Leading up to the point that the Mongols granted Moscow the iarlyk , Tver and Moscow were constantly struggling for power. The major turning point surfaced in when the populace of Tver started to rise in rebellion. Seeing this as an opportunity to please the khan of his Mongol overlords, Prince Ivan I of Moscow took a huge Tatar contingent and quashed the rebellion in Tver, thereby restoring order in that city and winning the favor of the khan.
For his show of loyalty, Ivan I was also granted the iarlyk and with this Moscow took yet another step towards prominence and power. Soon the princes of Moscow took over the responsibilities of collecting taxes throughout the land and in doing so, taking part of these taxes for themselves and eventually the Mongols gave this responsibility solely to Moscow and ended the practice of sending their own tax collectors.
This change brought more stability to Moscow and thus strengthened her position within the realm. As Moscow grew wealtheir through being the main tax collector of the lands, its authority over several principalities became greater and more consolidated. The lands that Moscow gained equated with more taxes and more access to resources, and thus more power. During the time that Moscow grew wealtheir and more powerful, the Golden Horde was in a state of general decay, wrought with rebellions and coups.
Prince Dmitrii decided to attack the Kazan khanate in and was successful. Not long after, one of the Mongol generals, Mamai, sought to create his own horde of sorts in the steppes west of the Volga River Hosking, 79 and he decided to challenge the authority of Prince Dmitrii on the banks of the Vokha River; Dmitrii defeated Mamai, exciting his Muscovites and, naturally, angering the Mongols.
However, Mamai chose to fight again and organized a contingent of , men; Dmitrii matched this number and their two armies met near the River Don at Kulikovo Pole Kulikovo Field in early September of Dmytryshyn, Prince Dmitrii became known as Dmitrii Donskoi of the Don. However, Moscow was soon sacked by Tokhtamysh, and once again had to pay tribute to the Mongols. Yet the great battle of Kulikovo Pole in was a symbolic turning point. Even though Moscow suffered retribution for attacking Mongol armies, the power that Moscow welded would continue to grow and its influence over other Russian principalities would continue to expand.
Novgorod finally succumbed to future capital in , and Moscow soon shed any allegiance to the Mongol and Tatar overlords thus ending over years of Mongol control. As the evidence stands, the effects of the Mongol invasion were many, spread across the political, social, and religious facets of Russia.
While some of those effects, such as the growth of the Orthodox Church generally had a relatively positive effect on the lands of the Rus, other results, such as the loss of the veche system and centralization of power assisted in halting the spread of traditional democracy and self-government for the various principalities. From the influences on the language and the form of government, the very impacts of the Mongol invasion are still evident today.
Perhaps given the chance to experience the Renaissance, as did other western European cultures, the political, religious, and social thought of Russia would greatly differ from that of the reality of today. The Russians, through the control of the Mongols who had adopted many ideas of government and economics from the Chinese, became perhaps a more Asiatic nation in terms of government, while the deep Christian roots of the Russians established and helped maintain a link with Europe.
It was the Mongol invasion which, perhaps more than any other historical event, helped to determine the course of development that Russian culture, political geography, history, and national identity would take. Baiburov, R. Accessed February, Chronicle of Novgorod — , The. Nevill Forbes and Robert Mitchell. Halperin, Charles J. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, Hosking, Geoffrey.
Russia and the Russians: A History. Kadyrbaev, A. Kargalov, V. Nasonov, A. Van Schooneveld. The Hague: Mouton, This settlement is supposed to be at the site of modern-day Novgorod.
However, newer archeological evidence suggests that Novgorod was not regularly settled until the 10th century, leading some to speculate that Holmgard refers to a smaller settlement just southeast of the city.
The capital officially moved to Kiev at this point. Over the next years local tribes consolidated and unified under the Rurik Dynasty, although local fractures and cultural differences continued to play a significant role in the attempt to maintain order under Varangian rule.
Before he gained the throne in , he had been the Prince of Novgorod while his father, Sviatoslav of the Rurik Dynasty, ruled over Kiev. He also successfully bolstered his frontiers against incursions from Bulgarian, Baltic, and Eastern nomads during his reign. Many of these practices were based on pagan and localized traditions. According to Photius, the people of the region appeared enthusiastic about the new religion and he claims to have sent a bishop to convert the population.
Any local people in small villages who embraced Christian practices would have had to contend with fears of change from their neighbors. He ascended to the position of Prince of Novgorod around while his oldest brother, Yaropolk, became the designated heir to the throne in Kiev. Sviatoslav died in , leaving behind a fragile political scene among his three sons. Vladimir fled to his kinsman Haakon Sigurdsson, who ruled Norway at the time. Vladimir spent the next decade expanding his holdings, bolstering his military might, and establishing stronger borders against outside invasions.
He also remained a practicing pagan during these first years of his rule. He continued to build shrines to pagan gods, traveled with multiple wives and concubines, and most likely continued to promote the worship of the thunder god Perun.
According to the limited documentation from the time, the envoys that came back from Constantinople reported that the festivities and the presence of God in the Christian Orthodox faith were more beautiful than anything they had ever seen, convincing Vladimir of his future religion.
Another version of events claims that Basil II of Byzantine needed a military and political ally in the face of a local uprising near Constantinople. In this version of the story, Vladimir demanded a royal marriage in return for his military help. In either version of events, Vladimir vied for the hand of Anna, the sister of the ruling Byzantine emperor, Basil II.
In order to marry her he was baptized in the Orthodox faith with the name Basil, a nod to his future brother-in-law. However, two later versions were erected and destroyed in the 17th and 19th centuries. He returned to Kiev with his bride in and proceeded to destroy all pagan temples and monuments.
He also built the first stone church in Kiev named the Church of the Tithes starting in On his return in , Vladimir baptized his twelve sons and many boyarsin official recognition of the new faith. He also sent out a message to all residents of Kiev, both rich and poor, to appear at the Dnieper River the following day.
The next day the residents of Kiev who appeared were baptized in the river while Orthodox priests prayed. This event became known as the Baptism of Kiev. Many local populations violently rejected the new religion and a particularly brutal uprising occurred in Novgorod in However, Vladimir became a symbol of the Russian Orthodox religion, and when he died in his body parts were distributed throughout the country to serve as holy relics.
Yaroslav the Wise was the Grand Prince of Kiev from until his death in He was also vice-regent of Novgorod from to before his father, Vladimir the Great, died. These accomplishments during his lengthy rule granted him the title of Yaroslav the Wise in early chronicles of his life, and his legacy endures in both political and religious Russian history.
His youth remains shrouded in mystery. Evidence from the Primary Chronicle and examination of his skeleton suggests he is one of the youngest sons of Vladimir, and possibly a son from a different mother. He was most likely born around the year Facial reconstruction of Yaroslav I by Mikhail Gerasimov.
He was set as vice-regent of Novgorod in , as befitted a senior heir to the throne. In this same time period Vladimir the Great granted the Kievan throne to his younger son, Boris.
Relations were strained in this family. Supplies to southeastern Europe are disrupted for several weeks as a result of the dispute. Mr Luzhkov had been in office since Tens of thousands turn out in opposition protests alleging fraud, in first major anti-government protests since the early s.
Opponents take to the streets of several major cities to protest at the conduct of the election, police arrest hundreds. The women were sentenced to two years for "hooliganism". Russia formally joins the World Trade Organization after 18 years of negotiations.
Russia suspended from G-8 group of industrialised countries. The IMF says Russian growth is slowing down to zero. Police charge two Chechens with murder amid widespread scepticism. But West and Syrian opposition say it overwhelmingly targets anti-Assad rebels instead. Russia, Turkey's second-largest trading partner, imposes economic sanctions.
Key opposition figures such as Alezei Navalny barred from standing. British allies join London in imposing further sanctions on Russia, including the United States in August. Former tax service chief Mikhail Mishustin appointed prime minister, succeeding Mr Putin's long-time ally Dmitry Medvedev.
Mongol domination. Image source, Getty Images. Moscow has a population of more than 10 million people. Rise of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, it is certain that the socio-political organization of the Pechenegs described by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus had been severely weakened as a result of defeats suffered at the turn of the 10th and 11th centuries.
It was during this turbulent period that Bruno of Querfurt appeared among the pagan Pechenegs with the intention of converting them to Christianity. It was also supposed to involve tasks that were par excellence political in nature. This was because Bruno, allegedly acting as an intermediary of the Polish ruler, helped negotiate an alliance with the Pechenegs that brought substantive results over the next decade.
Let us start with the fact that it is unclear whether the Piast state neighboured the Pechenegs. This inevitably evokes a still unsettled dispute over the formative processes that shaped the territorial boundaries of the early Polish state, and particularly its eastern and southern borders.
This dispute seems to be far from being resolved, yet it can be assumed that the Piasts took control of the most southeastern region, between the upper Bug and the San, relatively late.
Researchers who date this event the earliest assume that it took place at the end of the s. Therefore, the importance of the Pechenegs to the foreign policy of the first rulers of Poland should be assessed with great caution.
There is no extant data on the times of Mieszko I concerning his relationships with the Pechenegs. The number of toponyms assigned to them, especially in comparison with other nomadic peoples, however, is very modest. This is limited to five localities in the area of the Upper Vistula River.
Nevertheless, the conquest of Lesser Poland and Silesia by Polish rulers probably did not lead to any significant changes. Since the nomads, under increasing pressure from the Uzes, had sent forces to the south-western borders of their territories to attack the Byzantine Empire, 59 it seems likely that a similar situation could have occurred in the north-western borderlands. However, a complete lack of any such mention in written sources raises doubts. And while this does not rule out the possibility of Pecheneg invasions in the southern territories of the Piast dynasty in the late 10th and early 11th centuries, the intensity of such activity could not have been substantial, since it left no record.
The question remains, however, whether the Polish monarch considered them valuable allies and whether he used the mission of Bruno of Querfurt to make an alliance with them. The latter refers several times to the Polish ruler in honourable terms in his writings, which has inspired a conviction among contemporary researchers that there was a particularly close relationship between these two great figures.
Rhetorical hyperbola aside, it should be noted that the high level of respect that Bruno seems to have had for the Piast monarch was a product of his commitment to missionary work. It is therefore unlikely that he would have undertaken purely political projects that could have made his missionary activity more difficult. Meanwhile, persuading the Pechenegs to form an alliance with the ruler of a neighbouring country could have aroused distrust in Vladimir, without whose support it was impossible to succeed in his conversion efforts among the steppe-dwellers.
His behaviour would be clearly traitorous to his principal, who would consider him to be a persona non grata. Bruno of Querfurt probably decided to go to the Pechenegs on his own. The logical premise for such a missionary itinerary is to seek support at European courts which maintained contacts with the world of the steppe, so that they could provide organizational support for the evangelization mission and, in case of success, support the budding church organization among pagans.
This delay, or rather period of waiting, may have been due to a very prosaic cause: bad travel conditions on the steppe. Contrary to the opinion of Rev. Walerian Meysztowicz, it is clear that Bruno did not cross into the lands of the Pechenegs on February 22, An expedition to the steppe at that time of the year would have been a suicide mission.
Bruno probably did not set out until the spring. His time in Kiev should be attributed, at least to a certain extent, to the necessity of having to wait for spring to arrive. An attempt to recreate the route followed by Bruno leads for the most part to strictly hypothetical conclusions.
The question of why Bruno and his collaborators did not reach one of the Pecheneg regions is bound to pique the interest of researchers. It may have merely been due to their relatively short stay on the steppe, or the region could have been the site of military activity or other disturbances at the time. The only area where armed conflict would seem to be likely to occur, due to pressure from the Uzes, would be the encampments on left-bank Patzinacia.
This hypothesis, although not without basis, is nevertheless merely speculative. It is impossible to propose even the most general theories about the Pecheneg tribes that Bruno visited.
This is evidenced by his readiness to send his own son to the nomads as a hostage to guarantee a peace agreement he had concluded with the Pechenegs. The behaviour of Senior Ruzorum , as Bruno of Querfurt referred to Vladimir, made a strong impression on the missionary. It cannot be ruled out, of course, that his actions were dictated in part by religious motivations, but purely political considerations clearly played an important role.
Of course, Bruno performed a great service for the Prince of Kiev in both regards. It is difficult to say when he made this return. Sviatopolk began to conspire against Vladimir, who proved strong enough to imprison him along with his wife and Bishop Reinbern. If acquiring an abundance of spoils was synonymous with a successful invasion, then failure to achieve this goal was bound to raise objections.
There are numerous indications that the Polish ruler treated them as short-term subordinates who were required to obey him unconditionally, while any symptoms of insubordination were to be punished mercilessly. It was definitely not a political partnership of equals in which the interests of both parties would be taken into account. It seems, therefore, unlikely that the Piast monarch maintained contacts with the nomads in question either before or after the expedition.
The invasions of the Pechenegs continued. It is difficult to say whether the nomads demanded that Sviatopolk, as their ally, be handed over to them, or whether they only exploited the growing succession crisis for the purpose of looting.
Vladimir, who was dying at that time and could not fight against the aggressor, sent his son Boris in his place. But unable to locate his opponent, he returned to Kiev. Perhaps their task was only to draw soldiers loyal to Vladimir and Boris out of Kiev.
The death of Vladimir the Great was the start of an all-out struggle for succession. Circumstances benefited Sviatopolk, who was supported by the Pechenegs. The year brought the first clash between them. The battle took place near Liubech, on the left bank of the Dnieper River in the Principality of Chernigov.
Despite the support of the Pechenegs, Sviatopolk was defeated, 96 which forced him to flee to Poland shortly afterwards. The campaign involved a wider range of political considerations than the previous expedition in He also had the military and political support of Henry II. The Holy Roman Emperor had granted his support because a successful attack on Kiev would give him an important advantage in his rivalry with the Byzantine Empire for control of southern Italy. According to Bishop Thietmar of Merseburg, the expedition included a nomad force numbering Pechenegs.
Its task was most likely to attack the city of Kiev from the south. The steppe people carried out this attack, but despite significant damage from fires caused by their siege, the inhabitants of Kiev did not surrender the city. Moreover, it seems that during the campaign the Pechenegs were a secondary factor and had no significant influence on the course of events in its aftermath. Disagreements between the Polish ruler and his son-in-law resulted in the retreat of the Polish forces.
Sviatopolk thus regained his political freedom, but lost the support of the Poles, without which, it turned out, he was unable to maintain power in Kiev. Svyatopolk thus reigned alone in Kiev, but Iaroslav attacked him again, and Svyatopolk fled among the Pechenegs.
The final outcome came the following year, when Sviatopolk made his final attempt to seize Kiev. This time the Pechenegs were his only allies.
After a long and extremely bloody battle, Iaroslav achieved victory. The majority of nomadic invasions dating to that period ended in failure for the nomads. A sixteen-year period with no mention of the Pechenegs in The Primary Russian Chronicle begins in This gap is partly filled with information from Byzantine sources, which as of resumed reporting on their military undertakings. However, the period between and remains a complete mystery. Another pretender who manifested aspirations to reign over Kiev was Mstislav of Chernigov, who ruled in distant Tmutarakan, near the Strait of Kerch.
Iaroslav received the left-bank part along with Kiev, while Mstislav took the right-bank part and Chernigov, which he expanded significantly. This rivalry between the two princes was not exploited in any way by the Pechenegs. It is possible that as a result of pressure from the Uzes, the Pechenegs lost their remaining encampments on the left bank of the Dnieper River.
Their attacks may now have also been directed at Poland, as well. According to some historians, their migration to the north and south-west could have begun much earlier. Dmitrii Rasovski and Geza Feher argue that the Pechenegs had already begun infiltrating Hungary in the s or s. As has already been pointed out, the late s and early s brought about an increase in Pecheneg activity in the Lower Danube region.
It is only during a recounting of events dated to that John Skylitzes mentions an attempt to enlist the support of the Pechenegs in an armed conflict between Bulgaria and the Byzantine Empire. Having joined forces with Krakras of Pernikos, the Bulgarian ruler John Vladislav planned to invade unspecified Byzantine territories.
The two leaders tried to persuade the Pechenegs to join them. It can be assumed that they may have lacked confidence in the ability of the forces of the waning Bulgarian state to carry out a successful campaign against the Byzantine Empire.
Skylitzes makes no mention of any diplomatic efforts on the part of Constantinople that might have influenced the Pechenegs, so we can assume that Byzantine diplomacy was not a major factor in their decision. There is little information as to whether their alliance, renewed during the mission of Archbishop Theophilos in , survived beyond the reign of Emperor John I Tzimiskes d.
The actions of the Pechenegs between and indicate that they remained difficult, even unpredictable partners, which may have discouraged Byzantine diplomats from cooperating with them. Virtually nothing is known about the relationship between the Pechenegs and the Byzantine Empire under the rule of Basil II.
However, there is no evidence of such a request. The military aid provided to Basil II by Vladimir during the rebellion of Bardas Skleros bore fruit in the form of a marriage between the Kievan ruler and Anna Porphyrogenita that united the Rurik and Macedonian dynasties. Such an army, comprised of six thousand nomad warriors, was sent against Bardas Skleros and later remained under the command of Basil II. In , the Pechenegs attacked the thema of Bulgaria. Their victims included not only the local people, some of whom were murdered or taken captive, but also local Byzantine troops.
Some unnamed stategoi and tagmatarchoi shared the fate of the civilian population. However, the invaders were quickly overwhelmed by Constantine Diogenes, a strategos of Sirmium who had recently been named duke of Bulgaria by the Emperor. The Byzantine commander forced the nomads to withdraw beyond the Danube.
The effects of this first attack after many years of quiet appear to have been quite serious, though not catastrophic. The Pechenegs managed to take a significant number of prisoners, some of whose freedom was purchased the following year by the new Byzantine Emperor Romanos Argyros — The paying of ransom for abducted subjects may have been accompanied by a peace agreement, because for the next four years the nomads carried out no aggressive actions against the empire.
However, the year marked the beginning of a series of much more devastating and violent attacks. The first one was directed at Moesia, an area between the Danube and the mountains of the Balkans. Next, the Pechenegs, most likely moving west across the northern Balkans and circumventing the mountains, reached the borders of the Thessalonica thema.
Such an invasion strategy guaranteed the greatest material benefits, since constant attacks on the same areas would only cause the population to flee to regions less vulnerable to attack. The border regions, however, were the most badly affected.
The Pechenegs did not display any tendency to settle on the far side of the Danube. They probably realized that the establishment of settlements on Byzantine territory would have forced Constantinople to undertake more decisive military actions, which would have been much more determined than the weak resistance of the garrisons located in the northern Balkans.
Having a large Byzantine army directed against them would have meant a long fight for the invading nomads, the end result of which was difficult to predict. As long as the Pechenegs could feel safe on the left bank of the Danube, there was no reason to take unnecessary risks. All the more so given that in the face of the weakened state of the Byzantine forces along the border, crossing the river to carry out further looting expeditions did not involve much risk. The catalyst for such a move was a power struggle within the ethnos, which had been preceded by a new stage in the continuing conflict between the Pechenegs and the Uzes.
By the s, Pecheneg encampments were already located west of the Dnieper River and, according to information from Skylitzes, they reached as far as the Danube and Pannonia. This process of displacement was probably also accompanied by demographic losses.
Adding to the problems of these nomads, whose ranks had been decimated by military defeats, in the early s, internal unrest began to spread. Their defeats in clashes with the Uzes seem to have aroused an aversion to the inept and passive tribal aristocracy. The leader of the ethos at that time was most likely Tyrach, son of Bilter, a high-born leader lacking in military skills.
0コメント