Written by Prus Julius Rurikid
Composed and elaborated between February and August 2025
The last of the Rurikids — Ivan III, Vasily III, Ivan IV, and others — from the second half of the fifteenth century to the end of the sixteenth century, sought to introduce into Russia a mode of governance, a political philosophy, and a spirituality, among other elements, inspired by the Ghibelline model:
- Masters of the Guilds of Arts and Crafts with strong Ghibelline affiliations were summoned from Milan to construct the various Kremlins (chiefly the Moscow Kremlin, though also others), which display abundant Ghibelline symbolism in their architectural language. Among them, the masters known as Solari and Ruffo were of Milanese origin. Although Milan had initially aligned with the Guelfs, after a brief Ghibelline interlude between 1277 AD, and 1302 AD, it became, from 1311/1312 AD onwards, firmly and enduringly Ghibelline. From that date until 1499 AD, Milan may in fact be regarded as a consolidated Ghibelline stronghold, first under the Visconti and subsequently under the Visconti-Sforza. Thus, Solari and Ruffo, as masters of their respective guilds, derived from a city which ha d for nearly two centuries embodied the Ghibelline tradition. The guilds engaged in the construction of fortifications, palaces, and churches in Milan and Lombardy had long been permeated with Ghibelline symbolism. In particular, towards the close of the fifteenth century, Ivan III of the Rurikid dynasty expressly called these masters to Russia. The Kremlins that they designed, planned, and supervised (including that of Moscow) were erected with deliberate and explicit Ghibelline symbolism. This symbolism was manifested in their architectural forms and structures: the construction of towers, walls, etc., based on three-tiered complexes; the octagonal (the eight-sided figure) employed in towers and fortifications of temporal authority— an emblematic form traditionally reserved for churches to signal a direct link with the divine, yet appropriated by the Ghibellines for their towers, strongholds, and castles; the extensive deployment of red brick, valued not only for its functional but also for its symbolic significance; and, above all, the celebrated swallowtail merlons, with their double-crested form, a paradigmatic and unequivocal Ghibelline emblem. These masters were summoned to Moscow in the 1490s AD, bringing with them the accumulated wisdom and practice of two centuries of Ghibelline arts, architecture, and symbolism. Their influence may still be discerned in the symbolic features they conceived and realized — though such recognition presupposes that the observer possesses both the hermeneutic keys and the sapiential knowledge necessary to discern it.”
- The last of the Rurikids — Ivan III, Vasily III, Ivan IV, and others — proclaimed descent from the Gens Julia of ancient Rome, the familial clan of Julius Caesar. More specifically, they affirmed that their founding ancestor was none other than the brother of Octavian Augustus, a figure whom they named ‘Prus.’ By virtue of this ancestral link, Prus was said to have made the Rurikids a cadet branch of the Gens Julia, thereby situating their dynasty within the genealogical and symbolic framework of the Roman Gens Julia. Within this narrative, ‘Prus’ was described as the presumed twin brother of Octavian Augustus, who reigned as Imperator of Rome from 27 BCE. Furthermore, it was claimed that this ‘Prus’ was present in Rome at that very historical moment, thereby rooting the Rurikid genealogy in the living context of Augustan Rome. Such a narrative was advanced not merely as a legend, but as a reclamation of veritas, imposed to connect their potestas and sovereignty to the transcendent Imperium Romanum — conceived not simply as a political order, but as a universal Unicum.
- Ultimately, the Rurikid rulers — specifically Ivan III and his son Vasily III — also sought to obtain the title of Caesar (Tzar) from the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. This petition, reiterated over several decades, culminated in 1514 AD, when Vasily III was implicitly recognized — with the titles of Kayser (Caesar) and Imperator — by Maximilian I of Habsburg, then the Augustus Holy Roman Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. From that moment, the Rurikids could publicly, and politically, and even ceremonially, proclaim themselves Caesar et Imperator each and everywhere and to each and every one by their own will and right (vertically and transcendentally sanctioned).This legitimation was understood to have been instituted by a divinely instituted ordinance, formally bestowed by Maximilian I, whose role of Holy Roman Emperor, according to these politico-spiritual theories, represented the sole and authentic custodian of the Roman Imperium (vertical, transcendetal, connected to the numinous divine and manifested in physical reality). Thus, from that point onward, Vasily III, and then Ivan IV, etc., could claim to possess — both spiritually and politically — a measure, however partial or refracted, of participation in the manifestation of what was the Universal Power of the Imperium, insofar as it had been conferred upon them by the Holy Roman Emperor.
In any case, the points enumerated above are but a few, though among the most salient. Furthermore, it must be observed that the politics of these last Rurikids — from the second half of the fifteenth century until 1598 AD — as well as their strategies, their determinations, their ideological orientations, their spirituality, their political philosophy, and their symbolic language, all reflected the deliberate intention to introduce into Russia an approach inspired by Ghibellinism. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the elements listed above — 1, 2, 3 — constitute modi, ordines, and spiritualitates — as well as symbolic forms — that are clearly and indubitably Ghibelline in nature.
However, when the Romanovs definitively seized power in 1613 AD — through maneuvers of accession during the Time of Troubles beginning in 1598 AD — and throughout their dominion from 1613 AD to 1917 AD, they condemned the preceding Rurikid dynasty, especially its last rulers inspired by Ghibellinism, such as Ivan III, Vasily III, and Ivan IV, etc. Against these figures they directed calumny, accusations of madness, and even acts of damnatio memoriae. Moreover, the Romanovs systematically eradicated every initiative and undertaking inspired by Ghibellinism that had been pursued by their Rurikid predecessors.
Therefore, as I have already maintained, I hold no esteem for the Romanov dynasty: for they were corrupt, enslaved to vice, devoted to perfidy and to the perpetuation of corruption, all veiled beneath the simulacrum of a supposed and ostentatious religiosity. In stark contrast stand the Rurikids — at least the last among them, namely Ivan III, Vasily III, Ivan IV, and their successors — who endeavored to institute modi, ordines, and spiritualitates inspired by Ghibellinism. To them I accord admiration and respect, precisely because they sought to graft onto Russia a higher order of governance, philosophy, and symbolism grounded in the legacy of the Imperium — a vertical, numinous, universal, and transcendental force, from which political order and sovereignty proceed and through which they are made manifest in historical reality.
Yet, despite my profound veneration, these Rurikid projects have long been suppressed, erased, and defamed. Their Ghibelline vision was annihilated by the Romanov usurpation, which, in its triumph, extinguished not only a dynasty but also an entire symbolic and spiritual order that had sought to connect Russia to the universal Unicum of Rome.Therefore, at the level of spirit, governance, political philosophy, symbolism, and so forth, I find myself a profound and sincere admirer of the last Rurikids — Ivan III, Vasily III, Ivan IV, and others. This admiration rests rigorously upon their philosophical–ideological–spiritual project, which was founded upon the establishment of an order, a politics, a transcendent verticality, and a spirituality all strongly inspired by, and recalling, Ghibellinism — together with that Romanitas re-actualized through it, by which they sought to gain access, within their own contemporary horizon, to the living legacy of Rome.
By contrast, I am deeply repelled by the corrupt and ignoble Romanovs, on account of what they did to the Rurikid inheritance and to their Ghibelline project. For they annihilated every Ghibelline realization achieved by the last Rurikids; they portrayed the Rurikids as madmen; and they condemned both them and their project to calumny and damnatio memoriae. In so doing, the Romanovs did not merely erase a dynasty, but uprooted an entire symbolic and spiritual order, suppressing a vertical and transcendent orientation that had sought to bind Russia once more to the Imperium and purposefully degenerating its tradition of verticality.
Moreover, in contrast to the polemical writings, essays, treatises, and the like — of a political, pseudo-political, philosophical, or historicizing character — certain maîtres à penser have affirmed, and still affirm, statements to the effect that ‘Russia fell’ or that ‘Russia was corrupted’ in 1917 AD as a consequence of the October Revolution. Yet, in the face of such assertions, from a truly Ghibelline perspective it must, in all intellectual honesty, be recognized that these claims are not merely false but manifestly and irredeemably so: distortions of truth that obscure rather than illuminate the historical and spiritual reality…
Thus, in conclusion, from a truly Ghibelline perspective — one grounded in and manifesting adherence to the most honest and authentic verticality — it must be observed that Russia had already fallen and become corrupted in the period between 1598 AD and 1613 AD, fully three centuries before 1917 AD and Lenin. It was precisely in that interval, 1598–1613 AD, that the events unfolded which brought the Romanovs to power. The consequence of their accession was the destruction of that order inspired by Ghibellinism, which had been initiated in the second half of the fifteenth century and continued until 1598 AD under the last of the Rurikids, such as Ivan III, Vasily III, Ivan IV, and others. Moreover, these last Rurikids were all defamed and subjected to damnatio memoriae — they themselves, together with their social, cultural, political, governmental, and spiritual projects — by the Romanovs for centuries thereafter, indeed down to the present day. In 1613 AD, upon seizing power, the Romanovs immediately destroyed and consigned to oblivion all that the Rurikids had in fact achieved and sought to achieve in terms of Ghibellinism.
Therefore, the true catabasis of Russia did not occur in 1917 AD, but rather in that earlier rupture: the Romanovs capturing power in 1613 AD. It was in that moment, and not later, due to such usurpation, and subsequent obliteration of the Ghibelline reach for the numinous verticality, that Russia ceased to participate in the higher inheritance of the Imperium, substituting it for the profane simulacrum – parroting sacrality with “religiosity” – of a power severed from its authentic Roman/Ghibelline numinous divine and vertical source.
Observations / Remarks:
- Is it therefore justified to claim that Masters of Art, belonging to the Guilds of Arts and Crafts, such as Ruffo and Solari, with a clearly Ghibelline orientation, were specifically summoned by the Rurikids to design and construct architectures (typically fortresses) deeply infused with and intrinsically steeped in Ghibelline symbolism?
Yes, it is indeed fully justified to assert that Masters of Art such as Marco Ruffo and Pietro Antonio Solari, representatives of guilds with a clearly Ghibelline orientation, were expressly summoned by the Rurikids to design and erect architectures — particularly fortresses like the Moscow Kremlin— profoundly imbued with Ghibelline symbolism, both in their forms and in their political and spiritual intent.
- Is it historically accurate to assert that the Rurikids claimed — not as a legendary tale, but as a historical and genealogical fact (albeit imbued with spiritual and symbolic meaning) — to be a cadet branch of the ancient Gens Julia of Ancient Rome, the noble and sacred aristocratic clan to which Julius Caesar and Augustus belonged? Moreover, did they declare themselves descendants of a purported brother of Augustus, named Prus, and was this claim officially recorded in their Book of Royal Decrees?
Yes, it is indeed accurate to assert that the Rurikids claimed — not as mere legend, but as a genealogical, spiritual, and symbolic truth — to be a cadet branch of the Roman Gens Julia, declaring themselves descendants of a supposed brother of Augustus, whom they named Prus. Furthermore, this lineage was officially codified in the Book of Royal Decrees (Stepennaia Kniga).
- Is it historically accurate to assert that Ivan III, a Rurikid, married a Paleologue (speficially Zoe, later Sofia, Paleologina)? And is it correct to affirm that she was one of the close relatives of the “Roman” — though, in fact, Greek — Emperors of Constantinople (city that fell in 1453 AD)? And thus, that Vasili III was the son of this union, bearing imperial blood?
Yes, it is indeed accurate to assert that Ivan III, a Rurikid, married Zoe (later Sophia) Paleologue. She was the niece of the last Emperor of Constantinople called Constantine XI, who was her paternal uncle. John VIII, the penultimate Emperor, was also her uncle. The third-to-last Emperor, Manuel II, was her paternal grandfather. Therefore, from the union between Ivan III and Zoe/Sophia Paleologia was born Vasili III: who inherited, both symbolically and genealogically, the blood of that older imperial dynasty, which fell with the capture of Constantinople in 1453 AD.
- Is it correct to assert that the Rurikids — Ivan III and, later, his son Vasili III — persisted for years, indeed for decades, in their repeated requests to the Holy Roman Emperor for the recognition of the title of Caesar (Tsar) and Imperator? And that it was precisely Vasili III who received this recognition in 1514 AD from Maximilian I of Habsburg, the August Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, considered the legitimate holder, intermediary, vessel, and manifestator of the Imperium Romanum?
Yes, it is correct to assert that the Rurikids — particularly Ivan III and, later, his son Vasili III — submitted formal requests for decades to the Holy Roman Emperor for the recognition of the title of Caesar (Tsar) and Imperator. And that this recognition was indeed granted in 1514 AD by Maximilian I of Habsburg, the legitimate Augustus of the Holy Roman Empire and guardian of the transcendent legacy of the Imperium.
- Is it therefore legitimate to assert that — although the theory is complex, with nuances and variations beyond the scope of this discussion, in the interest of brevity — it was precisely these later Rurikids, namely Ivan III, Vasili III, Ivan IV, and others, who sought to conceive Moscow as the ‘Third Rome,’ grounded in the theory of Translatio Imperii, and thus the providential and vertical transfer of the Roman Imperium into their own historical and political horizon?
Yes, it is entirely legitimate to assert that it was precisely the later Rurikids — Ivan III, Vasili III, Ivan IV, and their successors — who conceived of Moscow as the ‘Third Rome,’ grounding this vision in the doctrine of Translatio Imperii and, consequently, in the idea of a providential and vertical transfer of the Roman Imperium into their own historical, political, and spiritual horizon.
- Is it accurate to assert that these later Rurikids — from the second half of the 15th century until 1598 AD — embarked on an extensive and deliberate symbolic, spiritual, and political endeavor, based on the actualization, or rather the re-actualization, of Romanitas and Ghibellinism, in an attempt to implant within the body of Russia a higher order inspired by the channeling and manifestation of the Imperium?
Yes, it is indeed accurate to assert that the later Rurikids — from the second half of the 15th century until 1598 AD — undertook a vast, coherent, and deliberate symbolic, spiritual, and political endeavor aimed at the re-actualization of Romanitas and Ghibellinism, in an attempt to implant within the historical body of Russia a higher order, oriented towards the reception and vertical manifestation of the Imperium.
- Is it accurate to assert that, despite the damnatio memoriae imposed by the Romanovs, traces of the order envisioned by the last Rurikid rulers — such as Ivan IV — persist in the popular symbolic and comprehensive narrative, particularly within the corpus of folk tales that have been ingrained in the fabric of the people? These traces, though transposed into mythical or folkloric form, outline a structure of alliance between the People and the Imperator at the apex, in contrast to the powerful oligarchic and theocratic groups; and that this framework, although expressed in a popular narrative key, profoundly reflects the same theoretical and spiritual assumptions found in the major works of Western Ghibelline thought — such as Marsilius of Padua’s Defensor Pacis — as well as in works strongly influenced by Ghibellinism, such as Machiavelli’s The Prince and the Discourses on Livy?
Yes, it is indeed accurate to assert that, despite the damnatio memoriae orchestrated by the Romanovs, traces — albeit transfigured but structurally recognizable — of the order envisioned by the last Rurikid rulers, such as Ivan IV, are preserved in the popular symbolic and comprehensive narrative, particularly within the deeply ingrained corpus of Russian folk tales. In this order, a clear alliance between the People and the Imperator, vertically placed at the apex, emerges in opposition to the oligarchic and theocratic powerful groups. And that this framework, though transposed into a mythical-popular form, surprisingly reflects with remarkable consistency the foundational tenets of Western Ghibelline thought, such as those expressed in Marsilius of Padua’s Defensor Pacis, as well as in works of Machiavelli, infused of Ghibelline tension, like The Prince and Discourses on Livy’s First Decade
- Is it correct and accurate to assert that, with the rise to power of the Romanovs in 1613 AD, the overwhelming majority of the work undertaken by the Rurikids — and the traditional order they had established — was systematically destroyed, obliterated, and disavowed, and that the Romanovs distanced themselves radically from it, rejecting not only its outward forms but also, and most importantly, its spiritual, symbolic, and political-philosophical foundations?
Yes, it is correct and accurate to assert that, with the rise to power of the Romanovs in 1613 AD, the overwhelming majority of the symbolic, spiritual, and political-philosophical work undertaken by the Rurikids — and the traditional order they had established, inspired by the Imperium — was systematically destroyed, disavowed, and erased. Furthermore, the Romanovs distanced themselves radically from it, rejecting not only its outward forms but also, and most importantly, its deepest, vertical, and Ghibelline foundations, both spiritual and symbolic.
- Is it correct and accurate to assert that the Romanovs condemned the Rurikids to a true damnatio memoriae, accompanied by systematic campaigns of defamation — in which they were even accused of madness — and that their entire symbolic, spiritual, and political-philosophical work, inspired by Ghibellinism, was deliberately condemned to oblivion and removed from historical memory?
Yes, it is correct and accurate to assert that the Romanovs condemned the Rurikids to an organic and systematic damnatio memoriae, accompanied by defamation campaigns that branded them as mad, unstable, and cruel, relegating their entire symbolic, spiritual, and political-philosophical work, inspired by Ghibellinism (and Romanitas), to oblivion. This work was dismantled at its foundations, demolished, and removed from official historical memory, as it represented a vertical, Roman, and imperial order, radically incompatible with the vision of the new rulers. The Romanov vision was more oligarchic-theocratic-clerical, in which the people were enslaved and religion — on the cognitive, psychological, social, and political levels — became the “instrumentum regni” that facilitated and imposed this system.
Essential and Meaningful Conclusions:
The contrast between the Rurikids and the Romanovs goes beyond a mere dynastic and political transition; it reflects a profound Spiritual Clash. The last Rurikids (from 1462 AD to 1598 AD), such as Ivan III, Vasili III, Ivan IV, and others, embarked on a grand symbolic endeavor inspired by the Ghibelline and Romanitas veriticality, as a manifestation of a universal power that transcends time and space: the Imperium (sacral and directly derived from the numinous). In contrast, the Romanovs, emerging from the Time of Troubles (1598-1613 AD), and in power from 1613 AD to 1917 AD, established a centralized and autocratic rule, fueled by the political use of the Orthodox Church. Under the Romanovs, religion became a means of controlling the masses, annihilating their spirit, obscuring their soul, and imprisoning their minds. The power of the Romanovs was no longer a symbolic-sacral order, but an autocratic monarchy indeed, the decay of the aristocracy into a tyrannical oligarchy, a decadent parody of the Imperium: a tyranny masking as an empire, the empire they could never truly be (neither spiritually, nor metaphysically, nor symbolically).
