The Handy Military History Answer Book. Samuel Willard Crompton

scene. He declined to exult in his victories, and a few years later he took the unprecedented step of abdicating his major titles.

      Might the Habsburgs have been wiser to keep all the leadership in one house and dynasty?

      It certainly seems so, from our modern perspective. But Emperor Charles V had attempted that very thing and found it too much. Given that some of his descendants were less conscientious about duty than him, it seems that he made the right choice.

THE RISE OF RUSSIA

      Is there a difference between “Russia” and “Muscovy”?

      The latter term was used for decades, even centuries before the first, but they both refer to the same political block: the region that straddles European Russia, all the way to the Ural Mountains. Much of this area had once been ruled by the Mongol leaders of the Golden Horde, but by about 1500, the princes of Moscow had exerted their influence and pushed out the Mongols.

      The leaders of Moscow did not yet call themselves “Czar,” but that term came into usage soon after the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Numerous Muscovites referred to their city as the “third Rome,” in succession after Rome itself and then Constantinople. Over time, the Muscovites also adopted the idea that they were an imperial people, bound or fated to carry on the mission of Rome and Constantinople.

      Was there something different about Muscovy, or Russia, right from the beginning?

      There was. Russia received a triple inheritance, which made it spiritually rich but materially confused. First and foremost was the Greek Orthodox Church, which came north and east at about the same time that the Roman Catholic Church went north and west. Second, Russia was overrun by the Mongols and held captive, so to speak, for nearly two centuries. Russia, therefore, missed both the Renaissance and the Reformation. Third, perhaps most important, was the Byzantine inheritance, which persuaded the Russian czars that they were on an equal level with the emperors of ancient Rome.

      Much of this was good, excellent even. The triple inheritance made it difficult for the rulers of Muscovy to understand the Christian West, however, and the feeling was reciprocated in full measure. The first real trade contacts between Russia and the West did not occur until the 1550s, and for a full century after that, many Western Christians continued to think of Russia as a strange, far-off place that could never be understood. In the ultimate expression of this belief, Prime Minister Winston Churchill declared, centuries later, that Russia was “a riddle wrapped in an enigma.”

       When was the Kremlin built?

      The Kremlin, which is one of the world’s true wonders, is a series of buildings and palaces built around an inner core that was established during the time of Czar Ivan III. Each successive czar saw it as his responsibility to glorify and beautify the Kremlin, giving it a greater significance, than, say, the White House in the United States. When Russians, therefore, speak of the Kremlin, they do so in terms that are both secular and spiritual: they see it as a fusion of the two.

      Was there anything especially different about the Russian military?

      It followed much the same lines as those of the Christian West, but it lagged two centuries behind. As a result, during the reign of Czar Ivan the Terrible, the monarch acted very much like a feudal king from the time of the Crusades, and even during the reign of Peter the Great, the czar still acted as if his subjects’ bodies—their very persons—”belonged” to him in a sense that had disappeared in the West.

      Then, too, Muscovy, or Russia, was thoroughly landlocked. Muscovy was a large state with immense potential, but its merchants, or potential ones, had little access to the goods of other nations. As a result, Russians discovered the use of gunpowder much later than the French, Italians, or other Western Europeans, and their wars against the Ottoman Turks were much closer than would otherwise have been the case.

      Was Czar “Ivan the Terrible” really as bad as he sounds?

      Like many other men in similar positions—one thinks of King Henry VIII, for example—Czar Ivan (ruled 1547–1584) was a much better leader in youth and early adulthood than in later life. He started his reign reasonably well and showed himself a person of shrewd strategic insight, but with each passing decade he became stranger, even outlandish. Like Henry VIII, Ivan the Terrible had many wives. We believe that he had a total of eight, of whom at least four were poisoned. Who poisoned them remains a mystery. Like Henry VIII, Ivan the Terrible grew much worse in later years, and by the time of his death in 1582, he was far gone in superstitions and paranoia.

      A seventeenth-century illustration of Ivan the Terrible.

      Where was Russia toward the end of the sixteenth century?

      Russia was experiencing one of her lowest periods in modern times. Known as the “Time of Troubles,” the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries were a period of revolving czars, pretenders to the throne, and peasant revolts. On numerous occasions, the entire state of Muscovy stood on the brink of collapse, but in 1613 a new dynasty—the Romanov—was proclaimed, and Russia entered a time of greater stability. This does not mean its ties to the Christian West were any firmer, however; on the contrary, the Russians had a great dislike and fear of the Poles, against whom they fought during the Time of Troubles. Another eighty years would pass before Russia made firm contact with the Western powers.

THE RISE OF ENGLAND

      Why did it take so long for England to become a player in the religious wars?

      The great thing—so far as England was concerned—is that it did not have to. Protected by its island status, England could, usually, afford to watch the Continental powers waste their money and soldiery while England conserved them. But the rise of Philip II to the throne of Spain changed the situation somewhat.

      Philip II (reigned 1558–1598) struggled throughout life to be a dutiful son and faithful follower of his father, who had been such an overwhelming presence. Unlike Charles V, Philip II was a religious bigot, who wished to crush the Protestants rather than win them back to the Roman Catholic Church. Philip’s first concern was with the Dutch Netherlands, but few people doubted that he also intended to bring England and Scotland back into the fold.

      How did Elizabeth, the middle child of King Henry VIII, become queen of England?

      Even in death, Henry VIII attempted to control everything. His long and complicated will provided that Edward—his youngest child and only son—would inherit the throne, but that if Edward were to die without issue, the throne would pass to Mary, his eldest child. By off circumstance this happened, and when Mary died without issue, the throne passed to Elizabeth.

      Queen Elizabeth I (reigned 1558–1603) was the shrewdest, most calculating mon arch of the century. She listened to her advisers at length, pondered all the options, and then made her own choice. Perhaps for show, she sometimes attempted to go back on her original decision(s). That she was the most intelligent ruler of the time cannot be doubted. The Pope wrote that she was an amazing woman and that if she were on the side of Roman Catholicism, that faith would surely prevail.

      Who did Elizabeth help first?

      When the Dutch rose against Philip II in 1567, England was inclined to help. The Dutch were Protestants, and they were fighting against Spain, the great Continental power of the day. Elizabeth never aided the Dutch openly; she funneled money to them and sent English adventurers to fight in their long war for political independence. This infuriated Philip II, and he gradually became Elizabeth’s sworn enemy.

      A daughter of Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth I proved to be one