Military Review

King Daniil Romanovich. Board finale

59

Relations with the Horde, despite the preparation of a coalition against it, were developing quite well with the king of Russia. Even the efforts to form a coalition gradually took on the character of a reinsurance option or the ability to dramatically raise their status in the future, if suddenly the crusade came together and the Romanovichs succeeded not only in dropping the Tatar yoke, but also expanding their holdings at the expense of other principalities of Russia. Calm relations with the steppes made it possible to intervene quite actively in European politics, which Daniel clearly aroused great interest.


However, all good things come to an end sooner or later. By the beginning of the 1250s, Beklyarbek Kuremsa settled in the Black Sea steppes, who was a significant figure in the Horde hierarchy and had great ambitions. In 1251-1252, he made the first trip to the border estates of the Galician-Volyn principality, besieging Bakota. The deputy of the prince obeyed the will of Kuremsa, and the city temporarily passed under the direct power of the steppes. If it were a normal raid, the khan would have punished the beclarbeck with death (there were precedents), but Kuremsa acted not just for the sake of robbery: as a vassal of the khan, he sought by force to take a number of possessions from another khan vassal. Such conflicts were resolved in the Horde, and therefore no penalties were applied to Kuremsa. However, Daniel turned out to be free to oppose the steppes.

The second campaign of Kuremsa in 1254 was much less impressive, even taking into account the fact that the prince with the army at that time was not in the state. Having arrived near Kremenets, he demanded that the territory be transferred to its beginning, but the city thousand was well-versed in the laws of his time, and simply presented the beclarback with a label on the possession of the Romanovichi city. An attempt to take possession of the city in this case turned into suicide, since the khan could be angry, and Kuremsa was forced to leave the territory of the principality with nothing.

It became clear that Beklyarbek will not stop trying to take away the southern destinies of the Galicia-Volyn state, and he needs to be taught a lesson. The newly-baked king of Rus did not postpone such an important matter, and already in 1254-1255 he conducted a return campaign against Kuremsa and the cities and territories dependent on it. Rusich did not stop their blow: Bakota was returned, after which a blow was inflicted on the border possessions of the Kiev land, dependent on the beclarbek. All the captured cities were included in the state of Romanovich, the campaign was very successful and relatively bloodless.

The enraged Kuremsa decided to go on a full-scale war against Daniel and Cornflower, moving into the depths of their possessions with all his horde. Alas, here he was faced with a very developed Galician-Volyn fortification and with the renewed Russian army, which could not be compared with what it fought with the Mongols in 1241. In a battle near Vladimir-Volynsky, the infantry withstood the blow of the Tatar cavalry, after which it was severely battered by the Russian cavalry, taking the victory for themselves; near Lutsk, a new defeat soon followed. Kuremsa was forced to retire into the steppe, recognizing his fiasco.

In 1258, Kurems, who showed himself rather mediocre, was succeeded by Burundai. This Tatar was not Chingizid, besides, he was very old (he was already over 70 years old), but he still had a sharp mind and, most importantly, had vast experience in wars and politics of the steppes regarding settled vassals. In the behavior of the Galicia-Volyn state, including the coronation of Danila Galitsky, the steppes saw the threat of excessive strengthening of their de jure vassal, which is why they appointed the experienced Burundai responsible for the "admonition" of the naughty Russians. Already this year, an unexpected expedition to the Lithuanians through the Russian lands followed. The Romanovichs, confronted with the fact, were forced to join Burundai at his request, and went to war on Mindovga. He considered such a move on the part of the Allies as a betrayal, and soon a new war broke out between the Russians and the Lithuanians.

Already in 1259, Burundi on behalf of the khan suddenly demanded that Daniel come to him an insert and answer for his actions. In the event of direct disobedience, all the anger of the Golden Horde would have fallen upon him. Remembering what sometimes happens with the Russian princes at the headquarters of the Mongol commanders, the king of Russia chose to act the old way, going abroad with a personal squad and two sons, Schwarn and Mstislav, in an effort to put together a coalition against the Tatars now, while at the headquarters of Burundai went Vasilko, Leo Danilovich and the Kholm bishop John with rich gifts. The King of Russia, having gone into voluntary exile, tried unsuccessfully to find new allies and even took part in the Austro-Hungarian conflict, speaking with his squad in support of Bela IV.

Realizing that the ruler was absent from his state, Burundai came with an army to the cities controlled by the Romanovichs, and began to force them to destroy their fortifications, thereby opening up access for any invasions. While the townspeople were destroying the walls, Burundi, as a rule, feasted with an absolutely calm look somewhere nearby with Cornflower and Leo. Only the city of Holm refused to destroy its walls, and Burundi, as if nothing had happened, ignored the refusal and went on. And then the Tatars raided Poland, where the Russian princes again took part, unable to go against the will of the beclarbek. At the same time, in Poland, Burundi made a classic setup: telling the inhabitants of Sandomierz that they would be spared if the city was surrendered, he actually staged a massacre, putting the Romanovichs in a bad light. Having done disgust, having deprived the majority of large cities of defense and quarreling the Romanovichs with their allies, Burundai went back to the steppe, and the chronicles do not remember him more.

Only after that, Daniel Romanovich returned to his country and began to restore the lost. Already in 1260 the alliance with the Poles was renewed, and after several years of raids and conflicts with the Lithuanians. Apparently, some work was done in terms of preparing for the restoration of city fortifications: Daniel himself was afraid to do this, but already under Leo, literally in a couple of years, all the main cities of the Galicia-Volyn state would again grow new walls and towers, better than before. Nevertheless, the actions of the cunning Burundai turned out to be much more significant in many respects than the Batu invasion in 1241. If Batu only walked through Russia with fire and a sword, showing strength, then Burundai finally and irrevocably approved the Horde power in the territory of the Romanovich state. The consequences of these events had to be raked and Daniel, and his eldest son.

My brother, my Lithuanian enemy


A very peculiar relationship at that time developed between the Romanovichs and the Lithuanians. In the middle of the XII century, a single Lithuania as such did not exist yet, but was already in the process of formation. Mindovg became the leader of this process - first the prince, and after the adoption of Catholicism, the king, the only crowned king of Lithuania. The years of his reign almost completely coincide with the years of the reign of Daniil Romanovich, therefore it is not surprising that he was connected with the king of Russia by rather close, although not always friendly relations. It all started back in 1219, when, through the mediation of Anna Angelina, the mother of Daniel, peace and an anti-Polish union were concluded with the Lithuanian princes. Among other princes, Mindovg was also called, who later appeared in the eyes of the Romanovichs as the main ruler of all Lithuanians. It was with him that negotiations were conducted, he was considered as an ally on a par with the Poles and Magyars.

The peak of relations, both friendly and hostile, fell on the time after the Battle of Yaroslavl in 1245. Then Mindovg acted as an ally of the Romanovichs, but did not manage to bring his army to the battlefield. Soon after, small and large detachments of Lithuanians, both under the control of Mindovgu, did not raid the northern territories of the Galicia-Volyn principality. Most of all the water was muddled by the Yotvingians, who managed to fairly terrorize both the Polish Mazovia and the Russian Berestye, as a result of which Daniel, united with Konrad Mazovetsky, made a successful campaign against them in 1248-49. Despite the justification of such radical measures, Mindovg took the campaign hostilely, and soon, along with the rest of the Lithuanians, he began to fight against the Romanovichs. However, this did not play in his favor: due to the conflict, Tovtivil, Mindovg’s nephew, fled to Daniil, and the Galician-Volyn troops made several campaigns to the north in support of the prince along with the Lithuanian troops loyal to him.

After this, the Galician-Volyn Principality spoke on the side of the Crusaders in early 1254. That is why Daniel was crowned in Dorogochin: the city was on the border with Mazovia, where a combined army was gathering. Around the same time, a new alliance was concluded with Mindovg: the Lithuanians transferred the son of Daniel, Roman (who managed to divorce Gertrude von Babenberg), to the direct control of Novogrudok, Slonim, Volkovysk and all the lands closest to them. At the same time, Roman became a vassal of Mindovg. In addition, the daughter of the Lithuanian prince (name unknown) married Shvarn Danilovich, another son of the king of Russia, and in the future he will even be destined to become the ruler of Lithuania for some time. After the conclusion of this world, the Lithuanians indirectly took part in the crusade against the Yatvyag, somewhat expanding both their possessions and the possessions of the Romanovichs.

The union of Lithuanians and Russians as a result turned out to be so significant that Burundai hastened to break it in 1258, having raided Lithuania with the Galicia-Volyn princes. In revenge for the betrayal, the Lithuanian princes Voyshelk (son of Mindovg) and Tovtivil (nephew) seized Roman Danilovich in Novogrudok and killed him. Oil was added to the fire and the call of the pope to Mindovg punish the "apostates" who refused to establish the Catholic rite in their country. These same Lithuanians were allowed to conquer any Romanovich lands. After that, many northern possessions were lost for the Romanovichs, and only the efforts of Prince Lev Danilovich were able to restrain the onslaught of the Lithuanians. Mindovg and Daniil did not manage to reconcile anymore, and the paths of Lithuania and Romanovich began to diverge more and more every year.

End of the board


King Daniil Romanovich. Board finale

After his return from voluntary exile, Daniil Romanovich gathered all his relatives, near and far, and spent a lot of “work on the mistakes”. He tried to reconcile with all his relatives, with whom he managed to quarrel because of his flight from the country. Then he tried to justify his actions: by fleeing from Burundai, he actually took all the blame for the misconduct and thus minimized damage to the state. The relatives accepted the arguments, and the relationship between them and the king was restored. Despite this, it was at that meeting that the seeds of future problems and enmity were sown, and the eldest son of Daniel, Leo, even quarreled with his father, although he accepted his will. After making a number of important decisions, which will be discussed later, the princes left, recognizing the return of power to the hands of the king of Russia. In 1264, just two years after returning from exile, Daniel died after a long illness, which he was supposed to have been ill for two years.

The reign of this prince, the first king of Russia, was marked by such large-scale changes that it would be difficult to list them all. In terms of the effectiveness and revolutionism of his rule, he is comparable with the local “giants” of his era: Vladimir and Casimir the Great, Yaroslav the Wise and many others. Fighting almost regularly, Daniel was able to avoid huge losses, and even towards the end of his reign the Galician-Volyn army was numerous, and the human resources of his lands were far from exhausted. The army itself was transformed, the first really massive combat-ready (by the standards of its time) infantry appeared in Russia. Instead of a squad, the local army began to equip the cavalry, although, of course, it was not yet called such. Given to the heirs, this army will continue to cover itself with glory until the moment when the Romanovich dynasty begins to rapidly fade away.

At the same time, despite constant wars, the Mongol invasion and large-scale ruin, South-Western Russia under Daniel continued to develop, and the pace of this development was comparable to the pre-Mongol “golden age” of Russia, when the population grew rapidly, as did the number of cities and villages. Absolutely everyone was used as settlers, including Polovtsy, a significant number of whom settled in Volyn in the 1250s. Trade, fortification, and crafts developed, thanks to which, in economic and technological terms, the Galicia-Volyn land did not lag behind other Europeans and was probably ahead of the rest of Russia at that time. The political authority of the Romanovich state was also high: even after the failure of the union of Daniel, they continued to be called the king of Russia and, contrary to everything, were considered equal to the kings of Hungary, Bohemia and other Central European states of that time. True, having achieved significant success by the mid-1250s, Daniel then largely took a step back because of his decisions made after returning from exile, which made the result of the reign somewhat blurred. In addition, the king of Russia, wanting to free himself from the influence of the Horde, showed real fanaticism and truly senile obstinacy, which actually led to a split in the Romanovich family. This issue will be considered in detail in the following articles.

The nature of statehood and state power has changed. Despite the preservation of the basic principles of the staircase, nothing prevented the principality from inheriting according to primogeniture, except for the will of the king himself. The state was built as centralized and could remain so under a strong monarch on the throne. The state elite has changed dramatically. The old boyars with his small-town thinking and oligarchic manners went into oblivion. In its place came a new boyar, which included both progressive representatives of the old clans and new families of citizens, rural free community members and merchant children who wished to go through military service. She was still knowing, masterful and ambitious, but, unlike in the past, the boyars acquired state thinking, saw the dependence of personal profit on the general and therefore became the faithful support of sovereigns who took power in strong hands, and had goals that were clear to everyone.

Daniil Galitsky built a strong, promising state that had considerable potential. After take-off, a fall usually follows, and the Romanovichs were literally surrounded on all sides by strong enemies who had not yet slipped into the abyss of internal problems, so the end should have been quick and probably bloody. Fortunately, the heir of Daniil Galitsky was able enough to not only preserve, but also increase the inheritance of his father. Unfortunately, he will be destined to become the last quite gifted representative of the Romanovich dynasty, capable of effectively managing the state in such difficult conditions.

Sons of Daniel Romanovich


Having talked about the rule of Prince Daniil of Galitsky, one cannot help but talk about his sons.

Very little is known about the first and eldest son, Heraclius. He was born around 1223, clearly had a Greek name, which he got because of his mother, but for unknown reasons he died before 1240. Probably, the cause of the death of the prince was some disease, although, alas, there is no exact evidence for this.

The third son was called Roman. He managed for some time to be the duke of Austria, and then the prince of Novogrudok. Apparently, he was a good commander, but died early as a result of a conspiracy of Lithuanian princes who decided to take revenge on the Romanovichs for breaking the alliance with Mindovg. The very union that Romanovich forced to break Burundai.

The fourth son bore a rather unusual name, Schwarn, proved to be a good commander and was one of his father's most trusted personalities. This Romanovich, despite his Russian origin, was completely bogged down in Lithuanian affairs since the 1250s and can serve as a clear illustration of how closely the fate of Russia and Lithuania was connected at that time. Mindovg’s son-in-law, a friend and comrade-in-arms of Wojshelk, he lived almost his entire conscious life in the territories controlled by Lithuania, and played a significant political role there, at some point even being her grand duke.

The youngest, fourth son was called Mstislav. He was the least capable and outstanding of all the brothers, did not participate much in the large projects of his relatives, and tried to maintain peaceful relations with them. At the same time, he turned out to be a good prince precisely from the point of view of government: having settled in Lutsk after 1264, and after the death of Vasilkovich in Vladimir-Volynsky, he was actively engaged in the development of his lands, the construction of cities, churches and fortifications, and took care of the cultural life of his subjects . Nothing is known of his heirs, but the later princes of Ostrog, one of the most influential Orthodox magnates of the Kingdom of Poland, indicated their origin precisely from Mstislav.

And here is the second son ...

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Kingdom of Russia. European and Horde politics
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
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ros 56
    Ros 56 25 June 2020 06: 39
    -9
    There were princes and kings in Russia, but did not hear something about kings.
    1. Kronos
      Kronos 25 June 2020 10: 09
      -4
      Emperors they are kings
    2. arturpraetor
      25 June 2020 16: 18
      11
      If you haven’t heard, it doesn’t. that it was not. Daniil of Galitsky was crowned precisely as the king of Russia.
      1. Smoke
        Smoke 26 June 2020 16: 25
        -2
        and what is the legitimacy of this "king" in Russia?)) In what documents is he called a king in Russia?
        1. arturpraetor
          26 June 2020 16: 45
          +2
          And what was the significance of Russia after the Mongols subjugated it? smile In correspondence with other European states, Daniel was called the king before the coronation. Like Lev Danilovich, who was never crowned. Alas and ah, the title cannot be reduced to Russia alone. This was understood by Peter the Great, who instead of the traditionally Russian, but not having a large title of the king chose the title of emperor.
          1. Smoke
            Smoke 26 June 2020 22: 21
            -1
            and where does the external factors .... we are talking about who in Russia called him king ...
          2. Ros 56
            Ros 56 7 August 2020 06: 07
            0
            What nonsense, weight in those days, and even now, perhaps, had strength. And she dictated whom and how to call.
    3. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 26 June 2020 10: 09
      +6
      Quote: Ros 56
      There were princes and kings in Russia, but did not hear something about kings.

      Quote: Kronos
      Emperors they are kings

      Russian princes in Europe were called kings - rex - king of Suzdal, king of Novgorod, etc. Not "duke" - duke - namely rex - "king".
      According to European standards, emperors stood above the kings. Before the advent of the Mongols in Europe, two empires were known - the Byzantine and the Holy Roman. With the arrival of the Mongols, a third appeared, headed by the khan, whom the Russians called, like the Byzantine emperor, tsar, that is, "Caesar" or "Caesar". So in the concept of Europeans, Russian princes were really kings.
      The handing over to Daniel of the crown of the "King of Russia" on behalf of the Pope was probably supposed to mean, in their opinion, Daniel's transfer to the jurisdiction of the Holy Roman Empire. Therefore, the king of "Rus", in order to create a legal precedent, a reason to intervene, if an opportunity presents itself, into Russian affairs. But the case did not turn up.
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 26 June 2020 11: 24
        +1
        Thank you very much for the clarification, I just simply did not know, but they didn’t tell us this at school and somehow I didn’t meet us in books.
      2. Ryazan87
        Ryazan87 26 June 2020 12: 07
        0
        Mikhail, in connection with this Klimzhuk construction of knowledge of empires, I have two questions, if you may:
        1.
        Before the advent of the Mongols in Europe, two empires were known - the Byzantine and the Holy Roman.

        What about the Latin Empire? Still, it is difficult to identify it with Byzantium at 100%. Next, the question is about the Nicene Empire. Which of them is a real empire for Europeans?
        2.
        With the advent of the Mongols, a third appeared, led by the khan,

        What is the basis for the confidence that the Europeans will grant the Mongol Khan the status of emperor? And what? Golden Horde or what is in Karokorum?
        3. And curious about the caliph of the faithful. He does not pull on the emperor according to European concepts? Yes, not even a caliph. I don’t understand why the Mongol khan is emperor, and, say, Saladin is not. What is the criterion? Later, as for the Ottoman Empire, no one seemed to doubt that it was an empire, even though it ruled the sultan.
        Or is it exclusively about Russians, and not about Europeans in general?
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 26 June 2020 14: 19
          +4
          This question cannot be approached with dogmatic rigor - and only that way. Who was called - not so important, it is important who was perceived. Actually, both the Byzantine and the Holy Roman Empire to the XIII century. in essence, they were pure fantasy, memory, tradition, but emperors, not even possessing real power, possessed a certain sacredness in the minds of people.
          The "empires" listed by you possessed "imperial" status only to the extent that they were the legal successors of the former empire.
          The world of Islam in general did not pretend to be "imperial", even nominally and in the eyes of Europeans was not something uniform.
          Quote: Ryazanets87
          What is the criterion?

          I don’t know if he is at all.
          Saladin and Richard considered each other as equal and at the same time, Richard recognized the primacy of Barbarossa. The Mongol ilkhans addressed the European kings as equals, recognizing the seniority of the great khan in Karakorum. Russian princes - the owners of lands for Europe - are kings, the specific princes in these lands are dukes, and the emperor was not in Russia.
          The criterion was in their heads, and not the fact that the same criterion. Arabs, Mongols and Europeans certainly did not have a common nomenclature or ranking table.
    4. From Germany
      From Germany 6 August 2020 15: 13
      0
      Daniil Galitsky was granted the title of King of Russia from Pope Innocent IV. For the fact that he betrayed the Orthodox faith and promised to establish Catholicism on "his" lands.
  2. Edward Vashchenko
    Edward Vashchenko 25 June 2020 06: 46
    +8
    Thank you for the article!
    Interesting guesses that have roots in historiography, especially of the past and the year before last, but which, alas, go against the modern view of the development of the lands of ancient Russia.
    For example, in boyars. There is no evidence, and, accordingly, no possibility to believe that some "old" boyars were replaced by a new one in Western Russia. But there is an analysis of boyar estates in Novgorod, conducted by V.L. Yanin, who showed their invariability throughout the period under consideration.
    About the "local" army - there is also no data. The local army - roughly - is the beginning, at least, of feudalism.
    The structure of ancient Russia: social and military did not change in any way, there were princes more warlike and more successful, like Daniel, everything was built around this, but he did not affect the structure of society. Which led in the near future to the fall of Western Russia.
    hi
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 25 June 2020 06: 58
      +3
      Novgorod is Novgorod. Here we have South - West completely different conditions, the idea of ​​planting soldiers on the ground with conditional holding is quite obvious, it seems that something like this appears in the north-east of Russia in the 13th century.
      1. arturpraetor
        25 June 2020 16: 36
        +3
        Quote: Cartalon
        it seems in the northeast of Russia in the 13th century something like this appears.

        Purely IMHO and another hypothesis, but in the Northeast, the conditions for the formation of something like this already existed by the end of the XII century. But conditions are one thing, and actual implementation is another. Due to the fragmentation of the VSK, the invasion of Batu and a number of subsequent events, the local army began to be created only in the XIV century, when the princes of Moscow managed to sufficiently centralize power.
        1. arturpraetor
          25 June 2020 18: 20
          +3
          Sorry, the amendment - not in the XIV, but in the XV century.
    2. arturpraetor
      25 June 2020 16: 30
      +3
      Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
      For example, boyars. There is no evidence, and, accordingly, no possibility to believe that some "old" boyars were replaced by a new one in Western Russia.

      The "old" and "new" are not so much about personalities and births as about mentality. Nothing like the Galician boyar arbitrariness was no longer seen in the region after Daniil Galitsky, this is still a fairly significant indicator.
      Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
      About the "local" army - there is also no data. The local army - roughly - is the beginning, at least, of feudalism.

      To be honest, I don’t remember this information exactly where I got it from, and this is definitely just a hypothesis - but a logical hypothesis that fits into the picture of what is happening. It is known that Daniel created an army loyal not to individual boyars, and not dependent on them, but completely tied to the supreme ruler, i.e. centralized army. There are simply no other ways besides the introduction of feudalism and the creation of a local army, a sufficiently large and efficient cavalry, depending on the prince, could not be created at that time. In addition, the GVK boyars organically merged into the Polish gentry (the one that survived after the wars of 1340-1392), from which we can conclude that they had the same socio-political and socio-economic basis. And the Polish gentry was formed from the XII-XIII centuries along a similar path - the distribution of princely and crown lands of the petty nobility in exchange for military service. That is, GVK had a very close and very similar role model.

      I repeat, this is just a hypothesis, but from my bell tower it looks much more plausible than the preservation of the old model of manning cavalry (i.e. several hundred close squads + boyar militias, which may simply not come to the call - with such an army, Daniel is not particularly would have fought). Moreover, the "pacification" of the large boyars, clearly carried out by Daniel, in other states throughout Europe was often carried out precisely at the expense of the development of the small boyars, reducing the dependence of the princely army on the will of the large boyars. This adds one more reason to consider the appearance of a local army and the introduction of feudalism quite likely.
      Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
      The structure of ancient Russia: social and military did not change

      Russia as a whole - yes. GVK .... Doubtful. Under Daniil it is not so bright, but under Lev Danilovich it will already be noticeable that the state resembles European feudalism rather than the traditional Russian socio-political and socio-economic structure. As for the army, it was, perhaps, unique in its structure and organization in the GVK for both Russia and the nearest countries.
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 25 June 2020 17: 48
        +3
        Excuse me generously, but your statements about the formation of a local army are not based on any documents or at least narrative sources? Just your guesses?
        1. arturpraetor
          25 June 2020 17: 55
          +2
          No, about distributing land to small boyars in exchange for their military service directly with the prince, I met several times in historical studies. This is not a solid, 100% fact, but as I have already said, there is enough indirect evidence that such a thing could take place, which makes this hypothesis very likely, at least in the eyes of a man who devotes a lot of time to studying methods of manning armies , social policy and social economy. And since the articles are an expression of the author’s point of view, this hypothesis is voiced as the main one.

          However, as it was said in the first article of the cycle - this is not "it was so. I swear by my mother", but only the author's vision of a holistic picture of the development of South-Western Russia according to the sources studied, which are also presented in incomplete form there.
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon 25 June 2020 17: 59
            +2
            Then it’s too bold, that is, it’ll come down for this site, but it’s better not to enter into a discussion with Klim Zhukov if you link to it.
            1. arturpraetor
              25 June 2020 18: 16
              +4
              Quote: Cartalon
              Then it’s too bold, that is, it’ll come down for this site

              I did not take information from the ceiling. The percent of 98 abstracts in the cycle are taken from historical research.
              Quote: Cartalon
              but it’s better not to enter into a discussion with Klim Zhukov

              If Klim Zhukov is absolute authority for you, then you and I have nothing to talk about. I somehow prefer more serious and balanced historians like Froyanov, Mayorov or Voitovich, who study specific questions for a long time. Klim Zhukov, with all its advantages, is trying to be a specialist in everything from the history of Russia to the Hochseeflot - and therefore does not look like an authority on anything in my eyes. A good popularizer for those who know nothing or know little. Not the best historian to study narrow and complex issues.
              1. Cartalon
                Cartalon 25 June 2020 18: 20
                0
                I’m too old to have absolute authority, I just ate Zhukov a lot in the last couple of months, he understands naval affairs at the amateur level, but he seems to know about medieval Russia.
                1. arturpraetor
                  25 June 2020 18: 30
                  +2
                  Quote: Cartalon
                  but it seems that he knows about medieval Russia.

                  You understand the problem .... About Russia, especially its social policy, social economy and other things, now there are hypotheses. Not a concrete, solid knowledge of what was there. For example, the historian Tolochko puts forward one model, Froyanov and Mayorov - the other, EMNIP Karl Marx generally proposed the third. There are other theories, and they also have supporters. In the process of dialogue between supporters of different hypotheses, these same hypotheses can be revised and refined, acquiring new features and discarding old ones. Some are more justified, some are less, but it is not possible to finally select one hypothesis and discard the others with a balanced analysis. It is enough to delve into the study of the topic from more than one source to understand how history is a science of hypotheses, and how little specificity is in it, especially on such long-standing issues. But this is too difficult for the layman, and for mass culture too, because there, as a rule, the selected hypotheses (often strictly for subjective reasons) are declared the ultimate truth.

                  Zhukov also has hypotheses, and he has every right to put forward them, but this does not make them absolutely correct. I'm not saying that "he is wrong, I swear by my mother." But from my point of view, his hypotheses are much less plausible and substantiated than those of the same Froyanov and Mayorov. The latter has a huge work on social policy of the GVK of 600 pages, not counting a separate work on the history of the GVK itself, which, alas, I never managed to get hold of, plus a huge number of articles and notes on this topic. And he deals specifically with this topic or related to them, without jumping to any others, i.e. spends more time studying the issue.
                  1. Cartalon
                    Cartalon 25 June 2020 18: 56
                    0
                    Well, look, so that a local army would appear in the Northeast, a minimum of a century would be needed, but at the beginning of the century you get princes and squads, cities in themselves and generally complete chaos, what kind of conditional landownership is there if whose land is Allah alone, and in the middle of the century local army, does this happen at all?
                    1. arturpraetor
                      25 June 2020 20: 28
                      +2
                      Quote: Cartalon
                      a local army appeared in the east, it took a minimum of a century

                      In the Northeast, centralization of power was required to create a local army. With the exception of this, the prerequisites for its formation IMHO formed much earlier. Alas and ah, the invasion of Batu most strongly affected it in the Northeast, inhibiting its development. Therefore, taking Vladimir-Suzdal and Moscow as a standard is somewhat wrong.
                      Quote: Cartalon
                      and in the middle of the century a local army, does this happen at all?

                      It happens. We have a close example of Poland - where the development of society in the XII-XIII centuries is known quite accurately, and there the scenario just happened - the transition from princes with squads to feudalism, by distributing princely (crown) lands to petty chivalry in exchange for service. In Poland - chivalry, in Russia - nobility and nobility (already in later times). And considering how close GVK is to Poland geographically .... In general. I repeat - the Northeast can not be the standard here.
                  2. Edward Vashchenko
                    Edward Vashchenko 26 June 2020 06: 49
                    +1
                    Friends,
                    wanted to add
                    Zhukov is really a very good popularizer, one might say, a fighter with historical amateurism and an alternative.
                    He himself studied at St. Petersburg State University, there are very few scientific works, at the level of small articles in collections.
                    Compare with I.Ya. Frolov is not correct, Froyanov is the one on whose shoulders historical science stands. Without them, the lovers couldn’t even talk about anything, because, as I already wrote in the article on VO, even the Chronicle will not read6 and if it does, we won’t understand anything.
                    All the "hypotheses" of amateurs, no offense, are a finger in the sky, if they, like the Froyans, are not built on the study of historical sources.
                    This, by the way, by the way about the distribution of land in Western Russia, is not in the documents, and in those conditions it could not be: there is a sea of ​​communities with armed men around.
                    But back to the hypotheses: Tolochko is a supporter of classical feudalism.
                    Until 1991, approximately, everything was divided into supporters of the aging of feudalism and historians united around LSU-SPBGU - supporters of the pre-feudal society of ancient Russia. After (approximately) 1991, the conjecture forced many to "flee" from Marx, inventing all kinds of exoticism. Back in the 80s, G.S. Lebedev, for example, "invented" the Circumbaltic theory, something like this.
                    Although the theory of I.Ya. Froyanov, who has roots in pre-revolutionary historiography, does not argue with Markov's theory, the pre-class period is the organization of society generally accepted in world history.
                    1. Ryazan87
                      Ryazan87 26 June 2020 12: 15
                      +1
                      Zhukov is really a very good popularizer, one might say, a fighter with historical amateurism and an alternative.

                      In this case, he leads a desperate struggle with himself. A good PR man Puchkov + a story about historical processes with gop-jokes and ritual praises of the USSR = success in a large part of the modern Russian audience.
                      What a table - such a chair.
                    2. arturpraetor
                      26 June 2020 16: 14
                      +1
                      Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
                      and in those conditions it couldn’t be: there was a sea of ​​communities with armed men around.

                      After centralization, in the GVK, and even in other principalities of Russia, there was enough princely lands, which were the personal domain of the ruler, and he could dispose of them at his discretion. Moreover, this land was not always with its communities. Without a significant change in the structure of society, Casimir III already received them in the form of crowns, and there were a lot of them in Galicia alone. If all the land were distributed among the communities, then it would not have been possible to establish new communities and cities at the expense of prisoners of war and migrants, and this was done regularly. After the strong personal power of the prince was established - and the Romanovichi state was originally built, and by the 1250s it was formed just as sufficiently centralized by the standards of Russia - nothing prevented from embarking on the introduction of feudalism.

                      It can be expressed in another way - instead of distributing feeds from princely lands to large boyars, who often resisted the will of Daniel, the prince decided to distribute feeds to small boyars, not giving too much in one hand, but at the same time requiring mandatory military service. It sounds more familiar to our ears, but in essence it is the same feudalism, the same local army.
                      1. Edward Vashchenko
                        Edward Vashchenko 26 June 2020 20: 06
                        +1
                        Dear Artem,
                        guesses are good, but nothing about this in the sources. Nothing.
  3. Cartalon
    Cartalon 25 June 2020 06: 53
    +2
    As for statehood, centralization, they take big doubts.
    For me, since there were possessions that could go to anyone, depending on the situation, they remained.
  4. Olgovich
    Olgovich 25 June 2020 07: 09
    -3
    The deputy of the prince obeyed the will of Kuremsa, and the city temporarily passed under the direct power of the steppes. Had this been an ordinary raid, the khan would have punished the beclarbeck with death. but Kuremsa did not act simply for the sake of robbery: as a vassal of the khan, he sought by force to take a number of possessions from another khan's vassal. Such conflicts were resolved in the Horde

    и
    Having arrived near Kremenets, he demanded that the territory be transferred to its beginning, but the city thousand was well-versed in the laws of his time, and simply presented the beclarback with a label on the possession of the city of Romanovich. An attempt to take possession of the city in this case turned into suicide, since the khan could be angry, and Kuremsa was forced to leave the territory of the principality with nothing.


    then the seizures of the possessions of another vassal are allowed, then ... no longer, no logic ...
    appointed responsible for the "admonition" of the naughty Rus Rus experienced Burundai. Already this year, an unexpected expedition to the Lithuanians through the Russian lands followed. The Romanovichs, confronted with the fact, were forced to join Burundai at his request, and went to war on Mindovga.

    What is the disobedience of the so-called. "King" Daniel? Where the supernumerary Mongol ordered to go to fight, there he ran ...
    Burundi came with an army to the cities controlled by the Romanovichs, and began to force them to destroy their fortifications, thereby opening up access for any invasions. While the townspeople were destroying the walls, Burundi, as a rule, feasted with an absolutely calm look somewhere nearby with Cornflower and Leo.
    It is immediately evident that the "king" was "strong" and "independent": he fled abroad, leaving the country to the mercy of fate, and his subordinates get drunk with the invaders and demolish ... their own fortresses, coaxing them ...
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 25 June 2020 08: 03
      +2
      Burundai was not a freelance Mongol, and the fact that there is no statehood in our understanding, of course, the prince left, which means if he is not responsible for what would have been decided without him.
    2. arturpraetor
      25 June 2020 16: 47
      +2
      Quote: Olgovich
      then the seizures of the possessions of another vassal are allowed, then ... no longer, no logic ...

      There is logic - a label is a label, but no one interferes with force or fright to force to give up possession. In Kremenets, they figured out to show Kurems the label, and he was forced to leave, otherwise he could have received a hat from the khan. And in Bakota they got scared and surrendered, forgetting about the label, and Kuremsa quite legally took the city for himself - "I'm not like that, they surrendered themselves."
      Quote: Olgovich
      What is the disobedience of the so-called. "King" Daniel?

      Firstly, he was crowned and increased his status, i.e. strengthened power and influence, remaining de jure vassal of the khan - which was unacceptable, because a strong vassal seeks separation and independence. Secondly, Daniel showed that he can effectively fight the steppes by defeating Kurems. Thirdly, Daniel actively formed alliances with his neighbors, and he did not have to be a genius to understand who they were directed against.
      Quote: Olgovich
      It is immediately evident that the "king" was "strong" and "independent": he fled abroad, leaving the country to the mercy of fate, and his subordinates get drunk with the invaders and demolish ... their own fortresses, coaxing them ...

      First, oddly enough, Daniel saved the GVK from ruin with his flight. The loss of walls by the cities is only a small loss in comparison with what the Tatars did in the Northeast for disobedience, and Burundi needed humility just what it was much easier for him to achieve after the expulsion of the Buyan ruler. Secondly, Burundai himself organized feasts, since the princes were actually held hostage by him. A kind of subtle political move - and a stick and a carrot. Plus, seeing princes feasting with Tatars in such conditions, the local population could lose faith in their rulers.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 26 June 2020 09: 30
        -5
        Quote: arturpraetor
        There is logic - a label is a label, but no one interferes with force or fright to force to give up possession. In Kremenets, they figured out to show Kurems the label, and he was forced to leave, otherwise he could have received a hat from the khan. And in Bakota they got scared and surrendered, forgetting about the label, and Kuremsa quite legally took the city for himself - "I'm not like that, they surrendered themselves."

        no, I repeat, logic: both there and there are known khanate possessions (or did the khan not know them?), but one is captured, the other ... no.

        What is the difference to the khan whether Kurens knew or not about belonging (although it is hard to believe that he did not know) - ignorance does not exempt from punishment - for insulting.
        Quote: arturpraetor
        Firstly, he was crowned and raised your status, i.e. strengthened strength and influence, remaining de jure vassal of the khan

        Among WHOM did his "status" rise? belay

        Who in Russia recognized these appropriators of "royal" titles? Nobody.

        Amusing ..."king". lol
        Quote: arturpraetor
        Secondly, Daniel showed that he can effectively fight the steppes by defeating Kurems.

        He showed that he can’t effectively deal with the steppes, shamefully FIRING abroad from them and leaving his country
        Quote: arturpraetor
        First, oddly enough, Daniel saved the GVK from ruin with his flight. The loss of walls by the cities is only a small damage compared to what the Tatars did in the Northeast for their disobedience, and Burundi needed humility just what it was much easier for him to achieve after the expulsion of the Buyan ruler.

        Well-known position - relax and have fun. So he relaxed. And received.
        Such is .... "brawler"

        Who ... expelled him?
        He himself escaped.
      2. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 26 June 2020 10: 58
        +5
        I have always seen this epic with Kuremsa and Burunday much easier and this does not require such assumptions as "forgot to show the label."
        Daniel was weighed down by dependence on the Mongols, and wanted to get rid of it. I must say that he is not alone - Andrei Yaroslavich, Nevsky’s brother, held the same point of view. And so, one fine day, in the year 1251-52, both of them suddenly stopped paying tribute to the Horde. Nevruy spoke against Andrei, against Daniel - Kurems, just to force both of them to submit to humility. Nevryuya’s campaign was completely successful, Kuremsa’s campaign did not succeed — Daniel prepared to reflect it really qualitatively, and the commander Kuremsa (Batu’s cousin, by the way) was, apparently, weak, trampling began. Seeing the helplessness of Kuremsa, Batu sent Burundai in his place, adding troops to it. Seeing the prospects, and making sure that all his hopes for help from Rome and other European brethren turned out to be naive dreams, and that when it came to business everyone ran into the bushes, Daniel, as a sober-minded politician, decided not to show off anymore and further behaved from the point of view of the Mongols decently.
        1. arturpraetor
          26 June 2020 15: 56
          +1
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          Daniel was weighed down by dependence on the Mongols, and wanted to get rid of it. I must say that he is not alone - Andrei Yaroslavich, Nevsky’s brother, held the same point of view. And so, one fine day, in the year 1251-52, both of them suddenly stopped paying tribute to the Horde. Nevruy spoke against Andrei, against Daniel - Kurems, just to force both of them to submit to humility.

          This is the traditional point of view of historians - that the hikes of Nevryu and Kuremsa are connected. But there are enough inconsistencies, due to which the hypothesis appeared that Kuremsa decided to "self-propelled" to seize part of Daniel's territories - otherwise, for example, Kremenets would not have been able to frighten him off with a khan's label. What difference does it make what label was presented there, if everything is done according to the will of the khan? In addition, the Horde were not distinguished by humanism, and a cruel punishment would follow the defeat of their own - but in real life they sent Burunday, who acted with cunning, not force, and caused great damage only to the city walls and alliances. This is enough for me to doubt the traditional version of Kuremsa's punitive campaign.
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 26 June 2020 16: 24
            +2
            The classic version nevertheless explains a few more circumstances and does not require such, as it seems to me, a naive assumption that in one city they remembered the label and forgot in the other. There are a lot of people in the city - if they had such a thing that you show it - and all the troubles are behind, someone would have remembered about it. smile
            And here, right, it’s very in color — Daniel’s focus on breaking with the Mongols, his kinship with Andrey, the search for allies in the west, the simultaneous appearance ...
            There is also a good explanation for the "humanity" of Burundi. It was during the period of his campaign that the ulus Jochi finally ended up in opposition to the Karakorum and, as in the case of the unrest in the Armed Forces, when the Mongol (imperial) Baskaks were killed (again, at about the same time), it was even advantageous for Khan Berke. The imperial officials were "removed" - they established their own order. So, before Berke, Daniel, like Alexander Nevsky, was essentially not guilty. Burundai's campaign is a show of force, not a punitive action.
  5. Korsar4
    Korsar4 25 June 2020 07: 27
    +6
    How typical was the Kuremsa campaign for the Horde?
    In one case, the presence of a Khan's label does not interfere with the redrawing of borders, but in another it interferes.
    1. arturpraetor
      25 June 2020 16: 50
      +3
      Quote: Korsar4
      How typical was the Kuremsa campaign for the Horde?

      It is difficult to say, I have not studied the whole range of relationships in the Horde. But considering what I know - it happened in every way. Although on the site of Kuremsa, it would be more profitable to put GVK in direct dependence on yourself, and not be content with border cities.
      Quote: Korsar4
      In one case, the presence of a Khan's label does not interfere with the redrawing of borders, but in another it interferes.

      To prevent a shortcut from something, you still need to remember about it smile I have already given an example above - Bakota, in response to Kuremsa's demands, immediately gave up, forgetting about the label. Yes, and Kuremsa, to be honest, does not seem to me a genius of politics, and therefore I could hope just for a certain Mongol-Tatar "maybe" that the Romanovichs would not remember about the khan's label.
  6. parusnik
    parusnik 25 June 2020 07: 56
    +5
    If South-Western Russia would be a stable state formation, then it would include Lithuanian lands, but on the contrary, Lithuania and Poland would include south-western Russian lands ... And the Russian princes turned into Lithuanian and Polish magnates.
    1. arturpraetor
      25 June 2020 16: 54
      +2
      The trouble is that the GVK de facto ceased to exist more than 100 years after the death of Daniil Romanovich, the war for its territory ended only in 1392. Do not you think that for an unstable state education this is somehow a bit much? smile And I will repeat the analogy from the previous article - was Aragon a weak and feeble kingdom, since it was inherited by the kings of Castile? With the GVK, everything is exactly the same - the ruling dynasty was suppressed, there were no Rurikovichs left on the territory of the principality, therefore dynastic ties "turned on". And there, first, the Mazovian Piast was invited to rule, and then the Lithuanians became heirs.
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 25 June 2020 17: 48
        0
        So this is the vitality of the state, that after the suppression of the dynasty, the state continues to exist ... After the suppression of the Rurik dynasty in Russia, the state did not cease to exist despite the turmoil organized by the elites .. About GVK, well, what are these 100 years were there? GVK strengthened its vitality? ... No, it did it ... As long as Poland and Lithuania did not completely divide among themselves ... Yes, about Aragorn after the death of Isabella Aragorn and Castile split, purely formally .. But no one inherited anything It seems the grandson of Isabella and Fernado united again.
        1. arturpraetor
          25 June 2020 18: 06
          +1
          Quote: parusnik
          So this is the viability of the state, that after the suppression of the dynasty, the state continues to exist ...

          You too simplistically understand the fate of states under the rule of dynasties and active dynastic politics. In addition, you, like many others, somehow pull the situation of the end of the existence of the GVK to its entire existence, which is fundamentally wrong. Different times, different people and different realities.
          Quote: parusnik
          After the suppression of the Rurik dynasty in Russia, the state did not cease to exist

          Because the conditions were so developed, and legitimate heirs were found within Russia itself. I remind you that Moscow princes and Russian tsars, with rare exceptions, entered into marriages with local nobles, not foreigners. The Romanovichs were looking for marriages abroad, since the foreign policy of their time required it, and in the GVK itself, alas, there were essentially no princes other than the Romanovichs. That is, either to marry with the boyars, which is still considered a bad manners, or to look for spouses abroad. And in this case, when the dynasty is suppressed, the state automatically inherits to the one who was more fortunate during the conclusion of dynastic marriages.

          In short, do not pull the realities of Russia of the XVI-XVII centuries on the GVK of the XIV century.
          Quote: parusnik
          GVK strengthened its vitality? ... No, no .. it turned around as it could.

          In the late period, yes. In the XIII century, this was not yet traced, Lev Danilovich, in conditions of the actual fragmentation of the GVK (thanks to dad), also managed to carry on the expansion. Under him, the Lithuanians had not yet practically crossed the borders of Lithuania and Polotsk proper, Lublin was recaptured from the Poles, and Transcarpathia was won from the Hungarians. What is it? Weakness and non-viability?
          Quote: parusnik
          Yes, even about Aragorn after the death of Isabella Aragorn and Castile split, purely formally .. But no one inherited anything, it seems the grandson of Isabella and Fernado united again.

          Aragon as a result inherited Carlos I, king of Castile and emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. As the oldest male descendant, Ferdinand Catholic. Because inheritance laws are laws, even in Eastern Europe, it doesn’t matter who becomes the heir. Moreover, the Aragonese nobility was not very enthusiastic - but the law is the law. The Galician-Volyn boyars, as it were, didn’t very much admire the Gediminids, but it was better than to confront the Gediminids and Casimir III alone. And the Gediminovichs would have to confront, because they had full rights to the GVK after the suppression of the Romanovichs and the death of Yuri Boleslav. The most legitimate applicants.
          1. parusnik
            parusnik 25 June 2020 19: 14
            +1
            There was still no inner core. Foreign dynastic marriages did not strengthen statehood, but there were expansion, but like the last breath, participation in dynastic wars. The state did not strengthen internally. The last was Vladimir Lvovich, if I am not mistaken. Chronicles say little about him. With his death, dynastic quarrels began and not surprisingly. As a result, they tacked, tacked for 100 years, but never caught.
            1. arturpraetor
              25 June 2020 20: 34
              +3
              Quote: parusnik
              The state did not strengthen internally.

              Until a certain point - it got stronger. The trouble is that the dynastic crisis in the GVK happened just when there was a serious strengthening of both Lithuania and Poland. Do not forget also natural disasters (at the beginning of the XIV century the population was mowed by crop failures, famines and epidemics), and the disgusting qualities of Yuri Lvovich, because of which the state sank very much, and did not get out of this hole. From that moment, the GVK really survived and was in decline, but to begin with the reign of Daniil Galitsky was too bold, and with little reason.
              Quote: parusnik
              The last was Vladimir Lvovich, if not mistaken.

              The existence of which has not been proven. The last proven rulers of the GVK are Andrei and Lev Yurievich. Under them, the situation stabilized, but both prince-co-rulers perished in the war with the Tatars. If Yuri Lvovich is the beginning of the end, then his children are the point of no return. From that moment on, there was a stable crisis of the central government in the GVK - there were no "own" legitimate rulers who could stand at the head of the state.
      2. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 26 June 2020 11: 24
        -1
        Quote: arturpraetor
        Aragon ... was inherited by the kings of Castile

        Inherited completely, and not divided between participants in the process.
        The history is full of examples when, due to the absence of direct male heirs, their relatives began to rule the state, including along female lines, sometimes these relatives themselves were the rulers of their own lands, then a dynastic union was created, which could last for several centuries, but could disintegrate quickly. For Europe, it was a normal practice. Within the framework of the union, two states, led by one monarch, had a certain independence and independence, and after the collapse of the union, they regained full sovereignty within their former borders.
        Why didn’t such a story happen with GVK? Why was he torn to pieces until they were finished off?
        In my opinion, precisely because, unlike Aragon, the GVK was a loose and unstable entity, at the critical moment of its existence, it failed to consolidate within itself. Actually, the land could not show its will, choose its path, lounging, first of all, mentally.
        And, of course, it was Daniel and no one else who laid the foundation for this collapse by his rule. By the end of his reign, GVK was no longer Russia, but it was not Europe. With his successors, the situation only worsened. How it ended we know.
        1. arturpraetor
          26 June 2020 15: 57
          +3
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          Inherited completely, and not divided between participants in the process.

          The GVK was divided after 52 years of war, where the Poles simply squeezed the territory out of a position of strength, and by no means quickly and cheaply - otherwise the Lithuanians and the local Orthodox boyars would not have had to bite for so long for the sake of Galicia and Podolia. Even if there were no Poles, the GVK would cease to exist as an independent state, leaving the Gediminids. And Gediminovich ... We must understand the structure of the ON at that time. In fact, it was an association of principalities led by the Gediminids, there were tables in Kiev, in Volyn, which Lithuania inherited after the wars for the inheritance of the GVK. On the one hand, this did not abolish the remnants of the GVK entirely de jure, but de facto no longer discussed any independent state.
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 26 June 2020 16: 41
            0
            I can easily imagine this order of events.
            The Galician-Lithuanian dynastic union - the victory of Orthodoxy in Lithuania - the expansion of Lithuania to the east - the liberation from the yoke a hundred years earlier - instead of the Romanovs on the Russian throne, the Gediminids.
            It did not work out precisely because GVK was not a single land and this land did not show its own will. Someone (mostly the top) pulled in the Poles, someone to Lithuania, and the rest under the Lithuanian pagans, under the Polish Catholics ... So they tore the land into pieces.
            1. arturpraetor
              26 June 2020 16: 50
              +3
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              The Galician-Lithuanian dynastic union - the victory of Orthodoxy in Lithuania - the expansion of Lithuania to the east - the liberation from the yoke a hundred years earlier - instead of the Romanovs on the Russian throne, the Gediminids.

              I doubt it very much. At least because the Moscow Rurikovich would not have simply lost their power, and for the Gediminids, expansion to the south, to the Steppe and Crimea was much more urgent. And by the time Gediminovich’s hypothetically they could have paid serious attention to the east; Moscow would have already become much stronger. Also it hypothetically almost unreal practicallybecause Lithuania slipped too quickly to the strife, which put an end to it. Moreover, while trying to carry out centralization, they broke firewood, in particular, having abolished together with the Kiev principality the entire system of borderland protection with the Steppe at the very time when the Crimean Tatars began to gain strength.
      3. Smoke
        Smoke 26 June 2020 19: 03
        0
        here you are confusing de facto with de jure, the GVK ceased to exist de facto after the union. Since this split the society: the interests of the boyar elite began to contradict the interests of the black people. And when the question arose of what to do in a dynastic crisis, the following was revealed: Boyars did not need Rurikovichi when suppressing the local dynasty - it was more profitable for them to approve princes from Lithuania for some buns and privileges, and black people wanted a prince "their own" from Rurikovichi, and therefore no one began to fight for such a state. The fate of Veliky Novgorod can be cited as an example of such processes. When 40 thousand troops of the Novgorod militia fled from 4 thousand troops of the Moscow governor - a question of motivation, you know ...
  7. Krasnoyarsk
    Krasnoyarsk 25 June 2020 09: 14
    0
    Like previous articles, this is nothing more than a literary treatment of the spirit of three well-known facts. Of course, as befits literary, with its speculations and fantasies.
    1. arturpraetor
      25 June 2020 16: 55
      +2
      It's strange, for some reason serious historians from "two or three known facts" manage to write orders of magnitude more material than I did, and this is not "literary", but remains quite a historical research smile
  8. Red Dragon
    Red Dragon 25 June 2020 12: 51
    +1
    Dear author. Thank you for the next article from a very interesting cycle. As the story of the reign of Daniil Galitsky ended, I would like to ask you: how do you assess the role of brother Daniil, Vasilka, in the successes and failures of the elder brother and, in general, the Galicia-Volyn principality as a whole. Thanks in advance for your reply. lol
    1. arturpraetor
      25 June 2020 16: 56
      +2
      Quote: Red Dragon
      how do you assess the role of brother Daniel, Vasilka, in the successes and failures of the older brother and, in general, the Galicia-Volyn principality as a whole

      Generally positive. As a follower, he turned out to be a very useful assistant, and, apparently, was not particularly eager for power, remaining faithful to his brother. This is not to say that Vasilko was directly irreplaceable, but without him it would have been more difficult for Daniel to succeed.
      1. Red Dragon
        Red Dragon 25 June 2020 17: 50
        +1
        Thank you for the answer. wink In principle, it coincides with my assessment.
  9. Marine engineer
    Marine engineer 25 June 2020 23: 25
    +1
    ".... Lithuanian princes Vojselk (son of Mindovg) and Tovtivil (nephew) seized Roman Danilovich in Novogrudok and killed him"

    When Voyshelk killed Roman Danilovich, brother Shvarn Danilovich, allegedly for the "sins" of his father, the latter was already "friend and ally of Wojshelk" or not?
    1. arturpraetor
      26 June 2020 04: 22
      +1
      Apparently, the rapprochement of Schwarn with Wojskel began in 1264, after the death of Daniil Romanovich. Those. at the time of the assassination of Roman, they were not yet so closely connected, although they became related somewhere in the mid-1250s, when Schwarn married the daughter of Mindovg.
  10. AKS-U
    AKS-U 26 June 2020 23: 26
    +1
    And why are there some "Mongols" in the picture. The Slavs cannot be found.
  11. barin
    barin 8 July 2020 12: 29
    11
    Thank you for the article good Always interested in the meantime.