quently threatened from the south and south-east (by the Pechenegs, etc.), and thus the outflow of Russian energies was directed towards the north. Northward and north-eastward lay unoccupied land, and this therefore was the direction of voluntary and involuntary colonisation. It was not merely the pressure of the Pechenegs and later of the Tatars, but perhaps even more the oppression of the petty princely tyrants, which induced the Russian population to seek refuge in the north and the north-east and to found colonies in these regions.
Just as sovereignty passed from Kiev to the more northerly situated Moscow, so at a later date did sovereignty pass yet further northward to St. Petersburg, thence to centralise the southern regions and the entire land.
We have to remember that at this epoch the land to the south and east of Kiev was not Slav or Russian, so that here Tatar rule could more readily be established.
Some historians draw attention to the distinction between Little Russia and Great Russia, suggesting that the Great Russians of Moscow were more energetic, more warlike, and ruder in character, when compared with the inhabitants of Little Russia, who were of gentler disposition. But national characteristics have not as yet been defined with sufficient precision. Nor must we forget that such qualities change, and that they themselves stand in need of explanation. It is questionable whether the Kievic Russians already exhibited the characteristics of the Little Russians of to-day, and whether the Muscovites proper then possessed the qualities they now exhibit. It is obvious, moreover, that energy, courage in war, and roughness of disposition, do not suffice per se to lead to the centralisation of a great realm, and that a certain amount of administrative capacity is requisite in addition. We have to remember that the main topic of consideration at the moment is not the Russian people but the Russian state.
This much is certain, that attempts at centralisation were made by the princes of Kiev. Vladimir Monomachus (1113–1125) united a considerable portion of the minor principalities, whilst in Andrei Bogoljubskii (ob. 1174) we have an absolutist tsar before the Moscow tsars.
Commerce likewise contributed greatly towards the unification of Russia. For Kiev, trade with economically more
