The cost of an armed and equipped rider during the time of Ivan IV the Terrible: estimates from an expert

The development of the army is impossible without investing financial resources in it. Moreover, this is an axiom for the army of any historical period. Investment in the armed forces also provides technological superiority over the enemy. The connection between the amount of money invested and gaining an advantage “on the battlefield” is, of course, not directly proportional, but without investments it is impossible to say that it is easier or just as likely to achieve victory than with such, of course.

When it comes to the main combat forces in Russia of the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries, we are usually talking about horsemen. In this regard, the question arises, how much could the Russian state spend from the treasury to create such a number of cavalry detachments that would allow not only to defend the borders of the Fatherland, but also to claim the annexation of new lands? To answer this question, you need to figure out how much one rider cost at the time mentioned. The cost is comparable to the cost of a modern tank? Value judgment ...

Blogger, historian, critic Klim Zhukov analyzes this issue in detail. The material published on his channel presents arguments about the cost of one horseman during the reign of Ivan the Terrible in Russia.

We are talking not only about the horse as, let's say, a means of transportation, but also about a large number of elements of the rider's ammunition, his weapons... Saddle, armor, blade. Moreover, it is hardly possible to extrapolate the prices of one of these things for the entire set of uniforms and weapons, due to the fact that the current and then price ratios do not exactly correspond to each other. We are talking, for example, about the ratio of metal prices to the prices of leather goods. However, there is still something to cling to in terms of economic estimates, the cost of one horseman during the times of Ivan IV, which is what Klim Zhukov did.

An expert's estimate of the cost of an armed and equipped Russian rider:

Comments

[seti]

I've been watching his channel and his interview with Goblin for a long time. Really very interesting and informative.

[Cat]

I join, especially if there are two pink pigs on the table and Dementius behind the scenes :)

[Denis812]

I'm probably some kind of out-of-date, but I can't stand such "half-articles", where there is a hat, and then a vidos for an hour ...
In the text, you can scroll through and find the "cost" of this very rider in five seconds, but in the video I have to sit and stick into the screen, hoping not to miss important information.

[james]

Video for those who have a lot of free time

[Zadok]

just vehemently welcome this opinion! and it also pisses me off that the YouTube preview of the embedded videos does not show the duration - you need to start the video to find out

[Volodin]

Quote: Denis812

I'm probably some kind of out-of-date, but I can't stand such "half-articles", where there is a hat, and then a vidos for an hour ...

Perhaps I will reveal a great secret now. But this is the "Video" section. And if you entered it, then it is hardly worth looking for detailed text articles in it, even based on the title of the section ... "

[Denis812]

Very cool. Only I did not go into this very section of the video, but only followed the link from the main page.
I don’t go to the Video at all, precisely for the reason that the video is, of course, interesting, but not at all for articles.

[paul3390]

The conclusion is simple - the life of a nobleman in those days was oh, how easy it was. It is not easy to be a nobleman .. And the dough must be immeasurably, and the whole life is in hikes on horseback. And the people saw what was happening, and therefore tolerated serfdom, gritting their teeth - they understood that the landowner had to be not too much sweeter. The defenders of the state had to be fed and supported, where else could you go.

But after the decree on the type of liberties of the nobility - everything went downhill. For if a nobleman is no longer obliged to serve as a sovereign, why should he be fed? What is he doing useful for the state? On what grounds does he rob people? Everything ended naturally - a revolution. For it has become unbearable to endure such ghouls ..

Now - everything is returning to normal. Again we are feeding a terrible horde of idlers who, in response, do not consider us to be people. So, draft animals. Well - and this time it will end in the same way, with a socialist revolution. Will finish badly. Their history teaches nothing ..

[Zadok]

.... so also the squad must be exhibited. Wagner smokes on the sidelines

[paul3390]

Uh-huh .. And if the harvest is poor? Will the horses rest? And will they chop the saber himself on the campaign? Will the pestilence come? They will ask a nobleman for service anyway. No - in those days no one ate their bread for free. Each pulled his own tax - from the sovereign to the last slave. Russia was too poor to allow itself to contain outright loafers. At least - in large numbers ... And - she had too many strong enemies on all borders.

[Andobor]

Quote: paul3390

Russia was too poor

Russia was relatively rich, the Russian peasant produced, on average, of course, two of his subsistence products, so he had something to withdraw, in Europe at that time a little more than a unit, and since the distribution was uneven, those who did not get units had to constantly be reduced so that something that a little more to extract from the people, so they constantly fought, sailed away in America, burned them on fires, climbed up to us. During the reign of Ivan the Terrible, about 5-10 thousand people were executed for political reasons, and in England 300 extra for vagrancy were hanged, tens of thousands of witches were burned, hundreds of thousands were massacred in religious wars in Europe. In Russia, witches were not burned, and they did not hang just like that, although there were also problems and hunger and pestilence.

[unhappy]

And you will familiarize yourself in more detail with the topic of the wealth of Russia and its neighbors, and you will have no illusions. We could dream of those sums spent on the army. Peter the first was a beggar against the background of Western Europe and the idea of ​​the population size is greatly overestimated. Ivan the Terrible, too, could not boast of his treasury. Wars were fought outside their own forces, they won in spite of the initial conditions.

[Andobor]

Quote: unhappy

Wars were fought outside their own forces, they won in spite of the initial conditions.

Contrary to it does not happen regularly, but they won regularly, Europe was impoverished, in comparison with Russia, though with a high number and density of population.
Millions of Europeans from poverty poured into Russia - "Germans", to serve and work, all classes.

[unhappy]

You don't know much about history, alas.
Northern Italy, Holland, France and Spain - these were the leaders in the field of finance and in the field of technology and resources! If you don't know, edged weapons and armor made in Europe are much superior to those of Asian countries (as well as the art of fighting with a sword). The army of Peter the Great was armed with imported weapons from Holland and France (technologies and resources of Russia could not provide many and high-quality "trunks", then it was an arquebus or a fusea). We were forced to use "swamp" - bad iron, for example, from Petrozavodsk. I say, contrary to the initial conditions, they won.
Sanctions and restrictions were also not invented today

[Andobor]

Quote: unhappy

Northern Italy, Holland, France and Spain - these were the leaders in the field of finance and in the field of technology and resources!

I know this, all this is a product of a high population density due to natural conditions, high productivity of the landscape, I want to say that in an average approximation, the Russian peasant produced much more - his two living wages, one was taken from him for the war and so on, and the European one, let's say 1,2 and for the war 0,2 of his subsistence product was withdrawn, and with a population density in Europe two orders of magnitude more, 100 times, from the same territory in Russia it was possible to withdraw 1 for the war, and in Europe 20, hence the difference in wealth, or, for example, the quality of roads, to build one kilometer in Europe or a hundred in Russia - the relative costs are the same, so is everything else.
And when in Europe many did not pull by one unit, they were stupidly burned, hung, cut out in centuries of wars. What explanations - religion, law, witches, while invented this a second time, they were just superfluous.

[unhappy]

Let me tell you a secret - Russia is not a very suitable land for agriculture and, for example, the peasants of France, Italy and Holland gathered much better harvests (moreover, wheat and not rye). In general, agriculture was more developed there.

[Andobor]

Quote: unhappy

In general, agriculture was more developed there.

Yes, but agricultural productivity per capita was much lower, due to the high population density, because they were engaged in crafts, war, trade and, and in difficult times, the "Little Ice Age" - the times of Ivan the Terrible, the "superfluous" were stupidly liquidated - they hung them up, burned them in bonfires, cut them down in constant wars, sometimes they splashed out to us - the same was reduced.

[unhappy]

Let me explain on my fingers - in the non-black earth zone it is normal to collect 20-30 centners per hectare, in the Kuban 70-80 centners per hectare. The peasant can hurt his forehead, but the productivity (per capita) of the regions of Kuban, France and Italy will be better - there is a favorable climate.
PS: the expansion of peoples, revolts, wars, diseases and hunger are inherent in all countries, and not only in Europe. Do not look for the ideal in the history of the Earth, all people are the same

[Andobor]

taking into account

Quote: unhappy

A peasant can hurt his forehead, but productivity (per capita)

Do not take into account the population density, in Italy 2 people live per hectare, in the Non-Black Earth Region 3 hectares per person, the Italian produces 26 centners, 57 in Russian (the yield figures are modern, Russia 19, Italy 52), the ratio has always been this.

[Cat]

We ourselves can see Klim Sanych. And what about the article?
They would have taken it and immediately wrote that a boyar child with a fighting servant and a koshovy wagon train should equip 2000 poods of rye.

[Crowe]

In order to get ready for a campaign from scratch (suppose that our boyar son is either a firefighter, or lost all his service junk and so on in an unsuccessful campaign), a serving man "by his fatherland" in the middle of the 40th century had to spend only on himself (not counting his servants ) about 50-5 rubles. And this is without a tent, kitchen utensils and other simple household items that made it possible to establish a Spartan camp life! Roughly, if you imagine the size of the disaster, then a cow is 1 rubles, a ram is 5 ruble, and for 7 - XNUMX rubles you could buy a hut ...

[Mikhail3]

It's funny that under Ivan the Terrible, nicknamed Vasilyevich for his cruelty, the treasury did not bother with paying for the rider's weapons) Well, that is, in general. I mean, absolutely. It would be pretty wild to pay for the weapons of the boyars)
Instead, the tsar naturally gave the boyars land "for feeding." And this very "feeding" is not in the sense of "is", "to eat" is generally shoved into the womb, as historians understand it with their powerful understanding, but from the word "nourish", that is, to manage. The word was formed from the stern oar of a ship called the helm. The tsar noticed people who were ready, first of all, to desperately fight for their homeland. Putting her one and only life on the line for her in every battle.
And since the state needs someone to deal with, how to manage the case (the same, yeah, from the stern oar, to rule the case - to do it as a senior, leader), then this method was chosen. Do you have desire and strength? Land on you. Into management. From this land you are obliged to send so many warriors, and, of course, go out to fight yourself. Your warriors are so many peshoi, so many horses, all are armed. And BOYARIN pays for all this. And not the treasury! Every year there is a military review - how many warriors, how weapons, how trained. And service at the borders, or a campaign. And if you are a bad manager and you haven’t provided the warriors, then the treasury takes the land away. You can’t ... don’t torture me ... That's all the pay from the treasury, damn it!
Yes, the king also gave money. And he especially favored those who distinguished himself, and gave to the young boyars, it was. But not on weapons! Just for acquiring, for money management, so to speak. If you are good at it, you need to support the person. Do not salt money in the treasury, you need to give them growth! So that they return there with taxes from the boyar estate, greatly multiplying.
In general, the royal treasury gave a horseman a strictly defined amount. Zero point, shish tenths, and from the cat's paws a stomp! Maybe someday we will have experts on the old days. But absolutely definitely, with one hundred percent probability there will not be a single historian among them. Neither old nor modern. God forbid...