FOCUS ON PHILATELY
by Ingert Kuzych
The founding family of Kyivan Rus'
CONCLUSION TO PART I
The attack on Constantinople
Povist Vremennykh Lit (PVL) relates that in 941: "Ihor attacked the Greeks (Byzantine Empire) ... with [a fleet of] 10,000 vessels." The Rus' ravaged the countryside around the capital of Constantinople committing many atrocities, burning churches, monasteries and villages, and taking "no little booty ... Then, when the [relief] army came out of the east ... [they] surrounded the Rus'. After taking counsel, the latter threw themselves upon the Greeks, and as the conflict between them was desperate, the Greeks experienced difficulty in winning the upper hand. The Rus' returned at evening to their companions, embarked at night upon their vessels, and fled away. Theophanes pursued them in boats with Greek fire, and dropped it through pipes upon the Russian ships, so that a strange miracle was offered to view."
"Upon seeing the flames, the Rus' cast themselves into the sea-water, being anxious to escape, but the survivors returned home. When they came once more to their native land, where each one recounted to his kinfolk the course of events and described the fire launched from the ships, they related that the Greeks had in their possession the lightning from heaven, and had set them on fire by pouring it forth, so that the Rus' could not conquer them."_21_
A number of other writings corroborate details of this attack and provide further information. Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (r. 945-959) records a fairly detailed account of the assault in his "De Administrando Imperio," while passing references appear in the "Vita Basilii Iunioris" of Gregory the Monk_22_ and in an emperor's private letter._23_ Another account is given by Liudprand of Cremona, whose stepfather visited Constantinople not long after the attack. According to Liudprand, the Rus' led by a "king named Inger" (Ihor) leading a fleet of "1,000 or more" appeared unexpectedly in June of 941 and devastated the coastal areas around the city. The tide was turned by bringing out of mothballs 15 "battered old galleys" and rigging them fore, aft and sides with devices for projecting the Greek fire. Rus' boats swarmed about the galleys, which began to "project their fire all around; and the Rus', seeing the flames, hurled themselves from their boats, preferring death by water to live incineration. Some sank to the bottom under the weight [of their armor] ... others caught fire even as they were swimming among the billows." The Rus' fleet retreated to the safety of the shallows, out of reach of the Byzantine army on land and the navy's heavier-draft ships in deeper water. The two sides continued to harass each other in a number of fairly small-scale land engagements, which proved inconclusive but prevented the raiders from gaining the overall initiative. The Rus' remained in the area until September before retiring._24_
This account verifies that Ihor's attack of 941 was in the form of a major expedition, although Liudprand's figure of about 1,000 ships is certainly closer to the truth than the PVL's exaggerated 10,000. The counterattack using Greek fire was crippling and did provide the means by which the Byzantines held back the invasion. Yet, the victory was apparently not as complete as the PVL relates, since the Rus' hung on and did not immediately retreat.
Amazingly, the attack of 941 is briefly described in still one more source from that time. A mid-10th century Khazar document (sometimes termed the Schechter text), recounts events of the recent past and mentions a Rus' expedition against Constantinople, lasting four months, in which the defenders "were victorious by virtue of (Greek) fire."_25_ The surviving Rus' are said to have fled by sea. The uncanny similarities of a naval campaign, four-month sojourn in Byzantine waters and successful defense by means of a fire weapon would all seem to indicate the same campaign as described in the PVL, Byzantine chronicles and Liudprand. One "inconsistency," though, is that the "king of the Rusy" is named "Hlgu" (Helgu) or Oleh._26_ If, however, we accept that Oleh and Ihor were contemporaries who conducted joint campaigns, and that Oleh was probably a general under Ihor, then the citation is entirely compatible.
The Rus' fleet returned to its point of departure on the Cimmerian Bosporus (the Strait of Kerch along eastern Crimea)._27_ From there the forces presumably split, since it is reported that Oleh went east to campaign against Prs (Persia, in reality the southern Caspian shore);_28_ Ihor likely returned to Kyiv.
The PVL next mentions Ihor in 944 "thirsting for revenge" and collecting a vast army from various Slavic tribes. His advance on Byzantium alarmed the emperor who sent out messengers to entreat Ihor to come no nearer, but rather accept a substantial tribute. Ihor conferred with this retinue and decided to accept "from the Greeks gold and palls sufficient for his whole army, [he] returned again and came to Kyiv in his native land."_29_
This second campaign against Byzantium is considered by virtually all modem investigators to be non-historical; it was clearly invented to "cover up" the inglorious retreat of three years previous._30_ The story served, however, as a good prelude for the events next described.
A new treaty of trade
The PVL for 945 reports on the negotiation and ratification of a treaty to renew and expand an earlier (911) trade agreement between Rus' and the Byzantine Empire. Since Romanus is listed as one of the Greek emperors, the talks must have begun in 944 because this ruler was deposed on December 16, 944. Nevertheless, it may not have been until the following year that the Rus' confirmed the treaty in Kyiv. The preamble of the treaty of 945 makes no reference whatsoever to a recent hostile event as one might expect if a Rus' campaign had been undertaken in 944._31_
The treaty is remarkable for its detail and the overall impression it gives of larger numbers of Rus' now involved in exchanges with Byzantium. Noting that Rus' "agents [had] hitherto carried gold seals and the merchants silver ones" as means of accreditation, the treaty stipulates that henceforth they would be provided with a "certificate" from their prince (Ihor) specifying how many ships had been dispatched and confirming that they were coming with peaceful intent.
While this was undoubtedly a precaution against another surprise attack, it likely also reflected an increase in Rus' maritime activity. So, too, the number of names at the beginning of the documents. While the 911 treaty lists only 15 persons, the new agreement names 25 envoys and 30 merchants._32_
At the close of negotiations Ihor's agents returned to Kyiv with a number of Greek representatives. "Ihor called the Greek envoys before him, and bade them report ... [they] replied, 'The emperor has sent us. He loves peace, and desires to maintain concord and amity with the Prince of Rus'. Your envoys have received the pledge of our emperors, and they have sent us to receive your oath and that of your followers.' Ihor promised to comply with their request."
"In the morning, Ihor summoned the envoys, and went to a hill on which there was a statue of Perun. The Rus' laid down their weapons, their shields and their gold armaments, and Ihor and his people took oath (at least, such as were pagans), while the Christian Rus' took oath in the church of St. Elias ... a parish church, since many of the Varangians were Christians."
"Ihor, after confirming the treaty with the Greeks, dismissed their envoys, bestowing upon them furs, slaves and wax, and then sending them away. The envoys returned to the emperor, and reported all the words of Ihor and his affection for the Greeks. Thus, Ihor began to rule in Kyiv, enjoying peaceful relations with all nations."_33_
The chronicler's use of the word "began" is striking and was probably inadvertently left in by that writer as he was "fudging" the timeline for the early decades of the 10th century. What is implied by this word is that Ihor had not been ruler in Kyiv for that long a period. This statement would seem to support the revised chronology that Ihor (Figure 4) established himself in Kyiv in the 930s or early 940s and not in 913.
Although ruling as king in Rus' Ihor_34_ was now able to enjoy a period of tranquility, fortune was not as kind to his general, Oleh, in his eastern campaign. This venture was initially hugely successful as the Rus' fleet was able to enter the Caspian Sea and for "many months" during 942 terrorize the entire southern shoreline and even inland "three days distance." They set themselves upon some offshore islands and raided and plundered at their leisure since the Muslims had no navy with which to oppose them (only merchants and fishermen plied the sea). Finally, in 943, "laden with booty ... [they] had had enough of their adventure" and attempted to leave by way of the Volga. The Rus' were met by an army of Muslims who defeated them after a three-day land battle in which Oleh and "about 30,000" of his men perished._35_
A final campaign
When Ihor heard of Oleh's demise and the defeat of his army, he chose for himself a new voyevoda, a man by the name of Sveneld. The latter was apparently a successful war leader as his followers are described as being well-outfitted: "In this year (945), Ihor's retinue said to him, 'The servants of Sveneld are adorned with weapons and fine rainment, but we are naked [in comparison]. Go forth with us, oh Prince, after tribute, that both you and we may profit thereby.' " (Figure 5)_36_
Ihor's treasury was apparently very low and any hoped for replenishment had died with Oleh. So, Ihor heeded the urgings of his followers (druzhyna) and "he attacked Dereva in search of tribute. He sought to increase the previous tribute and collected it by violence from the people with the assistance of his followers. After thus gathering the tribute, he returned to his city. On his homeward way, he said to his followers, after some reflection, 'Go forward with the tribute. I shall turn back, and rejoin you later.' He dismissed his retainers on their journey homeward but, being desirous of still greater booty, he returned on his tracks with a few of his followers."
"The Derevlianians heard that he was again approaching, and consulted with Mal, their prince, saying, 'If a wolf comes among the sheep, he will take away the whole flock one by one, unless he be killed. If we do not thus. kill him now, he will destroy us all.' They then sent forward to Ihor inquiring why he had returned, since he had collected all the tribute. But Ihor did not heed them, and the Derevlianians came forth from the city of Iskorosten and slew Ihor and his company, for the number of the latter was few. So lhor was buried, and his tomb is near the city of Iskorosten in Dereva even to this day."_37_
He left behind his wife, Olha, and their young son, Sviatoslav. Serving as regent, Olha would prove to be a very capable administrator of her husband's realm as we shall see in next month's "Focus on Philately."
An assessment
A number of researchers have casually dismissed Ihor as an inept ruler, unsuccessful in his military enterprises and unpopular with his subjects. Such a characterization, however, does not at all square with his many accomplishments. A short description in the NPL that states "when Ihor grew up, he came to be brave and wise" is more likely nearer the mark._38_
There is no doubt that Ihor was a fine leader who commanded respect. He was able to take the city of Kyiv and firmly establish his family there - and more distant relations in other towns - so that when he died unexpectedly, the rule passed to his wife (as regent) without dispute. His reign may have lasted a decade or longer (circa 935 to 945 or a few years later).
Ihor in very many ways displayed all of the typical attributes of a Varangian warlord. That he may have taken Kyiv by treachery or artifice would not reflect unfavorably with his followers. The use of sly stratagems to capture a fortress or town was looked upon with admiration by all northmen.
Ihor's organization of a massive army and fleet that could threaten the very capital of the Byzantine Empire shows great skill in planning. The fact that the operation could be sustained for many months, even after setbacks with the Byzantine's secret weapon (Greek fire), reflects well on his leadership abilities.
Ever the realists, Varangians would settle for acquiring goods by trade if force of arms ultimately failed. So, it is entirely within his northern character for Ihor to have negotiated a treaty of trade with Byzantium a few years after the great naval expedition. The regular flow of goods - fur, wax, honey, weapons and slaves in exchange for cloth, silks, glass, silver, spices and wines_39_ would have fueled the engine of growth for the nascent Rus' state.
In short, then, Ihor was an able and sagacious ruler who did much to fashion the foundation of medieval Kyivan Rus'. He, more than anyone, deserves to be recognized as the founding father of the Kyivan Rus' dynasty.
Ingert Kuzych may be contacted at P.O. Box 3, Springfield, VA 22150 or by e-mail at [email protected].
21. PVL, pp. 71-72. The Byzantines acquired the knowledge of this terror weapon sometime between 670 and 680 from a discontented Muslim defector who became the empire's "petroleum consultant." He taught the Byzantines the formula for a petroleum mixture that would burn even in water. The Byzantine navy then built large siphons onto the bows of their ships to squirt the liquid. With this new armament they were able to break a seven-year Muslim seige of Constantinople in 680 by burning the entire Muslim flotilla at the Battle of Kyzikos. More details about this erroneously called "Greek fire" may be found in Zayn Bilkadi's article "The Oil Weapons," Aramco World, Vol. 46, No. 1 (January-February 1995), pp. 20-27. [Back to Text]
22. Gregory the Monk, "Vita Basilii Iunioris," ed. A. N. Veselovskii, in "Razyskaniia v Oblasti Russkogo Dukhovnogo Stikha," Sbornik ORIAS 46 (1889), prilozhenie 6, pp. 65-68. [Back to Text]
23. J. Darvouzes, "Epistoliers Byzantins du X Siecle" (Archives de l'Orient Chretien 6; Paris, 1960), pp. 322.15. [Back to Text]
24. "The Works of Liudprand of Cremona" (London, 1930), pp. 185-186. [Back to Text]
25. Golb and Pritsak, "Khazarian Hebrew Documents," p. 119. [Back to Text]
26. Golb and Pritsak, "Khazarian Hebrew Documents," p. 115. [Back to Text]
27. "Leon Diaconus Caloensis, Historiae Libri Decem," ed. C. B. Hase (Bonn, 1828), p. 106. [Back to Text]
28. "MurIj Aldahab," ed. Ch. Pellat, Vol. 1, pp. 218-212. Eng. trans. by Minorsky, "A History of Sharvun and Darband," pp. 150-153. See also Golb and Pritsak, "Khazarian Hebrew Documents," pp. 118-119, 138. [Back to Text]
29. PVL, pp. 72-73. [Back to Text]
30. Hrushevsky, "Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy," I (Kyiv, 1913), p. 442-ff. [Back to Text]
31. PVL, p.73. [Back to Text]
32. PVL, pp. 73-77. See Franklin, S. and Shepard J., "The Emergence of Rus' 750-1200," pp. 117-133 for a more thorough discussion of this treaty and the expansion of Rus' commercial activity during the early and middle part of the 10th century. [Back to Text]
33. PVL, pp. 77-78. In pre-Christian Kyivan Rus', Perun was the chief deity - the god of thunder, lightning and rain; the ruler of the heavens; and, later, the god of war. [Back to Text]
34. The PVL styles him as "kniaz," which is usually mistranslated as "prince." In actuality the word is derived from the Germanic kuning meaning "king." See Pritsak, "The Origin of Rus'," p. 886. Pritsak gives Ihor the title of kagan, the highest imperial title of the Eurasian steppe. See "The System of Government Under Volodimer the Great and His Foreign Policy" in Harvard Ukrainian Studies Vol. No. (1995), p. 574. [Back to Text]
35. Minorsky, "A History of Sharvun and Darband," pp. 150-153. Ibn-Miskawaih, "The Eclipse of the Abbasid Caliphate," V, pp. 67-74; and Gold and Pritsak, "Khazarian Hebrew Documents," pp. 118-119. 36 PVL, p. 78. [Back to Text]
36. PVL, p. 78. [Back to Text]
37. PVL, p. 78. Hrushevsky proposed that Ihor may not have died until 947 or 948; "Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy," p. 446. [Back to Text]
38. Hrushevsky, "Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy," p. 446. [Back to Text]
39. These were the main commodities of exchange. For a fuller itemization see Jones, Gwyn. "A History of the Vikings" (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), particularly pp. 3 and 253. [Back to Text]
CONCLUSION TO PART I
Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, October 13, 2002, No. 41, Vol. LXX
| Home Page |