Perrie M. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Russia, Volume 1: From Early Rus’ to 1689
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
martin dimnik
Moreover, the ‘Life’ (Zhitie) of Avramii of Smolensk provides valuable data on
the social conditions of the time.
35
Two genealogical considerations were pivotal for Rostislav’s successful
occupation of Kiev: after the death of his brother Iziaslav he became the
eldest surviving Mstislavich; and after the death of his uncle Iurii he became
the eldest prince in the entire House of Monomakh. He was therefore the
legitimate claimant from both camps. Since all the princes in the House of
Monomakhaccepted his candidacy,hisreignwitnessed fewerinternecinewars.
The Polovtsy, however, intensified their attacks. They raided caravans travel-
ling by river and by land from the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov regions.
Rostislav organised campaigns against the nomads but failed to curb their
forays.
He died on 14 March 1167.
36
After that, the Mstislavichi split into two
dynasties: the one in Volyn’ descended from Iziaslav who had made that
region his family possession, and the one in Smolensk descended from Ros-
tislav.
37
(See Table 5.4: The House of Volyn’, and Table 5.5: The House of
Smolensk.) Following the latter’s death, his nephew Mstislav Iziaslavich of
Vladimir-in-Volynia pre-empted the right of his uncle Vladimir Mstislavich
of Dorogobuzh to rule Kiev.
38
At first, Mstislav had the support of the other Mstislavichi because they
expected to manipulate him. They discovered that he was no man’s lackey,
however, after he refused to grant them the towns they demanded. He also
antagonised Andrei Bogoliubskii, who had replaced his father Iurii Dolgorukii
in Suzdalia. Andrei saw Mstislav’s accession as a violation of the traditional
order of succession to Kiev. Moreover, Mstislav appointed his son Roman to
Novgorod, whereAndrei was seekingto asserthis influence. Despite Mstislav’s
unpopularity, he successfullyassembled the princes of Rus’against the Polovtsy.
While in the field, however, he antagonised them further. Without informing
them, he allowed his men to plunder the camps of the nomads. After that, we
are told, the princes plotted against him.
39
35 On Smolensk, see L. V. Alekseev, Smolenskaia zemlia v IX–XIII vv. Ocherki istorii Smolen-
shchiny i Vostochnoi Belorussii (Moscow: Nauka, 1980). For Rostislav’s charter, see Ia. N.
Shchapov, Kniazheskie ustavy i tserkov’ v drevnei Rusi XI–XIV vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1972),
pp. 136–50. For Avramii, see P. Hollingsworth (trans. and intro.), The Hagiography of Kievan
Rus’ (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), pp. lxix–lxxx.
36 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 528–32.
37 For Rostislav’s descendants, see Baumgarten, G
´
en
´
ealogies et mariages,tableix.
38 PSRL, vol. ii, col. 535. For Vladimir and Mstislav, see Baumgarten, G
´
en
´
ealogies et mariages,
table v, 30 and 36.
39 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 538–43.
108
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The Rus’ principalities (1125–1246)
Table 5.4.
The House of Volyn’
Iziaslav
d. 1154
Mstislav
d. 1172
Iaroslav
d. 1180
Roman
d. 1205
Ingvar’
d. 1212
Daniil
d. 1264
Vasil’ko
d. 1269
Table 5.5. The House of Smolensk
Rostislav
d. 1167
Roman
d. 1180
David
d. 1197
Riurik
d. 1208
Mstislav
d. 1180
Mstislav
d. 1223
Vladimir
d. 1239
Mstislav
the Bold
d. 1228
109
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
martin dimnik
Andrei Bogoliubskii
In 1169 Andrei Bogoliubskii organised a coalition to evict Mstislav from Kiev.
Princes from Suzdalia, Smolensk, Volyn’ and Chernigov joined the campaign
led by Andrei’s son Mstislav.
40
Many took part not only because they acknowl-
edged Andrei’s prior claim to Kiev, but also because they resented Mstislav for
cheating them out of booty. Historians are not agreed on Andrei’s objective
in attacking Kiev or on the significance of its capture on 8 March. Some claim
that his aim was to recover the Kievan throne for the rightful Monomashichi
claimants because Kievwas the capital of the land. Others, however, argue that
Andrei attempted to subordinate it to Vladimir and that its capture signalled
its decline.
41
Perhaps there is an element of truth in each view. In forcing the usurper
Mstislav to flee to Volyn’, Andrei, the rightful claimant for the House of
Suzdalia, was able to seize control of Kiev. Surprisingly, afterhis forcescaptured
the town, they sacked it.
42
Their action obviously did not penalise Mstislav in
any way. Rather, the attackers vented their spleen against the Kievans. They
seemingly ransacked the capital out of envy for its prosperity and out of fury
at the arrogance of its citizens. Andrei, of course, had his own reason for
condoning the pillaging. He wished to see Kiev wane in magnificence because
he was striving to build up his capital of Vladimir as its rival. But his scheme
failed. The plundering did not lead to Kiev’sdecline. Itrecoveredand flourished
to suffer even more debilitating sacks in 1203 and in 1240. The evidence that
the dynasties which were eligible to rule it continued to covet it as the most
cherished plum in Rus’ testifies to its continued prosperity.
Meanwhile, Novgorod also remained a bone of contention. Since Suzdalia
served as the conduit through which Baltic trade passed from Novgorod to the
Caspian Sea, Andrei sought to wrest control of the town from the prince of
Kiev and assert his jurisdiction over it. Two years after expelling Mstislav from
Kiev, he finally forced the Novgorodians to capitulate by laying an embargo
on all grain shipments to their town.
43
Although historians disagree on Andrei’s objectives and achievements, it is
safe to assert that he defended the order of succession to Kiev championed
40 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 543–4.
41 Historians do not agree whether or not Kiev lost its pre-eminence in Rus’ after Andrei’s
alliance sacked it. Forthe discussions, see P. P. Tolochko, Drevniaia Rus’, Ocherki sotsial’no-
politicheskoi istorii (Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1987), pp. 138–42; Franklin and Shepard, The
Emergence of Rus,pp.323–4; Fennell, Crisis,p.6.
42 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 544–5.
43 Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’,pp.221–2.
110
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The Rus’ principalities (1125–1246)
by his father. Unlike Iurii, however, he chose to live in Suzdalia. The fate of
his father was one deterrent. Moreover, if he occupied Kiev he would remove
himself dangerously far from his centre of power in Suzdalia. As Iaroslav the
Wise had foreseen, a prince whose patrimony abutted on Kiev had the best
chance of ruling it successfully because he could summon auxiliary forces
quickly from his patrimony. Nevertheless, realising that ruling Kiev gave its
prince a great moral advantage, Andrei could not allow it to fall into a rival’s
hands. Adhering to the system of genealogical seniority, he gave it to his
younger brothers, who also had the right to sit on the throne of their father.
First, he sent GlebfromPereiaslavl’, but the Kievans poisoned him,orsoAndrei
believed. Gleb’s alleged murder would have confirmed Andrei’s suspicion that
the Kievans despised the sons just as vehemently as they had hated Iurii. Next,
he appointed Mikhalko. But the latter declined the dubious honour by handing
over the town to his brother Vsevolod.
44
AfterMstislav Iziaslavich died in Volyn’ in 1170, the Rostislavichi of Smolensk
took up the battle for Kiev. They evicted Vsevolod and gave the town to Riurik
Rostislavich.
45
Three years later, Andrei formed a coalition with Sviatoslav
Vsevolodovich of Chernigov. He was determined to avenge Gleb’s death and
to punish the Rostislavichi for their insubordination by expelling Riurik. Svi-
atoslav, for his part, intended to occupy Kiev. Thus, Andrei conceded that
Sviatoslav’s claim to the capital was as legitimate as his was. He also tacitly
admitted his failure to maintain puppets in Kiev. Sviatoslav, the commander-in-
chief of the coalition, evicted Riurik and occupied the town. Later, however,
Iaroslav Iziaslavich of Lutsk, the younger brother of the deceased Mstislav,
brought reinforcements from Volyn’, helped Riurik to expel Sviatoslav, and
occupied Kiev.
46
In his patrimony, one of Andrei’s main objectives was to raise the political,
economic, cultural and ecclesiastical status of Vladimir above that of Kiev.
Accordingly, hecompleted his father’sbuilding projects and initiated newones.
He built the Assumption cathedral in Vladimir, its Golden Gates in imitation
of those in Kiev, his court at the nearby village of Bogoliubovo (from which
he received the sobriquet Bogoliubskii), and the church of the Intercession of
Our Lady on the River Nerl. Since he hired artisans from all lands, his churches
reflected Romanesque, Byzantine and Trans-Caucasian styles. In striving to
create an aura of holiness in Vladimir, he enshrined the relics of Bishop Leontii
of Rostov and brought the so-called Vladimir icon of the Mother of God from
44 PSRL,vol.ii, cols. 569–70.
45 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 570–1.
46 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 572–8.
111
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
martin dimnik
Vyshgorod. Hoping to equate the Christian heritage of his capital with that
of Kiev, he propagated the pious myth that St Vladimir founded Vladimir. He
also attempted, in vain, to create a new metropolitan see.
Andrei adopted autocratic practices in relation to his neighbours. He
expanded his domains into the lands of the Volga Bulgars and imposed his
will over the princes of Murom and Riazan’. At home he sought to undermine
the authority of his subjects in their local assembly (veche); he expelled three
of his brothers, two nephews and his father’s senior boyars; and he spurned
the magnates of Rostov and Suzdal’ by making the smaller town of Vladimir
his capital. After that the region was also referred to as Vladimir-Suzdal’. His
overbearing policies evoked great resentment. Finally, on 29 June 1174, while he
was waiting for Sviatoslav Vsevolodovichin Chernigov to approve his appoint-
ment of Roman Rostislavich of Smolensk to Kiev, his boyars assassinated
him.
47
Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich
After that, Sviatoslav acted as kingmaker in Vladimir-Suzdal’. Earlier, after
Andrei had evicted his brothers and nephews from Suzdalia, Sviatoslav had
given them sanctuary in Chernigov. Following Andrei’s death he helped
the refugees to fight for their inheritance. After a bitter rivalry between
theuncles and the nephews, Vsevolod,later tobe knownas ‘BigNest’ (Bol’shoe
Gnezdo) because of his many offspring, seized Vladimir on the Kliaz’ma.
48
He was indebted for his success, in part, to Sviatoslav’s backing. He would
rule Vladimir for almost forty years and become the most powerful prince in
the land.
After Andrei’s death, Roman, the senior prince of the Rostislavichi, replaced
Iaroslav Iziaslavich in Kiev.
49
In 1176, however, Sviatoslav found a pretext for
attacking Roman with the Polovtsy. Not wishing to expose the Christians of
Rus’ to carnage, Roman ceded control of the town to Sviatoslav.
50
Soon after,
the Novgorodians invited the latter to send his son to them.
In the meantime, to strengthen the power of his son-in-law Roman
Glebovich of Riazan’ against Vsevolod Big Nest, Sviatoslav sent troops
47 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 580–95. Concerning Andrei’s career, see E. S. Hurwitz, Prince Andrej
Bogoljubskij: The Man and the Myth, Studia historica et philologica 12, sectio slavica 4
(Florence: Licosa Editrice, 1980); and Limonov, Vladimiro-Suzdal’skaia Rus’,pp.38–98.
48 PSRL, vol. i, cols. 379–82.
49 Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’,p.223.
50 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 603–5.
112
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The Rus’ principalities (1125–1246)
Table 5.6.
The House of Chernigov
Oleg
d. 1115
David
d. 1123
Vsevolod
d. 1146
Igor’
d. 1147
Sviatoslav
d. 1164
Sviatoslav
(Sviatosha)
d. 1143
Iziaslav
d. 1161
Sviatoslav
d. 1194
Iaroslav
d. 1198
Igor’
d. 1201
Vladimir
d. 1200
Oleg
d. 1204
Vsevolod
the Red
d. 1212
Gleb
d. 1215?
Mstislav
d. 1223
Mikhail
d. 1246
commanded by his son Gleb to Riazan’.
51
Vsevolod, however, captured the
princeling. In his anger, Sviatoslav sought to avenge himself against the
House of Monomakh by taking David Rostislavich of Vyshgorod captive
while the latter was hunting. After failing to do so, he abandoned Kiev
and David’s brother Riurik occupied it. Sviatoslav’s campaign to free Gleb
from Vsevolod was also a fiasco. He therefore joined his son Vladimir in
Novgorod and became the town’s prince.
52
(See Table 5.6: The House of
Chernigov.)
In 1181 he marched south against Riurik and was joined by his brother
Iaroslav of Chernigov and his cousin Igor’ Sviatoslavich with numerous
Polovtsy. Riurik prudently vacated Kiev and allowed Sviatoslav to occupy it
uncontested. In the meantime, while Igor’, Khan Konchak, and their troops
51 For Roman Glebovich, see N. de Baumgarten, G
´
en
´
ealogies des branches r
´
egnantes des
Rurikides du XIIIe au XVIe si
`
ecle (Orientalia Christiana) (Rome: Pont. Institutum Oriental-
ium Studiorum, 1934), vol. 35,no.94,tablexiv, 11.
52 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 618–20.
113
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
martin dimnik
were making merry across the Dnieper from Kiev, Riurik’s men routed the
revellers. His rival’s victory forced Sviatoslav to accept Riurik as his co-ruler.
53
Duumvirs had administered Kiev in the past. As we have seen, Iziaslav
Mstislavich and his uncle Viacheslav Vladimirovich had shared authority over
Kiev and all its lands. The partnership between Sviatoslav and Riurik was
different. The former was the senior partner and the commander-in-chief, but
he ruled only Kiev. Riurik controlled the surrounding Kievan domains and
lived in the nearby outpost of Belgorod. His patrimony, however, was Vruchii
north-west of Kiev. His control of the towns surrounding Kiev significantly
curtailed Sviatoslav’s power.
On 1 October 1187, Iaroslav Osmomysl of Galich died.
54
During his reign
he had maintained political relations with the Hungarians (his mother was a
Hungarian princess), Poles, Bulgarians and Greeks. According to the chroni-
cles, he fortified towns and promoted agriculture and crafts. Commerce pros-
pered, especially in the lower Prut and Danube regions. Galicia also supplied
the Kievan lands with much of their salt. Despite his great power, however,
Iaroslav never claimed Kiev because he did not belong to a family of the inner
circle.UnfortunatelyforGalicia,on his deathbed he committed a serious politi-
calblunder,perhaps at the insistenceofboyarswhohad become morepowerful
towards the end of his reign. He designated his younger son Oleg, the offspring
of his concubine, rather than the elder Vladimir, the offspring of his wife Ol’ga
the daughter of Iurii Dolgorukii, his successor.
55
Vladimir challenged Oleg
and initiated a general rivalry for Galich.
56
In 1188, taking advantage of the
strife, Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich sought to consolidate his control over all the
Kievan lands. As he and Riurik rode against B
´
ela III of Hungary who had seized
Galich, Sviatoslav proposed to take the town and give it to Riurik in exchange
for his Kievan domains and his patrimony of Vruchii. Riurik refused the
offer.
57
The following year Vladimir escaped from Hungary, where the king was
holding him captive. After the Galicians reinstated him, he requested Vsevolod
Big Nest in Vladimir-Suzdal’ to support his rule. In return, he promised
to be subservient to his uncle. Vsevolod agreed and demanded that all
the princes, notably Roman Mstislavich of Vladimir-in-Volynia, Riurik and
53 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 621–4.
54 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 656–7.
55 For Iaroslav’s family, see Baumgarten, G
´
en
´
ealogies et mariages,tableiii, 13.
56 For the history of Galicia, see V. T. Pashuto, Ocherki po istorii Galitsko-Volynskoi Rusi
(Moscow: AN SSSR, 1950).
57 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 662–3.
114
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The Rus’ principalities (1125–1246)
Sviatoslav pledge not to challenge his nephew’s rule. They acquiesced in def-
erence to his military might.
58
Moreover, when making their promises, it
appears that all the princes in the House of Monomakh pledged to acknowl-
edge Vsevolod as the senior prince of their dynasty. Sviatoslav, although an
Ol’govich, also agreed to obey Vsevolod’s directive not to attack Vladimir. In
doing so, however, he lost face as the prince of Kiev.
59
One of Sviatoslav’s most important duties as commander-in-chief was to
defend Rus’ against the Polovtsy. In the past, princes like Iurii had used the
nomads as their auxiliaries, and they would do so again around the turn of
the thirteenth century. For some two decades after the reign of Rostislav
Mstislavich, however, relations between the princes and the tribesmen were
extremely hostile. The horsemen from the east bank of the Dnieper and those
north of the Black Sea raided Pereiaslavl’ and the River Ros’ region south of
Kiev. The tribes living in the Donets basin pillaged, in the main, the Ol’govichi
domains in the Zadesen’e and Posem’e regions.
60
Sviatoslav, Riurik and their allies ledmanycampaigns againstthe marauders.
In 1184 they scored one of their greatest victories at the River Erel’ south of the
Pereiaslavl’ lands, where they took many khans captive.
61
The following year,
however, Sviatoslav’scousin Igor’ Sviatoslavich of Novgorod Severskii suffered
a catastrophic defeat in the Donets river basin (for chronicle illustrations of the
battle, see Plate 7).
62
It became the subject of the most famous epic poem of
Rus’, ‘The Lay of Igor’’s Campaign’ (Slovo o polku Igoreve).
63
Despite his valiant
efforts, however, Sviatoslav failed to defeat the enemy or to negotiate a lasting
peace.
At the peak of his power, Sviatoslav was the dominant political figure in
Rus’. In addition to enjoying the loyalty of all the princes, he also maintained
diplomatic and commercial relations with the Hungarians, the Poles and the
imperial family in Constantinople.
64
Moreover, he was one of the most avid
builders of his day. In Kiev he erected a new court, the church of St Vasilii,
and restored the damaged St Sophia. In Chernigov, he built a second prince’s
58 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 666–7.
59 Dimnik, The Dynasty of Chernigov 1146–1246,pp.193–5.
60 S. A. Pletneva, Polovtsy (Moscow: Nauka, 1990), p. 146; see also Janet Martin, Medieval
Russia 980–1584 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 129–32.
61 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 630–3.
62 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 637–44; see also Martin Dimnik, ‘Igor’s Defeat at the Kayala: the
Chronicle Evidence’, Mediaeval Studies 63 (2001), 245–82.
63 John Fennell and Dimitri Obolensky (eds.), ‘The Lay of Igor’s Campaign’, in A Historical
Russian Reader: A Selection of Texts from the XIth to the XVth Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1969), pp. 63–72.
64 PSRL, vol. ii, col. 680.
115
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
martin dimnik
court and the churches of St Michael and the Annunciation. Vsevolod Big Nest
of Vladimir-Suzdal’, David Rostislavich of Smolensk and Iaroslav Osmomysl
of Galich used the Annunciation as the model for expanding their existing
cathedrals and for building new ones.
65
During his reign, it seems, Chernigov
grew to its maximum area to match if not to surpass Kiev in size.
66
Sviatoslav
died in 1194 during the last week of July and was succeeded, according to their
agreement, by Riurik.
67
Riurik Rostislavich
The following year, Riurik invited David from Smolensk to help him distribute
Kievan towns to their relatives. He demonstrated this deference towards his
elder brother because, even as prince of Kiev, he was subordinate to David, the
senior prince of the Rostislavichi. To his regret, in allocating the towns Riurik
neglected Vsevolod Big Nest, whom the Rostislavichi had acknowledged as
their senior prince. After Vsevolod threatened Riurik, he gave Vsevolod the
towns that he had allotted to his son-in-law Roman Mstislavich of Volyn’.
The latter was furious at the turn of events and formed a pact with Iaroslav
Vsevolodovich of Chernigov.
Riurik, fearing that Iaroslav would depose him, asked Vsevolod to make
Iaroslav pledge not to seize Kiev. What is more, he demanded that the
Ol’govichi renounce the claims of their descendants. Iaroslav, proclaiming
it to be a preposterous demand, refused to renounce the rights of future
Ol’govichi to Kiev. He and Riurik therefore waged war until Vsevolod and
David invaded the Chernigov lands. In 1197, Vsevolod, David and Iaroslav
reached a settlement. The latter promised not to usurp Kiev from Riurik, but
refused to forswear the future claims of his dynasty. While negotiating their
agreement, the three senior princes also affirmed the Novgorodians’ right to
select a prince from whichever dynasty they chose. Moreover, they evidently
granted the princes of Riazan’ permission to create an autonomous eparchy
65 B. A. Rybakov, ‘Drevnosti Chernigova’, in N. N. Voronin (ed.), Materialy i issledovaniia
po arkheologii drevnerusskikh gorodov, vol. i (= Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii SSSR,
no. 11, 1949), pp. 90–3.
66 Specialists have estimated that, at its zenith in the late twelfth and early thirteenth
centuries, Chernigov covered an area of some 400 to 450 hectares and was arguably
the largest town in Rus’. Kiev encompassed some 360–80 hectares; see Volodymyr I.
Mezentsev, ‘The Territorial and Demographic Development of Medieval Kiev and Other
Major Cities of Rus’:A Comparative Analysis Based on Recent Archaeological Research’,
RR 48 (1989): 161–9.
67 PSRL, vol. ii, col. 680. Concerning Sviatoslav, see Dimnik, The Dynasty of Chernigov
1146–1246,pp.135–212.
116
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The Rus’ principalities (1125–1246)
independent of Chernigov. Riurik was not present at the deliberations and his
demands, in particular that Iaroslav sever his pact with Roman, were largely
ignored. Vsevolod’s objective was to keep the Rostislavichi dependent on him
for military assistance. After Iaroslav Vsevolodovich died in 1198,
68
however,
Riurik formed an alliance with his successor Oleg Sviatoslavich.
The following year Roman seized Galich with Polish help. He therewith
became one of the most powerful princes in the land. In 1202, he demonstrated
his might by inflicting a crushing defeat on the Polovtsy and by evicting his
father-in-law Riurik from Kiev. He gave it to his cousin Ingvar’ Iaroslavich of
Lutsk, whose father had ruled the town.
69
Roman himself was not a rightful
claimant, even though he was of Mstislav’s line, because he belonged to a
younger generation than Riurik and Vsevolod Big Nest. The latter, however,
learning from the fate of his father Iurii and the example of his brother Andrei,
didnotoccupyKiev.The Rostislavichiof Smolensk thereforeremainedthe only
claimants from the House of Monomakh. Nevertheless, Vsevolod, Roman and
their sons would keep a watchful eye on the princes of Kiev and at times try
to manipulate their appointments.
In 1203 Riurik, with Oleg of Chernigov and the Polovtsy, retaliated by attack-
ing Kiev. Although he would capture it later on several more occasions, his
sack of the town is of special significance. The chronicler claims it was the
most horrendous devastation that Kiev had experienced since the Christiani-
sation of Rus’.
70
Thatis,contrary to the viewsof many historians, it was greater
than the havoc inflicted by Andrei Bogoliubskii’s coalition. The following year,
however, Roman gained the upper hand once again by forcing Riurik to enter
a monastery.
71
Then, in 1205, after Roman was killed fighting with the Poles,
Riurik reinstated himself in Kiev.
72
Roman had maintained close ties with the Poles (his mother was a Pole)
and Byzantium. After repudiating his first wife Predslava, Riurik’s daughter,
he married Anna, probably the daughter of Emperor Isaac II Angelus.
73
He
also pursued an aggressive policy towards Galich, where he was the first prince
to depose the sons of Iaroslav Osmomysl. This gave his own sons, Daniil and
Vasil’ko, a claim to Galich because they had the right to sit on the throne of
68 PSRL, vol. ii, cols. 707–8; concerning Iaroslav’s career, see Dimnik, The Dynasty of
Chernigov 1146–1246,pp.214–32.
69 PSRL, vol. i, cols. 417–18.
70 PSRL, vol. i, col. 418.
71 PSRL, vol. xxv,p.101.
72 PSRL, vol. i, cols. 425–6.
73 Fennell, Crisis,p.24.
117
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008