Podcast appearances and mentions of ivan iv

From bathing in girls' blood to making homemade conjoined twins, we'll look at a few famous psychopaths who are truly some of the most terrifying people in the history of the world. Plus, whether flamboyant, miserly, or paranoid, some of history's oddest individuals put modern-day eccentricities to shame.CHAPTERS & TIME STAMPS (All Times Approximate)…00:00:00.000 = Disclaimer and Lead-In00:01:04.405 = Show Open00:02:18.195 = Diogenes : A Crazy, Homeless Philosopher00:04:25.438 = Tarrare: the Man Who Man Have Eaten a Baby00:06:56.792 = Lucky Lord Byron00:10:58.843 = Hetty Green: Taking Miserly To a New Level00:13:51.801 = Henry Cyril Paget: Married His Cousin And Lived Life Luxuriously00:17:00.927 = Carl Tanzler: He Couldn't Live Without His Love, Even After Her Death00:19:44.980 = Gloria Ramirez: The Toxic Woman00:23:29.245 = Anneliese Michel: She Endured 67 Exorcisms00:25:55.913 = Sawney Bean: The Scottish Cannibal00:27:56.815 = Margaret Howe Lovatt: Intimate Relations With a Dolphin00:32:01.535 = King Leopold II: Slaves And Slaughter For Rubber And Ivory00:33:46.355 = Pol Pot: Created a Nation of Peasants, Poverty and Punishments00:35:24.413 = Ivan IV of Russia: Better Known as Ivan The Terrible00:37:01.333 = Elizabeth Bathory: Eternal Youth Through Murder00:38:22.119 = Heinrich Himmler: The Second Worst Nazi00:39:30.141 = Adolph Eichmann: Claimed He Did His Duty By Killing Millions00:42:01.830 = Tomás de Torquemada: Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition!00:43:23.989 = Josef Mengele: The Angel of Death00:44:25.066 = Vlad Tepes: The Impaler That Inspired Dracula00:45:56.819 = Jim Jones: The Kool-Aid Serial Killer Cult Leader00:47:36.479 = Show Close, Verse, and Final ThoughtSOURCES AND RESOURCES FROM THE EPISODE…“History's Oddest Individuals” and “Sinister Psychopaths” by John Kuroski for AllThatsInteresting.com: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/2p9ca245, https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/mpvbsn6e=====Darkness Syndicate members get the ad-free version. https://weirddarkness.com/syndicateInfo on the next LIVE SCREAM event. https://weirddarkness.com/LiveScreamInfo on the next WEIRDO WATCH PARTY event. https://weirddarkness.com/TV=====(Over time links seen above may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)= = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46= = = = =WeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2025, Weird Darkness.=====Originally aired: March, 2022EPISODE PAGE at WeirdDarkness.com (includes list of sources): https://weirddarkness.com/OddIndividuals

Dire que Kiev fut la capitale de la Russie est une affirmation à nuancer. Si Kiev n'a jamais été la capitale de la Russie moderne en tant qu'État, elle a bien été le centre politique et culturel d'un ancêtre de la Russie actuelle : la Rus' de Kiev.Kiev, berceau de la Rus' de KievAu IXe siècle, un peuple scandinave, les Varègues, s'installe dans les territoires slaves de l'Est et fonde un État connu sous le nom de Rus' de Kiev. Son premier dirigeant notable, Oleg, s'empare de Kiev en 882 et en fait sa capitale, remplaçant Novgorod. Cet événement marque le début de l'âge d'or de la cité.Sous le règne de Vladimir Ier (980-1015), Kiev devient le centre du premier État slave chrétien, adoptant l'orthodoxie en 988. Son fils, Iaroslav le Sage (1019-1054), renforce encore son importance en développant son administration et sa culture, faisant de Kiev une des plus grandes villes d'Europe de l'Est.Le déclin de Kiev et l'émergence de MoscouMais cette suprématie ne dure pas. À partir du XIIe siècle, la Rus' de Kiev se fragmente en plusieurs principautés indépendantes. En 1240, la ville est ravagée par les Mongols, marquant la fin de son rôle central.Pendant ce temps, une autre principauté, Moscou, commence à émerger comme puissance dominante. Sous Ivan III (1462-1505), Moscou unifie progressivement les terres russes et se positionne comme héritière de la tradition de Kiev. En 1547, Ivan IV (le Terrible) prend le titre de tsar de Russie, affirmant la centralité de Moscou dans le nouvel État russe.Kiev et la Russie moderneAprès des siècles sous domination polonaise et lituanienne, Kiev est intégrée à l'Empire russe en 1667. Elle devient une ville majeure mais jamais une capitale, ce rôle revenant d'abord à Moscou, puis à Saint-Pétersbourg sous Pierre le Grand.Conclusion : une capitale historique mais pas moderneSi Kiev fut bien la première capitale d'un État slave oriental, la Rus' de Kiev, elle n'a jamais été la capitale de la Russie moderne. Elle reste néanmoins un lieu fondateur de l'identité russe, ukrainienne et biélorusse, ce qui explique encore aujourd'hui son importance dans l'histoire et les tensions géopolitiques actuelles. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Venemaa ajaloo teise osa peategelaseks on Ivan IV, kes sai päranduseks suuri ümberkorraldusi vajava riigi. Ta oli vastuoluline isiksus, kelles on nähtud nii suurt reformaatorit kui ka despooti.

Stéphane Bern raconte Ivan IV, le premier tsar de Russie, tel qu'il s'est autoproclamé, ou Ivan Le Terrible comme la légende noire l'a inscrit dans l'histoire, un puissant dirigeant qui s'est laissé dévorer par sa propre paranoïa… En quoi Ivan le Terrible a-t-il défini le métier de “tyran” ? Quelle image le peuple russe avait-il de lui ? Quelle place occupe-t-il dans l'Histoire russe ? Pour en parler, Stéphane Bern reçoit Pierre Gonneau, historien, auteur de "Ivan le Terrible, ou le métier de tyran" (Tallandier, collection Texto) Rédaction en chef : Benjamin Delsol. Auteur du récit : Théodore Dehgan. Journaliste : Clara Léger.

Stéphane Bern raconte Ivan IV, le premier tsar de Russie, tel qu'il s'est autoproclamé, ou Ivan Le Terrible comme la légende noire l'a inscrit dans l'histoire, un puissant dirigeant qui s'est laissé dévorer par sa propre paranoïa… En quoi Ivan le Terrible a-t-il défini le métier de “tyran” ? Quelle image le peuple russe avait-il de lui ? Quelle place occupe-t-il dans l'Histoire russe ? Pour en parler, Stéphane Bern reçoit Pierre Gonneau, historien, auteur de "Ivan le Terrible, ou le métier de tyran" (Tallandier, collection Texto) Rédaction en chef : Benjamin Delsol. Auteur du récit : Théodore Dehgan. Journaliste : Clara Léger.

Ivan le Terrible, premier tsar de Russie, incarne une figure à la fois fascinante et effrayante de l'histoire. Couronné en 1547 à seulement 16 ans, il proclame Moscou « troisième Rome » et jette les bases de l'Empire russe. Marqué par une enfance tragique, Ivan développe une cruauté sans limites. Réformateur éclairé, il modernise les lois, l'armée et l'administration tout en conduisant des campagnes militaires décisives, comme la prise de Kazan. Cependant, la mort de sa femme Anastasia en 1560 a déclenché une paranoïa destructrice. Créant l'oprichnina, il s'appuie sur des milices brutales pour éliminer ses opposants, plongeant le pays dans la terreur. Sa folie atteint son apogée avec le massacre de Novgorod et l'infanticide de son fils en 1581. Rongé par la culpabilité, il finit ses jours dans une profonde repentance, alternant entre piété mystique et souvenirs de ses atrocités. Ivan laisse un empire unifié mais marqué par la violence. Merci pour votre écoute Vous aimez l'Heure H, mais connaissez-vous La Mini Heure H https://audmns.com/YagLLiK , une version pour toute la famille.Retrouvez l'ensemble des épisodes de l'Heure H sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/22750 Intéressés par l'histoire ? Vous pourriez également aimer nos autres podcasts : Un jour dans l'Histoire : https://audmns.com/gXJWXoQL'Histoire Continue: https://audmns.com/kSbpELwAinsi que nos séries historiques :Chili, le Pays de mes Histoires : https://audmns.com/XHbnevhD-Day : https://audmns.com/JWRdPYIJoséphine Baker : https://audmns.com/wCfhoEwLa folle histoire de l'aviation : https://audmns.com/xAWjyWCLes Jeux Olympiques, l'étonnant miroir de notre Histoire : https://audmns.com/ZEIihzZMarguerite, la Voix d'une Résistante : https://audmns.com/zFDehnENapoléon, le crépuscule de l'Aigle : https://audmns.com/DcdnIUnUn Jour dans le Sport : https://audmns.com/xXlkHMHSous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppvVous aimez les histoires racontées par Jean-Louis Lahaye ? Connaissez-vous ces podcast?Sous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppv36 Quai des orfèvres : https://audmns.com/eUxNxyFHistoire Criminelle, les enquêtes de Scotland Yard : https://audmns.com/ZuEwXVOUn Crime, une Histoire https://audmns.com/NIhhXpYN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement.

Ivan IV assumes the throne after a twelve-year regency. It does not take him long to earn his nickname. WebsiteWestern Civ 2.0

Cette semaine à Histoire de passer le temps, Catherine Thibeault revient dans nos studios pour parler de la fin du règne du premier tsar de Russie, Ivan IV. Elle nous explique en quoi il est surnommé « le Terrible » et nous présente l'opritchnina, une période sombre de l'histoire russe. Nous accueillons également Alexandre Haché qui nous parle de J.R.R. Tolkien, le célèbre écrivain mais aussi médiéviste, auteur de la trilogie du Seigneur des anneaux. Il nous démontre en quoi les expériences de sa vie ont grandement influencé son œuvre. Finalement, nous cédons la parole à Marjorie Charbonneau qui nous parle de l'histoire du lieu du Petit Trianon et du rôle que l'ancienne reine de France, Marie-Antoinette, a joué dans sa construction et son aménagement.

Cette semaine à Histoire de passer le temps, nous accueillons Alexandre Haché qui nous emmène sur les traces du frère franciscain Guillaume de Rubrouck, qui dut se rendre auprès du Grand Khan Mongkë sur ordre du roi de France Louis IX. Catherine Thibeault nous présente le règne du premier Tsar de Russie, Ivan IV, dit Ivan le Terrible, et nous dresse les aspects positifs de son règne. Enfin, Pierre-Luc Noël nous parle d'une figure influente mais méconnue du monde syndical québécois, Léa Roback.

Vladimir Sergejev ja David Vseviov, "Venemaa – lähedane ja kauge II". Kirjastuselt Varrak. Tutvustab Timo Tarve. Venemaa ajaloo teise osa peategelaseks on Ivan IV, kes sai päranduseks suuri ümberkorraldusi vajava riigi. Ta oli vastuoluline isiksus, kelles on nähtud nii suurt reformaatorit kui ka despooti.

Le tsar Ivan IV, qui règne de 1547 à 1587, traîne après lui une sinistre réputation, qui lui a valu le surnom de "Terrible".Il est d'ailleurs le dernier grand-prince de Moscou, une principauté née de la "Rus", cette première entité territoriale née autour de la ville de Kiev. Il est aussi le premier, du fait de ses annexions de territoires notamment, à porter le titre de "Tsar de toutes les Russies".Son règne avait pourtant bien commencé. En effet, il réforme le clergé, fait paraître un nouveau code de lois et promet de protéger le peuple. Il commence aussi à moderniser un pays encore très archaïque.Traumatisé par une enfance difficile, où l'orphelin qu'il était fut maltraité par ses tuteurs, et persuadé que tous se liguent pour l'assassiner, Ivan montre bientôt son véritable visage.Obsédé en permanence par la peur du complot, le Tsar se livre aux pires cruautés, notamment sur les boyards, des nobles qu'il soupçonne de vouloir le trahir. Il en fait ainsi déporter et tuer des centaines. Il s'en prend aussi à leurs familles, dont il fait souvent exécuter tous les membres.Ivan le Terrible ordonne même des exécutions de masse. En 1570, il fait ainsi tuer toute la population de Novgorod, qu'il accuse de trahison au profit de la Pologne.Pour assouvir ses vengeances, le Tsar peut compter sur les "opritchniks", une milice composée de fidèles qui lui sont dévoués corps et âme. Il s'assure d'ailleurs de leur loyauté en donnant à ses sbires les terres des boyards, qu'il confisque sans vergogne.Si Ivan IV est passé à la postérité comme un homme assoiffé de sang, c'est aussi en raison de la folie meurtrière qui semblait l'habiter. Elle lui inspirait en effet, dans les châtiments qu'il infligeait à ses opposants, un raffinement de cruauté inouï.Entre autres supplices, il les plonge dans des chaudrons d'eau bouillante, les fait griller comme des rôtis à la broche ou les expose, dans des arènes dont ils ne peuvent s'échapper, à la dent d'ours affamés. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Two men stood in a large room shouting at one another, raging over family and war or accusing each other of incompetence and cowardice. A third man stood nearby, servant of one and friend to both. In a corner, a young woman cowered with her face bruised and her body shaking. Anger swirled around the pair as words grew ever-more harsh. And then, the older man swung his scepter, the symbol of God's might wielded through him on earth, and it crashed into the temple of the younger man. Blood poured from the wound as the youth crumpled to the ground. And then, as if a veil had been lifted from his eyes, the Tsar of all Russia's knees gave out. He cradled his victim in his arms and howled to the heavens, "May I be damned! I've killed my son!" Ivan IV's long reign was among the most consequential for the Russian empire. His early reforms seemed to indicate that Russia was on the brink of a new age, only for it to fall into darkness as the tsar descended into paranoia and madness. The world soon gave him a new name as war and repression became ways of life under the man history knows as Ivan the Terrible. Join us as we teach you about Ivan the Terrible, his life, and the terror he caused. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/15minutehistory/support

Lorànt Deutsch revient sur le surnom de Ivan IV, dit "le Terrible". Une légende noire qui puise ses origines dans une enfance difficile... Du lundi au vendredi, Lorànt Deutsch vous donne rendez-vous dans la matinale de RTL. Chaque jour, l'animateur de "Entrez dans l'histoire" revient sur ces grands moments qui ont façonné notre pays.

In questa lezione raccogliamo qualche riflessione sulla situazione dell'est Europa nel XVI secolo. Dopo aver riepilogato la storia della fondazione dei principati russi di Kiev e Novgorod, ci dedichiamo a tratteggiare il ritratto e l'azione di Ivan IV il terribile, rifondatore della Russia dopo la lunga crisi derivante dalla dominazione mongola. Ne approfittiamo per qualche divagazione attualizzante sulla guerra russo-ucraina. C'è qualche minuto per osservare l'evoluzione di un vasto regno compreso tra i territori tedeschi e quelli russi, la Polonia, stato contenitore di diverse componenti etniche, tenuto insieme dalla dinastia degli Jagelloni e successivamente passato al sistema alternativo della monarchia elettiva. Qualche osservazione sparsa sulle altre potenze del nord, in particolare la Svezia, destinata ad avere un ruolo importante nella guerra dei Trent'anni e a diventare egemone sul Baltico. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/stefano-dambrosio5/message

This week: We take a look at The Romanov Dynasty. In this two part mini series we begin with the rise of the Romanovs during the times of Troubles after Ivan The Terrible. (Ivan IV). Peter The Great was actually NOT the first Romanov on the throne. But there were two others before him. We take a look at what their work was like, and how they would lead the way to Peter The Great, and establish a stable dynasty. In part 1 of The Romanovs we take a look at the dynasty All the way from Mikhail Romanov to Catherine The Great. This week on "Well That Aged Well".Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/well-that-aged-well. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Full episode for subscribers: https://www.patreon.com/posts/85372158 On Gumroad: https://russianswithattitude.gumroad.com/ 00:00:00 - A brief history of Russia from the Mongol Yoke to Ivan IV Grozny 00:07:30 - A portrait of Ivan IV 00:20:25 - Conquest of Kazan 00:28:40 - Conquest of Astrakhan & Russo-Turkish war 00:34:00 - Livonian war 00:46:10 - Oprichnina & Novgorod massacre 00:56:35 - Grozny's wives and heirs 01:07:00 - Death of Ivan IV

After the death of Tsarina Anastasia at the hands of the boyars, Ivan IV was furious. With his 2nd wife, he started the Oprichnina, and one of Russia's darkest periods in history, resulting in the deaths of nobles, peasants, and even his own family. But it wouldn't be until his 8th marriage that his brutal rule came to an end. Don't worry, we somehow still found a few laughs in there!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the early sixteenth century there emerged upon the world stage a cast of royal characters that could almost persuade the most hardened social historian to read Thomas Carlyle's On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History. In Europe were Francis I of France, Henry VIII of England, and Charles V, King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor. In Russia ruled Ivan IV, also known as Ivan the Terrible;  in India Babur and Akbar, founders of the Moghul Dynasty;  and in Persia the Savafid rulers Shah Ismail and Shah Tahmasb. As my guest writes, all of these monarchs “resorted to warfare as an instrument of empire building…sought to establish control over their own elites and aristocracies… paid particular attention to creating and maintaining a multilayered reputation as ruler, patron, soldier, [and] statesman… [and] sought to establish central control over religious matters during a time of intense theological debates and spiritual anxieties. They were also acutely aware of each other, and they openly competed among themselves for control of land and resources and for prestige.” In their geographical midst was one to whom all looked, against whom all compared themselves, and with whom nearly all of them competed in the game of kingdoms. This was Süleyman, the ruler of the Ottoman Empire, known to contemporaries as “the Grand Turk”, and ever after as “the Magnificent.” In all the endeavours of his contemporaries, he at the very least matched them, and he usually excelled. Peerless Among Princes: The Life and Times of Sultan Süleyman is a fascinating new biography of this towering figure, a study not only of his life but of his time. Its author Kaya Şahín is with us today; he is Associate Professor of History at Indiana University, where he also serves in the Department of Central Eurasian Studies and Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures For Further Investigation Some of the European side of this story has previously been discussed in Episode 166, a conversation with Catherine Fletcher about the Italian Renaissance; and in Episode 149, which focused on the history of Eastern Europe, a history that is unimaginable without the presence of the Ottoman Empire. The following books are suggested by Kaya, some with his comments. Cornell H Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa Ali (1541-1600) Leslie Peirce, Empress of the East: How a European Slave Girl Became Queen of the Ottoman Empire: "a biography of Suleyman's wife." John Julius Norwich, Four Princes: Henry VIII, Francis I, Charles V, Suleiman the Magnificent and the Obsessions that Forged Modern Europe: "not a work of academic scholarship, but an open-minded treatment of Suleyman together with the other royal figures of the period." Suleymanname: The Illustrated History of Suleyman the Magnificent, edited by Esin Atil. Erdem Çipa, The Making of Selim: Succession, Legitimacy, and Memory in the Early Modern Ottoman World: "a study on Süleyman's father." Emine Fetvaci, Picturing History at the Ottoman Court: "although mostly dealing with a period following Süleyman's death, it is a terrific study of Ottoman visual culture, book arts, history-writing, etc." Nikolay Antov, The Ottoman 'Wild West': The Balkan Frontier in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries: "a solid treatment of Ottoman expansion in the Balkans as well as the issue of conversion to Islam, etc." Christopher Markiewicz, The Crisis of Kingship in Late Medieval Islam: Persian Emigres and the Making of Ottoman Sovereignty: on new Ottoman notions of sovereignty.

Ivan IV had a grudge against Moscow's nobles ever since they poisoned his mother. So when he was crowned Russia's 1st all-powerful Tsar, he started cutting off their power (by cutting off their heads). His 1st wife Anastasia helped him keep his cool, but when the nobles poisoned her too, Ivan really started to get Terrible.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ivan the first Tsar of Russia is sometimes thought of as a madman, a psychopath whose paranoia leads to some horrible acts being brought upon those he declared to be enemies. Although in the early years of Ivan IV's reign, he could be better described as, Ivan the soon-to-be but not at the moment, terrible. In part one of our two-part episode on Ivan the Terrible, we will cover the years from his birth to the beginning of the Oprichnina. It was decided during the recording to make this into a two-parter in the hopes of making better content. The Macabrepedia team is currently making some life adjustments due to a couple of medical diagnoses that we didn't want to have. Please continue to check back with us as we get through this time. The plan as of now is to continue life as close to normal as possible. Support the show

Saade number 418. Köögilaud räägibki söögist ja köögist. Et saade läheb eetrisse Jaanipäeval, mil kõikide näod rasvast läigivad, heidame pilgu sellele, mida on aastate jooksul söönud kõikvõimalikud diktaatorid. Sestap on köögilaua taga koos Juku-Kallega võtnud platsi ajaloodoktor Einar Värä. Juttu tuleb mitmete veriste kätega riigijuhtide toidueelistustest: Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, kes väidetavalt inimestega maiustas, Enver Hoxha, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Jossip Tito, aga muidugi ka Ivan IV, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler jt. Ning loomulikult peatume ka Vladimir Putinil, kelle vanaisa oli tuntud legendi järgi Stalini kokk. Selles võib küll väheke kahelda, ehkki Putin ise seda legendi tagant õhutas, aga kommunistlikku ladvikut toitis Putja vanaisa küll, oli selleks siis Krupskaja, muud vingemad parteilased või ka Nikita Hruštšov. Head isu, seltsimehed!

Ivan IV the Terrible was the Grand Prince of Moscow from 1533 to 1547, then Tsar of All the Russias until his death in 1584... Uitgegeven door SAGA Egmont Spreker: Katie Haigh

Dr. Charles Halperin's latest work on Ivan the Terrible analyzes Ivan's image in post-Soviet Russian memory. Halperin addresses a wide variety of sources: textbooks, popular histories, conspiracy theories, and scholarly works, as well as both films and books about films. What emerges from analyses of these sources, is the reality that Ivan is often an empty vessel into which Russians of all kinds can pour their prior commitments. Halperin's previous work demonstrates the complexity of Ivan and the difficulties inherent in attempting to say anything for certain about this mysterious monarch. Ivan the Terrible in Russian Historical Memory Since 1991 (Academic Studies Press, 2021) demonstrates that the Russian historiography of Ivan IV is equally as complex and difficult to generalize about. Russians have sanctified Ivan, demonized him, and nearly every possible position between these two poles can find its exponents. Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western, in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Dr. Charles Halperin's latest work on Ivan the Terrible analyzes Ivan's image in post-Soviet Russian memory. Halperin addresses a wide variety of sources: textbooks, popular histories, conspiracy theories, and scholarly works, as well as both films and books about films. What emerges from analyses of these sources, is the reality that Ivan is often an empty vessel into which Russians of all kinds can pour their prior commitments. Halperin's previous work demonstrates the complexity of Ivan and the difficulties inherent in attempting to say anything for certain about this mysterious monarch. Ivan the Terrible in Russian Historical Memory Since 1991 (Academic Studies Press, 2021) demonstrates that the Russian historiography of Ivan IV is equally as complex and difficult to generalize about. Russians have sanctified Ivan, demonized him, and nearly every possible position between these two poles can find its exponents. Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western, in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Dr. Charles Halperin's latest work on Ivan the Terrible analyzes Ivan's image in post-Soviet Russian memory. Halperin addresses a wide variety of sources: textbooks, popular histories, conspiracy theories, and scholarly works, as well as both films and books about films. What emerges from analyses of these sources, is the reality that Ivan is often an empty vessel into which Russians of all kinds can pour their prior commitments. Halperin's previous work demonstrates the complexity of Ivan and the difficulties inherent in attempting to say anything for certain about this mysterious monarch. Ivan the Terrible in Russian Historical Memory Since 1991 (Academic Studies Press, 2021) demonstrates that the Russian historiography of Ivan IV is equally as complex and difficult to generalize about. Russians have sanctified Ivan, demonized him, and nearly every possible position between these two poles can find its exponents. Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western, in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

Dr. Charles Halperin's latest work on Ivan the Terrible analyzes Ivan's image in post-Soviet Russian memory. Halperin addresses a wide variety of sources: textbooks, popular histories, conspiracy theories, and scholarly works, as well as both films and books about films. What emerges from analyses of these sources, is the reality that Ivan is often an empty vessel into which Russians of all kinds can pour their prior commitments. Halperin's previous work demonstrates the complexity of Ivan and the difficulties inherent in attempting to say anything for certain about this mysterious monarch. Ivan the Terrible in Russian Historical Memory Since 1991 (Academic Studies Press, 2021) demonstrates that the Russian historiography of Ivan IV is equally as complex and difficult to generalize about. Russians have sanctified Ivan, demonized him, and nearly every possible position between these two poles can find its exponents. Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western, in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Dr. Charles Halperin's latest work on Ivan the Terrible analyzes Ivan's image in post-Soviet Russian memory. Halperin addresses a wide variety of sources: textbooks, popular histories, conspiracy theories, and scholarly works, as well as both films and books about films. What emerges from analyses of these sources, is the reality that Ivan is often an empty vessel into which Russians of all kinds can pour their prior commitments. Halperin's previous work demonstrates the complexity of Ivan and the difficulties inherent in attempting to say anything for certain about this mysterious monarch. Ivan the Terrible in Russian Historical Memory Since 1991 (Academic Studies Press, 2021) demonstrates that the Russian historiography of Ivan IV is equally as complex and difficult to generalize about. Russians have sanctified Ivan, demonized him, and nearly every possible position between these two poles can find its exponents. Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western, in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

There can be many reasons why we struggle to open up to people. For some, it may be to do with their upbringing. Emotional language is a skill that we learn. If this isn't taught or nurtured within us from a young age, then it's not surprising that we struggle to vocalize our feelings as adults. In some cases, the reason we can't open up is that we are scared of admitting our fears or concerns to ourselves. Listen in while "IV" discuss this and much more.

  With the devastating invasion of the Emir Temür, better known as Tamerlane, in 1395, the Golden Horde had suffered a grievous wound. Its armies were dealt crushing defeats; its Khan Toqtamish was sent fleeing for his life; and the major cities of the Horde had all been sacked by the Timurids. The Horde was now held together with a  wish and prayer, and in the hands of the powerful lord Edigü. Today in our final episode on the Golden Horde, we take you through its slow breakup in the century after Tamerlane's attack. I'm your host David, and this is Kings and Generals: Ages of Conquest.   We should note that the fall of the Golden Horde was not a single moment or event. 1380, 1395, 1480 or 1502 are not simply switches where the Golden Horde ceased to exist. Rather, it was a centuries long process, with edges of the empire breaking away or being reclaimed, while multiple claimants for power fought each other and sometimes succeeded in reunifying parts or all of the khanates. Rather than a sudden collapse, it was more like waves ebbing to and fro with the tide, and as they withdraw, they pull back a bit further each time, only to in time not return at all.   The Golden Horde of the fifteenth century was a very different beast from the one Öz Beg had ruled in the early fourteenth century. Steadily, though not immediately the cities of the steppe along rivers like the Volga diminished in size and were largely abandoned. Even Sarai, thoroughly sacked by Tamerlane, remained the nominal capital and continued to be fought over for generations. The overland international trade networks which had once so enriched the Jochid khans dried up as the route across Asia became too dangerous, and the merchants who still made the trek were redirected elsewhere. Rounds of bubonic plague still struck on occasion, and with the end of the medieval warm period, the steppe environment itself steadily became less accommodating with colder winters and less productive grasslands. It was not the end to animal husbandry or even agriculture in the steppe, but it was no longer the great, organized system enjoyed by the Jochids in their heyday. Political instability marked the region accordingly; whereas from Batu until the 1360s the Jochid Khans had maintained peace throughout the steppes, now rival claimants raided or invaded each other, at times annually. While Tamerlane did not end the Golden Horde, his attack aggravated and worsened these problems. The ten years of relative peace Toqtamish had overseen as khan had simply not been long enough to recover from the previous two decades of troubles, and now each problem reared its ugly head once more.   After Tamerlane's withdrawal in 1396, he left the state reeling in his wake. Toqtamish Khan had survived, but his armies were broken. Tamerlane had installed a new khan, Quyurchuq, a son of Urus Khan, but Quyurchuq had little authority without Tamerlane's presence. Edigü, a non-Chinggisid lord and leader of the Manghit peoples, quickly maneuvered Quyurchuq Khan out of the way, and installed his own puppet, a distant relation of Toqtamish named Temür Qutlugh. Edigü was a wily figure, a skilled politician and one of the wealthiest, most powerful lords within the Golden Horde. Long had he fought Toqtamish, first alongside Urus Khan, and then alongside Tamerlane. Once Tamerlane began to withdraw from the Horde for the final time, Edigü promptly betrayed him and began gathering his own forces to overthrow Tamerlane's puppet.    Edigü, as a non-Chinggisid, could not claim the title of khan himself. But by making the khans dependent on him for power and military support, Edigü could hold real authority over the realm. As beylerbeyi,  Edigü commanded immense influence among the qarachu families; that is, the non-Chinggisid military elite, those generally bore the title of beğ (pronounced as bey). Every khan that Edigü would enthrone had to confirm Edigü as beylerbeyi, the bey of beys; which Khan Temür Qutlugh promptly did. This gave  Edigü an institution position akin to vizier or commander-in-chief, “advising” the khan to do exactly what  Edigü wished. In turn the khan continued to function in a more ceremonial role and remained official head-of-state, and his name continued to be minted on coinage. No matter how powerful Edigü might be, in the steppes the prestige of Chinggisid rulership was too strong to be cast aside, and attempting to rule in his own right would have presumably resulted in open rebellion against him. Almost two hundred years since Chinggis Khan's death, his spectre still loomed large over Asia.   Edigü and Temür Qutlugh's confirmation took place not a moment too soon, for Toqtamish and his sons were in the midst of collecting forces to retake the khanate. Assisted by the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Vytautas the Great, Toqtamish and his Lithuanian allies invaded the Golden Horde in 1399, only to be defeated but Temür Qutlugh Khan and Edigü at the Vorskla  River in 1399. The battle solidified Edigü's dominance, with Vytautas' army annihilated, many Lithuanian princes killed and both Vytautas and Toqtamish sent fleeing for their lives. Though Toqtamish continued to seek the throne until his death in 1406, it was clear that Edigü was too strong to be ousted so quickly. And lest Temür Qutlugh Khan have grown too haughty after such a victory, he died in unclear circumstances soon after the battle. Edigü then enthroned Temür Qutlugh's brother, Shadi Beğ, as khan.   Under Edigü's stewardship, efforts were made to stabilize the Golden Horde. He retook Khwarezm after Tamerlane's death, often raided the Rus' principalities and laid siege to Moscow in 1408, sparing the city in exchange for a ransom of 3,000 rubles. Some economic recovery is indicated from the restarting of mints in some of the Horde's major cities. A considerable quantity of coinage entered the markets, some of it quite high quality, a sign of Edigü's effort to jump-start the economy. To help legitimize himself in light of his lack of Chinggisid credentials, Edigü made himself the standard bearer of Islamization of the remainder of the nomadic population, continuing the process begun by Özbeg. He went as far as to claim descent from the sufi shaykh  Baba Tükles, a mythical figure who in popular legend had converted Özbeg to Islam. As in turn Baba Tükles was supposed to be descended from the Caliphs, this gave Edigü an ancient, if almost entirely fictitious, pedigree. Still, descent from the successors of Muhammad was useful when portraying oneself as an almighty Muslim monarch and a champion of Islam.    But powerful as Edigü was, his might was not supreme. His puppet khan Shadi Beğ did not enjoy being a puppet and sought to remove Edigü from the scene. Learning of the plot, Edigü routed and chased Shadi Beğ from the Horde. He then enthroned Shadi Beğ's nephew, Bulad, a son of the late Temür Qutlugh. This relationship was likewise fraught; according to the Rus' Nikonian Chronicle, Edigü had to rush to lift his siege of Moscow when he learned that Bulad had grown irate at Edigü. When Bulad died in 1410, Edigü then enthroned Bulad's brother Temür. Khan Temür proved even less amenable to Edigü, for upon becoming khan Temür refused to confirm Edigü as beylerbeyi, the institution which gave Edigü his power. Edigü's supporters abandoned him as Temür sought to capture him, his armies pursuing Edigü to Khwarezm. Nearly was Edigü's life forfeit, until he was saved by an unlikely source; Jalal al-Din, known to the Rus' as the Zeleni Sultan, and a son of the late Toqtamish Khan. Jalal al-Din had aided Duke Vytautas of Lithuania against the Teutonic Order at the famous battle of Grünwald in 1410, and in turn for his support was provided troops to assist him in reclaiming the Horde. While Temür Khan's armies had Edigü under siege in Khwarezm, the khan himself was killed by Jalal al-Din bin Toqtamish. News of it reached Temür Khan's generals, who lost heart and dissipated while Jalal al-Din was enthroned as Khan in Sarai, inadvertently saving Edigü's life.   After years of dreaming for the position and restoring his family to honour, Jalal al-Din Khan had accomplished his greatest desire, and could begin the hunt for Edigü… until he was murdered by his brother, Qibaq, in October 1412.  Another brother, Kerim Berdi, took the throne, while Qibaq, backed by Vyautas of Lithuania, challenged him for it. The only thing which had held these brothers together had been their father and the quest for the throne; with the throne now theirs, they tore themselves apart for it.    The 1410s and 20s went on in this fashion, highly reminiscent of the tumultuous 1360s and 70s. Kerim Berdi killed Qibaq in battle, only for both Edigü and Vytautas to declare new khans. Vytautas had another of Toqtamish's sons, Jabbar Berdi, declared khan in Vilnius, while Edigü chose another Tuqa-Temürid, Chekre. Cherke seized Sarai, only for Jabbar Berdi to kill Kerim Berdi, take Sarai and chase out Edigü's candidate. And that situation lasted until one of Kerim Berdi's sons, Sayyid Ahmad I, was declared khan and threw out Jabbar Berdi. And the pattern continued, with Vytautas and Edigü both declaring new khans immediately upon learning the news. This went on until 1419, when one of the last of Toqtamish's sons, Kadir Berdi, and Edigü himself, were finally killed in battle.   The 1420s proved no better in the aftermath of Edigü's death. A man named Muhammad was enthroned as Khan, but his identity in uncertain, and could possibly be a number of notable Chinggisids who bore the name. In the 1420s the khan in Sarai became just one khan amongst several, and so passed a bewildering number of khans, the order and lengths of the reigns of which are a continuous subject of debate. While more ambitious khans dreamed of reinvigorating the Horde, the borders of the state broke away, with the Timurids, for instance, retaking Khwarezm. The situation stabilized slightly over the 1430s as three main powers emerged; east of the Ural river, Abu'l Khayr Khan, founder of the Uzbek Khanate; Küchük Muhammad Khan, a grandson of Temür Qutlugh, in the Volga steppe, and Sayyid Ahmed II Khan, another Tuqa-Temürid, west of the Don River. Küchük Muhammad's nearly twenty year reign, from 1435-1459, is when scholarship begins to call the state the Great Horde, to distinguish it from its neighbours, the newly emerging successor khanates.        While Küchük Muhammad is usually designated the most ‘legitimate' khan of the Golde Horde, at least in scholarship, each of the competing khans in these years saw themselves as the actual ruler of the Horde. Each tended to demand the Rus' princes pay tribute to them, a source of much confusion and fear for the Rus', who watched closely the political developments. The Rus' were not idle spectators or skillfully playing off the khans, for they spent much of these years locked in their own lengthy civil wars. The Grand Prince, Vasili II Vasilivich, still had to flee his capital due to Mongol attacks, and was even captured by troops of Ulugh Muhammad Khan. Regularly, the Rus' still paid annual tribute to the Khan of the Great Horde.   But even the relatively calm 1430s were no salve for the unity of the Horde, and the fragmentation continued, with both the emergence of more Chinggisid and non-Chinggisid polities. Kazan, in the lands of the Volga Bulghars, became an independent realm under the heirs of Ulugh Muhammad Khan, who had been khan of the Golden Horde until his ouster in 1438. Along the Ural River emerged the Nogai Horde under the sons of Edigü. As Edigü's sons belonged to the Manghit clan, the ruling strata of the Nogai Horde, you will sometimes see this Horde called the Manghit yurt or ulus. North of the Nogais emerged a proper Khanate of Sibir, or Siberian Khanate, ruled by a branch of the Shibanids. In 1459 on the death of Küchük Muhammad, Khan of the Great Horde, he sought to divide the khanate between his sons Mahmud and Ahmad. But Ahmad soon chased out Mahmud, who fled to Hajji Tarkhan, modern Astrakhan at the Volga Delta. Mahmud and his sons turned Astrakhan into their powerbase, and in turn its own independent khanate. In the far east, the newly emerged Uzbek Khanate fell into internal fighting after the death of Abu'l Khayr Khan, which led to a group of young princes breaking off and founding the rival Kazakh Khanate in the 1450s. In 1442, Crimea and the surrounding steppes came under the rule of Sayyid Ahmad II Khan's nephew, Hajji Giray, establishing the Crimean Khanate's long ruling Giray Dynasty. Hajji Giray, and his son Mengli Giray, dedicated their lives to the hatred of the heirs of Küchük Muhammad, whose line monopolized the position of Khans of the ever declining Great Horde. For over twenty years, Hajji Giray fought repeatedly with Küchük Muhammad's son, Ahmad Khan. Ahmad enjoyed few successes; his alliance with Poland against the Crimean Khan brought little help, while the Nogais and other khanates and Hordes bordering him raided his lands, splitting his attention in every direction. His situation was further hampered with the obstinence of the new Grand Prince of the Rus', Ivan III of Moscow.    Ivan III brought Moscow out of its lengthy period of civil war, and renewed the drive to dominate  the other principalities. Like his predecessors, Ivan III had recognized the overlordship of the Khan. But he also recognized the reality of the situation, for he maintained diplomacy with the other emerging khans, particularly the Crimean.  From the 1440s onwards there had been gaps in the deliverance of Rus' tribute to the Horde,  becoming ever more spotty upon Ivan's official ascension in 1462, culminating in 1471 when Ivan ceased the payment of tribute altogether. Ahmad Khan frequently sent messengers to Ivan demanding the resumption of the tribute, or for Ivan to come and reaffirm his submission in person. The ever more frustrated Ahmad Khan, surrounded and beleaguered by powerful rivals, needed this Rus' tribute. His first march on Moscow in 1472 was aborted, and ordered another attack on Ivan in 1480 in cooperation with his Polish ally, King Casimir IV. Ivan III did not back down, and sent his army to repel the khan. The two foes faced off across the Ugra River over the summer and into the autumn of 1480. Khan Ahmad waited in vain for Casimir, who never arrived. Arrows were shot, arquebuses were fired; Ivan worried the river would soon freeze and allow Ahmad free passage, but Ahmad retreated first, downtrodden his ally had failed to show. His son Murteza raided Moscow territory as they withdrew, and Ahmad was murdered the next year.       So ended the Great Stand on the Ugra River, a much overemphasized staring contest. Only centuries later did chronicles see it as an epoch in the independence of the Rus'. It did not directly affect either parties' standing, and to contemporaries was simply another scuffle amidst hundreds. Twenty years later after the Ugra stand, Ivan sent a message to Ahmad's son and successor, Shaykh Ahmad Khan, inquiring about resuming their earlier relationship in the midst of a fierce round of struggle with Lithuania. From 1474 to 1685, Moscow sent annual tributes, under the name of pominki, to the Crimean Khans. But raids and attacks by the khans were no longer as devastating as they had once been, with the expansion of better defensive networks by the Rus', including more stone fortifications and ever-improving firearms technology. Seemingly, the armies of the Khans no longer came with such overwhelming forces, and the chronicles which once spoke of Toqta's brother Duden handily destroying 14 cities across Rus', begin to describe the Rus' repelling or pursuing Tatar raiders. Assaults on cities, such as Ahmad's brother Mahmud Khan's failed siege of Ryazan' in 1460, were beaten back with heavy losses on the part of the attackers. In other cases, the Khans fell prey to other khans; Mahmud's 1465 attack on Rus' was intercepted by an army of the Crimean Khan Hajji Giray, who often allied with Moscow against the Great Horde. The khans of the Horde no longer enjoyed a monopoly on military power. Instead of masters of the steppe, they were now members within a political system, facing off with rivals of comparable power, while their own might had shrunk considerably. The khan could no longer unilaterally oppose his will.        After Ahmad Khan's death in 1481, his sons attempted to act as co-rulers but were soon at each other's throats, further weakening the Great Horde while their rivals grew in might. Shaykh Ahmad bin Ahmad Khan emerged the victor. While he had aspirations of reuniting the Horde, his efforts proved futile. Shaykh Ahmad Khan's reign proved to be one of disaster. His cousin in Astrakhan openly defied him; Ivan III of Moscow allied with Mengli Giray of Crimea against the Great Horde. In an effort to outflank Moscow and Crimea, Shaykh Ahmad sought to restore the military alliance with Lithuania, but no great support ever came of it. Rounds of plague and bad seasons further harmed the Horde's cities, pasture lands and crops; harsh winters and poor grazing resulted in the deaths of thousands of horses almost every year of the 1490s. Famine weakened his forces, destroyed his herds and caused thousands to flee to neighbouring khanates. By the start of the sixteenth century Shaykh Ahmad was desperate, and in winter 1501 he led his underfed and weakened army in one last gamble, seeking to push west of the Dnieper for greener pasture. But he was trapped in a vicious snowstorm, and cut off from the rest of his forces. His demoralized army suffered for months, and began to trickle off to the territory of the Crimean Khan, Mengli Giray. Shaykh Ahmad suffered his own personal losses; already depressed from the failure of the Lithuanians to arrive, Shaykh Ahmad watched the last of his brothers fall ill and die.  As Mengli Giray summoned the entirety of his forces to crush the khan, Shaykh Ahmad's will finally broke when his own wife abandoned him with much of his family and most of his remaining troops— to join Mengli Giray. When Mengli Giray met Ahmad near the Dnieper in June 1502, the Khan of the Great Horde, who in the time of Özbeg was allegedly capable of raising 300,000 men, was caught with a paltry 20,000. Chased from the field, his palace ordu looted, Shaykh Ahmad Khan spent the rest of his life on the run, and spent much of his last twenty years in Lithuania a political prisoner. So, according to traditional scholarship, did the humiliating career of the final Khan of the Great Horde end, and traditionally 1502 serves as the end date for the Golden Horde.       However, in recent decades this view has been challenged. Historians like Leslie Collins have demonstrated thoroughly how after 1502 Mengli Giray dramatically grew in strength and began to style himself as Great Khan of the Great Horde; a claim recognized in diplomacy by his Ottoman overlord, the Rus', the Poles and the Lithuanians. What is now argued is that, to contemporaries, the Great Horde did not end in 1502; the throne was simply taken by another branch of the dynasty, as it had so many times before. Absorbing the remnants of the Great Horde's lands, troops and wealth, the power of the Crimean Khans grew considerably as they expanded eastwards into the former heart of Shaykh Ahmad Khan's realm. By the 1520s under Mengli's son, Mehmed, their influence stretched past the Volga as they put candidates onto the thrones of Kazan and Astrakhan. In a sense, the Horde was briefly reestablished. However, Mehmed was killed by Nogais in 1523, who then raided as far as Crimea, precipitating years of internal fighting for the Crimean throne and leading to the Ottomans taking greater control over the Crimean succession. Meanwhile without a common enemy in the form of the Great Horde the Crimean alliance with Moscow quickly frayed. The Princes of Moscow, now masters of Rus', were eager to gain access to the Volga trade, and take advantage of the weakness of the Volga Khanates, particularly under Ivan IV and his crusade-minded advisers. In 1552 the first khanate, Kazan, fell to Ivan's armies; Astrakhan followed in 1554.  It is Ivan IV, by the way, who is popularly known as Ivan Grozny, or Ivan the Terrible, and who in 1547 took the imperial title of Tsar, a derivation of Latin Caesar. During the dominance of the Golden Horde, Tsar had been the title reserved for the Khans, whereas the Rus' princes were knyaz. What Ivan was signalling, in a way, was that the now the Prince of Moscow had replaced the Jochid khan as master of the Rus'.       The powerful Crimean Khan Devlet I Giray sought to halt Moscow's expansion, with yearly raids and in 1571, even succeeded in capturing and burning down Moscow. This brief victory was followed by a humiliating defeat at Molodni the next year. The Crimean Khans reluctantly ceded control of the former eastern lands of the Golden Horde to Moscow. This last campaign proved to be the final great success of steppe armies over the Rus'. In the following decades, the Russian Tsardom soon stretched deep into Siberia. The continuous warfare of the fourteen and fifteenth centuries, coupled with epidemics and environmental stresses, left for the Russians nothing but depopulated, weakened khanates to pick off one by one; only to the south, in the great steppe, did the Crimean Khans armies stop Russian expansion; an expansion halted, as much as anything, by logistical difficulties in crossing the steppe, and threat of Ottoman support for the Crimean Khanate, rather than any military capability on the part of the Crimeans. Though the Crimean Khanate launched continuous raids on the southern frontier of Muscovy, Lithuania, Poland and assisted the Ottomans in campaigns into Eastern and Central Europe, they were no longer unassailable. Raids sent on Moscow's order, or undertaken by the fiercely Cossack hosts who now roamed the steppes, now penetrated into the Crimean peninsula itself.   Still, they clung on. Over the 1700s the Russian Empire steadily encroached and isolated Crimea, while Ottoman support became ever more tepid. Only in 1783 was the Crimean Khanate finally annexed by Empress Catherine the Great, shortly after the Russians had essentially ended its political independence. The final Crimean Khan, Şahin Giray, was executed a few years later by the Ottomans. When the Kazakh Khanates were finally dissolved by the Russians in the following century, so with them went the last vestiges of the Golden Horde, and the Mongol Empire.        So ends our history of the Golden Horde, and in turn the Mongol Empire. Be sure to turn in next week as we wrap up our series on the Chinggisid empire, and leave you with considerations for the start of our next series, so be sure to subscribe to the Kings and Generals Podcast to follow. If you enjoyed this and would like to help us continue bringing you great content, consider supporting us on patreon at www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. This episode was researched and written by our series historian, Jack Wilson. I'm your host David, and we'll catch you on the next one.

Ivan IV (1530-1584). Primo Zar di tutte le Russie, passato alla storia come “Grozny”, “Il Terribile”. Considerato folle, ma sicuramente unificatore e portatore di una missione che ancora oggi scalda i cuori dei Russi: Mosca è la Terza Roma e ad essa va garantito un potere grande, messianico, temibile. Un impero che non tramonta. Mai.

This week on Royally Screwed, we're talking about Ivan IV of Russia, aka Ivan the Terrible, and determining whether or not he deserves that nickname.Subscribe for more episodes as they come.Twitter: @Denim_CreekInstagram: denimcreekproSubscribe to the Channel on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqVkGmgEQTR7KX5GhBV-vkA/featuredMusic:Intro/Outro: “Life O' the Lavish” - Jules Gaia, “Always There” - Table Etiquette, “Sail Away With Me” - Von Meyer, “Dayfreak” - White Bones, “Vapour” - Osoku, “Zone Out” - Daniel Fridell, “A Snowflake's Tale” - Howard Harper-Barnes, “12th Floor Party” - Jules GaiaCopyright 2021, Denim Creek Productions

We start the new year by looking at the overall European political/ geopolitical landscape in the early 16th century and then get stuck into the initial part of Ivan IV's (AKA Ivan the Terrible's) time in charge of Moscow/Russia Period covered 1533 - 1550 ish To get in touch with a comment or question - Twitter       HistoryRussia1 Website     https://www.historyofrussia.net  Email          nordicworld@outlook.com

I talk about Ivan IV

Le tsar Ivan IV n'a pas volé le surnom de Terrible que lui a donné la postérité. Adepte des méthodes expéditives, il a notamment constitué une garde d'élite, les "opritchniki", qui lui était dévouée corps et âme et était chargée de l'exécution des basses œuvres. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Episode 254 is a breakdown of Walmart and Shopify Q4 2020 earnings reports, a recap of 2020 sales data from the US Dept Commerce, and Amazon News. 2020 Sales Data US Dept of Commerce released it’s retail data for December, which gives us a full picture of 2020, as well as the Q4 e-commerce data. Retail sales in 2020 were $5.6T, representing 27% of the U.S. GDP Retail as a whole experienced healthy growth of 3.4% versus 3.5% in 2019 E-commerce grew 32% to $792B in sales, vs 15% growth in 2019 E-commerce was 14% of all retail sales (vs 11% in 2019) Jason wrote a detailed recap of 2020 in Forbes: 2020: Not Quite Retail Apocalypse, But Great For E-Commerce Walmart Earnings US Q4 comp sales grew 8.6% eCommerce sales grew 69% FY revenue was $559.2 billion, comp sales increased 8.6%, E-Commerce sales grew 79% Shopify Earnings Fourth-Quarter Revenue Grows 94% on GMV Growth of 99% Full-Year 2020 Revenue Grows 86% on GMV Growth of 96% FY Subscription Solutions revenue grew 41% to $908.8 million,  FY Merchant Solutions revenue grew 116% to $2B Shopify Expands Its Checkout System to Facebook and Instagram Amazon news: Amazon acquires Seltz, a Shopify competitor Episode 254 of the Jason & Scot show was recorded live on Thursday, February 19th, 2021. Join your hosts Jason "Retailgeek" Goldberg, Chief Commerce Strategy Officer at Publicis, and Scot Wingo, CEO of GetSpiffy and Co-Founder of ChannelAdvisor as they discuss the latest news and trends in the world of e-commerce and digital shopper marketing. https://retailgeek.com Transcript Jason: [0:24] Welcome to the Jason and Scott show this is episode 254 being recorded on Thursday February 18th 2021 I’m your host Jason retailgeek Goldberg and as usual I’m here with your co-host Scott Wingo. Scot: [0:40] Hey Jason and welcome back Jason Scott sir listeners will Jason today is a big day for science nerds we saw the perseverance Rover landed on Mars with an interplanetary helicopter how cool is that. Jason: [0:55] That is the coolest part I was super excited I actually put a note on my calendar and stop working and watch The Landing it’s pretty amazing. Scot: [1:04] Yeah I didn’t watch it how much could you see. Jason: [1:07] Um well they had like a pretty detailed animation for the whole thing like like you you know they don’t have cameras of the Rover in the air but they but they, they show like a 3D animation of it you know as a checks through all these detailed milestones and then pretty quickly after they confirmed it had touchdown you got the first. Actual photo from from the Rover and there was still like dust everywhere from The Landing so it’s. It’s pretty amazing to think that like we can launch shoot a drone 250 million miles away and landed on a planet that’s like yeah. Scot: [1:45] Yes soon elon’s can be landing people there. Jason: [1:48] Yeah yeah I know he’s close on their heels my favorite part though was the news guy like after they did their whole recap he’s like um and I feel compelled to remind people this actually is rocket science. Scot: [2:01] Nice. Jason: [2:04] Yeah yeah so it’s very cool I feel like I remember some of our very first podcast we’re like early in you know as SpaceX was knocking off all these milestones and we were we were talking about those a lot at the beginning of podcasts and. Five years later we’re still doing it. Scot: [2:20] Yeah now every other day they’re shooting off a mission it’s it SpaceX is pretty pretty amazing. Jason: [2:25] Yeah yeah that’s that’s become totally routine I don’t know you watch Westworld right. There’s actually scenes in Westworld we’re like just in the background they have SpaceX Style Rocket so I glanced because it’s so rude to you know they Envision it being so routine this cute. Scot: [2:43] Yeah very cool but even bigger than that I know one of your favorite days of the year is when the US Department data of Commerce data comes out so yesterday I’m sure you were, up and ready and you had all your Tableau and your data scientist lined up walk us through some of the data that came out yesterday. Jason: [3:02] Yeah you I wish I could deny it but I kind of am super excited to get up on the mornings when this data comes out because I as you’re as you’re mocking me I did set up a bunch of automation over. Over the winter break and now I get to use it and knock on wood two months in a row it hasn’t broken. Scot: [3:20] You wouldn’t be retailgeek if you didn’t you can’t be a science geek can’t be space Kiki and me tell you you gotta gotta pick a lane. Jason: [3:26] I have to keep my creds so what came out yesterday is a reminder for our listeners. The January Advanced monthly sales data so this is a. A simpler set snapshot of what happened in January and then we got the full data set for December and so the reason that that’s particularly exciting is that now let’s us roll up. The complete 20 20 year and kind of work back to the whole year so so we got our first advance to look at what January is going to look like, we got a detailed look at at December in the whole year for 2020 and then there is another data product that comes out quarterly that’s the e-commerce specific slice and that actually comes out tomorrow morning but based on all the data we already have I’m pretty confident I already know what it’s going to say so we’ll talk a little bit about it. Um but so let’s start with January. And it’s interesting because my take on January was different than a lot of the media coverage in January so so Top Line. Year over year this January sales were up 10.8% versus last year so that’s a that’s very healthy increase. [4:48] The the one of the sectors in that data is non-store data which is kind of a. The closest thing in the Advanced Data we have to 2, e-commerce and that was up 28.7% so so if you look at this January versus last January very robust again last January wasn’t impacted by covid and anyway so we’re comparing a. You know post covid with pretty covid. [5:17] But what what got a lot of media attention was the that the January sales were 5.1% bigger than December so not year-over-year month over month, and the reason people are excited about that is because. [5:34] December sales were lower than November’s and November’s were lower than October so you kind of had two months of negative growth looking on a month-by-month basis and so this this 5.1%, increase kind of reverse that monthly Trend and a lot of the analysts had predicted that we might grow 1.2% and so. 5.1% was a pretty big beat. And so people were kind of giddy about that like oh it looks like we’re we’re coming out of the doldrums a little bit, and you know one of the big reasons is there were some economic stimulus that went out early in January and almost all the retailers I work with like. You can see to the day when customers start getting that that stimulus it’s a very obvious Spike and so that helped help January for a bunch of retailers but I would also point out this month over month data. [6:30] Is not that important or valid and there’s a bunch of systemic reasons why months aren’t the same and Retail has a bunch of tent poles so I generally am a lot more interested from a trend standpoint in the year over year and, year of a year it was a January with a stellar month but I will say there were a couple outliers in this January data, department stores were up 23.5 percent from December so month-over-month, department stores had their first increase in about 15 years and clothing which would has been decimated the last year was up five percent, um but again to me. [7:14] Month-over-month trans aren’t very relevant and especially in the middle of a holiday period and. If you if you look at the year-over-year trends both those categories were still down from last January so department stores are down three percent from last January, and clothing was down 11% from from last January both of those are, slower rates of decline than we saw for most of last year so it’s it is a silver lining but you still wouldn’t want to be in either of those categories. Scot: [7:45] If we just forget retail sales you know the headlines I saw on the financial sites were you know stunning retail sales 5.1 percent versus 1.2 estimate like why was why was that estimate so off. Jason: [7:59] Yeah so I don’t I don’t know what goes into to the. Scot: [8:03] Who made this the Department of Commerce doesn’t make it. Jason: [8:06] No it’s not and and further it’s not like as rigorous as like stock public company earning CPS estimates for example like I don’t think there’s a. Like an industry-standard estimate what what you do have you know again think about this December had a weird or shape than ever before it was way more e-commerce n trick. December and all of those sales were front-loaded in the first half of the month because of ship again and the second half of the month so you so December was, in you know large part was half a month and so January was a full month with economic stimulus, dollars versus December and you also had all these like you know covid reasons that sales were slow and December right. The cases were peeking people weren’t traveling with their family etc etc so for all of those reasons it’s not surprising to me at all that, January was way better than December but to me a more valid you know perspective is what was this January versus last January because that’s more apples to apples. [9:17] Um but I’ll be honest I’m was more interested in in looking at the 2020 data in aggregate because you know this was a. A very unique year and it’s interesting to see how it played out you and I had all these debates early in the year, is it a v-shaped recovery you know what would happen all these things you know people in April were writing these doomsday predictions about how far down retail was going to be in 2020 and, and things like that so it’s interesting to see the real data, so for all of 20 20 retail sold five point six trillion dollars in sales which is an all-time record by the way like that’s the the, the highest retail sales in the US have ever been that’s twenty-seven percent of the GDP which is a little bigger share than it normally is it normally is around 25 percent of GDP is retailgeek, so that’s huge GDP to go down this year I think people expected that because of covid. [10:15] So that growth rate is three point four percent so retail grew at 3.4 percent. And you could say hey Jason is 3.14 percent good, well 2019 retailgeek rude 3.5% so it’s pretty typical it’s right like we normally years we expect to be in that three to four percent range when we fall below 3 we call it a down here and, you know we haven’t seen very many years in recent history that were above for so. So it’s right in The Sweet Spot of typical growth that you would expect if there was no covid-19. Which is super interesting to me so you know but there’s a bunch of micro Trends in that Top Line and in the biggest trend is, that a way bigger chunk of those sales were e-commerce than usual so so e-commerce Guru 25.3% for the year. Which a normal year for e-commerce like 2019 we grew 12.9% so so almost yeah so it’s basically two years of growth in a year some. Scot: [11:25] Wait I thought it was five years of growth in a week 10 knots to noon. Jason: [11:27] Mackenzie said 10 yeah yeah they lied. Scot: [11:32] Well why don’t you sidebar this so that everyone is on the same page so what what happened with that so I know Mackenzie put it out and it’s somehow wrong. Jason: [11:41] Yeah well and I. Scot: [11:42] Did they did they blow the year-over-year aspect or what where did they. Jason: [11:46] So they did a couple a like they were roll up of a bunch of other data sources right so they took the same US Department of Commerce data we’re talking about, but then they took some estimates from Bank of America and and a different definition of retail from Forrester and then they they did this thing that we used to do in e-commerce all the time they said hey let’s not talk about all of retailgeek, because nobody buys food online so grocery in restaurants shouldn’t shouldn’t be in that number, and nobody buys cars online so let’s take cars out and let’s invent this artificial definition of core retail and call it you know growth of core retail, um So so a there’s no way to check that because there are no actual numbers for that that arbitrary definition but I’m sure I’m sure if someone from Mackenzie won on the show right now they’d be saying hey Jason it was higher than your. Your 25%. But I would also point out that the biggest growth in e-commerce were all those things that they took out right like tons of people were buying buying food online tons of people were buying cars online so I feel like those old. Those old things of saying like hey there’s some categories of retail that don’t qualify for e-commerce has is no longer valid. [13:05] But if we use this nice normalized data from US Department of Commerce we grew 25% normally years thirteen percent so that. Is is awesome. If you if you kind of think about the shape of the year last year 12.9% April peaked at 18.4% and then we finished the year at 15.7% right so. But in terms of what percentage of retail the. Is e-commerce so it never spiked up to the 33% that Mackenzie predicted in there 10 years of progress, but there are certain categories which probably did have have five or ten years grocery probably it you know did hit our five-year forecast. Overall e-commerce hit like our two-year forecast so it was a doubling not a 10 Xing. [14:00] And for sure in that those retail sales you had clear winners and losers we’ve talked about this on a bunch of shows but. The you know if you were a grocery store or a sporting good store or home hardware store you had a great year because of covid and if you were department store or an apparel store or gas station, you had a really crappy your, because of covid and one of the biggest Trends is this whole shift from services to products right so nobody spent money on travel and instead they bought. Furniture and stuff for their house and mostly nobody went to restaurants and instead they bought more food from grocery stores and so those that Trend had the effect of pouring extra dollars. Into retail and for sure it goosed e-commerce in those categories. If you if you think specifically around food 2019 food was a 50/50 split between restaurants and grocery stores, at the peak of covid it was like 70/30 that we were spending on on Grocery and ended up about 60/40. So that’s an extra 200 billion dollars hundred ninety billion dollars in grocery store sales as a result of people going to restaurants OS. [15:21] Restaurant as a whole industry were way down we’ve talked about that a lot but. Full service restaurants in particular we’re totally creamed they were down like 92% so the whole end restaurant industry was down 15% because, you know the Pizza Hut’s of the world and the the McDonald’s of the world like could actually do pretty well with drive-through and home delivery, um but the full-service sit-down restaurants just got obliterated. [15:48] And then the last thing that I will tell you I still haven’t totally figured out in surprise me is if you said hey Jason based on all those trends. Would home furnishing stores be winners or losers and covid I would have said oh man there are a winner because instead of going on vacation I remodeled my house and I bought new dishes and new sheets and I did all these things from, from William Sonoma and you know Lamps Plus and all those stores and I would have also said that because we were stuck at home and there was a new video game launched that electronic stores would have been way up. And two categories that were down for the year we’re home furnishings and electronics which is interesting to me in a little surprising. Scot: [16:32] Risk is a Wayfarer has really picked up nicely. Jason: [16:36] Yeah there are there by in Best Buy would say they were up right so so where’s the electronics that’s down to offset best by being up, and William Sonoma was up so what’s the home furnishings that’s down to offset that I, it’s a little confusing to me in the overall scheme of things these are not categories that are huge numbers so you know. Why. There you know it would it’s totally possible for those numbers to be skewed or maybe even like not have a huge sample size in the US Department of Commerce survey data. Scot: [17:13] And there could be Folks at only have physical stores that you know were not essential that haven’t opened yet solar something that don’t have e-commerce. Jason: [17:20] Yeah yeah I’m certain that that is a big big part of it is they were more disrupted. Scot: [17:26] Person will call anything else so a second I tie that back to the Amazon numbers but were there any how do we so if we think about that. You know that I guess it was 25% so the growth the e-commerce growth ends up being what again. Jason: [17:43] 25.3%. Scot: [17:45] That’s the grass okay yeah so I think that is a new Baseline Amazon grew like 40 and change right like 46 47 oh that’s just cute for number your that’s a 25 as an annual number it. Jason: [17:57] Yeah but if you if you think Amazon grew 43-39 40 so you could you know call it 40 41 percent. Scot: [18:07] Yep so they over indexed eBay was a little bit under and then we’ll talk about Shopify a little bit but they were way over that. Do if Walmart was over so it’s one of these things where everyone was over except eBay again how is that possible. Jason: [18:26] Yeah the math generally doesn’t work out right like I so the answer is I don’t know like for the last two quarters Q2 and Q3, Amazon was about exactly the same as the industry average so they they mirror this Department of Commerce data really closely cute, Q2 Department of Commerce grew 4045 percent Amazon 43 Q3 Department of Commerce group 37 Amazon group 39 so that that. [18:54] Correlation actually gives me confidence in the numbers to be honest. The but almost everyone else put your point wildly outperform those you know William Sonoma was up 50%, you know Walmart was up by Katie to a hundred percent Home Depot was up eighty to a hundred percent Target was up like a hundred and two hundred hundred fifty to two hundred percent. BJ’s Albertsons Best Buy were well over two hundred percent so you look at all those big big companies that are up way more than the industry average in your like man a bunch of small companies. Must have really gotten cream for this to be true, um and I do think that is partially true I think covid-19 disproportionately hurt hurt smaller retailers, um but it also underscores that there is not a terrific measurement methodology for this e-commerce data and the US Department of Commerce guys worked really hard to get this number accurate but there, they’re dependent on the accuracy of these surveys that retailers fill out and send to them and I just I don’t have great confidence that retailers fill them out with, with ultra care. Scot: [20:06] Very cool did your automated cloud system survive all this thinking. Jason: [20:14] It did it did it worked really well I found it really useful and I generated a bunch of what I think are reasonably attractive visualizations and so I’ll put a link in the show notes, but I’ll publish a Forbes article tomorrow recapping all this data with some charts in case anyone wants to see him. Scot: [20:31] Brickell cannot wait now I’m going to be all getting tomorrow waiting for that to show well Jason it would not be a Jason and Scot show without some Amazon news. [20:55] This was a this was a weird week in that there was not very much Amazon news and in fact. This one was really interesting so I think what happened here is there’s a start-up in Australia that has a Shopify competitor that companies called cells SEL Z. And I I first heard about this because. I saw conversation after I saw this one of the socials and people are like hey did Amazon by cells and what started this is the founder just kind of put a or someone put a nonchalant kind of like post. I can remember is like on their blog or their about me page but it basically said hey we’re going to be shutting down soon or Amazon has bought us we’re not accepting new customers I think that’s what it said. So it was really weird because it was super under the radar and then. I posted it because I thought it was interesting I thought the conversation will have in a second list was the interesting part of it and then Del Rey Jason Del Rey Chase it down and gut verification from Amazon that it was true that they have acquired the company. There’s a big online kerfuffle around you know some folks are saying oh it’s just a choir thing what is it. And what I think is interesting is you know so we thought the news probably like what was it two months ago that Bezos was really engaged in Amazon and spend a lot of time thinking about what they do about Shopify. [22:24] So but then now he’s effectively kind of kicked himself upstairs well that you know a lot of people are kind of like oh that must mean it’s not a priority but. I don’t think that’s right. Amazon’s watching these guys are really closely and they want to take our legs out and you know the interesting thing it’s a fun thought experiment for me to thank all right if you had Amazon’s resources and that’s the fun part of it right. Sir so you know some someone. Jason: [22:51] I would watch a space program oh wait. Scot: [22:53] Amazon hires Jason Scott and they gave us a mission of like you know how do we take out you know or how do we slow the growth of Shopify or. Um let’s say they’ve identified them as a threat which I think is a valid assumption what do you do there and so it’s really interesting and you know I think, I think they’re going to take this pretty seriously and I think they’re going to go buy a bunch of things one school of thought would be you could. You know you and I have talked about on the show a big Trend kind of a lot of people think the next generation of these platforms is going to be more headless so so microservices right. So microservices would be a nice offering inside of AWS if you look at AWS they’ve got offerings for all kinds of crazy stuff from game development tons of machine learning. Everything you can imagine now so imagine they could build a whole e-commerce stack inside of AWS that would be these microservices as an offering. I think that’s going to be part of the strategy I think the cells company the cells company was known for making it very easy for people that had. Started their e-commerce Adventures on marketplaces to then open a store. And I think that’s really interesting to me because that would be another hook right so if you think about it Amazon need to disclose this down don’t they have like two million sellers is that a number I was at four and get two million us for globally. Jason: [24:19] I think you’re that’s the order magnitude. Scot: [24:21] Yes that’s I don’t know if that’s the exact right number and then Shopify is it like 300,000 that’s where they’re sorry yeah okay so. So then you know. There’s more there’s more people that could set up stores on Shopify than have and one strategy would be. So if you have if you worked at Amazon and you had unlimited resources basically. You don’t have to choose your strategy can just choose them all right so normally in business I’ve had to like really choose a strategy with a competitor and really go at it so see typically you know kind of an a military strategy lingo you like go ahead on Adam like battle them feature for feature punch each other in the face kind of thing, or you can try to outflank them and start to nibble away at the edges well if I’m if I’m in my thought experiment if I’m Amazon I do both right, so I think this is a flanking maneuver this is kind of the all right let’s. Let’s roll out a feature or set that says hey if you have a if you’re on the Amazon Marketplace we’re going to make it really easy for you to open a store I feel like that’s where this is going to go. But then at the same time I think you would go right at with the microservices strategy so and I don’t think this is part of that but I think it’s you know I think at some point that’s going to be another shoe to drop in this because it just feels like little bit obvious to me that they would do that so that was a really long intro I really wanted to hear your take on what you thought about. Jason: [25:50] Yeah I think you’re wildly wrong and thinking about it wrong no. Scot: [25:55] Okay that’s fair enough. Jason: [25:56] Yeah so I think Amazon is taking Shopify super seriously I think Amazon’s a you know apex predator that that. Doesn’t like to have any competition and I think they look really long term so I for sure think they’re they see the growth at the shopify’s of the world and say we don’t like that and need to have a response so I have. No problem imagining that Jeff Bezos is like you know the first person in the conference room for the project Santos meetings to figure out what Amazon’s response to Shopify is and I think, him as executive chairman not embroiled in day-to-day operations actually. Makes it easier for him to focus on those kinds of projects so I’m toy down with all that I could easily see AWS base microservices and and super easy, web store sales you know tied to the Amazon Marketplace being part of that answer and in fact in my annual. [26:56] Annual predictions I think I predicted that they would have some kind of use fulfillment by Amazon 444, you know owned web store sales as as part of the response to Shopify what I don’t think happened though is I don’t think Amazon bought seltzer. Um for anything to do with project Santos or to have some Global answer to, to Shopify Celta is a 35% company in Australia, and my experience with Amazon is there one of one of the biggest not invented here egocentric technology companies around like they believe they can build. Everything and they dissolved a Healthcare Partnership with Goldman Sachs and Berkshire Hathaway, because those two companies were too slow so I sort of don’t think that Amazon says hey we need to compete with Shopify the way to do it is to buy the IP from these these 35 guys in Australia, um it just it just doesn’t pencil out for me they like Jeff Bezos would put you know to Pizza team of super smart guys and they would knock it out themselves and probably are doing that right right now as we speak there’s probably a bunch of two Pizza teams working on it. [28:11] I think the reason about cells is because Amazon’s a newer entrant into Australia, and they’re finding that they’re not getting adoption as quickly as they have in some more mature markets and that they need, to Goose their third their Australian third-party Sellers and I think they acquired cells because cells had a bunch of. Australian third-party sellers so I think it was a local customer acquisition strategy in a emerging market for Amazon not part of some Global strategy and I it wouldn’t shock me at all if, Jeff Bezos and Andy jassy and Company like weren’t involved in this acquisition at all. Scot: [28:57] That okay we will see. Jason: [28:59] Yeah I’m and side note I’m usually wrong. Scot: [29:03] I don’t think it’s the foundation of their strategy I think it’s one of a hundred things they’re going to do and it’s going to be a. Jason: [29:08] Yeah I mean if they’re you know it’d be more interesting if they had some unique IP or something like that but I just it doesn’t seem likely that they did. Scot: [29:16] Yeah well let’s then answer this question so your Amazon how do you either stop or or hobble Shopify. Jason: [29:25] Well you you leverage your platform advantage to say it’s way better to get my webstore platform from Amazon than it is anywhere else and the way you do that is you say, hey if you guys want to use FBA and have Consolidated inventory between your webstore and Amazon, then the way to do that is to use the, you know Amazon Web Store 2.0 based on microservices hosted on the the greatest web service platform in the world, um and that if you you want your web store on Shopify you’re going to have to figure out fulfillment yourself or you’re going to have to send some of your your. [30:05] Your inventory to the the new Shopify fulfillment Network and you’re still going to want to leave some some of your inventory and our fulfillment Network because we have way more customers than you do, and they’re just going to leverage their their network advantage to walk customers in, two years ago I think they would have said oh man sellers should know they don’t need their own website they can just sell on our thing but I think they’ve lost that battle in the the, Flagship example for me is Anchor like to me anchor is one of the greatest success stories, that was sort of you know born because of Amazon right like their product company they exclusively sold through Amazon you couldn’t buy direct from anchor you couldn’t buy ink or anywhere else you could only buy it as a, 3p seller on on Amazon and and anchor went public last year for a with a ten billion dollar market cap, based on that business but guess what anchor has today they have a direct website so if anchor has decided that, hey you know what we need to own our own website in addition to selling on Amazon then it’s really hard for Amazon to credibly argue that no one else should be doing that and to me that means, they have to get back in the web store business but like I bet you they do it organically. Scot: [31:22] The the other interesting thing I thought about is and we’re going to go through Shopify earnings in a little bit so Shopify is fascinating because they actually don’t make, that much money off of their their software as a service Revenue right so what they do is they basically they almost give away the software and then the GMB flows through and then they skim off the GMB so they’re essentially you know they skim off the payments they skim off the shipping and handling they skim off like a firm that’s part of payments you know so that so that’s that’s interesting because it does make it hard for Amazon price against it right you can’t you could offer a free offering but it’s almost free as it is you know it’s so so then how do you go at the gmv flow could you offer the Shopify Merchants a, one and a half Point payment plan or something like that or you know could you because one way to look at it is, shopify’s getting a lot of economic value off that gmv and not passing it on to the sellers could you build about business model this is what Mark Lori did with jet this was kind of clever thing he did there is he kind of said well I’m going to take some of this and give it back to his example the buyers but here you give it back to the sellers I wonder if Amazon kind of come up with a different economic model that would unwind shopify’s model. Jason: [32:43] Yeah I mean I for sure, it’s not fun and not a super appealing business to be the a longtail webstore SAS company right like Amazon was one right there was one before Amazon it was John who web stores right and Amazon launched Amazon web stores and took all the customers and I think what they discovered is that it’s a sucky business it’s not fun like you know collecting 30 bucks a month from these small businesses you know with 50% charm because they go out of business and every one of them having. [33:16] Different needs and desires and different things they want to see on your road map right so I think in 2015 Amazon just said the juice isn’t worth the squeeze here, like we’re not getting any benefit from this let’s just get out of this space, and per your point Shopify figure it out the the equation to make money it’s not to charge more for the web store because small businesses can’t afford it, and it’s not make the unit economics you know super lucrative for charging a little for that web store it’s, you know get a nice piece of all the gmv that flows through that web sort through this whole assortment of services, and side note that’s Amazon’s main model for profitability to write like like Amazon’s Maine, profit driver is not consumers buying from Amazon, it’s third-party sellers selling on Amazon right and they sell 20 billion dollars worth of ads to those third-party Sellers and they sell, you know I don’t know how many billions of dollars of FBA services and credit card processing services and sales tax calculation services so Amazon’s right in the middle of that that gmv stream, and that’s the reason I think they, they decide to get back in the web store business is that they can monetize it now with all those those incremental seller service revenue streams that they didn’t have in 2015. Scot: [34:43] Yeah yeah let’s um I guess that’s a good place to pause and then let’s pick it back up and Shopify because then that’ll give us some numbers to do it before we do that let’s have a little appetizer of Walmart earnings. Jason: [34:57] So they release their earnings this morning and it was interesting I read the top line numbers and I’m like man had a good quarter and a good year right, and the market did not agree with me so so from an investor standpoint it was a Miss there their earnings per share came in at one point three nine, they had a big adjustment in there they had a bunch of write-offs and stuff too but the the Gap earnings per share was 1.39 and consistent consensus estimates was 1.51 so they. Um and then compounding that miss their guidance for 2021 was not very optimistic and that this is a trend I think we’re going to see across every retailer, is everybody is going to say, 20/20 was an exceptional year because of covid and we’re not going to come up very well against it right and so you know we have more covid costs and we’re going to probably see slowing, consumer sentiment in 2020 so combination of the Miss and the low guidance Walmart stock took a pretty good hit I think they closed down 6.5 percent today. [36:06] So if you’re an investor that was an interesting story that I didn’t toy so you coming, um but if you just look at it from how did they do as a retailer their Q4 comps were up 8.6% so Amazon’s the lard or Walmart’s the largest retailer in the world, and they grew 8.6 percent which is like more than double what you would ordinarily expect, them to do right so that’s a fabulous quarter and then e-commerce growth was sixty-nine percent, so again that’s a huge number if the, industry average is 40 percent if if you consider Amazon the industry average or 25% if you look at the US Department of Commerce, sixty-nine percent growth for the quarter is in e-commerce is great. [36:58] What wasn’t so great in Q4 is their profitability they you know as Walmart’s mix shifts to e-commerce like they have challenging unit economics and profitability goes down, they had some they raise their, their labor rates last year and paid can their Associates more they paid hazardous hazardous duty pay and all these other, other unique covid fees and so so fair enough profitability was was definitely a soft spot but from a customer demand standpoint. I thought they had a great quarter they also announced that 20:21 was going to be a huge capex year for them they’re expecting to spend 14 billion in a. [37:42] Normal big year for them is like 10 billion and by the way like those 10 billion dollar years were. We’re like from the days when they were building out a lot of Supercenters and so to spend 14 billion in a year when you’re not going to do a lot of new store growth. Um is a remarkable commitment to investment and what they said is a bunch of that Investments going to be in fulfillment and automated fulfillment and particularly, grocery store micro fulfillment which should scare Scott because that was one of my predictions, in our January show they’re making a big investment in health care and and services that go around retail in addition to retail which might sound familiar if you follow the the Amazon Playbook at all. They also did announce that they’re going to increase their average wage to $15 an hour, um average being an operative word their target and Amazon raised their minimum wage their starting salary to $15 an hour Walmart still not committing to that, but they are committing to have an average wage of $15 an hour and I want to see which is a raise for like half a million folks and. [38:56] The I want to say they’re starting salary is still like 11 11 bucks an hour so that’s going to be a big expense, so and again this was Walmart’s last quarter of the year so you can now see their full year and so their full year they ended up with five hundred sixty billion dollars in Revenue, which was up 7.7 percent on a constant currency basis, u.s. comp sales were up 8.6 percent which is a phenomenal year e-commerce for the year grew 68 69 percent or I’m sorry seventy-nine percent eighty percent so that’s that’s, very fast growth for the second largest e-commerce site in the United States and then kind of an interesting one, in 2019 e-commerce was 2.5% of Walmart sales now e-commerce is 6.2 percent of their sales so it’s become digital is becoming real at Walmart. Scot: [39:51] Brickell awesome and then anything else there. Jason: [39:57] I know that you know it’s going again this is why you should take retail advice and not stock investment advice from Jason. Scot: [40:07] It’s all about expectations yep speaking of expectations let’s talk about Shopify earnings like that transition. They are they actually smashed expectations so Wall Street Hanna met a buck Twenty Eight on the EPS side and it came in a buck fifty eight so be by 30 cents. But the stock went down and I think what you had there was. You know a lot of runaway expectations so there’s there’s printed expectations which is kind of analysts consensus and then there’s kind of like quote-unquote whisper number and my sense is whisper number on Shopify everyone was kind of like Mmm Yeah. Amazon came in pretty good and Saudi Bay and you know will they be able to continue this over a hundred percent growth in the answer was no so they Top Line grew at 94% which. Is just amazing right for the fourth quarter but I think people had let their expectations run away that it could be higher because Q3 there were at a hundred nine percent and then back into to a hundred nineteen percent. So it was a pretty good step down from from those growth trajectories. Jason: [41:13] That’s a first world problem when your growth deceleration slows down a 94%. Scot: [41:19] It is but hey it’s Wall Street they’re hard to please what have you done for me lately. And then we’ll talk about in a second but I think also so Wall Street you kind of look at the print and then the forward-looking stuff so, so so you know beat be current but then we’ll talk about the four projections, for the year that puts them at 99% I know that was pretty frustrating to them I hate it when numbers do that to me can’t you just get that one more percent there to make it triple digits. The revenue grew for 2020 full year 86% and the gmv grew 96%, and then gmv for the fourth quarter was over 41 billion that puts them at a hundred twenty billion for 2020. So if you line that up against Amazon’s third-party gmv that’s about, 40% and I think there are there are bigger than eBay Now by a good margin that number I think last I looked if you take Autos out of eBay I think there’s sub a hundred billion still. [42:18] I’ll have to have one of the interns fact check me on that and then as we mentioned it’s really interesting if you take that slice of Revenue that they have there. The subscribers subscription Services which is the soccer as a service Revenue the software licensing Revenue that was 280 million, but then merchant services was 700 million, so you can get the mix there that you know I think it’s 4060 so 40 percent of the revenue comes from software revenue and then 60 comes from quote-unquote merchant services and this is where they’re essentially, you know, charging a merchant two and a half points for payment and then you know passing through two and making a half point on that gmv that flows through there, then they make laugh Point here so they effectively have at a crate like a Marketplace would but it’s against all the services and aggregate that there are consumers that there. Their business customers are using and then yep, so that Merchants Solutions actually grew a hundred sixteen percent so when, you know which grew faster than govt which means they’re take rate went up effectively so there, you know the their Merchants merchant service Revenue grew faster than gmv and overall Revenue so it took share from the software side of the business. And then the take rate is going up so there you know whatever mix or things are happening there. [43:47] Um so one of the things that I think shocked Wall Street a little bit is that they effectively said that they’re going to get very serious about the Us distribution Network and, storing and shipping things I think they had one fulfillment center up in Canada where they’ve experimented with this and it sounds like they’re going to lean into it so that’s going to be interesting. And then another thing that was announced around their earnings was that they are going to put their payment system on Facebook check out so I thought that was a little tidbit that I wanted as the payments guy wanted to get your feedback. [44:18] Um so yeah so so if we if we tie that back to that Amazon acquisition you know. This is definitely going to be on you know Amazon’s radar so they’re DMVs heading to 1/2. It one way to look at is you all are selling things into this pool of people selling online now they’re going to be building their own F be a competitor, so it’s going to get really interesting to see what’s going to happen here and then Ivan IV, I thought it’s funny the Shopify and I don’t know if this is a corporate policy but there, there are social media people there like poking the bear at at Amazon so when Bezos left they did a kind of an odd goodbye kind of a thing that I thought was kind of it was funny but. It was definitely you know not I’m a pretty risky kind of guy that was just kind of like I was just like oh my God I if I was to see a that’s that was a little bit of a step too far so so there’s there’s definitely going to be a really interesting story this year watching these two battle it out and I’m excited to watch it. Watch the blows land. Jason: [45:28] Yeah I’m hoping to launch a new television service which is going to be Toby and Jeff Bezos playing Starcraft so we’ll see you that. Comes to fruition but seems my money would be on Toby actually in Starcraft but. Scot: [45:44] Who has the coolest hat would be even better. Jason: [45:46] Good point yeah they both have discovered some interesting foil later in life but yeah I mean. It’s funny because I do I think shopify’s a phenomenal story that growth is Monumental in the fact that their 40 percent of Amazon’s third-party Marketplace like. That that is serious right and they’re competing for the same wallet and so they’re absolutely competing for dollars, and they’re both well resource to escalate the fight so it’s going to be exciting to watch, the thing I like I try to remind people of is that they don’t actually have huge overlap in services today right like what Amazon does better than anything else is they acquire eyeballs, and then they they rent those eyeballs to sellers through all of these services. Shopify does exactly the opposite the one thing they don’t do is bring any eyeballs to to your product they exclusively sell you a bunch of services for you to monetize the eyeballs you already have and so, for sure they’re gonna grow an overlap each other and you know we’re starting to see that with a fulfillment networks and and various things but they’re not starting from a. [47:01] They’re competing for the same dollars but they’re competing from two opposite ends of the service spectrum and so it’s you know they’re going to meet in the middle somewhere, and it’s going to be interesting to watch but like you know my big takeaway from your numbers are, um not only is the is that g that Revenue that’s tied to gmv is much bigger than the revenue that’s tied to subscriptions it’s growing, twice as fast right so it’s both, they win when one of their existing customer sells more they win when they sign up a new customer they win when they find more services to sell to that same customer they win so that that is a nice Network, um and you know let you let you see what investors are seeing in this in the Shopify model and you know I in the back of my mind I’m hearing that soundtrack, you know your margin is my opportunity you know I have a feeling that that Jeff and project Santos are, not gonna sit back idly while that happens. Scot: [48:03] Yeah absolutely another thing that’s interesting got. Jason: [48:08] Just on the shop pay thing them being on Facebook isn’t that interesting to me but it what it signals is right so. It’s highly unlikely, that there are new buyers that are going to go to look at the new Air Jordan shoe on Instagram and buy it because they can now pay with shop pay right like I you know I doubt there was anyone that said like who I really want that shoe I’m gonna buy it through Instagram check out. But I’m not going to use PayPal only do they accept my shop pic, um so I don’t think it brings any new eyeballs to the those products on Instagram like I don’t think it’s a big draw but, if you already decide you want those shoes and you find out that checking out is going to be easier and lower friction because your payment information is already stored because they’ll accept your shop pay I do think it can improve conversion, for the people that are already discovering that product so to me it’s. [49:06] There’s it’s a smart play fun shopify’s part and Facebook’s part to offer it it’s probably not game-changing or super, incremental, um at the moment but what’s super interesting about it to me is as far as I know it’s the first example of shop pay being accepted outside of the Shopify echo system, um in this is another interesting you know potential Battleground you know the one of the biggest pieces of that of that gmv Revenue stream for Shopify is because you know they used to, to Outsource credit card processing to stripe and others and now they’re doing it on themselves, and if Shopify is going to become a legitimate digital wallet and offer their payment you know method available you know far and wide that that is kind of interesting, Amazon is tried to do that and hasn’t had very much success because. The Amazon brand is in direct competition with every other retailer the Shopify brand really isn’t right and so it is interesting. If this first move to Facebook signifies you know Shopify deciding that one of their growth opportunities is, is digital wallet that is an area where I think they’re strong and have a competitive advantage over Amazon so that that. Scot: [50:26] Yeah and then then there’s been a lot of speculation so then there’s a recruiter for Shopify that’s very he hangs out in the Twitter circles you and I frequent like the DTC and kind of area and the retail e-commerce group and then he put a. Really interesting listing out there essentially saying we’re building a high growth team you need to be on the west coast and we’re looking for a lot of talent and kind of from the D in the, DTC world so that and a lot of other hints have me thinking I think it was this one of my prediction said they’re going to build a Marketplace so so I feel like I feel like they’re going to go at the eyeball part of Amazon and it’s gonna be interesting to see how that goes for. Jason: [51:10] They could like I think I’m less optimistic that they will then you and others are, they totally could and you could interpret that job listing as, as you know a Skunk Works to hire people to build that Marketplace but to be honest I give you look at through a different lens that same job listing could be for a team to help, Sell Shop paid tune on Shopify Merchants right like so you know it could be other things it could be selling those fulfillment services to other Merchants it could it could be lots of things. Scot: [51:43] Yeah but it’s DTC no those are all B2B this is a consumer team. Jason: [51:48] Yeah yeah well we’ll have to see again A lot of people are speculating that they’re going to do it and they have the resources to try and I’m not even saying that they will fail but what I will say is. That. They don’t have any proof points that they can attract eyeballs and attracting eyeballs is super hard and so just because they’ve been successful in these other businesses. Um does not mean that they’re going to be able to create you know the hundreds of millions of consumers brand Affinity that that they would need to to compete with an Amazon. That’s super hard to do it would be an impressive story if they they launching can do that and and the day they do that a bunch of the things that people like about them suddenly breaks, so you know a lot of the reasons you do business with them is because they, they don’t compete with you and they don’t compete for eyeballs and they don’t claim ownership of your customer in the same way Amazon does so as soon as you become a Marketplace, you’re gonna start struggling threading the needle with all of those things so you know you can imagine ways to part we do it but but it it could get messy. Scot: [53:04] All right so it’s going to be a really interesting 2021 with this battle of these two Tech Titans and it’s gonna be interesting to see how it plays out. Jason: [53:12] Yeah I admire the heck out of both companies I’m glad they’re both there and I hope I hope they do compete in a bunch of services and make him all better for all of us so. I think you know as non financially in observers I think it’s going to be super interesting to watch. And Scott that’s probably a good place to leave it because we’ve taken a short Newsweek and turned it into our full hour-long show as always if you have any thoughts or questions about any of the topics we discussed today you can totally hit us up on Facebook or Twitter, and if you found this valuable you know if it got you excited about what’s going to happen in 2021 a great way to start off the year on the right foot is to jump onto iTunes and leave us that five star review. Scot: [54:01] Thanks everyone for taking the time to leave that review and. Jason: [54:05] Until next time happy commercing!

Stal sa symbolom samoderžavnej vlády ruského panovníka. Dokonca aj sovietsky vodca Josif Stalin sa o ňom vyjadroval pochvalne a vyčítal mu jedine jeho zbožnosť a nedôslednosť v prenasledovaní svojich nepriateľov. Ivan IV. Hrozný naplnil po okraj to, čomu sa hovorí hrôzovláda. Svojich politických protivníkov nemilosrdne odstraňoval a krajinu vystavil nekontrolovanému násiliu svojho súkromného vojska, tzv. opričníkov. Historici sa pri hodnotení Ivanových vojenských či trestných výprav neraz prikláňajú k označeniu genocída, a hoci výrazne rozšíril územie Moskovskej Rusi, dialo sa to za cenu obrovských ľudských obetí. Súčasníkov však zrejme najviac zaujme Ivanova zložitá osobnosť a jej premena. Z pomerne rozhľadeného a vzdelaného mladíka sa postupne menil na podozrievavého muža, ktorého paranoja dosahovala chorobné rozmery. Napriek všetkému to bola práve vláda Ivana IV. Hrozného, počas ktorej sa začala expanzia Ruska na Sibír a po ktorom zostali dodnes ikonické symboly ruskej kultúry a architektúry, akým je napríklad podivuhodný Chrám Vasila Blaženého na Červenom námestí v Moskve. Jaro Valent z časopisu Historická revue sa rozprával s historikom Marekom Příhodom z Ústavu východoevropských studií FF Univerzity Karlovej v Prahe. – Ak máte pre nám spätnú väzbu, odkaz alebo nápad, napíšte nám na jaroslav.valent@petitpress.sk – Všetky podcasty denníka SME nájdete na sme.sk/podcasty – Podporte vznik podcastu Dejiny a kúpte si digitálne predplatné SME.sk na sme.sk/podcast – Odoberajte aj denný newsletter SME.sk s najdôležitejšími správami na sme.sk/suhrnsme – Ďakujeme, že počúvate podcast Dejiny.

Ivan Vassiliévit é; sagrado Ivan IV em 16 de janeiro de 1547 na Catedral da Assunção em Moscou. Mas a história o fez conhecido como Ivan, o Terrível. Foi o primeiro czar a reinar. Mais que um título, ele se acreditava detentor de uma missão divina.★ Support this podcast ★

durée : 00:07:06 - Ivan IV le terrible, le tsar... et le compositeur - par : Christophe Dilys - 16 janvier 1547, Ivan IV est sacré tsar de toutes les Russies. En plus d'être le monstre belliqueux que nous connaissons, il est compositeur de 'stichères', hymnes religieux byzantins. Tendons l'oreille pour repérer chez Debussy ou Rimsky-Korsakov la présence de mélodies religieuses russes.

Le 16 janvier 1547, Ivan IV qui n'a que 16 ans devient tsar de Russie. Durant les près de 40 ans de son règne, il va contribuer par ses conquêtes à étendre et unifier le territoire russe... mais son pouvoir sans partage s'accompagne aussi de terribles atrocités...d'où son surnom d'Ivan le Terrible. Nous y revenons avec des extraits du reportage historique "Ivan le Terrible" diffusé sur Arte.

On this day in Tudor history, 28th October 1570, Ivan IV of Russia, known commonly as Ivan the Terrible, wrote a rather rude letter to Queen Elizabeth I. Ivan was upset with Elizabeth's reaction to his idea of a political alliance, an agreement to help each other if their lives were in danger, and wrote the letter while he was still angry. They were words that must have made Elizabeth see red for a while, but she managed to write a calm reply to him. Find out exactly what Ivan the Terrible and Elizabeth I wrote to each other, and how they came to be corresponding in the first place, in today's talk from historian Claire Ridgway. You can see this podcast as a video at the following link:https://youtu.be/KxtYyVqFqZI Here's the video Claire mentioned:May 10 - A search for the Northeast Passage finds Ivan the Terrible instead - https://youtu.be/HBD0eBUfVE4  Also this day in Tudor history, 28th October 1532, the Feast of St Simon and St Jude, was the last full day of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn’s time with King Francis I of France in Calais, and it was time to celebrate the kings' friendship. New Knights of the Garter were elected, bear-baiting was watched and then there was a wrestling match between French and English men, but who would win? Find out what happened in last year’s video - https://youtu.be/Qka9_Ux6m4Q  Claire is the founder of the Tudor Society, an online membership site for those who love Tudor history. There, you can learn from Claire and many other expert historians and authors, enjoy Tudor-focused magazines and live Q&A sessions with experts, and have access to all kinds of talks, articles, quizzes, virtual tours and more. Try it with a 14-day free trial - https://www.tudorsociety.com/signup/ Claire has written some bestselling Tudor history books: On This Day in Tudor History - https://amzn.to/3oceahHThe Fall of Anne Boleyn: A Countdown - https://amzn.to/3m8KaSiGeorge Boleyn: Tudor Poet, Courtier and Diplomat - https://amzn.to/2TdwyZrThe Anne Boleyn Collection - https://amzn.to/3kiQc1TThe Anne Boleyn Collection II - https://amzn.to/3o9LUwiThe Anne Boleyn Collection III - https://amzn.to/3kiQc1TThe Life of Anne Boleyn Colouring Books - https://amzn.to/3jkJ5Vz Claire has also done an online history course, The Life of Anne Boleyn, for MedievalCourses.com - https://medievalcourses.com/overview/life-anne-boleyn-mc06/ You can find Claire at:https://www.theanneboleynfiles.com https://www.tudorsociety.comhttps://www.facebook.com/theanneboleynfiles/https://www.facebook.com/tudorsociety/https://twitter.com/AnneBoleynFiles https://twitter.com/thetudorsociety https://www.instagram.com/tudor.society/ https://www.instagram.com/anneboleynfiles/

For the final episode of season 2 we’re heading to Moscow on suggestion of a listener to learn about the history of the famously colourful St Basil’s Cathedral.St Basil’s Cathedral is a monument of many colours and many names, with Vivan describing it as “a Disneyland looking castle with colourful vaguely onion shaped domes”, and John describing it as “the Sean ‘Puff Daddy’ Combs” of churches. Located in Moscow’s Red Square along with the Kremlin, St Basil’s Cathedral is actually a combination of 10 churches including what was originally known as the “Trinity Cathedral”The Trinity Church was originally built out of wood in 1555 under direction of Russia’s first Tsar, Ivan IV, also knows as Ivan The Terrible. He would commission the building of a new church after each war he won, and by the end of his rampage the Trinity Church had been enclosed with 7 other churches, at which time he ordered the construction of the wooden Church Of Intersession, followed by orders a year later to replace the original wooden Trinity Church with a stone cathedral.A number of legends surround Ivan IV and the cathedral, such as the cathedral being dedicated to his fourth son, the first who did not die within a year of birth and so was to be his heir, although it is said that living up to his name he later beat this son to death over a disagreement. Other myths or legends include the story a missing ninth church appearing by a miracle when Ivan touched the cathedral during its consecration ceremony in July of 1561, or the story of Ivan IV blinding the architect so that he could never recreate it or build anything so beautiful again. But since Yakovlev is later credited with more architectural work, it’s fairly likely this was just a big authoritarian brag.As with any large scale monument a great deal of maintenance is required for it to stand the test of time. In the case of St Basil’s it was burned down in 1583, rebuilt 10 years later, and burned down once again in 1737 before being restored a second time in 1812. Later in 1812 Napoleon invaded and looted the church and ordered its demolition which was ultimately unsuccessful.Yet another round of restorations were ordered in the early 1900s, but this were interrupted by the First World War and the communist revolution. While Vladimir Lenin quite liked the cathedral and ordered it to become a museum rather than be torn down, Stalin did not hold the same view and wanted it demolished so he could parade tanks through the Red Square. As dictators are known for terrible urban planning decisions, Petr Baranovsky, the man responsible for the surveying the site just prior to demolition, would refuse to complete this work, even threatening suicide to stop Stalin from moving forward. Ultimately he was successful in preventing the destruction of this monument, and by 1990 it was declared a UNESCO world heritage site, and following the fall of the USSR it now operates as both a museum and church, with ongoing restoration work being completed today.—Image GalleryExterior | Interior 1 | Interior 2 | The Kremlin | Elevation/Plan Drawings | History of The Layouts |—Learn more at: MeasuredInMetric.com | Facebook | InstagramMusic by: John Julius - Bandcamp.comEdited by: Astronomic Audio

dWho Wrote That?: Authorship Controversies from Moses to Sholokhov (Northern Illinois University Press) is Harvard historian Donald Ostrowski’s sustained reflection on what we can learn from comparison of authorship controversies. Ostrowski covers nine different cases of disputed authorship, from the Shakespeare canon, to the letters between the Russian Prince Kurbskii and Ivan IV, to the ancient Hebrew Pentateuch. This book lays out evidence from all points of view in an even-handed way, and in doing so, Ostrowski is able to define a number of general principles that ought to animate all scholarship that attempts to answer the question: “Who wrote that?”. Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

dWho Wrote That?: Authorship Controversies from Moses to Sholokhov (Northern Illinois University Press) is Harvard historian Donald Ostrowski’s sustained reflection on what we can learn from comparison of authorship controversies. Ostrowski covers nine different cases of disputed authorship, from the Shakespeare canon, to the letters between the Russian Prince Kurbskii and Ivan IV, to the ancient Hebrew Pentateuch. This book lays out evidence from all points of view in an even-handed way, and in doing so, Ostrowski is able to define a number of general principles that ought to animate all scholarship that attempts to answer the question: “Who wrote that?”. Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

dWho Wrote That?: Authorship Controversies from Moses to Sholokhov (Northern Illinois University Press) is Harvard historian Donald Ostrowski’s sustained reflection on what we can learn from comparison of authorship controversies. Ostrowski covers nine different cases of disputed authorship, from the Shakespeare canon, to the letters between the Russian Prince Kurbskii and Ivan IV, to the ancient Hebrew Pentateuch. This book lays out evidence from all points of view in an even-handed way, and in doing so, Ostrowski is able to define a number of general principles that ought to animate all scholarship that attempts to answer the question: “Who wrote that?”. Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Thanks to Ivan Prince of Moscow, 16th Century Russia was a pretty scary place to be. Ivan "The Terrible" as he would affectionately go by, would define brutality and chaos for years to come. His reign would see secret police on the streets, the purging of an entire city within his own kingdom and of course, the murder of his son and heir by his own hand. Ivan wasn't just terrible he was outright evil. Join us for Episode 10 of Curious Characters as we investigate this barbaric villain from Russian history.(Warning: Episode contains references to torture, murder, and other upsetting things.)     https://curiouscharacters.buzzsprout.com/https://www.facebook.com/curiocharacters/https://www.trickycider.com/Support the show (http://buymeacoff.ee/CurioCharacters)

Aquesta setmana, a les Portes de Troia, repassarem la vida i regnat del tsar Ivan IV, el Terrible, cabdals per entendre l'entrada de Rússi a l'època moderna. Amb Antonio Contreras.

    “They have set up kings, but not by Me (the Lord): they have made princes, and I knew it not” (Hosea 8:4a NASB). The idea that all government officials are always in authority because God put them there is contrary to what the Lord spoke to the prophet Hosea. Some leaders were put in power by people outside the will and plan of God, and not by His direction or authority. The prophet Hosea recorded what God said about it, something that literally goes against traditional interpretations of Romans 13. Most commentators believe Romans 13 teaches that all government leaders and institutions are ordained of God, or else they would not be in authority because all authority is from God. I disagree with most commentators on this subject, but I did not reach my conclusions out of thin air. One must ignore many other Scriptures that oppose the idea that God authorizes all leaders. The truth is that God anoints some to lead, but that does not include ALL. The biggest mistake has been to isolate Romans 13 without looking at numerous other Scriptures that can lead to right interpretation on governmental authority. Most Christian circles have accepted Paul’s teaching as a blanket statement about all government and officials. Paul carefully outlines the subject by including some necessary limitations. Let’s read Paul’s statement objectively: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by Godʼs appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment. (Romans 13:1, 2 NET) Notice the following statements in these verses, and let’s unravel it some: 1. Authority… by God’s appointment.2. Authorities… instituted by God.3. Resists such authority. (That is, those appointed and instituted by God.)4. Resists the ordinance of God. (When God appoints and institutes an authority, to resist that kind of authority is to resist the ordinance of God!) Paul was teaching about government officials that God puts into places of authority by His appointment. Read that the previous statement slowly and purposely to get it. I did not come up with that on my own. I believe that Lord gave me this truth from the phrases I excerpted from the verses, and the explanations given in parenthesis. I believe these clearly highlight the fact that Paul was referring to those leaders in government that were a force for good. Paul was not referring to government alone as a separate entity from the ruler. He was not referring to evil individuals that sit in government offices that want to bend the rules and slant them for evil purposes. If a government official is a force for good, then God had something to do with their ordination or appointment. We should respect them and obey them. We should submit to that kind of authority. Paul is correcting and rebuking those that rebel against good authorities ordained and appointed by God. Look at the verses that follow. Paul qualifies whom he was referring to. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil (Romans 13:3, 4 NASB). What kind of rulers were these? What was the criteria? • Rulers that cause fear for those practicing evil behavior.• Rulers that are ministers (servants) of God for doing what is good.• Rulers that are ministers (servants) of God to bring wrathful vengeance by the sword on those that practice evil. How could we have missed the qualifications Paul gives for government officials? Paul’s lead-in to this entire subject of government officials ordained to praise the good and destroy evil was Romans 12:21, the last verse of the previous chapter. The chapter division between chapters twelve and thirteen was arbitrarily injected into Paul’s consecutive train of thought. This last verse (12:21) qualifies our subject matter in chapter thirteen. Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21 NASB). Paul was speaking about government officials that take a stand for good and overcome evil with it. Paul was not telling us to submit to evil rulers that want to impose their ungodly way of life on the people under their rule. He was telling us to obey and respect those God ordained into a position of government authority because they are doing what they are doing to reward the good and punish the evildoer. That means that if some ruler, like Obama and his administration did (and state government officials), told us to make same-sex marriage themed cakes to honor the homosexual lifestyle, that we should do that? Absolutely not! Why? That governmental leader and his administration were in opposition to the Word of God. We do not obey that contrary to Scripture and carry out Satan’s wishes! I’ll bring it home in a minute, because the church has disobeyed God and His Word in order to obey government.  To maintain order in the land, certain speed limits are placed to control the speed of vehicles on different roads. Should we obey that? Yes, because they do not violate the Scripture but are put in place to protect the populace. What about paying taxes? Who loves to pay taxes? Probably none of us. Should we do it? Yes, it does not violate Scripture, and we are told to do it by Jesus and Paul. (Matthew 22:17-21; Romans 13:7) I am pointing out that there are many parts of law and order we must comply with, BUT there are some parts we should never obey because they violate the Word of God. (Acts 4:19, 5:21) We should be law-abiding citizens and honor leaders in government, but we must NEVER compromise the Scripture. (See 1 Peter 2:13-17.) Get that straight once and for all! If the government forbids the preaching of the gospel, and orders us to shut our doors, should we obey? Absolutely not! If they commanded us to stop making altar calls, casting out demons, and praying for the sick, should we obey? What about if they tell us it is forbidden to have church services? Again, we must not obey IF we are believers and followers of Jesus! We have the great commission and the example of the Church in the book of Acts. That is our authority. Religious or governmental leaders do not have greater authority than the Scripture. We will do the Word regardless of their rules and regulations to the contrary. (See Matthew 16:15-19; Matthew 28:16-20; Acts chapters 2 through 5.) The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” 29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! (Acts 5:27-29 NIV) (Dan’s NOTE: This article was originally written and published in 2012 but has gone through a few corrections of grammar or sentence structure. It can still use work but here it is. The message has remained unchanged. It was published under the title, “Does God ordain all Human Government.” Was this prophetic? You judge it. How many churches disobeyed the Word by shutting their doors when ordered by local government to do so during the Coronavirus pandemic?) Having the qualifications as presented by Paul How many of our government officials in America can qualify based on Paul’s criteria above? There are not many. How many American government officials sit in opposition to God’s moral commandments and what He calls as good? How many have rejected God’s standards for marriage, sex, human life, child rearing, money, education, and business? How many oppose prayer, Bible teaching, and Christianity? How many are pushing to remove all mention of God and Jesus from the government, schools, monuments, and everywhere they can spread their evil influence? What about people in government that are not a force for good but are evil rulers or governors? What about government officials placed by popular vote that support laws and agendas that favor evil in society? We desperately need them voted out and replaced by good government and godly people. WOE TO those [judges] who issue unrighteous decrees, and to the magistrates who keep causing unjust and oppressive decisions to be recorded (Isaiah 10:1 Amplified Bible). The prophet Isaiah pronounced a woe on judges because they opposed God and His commandments. Were they placed in a position of authority with God’s approval and blessing? Hosea teaches that this is not always the case. There are some kings and princes (including judges, governors, mayors, etc.) that God did not appoint or approve. They are usurpers of authority that God neither knew nor anointed for office. Just because someone wins the presidency or becomes prime minister by popular vote does not mean that God set them into a place of authority. Just because someone wins a Senate seat or governorship (or some local government official) does not mean that God set him or her there. The same can be said for all government appointees everywhere. Again, my foundation for stating this is Hosea 8:4, but there is much more evidence in the Scripture. A divided kingdom cannot stand What happens when a kingdom is divided by enforcing some righteous laws, but it then establishes and promotes evil laws that clearly violate God's commandments? Do you know? What did Jesus say about this? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom will not be able to stand (Mark 3:24 NET). What happens to a divided kingdom? It cannot stand and will eventually be judged. It will be given over to two opposing governments. Do you need an example? As for peres- your kingdom is divided and given over to the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:28 NET). A divided kingdom that doesn't get its act together will eventually get split apart. There must be some form of agreement between the parties, because a divided kingdom will fall or be destroyed, and at times, it can be split into separate countries. World history gives us numerous examples. Can two walk together unless they are agreed? (Amos 3:3 KJV) I know that this is an appalling thought for our great nation of America. Right now, America is, basically, split down the middle between those that love God or His moral principles, and those that hate anything related to God. I trust that America comes to repentance and this nation turns back to God and the Lord Jesus. Let me show you by another prophetic example what we are seeing, and what we could witness in the future in America unless there is drastic spiritual change and renewal. I am not being pessimistic, and I am far from being a doomsday proponent. America can turn around, and I believe 2016 started bringing some godly changes into leadership and our government, though it is certainly not perfect. It never will be perfect until Jesus comes to rule and reign! What if we fail to vote in leaders that care about Christianity and God’s idea of morality? What if things continue with bad leaders and evil judges? What could happen if America does not repent and come back to God? Here is the terrible truth: In that you were seeing feet and toes a partly of wet clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom. Some of the strength of iron will be in it, for you saw iron mixed with wet clay. In that the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, the latter stages of this kingdom will be partly strong and partly fragile. And in that you saw iron mixed with wet clay, so people will be mixed with one another without adhering to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. In the days of those kings the God of heaven will raise up an everlasting kingdom that will not be destroyed and a kingdom that will not be left to another people. It will break in pieces and bring about the demise of all these kingdoms. But it will stand forever… (Daniel 2:41-44 NET) I am using this for prophetic instruction. I understand the implications of this text for Babylon, Assyria, Medes-Persians, and ancient Rome with its historic division into the Eastern and Western Roman empires. I believe we can gain prophetic insight into how God sees things because He is always the same. He never changes. Right now, our country is divided. It is partly strong because of righteousness, and partly fragile because of sin. Everybody can see it today. It is not something mysterious “revelation.” You don’t need prophetic insight to get it. America today is like iron and wet clay that can never mix. The people of God are in a mixed society of righteousness and sinfulness, and one cannot agree with the other (see 2 Corinthians 6:14-17). They are opposed to each other along strict lines of division, and if it continues that way, the nation cannot stand or endure in its present state. I am praying (as many thousands of others are) that the country continues to lean towards righteousness and away from immorality, if not, our country will be in BIG trouble. In the case of Daniel's vision, he begins to see the kingdom of God that cannot be destroyed because it is eternal. It is the only eternal kingdom. All others are temporary and will fail eventually. Babylon, Assyria, Medes-Persians, Greece, and Rome were all destroyed. God's kingdom breaks in pieces the other (ungodly) kingdoms and brings about their demise. That is why we must have a spiritual awakening in America. Read this closely because I am approaching this prophetically. God's people are praying and trusting God for revival, repentance, and godly change in the land. It’s happening slowly but surely from sea to shining sea. God's kingdom is a force in our nation that will bring about judgment. America gets with the program, coming to repentance, and serving the Lord, or it could be broken into pieces. It's unavoidable prophetically and scripturally. I vote for America getting with the program, coming to repentance, serving the Lord. How about you? That is what I am praying for, and I trust that you are too! Once again, let me remind you that God said: “They have set up kings, but not by Me (the Lord): they have made princes, and I knew it not” (Hosea 8:4a NASB). Without a question, we have seen that God only appoints good leaders. Men have elected corrupt leaders, and God had nothing to do with it. My statements are correct but too sweeping because it gets much more complicated than that on certain occasions. Sometimes God will do very unusual things to get a task done. He may use very unlikely people. You will see what I mean. There have been many demon-inspired and evil rulers throughout history. Take for example Caligula, Genghis Kahn, Henry VIII, Ivan IV (the Terrible), Maximilien Robespierre, Joseph Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot (of Khmer Rouge infamy), etc. Did God ordain them to stand in their positions of authority? Did they have divine, God-given authority, or was their authority coming from demonic power? To all these evil rulers we have to add the terrorist organizations that have taken over cities and countries, such as, Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL), Boko Haram (Islamic State’s West Africa Province), Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and many others. Did God put those evil organizations in power and ordain them to kill, steal, and destroy (see John 10:10)? Of course not! Many, because they take Paul’s words in Romans 13:1-7 as a blanket statement, would not know how to answer my question. Spiritual battles in the unseen realm The book of Daniel chapter ten shows us a spiritual battle in the unseen realm. There were spiritual forces (the prince and kings of Persia) aligned against God’s angelic messenger that came to bring the answer to Daniel’s prayer. These demonic forces opposed the heavenly messenger for twenty-one days. Michael the archangel came to help the angelic messenger fight and open the way so he could reach Daniel. After the divine messenger had finished delivering his message, he was going to return to combat the spirit princes and kings of Persia, and then another demonic “prince” was coming, the wicked spirit, and prince of Greece. There are authorities, powers, and wicked spirits in high places arrayed against God’s people and His plans on earth (Ephesians 6:12). These demon forces work to set up Satan’s kingdom on the earth. They stand behind the evil governments, rulers, and people on our planet. Believers have authority in the Name of Jesus over the wiles of the devil as they submit to God (Mark 16:17, James 4:7). As the Lord leads, and by His power, we can exercise influence against these wicked spirits in high places (Ephesians 6:10-18). We do not have authority over every situation on the planet, or over other people, but as the Holy Spirit leads us in prayer, we can have a powerful impact over demonic activity. There are many things to say here about this, and I address it later in this article. In the end, at the coming of the Lord Jesus to rule and reign upon the earth, the people of God win it all. NOBODY will resist His rule and reign for a thousand years! He will rule with a rod of iron, and He will be King of kings. It will not be a democracy, but all will serve and obey Him willingly for a thousand years. For the interim, there are demonic influences in the earth that stand behind certain people, governments, and rulers. Believe it because it is true whether we like it or not! The ultimate “government official” that will have demonic power behind him will be what many have called the antichrist! Paul called him the man of lawlessness whose coming will be “in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish” (2 Thessalonians 2:3-10). Deception, wickedness, false signs and wonders, with full Satanic backing, will earmark the government of the man of sin. It will be evil government to the maximum degree! We have the first fruits of this antichrist spirit already operating in many of the politicians governing the world today, and some are right here in America! As far as the world is concerned, the worst is yet to come for them! Here is another point on this subject of rulers that complicates matters further. Some rulers began with an anointing and ordination of God. They started good and right but messed up their rule through rebellion and the practice of sin. Some examples in Scripture are Kings Saul and Solomon. Saul lost his anointing and rule over Israel when he disobeyed and rebelled against the Lord. He went so far as to persecute God’s next choice for king, the sheepherder David. Saul ended up following soothsayers, committed suicide, and did not repent. Solomon was anointed to be king after his father David died. He was, possibly, the richest and wisest king to ever live. In old age, Solomon allowed foreign wives to turn away his heart from the Lord and to idolatry. He came to a sad end and evidently died in sin because there is no record of his repentance. These leaders started right before the Lord, with a special anointing on their lives but ended up wrongly. (See Ezekiel 18:24, 26.) It’s not how you start your race that counts at the end of your life. How you finish at the end of your life is what counts before the Lord! (See Ezekiel 18:19-31.) Why is “how you finish at the end of your life is what counts before the Lord” so hard for many to believe? Not only was this taught in Ezekiel 18:19-31, but Jesus taught this same truth in the Gospels. I am aware of how tragic that can be, especially if there was a family member or friend that left this life unrepentant. I have lost some former friends that departed this life after refusing repentance and some even denying Jesus. I’ve known some preachers like that. It is an extremely harsh and painful truth, but a very real one. It is inescapable. Read it from the lips of Jesus. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? ’And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness (Matthew 7:21-23). Do we know anybody in the ministry of Jesus that started out right with an anointing to heal the sick and cast out demons, and later abandoned the Lord and even was a traitor against Him? Yes, and his name was Judas Iscariot! Judas began with the commission given to the twelve disciples (later called apostles) to go in the authority and power of Jesus to do miraculous works. (Matthew 10:1-4) Initially, Judas sat at the feet of Jesus and followed Him. Judas became a part of the “inner circle” of disciples and was a recipient of a glorious ministry. Judas was among the disciples that received a powerful anointing to go and represent Jesus. He went with supernatural power to heal every sickness and disease and cast out demons just as the other 11 did. Judas Iscariot was one of them, but he betrayed the Master, committed suicide, and died in his sin. Judas Iscariot was a classic example of starting out in righteousness, but ending in lawlessness or unrighteousness, as we see in the words of the prophet Ezekiel (18:19-31) and the Lord Jesus (Matthew 7:21-23). Judas will be among those that use the excuse of past supernatural exploits they did for the Lord, but the Lord will reject them because when they died they were rejecting Him. They will be dismissed from His presence because they were practicing lawlessness up until the moment they died. That is the wrong way to be caught dead! Another type of leader is the one called upon by people to lead them back to bondage. That happens in the political realm as well as in the religious realm. We could give you many modern examples, but I am sure you can come up with some on your own. They refused to obey, and they were not mindful of Your wonders that You did among them. But they hardened their necks, and in their rebellion, they appointed a leader to return to their bondage (Nehemiah 9:17 NKJV). Government officials that God calls and ordains to serve in office: Kings like David, Josiah, Hezekiah, and others were examples of anointed leaders in Israel. They were by no means perfect, but they were humble and would repent of their sin (as did David in the Bathsheba incident), and these (and some others) did their best to follow the Lord. Oddballs in Bible history Nebuchadnezzar found out that God would ordain people for leadership in government, sometimes to everybody’s surprise (Daniel 4:17). Sometimes, they were the most unlikely candidates. Judgment came to Nebuchadnezzar for refusing to do what God ordained. For seven years, he ran around like a wild goat, completely out of his mind. After he had repented for his pride and refusal to obey, he was restored to a sound mind and recognized the God of heaven and His rule over the realm of mankind. There are certain occasions when the hammer of divine judgment falls because God has given His Word. His must fulfill His promises to His people, via one way or another. Sometimes, when God’s Word is on the line, severe punishments, great miracles, or adverse judgments happen when people refuse to comply. The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar found out through a very harsh judgment! Pharaoh found out in the book of Exodus that terror comes upon those who want to restrain God’s promised outcome! When God gives His Word, He will have His way, and nothing will be able to stop Him. Cyrus received a special anointing from the Lord to help the people of Israel, and he did not even know God (Isaiah 45:1-5). Cyrus was an oddball! That goes against all conventional understanding of the anointing, but God can do as He pleases, if He does not violate His principles and laws. God’s sovereignty That last phrase is very controversial for those that believe God can do as He always pleases, and no matter what because He is sovereign, and nothing can withstand His will. I strongly disagree in the sense that God cannot violate His own Word! God’s real power as a “sovereign” or ruler is not the usual definition of “sovereignty”! Let us settle this issue of sovereignty in our minds. To many the word sovereignty means that your will is immaterial because when it’s God will, it will be done no matter what. Let’s go to the Word to answer that VERY wrong assumption on God’s sovereignty. God’s sovereign will is that not one human being perish and go to a devil’s hell (2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 25:41). How many have died and gone to hell because they refused to line up with God’s will? How many have perished because they refused God’s gift in His Son? (See John 3:16.) God wants to save all men (1 Timothy 2:4), but those that refuse to repent will perish! (Luke 13:3, 5) Daily, people disobey God’s plan and will upon the earth. Many are disobedient and do not cooperate with the Lord. That means that God is not “sovereign” as people think. God is not controlling everything. If He was, then He would make everybody receive salvation right now and we would enter the millennial reign before nightfall. Yet, some things are non-negotiable. God will have His “sovereign” way in some matters. Some things, like the coming of the Lord to rule and reign upon the earth will happen. Nothing will stop it. The book of Revelation declares many end-time events that will be unstoppable. That is “sovereignty,” but we must qualify this further. God is not sovereign like the mythical gods of Rome or Greece that could do anything they wanted to do, even if it was immoral or evil. The heathen gods could commit adultery, fornication, murder, treachery, and lie, steal, covet, etc. Regardless of what these “gods” said, they could twist their words at will because they were sovereign and in control of all human actions and activities. People were like puppets on a string or chess pieces on a playing board. Our God is not like that! Never believe that He is! Firstly, our God gave us the right to choose between life and death, blessing and cursing (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20). We get to choose whom we will serve and obey (Joshua 24:14, 15). We get to choose between two masters. Either we will choose to serve, love, and be devoted to the Lord Jesus, or we will serve, love, and be devoted to mammon (Matthew 6:24). To believe or disobey the gospel means that we have a choice (Romans 10:9-16). Secondly, Jehovah God cannot violate the Word that has come out of His mouth. He will never violate His moral commandments, judgments, or ordinances. If He did renege on His Word and did as He pleased in violation of it, then it would make Him a liar like men. The truth is this: • God is not a man that He should tell a lie (Numbers 23:19).• It is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18).• Nothing can nullify the faithfulness of God (Romans 3:3).• His Word of promise will never return to Him without accomplishing His desired result (Isaiah 55:10).• Not one of His promises have ever failed (Joshua 23:14, 1Kings 8:56). That is why we can always trust Him! God’s sovereignty cannot include the unscriptural idea that He can violate His Word or promises. He will not fulfill His plan by violating His principles. Get that straight! Recap Here is a summary of the five scenarios concerning rulers in Scripture. 1. Ungodly rulers put in place by people without God’s approval. (Hosea 8:4, Neh. 9:17)2. Rulers that through murder, war, conquest, or by some other way usurped a seat of authority. Examples are Absalom, Tibni, Athaliah, man of lawlessness-sin-antichrist.3. Godly rulers operating with God’s authority called and anointed to carry out His will and plan. Examples are David, Josiah, Hezekiah, and others.4. Rulers that received the anointing to rule but messed it up through rebellion, sin, idolatry, etc. as did Saul, Solomon, and other kings of Judah and Israel.5. People anointed to rule for a special task ordained by God even though they are not technically followers of God and did not even know Him. Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Hiram (2 Chron. 2:3). All these facts prove that Romans 13:1-7 has been grossly misinterpreted for centuries. We need to see rulers in government according to all the Scriptures on the subject and not attempt an isolated interpretation.  I pray this teaching sets you free from the lies of the enemy! Not all government is good, and not all government agrees with the Scripture. We MUST obey God and take a stand against government WHEN (and only when) they want to impose something contrary to Scripture on us. At all other times, we should obey rulers. That is the bottom line to all this, but now you are armed Scripturally to take a stand. Church it is time to repent! Let the Repentance Revolution Begin! Be blessed with the following podcast- Repentance Part 6!

Den originale Ivan den grusomme. Russlands første Tsar, ikke en god fyr

He’s a man known to history literally as ‘the Terrible’. Ivan IV was the first tsar of Russia, the man who built the iconic St Basil’s Cathedral, and the ruler who defended Moscow from Tartar invasion. In Russian history, he’s a towering figure, behind perhaps only Peter the Great and Lenin in how he shaped the nation. Yet how much do any of us really know about him, beyond his mistranslated nickname? Could he really be so bad as the crazed, wild-eyed caricature of popular history?

In our review of the Russian rulers of old, we turn our eyes to Ivan IV, the first and most controversial of all of the Russian Tsar's.

In Ivan the Terrible: Free to Reward and Free to Punish (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2019, Dr. Charles Halperin provides a new analysis of Ivan’s reign, as well as valuable syntheses of previous scholarship on one of Russian’s most infamous rulers. Halperin argues that we should move beyond old questions about Ivan’s sanity. Instead, we should reject the notion of Russian “exceptionalism,” place Ivan in comparative context, and evaluate his reign with the recognition that Ivan’s problems were often similar to those faced by contemporary monarchs. With careful attention to evidence and detail, Halperin’s Ivan IV emerges as a ruler at once less—and more—mysterious than in previous treatments of this subject. Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western, in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Ivan the Terrible: Free to Reward and Free to Punish (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2019, Dr. Charles Halperin provides a new analysis of Ivan’s reign, as well as valuable syntheses of previous scholarship on one of Russian’s most infamous rulers. Halperin argues that we should move beyond old questions about Ivan’s sanity. Instead, we should reject the notion of Russian “exceptionalism,” place Ivan in comparative context, and evaluate his reign with the recognition that Ivan’s problems were often similar to those faced by contemporary monarchs. With careful attention to evidence and detail, Halperin’s Ivan IV emerges as a ruler at once less—and more—mysterious than in previous treatments of this subject. Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western, in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Ivan the Terrible: Free to Reward and Free to Punish (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2019, Dr. Charles Halperin provides a new analysis of Ivan’s reign, as well as valuable syntheses of previous scholarship on one of Russian’s most infamous rulers. Halperin argues that we should move beyond old questions about Ivan’s sanity. Instead, we should reject the notion of Russian “exceptionalism,” place Ivan in comparative context, and evaluate his reign with the recognition that Ivan’s problems were often similar to those faced by contemporary monarchs. With careful attention to evidence and detail, Halperin’s Ivan IV emerges as a ruler at once less—and more—mysterious than in previous treatments of this subject. Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western, in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Ivan the Terrible: Free to Reward and Free to Punish (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2019, Dr. Charles Halperin provides a new analysis of Ivan’s reign, as well as valuable syntheses of previous scholarship on one of Russian’s most infamous rulers. Halperin argues that we should move beyond old questions about Ivan’s sanity. Instead, we should reject the notion of Russian “exceptionalism,” place Ivan in comparative context, and evaluate his reign with the recognition that Ivan’s problems were often similar to those faced by contemporary monarchs. With careful attention to evidence and detail, Halperin’s Ivan IV emerges as a ruler at once less—and more—mysterious than in previous treatments of this subject. Aaron Weinacht is Professor of History at the University of Montana Western, in Dillon, MT. He teaches courses on Russian and Soviet History, World History, and Philosophy of History. His research interests include the sociological theorist Philip Rieff and the influence of Russian nihilism on American libertarianism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The final years of Livonia Wars, the struggle for control of the southern Baltic coastline between Sweden, Denmark, Poland-Lithuania and Russia. King Stephan Bathory of Poland leads a campaign into Muscovite territory and besieges the city of Pskov (pictured). Also, the legacy of Ivan IV the Terrible See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Ivan IV, Grand Prince of Moscow declares himself the first Tsar of Russia. The powerful boyars challenge him, but the fierce Ivan always has the last word. www.tracknerds.com The post W029: Ivan the Terrible (1944) appeared first on .

La BCE applica lo schema greco all’Italia In questi giorni drammatici della storia repubblicana in cui si è aperta una gravissima crisi istituzionale e politica che vede la nascita dell'ennesimo governo di tecnocrati con a capo addirittura un funzionario del FMI un'altra notizia sta passando sotto silenzio. La Bce ha comunicato che gli acquisti di titoli da parte dell'eurosistema nell’ambito del programma di Quantitative easing sono calati nel corso della settimana terminata il 25 maggio a 3,831 miliardi di euro dai 5,309 miliardi della settimana precedente. Un calo di proporzioni enormi che non può non aver contribuito in maniera rilevante alla crescita mostruosa degli spread tra Bund e BTP di questi ultimi giorni. Viene in mente quanto accadde in Grecia prima delle elezioni che portarono alla vittoria di Tsipras quando l'allora capo del governo socialista George Papandreau accetto i miliardi della Trojka in cambio di un terribile piano di austerià che fece tracollare l'economa greca e che soprattutto ha vincolato l'azione politica di qualunque governo fosse arrivato successivamente. Sembra il destino che è stato designato per l'Italia con questo governo di minoranza e apparentemente innocuo ma non a caso guidato da quel funzionario dell'FMI soprannominato Mister Forbici.Nuova seria precisazione di Savona "Ho subito un grave torto dalla massima istituzione del Paese sulla base di un paradossale processo alle intenzioni di voler uscire dall’euro e non a quelle che professo e che ho ripetuto nel mio Comunicato, criticato dalla maggior parte dei media senza neanche illustrarne i contenuti. Vicino al mio pensiero è il commento di Wolfgang Münchau che nel suo commento sul Financial Times analizza come deve essere l’euro per non subire la dominanza mondiale del dollaro e della geopolitica degli Stati Uniti, affermando che la moneta europea è stata mal costruita per colpa della miopia dei tedeschi. La Germania impedisce che l’euro divenga come il dollaro “una parte essenziale della politica estera”. Purtroppo, egli aggiunge, il dollaro ha perso questa caratteristica, l’euro non è in condizione di rimpiazzarlo o, quanto meno, svolgere un ruolo parallelo, e di conseguenza siamo nel caos delle relazioni economiche internazionali; queste volgono verso il protezionismo nazionalistico, non certo foriero di stabilità politica, sociale ed economica. Il 28 e 29 giugno si terrà un incontro importante tra Capi di Stato a Bruxelles: chi rappresenterà le istanze del popolo italiano? Non potrà andarci Mattarella, né può farlo Cottarelli. Se non avesse avuto veti inaccettabili, perché infondati, il Governo Conte avrebbe potuto contare sul sostegno di Macron, così incanalando le reazioni scomposte che provengono dall’interno di tutti indistintamente i paesi-membri europei verso decisioni che aiutino l’Italia a uscire dalla china verso cui è stata spinta. Münchau giustamente afferma che “teme non vi sia un sostegno politico nel Nord Europa” e quindi non ci resta che patire gli effetti del protezionismo e dell’instabilità sociale. Si tratta di decidere se gli europeisti sono quelli che stanno creando le condizioni per la fine dell’UE o chi, come me, ne chiede la riforma per salvare gli obiettivi che si era prefissi."Steve Bannon contro Mattarella «Ciò che è successo ieri è disgustoso, è stata violata la sovranità dell’Italia, ad opera di poteri stranieri, media stranieri, capitali stranieri. L’Italia era in un momento storico perché il suo popolo voleva riprendersi il suo Paese, come gli inglesi quando hanno votato per la Brexit. Ma invece gli è stata tolta la sovranità. Hanno rifiutato un governo scelto con una maggioranza scelta dal popolo per metterci un altro burocrate che arriva dal Fondo monetario internazionale. Inconcepibile. L’Italia è in una crisi di sovranità, non provocata dal popolo italiano ma dal “partito di Davos”, i mercati finanziari. Combattono il popolo mentre questo cerca di riprendersi la sua sovranità. E come scusa usano lo spread, è disgustoso. Movimento Cinque Stelle e Lega, un partito populista di sinistra e uno populista di destra, hanno fatto insieme qualcosa di straordinario, qualcosa mai fatto prima nella storia, riuscendo a unire populisti di diverso orientamento, lavorando su un programma comune che ha senso e mettendo da parte le proprie posizioni personali, mostrando grande abilità e saggezza. I loro leader avevano anche fatto un passo indietro, avevano messo da parte le loro differenze per formare un governo populista. Per capire la difficoltà della sfida è stato come mettere assieme Bernie Sanders e Donald Trump. Noi in America non ci siamo riusciti, voi in Italia stavate per riuscirci, anzi, c’eravate riusciti. Ma il governo del cambiamento è stato stoppato prima. Il partito di Davos, di Berlino, di Londra, di Wall Street vuole impedire un governo populista e nazionalista in Italia. E da qui alle prossime elezioni l’intensità degli attacchi, politici, giornalistici e finanziari aumenterà. Ne vedremo delle belle. Ma per il partito di Davos sarà tutto inutile. Aver impedito la nascita del governo Conte è stato fatale, ha creato i prodromi della sua sconfitta».Ue: Ancora sanzioni contro il popolo della Siria "Il Consiglio Europeo ha esteso le misure restrittive contro la Siria e i suoi alleati fino al 1 giugno 2019, data la continua repressione della popolazione civile" cosi' recita una nota ufficiale di Bruxelles di ieri, lunedi' 28 giugno, proprio mentre le forze governative di Damasco, assieme agli alleati, stanno liberando il paese dai terroristi di Daesh. Aggiornate le sanzioni a 259 persone ed a 67 entita'. Aggiunte 4 persone "per il loro ruolo nell'uso di armi chimiche" continua la nota, nonostante l'OPAC sia ancora indagando sul presunto attacco chimico a Douma. Verranno estesi anche "l'embargo petrolifero in corso, le restrizioni su alcuni investimenti, il congelamento degli asset finanziari della Banca Centrale siriana, le restrizioni sull'export di equipaggiamenti tecnologici e per le intercettazioni internet e telefoniche, che, secondo Bruxelles, potrebbero essere usate per la repressione interna". Nell'applicare le sanzioni, il Consiglio precisa di escludere una soluzione militare al conflitto e di insistere per una soluzione politica appoggiando il lavoro dell'inviato speciale ONU e dei colloqui di Ginevra, per quanto al momento, come confermato sempre ieri dal consulente ONU per la Siria Vitaly Naumkin, non sia stata ancora fissata una data per i colloqui di Ginevra, mentre si prevede un secondo round di colloqui a Sochi, coordinati dalla Russia, per il prossimo mese. Colombia nella NATO Colombia nuovo membro della NATO. A partire dalla settimana prossima, la Colombia sarà il primo Paese dell’America Latina ad aderire all’Alleanza atlantica, come partner globale. Nel decidere di entrare nella NATO, il Presidente della Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, rompe con la Dichiarazione dell’America Latina e dei Caraibi come Zona di Pace che lui stesso ha sottoscritto all’Avana, nel gennaio 2014, insieme a tutti i capi di stato o di governo della regione. Tutte le strade colombiane sembrano dunque, ancor di più, essere utilizzate per destabilizzare il Venezuela che, come altri luoghi dove è intervenuta la NATO, possiede importanti riserve di idrocarburi. La Polonia chiede agli USA basi militari 2 miliardi di dollari per una presenza militare permanente degli USA in Polonia, a protezione dalla Russia. La proposta del ministero della Difesa di Varsavia è stata inviata a Washinton senza prima essere discussa con il ministero degli Esteri e con Andrzej Duda, Presidente della Polonia nonche' comandante in capo delle forze armate. Il documento individua l'esatta ubicazione delle basi militari, nonche' di scuole, ospedali e addirittura palestre per personale e famiglie. "Un'iniziativa pericolosa”, commenta Mosca. La mossa arriva a poco giorni dal summit NATO previsto a Bruxelles e subito dopo l'acquisto da parte di Varsavia dei sistemi di difesa missilistici USA Patriot, per 4.75 miliardi di dollari.Anche l’India con l’Iran "L'India segue solo le sanzioni richieste dall'ONU, non quelle unilaterali annunciate da altri Paesi" cosi' si e' pronunciata ieri, lunedi' 28 maggio, il Ministro degli Esteri di New Delhi, Sushma Swara,j in merito alle sanzioni annunciate dagli USA contro l'Iran, durante una conferenza stampa congiunta a Delhi con l'omologo iraniano Mohammad Javad Zarif. L'Iran e' fra i maggiori esportatori di petrolio in India. Nel frattempo, la Russia, il cui presidente Vladimir Putin ha da poco incontrato il premier indiano Narendra Modi, ha organizzato per giovedi 31 maggio un incontro tra il ministro della Difesa, Sergiey Shoigù, e l'israeliano Avigdor Lieberman. Non sono stati resi noti i dettagli dell'incontro, ma l'Iran sara’ sicuramente in agenda, in particolare la sua presenza militare in Siria, contestata per l'ennesima volta sempre ieri dal primo ministro israeliano, Benjamin Nethanyahu, assieme all'accordo sul nucleare.Atti di vandalismo sulle intemperanze di Ivan il Terribile contro l’EuropaDurante l'orario di chiusura della Galleria Tretyakov di Mosca, giovedì scorso, un uomo ha vandalizzato uno dei più famosi e controversi dipinti della storia russa "Ivan il terribile uccide suo figlio" di Ilya Repin. L'uomo ha dichiarato alle autorità, subito intervenute, che è stata la vodka bevuta poco prima a fomentare la sua rabbia, e che il quadro è storicamente inaccurato e deve essere distrutto. La storia di Ivan IV di Russia è in effetti controversa. Il presidente russo Vladimir Putin, nel 2017, affermava: "Oggi molti esperti sostengono che il figlicidio sia un'invenzione del nunzio papale del tempo, mandato a est da un pontefice che voleva convertire la Russia ortodossa in una Russia cattolica”. Ora l'uomo rischia tre anni di carcere, mentre l'opera è stata ritirata per restauri.

La BCE applica lo schema greco all’Italia In questi giorni drammatici della storia repubblicana in cui si è aperta una gravissima crisi istituzionale e politica che vede la nascita dell'ennesimo governo di tecnocrati con a capo addirittura un funzionario del FMI un'altra notizia sta passando sotto silenzio. La Bce ha comunicato che gli acquisti di titoli da parte dell'eurosistema nell’ambito del programma di Quantitative easing sono calati nel corso della settimana terminata il 25 maggio a 3,831 miliardi di euro dai 5,309 miliardi della settimana precedente. Un calo di proporzioni enormi che non può non aver contribuito in maniera rilevante alla crescita mostruosa degli spread tra Bund e BTP di questi ultimi giorni. Viene in mente quanto accadde in Grecia prima delle elezioni che portarono alla vittoria di Tsipras quando l'allora capo del governo socialista George Papandreau accetto i miliardi della Trojka in cambio di un terribile piano di austerià che fece tracollare l'economa greca e che soprattutto ha vincolato l'azione politica di qualunque governo fosse arrivato successivamente. Sembra il destino che è stato designato per l'Italia con questo governo di minoranza e apparentemente innocuo ma non a caso guidato da quel funzionario dell'FMI soprannominato Mister Forbici.Nuova seria precisazione di Savona "Ho subito un grave torto dalla massima istituzione del Paese sulla base di un paradossale processo alle intenzioni di voler uscire dall’euro e non a quelle che professo e che ho ripetuto nel mio Comunicato, criticato dalla maggior parte dei media senza neanche illustrarne i contenuti. Vicino al mio pensiero è il commento di Wolfgang Münchau che nel suo commento sul Financial Times analizza come deve essere l’euro per non subire la dominanza mondiale del dollaro e della geopolitica degli Stati Uniti, affermando che la moneta europea è stata mal costruita per colpa della miopia dei tedeschi. La Germania impedisce che l’euro divenga come il dollaro “una parte essenziale della politica estera”. Purtroppo, egli aggiunge, il dollaro ha perso questa caratteristica, l’euro non è in condizione di rimpiazzarlo o, quanto meno, svolgere un ruolo parallelo, e di conseguenza siamo nel caos delle relazioni economiche internazionali; queste volgono verso il protezionismo nazionalistico, non certo foriero di stabilità politica, sociale ed economica. Il 28 e 29 giugno si terrà un incontro importante tra Capi di Stato a Bruxelles: chi rappresenterà le istanze del popolo italiano? Non potrà andarci Mattarella, né può farlo Cottarelli. Se non avesse avuto veti inaccettabili, perché infondati, il Governo Conte avrebbe potuto contare sul sostegno di Macron, così incanalando le reazioni scomposte che provengono dall’interno di tutti indistintamente i paesi-membri europei verso decisioni che aiutino l’Italia a uscire dalla china verso cui è stata spinta. Münchau giustamente afferma che “teme non vi sia un sostegno politico nel Nord Europa” e quindi non ci resta che patire gli effetti del protezionismo e dell’instabilità sociale. Si tratta di decidere se gli europeisti sono quelli che stanno creando le condizioni per la fine dell’UE o chi, come me, ne chiede la riforma per salvare gli obiettivi che si era prefissi."Steve Bannon contro Mattarella «Ciò che è successo ieri è disgustoso, è stata violata la sovranità dell’Italia, ad opera di poteri stranieri, media stranieri, capitali stranieri. L’Italia era in un momento storico perché il suo popolo voleva riprendersi il suo Paese, come gli inglesi quando hanno votato per la Brexit. Ma invece gli è stata tolta la sovranità. Hanno rifiutato un governo scelto con una maggioranza scelta dal popolo per metterci un altro burocrate che arriva dal Fondo monetario internazionale. Inconcepibile. L’Italia è in una crisi di sovranità, non provocata dal popolo italiano ma dal “partito di Davos”, i mercati finanziari. Combattono il popolo mentre questo cerca di riprendersi la sua sovranità. E come scusa usano lo spread, è disgustoso. Movimento Cinque Stelle e Lega, un partito populista di sinistra e uno populista di destra, hanno fatto insieme qualcosa di straordinario, qualcosa mai fatto prima nella storia, riuscendo a unire populisti di diverso orientamento, lavorando su un programma comune che ha senso e mettendo da parte le proprie posizioni personali, mostrando grande abilità e saggezza. I loro leader avevano anche fatto un passo indietro, avevano messo da parte le loro differenze per formare un governo populista. Per capire la difficoltà della sfida è stato come mettere assieme Bernie Sanders e Donald Trump. Noi in America non ci siamo riusciti, voi in Italia stavate per riuscirci, anzi, c’eravate riusciti. Ma il governo del cambiamento è stato stoppato prima. Il partito di Davos, di Berlino, di Londra, di Wall Street vuole impedire un governo populista e nazionalista in Italia. E da qui alle prossime elezioni l’intensità degli attacchi, politici, giornalistici e finanziari aumenterà. Ne vedremo delle belle. Ma per il partito di Davos sarà tutto inutile. Aver impedito la nascita del governo Conte è stato fatale, ha creato i prodromi della sua sconfitta».Ue: Ancora sanzioni contro il popolo della Siria "Il Consiglio Europeo ha esteso le misure restrittive contro la Siria e i suoi alleati fino al 1 giugno 2019, data la continua repressione della popolazione civile" cosi' recita una nota ufficiale di Bruxelles di ieri, lunedi' 28 giugno, proprio mentre le forze governative di Damasco, assieme agli alleati, stanno liberando il paese dai terroristi di Daesh. Aggiornate le sanzioni a 259 persone ed a 67 entita'. Aggiunte 4 persone "per il loro ruolo nell'uso di armi chimiche" continua la nota, nonostante l'OPAC sia ancora indagando sul presunto attacco chimico a Douma. Verranno estesi anche "l'embargo petrolifero in corso, le restrizioni su alcuni investimenti, il congelamento degli asset finanziari della Banca Centrale siriana, le restrizioni sull'export di equipaggiamenti tecnologici e per le intercettazioni internet e telefoniche, che, secondo Bruxelles, potrebbero essere usate per la repressione interna". Nell'applicare le sanzioni, il Consiglio precisa di escludere una soluzione militare al conflitto e di insistere per una soluzione politica appoggiando il lavoro dell'inviato speciale ONU e dei colloqui di Ginevra, per quanto al momento, come confermato sempre ieri dal consulente ONU per la Siria Vitaly Naumkin, non sia stata ancora fissata una data per i colloqui di Ginevra, mentre si prevede un secondo round di colloqui a Sochi, coordinati dalla Russia, per il prossimo mese. Colombia nella NATO Colombia nuovo membro della NATO. A partire dalla settimana prossima, la Colombia sarà il primo Paese dell’America Latina ad aderire all’Alleanza atlantica, come partner globale. Nel decidere di entrare nella NATO, il Presidente della Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, rompe con la Dichiarazione dell’America Latina e dei Caraibi come Zona di Pace che lui stesso ha sottoscritto all’Avana, nel gennaio 2014, insieme a tutti i capi di stato o di governo della regione. Tutte le strade colombiane sembrano dunque, ancor di più, essere utilizzate per destabilizzare il Venezuela che, come altri luoghi dove è intervenuta la NATO, possiede importanti riserve di idrocarburi. La Polonia chiede agli USA basi militari 2 miliardi di dollari per una presenza militare permanente degli USA in Polonia, a protezione dalla Russia. La proposta del ministero della Difesa di Varsavia è stata inviata a Washinton senza prima essere discussa con il ministero degli Esteri e con Andrzej Duda, Presidente della Polonia nonche' comandante in capo delle forze armate. Il documento individua l'esatta ubicazione delle basi militari, nonche' di scuole, ospedali e addirittura palestre per personale e famiglie. "Un'iniziativa pericolosa”, commenta Mosca. La mossa arriva a poco giorni dal summit NATO previsto a Bruxelles e subito dopo l'acquisto da parte di Varsavia dei sistemi di difesa missilistici USA Patriot, per 4.75 miliardi di dollari.Anche l’India con l’Iran "L'India segue solo le sanzioni richieste dall'ONU, non quelle unilaterali annunciate da altri Paesi" cosi' si e' pronunciata ieri, lunedi' 28 maggio, il Ministro degli Esteri di New Delhi, Sushma Swara,j in merito alle sanzioni annunciate dagli USA contro l'Iran, durante una conferenza stampa congiunta a Delhi con l'omologo iraniano Mohammad Javad Zarif. L'Iran e' fra i maggiori esportatori di petrolio in India. Nel frattempo, la Russia, il cui presidente Vladimir Putin ha da poco incontrato il premier indiano Narendra Modi, ha organizzato per giovedi 31 maggio un incontro tra il ministro della Difesa, Sergiey Shoigù, e l'israeliano Avigdor Lieberman. Non sono stati resi noti i dettagli dell'incontro, ma l'Iran sara’ sicuramente in agenda, in particolare la sua presenza militare in Siria, contestata per l'ennesima volta sempre ieri dal primo ministro israeliano, Benjamin Nethanyahu, assieme all'accordo sul nucleare.Atti di vandalismo sulle intemperanze di Ivan il Terribile contro l’EuropaDurante l'orario di chiusura della Galleria Tretyakov di Mosca, giovedì scorso, un uomo ha vandalizzato uno dei più famosi e controversi dipinti della storia russa "Ivan il terribile uccide suo figlio" di Ilya Repin. L'uomo ha dichiarato alle autorità, subito intervenute, che è stata la vodka bevuta poco prima a fomentare la sua rabbia, e che il quadro è storicamente inaccurato e deve essere distrutto. La storia di Ivan IV di Russia è in effetti controversa. Il presidente russo Vladimir Putin, nel 2017, affermava: "Oggi molti esperti sostengono che il figlicidio sia un'invenzione del nunzio papale del tempo, mandato a est da un pontefice che voleva convertire la Russia ortodossa in una Russia cattolica”. Ora l'uomo rischia tre anni di carcere, mentre l'opera è stata ritirata per restauri.

Early years of Ivan IV, the Terrible. On his reaching maturity, Moscow resumes its bid for control of the neighbouring khanate of Kazan, already weakened by decades of instability See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

L'agenda de concerts d'aquests dies es multiplica en volum i qualitat gr

Adrian now begins to discuss the reign of Ivan IV "The Terrible" or more accurately Ivan "The Awesome" in detail. He discusses Ivan IV's reign in four two-hour lectures. Copyright 2014 Adrian Jones / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

Adrian concludes his lecture series by discussing the Time of Troubles in Russia which followed the death of Ivan IV in 1584: the periods of Tsars Fedor Ivanovich and Boris Godunov, and the ensuing civil war. He tries to set these events in a wider European context. Copyright 2014 Adrian Jones / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

Adrian concludes his lecture series by discussing the Time of Troubles in Russia which followed the death of Ivan IV in 1584: the periods of Tsars Fedor Ivanovich and Boris Godunov, and the ensuing civil war. He tries to set these events in a wider European context. Copyright 2014 Adrian Jones / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

Adrian concludes his lecture series by discussing the Time of Troubles in Russia which followed the death of Ivan IV in 1584: the periods of Tsars Fedor Ivanovich and Boris Godunov, and the ensuing civil war. He tries to set these events in a wider European context. Copyright 2014 Adrian Jones / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

Adrian now begins to discuss the reign of Ivan IV "The Terrible" or more accurately Ivan "The Awesome" in detail. He discusses Ivan IV's reign in four two-hour lectures. Copyright 2014 Adrian Jones / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

Adrian now begins to discuss the reign of Ivan IV "The Terrible" or more accurately Ivan "The Awesome" in detail. He discusses Ivan IV's reign in four two-hour lectures. Copyright 2014 Adrian Jones / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

Adrian now begins to discuss the reign of Ivan IV "The Terrible" or more accurately Ivan "The Awesome" in detail. He discusses Ivan IV's reign in four two-hour lectures. Copyright 2014 Adrian Jones / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

Adrian now begins to discuss the reign of Ivan IV "The Terrible" or more accurately Ivan "The Awesome" in detail. He discusses Ivan IV's reign in four two-hour lectures. Copyright 2014 Adrian Jones / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

Ivan nearing the end of his life strikes out at his own son causing the eventual end of the Rurik line of rulers.

Ivan, now in true psychopathic mode begins the full-scale terror of the Oprichnina period.

Ivan IV, fresh from the victory at Kazan, endures two tragic events in the coming years, the death of his son Dmitri and his wife Anastasia.

Ivan, fresh off his wedding and coronation, sets off the rid himself of the Tartar menace in Kazan.

Ivan IV, now rid of his antagonists, gets ready to ascend to the throne and get married. Then crisis strikes the young Tsar.

Ivan, left to fend for himself is largely ignored by his supposed protectors. Traumatic events were to follow his youthfull years.

Young Ivan IV, Grand Prince of Moscow, serves as a figurehead ruler with his mother as Regent.

The series contiues with the role Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible) played in Russian civilization. Emphasis is placed on his contributions, which included the collection and distribution of folklore. A discussion on his epithet "Ivan the Terrible" is also provided. I was surprised to find that although Ivan IV carried out several wicked acts, he was nonetheless praised as a good ruler. His character and reign marked the beginning of a type of rule that will come to dominate Russia. His interest in folklore provides the basis for collection and distribution of Russian folklore. Special attention is given to this subject in this episode. For a better understanding of Russian folklore, I turn to Vladimir Propp, author of "The Morphology of Folklore". Enjoy!

The title of this episode is Coping.It's time once again to lay down our focus on the Western Church to see what's happening in the East.With the arrival of Modernity, the Church in Europe and the New World was faced with the challenge of coping in what we'll call the post-Constantine era. The social environment was no longer favorable toward Christianity. The institutional Church could no longer count on the political support it enjoyed since the 4th C. The 18th C saw Western Christianity faced with the challenge of secular states that may not be outright hostile but tended to ignore it.In the East, Christianity faced far more than benign neglect for a long time. When Constantinople fell in 1453 to the Turks, The Faith came under a repressive regime that alternately neglected and persecuted it.While during the Middle Ages in Europe, Popes were often more powerful than Kings, the Byzantine Emperor ruled the Church. Greek patriarchs were functionaries under his lead. If they failed to comply with his dictates, they were deposed and replaced by those who would. When the Emperor decided reuniting with Rome was required to save the empire, the reunion was accomplished against the counsel of Church leaders. Then, just a  year later, Constantinople fell to the Ottomans. Many Eastern Christians regarded this calamity as a blessing. They viewed it as liberation from a tyrannical emperor who'd forced them into a union with a heretical church in Rome.The new Ottoman regime initially granted the Church limited freedom. Since the patriarch fled to Rome, the conqueror of Constantinople, Mohammed II, allowed the bishops to elect a new patriarch.  He was given both civil and ecclesiastical authority over Christians in the East. In the capital, half the churches were converted to mosques. The other half were allowed to continue worship without much change.In 1516, the Ottomans conquered the ancient seat of Middle Eastern Christianity in Syria and Palestine. The church there was put under the oversight of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Then, when Egypt fell a year later, the Patriarch of Alexandria was given authority over all Christians in Egypt. Under the Ottomans, Eastern Church Patriarchs had vast power over Christians in their realm, but they only served at the Sultan's pleasure and were often deposed for resisting his policies.In 1629, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris, wrote what was considered by many, a Protestant treatise titled Confession of Faith. He was then deposed and executed. Fifty years later, a synod condemned him as a “Calvinist heretic.” But by the 18th C, the Reformation wasn't a concern of the Eastern Church. What was, was the arrival of Western philosophy and science. In the 19th C, when Greece gained independence from Turkey, the debate became political. Greek nationalism advocated Western methods of academics and scholarship. The Greeks also demanded that the Greek Church ought to be independent of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Conservatives wanted to subsume scholarship under tradition and retain allegiance to Constantinople.During the 19th and early 20th Cs, the Ottoman Empire broke up, allowing national Orthodox churches to form in Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania. The tension between nationalist and conservative Orthodoxy dominated the scene. In the period between the two world wars, the Patriarch of Constantinople acknowledged the autonomy of Orthodox churches in the Balkans, Estonia, Latvia, and Czechoslovakia.Early in the 20th C, the ancient patriarchates of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch were ruled by Arabs. But the newly formed states existed under the shadow of Western powers. This was a time when out of a desire to identify with larger groups who could back them up politically and militarily, a large number of Middle Eastern Christians became either Catholic or Protestant. But an emergent Arab nationalism reacted against Western influence. The growth of both Protestantism and Catholicism was curbed. By the second half of the 20th C, the only nations where Eastern Orthodox Christianity retained its identity as a state church were Greece and Cyprus.The fall of Constantinople in 1453 was viewed by Russian Christians as God's punishment for its reunion with the heretical Rome. They regarded Moscow as the “3rd Rome” and the new capital whose task was to uphold Orthodoxy. In 1547, Ivan IV took the title “czar,” drawn from the ancient “Caesar” a proper name that had come to mean “emperor.” The Russian rulers deemed themselves the spiritual heirs to the Roman Empire. Fifty years later, the Metropolitan of Moscow took the title of Patriarch. The Russian Church then churned out a barrage of polemics against the Greek Orthodox Church, Roman Catholics, and Protestants. By the 17th C, the Russian Orthodox Church was so independent when attempts were made by some to re-integrate the Church with its Orthodox brothers, it led to a schism in the Russian church and a bloody rebellion.Now—I just used the term “metropolitan.” We mentioned this in an earlier episode, but now would be a good time for a recap on terms.The Roman Catholic Church is presided over by a Pope whose authority is total, complete. The Eastern Orthodox Church is led by a Patriarch, but his authority isn't as far-reaching as the Pope. Technically, his authority extends just to his church. But realistically, because his church is located in an important center, his influence extends to all the churches within the sphere of his city. While there is only one pope, there might be several Patriarchs who lead various branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church.A Metropolitan equates loosely to an arch-bishop; someone who leads a church that influences the churches around it.Peter the Great's desire to westernize a recalcitrant Russia led to an interest on the part of Russian clergy in both Catholic and Protestant theology. Orthodoxy wasn't abandoned; it was simply embellished with new methods. The Kievan school adopted a Catholic flavor while the followers of Theophanes Prokopovick leaned toward Protestantism. In the late 19th C, a Slavophile movement under the leadership of Alexis Khomiakov applied some of Hegel's analytics to make a synthesis called sobornost; a merging of the Catholic idea of authority with the Protestant view of freedom.Obviously, the Russian Revolution at the beginning of the 20th C put an end to all this with the arrival of a different Western Philosophy - Marxism. In 1918, the Church was officially separated from the State. The Russian Constitution of 1936 guaranteed “freedom for religious worship” but also “freedom for anti-religious propaganda.” In the 1920s, religious instruction in schools was outlawed. Seminaries were closed. After the death of the Russian Patriarch in 1925, the Church was forbidden to name a successor until 1943. The State needed all the help it could get rallying the population in the war with Germany. The seminaries were re-opened and permission was given to print a limited number of religious books.In the late 20th C, after 70 years of Communist rule, the Russian Orthodox Church still had 60 million members.In a recent conversation I had with a woman who grew up in Czechoslovakia during the Soviet Era, she remarked that under the Communists the Church survived, though few attended services. Freedom of religion was the official policy under the Soviets. But in reality, those who professed faith in God were marked down and passed over for education, housing, and other amenities, thin as they were under the harsh Soviet heel. You could be a Christian under Communism; but if you were, you were pretty lonely.Several years ago, when Russia opened to the rest of the world, I had a chance to go in with a team to teach the Inductive Study method as part of Russia's attempt to teach its youth morality and ethics.A senior citizen attended the class who between sessions regaled us with tales of being a believer under Communism. He looked like something straight out of an old, grimy black and white photo of a wizened old man with thinning white hair whose wrinkled face speaks volumes in the suffering he'd endured. He told us that he'd spent several stints in Russian prisons for refusing to kowtow to the Party line and steadfastly cleaving to his faith in God.It's remarkable the Church survived under Communism in the Soviet Bloc. Stories of the fall of the Soviets in the early '80s are often the tale of a resurgent Church.There are other Orthodox churches in various parts of the world. There's the Orthodox Church of Japan, China, and Korea. These communions, begun by Russian missionaries, are today, indigenous and autonomous, with a national clergy and membership, as well as a liturgy conducted in their native tongue.Due to social strife, political upheavals, persecution, and the general longing for a better life, large numbers of Orthodox believers have moved to distant lands. But as they located in their new home, they often transported the old tensions. Orthodoxy believes there can only be a single Orthodox congregation in a city. So, what to do when there are Greek, Russian or some other flavor of Eastern Orthodox believers all sharing the same community?Keep in mind not all churches in the East are part of Eastern Orthodoxy. Since the Christological controversies in the 5th C, a number of churches that disagreed with established creeds maintained their independence. In Persia, most Christians refused to refer to Mary as Theotokos = the Mother of God. They were labeled as Nestorians and declared heretical; though as we saw way back when we were looking at all this, Nestorius himself was not a heretic. Nestorians are more frequently referred to as Assyrian Christians, with a long history. During the Middle Ages, the Assyrian church had many members with missions extending as far as China. In modern times, the Assyrian Church has suffered severe persecution from Muslims. Early in the 20th C and again more recently, persecution decimated its members. Recent predations by ISIS were aimed at these brethren.Those churches that refused to accept the findings of the Council of Chalcedon were called Monophysites because they elevated the deity of Christ over His humanity to such a degree it seemed to make that humanity irrelevant. The largest of these groups were the Copts of Egypt and Ethiopia. The Ethiopian church was the last Eastern church to receive State support. That support ended with the overthrow of Haile Selassie in 1974. The ancient Syrian Monophysite Church, known more popularly as Jacobite, continued in Syria and Iraq. Its head was the Patriarch of Antioch who lived in Damascus. Technically under this patriarchate, but in reality autonomous, the Syrian Church in India has half a million members.As we saw in a previous episode, the Armenian Church also refused to accept the Chalcedonian Creed, because it resented the lack of support from Rome when the Persians invaded. When the Turks conquered Armenia, the fierce loyalty of the Armenians to their faith became one more spark that lit the fuse of ethnic hostility. In 1895, 96, and again in 1914 when the world was distracted elsewhere by The Great War, thousands of Armenians living under Turkish rule were massacred. A million escaped to Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Greece, France, and other Western nations where the memory of the Armenian Holocaust lives on and continues to play an important role in international relations and the development of foreign policy.