The Novgorodians invited Daniel to reign in their city after the veche (popular assembly) had expelled the governors of his older brother Andrey.

[8] Four years later, he lost the title to Dmitry of Tver when he chose to lead the defense of Novgorod against Sweden instead of delivering the tax receipts directly to the khan.

[9] Russian chronicles say that the deputy had intended to make himself ruler and destroy the Christian faith, though whatever was his intention, he had mistreated the locals and provoked a revolt.

[11] Upon hearing the news of the massacres of Tatars, Ivan set off to the khan with the expectation that he would be given the patent for the grand princely title.

[13] The former ruled the eastern portion, including Vladimir, and was presumably granted the grand princely title, while the latter controlled Novgorod and Kostroma.

[25][26] Although some scholars do not believe that Ivan actually purchased those principalities, his daughters were arranged to marry the princes of Beloozero, Yaroslavl and Rostov.

[25] Some historians, including Nikolay Karamzin, Sergey Solovyov, Vasily Klyuchevsky, Alexander Presnyakov, and others, have suggested alternative theories.

[32] He then writes that the city of Moscow "was ruled by the pious Grand-prince Ivan, son of Daniel, grandson of the blessed Alexander [Nevsky], whom the blessed Peter saw resplending in Orthodoxy, merciful to the poor, honouring the holy churches of God and the clergy, loving divine Scriptures, well instructed in the teachings of the books.

[38] Theognostus also proceeded with the canonization of Peter in 1339, and requested an official document from Patriarch John Calecas to recommend the start of liturgical veneration, which helped to increase Moscow's prestige.

[46] Alexander Presnyakov says that during the reign of Ivan Korotopol, there was "significant and increasing independence of the principality of Ryazan in relation to the Great-Russian grand-princely centre".

[46] Gediminas, the grand duke of Lithuania, began to actively interfere in the affairs of Moscow as a result of the ecclesiastical policy of the metropolitan.

[38] The surviving brothers of the exiled Tverite prince Alexander, Konstantin and Vasily, were loyal servants of Ivan, while the republic of Pskov had retained close links with Lithuania during the 1320s; however, Novgorod had shown sympathy for Moscow and antipathy for Tver throughout most of the early 14th century.

[47] Novgorod's pro-Moscow orientation during the first 30 years of the century may be explained by the political leanings of the archbishop David (r. 1309–1325) and his successor Moisey (r. 1325–1330).

[49] Ivan placed pressure on Novgorod as the sole grand prince, collecting not only regular tribute payments but also special assessments, possibly due to the Golden Horde requiring increased revenue during its wars against the Ilkhanate.

[52] As a result, Ivan entered Torzhok on 6 January 1333 with an army made up of troops from Ryazan and detachments sent by "all the princes of the Lower lands".

[51] As the agreement had not yet been implemented and Novgorod was left without any military protection, two embassies were sent to Ivan to request a temporary peace and for him to withdraw his troops.

[59] Ivan retaliated by burning the towns of Osechen and Ryasna "and many other fortresses as well";[59][60] however, there is no mention in sources of any Novgorodian participation, suggesting that Novgorod intended to maintain neutrality.

[59] Despite mutual hostility between the factions in Novgorod, Ivan's governors were able to maintain peace throughout the following year; however, another popular uprising emerged at the start of 1337 and was directed against the pro-Moscow archimandrite of the Yuryev monastery.

[61] Ivan and his governors perceived the uprising as a hostile act and launched a failed expedition to the Northern Dvina, a possession of Novgorod.

[65] According to Fennell, "we can only assume that... Narimunt had been helping his uncle Voin to defend Lithuania's easternmost dependent principality, Polotsk.

[72] Alexander was convinced that it would be safe for him to make a trip to the Horde, after being persuaded by Ivan and assured by the Tatar official, and he was prepared to discuss his reinstatement as prince.

[74] However, Fennell says that "the situation closely resembled that of 1326", in which Alexander "was permitted to return to Tver' in order that he might discredit himself in the eyes of the Tverites–and indeed of any other Russians who might witness his predicament–and thus ultimately bring about his own destruction".

[75] According to Fennell, an immediate execution of Alexander would have antagonized Novgorod, Pskov and Lithuania, as well as possibly any sympathizers among the princes subordinate to Ivan.

[76] Alexander returned to Tver in the autumn of 1338, in which the chronicles simply state that he was given permission to resume his activities as prince and that he had called for his spouse and children from Pskov.

[82] According to Fennell, "If Uzbek had not succeeded in bringing back Pskov into the orbit of the grand prince of Vladimir, he had at least removed from the political scene the most powerful ally of Gedimin in north-east Russia".

[1] The abbot Paphnutius of Borovsk (d. 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".

[97][98] 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".

[97][98] 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".

[22] 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.

[22] 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.