The Fall of Kievan Russia

[nixon]

Hi, all. Studying Russian history, so this comes as a central topic and an important period of Russian history, constitutes the shaping of what we know today.

I would appreciate very much any supplemental information on this topic, which I find highly interesting, and which I therefore seek to memorize to the fullest extent.

So I'm going to lay out some options.


What was the cause of the fall of Kievan Russia?



1.) Disrupted trade routes, growing appearance of Mediterranean merchants, and a subsequent isolation of Kiev.

2.) The princely political system, the resulting internal disputes and strife which made Kiev crumble from within.

3.) Undermining weaknesses, namely social, e.g., due to the enserfment of peasents and a worsening position of the urban poor.

4.) Foreign aggression, and to a vast degree. foreign pressure. Kiev faced numerous enemies, at times multiple enemies on multiple fronts, which demanded a lot of resources. Wars were fought on scales and involving distances, not comparable to the usual European medieval campaigns.

__________________________________________________


Which one is the most plausible? And will it eventually be a complex intertwinement of the above listed and possibly other causes, that led to the downfall of the Kievan State and the first most important chapter of Russian history?

There's an epic Russian tale about the destruction of Russia. It's about the bogatyrs, epic heroes - the warriors of Kievan. The warriors fight so hard they chop their opponents in two, but every time, the halves would become whole again, and an ever-increasing number of enemies would press so hard they would finally overwhelm the Russians.

A little off-topic, perhaps. By knowing the Russian history, you understand all too well Russian suspicions against the West, also surfacing as we speak. History "justifies" present behavioral patterns.

Vasnetsov's Bogatyrs, "The Epic Heroes"

 

[Knight-Dragon]

The Mongols. During their 2nd and 3rd western campaigns, they swept into the area and destroyed Rus (along with lots of diverse others), allowing an insignificant 'Russian' entity called Muscovy a chance to rise to prominence 2 centuries later.

One partial reason was that the Mongols came during winter out of nowhere, when the Rus had returned to their holds for wintering and ungrouped their army, IIRC...

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

And winter campaigning suited the Mongols better than Summer campaigning. So, needless to say, the Russians never had a chance.

But the end of Kiev had started a lot earlier. Russia was too disunified to survive.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Aye, the Rus princes were actually fighting each other part of the time. Even a lot of arguement over which prince would be leading the allied army against the Mongols IIRC...

Of course, against the Mongols of GK's time, nobody else stood a chance... Way more powerful, vaster, more populous nations and empires had fallen before their onslaught. Just look at the Jurchen Jins of N China and the Khwarzm Sultanate.

 

[nixon]

So the continuous internal sapping, notably the the strifes between Iaroslav's dynasty and the invasion of Kiev by Andrei Bogolyubsky in 1169, are the most likely causes of the downfall?

At that time, following Bogolyubsky's desolation of Kiev, was the Kievan state already so vulnerable that it would never had stood a chance against the Tatars?

Also, who was the strongest, or most dangerous enemy to Kiev? I'm convinced that the eventual downfall of Kievan Rus could've been postponed a little, had the Pechenegs not waged extensive and never-ending terror campaigns Kiev. In addition, if the Pechenegs cut Kiev off from the south, i.e. Constatinople (its main trading partner; the jugular), Kiev chances to defend itself from other enemies, namely the Tatars (Mongols) would have been minimized even further.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by nixon
At that time, following Bogolyubsky's desolation of Kiev, was the Kievan state already so vulnerable that it would never had stood a chance against the Tatars?

The Tartars were a separate people inhabiting the areas immediately to the east of the Mongols and the two were deadly enemies. GK spent much effort to destroy them and dispersed the survivors amongst his followers. Kindly refrain fr referring to the Mongols as 'Tatars' to avoid confusion.

Also, who was the strongest, or most dangerous enemy to Kiev? I'm convinced that the eventual downfall of Kievan Rus could've been postponed a little, had the Pechenegs not waged extensive and never-ending terror campaigns Kiev. In addition, if the Pechenegs cut Kiev off from the south, i.e. Constatinople (its main trading partner; the jugular), Kiev chances to defend itself from other enemies, namely the Tatars (Mongols) would have been minimized even further.

No matter how strong the Rus could be; they'd be overrun by the Mongols. The Rus were merely one of dozens of nations and empires that succumbed to the new military machine fr Mongolia.

The Jin Jurchens and the Khwarzm Sultanate fielded armies in the hundreds of thousands and still got beaten. The Jin were even cavalrymen who rivaled the Mongols in military skills and horsemanship, and still got beaten.

I doubt the Rus could come up with any army of such a size or of similar calibre.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

The conquest of the Khwarazmian Shahdom was by far the most amazing feat ever undertaken by the Mongols. Khwarazm was easily the most powerful empire in the world at that time. It took the Mongols 5 years to conquer the Jurchen Jin, the last couple the Mongols left them alone in two cities, Kaifeng and I think the other city was Hangzhou. It took the Mongols decades to conquer Khwarzm, and the Khwarazmians even conquered numerous territories in Mespotamia, Iran and the Caucasus 1211 - 1221AD when the Mongols were invading. Rus didn't have near those resources or skills. In fact, the Mongols were outnumbered in EVERY battle, between 1:2 and 1:10.

Rthe Tatars were enemies of everyone. Don't confuse them with the Greater Mongols. Of course, the Tatars were one of the main tribes to invade Rus, so it by technicality you didn't say anything wrong.

But yes, Kievan Rus was doomed to fall anyway. Without support or trade from Byzantium, they were doomed. The Mongols just hastened the fall.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
The conquest of the Khwarazmian Shahdom was by far the most amazing feat ever undertaken by the Mongols. Khwarazm was easily the most powerful empire in the world at that time.

Hardly the most powerful... the Jins and Song Chinese were far more 'powerful' IMO. It took 80 years (3 generations) for the Mongols to conquer ALL of China.

It took the Mongols 5 years to conquer the Jurchen Jin, the last couple the Mongols left them alone in two cities, Kaifeng and I think the other city was Hangzhou.

That can't be true; the Jins put up a ferocious resistance, as per their legendary national character. Almost every army and garrison put up a fight to the end.

IIRC the Jins survived for 2 decades before finally being overwhelmed.

Hangzhou was the capital of the Southern Song dynasty...

It took the Mongols decades to conquer Khwarzm, and the Khwarazmians even conquered numerous territories in Mespotamia, Iran and the Caucasus 1211 - 1221AD when the Mongols were invading.

Not decades; the campaign was all but done with within a few years, with the Sultan being executed by his own followers on some island in the Caucasus. After being pursued by Mongol forces almost all the way...

The Khwarzm never moved beyond the borders to Persia; that area and Mesopotamia were under the control of Turkic tribes, loosely as vassals of the Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad. Or maybe the Turks controlled the Caliphate behind the screen...

They all fell to the Mongols under Hulagu later on too.

Rthe Tatars were enemies of everyone. Don't confuse them with the Greater Mongols. Of course, the Tatars were one of the main tribes to invade Rus, so it by technicality you didn't say anything wrong.

As a nation, the Tartars had been dispersed and destroyed by GK. Officially they weren't participating in anything, and had ceased to exist as a separate entity.

I'd recommend the book, Imperial China 900 - 1800, by E.W. Mote, if you interested in this period of history. The interactions betw the Mongols, the nations in China, other Inner Asian tribes, Central Asia and beyond are absolutely fascinating...

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Yes, the Jurchen Jin did fight to the death on all battles, but then again the Mongols were hardly going to let the number one enemy (ie: Chinese) live after a battle, so it is to be expected. The Jin were confined to Kaifeng and another city for more than a year so the Mongols had a buffer between them and the Song, and they could do other things.

The Mongols didn't actually make an attempt to conquer Song China until Kublai Khan decided to. So your statement of 80 years to conquer is not actually all that correct, fact is the actual campaign took less time than the two Khwarzmian ones. IIRC, the Khwarazmian campaign lasted between 1211 and 1223AD. I'll check that up later.

The Turks didn't control the Abbasid Caliph behind the screen, actually it was the emir of the region around Basra which did. Besides, there was more than one Caliphate at that time (ie: Ayyubids).

After the initial first campaign against the Khwarazmians, the Mongols captured Transoxiana and most of Iran and Afghanistan. Shah Mingurnu of Khwarzm with a reputation to mantain as a great general however decided to make the Mongols chase them. So they ended up conquering parts of Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. Every credible historian agrees that if it weren't for the Mongols, Mingburnu would have conquered the large empire. Song China didn't have that capablilty. Khwarazm was also richer (as the Silk Road was safe under their rule and therefore trade thrived) and had better armies.

I stand corrected. Tatar is the term used to describe the initial Mongol invaders of Kievan Rus, and then the derogatory name of the Mongols which stayed (ie: Golden, Blue, and Black Hordes, and later Kazan, Astrakhan and Krym). No one is actually sure where the name came from, but the tribe of the Tatars is the most likely. The only other real option is that it is derived from Tantalus, the lowermost torturous caves of Hell, but that is generally unaccepted.

 

[Bifrost]

One thing that Russian historians always mention while discussing Mongols' invasion is that Russian lands were not included in their Empire. Mongols preferred demanding tribute and establishing formal power - the head of Russian states was the khan, but he lived in his Gold Horde and, to my mind, cared little about ex-Rus. I know that one of his political functions was giving allowances for Russian princes to reign. Rus depended on Gold Horde, but it still remained free in many spheres.
Nevertheless, many scientists think that it is Mongolic invasion that freezed Russian development in economy and politics, so that only in the beginning of XVIII century Russia started taking active part in European wars. But from the other point of view, Mongols, after their empire burst like a bubble, left vacuum in Siberia and far east territories (no, certainly, there were numerous tribes, even a couple states; but these tribes could not stop expansion).
About Kiev? - I think if there was no Lithuanian invasion, everything wouldn't be the same. So, to my mind, the reason was in Western countries, but not in Eastern.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Bifrost, the Russians were still part of the Mongol Empire as they were part of the Golden Horde which was a part of the Great Mongol Empire. The Mongols may have let them rule themselves, but they were not independent.

The Khwarazmian Campaign ended in 1231. I'm having trouble finding a starting date, but I reckon it was between 1211 and 1215AD

 

[Bifrost]

Bifrost, the Russians were still part of the Mongol Empire as they were part of the Golden Horde which was a part of the Great Mongol Empire. The Mongols may have let them rule themselves, but they were not independent.

look for some maps. My scanner doesn't work, but all the maps I have at home show that the northwestern border of Gold Hode lay somewhere in middle Volga (Kazan lands - Bulgaria), the whole river Don was included in Gold Horde, also southern Ukraine. But (!) Kiev wasn't included in the territory of Gold Horde - the border was situated much souther.

 

[nixon]

OK, I have some maps. I scanned one of them from the book I read, although I still don't understand what the main problem is here.



Some principalities were more autonomous than others, after who submitted more willingly than others. Novgorod is a great example of semi-independence under Mongol rule, when the prince submitted to them.

 

[nixon]

The second one, sorry about the quality.

 

[Bifrost]

OK, I have some maps. I scanned one of them from the book I read, although I still don't understand what the main problem is here.

The main problem was discussing whether Russian states were included in Gold Horde or not. I said Russia wasn't, though depended on Horde - paid tribute, also Khan gave special allowances for princes to reign called "jarlyk"; but Russian lands were not included in Gold horde! On your black-and-white map, nix, there seems to be the north-western border of Gold Horde, and it's quite clear that it lies souther than Kiev lands.

Btw, that green map - I've seen it for many times, but the northern border was much higher - these depending lands were inluded.

 

[nixon]

Originally posted by Bifrost


The main problem was discussing whether Russian states were included in Gold Horde or not. I said Russia wasn't, though depended on Horde - paid tribute, also Khan gave special allowances for princes to reign called "jarlyk"; but Russian lands were not included in Gold horde! On your black-and-white map, nix, there seems to be the north-western border of Gold Horde, and it's quite clear that it lies souther than Kiev lands.

Btw, that green map - I've seen it for many times, but the northern border was much higher - these depending lands were inluded.

Ah, got it!

I understand the notion (Mongoloid Cow put it forth in the first place, no?) of Russia being 'included' in the Mongol empire. In theory it was, but practically and on the maps, they appeared as single semi-autonomous states subject to the demands of the Mongols. A "daruga" in the main city of the Golden Horde, Old Sarai - a "daruga" handled Russian affairs. What it mean was that Russia, the single principalities, formally recognized Mongol overlordship, and that they respected that the Mongol potentate invested the respective princes with their powers - made simpler, the delegated powers to each prince of a principality, whereupon the khanate expected obeisance to the Mongol suzerain.
Initially, the khanate in the Golden Horde, collected taxes by its own means, but subsequently, the collection of taxes slided over in the hands of those princes and his belonging authorities, whom they trusted. In short - that meant more autonomy from the central government, a sort of laxation on tax collection which meant the peasants'and the "smerdy" relationship to the Mongol rulers eased off a bit, after tensions toward the Mongols because of their indiscriminite ways of collecting their taxes. Princely tax collection meant that you more and more discriminated between the social layers of society; collecting taxes accordingly.


To sum up: the Russian lands were not a part of the Golden Horde, which was merely the Mongol outpost in Russia. At first, before the Golden Horde, Russia was ruled by the great khan from Mongolia; but the power delegation led to the Golden Horde - later to be absorbed by the Russian Empire - Kazan in 1552, Astrakhan in 1556, and Crimea in 1783, but that's another story!

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
Yes, the Jurchen Jin did fight to the death on all battles, but then again the Mongols were hardly going to let the number one enemy (ie: Chinese) live after a battle, so it is to be expected. The Jin were confined to Kaifeng and another city for more than a year so the Mongols had a buffer between them and the Song, and they could do other things.

Erm, but the Jurchens were not Chinese. They were a Tungusic people fr N and E Manchuria (whose descendants incl the Manchus later); primitive agriculturists and hunters, a forest people. The Jurchens adopted mobile warfare (i.e. horseback warfare) fr their Khitan neighbours.

The story of their rise to power was even more astounding than that of the Mongols. In 17 years, fr the time their first 10000 strong army was raised, they kicked their Khitan overlords asses all the way to Xinjiang (where one prince founded the Kara Khitai (Black Khitans), which later fell to the Mongols); and then continued on to kick the Northern Song all the way back to the Yangzi, capturing Kaifeng, the Song capital, and the two Song emperors. They hacked their way to power thru sheer ferocity in battle.

After the conquest, Jurchen cavalrymen served with the Mongol forces, and some returned to rejoin the 'wild' Jurchens still remaining in Manchuria.

The Mongols didn't actually make an attempt to conquer Song China until Kublai Khan decided to. So your statement of 80 years to conquer is not actually all that correct, fact is the actual campaign took less time than the two Khwarzmian ones. IIRC, the Khwarazmian campaign lasted between 1211 and 1223AD. I'll check that up later.

ALL of China consisted of the Jins, the Tangut state of Xi Xia, and the Southern Song. GK's first real war was against Xi Xia (way before 1211) and the Song boy-emperor drowned in 1279. China was the richest nation in the world; if the Mongols could capture it in less than the time they did, they'd have done it. The Western campaigns, in the end, proved no more than as diversions. Mongolia remained firmly China-oriented, and firmly where GK first risen to power.

The Turks didn't control the Abbasid Caliph behind the screen, actually it was the emir of the region around Basra which did. Besides, there was more than one Caliphate at that time (ie: Ayyubids).

I'm referring to the Turkic 'slave' soldiers. Maybe I got the time period wrong... but I'm sure they were the ones holding the Caliphate in thrall when the Mongols showed up outside the city gates of Baghdad...

After the initial first campaign against the Khwarazmians, the Mongols captured Transoxiana and most of Iran and Afghanistan. Shah Mingurnu of Khwarzm with a reputation to mantain as a great general however decided to make the Mongols chase them. So they ended up conquering parts of Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. Every credible historian agrees that if it weren't for the Mongols, Mingburnu would have conquered the large empire. Song China didn't have that capablilty. Khwarazm was also richer (as the Silk Road was safe under their rule and therefore trade thrived) and had better armies.

China wasn't militaristic and had no interest in foreign conquests. Song China was the world's first govt where there's effective civilian control over the military forces I think, resulting in a large medicore military, but sometimes showing surprising resilience and toughness under the right leadership (i.e. Yue Fei). Sure, Khwarzm can create a new empire, but can it hold? For the next 1000 years? Down to today? Even w/o the Mongols? China's did, despite the Mongols.

I stand corrected. Tatar is the term used to describe the initial Mongol invaders of Kievan Rus, and then the derogatory name of the Mongols which stayed (ie: Golden, Blue, and Black Hordes, and later Kazan, Astrakhan and Krym). No one is actually sure where the name came from, but the tribe of the Tatars is the most likely. The only other real option is that it is derived from Tantalus, the lowermost torturous caves of Hell, but that is generally unaccepted.

Aye.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Referring to the Golden Horde, they're the descendants of Jochi, the eldest of GK. By right, he'd be the Great Khan after GK's death, but there're some suspicions over his birth (Bortei was kidnapped by the neighbouring Merkits, before being recaptured by GK, and then giving birth to Jochi). Normally, no one cared, but many disliked Jochi, so they used this as an excuse to ease him out. So, Jochi, as eldest, inherited the lands furthest away, in accordance with Mongol tradition (formalized by Batu, in founding the Golden Horde). The third son, Ogodei, became the Great Khan, although his lineage also fell later on.

The lineage of Jochi broke with the rest, more or less, after Khubilai took over as Great Khan. They had always been 'outsiders' and disliked, within the 'family' and had bad blood with the other 3 lineages.

I think the Mongols ruled rather lightly over Russia 'cause there wasn't a sophisticated administration already in place (think of China's scholar-official bureaucracy) for them to adopt and take over. The Mongols, being uncivilised horsemen-warriors, simply adopted whatever that'd work.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Many of the Jurchen Jins were considered Chinese (The Jurchen empire is also known as the Chin Dynasty China) because they took over their customs. And I know the Mongols made vassals out of the Xi-Xia Minyaks well before 1211. The Mongols just got sidetracked by Khwarzm. There wasn't much they could do until things were settled on the western border. That is one of the main reasons why Song China was left alone.

The Qara-Khitai cavalrymen also served in the Mongol armies. So did the Xi-Xia for that matter. The point is serving in the Mongol army doesn't prove anything. Lots of peoples did it.

It wouldn't surprise me if I'm wrong, but I doubt it was the Turks as they were confined to central Anatolia and a few states here and there (eg: the famous Alamut) Although by your statement of Turkic slave soldiers, I'm guessing they are the Janissaries (aka Yani Seris) which were used by the Ottoman Turks well after the Mongols had disappeared.

Song China wouldn't be the first where there was effective civilian control of the military. Khwarzm could have held the empire, they started out on more solid foundations. Could it survive today, possibly. The Chinese people have survived until today, but the Germans, Egyptians, Iranians, and so many other people have survived until today as well, some outdated the Chinese. It's just that they have changed and China has too. Nothing survives history unless it is prepared to evelove to survive new threats. (PS: The Mongols are still around today with their own language and culture and country)

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
Many of the Jurchen Jins were considered Chinese (The Jurchen empire is also known as the Chin Dynasty China) because they took over their customs.

Not if you're Chinese. The Jurchens were universally villified as national enemies by Chinese thru the ages...

Though the Jin were sinicized much during their less than one century tenure in N China, the point is that they still maintained their cavalry knowhow. They had the numbers and the skills.

Under a strong leadership fr the throne, they could have contained the Mongols.

Unfortunately history proved otherwise...

And I know the Mongols made vassals out of the Xi-Xia Minyaks well before 1211.

Aye, and the Xi Xia was pressurized to provide cavalrymen to the Mongol armies as appeasement. Then they revoked their appeasement policy. GK died during the final campaign to subdue them - the Mongols crushed them ruthlessly as remembrance to GK...

The Mongols just got sidetracked by Khwarzm. There wasn't much they could do until things were settled on the western border. That is one of the main reasons why Song China was left alone.

Maybe... but the REAL reason the Song were left alone at first was 'cause the Mongols didn't have the maritime resources or knowhow to match the huge Song inland navy guarding the mighty Yangzi. The Chinese might not have like military activities all that much, but they still had a formidable military establishment, capable of hard fighting under the proper leadership. Esp when it comes to naval forces.

The Mongols didn't leave the Chinese that alone; raiding parties continued to attack every year into Sichuan and elsewhere till Mongke ordered his brother Khubilai to resume operations against the Chinese (after Khubilai had spent many years acquiring loyal Chinese advisors and a significant fleet).

The Qara-Khitai cavalrymen also served in the Mongol armies. So did the Xi-Xia for that matter. The point is serving in the Mongol army doesn't prove anything. Lots of peoples did it.

Not willingly... I'm only mentioning this as a detail, not an argument for anything. The Mongol method was to force subdued enemies to provide soldiers for their next campaign.

E.g. Chinese explosive experts took part in Hulagu's campaign against the Assassins in Persia. Turkic soldiers joined the Mongols in their strike into the Mid-East.

It wouldn't surprise me if I'm wrong, but I doubt it was the Turks as they were confined to central Anatolia and a few states here and there (eg: the famous Alamut)

The entire Central Asia region was Turkic... Even today, there's still Turkmenistan there. The Turks came fr Mongolia, you know...

Although by your statement of Turkic slave soldiers, I'm guessing they are the Janissaries (aka Yani Seris) which were used by the Ottoman Turks well after the Mongols had disappeared.

The 'slave soldier' system was began way earlier than the Ottomans - the Ottomans adopted it fr their predecessors 'cause of the same problems (because they're also Islamic).

The first people to devise the system was the Arabs. Problem was Muslims (i.e. Arabs) didn't make good loyal soldiers to the Arab leaders. 'Cause of the old tribal Arabic system, the average Muslim soldier wasn't exactly personally loyal to the Caliph or whoever; only to his 'tribal or clan leader'.

To solve this problem, the leaders of the Arab Islamic empire began to buy non-Islamic babies to raise as slave soldiers, personally owned and loyal to them and w/o the normal rights of Muslims. Plus they couldn't have legal descendants, so the rulers weren't afraid of an inherited entrenched interest or faction.

At this time, the source was fr the warlike Turkic tribes of Central Asia (they weren't Muslims yet). Via this agency, the Turks filtered into the Mid-east; their numbers grew with time. Eventually, being the military muscle of the empire, they began to exert influence almost inevitably and began to emigrate in on their own.

The source for the Ottomans was the Christian peoples of the Balkans.

Song China wouldn't be the first where there was effective civilian control of the military. Khwarzm could have held the empire, they started out on more solid foundations. Could it survive today, possibly.

Oh, then who's the first? AFAIK, the Chinese had the world's first bureaucratic govt; and this administration only began to exert real control over the military during the Song, under the careful guide of the first Song emperor (due to the manner in which he came to power).

Military officers didn't (and still don't, perhaps) like pen-pushers to give orders to them in those ages. And China was the only one to have enough pen-pushers to form a significant enough civilian govt. The emperor sees himself as head of the empire, ruling with the help of the Confucian bureaucracy; never as chiefly a military leader holding lands and titles as in most other countries.

The Chinese people have survived until today, but the Germans, Egyptians, Iranians, and so many other people have survived until today as well, some outdated the Chinese. It's just that they have changed and China has too. Nothing survives history unless it is prepared to evelove to survive new threats. (PS: The Mongols are still around today with their own language and culture and country)

Yes, but the Chinese still had the same written language, religions, philosophy as the Song. A citizen of Song transplanted into modern China wouldn't feel out-of-place.

Can't say the same for a pagan German, non-Islamic Pharaonic Egyptian, Zorocrastrian Persian etc.