Editing Ivan I of Moscow (section)

==Legacy==
Ivan received his sobriquet, ''Kalita'' ({{lit|money bag}}),{{sfn|Favereau|2021|page=229}} because of his generosity and compassion for the poor, according to some sources.{{sfn|Borisov|1995|page=34}} The abbot Paphnutius of Borovsk ({{died in|1477}}) told his disciples that Ivan received his sobriquet "for he was very merciful and carried a ''kalita'' on his belt, always filled with silver coins, and wherever he went, he gave to the poor as much as could be taken out".{{sfn|Borisov|1995|page=34}} Another view supported by [[Vasily Klyuchevsky]] says that the sobriquet was given ironically and reflected his stinginess.{{sfn|Borisov|1995|pages=7–8}}

The ''Trinity Chronicle'', written in the early 15th-century, borrows the characterization of Ivan that was promoted in his own court and hails his policy of appeasing the Mongols:{{sfn|Martin|1995|page=195}}

{{blockquote|text=
[When] grand-prince Ivan Danilovich [Kalita of Moscow] obtained the grand-principality of all Russia, there came a great peace for forty years; the infidels ceased to fight against the land of the Rus' and kill Christians; the Christians found relief and appeasement away from the great troubles, the many oppressions and from Tatar violence, and there was great peace in all the land.{{sfn|Meyendorff|2010|page=157}}
|source=''Trinity Chronicle''
}}
[[File:Simon Ushakov - Древо государства Московского (Похвала Богоматери Владимирской) - Google Art Project.jpg|thumb|''Praise of Our Lady of Vladimir, Tree of the Muscovite State'', 17th-century icon by [[Simon Ushakov]]. Ivan&nbsp;I is shown at the bottom along with Metropolitan Peter.]]

The first modern Russian historian, [[Nikolay Karamzin]], gives Ivan the title of "gatherer of the Russian lands" in his ''Memoir on Ancient and Modern Russia'', adding that he was "cunning".{{sfn|Borisov|1995|page=6}}{{sfn|Karamzin|Pipes|2005|pages=107–108}} Karamzin also says: "A small town, scarcely known before the fourteenth century, long called from contempt for its insignificance 'village Kuchkovo' raised its head and saved the fatherland".{{sfn|Borisov|1995|page=6}}{{sfn|Karamzin|Pipes|2005|pages=107–108}} [[Sergey Solovyov (historian)|Sergey Solovyov]] in contrast is reserved about his characterization of Ivan, only repeating Karamzin's title and noting that he "rid the Russian land of thieves".{{sfn|Borisov|1995|page=6}} Soviet-era historians are more critical of Ivan, following the writings of [[Karl Marx]] where he is described as the "Tartar's hangman, sycophant, and slave-in-chief".{{sfn|Borisov|1995|pages=8–9}}

According to [[Vasily Klyuchevsky]], after the prince of Moscow received the title of grand prince, a "princely union" was formed around Moscow, which during the reign of Ivan was "financial and bonded".{{sfn|Shaikhutdinov|2021|page=5}} After the transfer of the metropolitan see, Moscow became an ecclesiastical capital before it became a political capital, and as a result, "the rich material resources at the disposal of the Russian Church began to flock to Moscow, helping to enrich it".{{sfn|Shaikhutdinov|2021|page=6}} Klyuchevsky also notes the attitude of the population: "Finally, in the Moscow prince, Northern Russia is accustomed to seeing the eldest son of the Russian Church, the closest friend and collaborator of the main Russian hierarch, to consider Moscow a city on which the special blessing of the greatest saint of the Russian land rests...".{{sfn|Shaikhutdinov|2021|page=6}} Klyuchevsky also characterizes Ivan as a "miserly prince" and says that all the princes of Moscow starting from Ivan were cunning pragmatists who "diligently tended to the khan and made him an instrument for their plans".{{sfn|Borisov|1995|page=7}}

Robert O. Crummey says that the greatest of Ivan's victories was the metropolitan moving his residence to Moscow.{{sfn|Crummey|2014|page=40}} He says: "From that time on, Moscow was the residence of the head of the Russian Orthodox hierarchy and its princes played the role of primary protectors of the church... Moscow became a pilgrimage centre...".{{sfn|Crummey|2014|page=40}} Crummey also says that church leaders had struggled to preserve the unity of the Orthodox hierarchy as the rulers of Lithuania had made repeated attempts to set up a separate metropolis, and as a result, the metropolitan typically backed Moscow's claims to unify their flock due to the belief that appeasing the khan coincided much better with the interests of the church.{{sfn|Crummey|2014|page=40}}

According to [[Christoph Baumer]], "Özbeg took a fateful decision when he abandoned the former policy of divide and rule by making the new grand prince responsible for collecting and passing on the tribute and taxes from all the Russian cities. Ivan delivered these exactions punctually, so further strengthening his position of privilege. In this way he laid the foundations for Moscow's future as a regional great power that in the 1380s would challenge the Golden Horde itself".{{sfn|Baumer|2016|p=268}}

[[Hélène Carrère d'Encausse]] says that thanks to the Mongols, Ivan Kalita received the title of grand prince, "and with it the right to collect tribute from the Russian principalities and administer judgment among the princes. The dream of the founder of Moscow was becoming a reality: his principality was turning into the political center of the country, moreover, the center of gravity of the conquered Russian lands".{{sfn|Shaikhutdinov|2021|page=63}}{{sfn|d'Encausse|2005|p=2}}