| Sack of Kiev | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part of the 1167–1169 Kievan succession crisis[2] | |||||||
 Pillaging of Kiev in 1169, miniature from the 15th-centuryRadziwiłł Chronicle | |||||||
| |||||||
| Belligerents | |||||||
Coalition: | |||||||
| Commanders and leaders | |||||||
| Mstislav II of Kiev[1] | Andrey Bogolyubsky[1] Sviatoslav of Chernigov Roman of Smolensk | ||||||
Thesack of Kiev took place on 8–12 March 1169 when a coalition of 11 princes,[1] assembled by princeAndrey Bogolyubsky ofVladimir-Suzdal, attacked theKievan Rus' capital city of Kiev (modernKyiv) during the 1167–1169 Kievansuccession crisis.[2][3] The conflict, caused by the death of grand princeRostislav I of Kiev,[4] was between rival branches of theMonomakhovichi clan: theIziaslavichi of Volhynia (senior Mstislavichi; in control ofKiev,Novgorod,Volynia andHalych) on the one hand, and theRostislavichi of Smolensk (junior Mstislavichi), theYurievichi (controlling Suzdalia andPereyaslavl), and theOlgovichi ofChernigov on the other.[1] PrinceMstislav II of Kiev sought to defend Kiev against the Rostislavichi–Yurievichi–Olgovichi coalition.[1][5]
It is unclear how succession in Kievan Rus' worked.[6] According to a widely-held view, the traditional rules of hereditary succession dictated that one could only becomegrand prince of Kiev if one's father or elder brother had sat on the same throne before oneself, although the precise order is not apparent.[7] If one's father or elder brother(s) died before 'sitting on the throne of Kiev', this would make oneizgoi, ineligible to reign.[7] A number of scholars have asserted that there was a clear set of rules known as therota system; the nature and existence of this rota system has been widely debated, with some claiming that no such formal system of succession existed in Kievan Rus'.[6]
After the 1132 death of the princeMstislav I of Kiev, son ofVladimir Monomakh, his brotherYaropolk II of Kiev ascended to the throne without incident in accordance with established succession practices, and was recognised by the wholeMonomakhovichi family.[8] But a conflict arose amongst the Monomakhovichi over the possession of thePrincipality of Pereyaslavl, the holder of which wasexpected to be the successor to the Kievan throne.[8][9] When Yaropolk tried to install his nephewVsevolod Mstislavich of Novgorod and Pskov as the new prince of Pereyaslavl, his younger brotherYuri Dolgorukiy ofRostov-Suzdal challenged him, and war broke out.[8] The conflict, which ended in a compromise in 1134, permanently divided the Monomakhovichi clan into two branches: the senior branch of Mstislav (in 1138 splitting into theIzyaslavichi of Volhynia and theRostislavichi of Smolensk)[7] and the junior branch of the Yurievichi of Rostov-Suzdal (later Vladimir-Suzdal).[10]
When Yaropolk II died in 1139, he was succeeded by his brotherViacheslav I of Kiev, but not for long: within two weeks, theOlgovichi princeVsevolod of Chernigov seized the Kievan throne by force of arms, reigning without dynastic legitimacy (sincehis father had never been grand prince of Kiev) until his death in 1146.[7] The Mstislavichi (Izyaslavichi) refused to accept this state of affairs, and defeated both the Olgovichi and Yurievichi by 1142, withIziaslav II Mstislavich gaining control over Pereyaslavl (and thus the right to reign in Kiev upon Vsevolod's death in 1146) and his brother Sviatopolk of Pskov gaining control over Novgorod.[11]
WhenVsevolod II Olgovich of Kiev died in 1146, his brotherIgor Olgovich immediately claimed the throne, but the Kievanveche refused to accept him.[12] They supported the Pereyaslavl princeIziaslav II Mstislavich as the new Grand Prince, who thereafter managed to puthis own son Mstislav on the throne of Pereyaslavl, and other Mstislavichi relatives in Volhynia, Smolensk, Turov and Novgorod within a few years.[12] Iziaslav'slegitimacy was based on some but not all traditionalsuccession criteria of therota system.[12] According to the view thatYaroslav the Wise had intended to limit succession to the Kievan to three princes per generation, Iziaslav's accession was legitimate; but the Olgovichi line of 'Vsevolod's brothers and cousins represented the elder generation of the dynasty'.[12] If the Olgovichi of Chernigov accepted Iziaslav's accession, they and their descendants would be excluded from all future Kievan successions, and so they vehemently objected.[12] UncleYuri Dolgorukiy (progenitor of the Yurievichi ofSuzdalia) also fiercely protested that his claim to Kiev preceded that of his nephew Iziaslav II, and even managed to temporarily drive him out of the capital twice.[12]
Yuri's primary goal was controlling Pereyaslavl to secure the Kievan throne for his descendants.[13] In 1147, a joint Yurievichi–Olgovichi force with Cuman aid commanded byYuri's son Gleb attacked Pereyaslavl, but Iziaslav andhis brother Rostislav of Smolensk came to his son Mstislav's assistance, and successfully defended the crown-princely city.[13] Iziaslav made peace with the Olgovichi of Chernigov, but rejected Yuri's peace proposal in which Yuri would recognise Iziaslav as Grand Prince of Kiev in return for transferring Pereyaslavl Iziaslav's son Mstislav to Yuri's son Gleb.[13]
Yuri also tried to disrupt theVolga trade betweenVolga Bulgaria and the Iziaslav-alliedNovgorod Republic; in response, a 1148 Novgorodian punitive expedition (supported by the Mstislavichi-controlled principalities of Kiev and Smolensk) attacked the Suzdalian town ofYaroslavl on the Volga.[14] In 1149, Novgorod also defeated a Suzdalian band trying to prevent the Republic from collecting tribute in its northern regions.[13] The Mstislavichi continued to reign in Novgorod until 1155, with Yuri keeping up pressure on its vulnerable commercial routes.[13] Meanwhile, Yuri and Gleb attacked Kiev successfully in 1149, driving out Iziaslav, but they soon withdrew, and were unable to conquer the crown principality during the protracted battle for Pereyaslavl.[13] In 1151, Yuri's second attempt to seize the capital utterly failed, and he lost both the Kiev and Pereyaslavl.[13] Iziaslav II and his uncleViacheslav Vladimirovich co-reigned in Kiev until their deaths in 1154.[13] First, the Olgovichi princeIzyaslav Davydovych of Chernigov briefly seized Kiev in 1154.[13] Only after expelling him did Yuri gain hold of Kiev until he himself died in 1157, putting Gleb in Pereyaslavl, another son in Novgorod in 1155, and other Yurievichi relatives in Turov and their family domain of Suzdalia.[13]
After Yuri's death in 1157, localboyars invited Izyaslav Davydovych back to the Grand Prince table in Kiev.[15] However, his fatherDavyd Sviatoslavich had never sat on the throne of Kiev, making himizgoi, and he was unable to extend his authority in other Kievan Rus' principalities.[4] The Yurievichi remained in control of Pereyaslavl (Gleb) and Suzdalia (Andrey Bogolyubsky), while Novgorod elected Rostislav of Smolensk's son – a Mstislavichi prince – in 1157.[4] In the next year, 1158, the fully eligible Rostislav easily took the Kievan throne, supported by both theprinces of Volhynia andHalych; he reigned until 1167.[4]
With the accession ofRostislav of Smolensk as Grand Prince of Kiev, 'the traditional principles of dynastic succession were restored and the feuds between dynastic branches relaxed.'[4] The Mstislavichi and Yurievichi branches of theMonomakhovichi clan jointly dominated Kievan Rus', and cooperated to ensure dynastic stability throughout the reign of Rostislav.[4] The senior Mstislavichi line controlled capital Kiev, Smolensk, Volynia, and Novgorod, while the junior Yurievichi branch reigned in Suzdalia and the crown principality of Pereyaslavl.[4] According toPetro Tolochko, Rostislav's nephewMstislav Iziaslavich was essentially his co-ruler.[16]
_en.svg)
After the death of Rostislav in 1167, the princely quarrels resumed.[4] According to his position of family seniority,Volodimer Mstislavich was next in line for the Kievan throne.[17] Nevertheless, the Kievan boyars invitedMstislav Iziaslavich, the prince ofVolhynia (Volyn), to reign the grand principality. Therefore, having enlisted the support ofYaroslav Halytsky and mobilized a small squad, Mstislav Iziaslavich easily took over the city.[citation needed] However, by taking the throne, he breached the balance of power agreement between the Mstislavichi and Yurievichi, as well as causing a conflict between theIziaslavichi of Volhynia (the senior Mstislavichi line) and theRostislavichi of Smolensk (the junior Mstislavichi line).[1] This divided the dynasty into two opposing camps:[1]
In 1168 grand prince Mstislav Iziaslavich of Kiev headed an anti-Polovtsian expedition, in which as many as thirteen princes took part.[citation needed]
In 1169,Andrey Bogolyubsky gathered a large army, which includedMurom,Smolensk,Polotsk,Chernihiv, and Dorogobuzh princes, and marched on Kiev. The onslaught was not successful, but Mstyslav's forces were small, as he sent the troops to help his son in Novgorod just before the attack. On the advice of his wife, who was in Kiev, the Grand Prince fled the city and went to Volyn to gather some help.[citation needed]
The two main primary sources about the 1169 Sack of Kiev are theKievan Chronicle (found in theHypatian Codex) and theSuzdalian Chronicle (found in theLaurentian Codex).[18] The two accounts agree on the following factual descriptions: a military campaign was undertaken at the order ofAndrey Bogolyubsky against the city of Kiev andMstislav Iziaslavich, whom both apparently recognised as the (lawful?) "Kievan Prince".[19] Both agree that the coalition forces were commanded by Andrey's son Mstislav Andreyevich, that 11 other princes participated in the assault (mentioning some by name), provide similar accounts of some aspects of the battle and how Kiev was taken, how Mstislav Iziaslavich's wife and son were captured, the city was sacked and plundered – specifically the churches and monasteries, where many icons, books chasubles were removed/looted from – and the installation ofGleb of Kiev as the next grand prince, after Mstislav Andreyevich returned toVladimir on the Klyazma in the northeast.[19]
Where they differ is in the details and in theirTendenz: the author of theKievan Chronicle provides a very elaborate and detailed account, in which he identifies with the capital, the fate of Kiev's citizens and their suffering.[19] He explains the sack of Kiev according toChristian tradition as a just punishment for unspecified sins the inhabitants had allegedly committed, andlamented it.[19] The writer of theSuzdal'–Vladimirian Chronicle agrees that the city was sacked as a just punishment for its inhabitants' sins, but treats Kiev as an enemy,[19] promoting theYurievichi (Vladimir-Suzdalian) branch of theMonomakhovichi dynasty instead.[20] While theKievan account describes the attackers who set theKyiv Monastery of the Caves on fire as "heathens",[21] theSuzdal'–Vladimirian story calls the Monastery's metropolitan "unlawful" because of a theological disagreement overfasting on holy days, adding "that no one may oppose God's law".[22]
After the long siege, the defenders of the city surrendered on 8 March 1169.[citation needed] Mstislav II Iziaslavich fled, while his wife and son were captured by coalition forces.[2] The victorious coalition plundered the city of Kiev and looted its treasures for three days.[2] Chroniclers who witnessed and recorded the events were shocked, with one chronicler lamenting that even icons, their costly metal mountings (rizas), and books from monasteries and churches were stolen.[2]
After that, Andrey Bogolyubsky put his younger brotherGleb Yurievich,prince of Pereyaslav, on the throne of Kiev.[17]
In 1170 Bogolyubsky sent troops to Novgorod. The formal reason was the dispute over the "Dvina tribute", which Novgorod received from Finno-Ugric tribes, and which from 1169 started to pay Dvina to Suzdal. On 22 February 1170, a united army of Suzdal, Murom, Polotsk, Pereyaslav and others surrounded the city. However, Novgorod persevered. Then Andrey Bogolyubsky applied an economic blockade against Novgorod, and six months later the people of Novgorod asked for peace and the prince to the throne.[citation needed]
Meanwhile,Mstyslav, having gathered troops in early 1170, went to Kiev.Gleb Yuriyovych, unable to defend himself and lacking the support of the local population, went to Pereyaslav and asked for the Polovtsians' help, while his opponent entered the city. However, Mstyslav's stay in Kiev turned out to be short.[citation needed] Once again, having left the Grand Prince table to get new troops in Volhynia,[citation needed] Mstyslav fell ill and died on 19 August 1170.[23] His work was continued by cousins – princes Rostislavichi.[citation needed] The new grand princeGleb of Kiev also died, probably in the year 1171, albeit under somewhat mysterious circumstances.[23] A rapid succession of briefly reigning princes in the capital eventually saw oneRurik Rostislavich seizing the crown.[23]
Trying to regain control of Kiev, Andrey Bogolyubsky sent another large coalition army (50,000 soldiers according to theKievan Chronicle, but historians think this is exaggerated[24]), combining the forces of 20 princes.[23] The coalition besiegedSiege of Vyshgorod in late 1173, but without success. On the night of 19 December 1173, nearVyshhorod, this army was completely defeated by a younger generation of Volynian–Smolensk princes[23] under the command ofMstyslav Rostyslavych and the Lutsk princeYaroslav Izyaslavych, who then became the Grand Prince of Kiev.[25][23]
Andrey's attempts to increase his princely authority at the expense of the positions of boyars, bishops, city officials and theveche led to internal strife.[26] As a result, on 28 June 1174, conspirators killed Andrey in his residential town ofBogolyubovo in Suzdalia.[26] His death triggered a Suzdalian war of succession; after several years of struggle (1174–1177), Andrey's brotherVsevolod the Big Nest ascended the throne of Vladimir-Suzdal.[23] Meanwhile, Novgorod threw the Yurievichi out of the Republic after Andrey's assassination, and wouldn't be under their firm control again until 1187.[23]
For one hundred years since the death ofVsevolod II 1146 in Kiev there were: 47 reigns, 24 princes of 7 lines and 3 dynasties; of which one was in power 7 times, 5 of them – 3 times, 8 of them – twice. Depending on the duration of rule: one – 13 years, one – 6 years, two – 5 years, 4 – 4 years, 3 – 3 years, 7 – 2 years and 36 – 1 year.[27][page needed]
How the 1169 Sack of Kiev is to be interpreted is a matter of scholarly and historiographical debate.[2] 'Many historians perceive it as a turning point in the history of Kievan Rus', although it may have had less material meaning than it was of symbolic significance.[2] Yet, no other event has been given more weight by scholars to argue that the entire Kievan Rus' state was in the process of falling apart.[2] One frequently expressed interpretation regards the sack of Kiev as signalling the rise ofVladimir-Suzdal, as Andrey Bogolyubsky decided to keep Vladimir on the Klyazma as his residence, and appointed his younger brotherGleb (considered a "minor prince" by some) to govern the city of Kiev instead of taking the throne for himself.[2] He did not even lead his troops into battle, appointing his sonYury Bogolyubsky as commander, while he stayed behind in Suzdalia focusing on construction projects.[28] A common alternate interpretation sees Andrey recognising and confirming the centrality of Kiev, and restoring the dynastic order according to established practice by appointing Gleb as grand prince of Kiev because Gleb was already prince of Pereyaslavl, a traditional requirement for the Kievan throne.[17]Ukrainian historianMykhailo Hrushevsky (1905) described the event as: "A whole cloud of princes of the Rus' moved to destroy Kyiv to the glory of its northern rival."[29]
Imperial Russian historianVasily Klyuchevsky (died 1911) called the Suzdalian prince Andrei Bogolyubsky the first prince of the future Muscovites: "With Andrey Bogolyubsky,velikoros (the Great Russian) had entered the historical arena."[30] The chronicles call the Galician-Volyn princeRoman Mstislavych "the autocrat of all Rus'", while Andrey Bogolyubsky is called "the autocrat of the whole Suzdal land".[citation needed]
Russo-American historianGeorge Vernadsky (1948) wrote: 'It was characteristic of Andrei that he did not go to Kiev after the seizure of the city by his troops but had the Kievan throne occupied by minor princes whom he treated as his vassals.'[31]
According to Soviet Russian historian B. A. Rybakov (1982), 'the description and degree of destruction in Kiev had been exaggerated by the chroniclers'.[2]
Jaroslaw Pelenski (1987) deduced that the primary justification for the Sack of Kiev provided in theSuzdal'–Vladimirian Chronicle was based on an earlier theological dispute concerning fasting on holy days which took place inSuzdal' in 1164.[20]
According toLev Gumilev (1992), 'the Kiev pogrom testified to the loss of a sense of ethnic and state unity with Rus' among the population ofZalesye'.[32] In 1169, after capturing Kiev, Andrey gave the city for three days of looting and plundering to his soldiers. It was accepted to treat cities this way only when dealing with foreign settlements – until now. Such a practice has never spread to Rus' cities under any circumstances by that time. Andrey Bogolyubsky's order shows,' from Lev Gumilev's point of view, 'that for him and his army' (that is, Suzdalian, Chernigovian and Smolensk soldiers) 'Kiev in 1169 was as foreign as any German or Polish castle.[32]
American historian Janet Martin (2007) reasoned that Andrey was motivated by 'restoring the accepted dynastic order (...), not [by] a desire to tear that realm apart.'[31] All princes had recognised Rostislav of Smolensk 'as the rightful heir. Andrei, therefore, had no reason to intervene in Kievan politics until 1167, when Rostislav's nephew violated the collateral pattern of succession.'[31] Andrey chose Gleb as the new grand prince of Kiev simply because Gleb was already prince of Pereyaslavl, and thus next in line for the Kievan throne (afterRostislav's brother), confirming rather than disrupting established practice.[17]
Iryna Kostenko and Maryna Ostapenko (2022) wrote that Andrey sought to made Vladimir in Suzdalia "a second Kiev" by stealing theIcon of the Blessed Mother of God fromVyshhorod in 1155 (which would later become the most revered shrine of theRussian Empire). But without controlling the capital, he could not become a grand prince; therefore, in 1169, Andrey tried to destroy Kiev instead. "But not for long. Because from the ruins and ashes, the capital city of Kyiv unexpectedly rose again," and two years later defeated Andrey in the Siege of Vyshhorod (1171).[33]