The author of this overview of Ivan the Terrible's life makes a point about words in translation. "Terrible" might mean cruel, but it just as likely could mean awesome. Then, the author tells of the paucity of facts still available about Ivan. The author then posits the likelihood that with so few facts available, some writers in past centuries may have made up stories or accepted folklore as facts in relation to Ivan. In other words, Ivan may have not been so terrible.
Ivan certainly had a miserable childhood; his dad died during his toddler years and his mother died during his adolescence. He was sent to live with others who were underwhelmed with another mouth to feed but had no difficulty draining his inheritance (to live lavishly themselves).
Ivan did (accidentally) strike his heir, causing his death. He was also the cause of his son's wife having a stillborn child. Ivan, after his first wife's death, seemed to have uncontrollable rages, for which he was very contrite afterward. However, the damage was already done.
Another point the author makes is that we are looking at Ivan through today's lens; having a powerful, strong leader was imperative in their day and that 'terrible' may have been a way to show other countries that their leader was a fearsome being who shouldn't be irritated or challenged. This is a very interesting take on a man who lived 400+ years ago.
Ivan certainly had a miserable childhood; his dad died during his toddler years and his mother died during his adolescence. He was sent to live with others who were underwhelmed with another mouth to feed but had no difficulty draining his inheritance (to live lavishly themselves).
Ivan did (accidentally) strike his heir, causing his death. He was also the cause of his son's wife having a stillborn child. Ivan, after his first wife's death, seemed to have uncontrollable rages, for which he was very contrite afterward. However, the damage was already done.
Another point the author makes is that we are looking at Ivan through today's lens; having a powerful, strong leader was imperative in their day and that 'terrible' may have been a way to show other countries that their leader was a fearsome being who shouldn't be irritated or challenged. This is a very interesting take on a man who lived 400+ years ago.
