The rapid expansion of Lithuania in 13th - 14th centuries

[Pangur Bán]

I'm pretty sure that's what's going on actually. Let's just say it's a combination of experience and your reaction to what I post, where you usually miss most of the point and pick up and run with tangents of with certain themes. Particularly interesting here was your annoyance at the word juicy, the implication that Rus cities next to Lithuania were large and rich pickings for Lithuanian warlords. The Polish nationalist in you couldn't quite help finding that a little annoying, you couldn't resist the urge to try and slap that sort of thing down, and you started to post some irrelevant stuff about the Mongols and Kiev.

 

[Domen]

where you usually miss most of the point and pick up and run with tangents of with certain themes.

This is your misinterpretation only.

Most of the time when I don't comment on all of your points, but only pick up and comment on some of them, then it means that I generally agree with those points to which I don't reply. While your interpretation is - for some reason - that I disagree with everything and argue against unimportant things. No, actually it usually means that I agree with things about which I don't argue, and here apparently we disagree only when it comes to "juiciness" of cities.

I'm not sure why you have this defensive attitude, like I was firing with "heavy artillery of criticism" from all sides. No I am not.

you couldn't resist the urge to try and slap that sort of thing down.

Yes, indeed. Just like Phrossack slapped down the "Cahokia made Europe at the time seem backwards" thing in the "Native American advancement" thread.

I usually can't resist the urge to slap this sort of myths.

You claimed "Vitebsk made Cracow seem backwards", so I had to slap this down, like Phrossack slapped down "Cahokia made Cologne seem backwards".

What's wrong about this ???

BTW - some Russian cities indeed made Polish cities seem backwards (or at least made them seem small), but that was before the Mongol invasion.

and you started to post some irrelevant stuff about the Mongols and Kiev.

Why irrelevant? Why am I getting an impression that you reject to discuss about the impact of Mongols because... they are Asian ???

And blaming non-Europeans for any kind of destructive influence is non-PC today, or something.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Why irrelevant? Don't you mean why relevant? 13th and 14th century Rus was full of medium sized cities. Go read the book I recommended. Why do you expect me to suddenly start talking about Mongol impact on urbanism in central Ukraine? Your tangents here are a complete and pointless waste of time except for the amusement of yourself. Post evidence saying that Lithuanian rulers didn't establish protection rackets over neighbouring Rus cities and you'll have an argument that has relevance.

 

[Domen]

Particularly interesting here was your annoyance at the word juicy, the implication that Rus cities next to Lithuania were large and rich pickings for Lithuanian warlords.

Wait a moment - let's quote my post - and please tell me where did you notice "annoyance" (in which sentence or word):

To my knowledge, "the fat juicy Rus cities" were pretty much razed to the ground by the Mongols in the 13th to 14th centuries. Among exceptions was Novgorod and some cities located in actual Russia. But those of Ukraine and Belarus were hit very hard. For example Kiev in year 1400 was just a miserable shadow of the city of Kiev from year 1200 (there are figures from written sources and from archaeological data on the size of settled area and numbers of houses in Kiev). Areas of Ukraine-Belarus were even more devastated by the Mongols than was Hungary, and Hungary's population vastly declined.

Areas mostly spared by Mongol devastation were some regions in the north-east, such as Vladimir-Suzdal, as well as Halych-Volhynia in the south-west. But in the middle between those areas there was a relative vacuum created by Mongol conquest and subsequent Tatar raids.

The decline of Kiev was so hard, that the head of the Orthodox Church of Rus, Metropolitan Maximus, moved his seat in 1299 to Vladimir on the Kliazma River. It was his successor Metropolitan Peter who then moved the centre of the Church to Moscow in year 1325, which signalled the beginning of the long-lasting ascendancy of the Moscovite Principality, as the nucleus of the modern Russian realm, during the post-Mongol recovery.

Meanwhile the realm of Halych-Volhynia was conquered and mostly annexed by the Kingdom of Poland in year 1340, while the other western Rus principalities were gradually annexed by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, in a contest with the declining Khanate of the Golden Horde.

Here is an amateur but still good documentary about the Mongol conquest of Kievan Rus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qogG_S4dG2k

Then, you started talking about "a backward land of hairy-backed barbarians living in mudhuts." That was kind of weird (really weird).

It seems that you are annoyed about the present (i.e. that Lithuania-Belarus are so small and poor today), rather than me being annoyed about the past.

I am not annoyed about the past. It seems that it is you who cannot stand the present, the final result, given the glorious past of Belarus/Lithuania. Otherwise, why would you suggest that my idea is that they are "a backward land of hairy-backed barbarians", if they weren't such a land (today, not in the past)?

Implying, of course, that I hate Lithuanians and Belarusians. I don't.

I'm actually unhappy that they are oppressed by Lukashenko (Belarusians) and blinded by ethno-linguistic type of nationalism (Lithuanians).

People who glorify Pagan Lithuania divide into two groups:

1) ones genuinely interested in a really cool part of history,
2) ones blaming "evil Poles" for "destroying glorious Pagan culture",

To which group do you belong ???

 

[Pangur Bán]

Yes, a Mazovian and a Scot talking about eastern Europe, and the Scot is apparently a Belarusian nationalist! Makes sense.

You still haven't explained the point of your argument btw.

 

[Domen]

A "Mazovian" is equivalent to a "Grampianian", a "Shetlander", a "Lowlander", or a "Highlander".

If you want to find an equivalent of a "Scot", then you are looking for another term - a "Pole".

Post evidence saying that Lithuanian rulers didn't establish protection rackets over neighbouring Rus cities

They established protection rackets over neighbouring Rus principalities, which were mostly rural societies.

13th and 14th century Rus was full of medium sized cities.

The urban network in 14th century Poland was denser and more developed than in 14th century Rus.

ou still haven't explained the point of your argument btw.

Well I suggested that Lithuania expanded so rapidly into the Rus principalities because they were weakened by the Mongols.

But you say that they expanded so rapidly into the Rus principalities because those principalities were very powerful (?).

 

[Pangur Bán]

Erm...no it isn't, Mazovia is a former polity just like Scotland and unlike the examples you cite. And who cares anyway? Mazovia has a long and proud history. Are you a self-hating Mazovian?

 

[Domen]

Rus cities next to Lithuania were large and rich pickings for Lithuanian warlords.

And I actually agreed with that.

I wrote that a town did not have to be of Constantinople's size to be seen as a rich picking, from Lithuanian point of view.

So I guess we basically agree about everything, or most of the things. My point is that Rus cities declined economically and fragmented politically to the point that they could be easy targets, but were still rich enough to be seen as worthy of capturing by Lithuanian warlords.

And another factor is what you mentioned, that Lithuanians became battle-hardened "thanks" to Teutonic Order's invasions.

Erm...no it isn't, Mazovia is a former polity just like Scotland

I'm not so sure, they have the capital city... Warsaw is in Mazovia, after all.

They basically usurped power, but keep pretending that it's still Poland...

Are you a self-hating Mazovian?

Maybe a Mazovian-in-denial, but not a self-hating one. But rather I'm a Pole.

And I speak a Slavic... sorry, an Antic language.

But - seriously - I have ancestors from few different ethnic groups.

For example if you count Kashubians as an ethnic groups (rather than a branch of Poles), then my maternal grandmother's father's branch is Kashubian.

Here is where they lived at the 1772/1773 census of taxpayers:



And here is the modern distribution of people with this surname:

Mazovia is a former polity just like Scotland and unlike the examples you cite.

Oh Scotland had a lot of former polities. Are you a self-hating Bernician, or a Selcovian, or a Dalriadan, or a Rhegedian ???

A Strathclydean perhaps.

Selcovia sounds really nice. I would rename Scotland Selcovia, and Slavic languages Antic languages. Then a larger Balto-Antic family.

 

[Plotinus]

Moderator Action: Guys, come on.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[warpus]

This is all pretty interesting, I read the whole thread, but Pangur's random & confusing objections sort of derailed everything. Well done

 

[Pangur Bán]

What objections?

 

[Domen]

and the main beneficiary of the process ended up being the Rus principalities and, above all, Poland; not Lithuania.

Spoiler :

 

[Pangur Bán]

Such is the logic of dynasticism.

 

[Domen]

Such is the logic of dynasticism.

Though what really made Poland-Lithuania into one country was not the Union of Krewo in 1385, but rather the Union of Lublin.

The Union of Lublin of 1569 established a common Polish-Lithuanian parliament - the General Sejm (consisting of Chamber of Deputies and Senate). In General Sejm there were originally 120 deputies from Poland and 48 deputies from Lithuania, as well as 113 senators from Poland and 27 senators from Lithuania. Later numbers of deputies changed a bit. For example in years 1632 - 1648 Poland had 138 deputies, Lithuania 48, and Livonia 6 (total 192).

If counting those 192 deputies with use of modern borders: Poland - 103, Ukraine - 35, Belarus - 32, Lithuania - 12, Latvia - 6, Russia - 4.

After the first Partition (1772), there were 123 senators from Poland and 31 from Lithuania, while deputies numbered 177 - 123 from Poland, 44 from Lithuania (compared to 48 before 1772) and 6 from Livonia. But in 1775 the number of deputies from the GDL was again increased to 48.

Treasuries remained separate for both realms of the Commonwealth, though. In the 1570s tax revenue of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania amounted to just around 20% of tax revenue of the Crown of Poland. In period 1587 - 1632 that proportion was a bit less disadvantageous for Lithuania - her annual tax revenue in that period amounted to about 35% of Poland's. But then in years 1632 - 1648 Lithuania's tax revenue again shrank to 22% of Poland's.

Although tax revenues were not only the result of economic potential, but also of economic policies (since in the PLC there existed no constant taxes, but taxes had to be enacted by the parliament and / or by regional councils each time when money was needed), this data still tells us something about the economic potential of Belarus (the core of the GDL) compared to that of Poland. The only year in which the GDL had similar tax revenue as Poland was 1613 - apparently in that year the GDL enacted a lot of taxes, while the Crown didn't (though the PLC was - generally - a tax haven by modern standards).

Of course Poland in that period was enlarged compared to times before the Union of Lublin. Before 1569 the Crown of Poland - excluding Ducal (East) Prussia, Courland and Livonia - had ca. 256,131 km2. As the result of the Union of Lublin, Poland acquired the region of Podlasie (11,507 km2) - located in the Polish-Belarusian borderland - as well as Volhynian and Bratslavian voivodeships (altogether ca. 88,374 km2), and Kievan voivodeship - the size of which was kind of fluent, but at it's peak it was perhaps ca. 200,000 km2 (though much of that were uninhabited wastelands and steppes) - but after the treaty of Andruszowo (1667) and the peace of Grzymułtowski (1686), Kievan voivodeship shrank to ca. 68,953 km2, and remained that large until 1793.

Moreover, in period 1618 - 1667 Poland established yet another voivodeship in the east after conquering the land of Chernigov from Russia (in the same period the land of Smolensk was incorporated to the Grand Duchy, where as well another voivodeship was established).

 

[plarq]

But do you have some more specific estimates on the degree of depopulation and destruction (or lack of such) caused by the Mongols?

For my part, I can provide reasonable estimates for the city of Kiev - population of the city of Kiev declined from at least 50,000 in 1230 (and the urban area of Kiev at that time was as large as 380 hectares - compared to 430 hectares for Florence 50 years later, in 1285 - but population of Florence was most certainly higher due to denser building placement) to only 808 households and around 5,000 inhabitants in year 1570 (first Polish census of households in Kiev - one year after the city became part of Poland). Kiev was destroyed by foreign invaders not only in 1240 during the Mongol conquest of Rus, but also several times later. When Kiev was under Lithuanian rules (since 1363 until 1569), it was captured and plundered few more times (in 1416 Kipchaks under Emir Edygey burned the city and slaughtered most of its inhabitants; in 1449 Tatars plundered Kiev; in 1482 Khan Megli Girey captured Kiev and enslaved entire population).

The Mongol invasion in the 13th century and subsequent "occupation" (or rather extracting high tribute), followed by Tatar slave-hunting raids during the next centuries, caused very severe depopulation ("population bottleneck") of the territory of modern Central and Eastern Ukraine.

Only after the Polish takeover of Kiev (1569), population of the city started to grow again, reaching over 15,000 by year 1648 - soon before the Khmelnytsky Uprising. Under Polish rules population of entire Ukraine was growing very quickly, because Polish nobles and magnates were colonizing it, establishing hundreds of new villages and towns. Settlers were being recruited mostly from areas which are today Western Ukraine and parts of Poland.

Those Polish magnates and nobles (or rather local Rurikid princes & boyars who became Polonized by adopting Polish culture & language; as well as immigrant Polish nobles who started to settle in newly acquired lands) promoted also Jewish settlement in Ukraine, and founded many new towns.

Jews served mostly as tax collectors & administrators for those magnates / nobles, which is the reason why Ruthenian peasants hated them.

IIRC, everything on the plain, such as Dneiper river banks, are razed to ground by Mongols. But cities in the forest are not.