Sack of Kiev (1169)

According to the traditional rules of hereditary succession, one could only become grand prince of Kiev if one's father or elder brother had sat on the same throne before oneself.[6] If one's father or elder brother(s) died before 'sitting on the throne of Kiev', this would make one izgoi, ineligible to reign.[6]

1167–1169 Kievan succession crisis

Kievan Rus' principalities (map showing the situation of 1132) in the 1167–9 succession crisis:
Iziaslavichi

  Kiev – Iziaslavichi

  Novgorod – Iziaslavichi

  Volynia – Iziaslavichi

  Halych – Rostislavichi of Tmutarakan

Coalition

  Pereyaslavl – Yurievichi

  Suzdalia – Yurievichi

  Smolensk – Rostislavichi of Smolensk

  Chernigov – Olgovichi

Neutral

  Murom-Ryazan – Sviatoslavichi (Olgovichi branch)

  Polotsk – Vseslavichi

  (disputed territory)

After the death of Rostislav in 1169, the princely quarrels resumed.[4] According to his position of family seniority, Volodimer Mstislavich was next in line for the Kievan throne.[16] Nevertheless, the Kievan boyars invited Mstislav Iziaslavich, the prince of Volhynia (Volyn), to reign the grand principality. Therefore, having enlisted the support of Yaroslav Halytsky and mobilized a small squad, Mstislav Iziaslavich easily took over the city. However, by taking the throne, he breached the balance of power agreement between the Mstislavichi and Yurievichi, as well as causing a conflict between the Iziaslavichi of Volhynia (the senior Mstislavichi line) and the Rostislavichi of Smolensk (the junior Mstislavichi line).[2] This divided the dynasty into two opposing camps:[2]

• The Iziaslavichi of Volhynia (senior Mstislavichi; controlling Kiev, Volynia, Halych, and Novgorod); led by Mstislav II Iziaslavich of Volhynia and Kiev.[2]
• The Rostislavichi of Smolensk (junior Mstislavichi), the Yurievichi (controlling Suzdalia and Pereyaslavl), and the Olgovichi of Chernigov; led by Andrey Bogolyubsky of Vladimir-Suzdal and Rostov.[2]

In 1168 grand prince Mstislav Iziaslavich of Kiev headed an anti-Polovtsian expedition, in which as many as thirteen princes took part.

In 1169, Andrey Bogolyubsky gathered a large army, which included Murom, 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.

The two main primary sources about the 1169 Sack of Kiev are the Kievan Chronicle (found in the Hypatian Codex) and the Suzdal'–Vladimirian Chronicle (found in the Laurentian Codex).[17] The two accounts agree on the following factual descriptions: a military campaign was undertaken at the order of Andrey Bogolyubsky against the city of Kiev and Mstislav Iziaslavich, whom both apparently recognised as the (lawful?) "Kievan Prince".[18] 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 of Gleb of Kiev as the next grand prince, after Mstislav Andreyevich returned to Vladimir on the Klyazma in the northeast.[18]

Where they differ is in the details and in their Tendenz: the author of Kievan Chronicle provides a very elaborate and detailed account, in which he identifies with the capital, the fate of Kiev's citizens and their suffering.[18] He explains the sack of Kiev according to Christian tradition as a just punishment for unspecified sins the inhabitants had allegedly committed, and lamented it.[18] The writer of the Suzdal'–Vladimirian Chronicle agrees that the city was sacked as a just punishment for its inhabitants' sins, but treats Kiev as an enemy,[18] promoting the Yurievichi (Vladimir-Suzdalian) branch of the Monomakhovichi dynasty instead.[19] While the Kievan account describes the attackers who set the Kyiv Monastery of the Caves on fire as "heathens",[20] the Suzdal'–Vladimirian story calls the Monastery's metropolitan "unlawful" because of a theological disagreement over fasting on holy days, adding "that no one may oppose God's law".[21]

After the long siege, the defenders of the city surrendered on 8 March 1169. Mstislav II Iziaslavich fled, while his wife and son were captured by coalition forces.[1] The victorious coalition plundered the city of Kiev and looted its treasures for three days.[1] 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.[1]

After that, Andrey Bogolyubsky put his younger brother Gleb Yurievich, prince of Pereyaslav, on the throne of Kiev.[16]

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.

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. Once again, having left the Grand Prince table to get new troops in Volhynia, Mstyslav fell ill and died on 19 August 1170.[22] His work was continued by cousins – princes Rostislavichi. The new grand prince Gleb of Kiev also died, probably in the year 1171, albeit under somewhat mysterious cirucmstances.[22] A rapid succession of briefly reigning princes in the capital eventually saw one Rurik Rostislavich seizing the crown.[22]

Trying to gain control of Kiev again, Andrey Bogolyubsky sent a huge at the time army (50,000 soldiers), combining the forces of 20 princes.[22] On the night of 19 December 1173, near Vyshhorod, this army was completely defeated by a younger generation of Volynian–Smolensk princes[22] under the command of Mstyslav Rostyslavych and the Lutsk prince Yaroslav Izyaslavych, who then became the Grand Prince of Kiev.[23][22]

Andrey's attempts to increase his princely authority at the expense of the positions of boyars, bishops, city officials and the veche led to internal strife.[24] As a result, on 28 June 1174, conspirators killed Andrey in his residential town of Bogolyubovo in Suzdalia.[24] His death triggered a Suzdalian war of succession; after several years of struggle (1174–1177), Andrey's brother Vsevolod the Big Nest ascended the throne of Vladimir-Suzdal.[22] Meanwhile, Novgorod threw the Yurievichi out of the Republic after Andrey's assassination, and wouldn't be under their firm control again until 1187.[22]

For one hundred years since the death of Vsevolod 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.[25]

How the 1169 Sack of Kiev is to be interpreted is a matter of scholarly and historiographical debate.[1] '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 signifance.[1] 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.[1] One frequently expressed interpretation regards the sack of Kiev as signalling the rise of Vladimir-Suzdal, as Andrey Bogolyubsky decided to keep Vladimir on the Klyazma as his residence, and appointed his younger brother Gleb (considered a "minor prince" by some) to govern the city of Kiev instead of taking the throne for himself.[1] He did not even lead his troops into battle, appointing his son Yury Bogolyubsky as commander, while he stayed behind in Suzdalia focusing on construction projects.[26] 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.[16]

Andrey Bogolyubsky. Forensic facial reconstruction by M.Gerasimov. 1941

Ukrainian historian Mykhailo 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."[27]

Imperial Russian historian Vasily 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."[28] The chronicles call the Galician-Volyn prince Roman Mstislavych "the autocrat of all Rus'", while Andrey Bogolyubsky is called "the autocrat of the whole Suzdal land".

Russo-American historian George 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.'[29]

According to Soviet Russian historian B. A. Rybakov (1982), 'the description and degree of destruction in Kiev had been exaggerated by the chroniclers'.[1]

Jaroslaw Pelenski (1987) deduced that the primary justification for the Sack of Kiev provided in the Suzdal'–Vladimirian Chronicle was based on an earlier theological dispute concerning fasting on holy days which took place in Suzdal' in 1164.[19]

According to Lev Gumilev (1992), 'the Kiev pogrom testified to the loss of a sense of ethnic and state unity with Rus' among the population of Zalesye'.[30] 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.[30]

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.'[29] 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.'[29] 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 (after Rostislav's brother), confirming rather than disrupting established practice.[16]

Iryna Kostenko and Maryna Ostapenko (2022) wrote that, according to the ancient tradition and unwritten rules of Kievan Rus', the people of Kiev believed that the new prince came to rule the capital, so they decided to rely on the mercy of the victors. "Mercy" turned out to be ruthless as Kiev was subjected to unprecedented devastation for two days, neither women nor children were spared. Properties and residential neighborhoods were looted, a large number of churches and monasteries were burned. Not only private property was taken out of Kiev, but also icons, chasubles and bells. The Holy Icon of the Mother of God was also stolen – it would later be called the "Vladimir Icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary" and become the greatest shrine of the Russian Empire.[31]

• Martin, Janet (2007). Medieval Russia: 980–1584. Second Edition. E-book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-511-36800-4.
• Fennell, John (13 October 2014). The Crisis of Medieval Russia 1200-1304. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-87314-3.
• Pelenski, Jaroslaw (1987). "The Sack of Kiev of 1169: Its Significance for the Succession to Kievan Rus'". Harvard Ukrainian Studies. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. 11 (3): 303–316. JSTOR 41036277. Reprinted in Pelenski, The Contest for the Legacy of Kievan Rus'.
• Pelenski, Jaroslaw (1988). "The Contest for the "Kievan Succession" (1155–1175): The Religious-Ecclesiastical Dimension". Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 12/13: 776. JSTOR 41036344.