Talk:Sack of Kiev (1169)

Link to Ukrainian nationalist

In the article about the capture of Kyiv by the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality, there is a reference to Pavlo Shtepa, a Ukrainian nationalist, Russophobe and author of the anti-Russian work "Moskovstvo", which is biased and contains a huge number of errors and unreliable information.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140903032508/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/1001brehnia.html - The book of a thousand and one lies (in ukrainian) https://web.archive.org/web/20090221043013/http://www.ukraine.ru/comments/101623.html - Racism with home delivery (in russian)

Citation from review: "That is why our chronicler wrote: "The people of Suzdal destroyed Kyiv so badly in 1169 that the Tatars had nothing to destroy in 1240." Lie. This is not in any annals, so Shtepa did not dare to give a reference

Thus, he can neither be a historical nor an authoritative source, since he was never a historian.

In general, if the chronicler wrote about the ruin of Kyiv in such a way that the Mongols no longer had anything to ruin, then it would be possible to cite the original source of the quote (that is, a link to the chronicle itself and the chronicler himself), and not refer to the Ukrainian nationalist.

And in general, the whole article is just an English translation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia article, which contains for the most part a Ukrainian nationalist narrative.

Egor Starilov (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it, as part of my general review of this article. I did notice a Ukrainian slant, but mostly because of the spelling of names, which isn't necessarily bad, except that we've got a rule on WP:KIEV.

There's also a lot of unsourced and irrelevant material here. It's not clear to me why we need a grand narrative all the way from 1132 to all the way up to 1246 in order to explain an event in 1169. Of course, valid comparisons can be drawn between various medieval sacks of Kiev, and various Kievan princely rebellions / wars of succession, a context that is somewhat missing. Just like with the 1240 sack, there is scholarly disagreement over the extent of the sacking; was 1169 comparable to, worse than, or not as bad as 1240?

And: was Kiev as a city, and Kievan Rus' as a realm, already in decline, did this sack set off the decline, or has it been exaggerated and did it continue to flourish relatively well until the Mongol invasion 70 years later? The grand narrative of Kievan Rus' as followed by many (including this article, mostly in unsourced sentences stating opinions) is one of continuous, slow decline ever since 1054 to 1240, which may make one wonder why Kiev(an Rus') was still able to keep somewhat together for almost 2 centuries of "decline"? Especially when the argument is that these 2 centuries were marked by "dynastic conflicts", because both Volodimer I and Yaroslav the Wise also got in power after wars of succession against rival relatives. There are plenty of reasons not to idealise their reigns as a "golden age" when everything was fine and perfect (an image likely promoted by Christian monks writing chronicles praising them for having "baptised the Rus'.").

So overall, this article just needs balance, reliable sources, no unsupported opinions, and information relevant to the event, and not grand narratives which assume continuous decline without evidence, or blame/exonerate the Suzdalians without reason. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It was translated from the Ukrainian Wikipedia article (yes there were POV issues). It is not obvious because it is another one of those translations without attribution. Earlier I removed a sentence that claimed it is "considered by many historians as first war between Ukrainians and Muscovites", for obvious reasons, was even contradicted by the source, though then I saw the state of the rest of the article and could not be bothered. Mellk (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Good move, I agree such a sentence is dubious and pseudohistorical. I intend to do some corrections here and there, not sure if I'm going to overhaul the entire article, but the issues need to be addressed eventually. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

PS: I think the conflict is probably better described in terms of princely branches, families, clans, dynastic lineages, court factions, than in terms of cities, principalities, geography. The latter are more easily manipulated by modern nationalists from all stripes, as appears to have happened with this article. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it would be a bit strange to portray it as having anything to do with modern nations. I think this event was mentioned in Ukrainian media and social media as proof that Russians and Ukrainians and been fighting each other continuously for 1000 years, or something. Mellk (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't surprise me. It also doesn't surprise me that two Ukrainian-language sources were added in March 2022. I can hardly blame Ukrainians for wanting to make a point "in the heat of the moment", given what we know was happening in the environs of Kyiv at the time. But this article really isn't the place for that kind of thing (if anywhere; I doubt "Russians" and "Ukrainians" can even be said to exist in 1169 already). The Kievan succession crisis of the 1160s had everything to do with dynastic relationships of princely families which have long lost power since, and almost nothing with two modern republics in a very different type of conflict. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Alleged chronicler quote

As the chronicler writes: "Suzdal destroyed Kyiv so much in 1169 that the Tatars had nothing to destroy in 1240." Source 19 appears to contain this quote on page 12. I'll try to translate it now. We need to be careful who said it and why, and whether it is relevant. Things like this are easily taken out of context. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Page 11–12 (in Ukrainian): Московський историк В. Ключевсьий уважае 1169-й роком народження Московскої держави. всі московьскі історики не згадують нищення Киева Андріем Боголюбсьсим, а трепдять, що Київ зруйнували татари. А татари руйнували його 1240 року, товто 70 років після Андрія. Тому наш літописець і записав: "Суздальці так дуже зруйнували 1169 року Київ, що татари не мали вже що руйнувати 1240 року." Muscovite historian V. Klyuchevsky considers 1169 to be the year of birth of the Muscovite state. All Muscovite historians do not mention the destruction of Kyiv by Andrey Boholyubsky, but rather say that Kyiv was destroyed by the Tatars. The Tatars destroyed it in 1240, 70 years after Andrey. That's why our chronicler wrote it down: "The Suzdalians destroyed Kyiv so badly in 1169 that the Tatars had nothing to destroy in 1240." Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

So this is a quote from "our chronicler", but which one? Seems like this is made up by Pavlo Shtepa. Even on ukwiki, an editor has said this is a "factual error": "this is not written by the chronicler, but by a modern author." Well sorry, then Shtepa is an unreliable source and should be removed, as already suggested above. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I had a brief look at the book, and yes, this is definitely not a historian, more of a pseudo-racialist than a historian. After all, he is also an author of the book "Москалі не «рускіє» і не слов'яни" ("Moskals are not 'Rus[s]ians' and are not Slavs"). An example to shows an indication of this: "Москвини кілька сторіч напружують усі свої здібності в брехні, підкупах, щоб світ не дізнався про справжнього москвина і про справжню Московщину. Найвищі досягнення в обдурюванні чужинців здобула московська «демократія» по 1917 році. І осягнула дуже простим, але направду геніальним способом: лише змінила термінологію.... Психологи запевняють, що люди сприймають найбезглуздішу брехню за правду, якщо ту брехню вперто і довго повторювати. Так азіати-москвини стали «русскими», а монгольська Московщина — «Россией». Та ця крадіжка чужого імені була лише дитячою забавкою порівняно з назовницькими загарбаннями московської «демократії» по 1917 році." (page 6). Mellk (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mellk Wow. Yeah, that probably is racist. Written by someone who wants to claim the name "Rus'" all for himself and deny it to "the Muscovites", accusing them of systemic lying.

At any rate, I'd like to ask you what you think of the current article? I've removed a lot of rubbish, and added a lot of cited content, mostly from Janet Martin 2007; perhaps I need to cite other RS as well? More than that, I expanded the Background section so much that perhaps we should split it off for some general article about Kievan succession crises / wars of succession? These were so common that they perhaps deserve their own overview article. The Sack of Kiev does not appear to have been that big of an event in the grand scheme of things, although it certainly has been interpreted (unjustly?) as a major turning point in the history of Kievan Rus'. As we discussed above, we should probably understand this series of conflicts more in dynastic terms of princely clans and the order of succession and hereditary rights than anything to do with modern states and identities. There was barely any "Ukrainian" identity to speak of yet, and Moscow was only first attested in a source in 1147, 12 years earlier, as an insignificant town. This 1169 event is all about those 4 princely clans:

1. the Olgovichi of Chernigov; (side branch: the Sviatoslavichi of Murom-Ryazan);
2. the Iziaslavichi of Volodymyr in Volyn / Vol(h)ynia - senior Mstislavichi line;
3. the Rostislavichi of Smolensk - junior Mstislavichi line; and
4. the Yurievichi / Vsevolodovichi (of Suzdalia / Vladimir-Suzdal, i.e. Vladimir on the Klyazma and Suzdal, and later Rostov after eliminating the Konstantinovichi of Rostov). The Yurievichi in the mid-13th century split into Daniilovichi of Moscow, Konstantinovichi of Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal, and Yaroslavichi of Tver.

• Minor clans included:
  • the Iziaslavichi / Brachiaslavichi / Vseslavichi of Polotsk (and Minsk, Drutsk, Slutsk etc.; they were virtually unaffected by the Mongol invasion, but later taken over by Lithuania); and
  • the Rostislavichi of Tmutarakan - controlling Halych / Galicia until extinction in 1199, when "Roman the Great", grandson of Iziaslavichi of Volynia progenitor Iziaslav II of Kiev, inherited Halych and united it with Volynia (and his son Daniel / Danylo founded the Kingdom of Ruthenia in the 1250s).

In The Ruling Families of Rus' (24 March 2021) - skip to 26:45 -, Donald Ostrowski also follows this dynastic perspective. It's all about having sat on the throne of Kiev, even if for a short time, just so that one's descendants will be eligible to become grand prince of Kiev in the future, or be excluded (virtually) forever. And about the clan control of the other principalities within the realm. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the state of the article is much better now. The map (with the caption) and tree is a good touch, so thanks for those. I think you are OK with using Martin for the time being, I will also try to add some references to support some statements. And yes, the concepts of nations and state succession etc are relatively modern, so in general, applying it to time periods like this one would be a bit odd. Mellk (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! I'd like to add that Martin 2007's interpretation is quite plausible: Andrey just sought to restore the dynastic order. He did not make Vladimir on the Klyazma "the new capital" by not moving his residence to Kiev and putting his younger brother on the throne as his puppet (a frequently held interpretation, which may be a pro-Moscow invented tradition along the lines of V. Klyuchevsky). Instead, because Gleb of Kiev was the Prince of Pereyaslavl and thus sort of the "crown prince" of Kiev, Gleb was expected to become grand prince of Kiev after Rostislav of Smolensk's brother passed away or was otherwise incapable of reigning. Mstislav II Iziaslavich of Kiev interfered with that order of succession, and Andrey restored it. He didn't "move the capital to Vladimir", or "make Kiev his vassal", although that certainly seems like an interpretation which writers (such as V. Klyuchevsky, who nationalistically calls Andrey "the first Great Russian", velikoros) who regard Vladimir-Suzdal, later Moscow, later Russia, as "superior" to Kiev, later Ukraine, would find very attractive to promote. Meanwhile, other writers (like Ukrainian nationalist Pavlo Shtepa) who also see in Andrey and Vladimir-Suzdal the predecessors of Moscow and Russia, but as enemies, find it convenient to promote an image of the Suzdalians as proto-Muscovites who are inherently bad and evil, lying about everything, and destroying beautiful innocent Kiev/Kyiv "so badly that the Tatars [sic, they didn't really exist yet either] had nothing left to destroy in 1240." These are simply competing narratives of modern, 20th-century Russian and Ukrainian nationalists who are looking to find their "nation"'s origins in the 12th century when those "nations" didn't really exist yet, certainly not in a modern sense. They are very unhelpful for explaining what actually happened in 1169. For that, we need to understand the thoroughly dynastic mindset and politics of Kievan Rus' without trying to frame it in modern national(ist) terms that don't make sense in the 12th century. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is all tainted by politics. Even the chronicles at the time you can see politics behind it. Take for example PVL and the story about Varangians being invited to reign, Kiev being conquered from the traitors and becoming the "mother of all Rus' cities" etc. I think you are very familiar with this. The chroniclers do this to strengthen the political legitimacy. When Moscow was fighting the Lithuanians, they used the idea that their dynasty could be traced back to Rurik (and back to the brother of Caesar) as justification that they were the rightful heirs and that all the land belonged to them. Now, nationalist historians (and politicians) use this wherever it is convenient. This is not something unique to the history of Eastern Europe, though, but is much more obvious now due to a war. Mellk (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. Btw I've got a related question at Talk:Vladimir-Suzdal#When did the princes of Vladimir become grand?, but I'll tag you over there, Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll look into this. Mellk (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've done some more improvements. Removed all anachronistic mentions of "Ukrainian", "Kyiv", "Russian", "Muscovite" etc.. Do you reckon we can remove the NPOV template by now? There are still some claims up for verification, but that's a WP:V issue, not an NPOV issue. E.g. the 2022 Radio Svoboda source does not seem to be POV to me, it's mostly repeating what has already been said elsewhere, in more detail, but perhaps a bit less accurately. It will do for now, but may be replaced by a better source later.

I see Martin is slightly inconsistent in her narrative. On the one hand, she presents two schools of thought:

1. those who claim Kievan Rus' has essentially been in constant "decline" and "fragmentation" since 1054, with the 1169 sack dealing a major blow and the 1240 sack being the final blow. This vision tacitly or explicitly assumes there to have been some sort of "golden age" during the reigns of Volodimer I and Yaroslav the Wise, then a decline and fall. Very Edward Gibbon-esque.
2. those who see no constant "decline" and "fragmentation", but instead argue Kievan Rus' flourished relatively well until the Mongol invasion, and that princely dynastic wars of succession and rebellion had always been part of Kievan Rus' long before 1169 and even 1054, and there is no need to claim more instability and collapse after 1054 than we can really find. Political and societal collapse don't take almost 2 centuries.

Martin seems to be an adherent of the latter vision, but also seems to borrow a lot of "decline" school arguments in her narrative, which leads to some confusion over what she is trying to argue for. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed it. Mellk (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Princely branches template

I've done some improvements already. I was working on User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Template:Kievan succession crises; @Mellk do you think this may help create a visual overview for the reader of what we're talking about? I'm afraid it's still too big, and distracts too much from the text. Maybe it's alright in a collapsable template state? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it has been mentioned for years now, but yes probably recently it has seen more coverage. In regards to the template, I think it would be useful to include such an illustration. I think looking at other articles might be useful, such as Succession of Henry IV of France and Portuguese succession crisis of 1580, which have something similar. Maybe if it is possible to make it smaller. Mellk (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mellk Good comparisons, thanks for the tip! I see those are both without titles or dates, so how about User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Template:Kievan succession crises#Names only? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, I think it can be used. Mellk (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I was still wondering about a good title.

How about Princely branches of Kiev from Yaroslav the Wise until the 1169 Sack of Kiev?

Or Princely branches of Kiev (Yaroslav the Wise–1169 Sack of Kiev)?

It doesn't necessarily show all Princes of Kiev, nor were all men shown here Princes of Kiev. I've just made a highly selective simplified version of Family tree of Russian monarchs#Rurik dynasty in order to show the lineages from the branch "heads" in 1169, namely Mstislav II of Kiev, Rostislav I of Kiev, Andrey Bogolyubsky, and Sviatoslav III of Kiev, all the way back to their common ancestor Yaroslav the Wise.

We could also move the names of the branches to a separate legend to make the tree even smaller. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose something like that. I would go for the first title for now. Maybe also just 1169 without "sack of Kiev". I think the size is OK for now but you could experiment trying to make it smaller to see if it still looks clear. Mellk (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, published as Template:Princely branches of Kiev 1019 to 1169. I suppose '1019' is shorter as a title, and it is exactly 1.5 century before 1169. But the heading in the template will still say 'Yaroslav the Wise'.

Inserted at Sack of Kiev (1169)#Overview of princely branches of Kiev. Thanks for your feedback! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, nice work. Mellk (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Novgorodians and Suzdalians

The Battle of the Novgorodians with the Suzdalians still needs some work in its "the battle in history" section, before we can properly summarise it here in the Aftermath section.

Incidentally, the Legend of the icon seems to me a great propaganda story invented by the Novgorodians in the mid-15th century at a time when Muscovy threatened Novgorod's independence and eventually annexed it in 1478. This is the kind of stuff people make up when they need to rally around the flag, comparable to Panfilov's Twenty-Eight Guardsmen, or the Ghost of Kyiv. It may provide a morale boost, but is not historically accurate.

Afterwards we'll have to clean up the rest of this article. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)