Luscombe D., Riley-Smith J. The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 4: c. 1024-c. 1198, Part 2
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
The Byzantine empire, 1025–1118 251
on the Anatolian plateau, but there he was met by two of the leaders of the
crusade who had fled from Antioch in despair. They told the emperor that
all was lost. Alexios therefore turned back. It was the sensible thing to do. In
fact, all was far from lost. Thanks to Bohemond the lower city was secured at
the beginning of June 1098 and on 28 June the crusaders inflicted a crushing
defeat on the Seljuq relief force. Bohemond secured possession of the city for
himself, while the crusade moved on towards Jerusalem.
xii
Antioch was vital to Alexios Komnenos’s plans for the recovery of Anatolia from
the Turks. It had traditionally been the main Byzantine centre of operations
in the east. The crusade leaders had given Alexios an undertaking that they
would return Byzantine cities and territories. This Bohemond was refusing to
do. Alexios therefore set about trying to evict him from Antioch. His forces had
some success. They occupied Cilicia but the key point was the port of Latakia.
In 1103 the Byzantines secured the lower city and were endeavouring to dislodge
the Normans from the citadel. Such was the pressure that in 1104 Bohemond
decided to leave his nephew Tancred in charge of Antioch, while he returned
to the west for reinforcements. He won the backing of Pope Paschal II and the
support of the French king Philip I, whose daughter he married. It remains an
open question whether his expedition qualified as a crusade. The final goal was
Palestine. Bohemond was accompanied by a papal legate. The pope presented
him with the banner of St Peter and according to a contemporary
26
appointed
him ‘standard-bearer of the army of Christ’. Bohemond’s propaganda stressed
the treachery of Alexios Komnenos towards the crusade as just cause for his
invasion. Bohemond’s expedition against Byzantium displayed many features
of a crusade, but full recognition would depend on its outcome, simply because
crusading theory was still in its infancy. But for Anna Komnena it was a different
matter. She was clear that Bohemond’s invasion not only had papal approval,
but had also been accorded the status of a ‘Just War’.
27
It confirmed Byzantine
apprehensions about the dangers that the crusade held in store.
Bohemond landed on the Albanian coast in 1107 and laid siege to Durazzo.
Alexios deployed his forces in the surrounding mountains. Bohemond soon
found himself in an impossible position isolated in front of Durazzo; his es-
cape by sea cut off by the Venetians. Paschal II withdrew his support. In 1108
Bohemond sued for peace. He recognized Alexios as his overlord. He accepted
that he held the principality of Antioch from Alexios. On paper Alexios had
26
Bartolf of Nangis.
27
Anna Komnena, Alexiad,bkxii, ch. viii, para. 5: ed. Lieb and Gautier, iii,pp.80.6–7.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
252 michael angold
won what he most wanted: recognition of his claims to Antioch. But the treaty
remained a dead letter. Bohemond returned to southern Italy. His nephew
Tancred continued to rule at Antioch and refused to countenance the conces-
sions made to the Byzantine emperor. Alexios was in no position to enforce
them. To meet Bohemond’s invasion he had withdrawn his forces from Cilicia
and Syria. This allowed the Seljuqs to regain the initiative in western Asia
Minor. Alexios was not able to mount an expedition against them until 1116.
Its purpose was to evacuate from central Anatolia the Greek populations still
living under Turkish rule. It was a tacit admission of defeat.
xiii
Alexios’s appeal to Urban II was brilliantly conceived, but Byzantium gained
very little from the crusade. In its wake Byzantine forces recovered the rich
coastlands of western Anatolia, while they might have reasonably expected to
have done anyway. The shadow of 1204 looms over Alexios’s achievements
and calls in question the success of his restoration of the Byzantine empire. His
reputation has also suffered among modern historians because of the Alexiad:
his daughter Anna Komnena’s history of his reign. It is judged to lack objectivity.
It is too obviously an exercise in filial piety. It is too much of an idealization.
It is all these things, but it also provides a consummate portrait of an age,
which, when allowance is made for bias, carries conviction. Anna Komnena’s
assessment of her father’s greatness is borne out by his administrative and
fiscal reforms and his church settlement, about which she has relatively little
to say. These aspects of her father’s reign have to be pieced together from the
documentary sources. They provide the best evidence for Alexios’s achievement
in restoring the empire.
Anna Komnena breathes not a word about her father’s appeal to Pope Urban
II which triggered off the crusade. This may have been because she did not
know about it or because she did not connect her father’s appeal with the
crusade. But it was more likely done to protect her father’s reputation. By
the time she was writing – some thirty years after her father’s death – it was
apparent that the crusade was the cutting edge of western expansion. It was
Alexios’s task to come to terms with western encroachment, which had begun
to make itself felt from the middle of the eleventh century. It took various
forms. Least harmful appeared to be the commercial activities of Venetian and
other Italian merchants. They offered a solution to Byzantium’s need for naval
assistance. In order to counter the threat from the Normans at the beginning
of his reign Alexios engaged the services of the Venetian fleet. In 1082 in order
to pay for them he granted the Venetians special privileges in Constantinople
and exemption from the payment of customs duties throughout the empire. It
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The Byzantine empire, 1025–1118 253
appeared a very good bargain. In 1111 Alexios entered into a similar arrangement
with the Pisans. He reduced their customs duty to 4 per cent. He was angling for
their support in the plans which he had – but which never came to anything –
to bring the crusader states under Byzantine control. Alexios was using the
Italians much as the emperors of the tenth century had used the Russians:
to strengthen the empire’s naval and commercial resources. The appeal to
Urban was intended to complement this by harnessing the military potential
of the Franks. Alexios could not have imagined that it would trigger off the
crusade, nor that the crusade would cease to be a cooperative venture and be
turned against Byzantium. Within Byzantium the crusade not only hardened
attitudes towards the west, it also created tensions. Opinion polarized between
those who favoured continuing cooperation with the west and those who
rejected this approach, preferring to fall back on ‘splendid isolation’. This put
added pressure on the fault lines that existed within the Comnenian settlement:
between the emperor and church; between autocracy and aristocracy; between
the Comnenian ascendancy and the excluded; between the capital and the
provinces. Alexios hoped that an understanding with the west would provide
Byzantium with the additional resources needed to restore its position as a world
power. He could not have foreseen how it would undermine Byzantium from
within. This was the true nature of Alexios’s failure. It was counterbalanced
by the success he had in restoring the integrity of the imperial office and the
soundness of imperial administration. For more than half a century after his
death Byzantium remained a great power.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
chapter 9
KIEVAN RUS
, THE BULGARS AND
THE SOUTHERN SLAVS,
c. 1020– c. 1200
Martin Dimnik
kievan rus
, 1024–1204
in 1024 Mstislav of Tmutarakan
defeated his elder brother Jaroslav of Novgorod
at Listven north of Chernigov and partitioned Rus
into two autonomous
principalities. Jaroslav got Kiev and the right (west) bank of the Dnepr as well
as Novgorod; Mstislav kept Chernigov and the left (east) bank in addition
to the principality of Tmutarakan
on the north-east shore of the Black Sea.
However, after the latter died (1034)Jaroslav appropriated Mstislav’s domain
and this made him the most powerful ruler in the land. He controlled all of
Rus
except for two patrimonies: Polotsk belonged to the family of his elder
brother Izyaslav, and Pskov, south-west of Novgorod, was the domain of his
brother Sudislav.
Jaroslav established friendly ties with the Poles, the Swedes, the Norwegians,
the Germans and the French, but his relations with Byzantium were strained.
In 1043 he ordered his eldest son Vladimir of Novgorod to attack the Greeks,
but after the expedition failed he restored good relations with them. In 1036
Jaroslav’s victory over the Petcheneks secured safe passage for merchants trav-
elling from Kiev to Constantinople. He also helped the Novgorodians to wage
expansionist campaigns against the neighbouring Finns and Lithuanians.
Jaroslav’s reign was one of the high points in the history of Rus
and his
achievements earned for him the sobriquet ‘the Wise’. To consolidate his au-
thority, to protect trade routes and to defend the frontiers he established new
fortified towns. He helped to lay the foundation for a codified law by issu-
ing ‘The Russian Law’ (Pravda russkaya). He imported Greek craftsmen to
build churches and monasteries. He encouraged religious and secular learn-
ing by assembling a library and patronizing the translation of Greek and
Old Church Slavonic texts. In 1051, wishing to assert the independence of
the church in Rus
,Jaroslav named the hermit Hilarion as the first native
metropolitan.
254
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
N
0
200 400 600 km
0
200
400 miles
Novgorod
Pskov
Zvenigorod
Kiev
Chernigov
Pereyaslavl’
Lyubech
Turov
Dnepr
BLACK SEA
C
A
S
P
I
A
N
S
E
A
Constantinople
A
E
G
E
A
N
S
E
A
A
D
R
I
A
T
I
C
S
E
A
I
T
A
L
Y
Bari
Venice
Aquileia
Athos
Thessalonica
Ohrid
Skoplje
Sardica
(Sofia)
Nisˇ
Preslav
Silistria
Duklja
(Zeta)
T
H
R
A
C
E
BULGARIA
MACEDONIA
HUNGARY
Terebovl’
Murom
Vladimir
Manzikert
Esztergom
Sirmium
Ragusa
(Dubrovnik)
Bar
Lake
Skadar
Gulf of
Kotor
Bari
Ulcinj
Durazzo
(Dyrrachium)
Split
(Spalato)
Trogir
(Trau)
S
ˇ
ibenik
Lim
I
b
a
r
Zagreb
CROATIA
Biograd
Zara
Nin
Raska
BOSNIA
SERBIA
Sirmium
S
L
A
V
O
N
I
A
Trebinje
K
v
a
rn
e
r
G
u
l
f
A
D
R
I
A
T
I
C
S
E
A
ITALY
Aquileia
Smolensk
B
A
L
T
I
C
S
E
A
Danube
M
E
D
I
T
E
R
R
A
N
E
A
N
S
E
A
HUM
A
r
c
a
d
i
o
p
o
l
i
s
Listven
Peremyshl’
TMUTARAKAN’
VOL
YNIA
P
A
R
I
S
T
R
I
O
N
Vyshgorod
SEE INSET ABOVE
Trnovo
Trebinje
Suzdal’
Rostov
Map 6
Kievan Rus
,Bulgaria and the southern Slavs
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
256 martin dimnik
In imitation of his father Vladimir (d. 1015) and grandfather Svyatoslav (d. 972)
Jaroslav allocated towns to his sons before his death (1054); he gave Turov
to Izyaslav, Chernigov (along with Murom and Tmutarakan
)toSvyatoslav,
Pereyaslavl
(and the Rostov-Suzdal
region) to Vsevolod, Vladimir to Igor
and
Smolensk to Vyacheslav. The towns were to become their hereditary domains.
However, in an attempt to ensure a peaceful transition of supreme power
Jaroslav appears to have introduced a new order of succession to Kiev, the
capital town of Rus
.Tojudge from his so-called ‘testament’, he advocated
a system of lateral succession among the families of his three eldest sons; in
this way Kiev would never become the hereditary domain of any single family.
Accordingly, his eldest son Izyaslav would rule it until his death; the next son
Svyatoslav (if he was still alive) would succeed Izyaslav; similarly, Vsevolod
would replace Svyatoslav. The two youngest brothers, Igor
and Vyacheslav,
and their families were debarred from ruling Kiev.
Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod governed as a triumvirate, so to speak, for
almost twenty years and asserted their authority over the other princes. In 1056
and 1060, after the deaths of Igor
and Vyacheslav, they appropriated Vladimir
and Smolensk and deprived the deceased princes’ sons of their patrimonies. In
1059 they released their uncle Sudislav (whom Yaroslav had incarcerated) from
prison and placed him in a monastery after forcing him to forfeit control of
Pskov, his patrimony. In 1064 Izyaslav drove out Rostislav, the son of his elder
brother Vladimir (d. 1052), from Novgorod, Rostislav’s patrimonial domain,
and assumed control of it himself. In this way the triumvirate established its
authority over all of Rus
except Polotsk. In doing so, it violated the territorial
allocations made by Jaroslav ‘the Wise’.
In 1068 the nomadic Cumans (Polovtsy) appeared on the steppe south of
Kiev for the first time and defeated the forces of the triumvirate. Izyaslav sought
safety in Kiev but the citizens forced him to flee when he refused to give them
weapons to fight the enemy. They released Vseslav of Polotsk, whom Izyaslav
had thrown into prison, and proclaimed him prince. Meanwhile, Svyatoslav
sallied forth from Chernigov and scored a brilliant victory over the Cumans.
He concluded a peace treaty and established amicable relations with them. In
the following year, when Izyaslav marched against to Rus
with Polish rein-
forcements, Vseslav fled from Kiev and the townsmen asked Svyatoslav and
Vsevolod to be their princes. Svyatoslav declined the invitation.
After occupying Kiev the second time Izyaslav waged war against Vseslav
but without the support of his brothers; their alliance seemed to be faltering.
The three Jaroslavichi demonstrated their solidarity for the last time in 1072
when they met in Vyshgorod, a town north of Kiev. They attended a religious
ceremony at which the remains of SS. Boris and Gleb were transferred into
the new wooden church built by Izyaslav. The following year Svyatoslav and
Vsevolod deposed him and Svyatoslav occupied Kiev. Although Svyatoslav
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Kievan Rus
, the Bulgars and the southern Slavs, c. 1020–c. 1200 257
levied what he believed to be just accusations against Izyaslav, his usurpation
was a violation of Jaroslav’s so-called ‘testament’ which prohibited a prince
from seizing Kiev by force.
Svyatoslav’s reign was cut short in 1076 when he died after an unsuccess-
ful operation. However, he was undoubtedly the most gifted of the three
brothers and his authority as prince of Kiev surpassed that of Izyaslav whose
domains he appropriated. Svyatoslav himself ruled Kiev and Chernigov; his el-
dest son Gleb governed in Novgorod and his son Oleg administered Vladimir.
To his ally Vsevolod of Pereyaslavl
he evidently gave Smolensk and Izyaslav’s
Tu rov. German emissaries sent to Kiev on Izyaslav’s behalf were impressed with
Svyatoslav’s immeasurable wealth. He used it to patronize the church and cul-
ture; he promoted the cult of SS. Boris and Gleb by beginning to build the
first stone church in their honour in Vyshgorod.
After Svyatoslav’s death Vsevolod occupied Kiev. However, in the follow-
ing year (1077)Izyaslav returned from exile and occupied the capital for the
third time. Izyaslav formed a pact with Vsevolod and gave him Svyatoslav’s
patrimonial town of Chernigov in addition to Smolensk and Pereyaslavl
.But
the rule of the duumvirate was short-lived. In 1078 Oleg, whom Svyatoslav
had evidently designated prince of Chernigov, marched against Vsevolod and
drove him out of the town. Later in the year Izyaslav and Vsevolod attacked
Oleg and Izyaslav was killed in battle. Oleg himself was defeated and fled to
his brother Roman in Tmutarakan
; Vsevolod, the only surviving Jaroslavich,
occupied Kiev.
Vsevolod appointed his elder son Vladimir Monomakh to rule Svyatoslav’s
patrimony of Chernigov, and his younger son Rostislav to govern Pereyaslavl
.
Izyaslav’s sons Jaropolk and Svyatopolk, who ruled Turov, Vladimir and
Novgorod, pledged their fealty to him. However, the sons of his brothers
Vladimir, Igor
, and Vyacheslav, barred from power, were relegated to posi-
tions of political insignificance. Svyatoslav’s family suffered a similar fate: in
1078 Gleb was killed in the Novgorod lands; in the following year Roman of
Tmutarakan
was murdered by Vsevolod’s allies, the Cumans; and in the same
year Oleg was exiled to Byzantium apparently with Vsevolod’s complicity.
After that Vsevolod’s reign was relatively uneventful especially since the
Cumans remained at peace. His authority was strengthened in 1086 when
Izyaslav’s eldest son Jaropolk who ruled Vladimir and Turov was assassinated.
Jaropolk’s younger brother Svyatopolk vacated Novgorod and moved to his
patrimonial domain of Turov. Vsevolod then assumed direct control over
Novgorod by appointing his grandson Mstislav, Vladimir’s son, to rule it.
To wards the end of Vsevolod’s reign the princes who had been barred inten-
sified their demands for patrimonies. He therefore granted the descendants
of Vladimir of Novgorod the region which later became known as Galicia.
Following Jaropolk’s murder, Vsevolod allowed Igor’s son David to occupy
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
258 martin dimnik
his father’s patrimonial domain of Vladimir. In 1093, after Vsevolod’s death,
his son Monomakh was tempted to occupy Kiev. He did not, the chronicler
explains, because Izyaslav’s eldest surviving son Svyatopolk had a prior claim
since Izyaslav had occupied Kiev before Vsevolod.
Svyatopolk began his twenty-year reign with an act of arrogant stupid-
ity: when the Cumans sent emissaries of peace he threw them into prison.
The tribesmen therefore attacked and inflicted a crushing defeat on his and
Monomakh’s joint forces. Oleg, who had been ruling Tmutarakan
since 1083
when he had returned from Byzantium, took advantage of his cousins’ plight:
in 1094 he drove out Monomakh from Chernigov with the help of the Cumans.
Svyatopolk and Monomakh condemned him for using the Cumans and de-
manded that he campaign with them against the tribesmen. When he refused,
they attacked Chernigov forcing him to flee to Starodub. In 1096 Oleg con-
ducted a series of campaigns against Monomakh’s forces hoping to regain his
patrimony. In the end, he was defeated by Monomakh’s eldest son Mstislav of
Novgorod and agreed to attend a meeting of all the princes in order to establish
peace in the land.
In 1097 the princes of Rus
met at Lyubech, west of Chernigov, and agreed to
honour Jaroslav’s original allocation of domains: Svyatopolk would rule Turov
(in addition to Kiev); Monomakh got Pereyaslavl
; the three Svyatoslavichi,
Oleg, David, Jaroslav, regained Chernigov and Murom. The allocations
Vsevolod made to the other princes before his death would also remain in
force: Igor’s son David kept Vladimir; Volodar and Vasil
ko, the grandsons of
Vladimir of Novgorod, retained Peremyshl
and Terebovl
in Galicia. But most
important for Svyatopolk and Monomakh, Oleg and the Svyatoslavichi agreed
to support their policy against the Cumans.
Buteven before all the princes returned home from Lyubech the new
peace agreement was broken by none other than Svyatopolk. When David of
Vladimir convinced him that Monomakh and Vasil
ko of Terebovl
were plot-
ting against them Svyatopolk permitted David to blind Vasil
ko. Monomakh
and the Svyatoslavichi, shocked by this unprecedented conduct, marched
against Kiev demanding that Svyatopolk punish David. In 1100,atanother
council of princes held at a place called Uvetichi, David was expelled from
Vladimir and relegated to the less important town of Dorogobuzh. After that
Svyatopolk, Monomakh, the Svyatoslavichi, and the other princes of Rus
conducted several successful campaigns against the Cumans. By 1111 the tribes-
men had been cowed into submission and they remained at peace for over a
decade.
In 1113 Svyatopolk died and the Kievans rebelled. Although the unrest was
allegedly in response to the injustices committed by Svyatopolk’s officials, many
of the rioters demanded that Monomakh occupy Kiev. He hesitated. According
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Kievan Rus
, the Bulgars and the southern Slavs, c. 1020–c. 1200 259
to Jaroslav’s so-called testament, the Svyatoslavichi had a prior claim to Kiev
and Monomakh’s occupation would be usurpation. Ultimately, the lack of
opposition from the Svyatoslavichi and the rioters’ threats to inflict violence
on his family and possessions if he refused prompted Monomakh to seize
power.
Histwelve-year rule is generally looked upon as one of the high points in
the history of Rus
.Monomakh formed an alliance with the Svyatoslavichi
and allowed them to rule their patrimonial lands of Chernigov and Murom.
He used his sons to secure control over most of the remaining principalities:
Pereyaslavl
,Novgorod, Vladimir, Smolensk, Rostov-Suzdal
and Turov. The
families of the princes barred from power acknowledged his suzerainty and the
Cumans remained at peace. The only principality which continued to remain
politically independent of Kiev was Polotsk.
Monomakh was especially renowned for his successful campaigns against
the Cumans. After assuming power he also enacted reforms to prevent abuses
in interest rates and enslavement. He patronized learning and built many
churches. In 1115 he authorized the translation of the relics of SS. Boris and
Gleb into the stone church in Vyshgorod begun by Svyatoslav and completed
by Oleg. Soon after he composed the autobiographical ‘Instruction’ (Pouchenie)
in which he recounted his exploits and gave advice to future rulers.
Before his death in 1125 Monomakh designated his eldest son Mstislav to
occupy Kiev and, after him, the next eldest son Jaropolk. He thus attempted
to abolish the lateral system of succession advocated by Jaroslav ‘the Wise’ and
to implement a new order which would secure the rule of his descendants in
Kiev. Although Mstislav pre-empted the succession right of the Izyaslavichi
and the Svyatoslavichi he evidently encountered no opposition from them.
Novgorod, Turov, Vladimir and Smolensk which Jaroslav ‘the Wise’ had be-
queathed to four of his sons, but which Monomakh had given to members
of his own family, pledged allegiance to Mstislav. In 1127, after Oleg’s eldest
son Vsevolod (Mstislav’s son-in-law) drove his uncle Jaroslav from Chernigov,
Mstislav acknowledged Vsevolod’s rule and won his support. With the help of
his allies Mstislav asserted the authority of the prince of Kiev over Polotsk for
the first time. After his death in 1132 his younger brother Jaropolk of Pereyaslavl
succeeded him just as Monomakh had decreed.
Jaropolk’s reign was troubled; conflicts arose almost immediately between
his brothers the Monomashichi and his nephews the Mstislavichi. Mono-
makh had intended that the Mstislavichi rather than their uncles occupy the
patrimonial domain of Pereyaslavl
after Jaropolk. Monomakh had also desig-
nated Mstislav’s sons to succeeded Jaropolk to Kiev thereby debarring his own
younger sons Vyacheslav, Yury (later known as ‘Long Arm’ (Dolgorukiy)) and
Andrey. Yury and Andrey challenged this arrangement, won Jaropolk’s support
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
260 martin dimnik
and forced the Mstislavichi to turn for help to Vsevolod in Chernigov. In this
way the Svyatoslavichi were drawn into conflict with Monomakh’s sons. The
two sides clashed on a number of occasions and it appeared that by the time
of Jaropolk’s death in 1139 the Monomashichi had won the day. Vyacheslav of
Tu rov, Jaropolk’s eldest surviving brother, succeeded him in Kiev.
Monomakh’s plan to make Kiev the patrimony of his family might have
succeeded had it not been for Vsevolod. He immediately challenged Vyache-
slav and occupied Kiev. Vsevolod asserted his authority by skilfully breaking
up the princely alliances formed against him. In imitation of Monomakh he
established his jurisdiction over the princes barredfrom power. He appropriated
Tu rov and Vladimir; he sent his brother Svyatoslav to rule Novgorod and,
after the latter was driven out, gave it to Mstislav’s son Svyatopolk, one of his
brothers-in-law. As the senior prince of the Svyatoslavichi he manipulated his
brothers and cousins by giving them lands in the principality of Chernigov.
Like Monomakh and Mstislav, Vsevolod enjoyed supreme authority in Rus
.
Except for Volodar of Galich who attempted to annex Vladimir, he encountered
no serious threats to his suzerainty. Even Yury of Rostov-Suzdal
realized that
it was futile to challenge him. Before his death in 1146 Vsevolod designated
his younger brother Igor
to succeed him. In imitation of Monomakh who
attempted to make Kiev the patrimonial domain of his family, Vsevolod tried
to secure control of it for the Svyatoslavichi. He was not successful and in the
future the capital of Rus
would become the prize for the strongest contender
from either family. The system of lateral succession advocated by Jaroslav ‘the
Wise’ had become defunct.
The Kievans refused to accept Igor
as prince and he had insufficient backing
to assert his claim by force. During the uprising that followed Vsevolod’s death
the townsmen killed Igor
and turned to Monomakh’s descendants for a ruler.
The latter were disunited and a conflict arose between Yury of Rostov-Suzdal
and Mstislav’s son Izyaslav of Vladimir. Yury based his claim on genealogical
seniority according to the customary practice of lateral succession; Izyaslav
demanded Kiev on the ground that his grandfather Monomakh had designated
the Mstislavichi his successors. Izyaslav won the day, in the main because he
had the support of the Kievans.
He ruled from 1146 to 1154. Like Jaroslav ‘the Wise’ he seemingly attempted,
unsuccessfully, to free the church of Rus
from the direct control of the Greek
patriarch by appointing a native as metropolitan of Kiev. In the political sphere
he exerted much energy in repelling attacks from Yury and his allies, the princes
of Chernigov and the Cumans. In 1155, after Izyaslav’s death, Yury finally
occupied Kiev. However, his constant warring, his alliances with the Cumans,
and his oppression made him unpopular; two years after he became prince of
Kiev he was poisoned.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008