Выбрать главу

Pereiaslavl' had been the patrimony of Vladimir Monomakh. As noted above, his younger sons and grandsons (Mstislavichi) fought for possession of the town to use it as a stepping-stone to the capital of Rus'. After Iurii Dolgorukii occupied Kiev his descendants gained possession of Pereiaslavl'. During the last quarter of the twelfth century, however, the town and its outposts became favourite targets of Polovtsian raids. Consequently, it declined in importance so that, by the turn of the thirteenth century, it was without a prince for a number ofyears. Vsevolod expressed greater interest in Pereiaslavl' and sent his son Iaroslav, albeit a minor, to administer it.[148]

Vsevolod the Red's initial success in Kiev was short-lived. Riurik retaliated by driving him out. After that, the town changed hands between them on several occasions. Meanwhile, Vsevolod Big Nest, incensed at Vsevolod the Red for evicting his son Iaroslav from Pereiaslavl', marched against Chernigov. En route, the princes of Riazan'joined him. On learningthat they had betrayed him by forming a pact with Vsevolod the Red, Vsevolod attacked Riazan'. He took the princes, their wives and their boyars captive to Vladimir, where many remained until after his death. In 1208 Riurik died and Vsevolod the Red finally occupied Kiev uncontested.[149] Two years later, he formed a pact followed by a marriage bond with Vsevolod Big Nest.[150] Their alliance was the most powerful in the land.

Vsevolod the Red's relatives in Galicia were less fortunate. In 1211 the boyars rebelled against the Igorevichi and hanged three of them.[151] Vsevolod accused the Rostislavichi of complicity in the crime and expelled them from their Kievan domains. He therewith successfully appropriated the lands that his father Sviatoslav had failed to take from Riurik. The evicted princelings, however, turned to Mstislav Romanovich of Smolensk and Mstislav Mstislavich the Bold of Novgorod for help. Meanwhile, on 13 April 1212, Vsevolod Big Nest died depriving Vsevolod the Red of his powerful ally.[152] Taking advantage of this shift in the balance of power, the Rostislavichi attacked Kiev and drove out Vsevolod. They pursued him to Chernigov where he evidently fell in battle.82

Defeat at the River Kalka

The reign of Mstislav Romanovich, who replaced Vsevolod in Kiev, was peace­ful, but the north-east was thrown into turmoil. Before his death, Vsevolod Big Nest weakened the power of the senior prince in Vladimir-Suzdal' by dividing up his lands among all his sons. He made matters worse by designating his second son Iurii, rather than the eldest Konstantin, his successor.83 He there­with antagonised the latter. Meanwhile, Mstislav the Bold ruled Novgorod but Iaroslav of Pereiaslavl'-Zalesskii was determined to evict him. Konstantin joined Mstislav while Iurii backed his brother Iaroslav. The two sides clashed on 21 April 1216 near the River Lipitsa, where Mstislav and Konstantin were vic­torious.84 Consequently, Mstislav retained Novgorod and Konstantin replaced Iurii as senior prince.

Two years later, Mstislav the Bold abandoned Novgorod. Soon after, it fell into the hands of Iurii, who became senior prince in 1218 after Konstantin died. Thus, the princes of Vladimir-Suzdal' finally acquired Novgorod, not because they were more powerful than Mstislav the Bold, but because he sought greener pastures in the south-west.85 Accompanied by his cousin Vladimir Riurikovich of Smolensk and the Ol'govichi, he captured Galich from the Hungarians.86 After that the Rostislavichi, who controlled Smolensk, Kiev and Galich, were the most powerful dynasty.

In I223 the Tatars (Mongols) removed the Polovtsy as a military power. On receiving this news, Mstislav Romanovich summoned the princes of Rus' to Kiev where they agreed to confront the new enemy on foreign soil. Their forces included contingents from Kiev, Smolensk, Chernigov, Galicia, Volyn' and probably Turov. Vladimir-Suzdal', Riazan', Polotsk and Novgorod sent no men. After the troops set out, Mstislav the Bold quarrelled with his cousin Mstislav of Kiev. Their disagreement was responsible, in part, for the annihi­lation of their forces on 31 May at the River Kalka.87

82 PSRL, vol. xxv, p. 109. For Vsevolod the Red's reign, see Dimnik, The Dynasty of Chernigov 1146-1246, pp. 249-87.

83 PSRL, vol. xxv, p. 108. For Vsevolod's descendants, see Baumgarten, Genealogies et mariages, table x.

84 PSRL, vol. xxv, pp. 111-14; Fennell, Crisis, pp. 48-9.

85 For the controversies in Novgorod, see Fennell, Crisis, pp. 51-8; V L. Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki (Moscow: MGU, 1962).

86 Novgorodskaiapervaialetopis', pp. 59, 260-1.

87 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 740-5. For a discussion of the campaign, see Fennell, Crisis, pp. 63-8.

Mstislav the Bold escaped with his life. Mstislav Romanovich of Kiev and Mstislav Sviatoslavich of Chernigov, however, fell in the fray and their deaths necessitated the installation of new senior princes. Vladimir, Riurik's son, occupied Kiev; Mikhail, the son of Vsevolod the Red, occupied Chernigov.[153]The transitions of power worked smoothly according to the system of lateral succession. Given the heavy losses of life that the Ol'govichi had incurred, Mikhail made no attempt to usurp Kiev. Elsewhere, oblivious to or ignoring the threat that the Tatars presented, princes renewed their rivalries: Mstislav the Bold, Daniil Romanovich of Volyn' and the Hungarians fought for Galicia, while in Novgorod the townsmen struggled to win greater privileges from the princes of Vladimir-Suzdal'.

Mikhail Vsevolodovich

In I224, while Mikhail was visiting his brother-in-law Iurii in the north-east, the latter asked him to act as mediator in Novgorod. Iurii and the townsmen could not agree on the terms of rule because his brother Iaroslav had imposed debilitating taxes on the Novgorodians and appointed his officials over them. As Iurii's agent, Mikhail abrogated many ofIaroslav's stringent measures but in doing so incurred his wrath. Nevertheless, while in Novgorod Mikhail derived benefit for Chernigov by negotiating favourable trade agreements. In the early I230s, after Iaroslav pillaged his patrimonial domain and because he became involved in southern affairs, Mikhail terminated his involvement in Novgorod.

After that, Iaroslav reasserted his authority over the town through his sons, notably, Aleksandr, later nicknamed Nevskii. Mikhail's withdrawal from the northern emporium also enabled Iurii to restore unity among his brothers and nephews. Just the same, the fragmentation of Vladimir-Suzdal' that Vsevolod Big Nest had initiated by dividing up his lands among his sons, accelerated. Hereditary domains were partitioned even further among new sons.

In the late 1220s, Mikhail's brother-in-law Daniil had initiated an expansion­ist policy in Volyn' and Galicia. His success in appropriating domains forced Vladimir Riurikovich of Kiev and Mikhail to join forces. In 1228, however, they failed to defeat him at Kamenets and he remained free to pursue his aggression.[154] Meanwhile, the fortunes of the Rostislavichi had waned owing to their manpower losses at the Kalka, to the death of Mstislav the Bold, to succession crises that split the dynasty asunder, to famine in Smolensk and to Lithuanian incursions. Despite these setbacks, commerce evidently pros­pered in Smolensk. In 1229 its prince negotiated a trade agreement with the Germans of Riga and designated a special suburb in Smolensk for quarter­ing their merchants.90 Nevertheless, two years later, in light of his dynasty's declining fortunes, Vladimir summoned the princes of Rus' to Kiev to solicit new pledges of loyalty.

вернуться

148

For Pereiaslavl', see V G. Liaskoronskii, Istoriia Pereiaslavskoi zemli s drevneishikh vremen dopoloviny XIIIstoletiia (Kiev 1897); M. P. Kuchera, 'Pereiaslavskoe kniazhestvo', in L. G. Beskrovnyi (ed.), Drevnerusskie kniazhestva X-XIII vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1975), pp. 118-43.

вернуться

149

Concerning different views on the date of Riurik's death, see Martin Dimnik, 'The Place of Ryurik Rostislavich's Death: Kiev or Chernigov?', Mediaeval Studies 44 (1982): 371-93; John Fennell, 'The Last Years of Riurik Rostislavich', in D. C. Waugh (ed.), Essays in Honor of A. A. Zimin (Columbus, Oh.: Slavica, 1985), pp. 159-66; O. P. Tolochko, 'Shche raz pro mistse smerti Riuryka Rostyslavycha', in V P. Kovalenko et al. (eds.), Sviatyi kniaz' Mykhailo chernihivs'kyi ta ioho doba (Chernihiv: Siverians'ka Dumka, 1996), pp. 75-6.

вернуться

150

PSRL, vol. I, col. 435.

вернуться

151

PSRL, vol. II, cols. 723-7. Concerning the controversy over the identities of the three princes, see Dimnik, The Dynasty of Chernigov 1146-1246, pp. 272-5.

вернуться

152

PSRL, vol. I, cols. 436-7.

вернуться

153

For Mikhail's career, see Martin Dimnik, Mikhail, Prince of Chernigov and Grand Prince of Kiev, 1224-1246 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1981).

вернуться

154

PSRL, vol. 11, cols. 753-4.