5. The Moment of Unity, and then Disintegration, Rus 2 Russia
Vsevolod, who became grand prince, united most of Russia under his rule for a short time by placing his sons in the appanage cities.
In Search of Allies
Vsevolod's Byzantine sympathies were fading, and it is not surprising. In the second half of the 11th century. Byzantium almost lost Asia Minor, the economy of the empire was ruined by the hapless rule of Empress Zoe and the internal turmoil arranged by Roman Diogenes in 1068-1071. Relative order in Byzantium began to be established only after 1081, when Alexius Comnenus became emperor; but before that the prince of Kiev simply could not count on the support of the weakening Byzantine power.
Н. K. Roerich. Screensaver for the book "Illuminated Chronicle Izbornik". (Fragment)
Vsevolod, like his older brother, began to look to the West in search of an ally, but Western Europe was a disappointing picture. The "Christian world" was going through a passionarial depression of the acmatic phase. The passionarity of West Europeans was actively shifting towards the borders of the super-ethnic area. Germanic feudal lords began to seize Slavic frontier lands and turn Slavs into disenfranchised serfs. The Western Slavs, who lived along the Elbe, resisted the German pressure with all their might, but the forces were unequal.
The horror of the situation of the Slavs lay in the fact that they were not simply "aliens" to the Germans, but not "Christians"; people of other super-ethnoses were only viewed by the conquerors as part of the nature of the conquered country (with all the consequences that this entails). Of course, the German barons also oppressed their own peasants. But the nature of this oppression was different. When the Duke of Saxony, for example, became Holy Roman Emperor, he punished "his" Saxons, he saw them as people who simply had to do something. With the Burgundians, Francons and Bavarians the Duke was much crueller, but with the Slavs (or Arabs or Hungarians) he was completely inhuman.
Grand Duke Vsevolod Yaroslavich. Titularnik, 1672.
Prince Sviatopolk II. An engraving of 1805.
In addition, all the feudal lords of medieval Europe were divided into two main parties. One party was led by the church, itself claiming the tithe and the supreme authority in matters of government. The supporters of this party in the XII-XIII centuries received the Italian name "Guelphs", after the Welfs, the dukes of Saxony and Bavaria, who fought against the imperial dynasty of Hohenstaufen. The followers of the emperors, on the other hand, were called Ghibellines.
Both regarded themselves formally as Catholics, but no one cared about their actual relationship to the religion. The difference between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines was not in their religious views, but in their programs of living. The Guelphs naturally relied on the authority of the Roman Curia and the priests; the Ghibellines formed their "intellectual fund" from lawyers (above all from the University of Bologna) who justified the thesis that the power of the emperor was superior to that of the pope.
The attitude of the Guelphs and the Ghibellines towards nature was also different. The Guelphs were enlarged by people who lived in their own landscape, adapting to it. They were therefore quite friendly towards their own kind. Most of the Ghibellines, on the other hand, consisted of very passionate feudal lords who sought glory, victory and conquest in distant lands, where they lived at the expense of the conquered population. Both people and nature remained "alien" to them, and their "own" was the desire to get as much income as possible. Therefore, the perception of the Ghibelles was dominated by world-negation. The negative perception of the Ghibellines was not slow to manifest itself in an extreme situation.
The struggle between the Popes and the Emperors reached its climax at the end of the seventies of the eleventh century when Pope Gregory VII confronted the Franconian Emperor Henry IV. Since the pope remained the head of the church, anti-systemic cults, such as the worship of Satan, began to spread widely among the feudal lords. The emperor himself, a member of the Nicolaitan sect, was no exception. (6) Although the cult was considered secret, the "Black Masses" were widely known, without shocking Western Europeans.
Duke Vsevolod of Kiev entered into an alliance with Emperor Henry IV, thus joining the European party of the Gibellines. The alliance was supplemented by the dynastic marriage of the emperor with the Grand Duke's daughter, Eupraxia Vsevolodovna. Thus, the Russian princess became the German empress Adelgeida.
Henry was a man without prejudice and attracted his wife to participate in the "black masses" in order to serve sacrilegious masses on her naked body. However, what seemed very flattering to Germans, Burgundians or Italians was disgusting to the Russian woman - she fled from her husband to his adversary, Countess Matilda.
Matilda took her to Rome, the pope received Eupraxia and, giving her absolution of her enforced sin, sent the unhappy woman back to Russia. The princess, having returned to her father's house and having every opportunity to arrange her life, went to a monastery near Chernigov, where she ended her days. Her impressions were probably so repulsive that her life lost its meaning. Here is an example of the difference between the behavior of Western Europeans and Russians.
So, the attempt at rapprochement with the West was unsuccessful for Vsevolod.
The struggle between pro-Greek and pro-Western sentiments spread to the Russian Church. Byzantine and Greek clerics gravitated toward the Metropolitan, who was usually a Greek. They were opposed by Russian clerics who relied on the monasticism of the Kievo-Pechersk Lavra.
There was no unity in Russia with respect to its steppe neighbors. Two nomadic peoples - the Oguzes and the Polovtsians - were enemies of the Kiev power. Those who chose the Oguzes as their allies, as the Volhynian and Kievan princes did in the 12th century, immediately became enemies with the Kipchaks. Correspondingly, those who relied on Kipchaks, like later Chernigov Olgovichi, became enemies of the Thors.
The situation was extremely difficult. Vsevolod, seeing no opportunity to restore order in the appanage lands, transferred the initiative and the actual power to his son, Vladimir Monomakh, who reigned in Chernigov. The Grand Duke himself, having experienced in his later years "great sorrows", died in 1093.
(6) The Nicolaitans were one of the many anti-systemic sects of the Middle Ages that followed a Satanic cult.
Unprincipled
After the death of great prince Vsevolod, in accordance with the order of the ladder of succession to the throne, Sviatopolk II Izyaslavich, the son of the eldest of the Yaroslavl princes, who had previously reigned in the small town of Turov, ascended to the Kiev throne. The son of the late Vsevolod, Vladimir Monomakh, who had been expelled from Chernigov by Oleg, sat in Pereyaslavl.
The position of Grand Duke Svyatopolk was not an easy one. The political line of his father was unpopular both in Kiev and in all of Russia. Izyaslav Yaroslavich's negotiations with the pope were unpleasant and unacceptable for the majority of the Orthodox Russians of the second half of XI century. After becoming grand prince, Svyatopolk did not repeat such attempts and tried to change his entourage.
Н. K. Roerich. Ancient Russian city.
As Vsevolod once "rejected his elder squad", Sviatopolk also brought completely new people to him. The chronicler calls them "uiny", i.e. young, but so designates not an age difference, but a behavioral one. Instead of the "older troops", i.e. comrades-in-arms and friends of Yaroslavichi, new people gathered at the Kiev throne. They were reliable assistants to the great prince, but on condition that their service was well paid. Svyatopolk's associates were no longer unselfish advocates of the Russian land, but cunning, greedy and often completely unscrupulous courtiers. To be able to rely on them confidently, the grand duke needed a lot of money.
Sviatopolk undertook a simple operation: he invited Jewish moneylenders from Germany. The usurers were given the right to live in Kiev, the opportunity to build a synagogue, and freedom in financial operations. Due to their experience and solidarity, the Jews who arrived in Kiev from the West quickly took over a large part of their clientele from the Kievers, who were unaccustomed to usury. The Jewish usurers, however, were not limited to this activity. By lending the Grand Duke money they demanded maximum profit opportunities for themselves. The most profitable commercial enterprise at that time was the slave trade. Naturally, the moneylenders encouraged Sviatopolk to undertake military campaigns aimed at capturing prisoners who served as payment to the moneylenders for the Grand Duke.
Sviatoslavichi could resist the dependent policy of the prince, but they were in Chernigov, and since the Kievers did not "want" the Chernigovites, Sviatoslavichi did not stand a chance. Vsevolod's son Vladimir Monomakh was sitting at his place in Pereyaslavl; he could not infringe on the rights of his elder brother, and he had to execute his will, because he had made a political alliance with him. Sviatopolk decided to start a war. And the Kievan prince could only fight with the Polovtsians for the sake of slaves.
It should be said that the Kipchaks lacked the maneuverability which is traditionally attributed to nomads. Like all nomads they were engaged in cattle breeding. But winters of the southern Russian steppes were characterized by abundant snowfalls, when the thickness of the snow cover sometimes exceeded the height is 0.4 m. In such conditions, the cattle could not feed on pastures. And during the snowy season, the Cumans (Kipchaks), were forced to be confined to their wintering grounds, and in summer - to the hayfields. Even with well-prepared places for winter, the Kipchak cattle grew very thin. The riding horses especially suffered, and thus the military power of this tribal union also suffered.
After some unsuccessful battles, Svyatopolk II, followed by Vladimir Monomakh and the older brother of Oleg Svyatoslavich, whom we already know, Davyd, began attacking Kipchaks, trying to shift the burden of military actions to the Kipchak steppe. The Kipchaks had to defend the winter huts where their women and children were. Oxcarts with their families and their horses, moving at about four kilometres an hour, could not get away from the Russian army; the Kipchaks had to fight their battles forcibly.
Obviously, at the turn of the 11th-12th centuries, it was not the steppes that were the main threat to Kievan Rus'. A more formidable phenomenon was revealed at this time - the fall of morals, and the breakdown of traditional Russian ethics and morals. In 1097 a princely convention was held in Lyubech, which marked the beginning of a new political form of the country. It was decided there that "each one shall hold his own fiefdom". Thus, Russia began to become a confederation of independent states. The princes swore irrevocably to observe the proclamation and in this they kissed the cross.
А. D. Kivshenko. Vladimir Monomakh: the Dolobnaya Congress in 1103
Prince Vladimir Monomakh. Fragment of a list of the Faceted Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin
But only as the congress has terminated, one of the princes - Davyd Igorevich - seized the prince Vasilka Terebovlskiy, with the permission of Svyatopolk II in the Kiev land and ordered to blind him. About anything similar till then, was not heard of in Russia. The incident angered everyone, but nevertheless Svyatopolk remained the Grand Duke, and David only in 1100. was "exiled" to Buzhsk. And what about the Orthodox Church? She, of course, condemned this action from a Christian standpoint, but no more than that. After all, there was no unity in the church either. As we remember, the "Byzantines" - the Metropolitan's entourage - were at enmity with the monastic community of the Kievo-Pechersk Lavra.
Here is an example that illustrates the complexity of the relations between the church parties, the Grand Duke and his Western friends. In the Kievo-Pechersk Paterikon there is a story about the monk of Pechersk, Eustratius, who was sold in the Crimea to a Jewish merchant. He demanded that the monk renounce Christ, tortured him, and crucified the monk, who was accustomed to fasting, without being crushed by hunger. The monk was put to death. Word of the incident spread throughout the Crimea and reached Constantinople. The Byzantine emperor Alexei Comnenus did not forgive crimes, did not like to joke, and destroyed the Jewish community in the Crimea.
The brethren of the Lavra, no doubt, were not unaware of the treatment of a Jewish merchant by a monk of their own monastery. And yet this did not prevent the brethren from having the same patron, Prince Sviatopolk II, as the Jewish moneylenders. It is not by chance that in the "Tale of the Bygone Years," created by Nestor at the monastery, many unworthy qualities of Svyatopolk were diligently obscured by the chronicler for the benefit of the monastery's patron. The first historian of the Russian land expressed his complaints against Sviatopolk in a very restrained manner, stating only that Sviatopolk took away the monks' salt mines - one of the most profitable enterprises of the XI-XII centuries, although the monks repeatedly suffered because of Sviatopolk's politics.
The same Nestor also reports that in May 1096 the Polovtsian Khan Boniak, an ally of the Chernigov princes and an opponent of Svyatopolk, raided Kiev. The Kipchaks seized the Kievo-Pechersk Lavra, robbed and killed the monks. The Kipchaks, as usual, took the captives taken in Rus, took them to the Crimea and sold it to the local merchants-slave-traders.
Kissing the cross by Vladimir Vsevolodich Monomakh and Svyatopolk Izyaslavich of Kiev as a sign of reconciliation. Miniature from the Radziwill Chronicle
It is easy to understand that the policy pursued by Sviatopolk II, was far from the strategic, political, economic and cultural interests of Rus. The war with the Cumans was conducted because of the desire to capture as many captives as possible and sell them in the slave markets. Naturally, the Kievers were extremely dissatisfied with the policy of Svyatopolk, but he had quite a strong retinue, and it was commanded by "uynyas". It was too risky for the townspeople to revolt under such conditions. But all men die. In 1113. Svyatopolk died, and then popular passions broke out. The houses of many boyars were plundered, as well as those of the courtier Putyata and the shops of the Jewish moneylenders. This is how the first Jewish pogrom took place in Kiev. The Kievans dealt with the Jewish merchants and their supporters with a truly people's scope of action. Not everyone in the city approved of the spontaneous actions of the Kievanites.
The rich boyars understood that appetite comes with food, and thus this outrage can affect them as well. Therefore, they sent a deputation, headed by the metropolitan, to Vladimir Monomakh, a strong ruler, and popular enough among the people.
Father and Son
Vladimir appeared with a small detachment; the Kievers did not offer him any resistance; on the contrary, they recognized him as the great prince of Kiev. Monomachakh demanded an end to the extermination of the Jews, promising the Kievers that the princes would solve the problem of the Jewish community. And at the princely congress in Vydobych this question was solved. Vladimir Monomakh declared that he would not confiscate Jewish property, even though it had been gained in an unrighteous way. The Jews retained the right to everything acquired by them in Russia. But they were denied the right of residence, and those who came clandestinely were deprived of the protection of the law. All Jews were to leave immediately for their country of origin, and were to be given the requisite escort. After the events of 1113, Westernizing Rus' disappeared until the 13th century, and thereafter only two parties were in competition: the Pro-Byzantine party and the Russian party.
View of Kievo-Pecherskaya Lavra in the XIX century.
Monomakh was also effective in solving the Cumans' problem. Russian forces, losing individual skirmishes, easily won the war with such an immobile enemy. The decisive campaign in 1111 was all-Russian. The nomads were defeated on the Don, and in 1116 the son of Vladimir Monomakh Yaropolk defeated the Kipchak veins on the Don. In 1120 the same Yaropolk did not find any more Polovtsians on the Don: the nomads went deep into the steppes.
As a result of these campaigns, the western nomads between the Don and Carpathians were brought to submission. The Kipchaks, who lived in this territory, joined Rus on the basis of autonomy and, being unbaptized, began to be called "the pagan" (from the Latin paganus, "heathen"). In contrast, the Kipchaks who lived beyond the Don, on the Volga and Kuban, were called "wild". The "wild" Kipchaks usually acted as allies of the Rostov-Suzdal princes, while their steppe enemies, who lived on the southern border of Volyn - the Torks - supported the princes of Volyn and Kiev
Prince Vladimir Monomakh. Engraving 1805.
Reigning of Mstislav Vladimirovich the Great in Kiev; departure of Yaropolk Vladimirovich for reigning in Pereyaslavl. Miniature from the Radziwill Chronicle
So, during the years of his reign (1113-1125) Vladimir Monomachakh solved both problems: Polovtsian and Jewish, establishing a relative order in Russia. He left as a legacy to his son Mstislav the Great, who came to the throne after him, only the problem of the Polotsk principality. And Mstislav, being a man of talent like his father, seized Polotsk, sent the Polotsk dukes to Byzantium, and incorporated the territory of that duchy into the Russian land. It was a period when all of Russia (i.e. all of Eastern Slavdom) was united
В. M. Vasnetsov. Rest of Vladimir Monomakh after the hunt
Mstislav the Great, though reigning very briefly (1125-1132), was so respected that he was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.
Beginning of the end
After the death of Mstislav, the Kiev state began a rapid, spontaneous dissolution. The first to fall was Polotsk, where in the year of Mstislav the Great's death the Polotsk princes arrived from Byzantium. They were received by the citizens, and Polotsk returned to its independence. Then, in 1135, Novgorod separated. The Novgorod "republic" stopped sending money to Kiev.
Mstislav's brother Yaropolk ruled in Kiev for some time (until 1139). He died, leaving the throne to his brother Vyacheslav. And then Chernigov interfered in the destiny of the Kiev throne. Oleg's son Vsevolod attacked Kiev, drove Vyacheslav out and sat on the Kiev throne, declaring himself great prince. He was opposed by a branch of the Monomachists supported by Volhynia. Izyaslav, a nephew of Vyacheslav, tried to return Kiev to the Monomakh heritage, but Vsevolod - a tough, clever and cruel prince - held on to the great reign until his death (1146).
Less fortunate was his brother Igor - a remarkably untalented man. In less than a month of his rule he succeeded in alienating Kiev's citizens and, when Izyaslav Mstislavich, grandson of Monomachus, arrived in Volyn with a detachment of the Torks, the Kiev militia left prince Igor. Defeated near the walls of the capital, he tried to flee but his horse got bogged down in the swamp near the Lybed river. Igor was seized and imprisoned in a bailiwick, where he was imprisoned until his third brother - Svyatoslav Olgovich - gathered in Chernigov forces to free the deposed Igor, who had taken monastic vows. But the hatred of the Kievers, who saw Igor as their enemy, was also dangerous for the monk. Izyaslav sent his retinue to lead Igor out of the hedge and take him to the temple of Saint Sophia, where the sanctity of the place would guard him (the cathedral enjoyed the right of refuge). But Kievers on the cathedral square repulsed him from the guards and trampled on him with their feet, and the corpse was thrown there without burial (1147).
Grand Duke Mstislav Vladimirovich. Titularnik of 1672.
Russian principalities until the 13th century.
A persistent war between Chernigov and Kiev principalities began. At this time the Rostov-Suzdal land separated and became actually independent.
Monomakh - Yuri Dolgoruky, the legitimate head of the senior line of Monomachists. Izyaslav, on the other hand, beloved of the Kievers, belonged to the younger line of Monomachists. To enumerate all the endless clashes, perhaps, makes no sense. Suffice it to note that Dolgoruky died of poison (1157). His son Andrei Yurievich Bogolyubsky (who lived in the village of Bogolyubov, hence his nickname) inherited the Rostov-Suzdal principality from his father.
As we see, Monomakh's children fought with his grandsons for life and death. The struggle of the Rostov-Suzdal princes Jury Dolgoruky and Andrey Bogolyubsky with the Volyn princes Izyaslav Mstislavich, Mstislav and Roman for the throne of Kiev was certainly a struggle of uncles with their nephews, but it is wrong to consider it as a family quarrel. Indeed, according to the etiquette of the time, the chroniclers wrote: "the prince went", "the prince decided", "the prince accomplished", whether the prince was six years old, thirty-three years old or in his eighth decade. Obviously, it could not be so. As already mentioned, the military-political groups standing for the princes, expressing the interests of these or other lands of the disintegrating Russian state, were fighting among themselves. This process, which gradually began with the decisions of the Congress of Princes in Lubeck (1097), 70 years later became irreversible, and the Kievan state by the beginning of the XIII century was divided into several independent states.
The Kiev principality in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
Prince Georgy (Yuri) Dolgoruky. Engraving 1805.
Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky. Engraving of 1805.
Finally, the Northeastern Russia and the southwestern lands (Volyn, Kiev and Galicia) became separate. The Chernigov Princedom became the independent state where Olgovichi and Davydovich ruled. Smolensk and the land of Turovo-Pinsk stood out. Novgorod gained full independence. And the Polovtsians, conquered and subjugated, did not even have to violate their obligations: they preserved their autonomy, which Russian princes never thought to encroach upon.
The state disintegration of Russia reflected the ongoing disintegration of the ethnic system: although all principalities were still Russian and all remained orthodox, the sense of ethnic unity among them was destroyed.
A striking example of the loss of ethnic complimentarity was the act of Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky. In 1169, after capturing Kiev, Andrei gave the city to his soldiers to be looted for three days. (The Kievers had poisoned his father.) Up to that time in Russia it had been customary to do so only with foreign cities. This practice was never applied to Russian cities during any internecine strife.
The order of Andrei Bogolyubsky shows that for him and his cohorts in 1169 Kiev was as foreign as any German or Polish castle. Consequently, at the end of the XII century Ancient Rus entered a new phase of ethnogenesis - obscuration. Passionarity of Russia was steadily decreasing, and therefore the variety of landscapes, traditions and variations in behavior led to the triumph of centrifugal tendencies. Due to this circumstance, Russia was torn into separate principalities and fiefdoms, to which different ethnic groups and sub-ethnoses corresponded in ethnic terms. The latter were extremely diverse. Thus, Smolensk land had about a dozen principalities, the same was observed in the territory of the Rostov-Suzdal and Chernigov principalities. In the Galician land even survived an area, which was ruled not by the Rurikids, but by the descendants of the ancient Slavic chiefs - the Bolokhov princes.
Pagan Baltic and Ugro-Finnic tribes: Jatviagi, Litva, Zmud, Esti, Mordva, Cheremys, Zyrjans, Zavolotskii Chud remained outside of Russia. This is how Russia entered the thirteenth century, the century of its tragic ruin.
.