Some mysterious romantic haze seems to be veiling the name and deeds of this ruler even now, 835 years after his tragic death. A reckless and gallant warrior; a tough, often cruel, but always fair politician who sought with incredible energy to reunify the scattered Ancient Rus’ lands on the basis of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality, a qualitatively new state-forming center; a talented builder, who initiated the construction of majestic temples (the Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir, which could be seen from everywhere, featured a shining golden dome and struck people with its refined forms, unprecedented luxury of finishing, and the splendor of its solemn services) and new defensive structures (the Golden, Silver, and Copper gates in Vladimir and the High Ramparts on its outskirts) in the erstwhile underdeveloped and half-wild nook of North-Eastern Rus’: this is the image in which Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky appears in the works of not only Russian classic historians of the 19th and early 20th centuries (Karamzin, Soloviev, Kliuchevsky, Ilovaisky) but also of the Soviet-era leading researchers of Kyivan Rus’ history (Rybakov, Grekov, Mavrodin, Pashuto, Sakharov, et al). A certain cult of Andrei Bogolyubsky (he was the eldest and most famous son and follower of Prince Yurii Dolgorukii, the founder of Moscow) exists in the mind of educated Russians even today.
It is very interesting that the personality and life of Andrei Bogolyubsky utterly destroy the myth of an alleged “common history” of Ukraine and Russia (in the realities of the second half of the 12th century: Kyivan Rus’, Vladimir-Suzdal Rus’, and North-Eastern Rus’). For, although Prince Andrei devoted almost all his adult life to a fierce struggle for power in the entire Ancient Rus’ (as a rule, having no scruples in the choice of means in this struggle), it is totally impossible to call him an “all-Russian” statesman. Quite on the contrary, he is an illustrious representative of a specific, “autocratic,” in fact monarchic (which became later the germ of Muscovite tsarist autocracy) political culture which in many fundamental respects runs counter to the traditional governmental practice of Kyivan Rus’.
Mykhailo Hrushevsky once made a thorough analysis of the two political systems (in ancient Kyiv and in the emergent Vladimir-Moscow entity). The great Ukrainian historian wrote: “In North-Eastern Rus’, Andrei [Bogolyubsky] ruined the existing political setup and outlined plans for a distant future.” What did this in fact look like? “Andrei got down to transforming the social system of his land: he would destroy old viche-run communities and replace them with new ones that had nothing to do with democracy; the princes who did not wish to be henchmen of the senior prince were ousted, as were the boyars who did not agree with autocratic princes and the bishops who dared challenge them. Thus a strong autocratic government was being established on the ruins of the old social system. Andrei’s ambitions were not confined to the Suzdal region: he wanted to be the leader of all Rus’ lands. But Kyiv still remained the hub of and set the tone to Rus’ life, although it had lost some of its prestige. So, for the time being, Suzdal was to remain a region of minor importance…” Why? Hrushevsky explains: “The Kyivan prince was still the most senior figure — for the Suzdal prince, too.”
The historian immediately makes a reservation: “Of course, Andrei could also seize the Kyivan throne, but he could not possibly become a Kyivan prince because this title was linked to a centuries-old Southern Rus’ tradition. To assume this title, one had to obey this tradition and the very system of Southern Rus’ life, which presupposed brotherhood of equal princes, a free community spirit, and heeding the influential stratum of boyars. Andrei felt deep antipathy to this system: it is not accidental that he had once secretly run away from his father in Southern Rus’ to his Vladimir (having stolen the famous Vyshhorod Mother of God icon of Volodymyr, in fact of Kyiv, which has not yet been returned to Ukraine. — Author). Of course, Andrei himself lacked energy and talent to reform this system according to the new Volodimir pattern. So he chose a different road: he seized Kyiv only to sack and abandon it like a useless thing and then give it to a stranger. Without reforming the Southern Rus’ life, he still laid a heavy hand on it and made it felt on any suitable occasion. By humiliating and oppressing the South, he tried to glorify himself and his region in the eyes of his congeners. He pursued this policy with a customary unbridled energy and — we must admit it — quite successfully.”
These words of Hrushevsky provide an important clue to understanding the prerequisites and causes of the disaster, i.e., the seizure and almost complete devastation of Kyiv by the troops of a coalition of princes commanded by Andrei Bogolyubsky since March 1169. This was, in many aspects, a turning point in the political history of Kyivan Rus’. Kyiv, as the political and cultural center of Ancient Rus’ lands, was sacked, plundered and devastated, and a part of the city was simply burnt down. Here is what the Hypatian Codex says about those terrible events: “In the same winter Andrei sent his son Mstislav to fight the Kyivan prince Mstyslav Iziaslavych, together with the princes of Vladimir, Rostov and 11 other principalities. In the year 1169 all the princes, enemies of Mstyslav Iziaslavych, surrounded the city of Kyiv. Mstyslav locked himself in Kyiv and commanded his army from inside the city. And there was fierce fighting for three days, and Mstyslav began to grow weary in the city. The Berendei and the Torkils (nomadic tribes on Rus’ princes’ service. — Author) betrayed Mstyslav. The personal guard began to say: ‘Why are you staying inside, Prince? You must leave the city, for we cannot defeat them.’ And God helped Mstislav Andreevich and his men: they took Kyiv, while Mstyslav Iziaslavych ran away from Kyiv to Volodymyr-Volynsky.”
Then the most horrible things began. “Kyiv was taken on March 8 (1169 — Author),” the chronicler says, “on the second week of Lent, and the whole city, including Podil, Gora and the monasteries, St. Sophia and the Church of the Tithes, was plundered for two days. And nobody spared anybody. Churches were burning, Christians were being either killed or bound up, wives were carried into captivity and separated from their husbands, babies wept looking at their mothers. The troopers from Smolensk, Suzdal and Chernihiv seized a lot of wealth, stripped churches of icons, robes and bells, and took all the books, while the Cumans set fire to the Mother of God Cave Monastery (this means the “coalition troops” that invaded Kyiv also included these worst enemies of ancient Slavs, which only confirms the occupational nature of those troops. — Author), but, thanks to the prayers of the Holy Virgin, God protected it from this woe. And there was inconsolable grief, moans, and never-ending tears in Kyiv. It is our sins that caused all this.”
Andrei Bogolyubsky chose not to ascend the Kyiv throne: he placed his loyal vassal and younger brother Gleb Yurievich in the ancient capital of Rus’. The famous Hustynia Chronicle characterized the catastrophe as follows: “From then on, Vladimir princes reigned in Moscow, and Muscovite princes began to reign in Kyiv.” Well said! This triggered an unimaginable rat race of princes for the throne of Saint Volodymyr and Yaroslav the Wise: there were 13 (!) of them from 1169 to 1184. “The hegemony of Kyiv finally sank into oblivion,” Hrushevsky writes. “The Kyiv populace was stunned by this unprecedented pogrom,” he adds. “Having dealt a heavy blow to Kyiv, Andrei did not even reward it with the establishment of stable order and peace. Andrei did not care much for his family to hold Kyiv in their hands. He only wanted to preserve his influence over the city and prevent the appearance of any self-sufficient individual who could challenge Andrei’s priority and help Kyiv regain its importance. Relying on his seniority in the Rus’ land, Andrei wanted to exercise absolute control over the Kyivan throne, irrespective of his family considerations or popular wishes.”
Bogolyubsky managed to do so for several years. But, alas… In June 1175 Prince Andrei Yurievich himself suddenly fell victim to a conspiracy: a considerable part of his entourage, especially the highborn boyars, hated Andrei for his “arrogance” and “pride” (assessments from the aforesaid Hypatian Codex). Using the prince’s servant Yakym, the boyar Kuchka’s son-in-law Petro, and the key holder Anbal, an Ossetian, as a blind instrument, they incited them (there was a total 20 plotters) to murder Andrei. The enemies stabbed him to death in his chamber at night.
Yet, in political terms, his “cause” lives on. The autocratic and despotic manner of ruling by the Vladimir prince, who used to personally decide whether to punish or to pardon the subordinate princes on the expanses of the already disintegrated Ancient Rus’, found a “creative continuation” in the years of such colorful Muscovite rulers — direct descendants of Bogolyubsky — as Ivan Kalita, Vasilii III, Ivan III, and, naturally, Ivan the Terrible.
