D. M. Kotyshev. Some comments about the time of birth of Prince Izyaslav Vladimirovich //
Petersburg historical journal, no. 4, 2024, pp. 9–16.

Abstract:

The article focuses on the understudied elements of inter-princely relations during the latter
half of the 11th century. In examining the circumstances surrounding the baptism of Vladimir Monomakh’s second son Izyaslav, the author seeks to present a coherent account of the developments in the relationship between Vsevolodovich and Svyatoslavich during the chronological period of 1077–1078. The relevance of this issue is underscored by the fact that it was at this time that the conflict over Chernihiv was emerging and the foundations of the conflictual relations between the descendants of Vladimir Monomakh and Oleg
Svyatoslavich were being established — those relations that would determine the political agenda of the South Russian lands during the 12th — first half of the 13th centuries. It is proposed that Izyaslav Vladimirovich was baptised during 1077, during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh of Smolensk, before his transfer to the Chernihiv throne. Oleg Svyatoslavich was the godfather at the ceremony.

Key words: international relations, Chernihiv reign, Izyaslav Vladimirovich, Vladimir Monomakh, Oleg Svyatoslavich.

Author:

Kotyshev, Dmitry Mikhailovich — PhD in History, Associate Professor, the Lecturer at the 13th Lyceum in Troitsk (Chelyabinsk Region, Russia).
E-mail: grizli973@mail.ru

References:
BAUMGARTEN N. A. Genealogies et manages occidentals des Rurikides ruses de X au XIII siecle //
Oriental Christiana Periodical. 1927. Vol. IX. P. 1.

BEREZHKOV N. G. O khronologii russkikh letopisei po XIV vek vcliuchitelno [On the chronology of
Russian annals to the 14th century inclusive. In Russ.] // Istoricheskie zapiski. 1947. Vol. 23. P. 325–363.

DIMNIK M. Dynasty of Chernigov 1054–1146. Toronto, 1994.

FROIANOV I. Ya. Miatezhnyi Novgorod: Ocherki istorii gosudarstvennosti, sotsialnoi i politicheskoi bor’by kontsa IX — nachala XIII st. [Rebellious Novgorod: Essays on the history of statehood, social and political struggle of the late 9th — early 13th centuries. In Russ.]. St. Petersburg, 1992.

IVAKIN I. M. Kniaz Vladimir Monomakh i ego pouchenie [Prince Vladimir Monomakh and his teaching. In Russ.]. Мoscow, 1901.

KOTYSHEV D. M. Liubechskii s”ezd v istorii Iuzhnoi Rusi kontsa XI — nachala XII veka [Lyubechsky
Congress in the history of Southern Russia of the late 11th — early 12th centuries. In Russ.] // Russkoe srednevekovie: Sbornik statei v chest professora Iuriia Georgievicha Alekseeva. Moscow, 2012. P. 260–269.

KOTYSHEV D. M. Ot Russkoi zemli k zemle Kievskoi. Stanovlenie gosudarstvennosti v Srednem Podneprovie. IX–XII vv. [From the Russian land to the land of Kyiv. The formation of statehood in the Middle Dnieper. 11th–12th centuries. In Russ.]. Мoscow, 2019.

KUCHKIN V. A. Chudo sv. Panteleimona i semeinye dela Vladimira Monomaha [Miracle of St. Panteleimon and family affairs of Vladimir Monomakh. In Russ.] // Rossiia v srednie veka i novoe vremia: Sb. st. k 70-letiiu chl.-korr. RAN L. V. Milova. Moscow, 1999. P. 50–82.

PETROV A. V. Ot iazychestva k sviatoi Rusi. Novgorodskie usobitsy: K izucheniiu drevnerusskogo vechevogo uklada [From paganism to holy Russia. Novgorod strife: To the study of the old Russian veche structure. In Russ.]. St. Petersburg, 2003.

Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei. T. 1. Lavrentievskaia letopis. Moscow, 1997.

Pouchenie Vladimira Monomakha // Biblioteka literatury Drevnei Rusi. T. 1. XI–XII vv. St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 458–475.

RAPOV O. M. Kniazheskie vladeniia na Rusi v Х — pervoi polovine ХIII v. [Principal possessions in Russia in the 10th — the first half of the 13th centuries. In Russ.]. Мoscow, 1977.

RAZDORSKII A. I. Vladelcheskaia prinadlezhnost Kurskogo kniazhestva v XI–XIII vv. [The ownership of the Kursk principality in the 11th–13th centuries. In Russ.] // Ocherki feodalnoi Rossii. Moscow, 1998. Iss. 2. P. 3–21.

TATISHCHEV V. N. Istoriia Rossiiskaia [History of Russia. In Russ.]. Vol. II. Moscow; Leningrad, 1963.

ZAI’TCEV A. K. Chernigovskoe kniazhestvo [Principality of Chernihiv. In Russ.] // Drevnerusskie
kniazhestva X–XIII vv. Moscow, 1975. P. 57–117.

    Similar Posts

    PHJ № 2 (42) 2024 — M. M. Shevchenko. RUSSIA’S CRIMEAN WAR: POLITICS, STRATEGY AND PUBLIC OPINION

    The Crimean War of 1853–1856 was the only war in modern and contemporary history that Russia waged in political isolation, being without a single ally in Europe. This circumstance, and not a technical lag, was the main reason for her loss. Based on the achievements of military construction in 1830–1840, Emperor Nicholas I, Field Marshal I. F. Paskevich and General A. S. Menshikov implemented a strategy that clearly divided all potential — threatened and actual theaters of military operations into main and secondary ones, the latter of which included the bloodiest of them — the Crimean one. Thanks to this, they managed to minimize losses in a notoriously hopeless war, and Russia, having lost its dominant position in Europe, retained itself as a Great Power. Due to the circumstances of domestic policy, the strategy of Emperor Nicholas I and his associates could not be correctly assessed by Russian public opinion. The historiography of the Crimean War actually reduced its scale to the problem of the Crimean campaign. This approach persists to this day and needs to be reassessed.

    PHJ № 2 (42) 2024 — I. V. Ruzhitskaya. “CATASTROPHE” OR NOT: THE LATEST HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE CRIMEAN WAR

    The researchers discussed in the report evaluate the results of the war and the reasons for its defeat, contrary to the tradition that has developed in Russian historiography over a century and a half. They believe that the degree of Russia’s military backwardness from England and France in the field of weapons is greatly exaggerated, and its readiness to repel a military threat is understated. Some of these historians believe that Russia’s loss in the war was due to the initial hopelessness of its strategic position, and was not a consequence of military defeat. The technical backwardness and weakness of the military administration, in their opinion, had no fundamental significance against this background: the outcome of the struggle was predetermined by the strong political isolation of Russia and the geographical dispersion of potential theaters of military operations.

    A. V. Maiorov. “…THEY DID GREAT HARM TO PEOPLE”: BESERMENS, TITYAM KUTLUBIY AND THE UPRISING OF 1262

    In order to administer the territories that had been conquered, the Mongols opted to employ administrators from other countries and regions, rather than utilising local personnel. These administrators were expected to demonstrate loyalty to the new rulers. It was not uncommon for prominent international merchants, designated as ortogh, to assume the role of Mongol administrators and tax collectors. The surviving sources, originating from different cultural and linguistic environments and available to us both in the original and in translations into modern languages, as well as the latest scientific data on the main institutions and methods of governance used by the Mongols during the period of the unified empire, allow us to redefine the ethnic composition and nature of the activities of the Mongol authorities’ main representatives in the Rus’ lands in the mid‑13th century. At this time, the Khwarazm Turks, who had accepted Islam, played a significant role in the governance of the Rus’ lands. This included the representative of the imperial administration, Tityam Kutlubiy (Kutlu Bek), as well as tax farmers who operated in North-Eastern Rus’.