Then they gradually established the habit of giving to the eldest son Moscow, and only insignificant portions to the rest.

So _primogeniture_ lay at the root of the policy of the new state--and they had created a dynasty.
Then their invariable method was by cunning arts to embroil neighboring Princes in quarrels, and so to ingratiate themselves with their master the Khan, that when they appeared before him at Sarai--as they must--for his decision, while one unfortunate Prince (unless perchance he was beheaded and did not come away at all) came away without his throne, the faithful Prince of Moscow returned with a new state added to his territory and a new title to his name! Was he not always ready, not only to obey himself, but to enforce the obedience of others?
Did he not stand ready to march against Novgorod, or any proud, refractory state which failed in tribute or homage to his master the Khan?
No gloomier, no darker chapter is written in history than that which records the transition of Russia into _Muscovy_.

It was rooted in a tragedy, it was nourished by human blood at every step of its growth.
It was by base servility to the Khans, by perfidy to their peers, by treachery and by prudent but pitiless policy, that Moscow rose from obscurity to the supreme headship--and the name of _Muscovy_ was attained.
There was a line of eight Muscovite Princes from Daniel (1260) to the death of Vasili (1462), but they moved as steadily toward one end as if one man had been during those two centuries guiding the policy of the state.

The city of Moscow was made great.

The Kremlin was built (1300)--not as we see it now.