Military Review

Kingdom of Russia. European and Horde politics

99
Kingdom of Russia. European and Horde politics

The papal nuncio presents the royal crown to Prince Daniel Romanovich. Engraving by Julian Schubler based on a drawing by Claudius Lebedev from the collection of illustrations of the Niva magazine, 1894


Immediately after the battle of Yaroslav, the world around him reminded the prince of Galicia-Volyn that he had special views of South-Western Russia and he would not allow it to be solved in such a way. This battle became news, which reached all the near and far rulers and brought that the Romanovichs and their state already constitute a great force. One such news flew to the Tatars. After the invasion of Batu, they had little contact with the Principality of Galicia-Volyn, did not levy tribute to him and did not establish any special relations, but then, having decided that such a sedentary neighbor was too dangerous, they demanded that Galich be given to them without any extra foreplay, implying not only the city, but the whole principality.

Daniel's reaction was such that he could already be called a brave man and a great ruler. Not wanting to lose his state, clearly realizing that he could be killed at the slightest miscalculation, he decided to go directly to the headquarters of Batu Khan and agree with him personally, preserving his father’s inherited inheritance at such a heavy price. The trip took quite a long time: having left his native country at the end of 1245, Daniel was able to return only in the spring of 1246. Before the khan, he had to humiliate himself a lot, but the diplomatic and political talents of the eldest son Roman Mstislavich immediately showed themselves. He managed not only to defend Galich, but also to achieve recognition of him as the ruler of a single Galician-Volyn state, having received a Khan's label. In exchange, the Romanovichs became tributaries and vassals of the horde and, at the request of the khan, had to allocate troops for joint campaigns.

However, the dependence on the Tatars greatly burdened the prince (mainly morally) and therefore, immediately after returning home, he began to form a strong alliance against them. The first to respond were the Hungarians, who were the worst enemies yesterday: Bela IV, who was impressed by the actions of Daniel, decided to conclude an alliance with him and even marry his daughter Constantius as Prince Leo, heir to the Galician-Volyn principality. The wedding was played already in 1247. A few years later, a dynastic marriage was concluded and an alliance with Andrei Yaroslavich, the prince of Vladimir, who also wanted to free himself from the yoke of the Tatars. In the future, the camp of the anti-Mongol allies was constantly changing, new countries appeared, and the old ones left the agreements.

An attempt to independently create a powerful alliance against the steppes failed: too many contradictions accumulated in the old days in the region, and each primarily pursued personal goals, not wanting to get rid of the “hegemon” in the face of the steppes, which constantly interfered with everyone. The times of theories of the balance of power in Europe have not yet arrived, and the Hungarians turned out to be the most reliable ally of the Romanovichs (with many reservations). Prince Vladimir of Russia Andrei Yaroslavich was defeated by the Tatars during the Nevyrueva Rati in 1252 and lost his title, being forced to flee to Sweden. Understanding this, Daniel decided on a new bold, desperate step - to seek a religious union with the Catholics, so that the Pope convened a crusade against the Tatars and the Galician-Volyn principality regained its full independence.

Catholics, union and king of Russia


However, even without the anti-Horde coalition, there were enough reasons to conclude a union, and even more so, they prevailed. Since the 20s, Rome began to gradually change the rhetoric against Orthodoxy to an increasingly radical one. Particularly because of this, the crusaders began to attack the Russian lands more actively, now developing their crusades not only against the Gentiles, but also against the Eastern "heretics". It was with this process that the struggle for the city of Dorogochin turned out to be connected; therefore, Alexander Nevsky had to fight the Catholics on Lake Peipsi. Daniel absolutely did not like the prospect of facing once again the threat of an invasion of the combined forces of the Catholic powers again, or perhaps even turning out to be the goal of the crusade, so the solution came quickly: to conclude a church union with Catholics, become part of the Catholic world and reduce the threat on the western borders.

There were other good reasons. First of all, the pope could bestow the title of king, which in the future could give certain advantages in the conduct of foreign policy, which Daniel loved and had many connections with Western Catholic "sworn friends." When converting to Catholicism, the Romanovich state received a trump card in the form of Western support in the struggle against other Russian princes, which would have made it possible to claim hegemony and unification of all of Russia under its rule. Finally, speaking of the Uniate aspirations of the Romanovichs, as a rule, they forget that at the same time negotiations were underway on the union of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which was supposed to overcome the consequences of the Great Schism. In the case of the conclusion of such a union, the Russian princes and states that did not recognize it could become heretics officially, therefore, they had to act with an eye on what was happening in the Greek world, since Daniel, the son of the Byzantine princess, did this constantly and easily, having sufficient connections and in Constantinople, and in Nicaea.

Negotiations about the union were started back in 1246 by the papal legate Plano Carpini, who traveled to the Horde with a diplomatic mission, simultaneously securing relations with the next rulers. Following this, a constant correspondence between Daniel and Rome was established, which went on until 1248. Of course, the pope was interested in such a union, but the Russian prince was taking time: on the one hand, he kept his finger on the pulse of negotiations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and on the other, he expected the promised help against the Tatars, which never came. As a result of this, negotiations were temporarily interrupted. They resumed in 1252, when a union was just about to be concluded in Constantinople, Nevruy defeated the main ally of the Romanovichs in Russia, and relations with Beklarybek Kuremsa intensified at Daniel. As a result of these negotiations, at the turn of 1253 and 1254, the union was concluded, and Daniel was crowned in Dorogichin as king of Russia. The Pope called on the Catholic rulers of Europe to crusade against the Tatars.

However, very soon the Romanovichs were disappointed. Nobody responded to the call for a crusade, and Kuremsa, and then Burundi, had to deal with it on their own. The Crusaders continued to put pressure on the northwestern outskirts of the Galicia-Volyn state. At the same time, Rome increased pressure on Daniel in order to carry out church reform as soon as possible and transfer worship to the Catholic rite. Of course, the freshly baked king of Russia, not being a fool, did not go for it, since the union was to get concrete benefits, and without them it would lose all meaning. In addition, the negotiations of Rome with the Ecumenical Patriarchate soon broke and almost completely ended, as a result of which Daniel suddenly turned out to be an extreme and almost traitor to the whole Orthodox world. Already in 1255, the union began to crumble, and in 1257 it virtually ceased to exist after the call of Pope Alexander IV to punish the “apostate” and issuing permission for the conquest of Rus to the Lithuanian Catholic King Mindovg.

The union of the Galicia-Volyn state with Rome lasted only 3 years, but in fact, even during its operation, it did not lead to any special changes in the religious life of South-Western Russia, with the exception of the departure of the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia to the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality. After its completion, the political situation of the Romanovichs even worsened somewhat, which forced them to replace the Horde policy and closer cooperation with the Tatars in order to secure at least part of their borders. The only real benefit was the coronation of Daniel as king of Russia, which, according to the concepts of time, equated him in rights with all other monarchs of Europe and in the eyes of Europeans put Romanovich higher than any other branch of the Rurikovich. The relief was that the Europeans were in no hurry to put pressure on the Orthodox, and even with the most fervent Catholics like the Teutonic Order after 1254, the Romanovichs always had quite good relations. The threat of the invasion of Christian brothers from the West quickly dissipated, which eliminated one of the reasons for the conclusion of the union. True, a fly in the ointment also appeared in this barrel of honey: as in 1245, such a significant strengthening of Russia did not go unnoticed in the Horde, and therefore the large-scale consequences of the committed acts were already approaching.

Frederick II Warlike



Statue of Frederick II von Babenberg, nicknamed the Warlike. Militaryhistorical museum in Vienna

In 1230, Frederick II von Babenberg became the Duke of Austria (at that time not that majestic and influential Austria, but just one of the major German duchies). He was only 20 years old, and the young romantic nature sought the pink dream of any medieval knight, namely, to become famous in the military field, “bending” with as many people as possible and expanding his possessions. Do not be surprised that after this Austria quarreled with all its neighbors, including the Holy Roman Emperor, and waged constant wars, for which Frederick became known as the Warlike. Especially he fought a lot with the Hungarians (which did not prevent them from allied a couple of times). And if for some time the war with them was facilitated by the fact that the Arpad was “stuck” in the struggle for Galich, then after 1245, having refused to support claims for the principality of Rostislav Mikhailovich, the Austrians and Hungarians had to face each other to the utmost.

Daniil Galitsky had his own interest in Austrian affairs, which did not interfere even with the ongoing struggle for Galich. The reason was the same as that of his father: family ties with the princes of the Holy Roman Empire, namely Frederick II, who was probably the second cousin of the Galician-Volyn prince. Apparently, between them in the 1230s, certain contacts were established, which was especially important in the light of the confrontation of both rulers with Hungary. The emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Frederick II, who monitored the development of relations between Frederick and Daniel, opposed this. When it came to the latter’s entry into the war, the emperor decided to take the path of least resistance and damage and simply bought Daniel’s neutrality for 500 silver marks and a royal crown. True, the pope did not legalize the latter, and the future coronation of the king of Russia took place with other regalia. It is believed that Daniel did not initially plan to intervene in the war that was far from necessary to him at that time, by purely diplomatic means having knocked out a lot of money and a title from scratch.

The main battle in the life of Frederick II von Babenberg took place on June 15, 1246 near the Leita River (Laita, Lithuania), which was located on the border between the two states. A large number of different myths and theories are associated with this battle. For example, there is a theory that Daniil Galitsky took part in the battle on the side of the Hungarians, but this is unlikely: he hardly had time to return from a trip to the Horde that year, gather an army, advance towards the Hungarians and fight the Austrians on their borders in June . In addition, relations with the Hungarians have not yet been so adjusted that it was a question of such support in the war. However, a certain number of Russian soldiers participated in the battle: they were Rostislav Mikhailovich, the beloved son-in-law of the Hungarian king, and his supporters from the time of the struggle for Galich, who remained faithful to their leader.

Descriptions of the battle in the various chronicles are different. One of the most popular versions sounds like this: the duke rode forward in front of his troops to push a fiery speech, but he was suddenly attacked by vile rusichi from behind and killed him, at the same time crushing the Austrian knights. They even indicated the killer - “the king of Russia”, under which Daniil Galitsky was the first to come to mind, but most likely, Rostislav Mikhailovich was meant. Everything would be fine, but the sudden secretive attack of the Russian avant-garde of the Hungarian army on Frederick, standing next to his troops, who, in theory, saw everything that was happening ahead, and this - in the open field, looks somehow strained. Some sources indicate the nature of the duke's mortal wound - a strong stab in the back, and therefore there are two versions of what could actually happen. The first is based on the fact that there was no blow to the back, and the duke died in a fair battle, beaten by some of the Russian soldiers, which is even mentioned in the Hungarian chronicles, as he was especially noted by King Bela IV. The second agrees with a vile stab in the back, but one of his own is indicated as killers, since not all Austrian nobles liked the ongoing wars of recent years.

Be that as it may, Frederick II the Warlike fell on the battlefield. The funny thing is, his troops still won, but this did not bode well due to dynastic problems. The duke did not have male heirs, nor male representatives of the Babenberg dynasty. According to the Privilegium Minus adopted by the emperors back in 1156, in the case of suppression of the Babenbergs on the male line, the right to the duchy was transferred on the female. Only two women survived: Margarita, the sister of Frederick, and his niece, Gertrude. The latter has long been considered the official heiress and therefore was an enviable bride. Negotiations about her marriage went on for a long time, but only after the death of Frederick did the Czech king Vaclav I practically forcefully force her to marry his son, Vladislav Moravsky. However, Gertrude herself seemed to love Vladislav and therefore was not opposed. But the trouble is: shortly after the wedding, the new duke of Austria died, which served as a prologue to a large-scale crisis of power in the duchy. A long struggle began for the Austrian inheritance, in which the Romanovichs and the Galician-Volyn state had an important role to play ....

War of the Austrian Succession



King Przemysl Otakar the Second. Picture of Alphonse Mucha

Upon learning of the death of Vladislav, Emperor Frederick II von Hohenstaufen, in violation of the law of the still bearded 1156, declared the territory of the duchy a black sheep, deciding to simply appropriate it for himself. Gertrude with supporters was forced to flee to Hungary, fleeing from imperial troops. And she had a lot of supporters, it must be said: tired of oak knights and ever-fighting dukes, the Austrian estates wanted peace and quiet development. The Dowager Duchess could provide them with this, since by her nature she was an honest, calm and fair woman. The pope supported her, and together with the Hungarian king they returned Austria to the Babenbergs. Daniil Galitsky also participated in negotiations with Frederick II on the Hungarians side, who decided to boo and came to the meeting in a purple cloak, the “status” attribute of the Byzantine emperors. Somewhat shocked and confused, the negotiators asked the Galician-Volyn governor to change clothes, and the emperor even suggested his own, if only the prince would not distract them and suppress them morally by demonstrating such attributes ...

In exchange for help from Rome, Gertrude agreed to marry a papal candidate, Herman VI, Margrave of Baden. He died in 1250, leaving behind his son and daughter. All the years of his reign, he did not enjoy the special support of the population, often entering into conflict with the estates. The people demanded a hubby more adequately ... Rome again proposed its candidate, but he was so doubtful that the duchess refused, thereby depriving herself of the support of the pope.

Meanwhile, sharp changes were taking place in the north. Przemysl Otakar II became the king of the Czech Republic - a nature like that of Frederick II the Warlike, only much more enthusiastic and fanatical in terms of military glory and “bending” of the neighbors, but also much more capable. Having married Margarita von Babenberg (who was 29 years older than him), he invaded Austria in 1251 and forced the local nobility to recognize him as duke. And here the “fan attack” went to the full: none of the neighbors liked the outcome. Gertrude turned for help to the Hungarian king, Bele IV, and he turned to his friend and ally Daniil Galitsky.

Since the bride needed a husband, preferably as neutral as possible, so that he would be accepted by the Austrian estates, the gaze immediately fell on the sons of the Galician-Volyn prince. As a result, in 1252, Roman Danilovich and Gertrude von Babenberg got married. Shortly thereafter, the Hungarian and Russian armies drove the Czechs out of Austria and put them in there to rule the new duke and duchess. Of all the spouses of Gertrude, Roman, being a fairly balanced and adequate ruler, liked the Austrian estates most of all, as a result of which he quickly received considerable support, and the rather distant location of his father's estate made him a much lesser obstacle for local elites than neighboring German princes . From the point of view of history, an extremely interesting situation developed: the Romanovich-Rurikovich had all chances to remain dukes of Austria, and history would go on a completely different path!

And here Pope Innocent IV, who had hesitated before, said his weighty word in favor of Przemysl Otakar II. The Austrians could not argue with this decision on their own, and the coalition that supported them began to crumble: the Hungarians slowly began to seize Styria, Daniil Romanovich was forced to give up all his strength against the Kuremsa who attacked him, and the joint campaign with the Poles ended in dubious success ... besieged by the troops of Przemysl Otakar II in the Gimberg castle near Vienna, Roman and Gertrude, realizing the futility of their struggle, decided to get out of the situation with the least losses. However, there is another version: the son of Daniel of Galitsky was simply frightened. Roman ran home to his father; Gertrude, with her newborn daughter, gave herself up under the protection of the Hungarians and even received part of Styria in the future. Their marriage was soon declared invalid. The participation of the Galician-Volyn state in the struggle for Austria ended, and this struggle itself will continue until 1276, when the Habsburgs took possession of the rich duchy.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Restoration of the Principality and Military Reforms of Daniil Galitsky
On the eve of the storm. Batu invasion of the Romanovich state
The struggle for Galich in the years 1205-1229
Prince Roman Mstislavich, Byzantine Princess and Foreign Policy
Creation of the Galicia-Volyn principality
Leapfrog of princes in Volyn. Changes in society in the XII century
Yaroslav Osmomysl and the extinction of the first Galician dynasty
How Rostislavich kept their principality
Volyn land in the X-XI centuries
Southwest Russia: geography, ancient history, sources of information
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 20 June 2020 08: 42 New
      -3
      Yaroslav Vsevolodovich tell all this at a meeting how it is necessary to fight with whom until the last, and in no case not to negotiate.
    2. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 20 June 2020 13: 08 New
      10
      Quote: Ragnar lodbrok
      That's why you and Bandera

      Well, where do you come from, such idiotic empty chimes? An intelligent and competent person wrote an article about Russian princes and their politics. Russian, understand? The Principality of Galicia-Volyn is a Russian land ruled by Russian princes. Read and say thanks for knowing a little more now.
      And you have only Bandera in your head ... You yourself, what are they better? Smarter? In no way. More cultural? Yes, not at all. What is the difference? Only in the color of the flag that you are waving?
      1. iouris
        iouris 20 June 2020 13: 14 New
        +5
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        What's the Difference?

        Geographically, Bandera is closer to "European civilization" (water closet). But Bandera is not at all related to culture. This is an anti-cultural phenomenon.
    3. iouris
      iouris 20 June 2020 13: 10 New
      +4
      What is the connection with the "Bandera"? Bandera do not agree with anyone, but they are agents of alternative strength. They do not have their own strategy. Only tactical tasks are solved - grab, drink a bite, hang out. This direction arises at the time of the decline of the Russian state, which was forming inside the Horde. Those princes who had a strategy agreed. However, they were on the line of the watershed: some on the border with the then "European Union", others - were part of the Horde. The Horde, of course, is not a federation, but also not a “Catholic” (Vatican) empire, based on strict spiritual submission, which grew into submission to financial power.
      "Our Ryazan" died just because of a lack of strategy due to erroneous tactics even before the formation of a centralized Russian state that arose on the wreckage of the Horde. The USSR is an analogue of the Horde. The Russian Federation is the basis of the future Horde (with the favorable development of the process). The victory of the kaganate is very possible. However, the "European development path" (European integration, in the sense of absorption) is completely closed.
      And the heirs of Bandera are an unstable fluctuating anti-Horde element, which is of little value to the European Union, a consumable. For the Horde, it is an ideological and mental enemy that does not recognize the state idea in general.
    4. Kronos
      Kronos 20 June 2020 15: 53 New
      +3
      To agree and survive so that then to continue the war is not a bad option
    5. polpot
      polpot 20 June 2020 20: 00 New
      0
      Correct words. Thank you.
  2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 20 June 2020 06: 04 New
    13
    Thank you very much for continuing the Aretham cycle! I just want to write - “if you want to live - be able to spin”!
    He honestly knew about the Austrian gambit only at the level that "Danil Romanovich was afraid and fled to his father."
    Regards, Have a nice weekend!
  3. mark1
    mark1 20 June 2020 06: 43 New
    -2
    When converting to Catholicism, the Romanovich state received a trump card in the form of Western support in the struggle against other Russian princes, which would allow it to pretend to hegemony and unification under its authority all of Russia.

    I think the “trump card” of the Romanovichs would be on a common basis with other Western applicants for the Russian land. This would not be a dynastic struggle, but a foreign invasion with an attempt on faith with all the consequences. Most likely, there was an attempt to simply go to the West with their part of the Russian land and the population (ordinary betrayal, for which they were bitten by ghouls and cursed the rest of the Russian people (not for nothing that they are so vicious — a fantasy-style joke, but Gogol knew something)
    1. arturpraetor
      20 June 2020 15: 48 New
      +5
      Quote: mark1
      Most likely, there was an attempt to simply go to the West with their part of the Russian land and the population (the usual betrayal, for which they were bitten by ghouls and cursed the rest of the Russian people (not for nothing that they are so vicious — a fantasy joke, but Gogol knew something)

      Daniel, until the very end, was going to unite Russia under his leadership, but as he thought ahead, he decided to acquire the title of king. Firstly, it is prestige in the eyes of Western partners. Secondly, this is a high rank recognized by other states - I recall that, according to the European hierarchy of titles, the Grand Duke was only the Grand Duke. Yes, the great princes of Kiev were sometimes called emperors, and the same kings, but only in correspondence, as a sign of respect for the person. I repeat, Daniil did not refuse to fight for Russia, he simply knew how to wait and realized that perhaps this matter would not be accomplished with him, but with his heirs, due to the appearance of the Horde at hand.
      1. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 20 June 2020 23: 24 New
        +2
        Quote: arturpraetor
        according to the European hierarchy of titles, the grand duke was only Grand Duke.

        Yes, as if there was no such title at the indicated time. The first "Grand Duke" was Cosimo de Medici in 1569.
        1. arturpraetor
          21 June 2020 00: 44 New
          0
          Yes, here is my jamb. But in Western practice, the title of Grand Duke was not recognized equal to the king. At least, I met just such information.
          1. Senior seaman
            Senior seaman 21 June 2020 10: 32 New
            +1
            Well, the Western European title system is not so easy to compare with ours. But formally - yes. above the prince (prince, furst, duke, king), but below the king. And only the Pope could make a king.
            1. arturpraetor
              21 June 2020 14: 58 New
              +2
              Quote: Senior Sailor
              But formally - yes. above the prince (prince, furst, duke, king), but below the king.

              There are still princesps. But those are generally lower in rank than counts, and EMNIP even barons. But here they are also called princes wassat
              Quote: Senior Sailor
              And only the Pope could make a king.

              The emperor of the Holy Roman Empire could also provide the crown, but there were difficulties with recognition. At least Poland received her first royal regalia from emperors. not from the pope.
              1. Senior seaman
                Senior seaman 21 June 2020 15: 15 New
                +1
                Quote: arturpraetor
                But here they are also called princes

                Well yes. We are all princes, be they the descendants of Rurik and Gedimin on the one hand, or the Tatar Murza and the Georgian tavadi on the other. At one time there were princes, but their restless Peter transferred to princes.
                Quote: arturpraetor
                The emperor of the Holy Roman Empire could also provide the crown

                Could ... for example Prussian. But for big money, and in the 17th century, when the Papacy's influence was greatly reduced. And when you consider that Prussia was a vassal of the Commonwealth, the emperor generally granted what did not belong to him :)))
                1. arturpraetor
                  21 June 2020 15: 20 New
                  0
                  Quote: Senior Sailor
                  Could ... for example Prussian. But for big money, and in the 17th century, when the Papacy's influence was greatly diminished.

                  They also spoke about the crown for the Protestant ruler. In this case, the opinion of the Pope is simply not necessary. Moreover, many Protestant rulers could freely proclaim at least kingdoms, even empires - the Elector of Brandenburg simply needed the emperor’s permission for legitimacy, because he was part of the SRI and de jure vassal of the Habsburgs.
                  Quote: Senior Sailor
                  And when you consider that Prussia was a vassal of the Commonwealth, the emperor generally granted what did not belong to him :)))

                  By that time, the Hohenzollern had already freed themselves from vassal dependence, having participated with the Swedes in the famous Flood. The Crown of Prussia only united Brandenburg (which was not one land, but actually constituted a conglomerate of 100500 small estates, therefore it did not become a “titular” de jure estate) with the Duchy of Prussia.
  4. Olgovich
    Olgovich 20 June 2020 06: 59 New
    11
    The union of the Galicia-Volyn state with Rome lasted only 3 years, but in fact, even during its operation, it did not lead to any special changes in the religious life of South-Western Russia, with the exception of the departure of the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia to the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality.


    This departure is not only a change in "religious life", it is a radical change in the political life of everything and everyone, for where there is the metropolitan of Russia, there is the center of Russia, Russia itself.

    And this center forever moved to the East, becoming the state-forming core of a huge beautiful country.
    1. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 20 June 2020 13: 21 New
      10
      It also seems to me that in this case the author underestimated the fact of the departure of the Metropolitan - such an important event was mentioned too indulgently and briefly. Especially when you consider that this metropolitan was probably the former courtier of Prince Daniel himself, that is, a man who served the prince for a long time and faithfully, then he accepted the tonsure and, in fact, the prince and was promoted to the post of metropolitan.
      They didn’t joke with faith at that time. The church was a very powerful political tool and, I think, flirting Daniel with the Catholics served him very badly, not bringing, as we see, any tangible benefits.
      1. arturpraetor
        20 June 2020 15: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        It also seems to me that in this case the author underestimated the fact of the departure of the Metropolitan - such an important event was mentioned too indulgently and briefly.

        I have no habit of reducing all state activity to religion.
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        They didn’t joke with faith at that time.

        They didn’t joke, but it rarely came to fanaticism. In a previous article, he already indicated what the relationship between the Orthodox and Catholics was in fact.
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        The church was a very powerful political tool and, I think, flirting Daniel with the Catholics served him very badly, not bringing, as we see, any tangible benefits.

        Alas, in my eyes this is just a stereotype. I repeat what I already wrote in the article itself - Daniel’s negotiations on the union went in parallel with the negotiations on the union between Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Which, if anything, at that time the head of all the Orthodox. As soon as the negotiations on the union ceased in the south, it quickly ceased to exist in the north. At the same time, no changes in the ritual followed, the metropolitan left Daniel somehow, but already at the beginning of the XNUMXth century his own, separate metropolis appeared in Galich.
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 20 June 2020 16: 36 New
          +3
          Quote: arturpraetor
          I have no habit of reducing all state activity to religion.

          And this is absolutely correct. But it should always be borne in mind that religion played a very, very important role in that society. And it’s not even about the position of large church hierarchs (although their decisions significantly influenced political alignment), but about something more ambitious and significant - after all, denominational affiliation at that time was often the most important and even the only marker for defining “their stranger. " The conflict between Cyril and Daniel, perhaps, was the very historical crossroads that predetermined the fate of the GVK, which limited its historical prospects. Flirting with the Catholics "shook" the ideological basis of the principality and when difficult times came due to the end of the dynasty, the principality was unable to assemble as a whole and turned from a political figure into a field on a political board. I do not claim that the reeling of Daniel in matters of faith was the main reason for the death of the GVK, but the fact that it was one of them, in my opinion, is beyond doubt.
          By the way, negotiations on a top-level union also ended for a reason. And if with reference to Daniel we see only the mercantile part in the annals and other sources - the union in exchange for help, and there is no help - there is no union, then in the Byzantine sources, if I remember correctly, we can consider the second side of this issue - negotiations were not popular in the church environment itself, and the priests due to their influence on the flock put serious pressure on the emperor and simply forced him to curtail negotiations. It is unlikely that the situation in the Russian lands was somehow different and the demonstrative departure of the metropolitan to lands subject to the Horde (then still pagan) can certainly be regarded as instructions to the local priesthood to ring the bells and begin active actions to discredit the princely authority.
          Daniel was, of course, a Euro-oriented politician, and with great pleasure, I think, would put a “Chinese wall” between his lands and Russia and Step, but he did not want to risk the loyalty of his subjects, pedaling the union. Indeed, from every pulpit, from each porch (well, even if not from each, through one), he would have cursed. Holding power in such a situation would be very difficult.
          1. arturpraetor
            20 June 2020 16: 42 New
            +1
            Quote: Trilobite Master
            The conflict between Cyril and Daniel, perhaps, was the very historical crossroads that predetermined the fate of the GVK and limited its historical prospects. Flirting with the Catholics "shook" the ideological basis of the principality and when difficult times came due to the end of the dynasty, the principality was unable to assemble as a whole and turned from a political figure into a field on a political board.

            This would be true if not after Daniel in the history of the Principality of Leo Danilovich. He would not have lasted long without the support of the people. Plus, there is another point - oddly enough, but most of the church hierarchs of Daniel supported. The metropolitan was almost the only one who showed a tough rejection of the union. So there was no split in the state, these are later fabrications, from the category of “simple answers to complex questions”, in order to somehow explain why the Romanovich’s state collapsed quite quickly in the XNUMXth century. Although it collapsed ... Well, let’s say so - far from how a weak and insignificant state should fall apart. Russian Orthodox boyars, if anything, fought in the front ranks of the Lithuanian army against the Poles, for which they were largely subjected to repression (EMNIP boyars Przemysl just killed).
        2. Nagaibak
          Nagaibak 20 June 2020 18: 31 New
          0
          arturpraetor "I have no habit of reducing all state activity to religion."
          In those days, religion was everything.))) Therefore, Moscow became Moscow because its princes understood that the religious issue is the most important. Therefore, the metropolitan throne was in Moscow and Sergius of Radonezh.
          1. arturpraetor
            20 June 2020 18: 52 New
            +1
            Quote: Nagaibak
            In those days, religion was everything.)))

            Tell this to Catholics and Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe who marry without changing ceremonies. No, religion was important, but not to everyone.
            1. Nagaibak
              Nagaibak 20 June 2020 19: 06 New
              +3
              arturpraetor "No, religion was important, but not to everyone."
              This is the basis of the worldview of a person of that time. What are you talking about?))) A marriage is not an indicator.))) The Russian princes won their daughters for the Polovtsian khans without any problems. And the Princesses of Polovtsy were baptized without fail. Tatars and other nations were baptized without any problems. You could be of any ethnic origin, but faith should have been Orthodox. Although this, too, was not always Muslim in the service of the princes, too. Not so simple...
              1. arturpraetor
                20 June 2020 19: 09 New
                +1
                Quote: Nagaibak
                This is the basis of the worldview of a person of that time.

                According to folk history, yes. It was impossible to live without religion and a day, everyone just did what they fasted and prayed, and they were terribly afraid to sin. Only for some reason, after almost every ruler, there was a list of sins, violations of oaths to God about something, and so on. Strange, why would it? Maybe because religion is religion, but politics is separate?
                Quote: Nagaibak
                And the Princesses of Polovtsy were baptized without fail.

                Because the Polovtsian princesses were generally of a different religion. The difference between Catholics and Orthodox is only in the rite, and both Christians and many did not pay much attention to it. Moreover, the difference was usually pedaled by those who were farthest away from the others, while in the Orthodox Catholic borderland in 95 cases out of 100 it was completely irrelevant who had any rite.
                1. Senior seaman
                  Senior seaman 21 June 2020 10: 48 New
                  -2
                  Colleague, there is such a thing. Quod licet Iovi (Jovi), non licet bovi. Strange as it may seem, rulers sometimes have less freedom than subjects. And in the matter of piety - for sure. Therefore, the prince must comply.
                  I’m talking about this, Daniel is not the only Rurikovich who accepted, even formally, the leadership of the Pope. But this has never brought the renegades the sympathies of their subjects. That is, the prince can be any fratricide and adulter, but in matters of faith he must be firm, like a schemer.
                  1. arturpraetor
                    21 June 2020 15: 02 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Senior Sailor
                    This is what I mean, Daniil is not the only Rurikovich who accepted, albeit formally, the supremacy of the Pope. But this has never brought the renegades the sympathies of their subjects.

                    The problem is that Daniel quickly rejected the power of Rome, and his rather tough position prevented the Catholic rite from becoming established in the GVK. It was one thing if the imposition of Catholicism really began, the subjects felt some kind of change, and then everything really changed - but Daniel to which I did not agree to change anything before fulfilling his requirements, which was the reason for the call of Pope Alexander IV to Mindovg (at that time already a Catholic) to punish the "apostates" and conquer the lands of the Romanovichs. Those. de jure, Daniel was then a Uniate, and de facto he was even forced to fight the Lithuanians for the preservation of the Orthodox rite. So I would not be in a hurry to make bold statements that the people turned away from him immediately after the conclusion of the union.
                    1. Senior seaman
                      Senior seaman 21 June 2020 15: 27 New
                      0
                      Quote: arturpraetor
                      So I would not be in a hurry to make bold statements that the people turned away from him immediately after the conclusion of the union.

                      This, of course, is true. Moreover, no one claimed this :)))
                      In my opinion, Daniel, having entered into a union, albeit formally and very briefly, embarked on a slippery slope, on which his descendants slipped. Although, of course, if one event occurred after another, it did not necessarily occur in the investigation. This must also be remembered.
                      By the way, at one time on AI, I had an interesting idea. What would happen if the Romanovich line existed until the suppression of the Piasts, or? Who would lead the future Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
                      1. arturpraetor
                        21 June 2020 15: 34 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Senior Sailor
                        In my opinion, Daniel, having entered into a union, albeit formally and very briefly, embarked on a slippery slope, on which his descendants slipped.

                        And what a slippery slope, dear colleague? Nobody dabbled in unity from the Romanovichs anymore, all remained strictly Orthodox. Relations with Catholics did not go beyond relations with neighbors - whether Hungarians and Poles were Orthodox or Muslims, little would have changed. Here, perhaps, the use of Catholic immigrants can somehow be pulled into "flirting", but this is absolutely normal practice, but Polovtsy and Tatars who wished to settle down were used for the same purpose. And this great hostility did not arouse between the Catholic and Orthodox communities - there was no mention of anything like that in the GVK, this was not the German Sloboda, which was constantly (if you believe Tolstoy) called to go on burning already in much later times.
                        Quote: Senior Sailor
                        What would happen if the Romanovich line existed until the suppression of the Piasts, or? Who would lead the future Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?

                        It’s not a fact that the River would have developed at all with the preservation of the Romanovichs. After all, the Piastas did not end on Casimir III - there were only small and squabble branches that could not be allowed into power. Like the Mazovian Piasts, with whom the Romanovichs were related. So even getting the right to the crown of Poland would be problematic ... But Lithuania, I suspect, the Romanovichs would sooner or later crush. Although the ideal fork here is Shvarn Danilovich, who wins in the strife of Lev Danilovich, gives birth to children with his daughter Mindovg, and creates a single Russian-Lithuanian state already in the XIII century. Then the Poles just do not shine laughing
              2. Trilobite Master
                Trilobite Master 20 June 2020 20: 09 New
                +2
                Quote: Nagaibak
                The Russian princes gave their daughters out for the Polovtsian khans without any problems.

                There was no such thing, what are you talking about?
                They themselves got married, they never gave out daughters. The only case is that the widowed princess married a Polovtsian, Bahot was called, it seems, but this is an exceptional case. give examples, the marriage of Russian princes to the Polovtsy, if not difficult, I am interested.
                1. Nagaibak
                  Nagaibak 12 August 2020 22: 08 New
                  +1
                  Trilobite Master "There was no such thing, what are you talking about?"
                  You are right there was no such thing.))) In my opinion, there were only 11 marriages. Russian princes married Polovtsian women. There are no Russian princesses married to Polovtsians. So I lied a little.)))
              3. Kronos
                Kronos 20 June 2020 21: 53 New
                0
                For ordinary people, and for politicians, religion was important only as another factor of influence
    2. arturpraetor
      20 June 2020 15: 50 New
      0
      Quote: Olgovich
      This departure is not only a change in "religious life", it is a radical change in the political life of everything and everyone, for where there is the metropolitan of Russia, there is the center of Russia, Russia itself.

      Alas, I do not reduce the whole life of Russia to the church alone. Moreover, at the beginning of the XIV century a separate, separate metropolis appeared in the GVK, and the Lithuanians then created another one in Kiev, as a result of which “All Russia” turned into a purely nominal title.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 21 June 2020 06: 40 New
        -4
        Quote: arturpraetor
        Alas, I do not reduce the whole life of Russia to the church alone.

        Why, alas? You have the right.
        Quote: arturpraetor
        Moreover, at the beginning of the XIV century, the GVK appeared its own, separate metropolis, and the Lithuanians then created another in Kiev

        pitiful self-styled clones.
        Quote: arturpraetor
        as a result, “All Russia” turned into a purely nominal title.

        On the contrary, it became real and powerful as never before. the country formed around it is Russia.

        where are the clones? nowhere ...
        1. arturpraetor
          21 June 2020 15: 06 New
          +2
          Quote: Olgovich
          pitiful self-styled clones.

          Created by permission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate? smile Sorry, but the Ecumenical Patriarchate had every right to change the structure of the church as he wanted, until the Russian Orthodox Church acquired autocephaly. So no self-proclaimed clones, all according to the canon, according to the laws. Your statement is based solely on emotions.
          Quote: Olgovich
          On the contrary, it became real and powerful as never before. the country formed around it is Russia.

          One is not connected with the other. Russia united vast territories around itself because it was strong. And precisely because she was strong, the metropolis controlled by her eventually became a patriarchy. If Vladimir or Moscow were weak principalities, the metropolis would not have received such an influence.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 22 June 2020 07: 35 New
            -1
            Quote: arturpraetor
            Created by permission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

            According to the REQUEST and the intrigues of local princes, to the peak of the Kiev Metropolitanate of All Russia, there are therefore self-proclaimed insignificant clones.
            Quote: arturpraetor
            One is not connected with the other. Russia united vast territories around itself because it was strong. . And precisely because it was strong, the metropolis controlled by it eventually became a patriarchy.

            1. What was then ... Russia, what is the matter with you? belay

            2. no, she became strong because she united the territories

            3. And precisely because the Metropolis of All Russia was in Moscow, it became the center of unity and power.

            4. And where are the clones glorified to you?

            Nowhere ....
            1. arturpraetor
              22 June 2020 16: 55 New
              -1
              Quote: Olgovich
              BY REQUEST and intrigue of local princes

              At the request of local rulers, almost all the metropolis were created. And also abolished in the interests of secular rulers. The Balkan Slavs can tell a lot of "good" about the same Ecumenical Patriarchate of the times of the Ottoman Empire, which only contributed to the strengthening of Ottoman rule and actively fought with local church autonomies and cultures.
              Quote: Olgovich
              What was then ...

              Russia in the broad sense - starting with those principalities from where it went after the Mongol invasion. Agree that it is faster to say "Russia" than "the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, which then became Moscow, which then became the Russian kingdom, which then became the Russian Empire" smile
              Quote: Olgovich
              no, she became strong because she united the territories

              She could not have united the territories if she had been weak. Or do you sincerely think that the territory of Russia was lying on an unowned road?
              Quote: Olgovich
              and where are the clones glorified to you?

              In the same place as the state. The history of Orthodox churches is closely connected with the history of secular states. The feature is this. But the state, as it turned out, departed into oblivion. I don’t see anything bad in the real course of history, but I’m not going to erect and enrich it. Excuse me, I'm a pragmatist, to call something bad, wrong and uncanonical because he was gone ... We will all be there. That is, all past and current states, and I, and you, and any colleague from the site are wrong, non-canonical, because our stories will someday end smile As far as I know. you strongly disagree with a similar assessment of the Russian Empire - but for some reason you yourself are acting according to the same pattern to what you do not like. Although a revolution happened in it and it collapsed, now there is no Russian Empire, so it was wrong (following the same logic)

              In short, your comments convey the most extreme cheers and patriotism and continuous emotions, with a minimum of logic and impartiality, in this vein, I prefer not to communicate with people - because it is useless.
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 23 June 2020 08: 03 New
                0
                Quote: arturpraetor
                At the request of local rulers, almost all the metropolises were created.

                Moscow?
                Quote: arturpraetor
                Russia in the broad sense - starting from those principalities from where it went after the Mongol invasion. Agree that it is faster to say "Russia" than "the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, which then became Moscow, which then became the Russian kingdom, which then became the Russian Empire

                Faster say "Russia"
                Quote: arturpraetor
                In the same place as the state

                There is no Lithuania at all, no metropolis.
                The Moscow Patriarchate is, and its jurisdiction extends far beyond Moscow and Russia.
                Quote: arturpraetor
                Excuse me, I'm a pragmatist, to call something bad, wrong and uncanonical because he was gone ...

                If it didn’t, then something bad and wrong was, otherwise it would not have disappeared
                Quote: arturpraetor
                Russian Empire - but for some reason, you yourself act on the same pattern to address what you do not like. Although a revolution happened in it and it collapsed, now there is no Russian Empire, so it was wrong (following the same logic)

                Russia is, like its Russian Orthodox Church, no matter what! So they are correct yes
                Quote: arturpraetor
                In short, the most extreme cheers-patriotism and solid emotions show through in your comments

                The meaning of your similar assessments? Do you really think anyone is interested in them? lol
                Quote: arturpraetor
                with a minimum of logic and impartiality

                you don’t have them and this is my point of view
                Quote: arturpraetor
                In this vein, I prefer not to communicate with people - for it is useless.

                Here we are unanimous: it is useless to convince you that white is white, since you are convinced of the opposite.
        2. Red Dragon
          Red Dragon 21 June 2020 16: 38 New
          0
          And beautifully competent and smart colleagues put you in place. What is the colleague Octopus in the theme of the Second World War, what is the colleague of arturpraetor in the topic of GVK, what is Undechim in other topics. But this is the fate of all nationalists. Your illiterate opuses seem smart only to your fans, nationalists. wink
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 22 June 2020 07: 50 New
            0
            Quote: Red Dragon
            And beautifully competent and smart colleagues put you in place.

            the dragon itself lacks brains. lol
            Quote: Red Dragon
            What is a colleague Octopus in the subject of the Second World War

            Give examples, liar lol
            again ... not enough brains?
            Quote: Red Dragon
            that a colleague arturpraetor in the subject of GVK,

            he has the right to think so, I, the same right to think differently.
            Quote: Red Dragon
            what undechim in other topics

            belay I am with this Curiosity, who rolled out a slobbering lip, a boor and a lover of mate. Generally disdain to communicate, you are confusing something.
            Quote: Red Dragon
            But this is the fate of all nationalists. Your illiterate opuses seem smart only to your fans, nationalists

            Your "letter", in our in-person discussions with you, is enough only for the powerless hysterical cries of ignorance, ignoramus lol
    3. Marine engineer
      Marine engineer 20 June 2020 15: 53 New
      +5
      "The Union of the Galicia-Volyn state with Rome lasted only 3 years, but in fact, even during its operation, it did not lead to any special changes in the religious life of South-Western Russia, ...."

      This was the beginning of the end of the Galicia-Volyn state.
      Daniel’s hopes that “the West will help us” did not materialize.
      After a couple of generations, his state fell into decay and became the prey of its neighbors for the help of which he had hoped so.
      1. arturpraetor
        20 June 2020 16: 11 New
        0
        Quote: Marine engineer
        This was the beginning of the end of the Galicia-Volyn state.

        Only in your imagination. The beginning of the end was the decline and suppression of the Romanovichs. Before this, and after Daniil of the Galitsky GVK, strangely enough, it managed not only to restrain the onslaught of the Lithuanians, but also to expand at the expense of Polish and Hungarian lands, despite the fact that in 1264 the princedom was de facto divided, and Lev Danilovich had to and tedious to deal with internal problems.
        1. Marine engineer
          Marine engineer 20 June 2020 16: 36 New
          0
          The suppression of the dynasty in the GVK happened before, but then this was not a sentence for the principality.

          “Before that, and after Daniil of the Galitsky GVK, strangely enough, it managed not only to restrain the onslaught of the Lithuanians, but also to expand at the expense of Polish and Hungarian lands.”
          Yes, it was like the fact that the sons of Daniel could not restrain someone else.
          1. arturpraetor
            20 June 2020 16: 45 New
            +1
            Quote: Marine engineer
            The suppression of the dynasty in the GVK happened before, but then this was not a sentence for the principality.

            Then there was a completely different political situation in the region.
            Quote: Marine engineer
            Yes, it was like the fact that the sons of Daniel could not restrain someone else.

            Leo - could. Alas, nature, which gave GVK three good rulers three times, recouped in the fourth, and in the fifth generation the Romanovichs generally ended.
  5. knn54
    knn54 20 June 2020 08: 21 New
    -3
    - Romanovich-Rurikovich there were all chances to remain dukes of Austria, and history would go on a completely different path!
    In order to create a UNIFIED Russian-Austrian state, it was necessary to conquer Hungary, one of the strongest states in Europe. Which was completely unrealistic.
    The king of the Czech Republic, Przemysl II, who was able to defeat the coalition-Russians, Hungarians, Polovtsy, Bavarians, Poles, deserves respect. The truth is after Hungary “left” it.
    And what about Roman, who left his wife and little daughter unprotected.
    The author is another plus.
    1. mark1
      mark1 20 June 2020 09: 26 New
      +4
      Quote: knn54
      ONE Russian-Austrian state,

      And what doesn’t suit you in real history? Was Galicia a part of Austria-Hungary or are you personally worried about the Romanovic? They had no chance, would have dissolved one way or another without communication with Russia.
      1. knn54
        knn54 20 June 2020 11: 41 New
        -1
        Mark. The author put forward a variant of Roman on the throne of Austria.
        I replied that it was unrealistic.
        And here are the likes and dislikes?
        By the way, Galicia was part of Austria-Hungary as the kingdom of Galicia and Ludomiriya.
        Even during the WWII, the overwhelming majority of Galicians were Orthodox and considered themselves Russian and Rusyns (see one of the letters of 1917 by V.I. Lenin, Inesse Armand), and not Ukrainians. Despite the mass repressions of the Austrians, either a noose or a concentration camp.
        The local aristocracy became uniates. Even the best generals / hetmans of the Polish king Vladislav in the battles with B. Khmelnitsky were descendants of Russian princes who converted to Catholicism.
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 20 June 2020 13: 50 New
          +4
          The novel on the throne of Austria is not equal to the unification of Western Russia and Austria.
          "The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal"
        2. Red Dragon
          Red Dragon 21 June 2020 16: 29 New
          -1
          Well, if the Orthodox are considered Uniates, then yes. wink
    2. iouris
      iouris 20 June 2020 15: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: knn54
      there were all chances to remain dukes of Austria

      Did not have. Each state expanded to its natural limits. This is now the "family" can move to Austria with money "earned by excessive labor", and not think about the titles.
    3. arturpraetor
      20 June 2020 15: 56 New
      +2
      Quote: knn54
      What would create a single Russian-Austrian state

      Was this really discussed? smile It was about the fact that the ruling dynasty of Austria could become the same as in the GVK. This would predetermine close ties between the states, and could lead to unforeseen consequences, since the Habsburgs in this case would not come to success. It was about this, and not about a single state, especially since Roman Danilovich was not the heir to his father, and he could inherit both states only under exceptional circumstances.
  6. Korsar4
    Korsar4 20 June 2020 08: 24 New
    +5
    A wide canvas of events.
    How big is the chance to stay between the millstones of the “Mongols and Europe”?
    Alliances by Andrei Yaroslavich and the next army Nevryuev - what is courage or insanity?
    And here there can be no ratings not emotional.
    For me, "Union Game" is still to grab a poisoned piece. Long-term poison.

    And you will not get the answer to the questions, and it is good that they arise. Thank.
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 20 June 2020 09: 49 New
      +1
      And this is you Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and son Alexander Yaroslavovich ask (which Nevsky) How they with the help of the Mongols prevented the only formation in Russia that really waged war with the Horde
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 20 June 2020 13: 39 New
        +6
        Quote: Nehist
        How, with the help of the Mongols, they prevented the only formation in Russia that really waged war with the Horde

        So, interesting ... What is this for the "only education", what kind of war did it "really waged with the Horde" and what and how exactly did Yaroslav and his son "impede"? I would like more detail.
    2. ee2100
      ee2100 20 June 2020 10: 38 New
      +1
      Alliances by Andrei Yaroslavich and the next army Nevryuev - what is courage or insanity?
      The author of the article casually mentioned about Andrei Yaroslavovich, and he was married to the daughter of Daniil Galitsky. Although this character deserves more. Why did he do that? And why did the Novgorodians refuse to rule him? Perhaps he was not far away.
      Once upon a time I watched a film about Daniil Galitsky, shot at the Odessa film studio. I understood little, and somehow I was not impressed. It will be necessary to reconsider.
    3. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 20 June 2020 13: 35 New
      +7
      Quote: Korsar4
      For me, "Union Game" is still to grab a poisoned piece. Long-term poison.

      I agree.
      On the example of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and Daniil Romanovich, we see two different political lines in relations with the Mongols. Yaroslav chose cooperation, Daniel chose confrontation.
      As a result, Yaroslav and the ago descendants, being vassals of the khan, actively opposed the west, and Daniel tried to use this west to fight the khan. The result is known - after a hundred years, the state of Daniel at first lost independence, and then simply ceased to exist, and the state of Yaroslav in one form or another still exists.
      Who recently reproached Alexander Yaroslavich for his alliance with the Horde, urging him to “negotiate” with the Germans against the Mongols? A perfect example of what this would lead to is the Galicia-Volyn principality.
      1. Korsar4
        Korsar4 20 June 2020 13: 55 New
        +2
        Here we come to the question of the sacredness of power. The question is, in what case does it persist when it is lost.

        Is “Paris worth the Mass” always?

        The history of our country is closely connected with the finding of the metropolitan throne.
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 20 June 2020 15: 46 New
          +5
          Quote: Korsar4
          Is “Paris worth the Mass” always?

          Many forget that before paying mass for Paris, "King Henry the Fourth"
          he paid with blood for a long time. A mass is like a cherry on a cake. smile
        2. iouris
          iouris 20 June 2020 15: 46 New
          +1
          The history of "our country" is no longer associated with such things. Perhaps Fukuyama was mistaken as a whole, but he turned out to be right in a particular case.
          1. Korsar4
            Korsar4 20 June 2020 15: 55 New
            +1
            I think that is still connected.
            Just with each split (and how many there were) more and more cracks, less integrity.

            “Brothers and Sisters” was not accidentally sounded in 1941.

            But to the question which state formation is more stable in our conditions - monolithic or complex, there is hardly a definite answer.

            What can we say about the guide to action.
            1. iouris
              iouris 20 June 2020 18: 48 New
              0
              Guidelines for action: to preserve the state as an instrument for the preservation of the people and their habitats, as a source of material life (and not existence) of the people, to create conditions for the physical and spiritual development (qualitative growth) of the people based on available resources. There will be no state, nothing to talk about: either material or spiritual. If a people as a result of the degradation of the state turns into a population, then this is the end.
              1. Korsar4
                Korsar4 20 June 2020 18: 51 New
                0
                Your words can be interpreted in various ways, and embodied even more differently.
      2. Engineer
        Engineer 20 June 2020 14: 03 New
        +8
        Michael, but still the collapse of the state of Daniel is largely a consequence of the dynastic crisis. Such things are not systemic factors.
        Specifically, the Yaroslavl battle is the same defense against the West as the battle on Lake Peipsi.
        Having once gone for a label, the Galician princes no longer did so, giving others the right to humiliate themselves.
        According to the results of the reign, Daniel is quite comparable with Nevsky
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 20 June 2020 15: 42 New
          +3
          Quote: Engineer
          According to the results of the reign, Daniel is quite comparable with Nevsky

          I agree. Maybe even superior.
          Quote: Engineer
          Having once gone for a label, the Galician princes no longer did so, giving others the right to humiliate themselves.

          However, tribute was paid. True, I don’t remember exactly when they stopped doing this, but, it seems, Lithuania still from the Volyn lands in the XIV century, when the GVK had already sunk into history, brought money into the Horde.
          Quote: Engineer
          Specifically, the Yaroslavl battle is the same defense against the West as the battle on Lake Peipsi.

          There is a certain similarity, and not a small one. So I will not argue. And Burundai’s campaign is similar to the Nevruy’s campaign.
          Quote: Engineer
          the collapse of the state of daniel is largely a consequence of the dynastic crisis

          And here I do not agree.
          The collapse of the state of Daniel is a consequence of its weakness, both military and political. Even with live Romanovichs, pieces were already torn from him. There were dynastic crises in Poland and Hungary and in Russia, but the states did not cease to exist from this.
          1. arturpraetor
            20 June 2020 16: 14 New
            +3
            Quote: Trilobite Master
            Even with live Romanovichs, pieces were already torn from him.

            Under the penultimate of the Romanovich dynasty, which turned out to be not only mediocre, but simply a disgusting ruler. Then another generation of fairly successful princes who seemed to stop the destructive process ... And their unexpected death and suppression of the entire dynasty. After which the collapse of the state really has become inevitable. But not before. And certainly not because of the union.
          2. Engineer
            Engineer 20 June 2020 16: 41 New
            +7
            but, it seems, like Lithuania from Volyn lands in the XIV century, when the GVK had already sunk into history, it brought money into the Horde.

            ON even in the 16th century received a shortcut to Kiev and the environment from the Crimean khans. You probably know without me.
            The collapse of the state of Daniel is a consequence of its weakness, both military and political.

            There is a milestone in 1323 the death of both Yurievichs. Before that, everything went fine.
            I generally do not see point blank how the orientation to the west destroyed the Galicia-Volyn principality. Next to him, Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, not get involved. In Northwest Russia, the company is still calmer.
            1. arturpraetor
              20 June 2020 16: 58 New
              +2
              Quote: Engineer
              There is a milestone in 1323 the death of both Yurievichs. Before that, everything went fine.

              Moreover, this happened shortly before the Horde actually left the region, which would open the way for the expansion of the Romanoviches to the east and northeast. Well, as they say, it wasn’t lucky.
              Quote: Engineer
              I generally do not see point blank how the orientation to the west destroyed the Galicia-Volyn principality. Next to him, Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, not get involved. In Northwest Russia, the company is still calmer.

              Sobsno, PPKS. What is considered excessive involvement in the affairs of Catholics is in fact a common foreign policy in the presence of a large number of players in the region. Of course, such a neighborhood had negative consequences - on the other hand, neighbors also had problems, and the GVK used it in the same way.
            2. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 20 June 2020 16: 58 New
              +2
              Quote: Engineer
              ON even in the 16th century received a shortcut to Kiev and the environment from the Crimean khans.

              Yes, but Kiev is not Volyn, and if I gave this example, you would be the first to point it out to me and you would be right. smile
              If Yuri-Boleslav still paid tribute to the Horde before 1340, then it is hardly worth assuming that the previous Romanovichs avoided this fate.
              The death of the brothers Leo and Andrei is a blow to the dynasty, but not to the earth. If the earth were one, there would be a man who held it. The principality itself was fragmented, weak.
              By and large - what is called "from the crows behind, did not stick to the pavas." Know pulls to the west, people - to the east. And this constant confrontation between Catholics and Orthodox Christians, not directly armed, no, just the presence on the earth of churches and one and the other denomination, people constantly divided, opposed them to each other, deprived the principality of unity, the will to unite, to manifest its self, or something. ..
              In any case, I see it that way.
              1. arturpraetor
                20 June 2020 17: 10 New
                +1
                Quote: Trilobite Master
                If Yuri-Boleslav still paid tribute to the Horde before 1340, then it is hardly worth assuming that the previous Romanovichs avoided this fate.

                The last two generations of the Romanovichs, apparently, did not pay tribute, and the rule of the Horde was not recognized.
                Quote: Trilobite Master
                The death of the brothers Leo and Andrei is a blow to the dynasty, but not to the earth. If the earth were one, there would be a man who held it.

                Dear colleague, I still wildly apologize, but as you knowing the history of North-Eastern Russia, it’s too easy to talk about it, given the number of offspring of Vsevolod the Big Nest, there was practically no danger of suppressing the dynasty for several centuries smile And the Romanovichs were a fairly small branch of the Rurikovich. And after their suppression, the Galician-Volyn boyars took an active part in the fight against the Poles, including because the war for the Galician-Volyn inheritance took 52 years, and not several years. It is strange after this to claim that the earth was weak. It was strong enough, but in a vacuum of supreme power, in a situation where, according to all established rules, the principality should become part of Lithuania, and Casimir III (the strongest Polish king in the last, probably several centuries) opposes this, there is no chance of maintaining independence so much.
                Quote: Trilobite Master
                And this constant confrontation between Catholics and Orthodox

                Dear colleague, I still wildly apologize, but this "constant confrontation" in the possession of materiel, that is, the history of the region, is not visible from the word at all. If Russia was Catholic, if Hungary and Poland were Orthodox, everything would have turned out the same way, the issue of religion and religious confrontation at this time was simply irrelevant for the region. In the previous topic I already spoke in the comments.
                1. Trilobite Master
                  Trilobite Master 20 June 2020 18: 25 New
                  +2
                  Quote: arturpraetor
                  The last two generations of the Romanovichs, apparently, did not pay tribute, and the rule of the Horde was not recognized.

                  The last two generations are Vladimir Lvovich and Lev Yuryevich? I think that they paid and recognized. In any case, why would Yury-Boleslav do this?
                  Quote: arturpraetor
                  And after their suppression

                  After their suppression, there was no person who would take their place - this says a lot. And this happened not because there were no worthy people, but because there were not those who would suit everyone. For, apparently, all the participants in the political process had different interests and there was no prevailing force that could nominate a candidate from their ranks and approve him. Around the same period, a dynastic crisis erupted in France - and so what? She gathered to know, proclaimed in a choir “it is not worth lilies to spin” and that’s all - the new king, the new dynasty. And how many such crises were in Poland and Hungary, you yourself can tell me.
                  No, Artem, as you like, and I can not consider the dynastic crisis as the main reason for the disappearance of the GVK from the historical arena. There were more substantial reasons, and one of them, it seems to me, is precisely the fact that Daniel and after his heirs actively flirted with the Catholics.
                  After all, what is marriage with some European princess? This is her retinue at court, these are trips to relatives, the visits of these relatives, these are house churches, language, customs, etc., brought to her husband's territory - this is on the one hand, from above. On the other - from below - villages and villages in which Orthodox churches stand and Orthodox priests serve. And when a discharged cavalcade of nobles passes through this village, the peasants, having turned their backs from work in the field and wiping sweat from their foreheads, consider that he is ours, and that is not ours. But I don’t know who in the Polish hoodie, but I don’t understand who is in the Hungarian doloman. And along the borders of the principality, Catholics and Orthodox are mixed up - you can’t even figure out who, where and why. And in the middle between the “top” and the “bottom” there is also a mess - one warrior has Catholic relatives, the other, though Orthodox themselves, merchants, artisans, all live approximately like this.
                  And when the question of whom to support in the struggle for the Galician table of opinions is being decided, too many opinions arise on this issue and at all levels.
                  Well, in general, as always, we exchanged views. I think he answered, along with Denis. smile
                  Each remained his own, but the audience was amused. smile
                  1. arturpraetor
                    20 June 2020 19: 00 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Trilobite Master
                    The last two generations are Vladimir Lvovich and Lev Yuryevich?

                    Yuri Lvovich plus Andrey and Lev Yuryevich.
                    Quote: Trilobite Master
                    In any case, why would Yury-Boleslav do this?

                    Because Yuri Boleslav became the ruler after the death of his predecessors in the battle with the Tatars. But the Tatars just wanted to make the GVK pay tribute again. Between war and tribute, Yuri Boleslav chose a tribute.
                    Quote: Trilobite Master
                    After their suppression, there was no person who would take their place - this says a lot.

                    Dear colleague, do not pull the owl to the globe, please smile The leader of all the boyars was a certain Dmitriy Detko, but the problem was that according to the laws on the inheritance of the GVK after the suppression of the Romanovichs and the death of Yuri Boleslav, the Lithuanian princes should have left. What the boyars were not against, in general. But it challenged Casimir III, from a position of strength. Against which the boyars fought fiercely. Once again - after 1340 there were no legitimate heirs of the Romanovichs to keep the GVK independent. You will not call Aragon weak because he was inherited by the kings of Castile? The usual result of dynastic politics.
                    Quote: Trilobite Master
                    There were more substantial reasons, and one of them, it seems to me, is precisely the fact that Daniel and after his heirs actively flirted with the Catholics.

                    Sorry, dear colleague, but I can’t accept this point of view. Because I did not observe any systemic flirting with the Catholics when studying the issue. Otherwise, Casimir the Great can be blamed for the collapse of Poland in the same way because he flirted with the Jews.

                    However, to continue the debate on this topic I see no reason.

                    PS Regarding the picture of the consequences of relations with Catholics you described, the picture is, of course, beautiful from an artistic point of view, but, IMHO, refers more to surrealism than to realism. What is it to the people before the Queen’s retinue and worship, if she is actively engaged in charity, organizes shelters, gives alms, and generally actively protects the people? What is in the eyes of 1,5 and more millions of people 15 courtiers, of whom 12 have no meaning whatsoever, and people may not even know about their existence? In the end, what state still collapsed due to the described scenario? And what you offer, i.e. cutting off all relations with Europeans is isolationism and chauvinism, I apologize. What did China lead to, recall? And how did the same Peter the Great “cut through the window to Europe”, including in the mentality of his people?
              2. Engineer
                Engineer 20 June 2020 17: 11 New
                +4
                You would be the first to point this out to me

                Am I just such a debater and bookworm?)
                If the earth were one, there would be a man who held it

                Michael, this principality is a purely feudal product. We thrive with good princes, perish with bad ones. I remembered a revealing analogy. Is Burgundy a weak and fragmented state? For me, absolutely not, just the opponents got good cards.
                Russia in troubled times literally passed along the edge of the abyss. They were exported only at the expense of one thing - by that time the Great Russians “Muscovites” had become a nation with all the consequences. But in the 14th century in Europe in general with the nations strained.
        2. ee2100
          ee2100 20 June 2020 18: 41 New
          0
          "defense from the West as well as the battle on Lake Peipsi."
          Why does everyone consider this battle "protection from the West"? Alexander Yaroslavovich, or rather Novgorod decided to punish the Order for arbitrariness, the conclusion of an agreement with Pskov, bypassing Novgorod.
          It is not clear where is the protection?
      3. arturpraetor
        20 June 2020 16: 03 New
        -1
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        The result is known - after a hundred years, the state of Daniel first lost independence

        ... and this turned out to be in no way connected with the several-year-long unity concluded by Daniel Galitsky. Alas and ah, this is a stereotype. GVK under Romanovich was always an Orthodox state, even the union did not manage to manifest itself in any way at the rites. Because Daniel made a strict condition - first we’ll deal with the steppes, I will unite Russia, and then we will change the rite and obey the Pope. That de facto sounded like "you help us now, and we will fulfill our duties somehow later, perhaps somewhere in the future."
      4. Nehist
        Nehist 21 June 2020 01: 18 New
        -1
        First of all, Yaroslav and later his son, with the help of the horde, strengthened their power among the Russian principality and, secondly, "fought the west." You can compare military campaigns, their number where Yaroslav and Alexander were noted, against whom they often opposed
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 21 June 2020 10: 39 New
          +3
          After the invasion, Yaroslav made two campaigns - one against Chernigov, the second against Lithuania, which captured Smolensk. His son Mikhail died in the battle with Lithuania, Alexander went against the Swedes in 1240, against the Germans in 1242, in the 1250s. smashed Lithuania near Sanctified, built defenses along Sheloni, went against the Swedes in the sovr. Finland In the next generation - again Lithuania and the Germans with the Danes - two rakor campaigns of 1267 and 1268. There were no trips to the steppe or Bulgaria.
          1. Nehist
            Nehist 21 June 2020 11: 52 New
            0
            But didn’t Alexander go to the horde, offended by his brother Andrei, who rescued Kuremsha resembling Daniel? Then Alexander sat on the throne of Volodymyr? Wasn’t it like that? And in 1255, didn’t Alexander teach the pogrom in Novgorod? Did he, by his intrigues and brother with Sartak, destroy the Principality of Vladimir and Tver, which at that time also claimed the Grand Duke's throne? From the point of view of politics and historical development, he acted correctly. But there is no need to extol it. Using the Horde forces, he suppressed any attempts to create other centers of association.
            1. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 21 June 2020 12: 56 New
              +3
              The whole question is money. Andrei refused to pay - received Nevruya. Alexander wanted to "smear" his brother - did not succeed.
              Novgorod refused to pay - Alexander himself figured it out. And what to do, they demand from him, not from his own pocket to get it. Otherwise, the Mongols would decide the question themselves.
              Brotherhood with Sartak is Gumilev's tale.
              The principality of Tver at that time was still in its infancy and could not claim anything.
              Alexander took care of the land as his property. You will not begin to set fire to the house if rats are wound up in the basement. He achieved the right to collect tribute himself, forced her to pay everyone and protected the land from invasions from the east through diplomatic means, from the west - by military means. He requested the return of his brother, and when he returned, he returned his inheritance to him.
              The title "defender of the Russian land" - definitely deserved it.
              1. Nehist
                Nehist 21 June 2020 13: 13 New
                +2
                I agree with you. What I wrote above. In principle, any empire is created with a sword! Alexander started this process at that time and succeeded in it; circumstances on another VGK could have succeeded in this ... Alas, history does not know the subjunctive moods ... I just long ago abstracted myself from the notion of a patriot in historical matters, I try to be objective.
            2. arturpraetor
              21 June 2020 15: 08 New
              0
              Quote: Nehist
              But didn’t Alexander go to the horde, offended by his brother Andrei, who rescued Kuremsha resembling Daniel?

              Kuremsa's actions against Daniel were caused by other reasons. The only one who really brought the Romanovichs to order was Burundai, and his arrival was caused by the more successful actions of Daniel against Kuremsa (who simply messed up the coast and wanted to squeeze the border possessions of the GVK).
    4. arturpraetor
      20 June 2020 16: 00 New
      0
      Quote: Korsar4
      Alliances by Andrei Yaroslavich and the next army Nevryuev - what is courage or insanity?

      You will recall this in the next article when Daniel, after the visits of Burundai, decides to fight the Horde himself, having lost almost all his allies. On the Mongol question, this ruler sometimes gave a blunder. Although in the case of Andrei Yaroslavich, most likely there is a mistake of the latter - too early he provoked the Mongols to react, showing his rebellion. At first, Daniel intended to wait for the formation of the coalition, and only then go against the Tatars, from several sides at once. And so the Horde got the opportunity to beat in parts.
  7. lucul
    lucul 20 June 2020 09: 04 New
    +1
    as a result, Daniel suddenly turned out to be extreme and almost a traitor to the whole Orthodox world.

    Is not it so ? ))))
    I wanted to sit on two chairs))))
    1. arturpraetor
      20 June 2020 16: 05 New
      0
      Quote: lucul
      Is not it so ? ))))

      And why did he suddenly become a traitor, if at that moment the Ecumenical Patriarchate was about to conclude a union? smile This is, for a second, at that time the head of the entire Orthodox Church, with the exception of the EMNIP of the Bulgarian Autocephalous Church. Despite the fact that the Bulgarians also managed to visit the church union. In this case, only those princes who would refuse to restore the unity of the church would look like traitors to Christianity.
      1. Korsar4
        Korsar4 20 June 2020 16: 28 New
        0
        As far as I understand, Metropolitan Isidore is now perceived as an apostate.
        Although, here any views will be biased.

        Union from a position of weakness could hardly lead to good.
        1. arturpraetor
          20 June 2020 16: 51 New
          0
          Quote: Korsar4
          As far as I understand, Metropolitan Isidore is now perceived as an apostate.

          This is the XIV century, other conditions and a completely different union. The Florentine Union, in principle, did not take root anywhere, and existed a little more than GVKshnaya.
          Quote: Korsar4
          Union from a position of weakness could hardly lead to good.

          In the case of GVK, it is difficult to talk about some kind of weakness. It was more about political pragmatism - a union could bring certain benefits, the general background of the Orthodox Church (negotiations between Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate) was favorable, so why not? In addition, do not forget about the version that Daniel was not originally going to comply with the conditions of the union - in this case, it becomes a purely political instrument, which, alas, did not bring great benefits to the king’s title.
      2. Smoke
        Smoke 21 June 2020 21: 13 New
        -1
        in the eyes of his contemporaries - he went exactly on betrayal. They have repeatedly pointed out to you that the issue of confessional identity in the Middle Ages is a marker of your own — a stranger, but you still stand your ground and do not attach importance to the issues of faith, it seems to me that you know, even if now Daniil Galitsky himself will rise again and tell you personally they say that it’s my jamb with unity, although it’s only 3 years old, but I lost my principality and my dynasty, and in general the idea of ​​uniatism greatly divided the GVK society and you will answer him that it’s not))) Since it’s so it’s obvious that the grass is green and the sky is blue, there are gravity laws of nature, for example, it doesn’t occur to you to deny its existence and its influence, and there are exactly the same immutable laws of society, but for some reason you stubbornly ignore them ... .
        ps with regards to your reference to Byzantine affairs and the preparation of a union from Constantinople, Russia would not have recognized this union, since there was an absolutely clear understanding that the union was not dictated by God's providence, but by the human selfish interests of the Constantinople hierarchs, since the influence of Byzantium was steady fell, and it would not be known who announced heretics to whom
        1. arturpraetor
          21 June 2020 22: 10 New
          +3
          Quote: Smoke
          in the eyes of his contemporaries - he went exactly on betrayal.

          I don't care our modern interpretations that Daniel is a traitor. I care about a specific opinion about this. his contemporaries. And then the trouble is - I’ve dug up a lot of the topic, but I didn’t see anything intelligible about betrayal from his contemporaries. So far, these are just theories our contemporaries, which are based on their personal view of the religious issue in the Middle Ages.

          In short, I agree with the theory that contemporaries considered Daniel a traitor only if concrete evidence was provided. Those. references from annals or chronicles. Because without evidence, these are unfounded allegations.

          Everything else is just your mental constructs, divorced from real facts. I repeat once again - if you put forward some thesis, justify it with concrete proofs, and not "everyone knows that," "it was like that," or "I swear by my mother." Because I devoted a lot of time to studying the issue, and I don’t think that I should discard my own accumulated experience and conclusions simply from the fact that someone will say “he is a traitor, period”. And what is characteristic - it is precisely those who are familiar with the topic rather deeply who talk about betrayal. For some reason, from historians who studied the issue, whether it was a Pole, a Ukrainian, or a Russian (and I drew the main material on the topic from Petersburg historians), I did not meet such statements.
  8. Free wind
    Free wind 20 June 2020 09: 06 New
    +6
    Not particularly religious, but I can’t understand how faith in Christ differs from faith in Christ. Well, some have temples with gabled roofs, while others have domed temples. Apart from the struggle for power and money, there are no other motives.
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 20 June 2020 09: 51 New
      +2
      Yes, nothing !!! And the ravings about the choice of religion by Vladimir are still enraging! Since the split into Orthodox and Catholic happened almost 300 years after that
    2. knn54
      knn54 20 June 2020 10: 00 New
      +1
      R. Hubbard: "If you want to become a millionaire, create your own religion."
      I would like to add one thing - the worldly lord should not be secular (the head of the Vatican). The latter is from the "evil one."
    3. Marine engineer
      Marine engineer 20 June 2020 22: 11 New
      0
      "... than faith in Christ is different from faith in Christ ..."

      The South Russian nobility could answer this, which in the year 1300 went to serve in the small principality of Moscow, preferring it to the rich and strong GVK.
      1. arturpraetor
        21 June 2020 00: 48 New
        +1
        Quote: Marine engineer
        The South Russian nobility could answer this, which in the year 1300 went to serve in the small principality of Moscow, preferring it to the rich and strong GVK.

        Announce the entire list smile Something I did not meet with information about the mass exodus of the boyars of the Galicia-Volyn principality during the late Romanovichs. With the Poles and Lithuanians - yes, that was the case. Previously - some episodic mention of isolated cases, maximum.

        Just something tells me that you won’t throw the proofs.
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 21 June 2020 01: 27 New
          0
          Yes, damn the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and later the kingdoms of Poland as a union did not particularly interfere. And among the Polish magnates, the Orthodox lacked, not to mention the gentry. Religious friction began closer to the 17th century. Somehow, in general, any boyar or prince in those days could freely go to serve any other prince, and this was the norm and could not be judged by something.
        2. Marine engineer
          Marine engineer 21 June 2020 07: 23 New
          +1
          ".... the outcome of the boyars of the Galicia-Volyn principality in the late Romanovichi"

          The commentary is written about the “South Russian nobility”, and not the boyars of the Galicia-Volyn principality. The latter along the beaten track will stretch later, some will even take part in the Battle of Kulikovo.
          1. Marine engineer
            Marine engineer 21 June 2020 10: 04 New
            +1
            From the “Galitsky”, the most famous son of the Galician boyar Nestor Ryabts, Rodion Nestorovich, who, according to genealogy, about 1300 left Kiev to the Moscow prince with his “court”.
            1. arturpraetor
              21 June 2020 15: 12 New
              0
              Just one family from Galician? And you are sure that he left the GVK for religious reasons, and not because of hostility with other boyar clans, for example? smile Sorry, the proofs are somehow not enough to put a lot of emphasis on this. However, I am sure that more than one family has left the “Galician” family. But here is the trouble - moving the noble families between the rulers at that time was a commonplace phenomenon. What are Catholics, what are Orthodox. I remember that later some names escaped from Moscow, and not because they were non-Orthodox.
              1. Marine engineer
                Marine engineer 22 June 2020 00: 34 New
                -1
                “Just one family from Galician?”

                I suppose there were more of them, just not everyone like Ryabets, managed to take first place among the Moscow boyars, the Galichan clans who left for Moscow could “stop” at a new place (war, plague) and there was no one to declare their existence in local dispute over time.
                As for this family, they, unlike you and me, lived in the time of the penultimate Romanovichs, they could really appreciate them and their policies, maybe they even talked to them and when the time came they made a choice “To Moscow, to the GVK and there are no future supporters. ”
                The Principality of Moscow acquired hardened warriors, and the GVK lost them.
          2. arturpraetor
            21 June 2020 15: 12 New
            +2
            Quote: Marine engineer
            The commentary is written about the “South Russian nobility”, and not the boyars of the Galicia-Volyn principality.

            And where does South Russian know about the relationship between Catholics and Orthodox? GVK did not control all of South Russia. Even controversy still goes on over control of Kiev and Pereyaslavl - it seems like there is evidence that, yes, there was control, but short-term, and that is not a fact. There was no Catholic power at the beginning of the XNUMXth century, when the Tatars still controlled the South, in principle. So the reasons for the move of individual families must be sought in another.
  9. Diviz
    Diviz 31 July 2020 01: 18 New
    0
    Hungarians Serbs Huns brothers forever. Tamerlane and Genghis Khan drove this Karakhanid kagonat into the neck and mane. Together with Byzantium, Ottoman and Roman empires.