How did Moscow become the capital/most important city in Russia?

It is still unknown what "moscow" means and how it all started, but consider these factors.

1. Moscow and its surrounding province is forest, which makes it hard for hordes to survive, advance and battle either in the winter or in the summer. However, Russians can happily live in forests.

2. Religion: many temples/monasteries built there because of reason 1. and Russians at exactly that time were quite religious. The first thing kniaz (king) would consider in a new place was

where am I gonna pray around here? I shoulda get some instructions from God to carry the daily duty. are there many monks around? could they protect the area from daemons?

3. Once Sergius, Russian main saint of all times, blessed Moscow and its king, it was set to be a capital.

On the territory of the former USSR about 1000AC the most modern cities were Samarkand, Bukhara, Gurganj, Kharezm and so on. Not Kiev. These times it was the Islam civilization that was the most civilized. Kiev and the whole Eastern and Western Europe were the barbarous outskirts. In Christian Europe, only Byzanz was somewhat cultured.

But the Middle Asia remained modern and rich only while the Silk Way worked. After Vasco Da Gama opened the trade route by the ocean, the life of MA quickly started to be poor and backward. Only Persia managed to retain some industry of its own.

But of course, these cities wouldn't become the capital of the Russia simply as very foreign cities. Rarely the capital appears on an annexed land. St.Petersburg is a very rare exception.

Kiev was already strongly degraded by Mongols, but even if it wasn't, it couldn't become a capital of Russia for the same reason - it was taken from a neighbour.

On the other side, there could be another center of uniting of Eastern Slavs lands. And there was! The Lithuania's state language was Belorussian. Vilnius was the main capital and Minsk the second one. Lithuania included Kiev as a city of lesser importance than these two. For many centuries Lithuania at first alone or united with Poland later was much more powerful than Moscow state. It was this double-state that saved Europe from Ottomans.

Why didn't Vilnius or Warsaw become the capital of a great state from the Central Europe to the Far East? Because Poland/Lithuania lost to the Russia. The reasons of THAT could be the subject of another question.

It didn't. Russia is the result of Muscovy's expansion, not the other way around. An accurate formulation for the question is how and why Muscovy become the dominant power in the region.

Prescisely because it's in the middle of nowhere.

Basically, during the centuries of Mongol invasions and occupations, Moscow, at first a tiny town, found itself bypassed by the rampaging hordes, because it was small, poor, hard to get to on horseback and surrounded by richer pickings.

Its rulers also recognized the futility of trying to fight the Mongols quicker than others and became good vassals that collected Mongol taxes from other Rus principalities.

The combination of those factors led to refugees from all over the other Rus lands to stream into Moscow as an island of peace, which led to a meteoric rise in population and power.

Fast forward 2 centuries and when the Mongols weakened enough to throw the yoke off, Moscow was in a position to emerge as a leader and start rolling up the other principalities, kinda like Prussia with the other German states in the 19th century.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory/chapter/ivan-i-and-the-rise-of-moscow/

MichaelF, to answer the second part of your question, or just maybe an aside to your post, St. Petersburg was originally created by Peter the Great who was seen as extremely progressive, and had an interest in western culture.

St. Petersburg was originally, as DVK had stated earlier, swamp land. Peter needed to fill in this area with sand and clay in order to build his city. With that said, the capital was moved from Moscow to Peter's new city during his reign. Although this was the capital until the 20th century, the coronations of the rulers like Catherine the Great and Peter III were still conducted in Moscow.

Nonetheless, the anti-capitalist Lenin had no interest in moving the capital back to the "westernized"city.

Before it was Leningrad, it was Tsar Nicholas II who changed the name of St. Petersburg to Petrograd. Nicholas was a arguably a patriotic Russian who wished, during WWI, to separate the west from Russia.

It was also mentioned by that it was moved away from the front during WWI.

Interestingly enough, from what I can remember, Kiev was originally one of the first Christian (Orthodoxy) cities in the east founded by St. Andrew. As many may know Russian Orthodoxy was an important part of daily life for many residents in the Empire and was the site of celebrations and pilgrimages for affluent Russians while the Empire existed. So, it is not surprising that someone may suggest that Kiev could have been the capital city of the Russian Empire.

As for my sources it is knowledge from Robert Massie's biographies: Nicholas and AlexandraPeter the GreatCatherine the Great

These are some really interesting conversations! Keep it up!

Also, super great input from everyone!

Moscow became a capital of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality. Even after the throne was moved to Moscow, for a long time, the formal capital remained Vladimir. The princes went to Vladimir for a coronation ceremony and the chair of the metropolitan was also there until 1325.

If we collect the key points from above:

1. Good access by river to Baltic, Black and Caspian seas.

2. Leaders adept at dealing with Zolotaya Orda and playing the weaker principalities off one another; successful incorporation of Vladimir and Tver to cement power.

3. The "hint" at Moscow's potential future strength provided by the victory, however fleeting at the time, at Kulikovo; and even, perhaps.

4. Northeastern Slavs comfortable in forested regions, whereas Mongol-Tatar more comfortable in steppes, a relatively clear explanation for the eventual ascendency of Moskva/Moscovy seems to emerge.

In the medieval times, Moscow wasn't exactly "in the middle of nowhere". In the times of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality, before it became a capital, Moscow was already at the crossing of important trade routes including acces to the river trade route.

As for the security reasons, location was good because of existence of the Principality of Ryazan and the lands of the Mordvins on the way of Tatars' rides. But that was also good in another aspect - barbarian invasions stopped rivals of Moscow from developing a stronger economy, so it was later relatively easier for Muscovy to take over its neighbors.

All of that led to situation where for both craftsmen and peasants it was the best option to settle in or around Moscow.

Another reason worth to mention were simply smart leaders, who were better politicians and had stronger ambitions than their rivals from surrounding countries. This way they could win e.g. the rivalisation with the strongest local opponent of Moscow, which in 14th century was the Principality of Tver. In the beginnings the city of Tver was more important than Moscow, but thanks to good foreign policy, Moscow was able to change that.

I recommend you a good Polish language article on that matter. With help of Google Translate you'll receive some good information.

If the question specifically asks about how Moscow became more influential than Kiev, the answer is in the history of Eastern politics. First of all, Kiev never was a "Russian" city per say. Yes, it was the center of eastern Slavs and the center of Slavic civilization for thousands of years. Yes, it introduced Christianity to that part of the world and was considered to be the first state in the Slavic world. However, it never was "Russian" in that "Russians" as we know them now didn't emerge as an entity until much later in time.

Moscow as a state was established by a small clan of northern Slavs led by Rurikoviches. In time it became relatively strong and Moscow began to compete against surrounding city states such as Kiev, Novgorod and others. As a result, Kiev and Moscow were always competing parties. The peak of this competition came during the reign of the most famous of Rurikoviches, Ivan the Terrible, who was able to conquer most of the Slavic cities and some Lithuanian, with the exception of Kiev. Kiev was always coveted by the Russian Empire, mostly for the greater agricultural and labor resources that were surrounding the city. Later the passage to the Black Sea became crucial since Russians were land locked.

The dream of Russian kings and queens to add Ukraine to the collection of their trophies didn't come through until 1648, when Ukrainian Ccossacks, being worn out by constant Polish invaders, had to make the choice between Catholic Pols and Orthodox Russians. The question of religion prevailed and they chose to join Russia. Since then, Russia did anything possible to diminish the importance of Kiev and Ukraine. They even came up with a different name for Ukrainians, calling them "small Russians". Ukrainians on the other hand never stopped fighting the Russians.

During the time of the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, Ukrainian people revolted against the Russian Empire and were able to establish an independent Ukrainian state. Unfortunately the communist invasion of 1919 ended Ukraine's independence and unleashed a streak of bloodshed and genocide against Ukrainians. Kiev could never become a capitol of the Soviet Union for the simple reason that doing so would mean having to acknowledge the importance of Ukraine. Neither Lenin nor Stalin would do that, as they didn't consider Ukrainians to be human beings.

Lenin bargained at the end of WWI by giving away the Ukrainian land to Germans. Stalin caused the two largest famines in the history of the world on the territory of Ukraine and starved to death approximately 3 million people. Because of this, I think the answer to why Moscow was so dominant is obvious: it builds its power on the bones of others. This is past history of course, but I don't think that many things changed since then.

To complement kubanczyk's excellent answer:

• Moscow's rise to power was the result of a masterful political play by their rulers jockeying for power/position in front of the Horde (e.g. Mongols).

• It was cemented when Moscow's Dmitry Donskoj and his army was the main force behind the first battle where Russians defeated Mongols (Kulikovo Field battle).

• As kubanczyk alluded to, none of the other logical power centers were good due to being too much in proximity to the main (or one of the main) set of enemies of the time - Lithuania/Poland.

• As for St. Petersburg post-1917: aside from atrocious defensive location - look at the map - it's an 1-2 hour's drive from Baltic republics (which were hostile to Soviet Russia till they were occupied at the close of WWII), the city is also a really bad place to live. Cold wet climate, swamps all around. It was built and made a capital for a VERY VERY specific reason (Window to the Balitics and Europe) which definitely wasn't a priority for Lenin and co.