Culture Kyivan Rus, then and now

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Link (Archive)

Kyivan Rus, then and now​

Kyivan Rus was one of the most developed states of medieval Europe, lasting from around the late ninth to the mid-thirteenth century. It played a significant role in the history of the continent and the future East Slavic nations.

The territories of Kyivan Rus included much of modern-day Ukraine, Belarus, and western parts of Russia. Located in the center of trade routes, it was a link between Europe and the Arab East.

At its height in the mid-11th century, it stretched from the Baltic Sea to the northwest and the Black Sea to the south. Its center was Kyiv, Ukraine's modern-day capital.

Fueled by Russia's neo-imperial rhetoric, Russian President Vladimir Putin has portrayed Russia as the only successor to the medieval state, despite its center having been in Kyiv.

Russia has built its entire history through links to medieval Rus, the name of which it appropriated centuries after Kyivan Rus' demise. Historical work on Kyivan Rus also contributed to a misunderstanding of the state’s history.

According to historian Paul Magocsi, "For the longest time, English language writings did not distinguish the name Rus from Russia," resulting in the "conceptually distorted formulation Kyivan Russia.”

Kyivan Rus met its decline in the thirteenth century when the Mongols invaded and sacked Kyiv, creating a centuries-long gap between the medieval state and modern-day eastern European countries.

And while Kyivan Rus is certainly the first stage in the evolution of the modern Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Russian peoples, the early Slavic state encompassed a massive territory with many different people living under it, undermining any modern state's claim as its sole inheritor.

How did Kyivan Rus originate?​

The origins of Rus and the foundation of Kyivan Rus have sparked a centuries-long debate that continues to this day.

Scholars have debated whether Kyivan Rus was created by the political self-organization of East Slavic tribes or if they invited outsiders, the Varangian Rus people (a group of Vikings) from Scandinavia, to come and create it for them.

Most of our knowledge of the period comes from the Primary Chronicle, written by the Kyivan monk Nestor at the beginning of the 12th century. Some of its details are questionable, having been written much later after the events.

The Primary Chronicle tells of the first of several powerful East Slavic tribes, most notably the Polianians. According to the Primary Chronicle, their chief, Kyi, built a town along with his brothers Shchek and Khoryv and sister Lybid in the fifth century and called it Kyiv.

According to the chronicle's version of events, around the mid-ninth century, groups of East Slavic and Finnic tribes, at the time vassals of the Varangians, had set out to rule themselves.

Failing to do so peacefully, they sent an invitation to Varangian Rus nobles to rule over their lands.

The Primary Chronicle says that upon receiving the invitation, the Rus' sent three brothers, Rurik, Sineus, and Truvor, to govern Staraya Ladoga (another chronicle calls it Novgorod), Beloozero, and Izborsk–all located in modern-day Russia. After his brothers' deaths, Rurik moved to Novgorod.

As the story goes, two of Rurik's boyars, Askold and Dir, were sent to Constantinople and, on their way, stopped in Kyiv. Along with other Varangians, they managed to establish control over the city.

In the late ninth century, the new Varangian ruler of Novgorod, Oleh, came to Kyiv, killed Askold and Dir, and united the northern and southern lands, proclaiming Kyiv the capital and the mother of Rus cities, thus establishing the state that would later come to be known as Kyivan Rus.

"Although one can and should question many details of (the Primary Chronicle)...the legend probably echoes the actual consolidation of power by one group of Vikings in the forested regions of eastern Europe between present-day Velikii Novgorod and Kyiv," Harvard historian Serhii Plokhy points out in his book on Ukrainian history titled The Gates of Europe.

Who are the key figures of Kyivan Rus?​

In addition to Oleh (also referred to as Helgi), the growth and expansion of Kyivan Rus in its first two centuries are associated with his three successors, Ihor, Olha, and Sviatoslav, as well as subsequent rulers who developed Kyivan Rus lands and carried out several reforms.

Olha of Kyiv, who reigned from 945-962, was the only woman to rule Kyivan Rus and is widely known for her supposed harsh revenge on the Drevlians tribe, the tribe that assassinated her husband Ihor.

Revolts against extortive tax collection practices had become commonplace (the Drevlians having likely revolted for this very reason), leading Olha to improve tax collection practices through the introduction of pogosti, or administrative centers, that organized tax payments locally as opposed to by central authorities.

She was also the first member of the ruling family to convert to Byzantine-rite Christianity and is perhaps best known for improving Byzantine-Rus relations.

The "Golden Age" of Kyivan Rus is marked by the reigns of Volodymyr the Great and Yaroslav the Wise. During his reign, which lasted from 980 to 1015, Volodymyr expanded the borders and merged the remaining East Slavic tribes that were still not under Kyivan Rus' rule.

He also changed the administrative system of the state by dividing the land and assigning his sons to rule as local princes, subordinating them to the prince of Kyiv and ending tribal autonomy.

To unify tribes and consolidate his power, Volodymyr also carried out a religious reform – he accepted Byzantine-rite Christianity and allegedly ordered the baptizing of his subjects in the Dnipro River. Following the reform, he began building Orthodox churches, including the Church of the Tithes in Kyiv, which was destroyed several times throughout its history and never rebuilt.

Volodymyr's baptism, however, has been the source of great controversy, with disagreement among scholars as to why Volodymyr accepted Christianity and when exactly the baptism occurred.

According to some historians, Volodymyr may have already been baptized and agreed to be re-baptized in order to please the Byzantine emperor.

Volodymyr's son, Yaroslav the Wise, followed in his father's footsteps and continued to increase Kyiv's significance by erecting many landmarks, including the Golden Gate of Kyiv and the Saint Sophia Cathedral, the center of church-state politics and cultural life of Kyivan Rus.

Yaroslav ruled Kyivan Rus from 1019 until his death in 1054.

Yaroslav also focused on strengthening European ties through marital diplomacy. His daughters were married to the kings of France, Norway, and Hungary, while his sons married a princess of Poland, the sister of the bishop of Trier in Germany, and a Byzantine princess.

Yaroslav is remembered not only for his diplomacy and architectural treasures but also for his desire to implement political unity. He created a legal code called the Ruska Pravda (Rus Truth) and rules of political succession, ordering future sons to respect the authority of the Kyivan prince.

How did Kyivan Rus meet its end?​

Constant conflicts between local princes left Kyivan Rus vulnerable to foreign attacks. In 1240, the Mongols managed to capture and practically destroy the city, precipitating what is considered to be the end of Kyivan Rus.

During the invasion of Batu Khan in 1240, Kyiv was part of the Halych-Volhynia principality ruled by Danylo Halytskyi, who had captured the city in 1239.

While the Kyivan Rus state ceased to exist as such, local princes were largely allowed to continue to rule over their patrimonies if they recognized the authority of the Mongols and paid tribute. This generally preserved the political and socioeconomic structure of Kyivan Rus, according to scholars.

The fragmentation of Kyivan Rus following the Mongol invasion gave rise to three powerful independent states: Halych-Volhynia, located in central and western parts of modern Ukraine, and Vladimir-Suzdal and Novgorod, both located primarily in what is now Russia.

Danylo Halytskyi, the ruler of the Halych-Volhynia principality, resisted the Mongols and tried to build opposition seeking Western support from Hungary, Poland, and Lithuania. He also requested support from Pope Innocent IV, who later sent a delegation that crowned Danylo Halytskyi as the King of Rus.

Halych-Volhynia and Vladimir-Suzdal both claimed the name Rus for the lands they now ruled over but followed very different paths. The intermingling of different populations, social changes, and distinct politics transformed society and formed two separate states with their own characteristics.

Halych-Volhynia was integrated into European affairs and was eventually divided between Poland and a new rising power – the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The latter was also able to conquer Kyiv in 1362, over 100 years after it fell to the Mongols.

Meanwhile, Mongols ruled over parts of what is now Russia for nearly 200 years, during which time Moscow was founded by Yuriy Dolgorukyi around 1147 and rose from being a small settlement in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality to a center of power and key vassal of the Golden Horde.

During this time, old East Slavic languages, already considered to be distinct, officially split into two branches – Ruthenian (West Rus language) became the official language in Lithuania, and Old East Slavic became standardized in the Grand Duchy of Moscow.

Ukrainian and Belarusian languages are believed to derive from Ruthenian, while Russian evolved from the Old East Slavic.

How has Russia distorted the history of Kyivan Rus?​

From the mid-15th century, the Grand Duchy of Moscow set its eye on expanding its borders. Moscow's new ideology would center around the fact that all the territories once part of Kyivan Rus needed to be gathered into one.

In 1547, Ivan IV of Moscow, known later as Ivan the Terrible, was crowned Tsar of all Rus, despite having no control over most of the former Kyivan Rus principalities that became a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The name Tsardom of Russia became interchangeable with that of the Tsardom of Muscovy.

On Oct. 22, 1721, Russian Tsar Peter officially changed the country's name from the Tsardom of Russia to the Russian Empire, thus fully appropriating the name of Kyivan Rus and shaping its imperial identity. He also proclaimed himself as the emperor of all of Russia.

A couple of decades later, Catherine the Great would see an urgent need to write a new version of Russian history, fueled by the rapid expansion of the Russian Empire during her reign.

On Dec. 4, 1783, Catherine issued an order to set up a "Commission for making notes about ancient history, mostly of Russia," which was tasked with fulfilling her vision of history. This version effectively proclaimed the Russian Empire as the successor to Kyivan Rus.

Six months before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin published an article calling Ukrainians and Russians the offsprings of "ancient Russian statehood," distorting history and claiming Russia as the only heir of Kyivan Rus.

In fact, Putin didn’t even mention the name Kyivan Rus in his essay, instead referring to it as Ancient Rus.

Russia has also sought to purge its own national history of the links between modern-day Ukraine and Kyivan Rus, despite an obvious historical relationship between the two.

One month after the start of Russia's all-out war against Ukraine, Russian independent media outlet Mediazona reported that employees of the Prosveshcheniye group, Russia's largest educational publisher, were urged to reduce and sometimes even omit references to Ukraine and Kyiv from all school textbooks, including ones that make connections between Ukraine and Kyivan Rus.

In attempting to create historical continuity between modern-day Russia and Kyivan Rus, Russia has sought to legitimize its right to rule over Ukrainian lands and justify its aggression against Ukraine.
 
The depth of the tragedy of this war is yet to hit those outside of the post-Soviet world who don't know the whole truth.


Khokhol/khokhlushka has never been an insult, the American goyim made it one.
 
Another thing the article forgets to mention is that while the Galicia-Volhynia was begging the Poles and Lithuanians for scraps, the Moscovites were busily embezzling money from the Golden Horde(aka the Tatars). They used that money to build an army, and used that army to tell the Tatars to fuck off. Ivan the Terrible himself, spent much of his reign conquering Tatar territories, which is why Tatarstan is part of Russia now
Eastern European history is always so interesting to read and hear about. Western Europe is the key focus of most medieval talk, and it's usually the same shit: Vikings, Normans, the HRE being the HRE, the failure of the crusades for Jerusalem, the Reconquista, and France fucking England up the ass for the umpteenth time. Meanwhile, you've got the Northern Crusades, the steppe being what it was, Olga burning people alive over risking the inheritance of her son by marrying again, and republics in a time were most of the known world was ruled by the divine right of kings. It's foreign yet still distinctly European.
 
Eastern European history is always so interesting to read and hear about. Western Europe is the key focus of most medieval talk, and it's usually the same shit: Vikings, Normans, the HRE being the HRE, the failure of the crusades for Jerusalem, the Reconquista, and France fucking England up the ass for the umpteenth time. Meanwhile, you've got the Northern Crusades, the steppe being what it was, Olga burning people alive over risking the inheritance of her son by marrying again, and republics in a time were most of the known world was ruled by the divine right of kings. It's foreign yet still distinctly European.
Divine Right is an Early Modern concept, not Medieval.
 
There was never a Kievan Rus, either. It's a historiographic term to describe a commonality, a direct language continuum, cultural traits, and polities that belonged to the East Slavic peoples. They would later make up Russia, Belarus, the Rusyns and eventually, those who didn't become any of the mentioned, became the Ukrainians.
The Rusyns never existed before the 19th century when East Slavic people in Hungary wanted to separate themselves from East Slavic people in Galicia. The only thing unique about them is their genetics since they don't have as much Turk rape genes as the Ukrops do.
 
Divine Right is an Early Modern concept, not Medieval.
Maybe it wasn't called it back then, but it definitely existed in several forms far before. It just wasn't called divine right. Scholars, priests, and nobles just said they ruled in the name of God. Roman Emperors were revered as gods and God Kings existed as several points or another. China had the Mandate of Heaven. The link between religion and government, while not as strong depending on the government or age, has always existed. Divine right as it is as we understand it is a byproduct of centralized power under a monarch, which was all too prevalent in the Early Modern Age.
 
Maybe it wasn't called it back then, but it definitely existed in several forms far before. It just wasn't called divine right. Scholars, priests, and nobles just said they ruled in the name of God. Roman Emperors were revered as gods and God Kings existed as several points or another. China had the Mandate of Heaven. The link between religion and government, while not as strong depending on the government or age, has always existed. Divine right as it is as we understand it is a byproduct of centralized power under a monarch, which was all too prevalent in the Early Modern Age.
Divine Right is linked with autocracy or absolute monarchy. Medieval European governments were neither. The rulers shared their power with the landed aristocracy. Even Byzantium wasn't an absolute monarchy.
 
Divine Right is linked with autocracy or absolute monarchy. Medieval European governments were neither. The rulers shared their power with the landed aristocracy. Even Byzantium wasn't an absolute monarchy.
Divine right has been a thing since forever, what happened is the nobility demanded, and got, a bigger say in how funds were gathered, where they were allocated and what they was spent on. It wasn't simple and there was always tension between both sides, as various wars and overthrown monarchs can attest to.
 
Divine right has been a thing since forever, what happened is the nobility demanded, and got, a bigger say in how funds were gathered, where they were allocated and what they was spent on. It wasn't simple and there was always tension between both sides, as various wars and overthrown monarchs can attest to.
Germanics, Balts and Slavs had their kingdoms evolve from tribal unions where the governmental body functioned as a warrior democracy, led by karls (free men) and appointed chiefs. It doesn't matter that Rome had cults made for them, or that China had the Mandate of Heaven, or whatever, as @God of Nothing mentioned for some odd reason. No offence, but what you guys said are sort of like generic platitudes. They're correct, but they don't apply to the Medieval period as defined from 476 to 1453 (political dates). We can the extend the period to run parallel with the Early Modern one by 100 or 150 years, because that is also done sometimes, but that just means it's the end of the Late Medieval period. It's just not something that was relevant to the Middle Ages overall. In Europe.
 
Germanics, Balts and Slavs had their kingdoms evolve from tribal unions where the governmental body functioned as a warrior democracy, led by karls (free men) and appointed chiefs. It doesn't matter that Rome had cults made for them, or that China had the Mandate of Heaven, or whatever, as @God of Nothing mentioned for some odd reason. No offence, but what you guys said are sort of like generic platitudes. They're correct, but they don't apply to the Medieval period as defined from 476 to 1453 (political dates). We can the extend the period to run parallel with the Early Modern one by 100 or 150 years, because that is also done sometimes, but that just means it's the end of the Late Medieval period. It's just not something that was relevant to the Middle Ages overall. In Europe.
That's mostly true but since most of us are in the Anglosphere it was a very different thing in England, After the Norman conquest there was constant tension and even war over these issues. The Magna Carta was a demand from John's barons for a bigger say in the affairs of state and limits upon the power of the monarchy. Unresolved issues eventually culminated in the English Civil War in the 17th century. While this was not the case everywhere else it would have been a very risky move to question the divine writ of los Reyes Católicos Isabel I de Castilla y Fernando II de Aragón-Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain-before, during and after the Reconquista. On the other hand in the medieval period you had countries like Poland where the monarchy was elected. So really depends where and when in Europe we're talking about.
 
Last edited:
Divine Right is linked with autocracy or absolute monarchy. Medieval European governments were neither. The rulers shared their power with the landed aristocracy. Even Byzantium wasn't an absolute monarchy.
As a concept its been around since the late 1100's. The English of any status were historically unwilling to answer to anyone above them, and so Richard I told Henry VI of the HRE to fuck off since he only recognized God himself as his superior. The current motto of the English Crown "God and My Right" dates back to that same man. It only got hammered on so hard when gunpowder started making the traditional means of kingly authority (killing everyone who won't bend the knee) harder and harder to enforce since a few months of basic drill with a matchlock and you had someone who could kill a knight with years of training no problem.
 
As a concept its been around since the late 1100's. The English of any status were historically unwilling to answer to anyone above them, and so Richard I told Henry VI of the HRE to fuck off since he only recognized God himself as his superior. The current motto of the English Crown "God and My Right" dates back to that same man. It only got hammered on so hard when gunpowder started making the traditional means of kingly authority (killing everyone who won't bend the knee) harder and harder to enforce since a few months of basic drill with a matchlock and you had someone who could kill a knight with years of training no problem.
Why the hell would a sovereign answer to the ruler of a different state? That'd be like the Bulgarian ruler just doing what the Byzantine emperor asks of him, just because he's outranked. Look, man, while I'm guessing what you said is true about England, fact is that was the state the least affected by autocracy (not counting Switzerland or Althing in Iceland). It's also the state where future constitutions (that limit the power of the monarch) originated (as @Feline Supremacist mentioned, the Magna Charta).
 
Why the hell would a sovereign answer to the ruler of a different state? That'd be like the Bulgarian ruler just doing what the Byzantine emperor asks of him, just because he's outranked. Look, man, while I'm guessing what you said is true about England, fact is that was the state the least affected by autocracy (not counting Switzerland or Althing in Iceland). It's also the state where future constitutions (that limit the power of the monarch) originated (as @Feline Supremacist mentioned, the Magna Charta).
Because that's how it worked in the medieval world. In Europe, you answered to the Holy Roman Emperor because he was the Pope-anointed successor of Rome and a universal ruler (just like the Caliph in the Middle East and the Chinese Emperor in East Asia). In practice it was a little different, but legally that was the case, at least until the 12th (IIRC) century when new legal theories arose, first in France, saying the king owned nothing to the Holy Roman Emperor. These mostly confirmed the facts on the ground that no one was exerting that degree of influence in France, not even the Pope.

To say nothing of cases like the King of England in his role as Duke of Aquitaine owing fealty to the King of France.
 
Because that's how it worked in the medieval world. In Europe, you answered to the Holy Roman Emperor because he was the Pope-anointed successor of Rome and a universal ruler (just like the Caliph in the Middle East and the Chinese Emperor in East Asia). In practice it was a little different, but legally that was the case, at least until the 12th (IIRC) century when new legal theories arose, first in France, saying the king owned nothing to the Holy Roman Emperor. These mostly confirmed the facts on the ground that no one was exerting that degree of influence in France, not even the Pope.

To say nothing of cases like the King of England in his role as Duke of Aquitaine owing fealty to the King of France.
Doesn't matter if you're sovereign. Unless the HRE could exercise power projection, which he couldn't, there's no reason to oblige him. Also, aren't you a bit too Western-centric? Bulgaria never answered to either Roman emperors, for example. That's almost 400 years before France. And Bulgaria had established its own patriarchate (which was legal, btw), thus creating a national church. It didn't have to answer to anyone.

Btw, since this has become off-topic, I'm going to try to segway it back. Byzantium managed to conquer Bulgaria thanks to the Kievan Rus, ironically (The Byzantines didn't plan on the Rus being so successful). Also, the Kievan Rus had a culture war over the proselytization of Orthodoxy, which the article doesn't mention. The Greek element versus the Bulgarian element. I think it's obvious who won.
 
Back
Top Bottom