The Decline of Kiev

It is not surprising that the territorial conglomerate that the early Kievan rulers had put together began to disintegrate after a relatively short period of time.

But there was yet another dimension to the problem of political fragmentation. As the hereditary (votchyna) principle of succession triumphed over Iaroslav’s system of seniority or rotation, the princely clans struck still deeper roots in their patrimonial lands and it became increasingly apparent to them that their future was tied to their hereditary holdings and not to Kiev, which was continually being contested. Throughout the 12th century, ten to fifteen such hereditary principalities evolved, the most noteworthy being Halych-Volhynia, Vladimir-Suzdal, Novgorod, Chernihiv, and Smolensk. Each led its own independent political, economic, and even cultural existence. As a result, Kievan Rus’ was gradually being transformed into an entity that had multiple centers related by language, common religiocultural bonds, and dynastic ties, but these centers were largely independent and often in competition with each other.

As more and more principalities went their own way, Kiev’s wealth, population, and territory shrank until it ranked little higher than other principalities.

Kiev’s assets were also its liabilities, however. Princely competition for the city continued unabated. The Ukrainian historian Stefan Tomashivsky calculated that between 1146 and 1246, twenty-four princes ruled in Kiev on forty-seven separate occasions. Of these, one ruled seven separate times, five ruled three times each, and eight occupied the throne twice each. Significantly, thirty-five princely tenures lasted for less than a year each.⁷ One prince took a rather drastic approach in dealing with the problem of Kiev. In 1169, unsure of his ability to retain control of the city once he had won it and unwilling to have it overshadow his growing domains in the northeast, Andrei Bogoliubsky, the prince of Vladimir-Suzdal and a forerunner of the princes of Moscow, attacked Kiev and savagely sacked it. It never completely recovered from this destructive raid. Economic stagnation

Kiev’s political problems were matched by its economic difficulties. As we have seen, the city’s location on the great trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” had played an important role in its rise to prominence. Beginning with the late 11th century, the importance of this route began to decline. The effect on Kiev’s economy was calamitous. Enterprising Italian merchants established direct links between Byzantium, Asia Minor, and the Middle East on the one hand, and Western Europe on the other, thus bypassing Kiev in the process.

Another blow to Kievan commerce came in 1204 when the Crusaders pillaged Constantinople. Meanwhile, the once-flourishing Abbasid Caliphate, with its capital at Baghdad, entered a period of steep decline. As a result, Kiev lost two of its biggest trading partners. These economic disasters exacerbated the already tense relations between the rich and poor in the city and led to frequent social upheavals. The once proud center of Rus’ was clearly coming apart at its political, economic, and social seams. The Mongols

Kiev’s nemesis was its ancient enemy – the nomads. It was not the Polovtsians, however, who dealt Kiev its death blow, for, after generations of bitter struggle leading to mutual exhaustion, the Rus’ principalities had established a stable relationship with these tribes and some of the Rus’ princes had even forged matrimonial links with the Polovtsian elite. Rather, it was the Mongols, or Tatars as they are called in the East European sources, who delivered the coup de grâce to Kiev.

Although the origins of the Mongols have not yet been completely clarified, it is known that in the 12th century they were nomads along the northwestern borders of China. Most of their energy and attention was focused on clan or tribal conflicts over scarce pasturage. In the final decades of the 12th century, an unusually gifted leader by the name of Temujin (who in 1206 adopted the august title of Jenghiz Khan or Khan of Khans) emerged among them and achieved the unprecendented: by means of force and political skill he united the warring tribes and compelled them to recognize his absolute authority. Next, he harnessed their tremendous military capacity and aggressiveness against the neighboring sedentary civilizations.

Never very numerous (numbering at most between 120,000 and 140,000 fighting men), but extremely mobile, well organized, and superbly led, the Mongol forces initially conquered China, Central Asia, and Iran.

Map 8 Mongol incursions

Historians often divide the political history of Kievan Rus’ into three phases. Encompassing almost a century, from Oleh’s accession to power in Kiev in 882 to the death of Sviatoslav in 972, the initial period was one of rapid expansion. Basing themselves in strategically located Kiev, the Varangian princes gained control of the all-important Dnieper trade artery, “the route from the Varangians to the Greeks,” established their control over the East Slavic tribes, and eliminated their major rivals in the region. In the process, they created a vast economic and political conglomerate that was ready and able to challenge the mighty Byzantine Empire.

The reigns of Volodymyr the Great (980–1015) and Iaroslav the Wise (1036–54) encompassed much of the second phase, a time when Kievan Rus’ consolidated its gains and reached the height of its political power and stability, economic prosperity, and cultural achievement. In contrast to the expansionism of the preceding period, internal growth and development predominated in this phase. The socioeconomic structure of society became more differentiated. Law and order were better defined. Most important, the introduction of Christianity brought with it a new culture that changed dramatically how the populace of Kievan Rus’ viewed its world and expressed itself.

Incessant and destructive princely feuds, increasingly threatening nomadic incursions, and economic stagnation characterize the final phase. Some historians argue that these troubles set in soon after the death of Iaroslav in 1054. Others are inclined to see the onset of decline after the reigns of the last effective rulers of Kiev, Volodymyr Monomakh (1113–25) and his son Mstyslav (1125–32). In any case, when Andrei Bogoliubsky of Suzdal captured and sacked the city in 1169 and then chose to return to the northeast rather than occupy it, it was evident that the political and economic significance of Kiev had already diminished badly. And the total destruction inflicted on the city by the Mongols in 1240 marked the tragic conclusion to the Kievan period in Ukrainian history.