Russia for Byzantine emperors and Mongolian khans. Not to mention this fact is ignorance.

Simeon Bekbulatovich was only one year a tsar, after that Ioann Grosny take this title back.

It was not the first time, when Ioann Grosny resigned. Remember Alexandrovskaya sloboda. Or better read a book.

Oprichnina cannot be translated as “security” (ohrana), what an ignorant fool wrote that? Yes ignorant fool. The name of this organization, which could be translated as “something except of it” or “something beyond of it”, very good describes its role. When Ioann Grosny after his resignation and escape to Axedrovskaya Sloboda was pleaded to come back to his throne, one of his conditions was the right to establish Oprichnina. Originally this means the exceptional right for tsar to give estates directly to loyal people. Later word oprichnina becomes the synonym for exceptional rights of those people – oprichniks – over lives and possessions other citizens - Zemstvo. Usually estates were given by Zemsky Sobor. Thus the opposite of Oprichnina is Zemstvo.

The fact that Ioann Grosny himself dissolved Oprichnina and even forbid to mention this word is obviously forgotten

The reason for it of course too

Comparison with Henry VIII is evidence that the author of this article gather his knowledge in yellow press. Try The Times

What else?

Ioann Grosny passed the first death sentence when aged 13.

The massacre of Poganaya Yama is not mentioned

The overall impression of this article – it written by someone who neglect to read books.

=Seva —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.113.40.130 (talk • contribs) 1 Feb 2006.

Non-native english speakers

I wonder if this article is being edited by non-native english speakers. The sentence "Upon his father's death, he formally came to the throne at the age of three, but his minority was dominated by the strong personality of his mother Elena Glinskaya" is just horrible. I have tried to edit some of the mangled writing in this article, only to see it reverted back to the previous rubbish. Cwiki 11:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that the article is often edited by non-native English speakers. Virtually all topics related to Russia are significantly worked on by Russians: would you have it any other way?

I am a native speaker, and while I find that sentence slightly stilted, I can't imagine what about it you find "just horrible". "His minority" in this sense is slightly archaic (especially in U.S. English), and I might use "the period before he came of age", but other than that I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. Could you be clearer about what you find "horrible": you say that you "tried to edit some of the mangled writing in this article", but obviously you didn't do so under the account name you are now using, since it is nowhere to be found in the edit history. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Slightly stilted! Let's analyze this sentence. Adding the word "formally" is confusing. If you state that someone formally does something, there is a strong assumption that they were informally doing it earlier. The sentence implies that Ivan was informally on the throne prior to his father's death - which is ridiculous given that Ivan was only three. When he was three he didn't rule - regents did. He formally came to the throne when he came of age and a regency was no longer needed. The sentence talks about him being three and being dominated by his mother. This makes the sentence ridiculous even without any historical context. His mother died when he was eight so it's fairly redundant to say that his minority was dominated by her. You talk about adults being dominated by their mother, not fatherless children. Also, she was only alive for half his minority, so she couldn't have dominated his minority that much.

Or that he didn't do it informally for some time, which, being three, he didn't. 72.166.213.6 01:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove all the garbage and the sentence is changed to - "His father died when Ivan was only three. He ascended the throne however a regency was required during his minority. His mother, Elena Glinskaya assumed power."

Of course I expect Russian articles to be edited by Russians. However I don't expect to clean up non-native English speakers' grammar, only to see it reverted back to it's original stilted form.

For what its worth, my past edits weren't under my current account name. Cwiki 12:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The use of the word "formally" does not imply that informal accession was necessarily earlier, just at a different time, in this case later. To use the word slightly differently, "his accession at the age of three was an empty formality."

The way I would read "his minority was dominated by the strong personality of his mother" is not that he, personally, was dominated by his mother but that during the period of his minority the court and hence the country were dominated by his mother.

"He ascended the throne however a regency was required during his minority," would be much improved by a semicolon after "throne" and a comma after "however". But if I would probably say something more like, "In 1533, when Ivan was only three, his father died and Ivan became the Grand Duke. His mother, Elena Glinskaya, functioned as a strong regent until her death in 1538. Thereafter, the boyars Ivan and Andrey Shuisky were the de facto rulers of Russia until Ivan assumed power in 1544." More information, too.

And, yes, it's a pain if people whose mastery of the language is less than yours are editing your merely editorial changes. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with my basic point. I enjoyed our debate about the sentence I used as an example but that was a sideshow. You're right about the semicolon. I don't normally use semicolons in informal communications such as this; however, given that I'm banging on about stilted writing, I should have been more careful. You're also right about the use of the word "formally". The sentence was so badly written that I didn't get that the author was trying to say "He formally came to the throne at the age of three, but during his minority, the country was ruled by his mother". Also, I explained how I would reword the sentence as stated. I didn't necessarily say that's how I would write it in the first place. Cwiki 12:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• I was under the impression you were only suposed to edit something if you were neutral like I couldn't make any major edits on Canada for example. Jamhaw 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)jamhaw

Dirty Boots

Why would a drunken Boyar putting his dirty boots on Ivan's bed contribute to his mental instability? Cwiki 10:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Address this question to Dr. Freud. What "mental instability" do you talk about, by the way? Ivan's brains were sharper than ours. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I refer to a passage in this article- "In one letter, he painfully recalls an episode when one drunken boyar put his dirty boots on Ivan's bed. These traumatic experiences doubtlessly contributed to his hatred of the boyars and to his mental instability." I'm trying to rid this article of garbage but it keeps on getting reverted. What do you mean by saying "Ivan's brains were sharper than ours". More garbage. Cwiki 10:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It borders on the ridiculous. I'm going to pull it. NeoFreak 15:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are the primary sources (since the BBC doesnt suffice)

• [1]
• [2]

Anon, these are typical secondary sources. They were written in the 20th or 21st centuries. Primary sources should date to the 16th century. Are you sure that your additions are not an urban legend? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrey Kurbsky

I found an article about Andrey Kurbsky, doing a random article search. There is no mention of Andrey Kurbsky in the Ivan IV article. I added a link under SEE ALSO, but someone who is more knowledgable than me may wish to add it in to the main article. --KVox 20:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You should have read the article more carefully. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Move?

At Talk:Jan I Olbracht it's been suggested that perhaps the easiest way to enforce the wiki conventions on naming of rulers would be to move all articles to the proper title and this one was given as an example. Any ideas on John IV of Muscovy? //Halibutt 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Quality, Sources

Overall really badly edited. "What had been by far the richest area of Russia became the poorest" - What area are we talking about?

"In a dispute with Novgorod Republic, Ivan ordered the Oprichniks to murder the inhabitants of this city. Between thirty and forty thousand were killed. Yet the official death toll named 1,500 of Novgorod big people (nobility) and only mentioned about the same number of smaller people." -- It is not fact-based. First of all, "murder of inhabitants" needs to be re-worded. I was not the exact mission. 30-40 thousand is way too high. Estimates at Novgorod population of this time are about 20-30 thousand total and number of victims 2-3 thousand of which nobility stands at few hundred. Can someone double check this with reputable source (Skrynnikov?)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.226.231.199 (talk • contribs) 22 June 2006.

Images

Is it possible to get a higher-resolution image of the Ilya Repin painting (Ivan the Terrible killing his son)? The particularly haunting expression on Ivan's face doesn't come through in the current small version. Robotman1974 09:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Ivan IV of Russia

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by Bel-Velvel

It is very frustrating to see a rather neutral article ruined by tendentious editing... :( --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The number of victims of Novgorod massacre is very overestimated. The article contains other mistakes also

1.

Previous text: """ In a dispute with the wealthy city of Novgorod, Ivan ordered the Oprichniks to murder inhabitants of this city, which was never to regain its former prosperity. Between thirty and forty thousand might have been killed during the infamous Massacre of Novgorod in 1570 """

This paragraph contains a lot of mistakes.

• Novgorod was not prospering city to 1570 after the epidemics of plague and the famine of 1560s.
• Ivan did not ordered to kill all city dwellers.
• The number of 30-40 thousand victims is represented as finished proved statement. Though these figures strongly contradict even to a population of city to 1570 (10,000-20,000).
• The official data were fair enough. It is the report of the commander of Oprichniki Maljuta Skuratov and commemoration lists of tsar. Would he lie before the God, being the religious person?

2.

It is incorrect to declare famine and the devastation of Russia as result of the Oprichnina only. Authors of this opnion forget the Big Drought and the epidemics of plague in 1560s, the Polish-Lithuanian and Swedish raids on Russian territory (devastation of region Smolensk, Pskov, Novgorod, Yaroslavl, South-West etc), attacks of Tatars of Crimea (They even burnt down Moscow), the trading blockade carried out by Swedes, Poles and Hanseatic League.

In 1560s the grain prices have grown ten times. Epidemic of the plague killed 10,000 in Novgorod. In 1570 the plague killed 600-1000 in Moscow daily. (R.Skrynnikov, "Ivan Grosny", M., AST, 2001)

3.

Ivan realized objective centralization tendencies. In Europe these tendencies conducted to overcoming of the feudal privileges and dissociation and to the building of the absolutistic state. It is necessary to remember the bloody acts of Henry VIII (England), Charles IX (France), Erik XIV (Sweden) and Spanish kings.

The Oprichnina was not the product of Ivan's paranoia. In the regions of Oprichnina (the Northeast of Russia) the number of large noble landowners was small. Basing on the Oprichnina, tsar wanted to suppress the nobility of the Southwest and the West of Russia, who did not support his struggle against Poland, Lithuania and Sweden.

4. My text: "In 1552 tsar won Kazan Khanate, whose armies repeatedly devastated the Northeast of Russia (ref), and annexed its territory. 1556 he annexed Astrakhan Khanate and destroyed the largest slave market on the river Volga. These gains of tsar complicated the migration of aggressive nomadic hordes from Asia to Europe through Volga and transformed Russia into a multinational and multiconfessional state."... "He introduced the local self-management in rural regions, mainly in the Northeast of Russia, populated by the state peasantry. What in this versions frustrate my opponent?

Ben-Velvel 18:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What you need to do is to add facts and place a reference and page number for them. At present, reference three is faultily presented. One reference for each source here would be preferable, with a page number for published books, including chronicles. Editorial comment by the editor is not the done thing, even in notes. And it is always best to reference opposing sources where sources clash, or the reader will then only see a partial interpretation of events. qp10qp 19:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Would he lie before the God, being the religious person?" Quite possibly. Religious people have certainly been known to lie. - Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace

Ivan IV(Ivan the Terrible) was born in Kolomenskoye NEAR Moscow not actually there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by L 2 Da U (talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Conquest of Siberia

I have a map here published by Rand McNally & Company that indicates that Siberia was acquired by Russia between 1598 and 1689. Since Ivan dies before 1598, his reign could not have seen the conquest of Siberia as indicated in the first paragraph of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.93.39 (talk • contribs) 25 March 2007.

name

Ivan Grozny is the Russian name given to Ivan IV, almost invariably translated as "Ivan the Terrible" into English, but a reference should be made to its literal Russian meaning; "Ivan the Threatening". While a minor point from a historical point of view, it should perhaps be mentioned as it does illustrate the subtle, but definetly different takes on the character from the West and in English-speaking countries. Eddie max 23:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Threatening doesn't quite do it justice either. It means 'terrible' in the old sense of the word, mighty and awe-inspiring. A russian friend said 'inspiring reverential dread' is an excellent phrase to describe the adjective. English just doesn't have the particular vocabulary for a direct translation. While a few people still know the old usage of 'terrible' its very unlikely that succeeding generations will, so perhaps a better translation is in order. My Russian professor suggested 'thunderous' but that doesn't quite sound correct in english.(S.L)

thaNKS FOR UR HELP

THIS HELPED ME A LOT IN MY ASSINGMENT. THANKS. ♠ŚиíþéЯ♠ 03:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Another translation of Grozny

I've heard (not knowing Russian myself) that in the name "Peter the Great", the "Great" represents "grozny" in the original Russian. So can't we call the earlier tsar Ivan the Great?

Note: I once heard of a lecture in which a historian started by explaining that "terrible" was not a good translation. After subsequently summarizing Ivan's career he concluded: "Now that I think about it, he really WAS pretty terrible". CharlesTheBold 04:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter the Great is Pyotr Velikii. Ivan the Terrible is Ivan Grozny. Different words with very different meanings.

• Literal meaning of "Grozny" is closer to "threatening", from "грозить" - "to threat". This epithet is not derogatory, but does not mean "great" anyway.Garret Beaumain 17:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian, but in context, perhaps "Ivan the Terrifying" best gets the point across? - CronoDAS 05:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Epithet "The terrible"

The abstract notes that Terrible in this context is its archaic form of 'inspiring fear.' Perhaps it should, for clarity, give an alternate translation to exemplify this, "Ivan the Awesome" or "Ivan the Fearsome."

Degradation of Wikipedia

I've been unable to detect a single reasonable edit made in the main body of this article since last year. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ivan The Cruel (Iivana Julma)

It is interesting to note that even in the name of Ivan IV the Russian and Finnish history writing differs. The Russians name him Grozny which could be transliterad in Finnish as Peloittava. But the usual transliteration is Julma (Cruel).

No mention of Ivan`s tendency toward homosexuality after unsuccessful relations with his wifes. Generally known by the time and mentioned in other countries histories, but not in Russian history. His mental illness become worster after he killed his son who refused to have a homosexual relation with his father. The other son who did it become also mentaly ill. hahahhahah :]]

JN

Bad link

I'm unregistered so I can't. Someone remove the broken BBC link at the bottom. 88.114.251.167 13:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)