The Last Kings of Macedonia and the

Triumph of Rome Ian Worthington

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-last-kings-of-macedonia-and-the-triumph-of-rome
-ian-worthington-2/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Last Kings of Macedonia and the Triumph of Rome Ian

Worthington

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-last-kings-of-macedonia-and-
the-triumph-of-rome-ian-worthington/

Victory: The Triumph and Tragedy of Just War Cian

O'Driscoll

https://ebookmass.com/product/victory-the-triumph-and-tragedy-of-
just-war-cian-odriscoll/

The Hills of Rome Caroline Vout

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-hills-of-rome-caroline-vout/

The Economic Logic of Late Capitalism and the

Inevitable Triumph of Socialism 1st ed. Edition Simon
Glynn

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-economic-logic-of-late-
capitalism-and-the-inevitable-triumph-of-socialism-1st-ed-
edition-simon-glynn/
The Last of the Moussakas Fearne Hill

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-last-of-the-moussakas-fearne-
hill/

Roman Identity from the Arab Conquests to the Triumph

of Orthodoxy Douglas Whalin

https://ebookmass.com/product/roman-identity-from-the-arab-
conquests-to-the-triumph-of-orthodoxy-douglas-whalin/

The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome: The History of a

Dangerous Idea Edward J. Watts

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-eternal-decline-and-fall-of-
rome-the-history-of-a-dangerous-idea-edward-j-watts/

Warrior Kings: Planet of Kings Books 1-3 Savino

https://ebookmass.com/product/warrior-kings-planet-of-kings-
books-1-3-savino-2/

Warrior Kings: Planet of Kings Books 1-3 Savino

https://ebookmass.com/product/warrior-kings-planet-of-kings-
books-1-3-savino/
The Last Kings of Macedonia and the Triumph of
Rome
The Last Kings of Macedonia and
the Triumph of Rome

IAN WORTHINGTON
 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the
University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing
worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and
certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2023

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in
writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under
terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning
reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same
condition on any acquirer.

CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress

ISBN 978–0–19–752005–5
eISBN 978–0–19–752007–9

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197520055.001.0001
 in memoriam
Tim (T.T.B.) Ryder
who first introduced me to Greek history
and who was the proverbial scholar and gentleman
 Contents

List of Figures
List of Maps
Preface
List of Abbreviations

Introduction
1. The Kingdom of Macedonia
2. Introducing Philip V
3. The Social War
4. Taking on Rome and the First Macedonian War
5. Keeping Calm and Carrying On
6. The Second Macedonian War
7. Fall of the Phalanx
8. Macedonia Renascent
9. Perseus: Last of the Antigonids
10. The Third Macedonian War
11. Dismembering Macedonia
12. Andriscus aka Philip VI and the Fourth Macedonian War

Appendix
Bibliography
Index
 List of Figures

1.1a–b. Pella. Photo credit: Ian Worthington.

1.2. Mosaic of a lion hunt, Pella. Photo credit: Juliana Lees. Licen
sed under a CC BY-SA 2.0 License (https://creativecommon
s.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/).
1.3. Mosaic of a stag hunt, Pella. Public Domain.
1.4. Alexander mosaic. Photo credit: Berthold Werner. Licensed u
nder a CC BY-SA 2.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/l
icenses/by-sa/2.0/).
1.5. Macedonian phalanx formation carrying Sarissas. © N.G.L.
Hammond, 1989, Alexander the Great: King, Commander, a
nd Statesman and Bristol Classical Press, an imprint of Bloo
msbury Publishing Plc.
2.1. Silver tetradrachm of Philip V. © Classical Numismatic Grou
p, LLC, https://cngcoins.com/.
2.2. Philip II facial reconstruction. Licensed under a CC0 1.0 Univ
ersal License (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/ze
ro/1.0/deed.en).
2.3. Head of Alexander the Great. Photo credit: Yair Haklai. Licen
sed under a CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License (https://creativ
ecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
6.1. Aous River Gorge. Photo credit: Robin Waterfield.
6.2. Titus Quinctius Flamininus. © The Trustees of the British Mu
seum.
7.1. Cynoscephalae: view from ridge where Philip was stationed
over the battle site. Photo credit: Robin Waterfield.
7.2. Cynoscephalae: long view of ridge and battle site. Photo cre
dit: Robin Waterfield.
7.3. Battle of Cynoscephalae.
9.1. Perseus. © The Trustees of the British Museum.
11.1. Lucius Aemilius Paullus. © The Trustees of the British Muse
um.
11.2. Pydna: site of the battle. Photo credit: Robin Waterfield.
11.3. Battle of Pydna. Licensed under a CC BY-SA 4.0 License (htt
ps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).
11.4. Reconstruction drawing of monument of Aemilius Paullus at
Delphi, c. 167 B.C. Reproduced from A. Jacquemin and D. L
aroche, “Notes sur trois piliers delphiques,” BCH 106 (1982):
191–218.
11.5. Reconstruction drawing of frieze on Paullus’ Monument at D
elphi. Illustrated by Albert Nguyen. Reproduced from M.J. Ta
ylor, “The Battle Scene on Aemilius Paullus’ Pydna Monumen
t: A Reevaluation,” Hesperia 85 (2016): 559–576.
11.6. Macedonia showing the merides. Reproduced from P.J. Burt
on, Rome and the Third Macedonian War, Cambridge Univer
sity Press, 2017. Reproduced with permission of The Licenso
r through PLSclear.
12.1. Andriscus. © Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. Licensed und
er a CC BY-SA 2.5 License (https://creativecommons.org/lice
nses/by-sa/2.5/deed.en).
12.2. Roman Forum and Agora, Thessalonica. Photo credit: Marco
Verch. Licensed under a CC BY-SA 4.0 License (https://creati
vecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).
 List of Maps

1. Overview: Greece and the Balkans. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, Ptole
my I: King and Pharaoh of Egypt, Oxford University Press, 2016.
2. Macedonia. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, Athens After Empire: A Histor
y from Alexander the Great to the Emperor Hadrian, Oxford University Press,
2021.
3. Macedonia and Illyria. Reproduced from N.G.L. Hammond and F.W. Walbank,
A History of Macedonia, vol. 3, Oxford University Press, 1988.
4. Macedonia and Thrace. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, By the Spear: Phi
lip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire,
Oxford University Press, 2014.
5. Greece and the Aegean. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, Athens After Em
pire: A History from Alexander the Great to the Emperor Hadrian, Oxford Uni
versity Press, 2021.
6. Thessaly. Reproduced from P.J. Burton, Rome and the Third Macedonian Wa
r, Cambridge University Press, 2017. Reproduced with permission of The Lice
nsor through PLSclear.
7. The Peloponnese. Reproduced from N.G.L. Hammond and F.W. Walbank, A Hi
story of Macedonia, vol. 3, Oxford University Press, 1988.
 Preface

THIS BOOK IS a history and reassessment of the last three kings of

ancient Macedonia: Philip V (r. 221–179), his son Perseus (r. 179–
168), and the pretender Andriscus, also called Philip VI (r. 149–148).
Their names are not as immediately recognizable as predecessors
like Philip II (r. 359–336) and Alexander the Great (r. 336–323), and
by the time Philip V came to the throne the heyday of Macedonia as
an imperial power under Alexander was long over. Yet their reigns
underpin one of the more important periods in antiquity: the rise of
Roman dominion in the east. All three kings were at war with Rome,
for which ancient writers denounced them for flawed policies,
disreputable personal qualities, and rashness, so that their reigns are
seen as postscripts to Macedonian history and subsumed within the
history of Roman expansion.
Certainly, these three kings are not the household names that
their illustrious predecessors are, nor did they forge or maintain a
vast, overseas empire, as had Alexander. But they were far from
being a postscript to Macedonia’s Classical greatness or merely
collateral damage in Rome’s rise in the east. Philip and Perseus
deserve credit as they often had the upper hand in their wars
against Rome and had to contend with hostile eastern powers and
Greeks south of Mount Olympus.
Rather than appraising each king individually, this book—the first
full-scale treatment of Philip V in eighty years and the first in English
of Perseus and Andriscus in over fifty—discusses them together to
argue that they and the period deserve to be rated more highly.
They fought to preserve their kingdom’s independence and standing
in the Greek world, no matter the odds against them, and so
deserve to be center stage in Macedonia’s, not just Rome’s, history.
It is my pleasure to thank once again Stefan Vranka for his support
and feedback and all the admirable staff at Oxford University Press
who saw the book through production.
I am indebted to Monica D’Agostini, Joseph Roisman, and Robin
Waterfield for generously agreeing to read an earlier draft of the
book: their sharp and precise comments improved greatly what they
had to read.
My thanks also go to the anonymous Oxford University Press
referees for equally excellent remarks and for thinking the book has
merit.
I am grateful to Monica D’Agostini for sending me a copy of her
book on Philip V when access to libraries was impossible; my
excellent colleague Danijel Dzino for chats about Illyria; Yuri Kuzmin
for setting me straight about Philip’s mother; Robin Waterfield for
some needed personal photos of the Aous Gorge, Cynoscephalae,
and Pydna sites; and Albert Nguyen for graciously granting his
permission to reuse his drawing of the frieze on the Paullus
monument at Delphi. As well, I thank Angela Abberton for the
thankless task of checking many ancient references and Sarah Plant
for the equally herculean task of compiling the index.
I am obliged to Macquarie University for granting me OSP leave in
the second semester 2020, which allowed me to finish a second
draft of the book and make substantial progress on another.
My deep regret is that the dedicatee of this book did not live to
see it. I knew Tim Ryder, who died in October 2021, for forty-five
years since my undergraduate days at Hull (1976–1979), and we
kept in good contact since I left there. He inspired in me a love for
Greek history, which shows no sign of abating, and for that I thank
him.
Last but certainly not least, I thank my family for being there.
Ian Worthington
Macquarie University
October 2022
 List of Abbreviations

BNJ Brill’s New Jacoby (Jacoby Online), numerous ancient writers prepared by
modern scholars, editor-in-chief Ian Worthington (Leiden: 2003–)
IG Inscriptiones Graecae, many volumes with different editors (Berlin: 1873–)
ISE Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche, 2 vols., editor L. Moretti (Florence: 1967–75)
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, many volumes, various editors
(Leiden: 1923–)
SIG3 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 4 vols., editor W. Dittenberger (Leipizg:
1915–24)
MAP 1. Overview: Greece and the Balkans. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, Ptol
emy I: King and Pharaoh of Egypt, Oxford University Press, 2016.
MAP 2. Macedonia. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, Athens After Empire: A Hist
ory from Alexander the Great to the Emperor Hadrian, Oxford University Press,
2021.
MAP 3. Macedonia and Illyria. Reproduced from N.G.L. Hammond and F.W. Walban
k, A History of Macedonia, vol. 3, Oxford University Press, 1988.
MAP 4. Macedonia and Thrace. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, By the Spear: P
hilip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire,
Oxford University Press, 2014.
MAP 5. Greece and the Aegean. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, Athens After E
mpire: A History from Alexander the Great to the Emperor Hadrian, Oxford
University Press, 2021.
MAP 6. Thessaly. Reproduced from P.J. Burton, Rome and the Third Macedonian W
ar, Cambridge University Press, 2017. Reproduced with permission of The Licensor
through PLSclear.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
was drowned, while Sviatopolk
and Vladimir saved themselves
by flight. The next year’s
campaign against the Polovtsi
was equally disastrous, and
Sviatopolk returned to Kiev with
but two companions. Tortchesk
was compelled to capitulate, and
the nomads returned to the
steppe rich with booty and
prisoners. Sviatopolk now
bought peace and took to wife a
daughter of the Polovtsian khan.
They returned, however, the
same year under the leadership
of Oleg, son of Sviatoslav, who
had stayed till now in
Tmoutorakan and thought the
moment opportune for enforcing
his undoubted rights upon Sviatopolk
Tchernigov, which had been the
original seat of his father as the
second son of Iaroslav, and which was held by Monomakh, who was
the son of Iaroslav’s third son.
Oleg, was therefore, no Isgoi and would not be treated as such.
When he appeared before Tchernigov, Monomakh had only a small
band with him, and after a siege of eight days was compelled to
evacuate the city and retire to Pereiaslavl, where he had to defend
himself during the next three years against continual irruptions of the
Polovtsi. The refusal of Oleg to join in a combined campaign of the
princes against the Polovtsi, and the sudden capture of Smolensk by
his brother David, gave the occasion for a general war that lasted
two years and covered the whole territory of Russia, from Novgorod
to Murom and thence to the steppe, and in course of which one son
of Monomakh fell in battle, while two other sons suffered a decisive
reverse at the hands of Oleg. Finally, a congress of princes was held
at Lubetz, in the territory of Tchernigov, for the settlement of all
existing disputes. The result of its deliberations was that the grand
prince was to retain Kiev and Turov, while to Vladimir were assigned
Pereiaslavl, Smolensk, and Rostov; Novgorod to his son Mstislav,
and Tchernigov with all its dependencies to the sons of Sviatoslav—
Oleg, David, and Iaroslav. The latter thus gained possession of the
greater part of Russia. There still remained to be satisfied the three
Isgoi, Volodar, and Vassilko, sons of Rostislav, and David, son of
Igor. Of the former two, Volodar received Peremishl, Vassilko
received Terebovl, while Vladimir in Volhinia was given to David.
Polotsk remained in the hands of Vseslav.
The congress of Lubetz (1097) brought a
[1097-1110 a.d.] respite to the sorely tried Russian north, but the
south was soon subjected to new calamities.
Vassilko, son of Rostislav, was revolving in his mind extensive plans
of conquest in Poland, among the Danubian Bulgarians, and finally
against the Polovtsi. He had begun making extensive preparations,
and had taken into his pay several nomad hordes. David of Volhinia,
who was ignorant of Vassilko’s plans, became alarmed at these
warlike preparations, began to suspect a conspiracy between
Monomakh and Vassilko, and succeeded in inoculating the grand
prince with his own alarms and suspicions. Vassilko was allured to
Kiev to attend a religious festival, and there he was captured, thrown
into chains, dragged to Bielgorod, and blinded in an unspeakably
cruel manner. The horror of the bloody deed resounded throughout
Russia. Monomakh united his forces with those of his old enemies,
the sons of Sviatoslav, and marched upon Kiev. The grand prince
tried to clear himself of blame and throw the guilt upon David, and
peace was arranged through the mediation of the metropolitan of
Kiev and of Monomakh’s mother.
The grand prince took upon himself the obligation to revenge the
outrage on Vassilko, who was surrendered to Volodar; and David
was obliged to flee to Poland (1099). The grand prince annexed
David’s territory, and then turned, most unjustifiably, against the sons
of Rostislav. Defeated by Volodar, he formed an alliance with
Koloman, king of Hungary. The alliances now assumed a most
unexpected and distorted character. David united with the
Rostislavitchi and with Buiak, khan of the Polovtsi; and at Peremishl
defeated the grand prince and his allies. The war, the horrors of
which were increased by repeated raids of the Polovtsi, seemed to
draw out without end or aim, when finally Monomakh convoked a
second congress of the princes, which met in August, 1100, at
Uvetitchi, on Kievan territory. The result of its deliberations was that
only a few towns of Volhinia were left to David, the greater part of the
principality being transferred to Iaroslav, son of Sviatopolk; while the
Rostislavitchi were to remain in the undiminished possession of their
territories.
Thus order was restored for some time, but
[1111-1116 a.d.] the direction of affairs really passed out of the
hands of the grand prince into those of
Monomakh. Under his leadership the Russian princes were now
united against the Polovtsi, and there ensued a series of campaigns
of which no clear account has come down to us. The Russians
generally had the upper hand, but for a long time the balance
wavered, and the enemy seemed so dangerous to the princes that,
following the example of Sviatopolk, they entered into matrimonial
alliances with him. Thus Monomakh, as well as the two sons of
Sviatoslav, David and Oleg, took Polovtsian wives for their sons. But
the year 1111 witnessed a decisive campaign, in which Monomakh is
again seen at the head of the Russian princes. After crossing the
Dnieper and the Vorskla, the Russians pressed on into the enemy’s
country as far as the Don. Two Polovtsian cities were taken, and one
was reduced to ashes; the Don was crossed, and on March 24th and
26th a great battle was fought. The Russians were on the Sula, the
last tributary of the Don before reaching the sea of Azov, in a most
unfavourable position and surrounded from all sides by the Polovtsi.
But the scales were turned when the drujinas of David and
Monomakh, which had been kept all the time in the rear, made a
terrific onset on the exhausted enemy, who fled in panic. According
to tradition, angels preceded the Russians and smote the Polovtsi
with blindness.

Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125 A.D.)

 After a reign filled with civil war and misfortune Sviatopolk died
(April 16th, 1113), and all eyes turned toward Monomakh. Legally,
however, the throne belonged to his cousin Oleg, son of Sviatoslav,
and Monomakh seemed at first resolved to recognise his superior
right. But the Kievans were determined to accept no one but
Monomakh, and an uprising of theirs, which was directed primarily
against the Jews, whom Sviatopolk had employed for fiscal
purposes, but which threatened to assume larger dimensions,
induced him to yield to the universal demand. Thus the race of
Sviatoslav—otherwise called the Olgovitchi—was excluded, and
Monomakh succeeded in bringing a large part of Russia under his
house. During his reign he continued the wars against the Polovtsi,
as well as against the Finns in the north and east, and the Poles in
the west. The steppe was cleared so thoroughly that tradition, with
its customary exaggeration, says that he forced the Polovtsi back
into the Caucasus.
His relations with the Byzantine Empire have not yet been
sufficiently cleared up. He himself was the son of a Byzantine
princess, and his daughter Maria was married to Leo, son of the
unfortunate emperor Romanus Diogenes, who was blinded in 1071
and banished to an island. Leo then made an attempt at revolt
against Alexius Comnenus, but was poisoned in 1116. Vladimir now
espoused the cause of Leo’s son Basil and sent an army to the
Danube, which returned without accomplishing its purpose.
According to a later tradition, which arose under the influence of
Moscow, the emperor Alexius Comnenus, in order to put an end to
the devastation of Thrace by the Russian troops, sent to Vladimir a
diadem and other imperial insignia through Neophyte, metropolitan
of Ephesus, who put the diadem on Vladimir’s head and called him
czar. But contemporary accounts tell us nothing of all this, and it is
inherently improbable that Byzantium would bestow upon the
Russian grand prince, who was no longer formidable, a title whose
exclusive possession it so jealously guarded. On the other hand, it is
known that in 1122, or six years after the supposed campaign to
Thrace, a granddaughter of Monomakh was married to a prince of
the house of Romanus.
 But the greater portion of Monomakh’s military
[1122-1125 a.d.] activity fell into the reigns of his two
predecessors. He was in his sixty-first year
when he became grand-prince, and he naturally avoided all fighting
as far as it could be avoided, employing force only when requisite to
maintain his position as overlord of Russia. As far as circumstances
permitted, he was a prince of peace, and a number of most
important legislative measures are attributed to him, especially the
laws relating to usury and to the half-free (zakupi). Russia had
suffered very severely from the civil wars and the raids of the
Polovtsi, and men of small property were reduced to extreme
poverty. Being unable to maintain themselves on their wasted lands,
they went to live in large numbers on the estates of the rich, who
sought to reduce them to absolute slavery, or else they borrowed
money at usurious rates and soon sank into a servile condition. To
remedy this ruinous state of affairs, Monomakh reduced the rate of
interest from 120 per cent. to 20 per cent., and decreed that one who
had paid one year’s interest according to the old rate, was thereby
absolved from his debt. He also ordered the expulsion of the Jews
from the whole of Russia.[9] But the problem of the zakupi could not
be solved in this summary fashion. According to the regulations
adopted they were to be regarded as free men who had become
bound to the soil by contract, but who retained the right to acquire
property and were not subject to the master’s jurisdiction. A half-free
man loses his freedom only when he attempts to escape from his
master. It was also fixed what payments and services he was to
render, and it was made impossible for the lord to reduce him to a
condition of unrestricted serfdom.
Monomakh died in 1125, at the ripe age of seventy-three. He has
left us a curious paper of instructions to his sons, which dates from
1117, and in which he gives them much sound advice, enforced by
examples from his own life.c

The “Instruction” of Vladimir Monomakh

 The grand prince begins by saying that his grandfather Iaroslav
gave him the Russian name of Vladimir and the Christian name of
Vasili, and his father and mother that of Monomakh; either because
Vladimir was really through his mother the grandson of the Greek
emperor Constantine Monomachus, or because even in his
tenderest youth he displayed remarkable warlike valour. “As I draw
near to the grave,” writes he, “I give thanks to the Most High for the
increase of my days. His hand has led me to a venerable age. And
you, my beloved children and whosoever reads this writing, observe
the rules set forth in it. When your heart does not approve them, do
not condemn my intentions, but only say: The old man’s mind was
already weakened.” Having described in their chief features, and for
the greater part in the words of the Psalmist, the beauty of the works
and the goodness of the Creator, Vladimir continues:
“O my children! give praise to God and love also mankind. Neither
fasting, nor solitude, nor monastic life shall save you, but good
deeds. Forget not the poor, feed them; and remember that every
possession is God’s, and only confided to you for a time. Do not hide
your riches in the bowels of the earth: this is against the law of
Christianity. Be fathers to orphans; judge the widows yourselves: do
not let the strong destroy the weak. Do not slay either the righteous
or the guilty: the life and soul of the Christian are sacred. Do not call
upon the name of God in vain; ratify your oath by kissing the cross,
and do not transgress it. My brothers said to me: Let us drive out the
sons of Rostislav and take their possessions, otherwise thou art no
ally of ours! But I answered: I cannot forget that I kissed the cross. I
turned to the Psalter and read with compunction: ‘Why art thou so
vexed, O my soul? O put thy trust in God, for I will yet thank him.
Fret not thyself because of the ungodly: neither be thou envious
against the evil doers.’ Do not forsake the sick and do not fear to
look upon the dead: for we shall all die; receive the blessing of the
clergy lovingly; do not withdraw yourselves from them; do good unto
them, for they shall pray to the Most High for you.
“Do not have any pride either in your mind or heart, and think: we
are but mortal; to-day we live, to-morrow we are in the grave. Fear
every lie, drunkenness and fornication, equally pernicious for the
body and the soul. Esteem old people as fathers, love the young as
brothers. In your household see carefully to everything yourselves,
do not depend either on your pages or bailiffs, that your guests may
not blame either your house or your dinner. Be active in war, serve
as an example to your captains—it is no time then to think of feasting
and luxury. When you have set the night watch, take your rest. Man
perishes suddenly, therefore do not lay aside your arms where you
may meet danger; and get to horse early. When you travel in your
dominions, do not let the princely pages be a cause of offence to the
inhabitants, but wherever you stop give your host food and drink.
Above all, respect your guests and do them honour, both the
distinguished and the supplicants, both merchant and ambassador; if
you cannot give them presents, at any rate regale them with food
and drink, for guests spread good and evil reports of us in foreign
lands. Greet every man when he passes by. Love your wives, but do
not let them have an authority over you. Everything good that you
learn, you must remember; what you do not know, learn. My father,
sitting at home, spoke five languages, for which those of other lands
praised him. Idleness is the mother of vices; beware of it. A man
should ever be occupied; when you are on the road, on horseback,
without occupation, instead of indulging in idle thoughts repeat
prayers by heart—or the shortest, but best prayer of all, ‘Lord have
mercy!’ Never sleep without bowing yourself down to the earth; and if
you feel unwell, bow down to the earth three times. Let not the sun
find you in your bed! Go early to church to render morning praise to
God: so did my father; so did all good men. When the sun shone on
them, they praised God joyfully and said: ‘Lighten mine eyes, Christ
God, and give me Thy beauteous light.’ Then take counsel with the
droujina, or judge the people, or go to the chase; and at midday
sleep, for God has ordained that not only man but also the beasts
and birds should rest at midday.
“Thus lived your father. I myself did all that could be ordered to a
page; at the chase and at war, day and night, in the heat of summer
and the cold of winter I knew no rest. I did not put my trust in
burgomasters or heralds, I did not let the strong give offence to the
poor and widows, I myself supervised the church and the divine
service, the domestic organisation, the stables, the chase, the hawks
and the falcons.” Enumerating his military exploits, Vladimir thus
writes: “My campaigns were in all eighty-three; the other smaller
ones I do not remember. I concluded nineteen treaties of peace with
the Polovtsi, took prisoners more than a hundred of their chief
princes and let them go free, and I had more than two hundred put to
death and drowned in the rivers. Who has travelled faster than I?
Starting early from Tchernigov, I was at Kiev with my parents before
vespers. We loved the chase, and often trapped and caught beasts
with your grandfather. How many times have I fallen from my horse!
Twice I broke my head, injured my arms and legs, without caring for
my life in youth or sparing my head. But the Lord preserved me. And
you, my children, fear neither death nor combats, nor wild beasts,
but show yourselves men in every circumstance sent from God. If
providence decrees that a man shall die, neither his father nor his
brothers can save him. God’s protection is man’s hope.”
If it had not been for this wisely written testament, we should not
have known all the beauty of Vladimir’s soul; he did not lay waste
other states, but was the glory, the defender, the consolation of his
own, and none of the Russian princes has a greater right to the love
of posterity, for he served his country jealously and virtuously. If once
in his life Monomakh did not hesitate to infringe the law of nations
and perfidiously slay the Polovtsian princes, we can but apply to him
the words of Cicero, “The age excuses the man.” Regarding the
Polovtsi as the enemies of Christianity (they had burned the
churches), the Russians thought that the destruction of them—no
matter in what manner—was a work pleasing to God.d

The Fall of Kiev and the Rise of Suzdal

In the forty-four years that followed the death

[1132 a.d.] of Vladimir Monomakh, the over-lordship
passed eighteen times from one hand to
another, the average duration of governments being only two years
and a half, and the dignity attaching to the grand princedom declined
in rapid progression until it sank to a complete nullity. With this
constant change of rulers, the devastation and barbarisation of south
Russia proceeded apace, so that it soon ceased to be the centre of
political life. A rapid review of these evil years will suffice for an
understanding of the causes that brought about this retrogression.
We have seen that Vladimir Monomakh reached the throne of the
grand princedom in violation of the superior right of the Olgovitchi.
He succeeded in bringing the greater part of Russia under his sons.
Mstislav, the eldest, held Kiev and southern Russia, while his sons
were in Novgorod, Kursk and Smolensk; Iaropolk held Pereiaslavl;
Viatcheslav, Tourov; Iuri, Suzdal; and Andrew, Vladimir in Volhinia.
On the other hand, the princes of Polotsk were independent; the
descendants of Rostislav ruled in Red Russia or Galicia; and the
descendants of Oleg, in Tchernigov, Murom, Riazan, erstwhile the
land of the Viatitchi and Radimitchi, and in the extreme southeast,
Tmoutorakan. With union among the descendants of Monomakh and
with strong grand princes at Kiev, south Russia might have been
able to maintain its ascendancy notwithstanding its unfavourable
proximity to the steppe; but these conditions did not exist.
Monomakh’s first successor, Mstislav, did, indeed, maintain his
position, and even annexed Polotsk, whose princes fled to Greece.
But he soon died (1132), and his successor, the brave but wavering
Iaropolk, sowed the seeds of discord in his family by bestowing
Pereiaslavl upon the eldest son of Mstislav and naming him his
successor. Therewith he offended his own younger brothers, one of
whom, Iuri Dolgoruki (Longhand), sought to maintain his right by
force. The prince of Pereiaslavl found support among the Olgovitchi,
who were delighted at the sight of quarrels among the descendants
of Monomakh. One of the Olgovitchi, Vsevolod by name, raised
himself to the grand princedom by utilising these quarrels (1139-
1146). But immediately after his death his brother was overthrown,
and Iziaslav, son of Mstislav, became grand prince (1146-1154).
Twice he was expelled by Iuri Dolgoruki, and only maintained himself
by making one of his uncles the nominal ruler.
After his death the turbulence and confusion
[1146-1157 a.d.] increased still further. His brother Rostislav of
Smolensk was expelled after one week’s reign
by the prince of Tchernigov, who was expelled in his turn by Iuri
Dolgoruki. The latter might have
shared the same fate, for a
confederation of the princes of
Smolensk, Tchernigov, and
Volhinia had already been
formed against him, but for his
timely death (1157). One of the
confederates ruled for eight
months, and then he had to
make room for his successor,
who ruled four months. In the
eighty-three years that elapsed
between the death of Iuri and
the capture of Kiev by the
Mongols, the government
changed hands thirty times. How
much the importance of Kiev
and the dignity of the grand
princedom had declined at this
period, we can estimate from the
refusal of Andrew of Suzdal, son
of Iuri Dolgoruki, to take the
throne, though he came next in
the line of succession. He rightly
comprehended that the future A Mordirne Woman (Ergian Tribe)
belonged to the Russian north,
rather than to the south, and it
was his constant endeavour to consolidate his power in that quarter;
and when one of those powerless grand princes, Mstislav
Iziaslavitch, attempted to strengthen himself by forming an alliance
with Novgorod, Andrew brought about a combination of eleven
princes against him. After a three days’ siege Kiev was taken by
assault and plundered for two days (March, 1169), and Andrew’s
brother Gleb was then installed as grand prince of Kiev. The decay
of the south is attributable chiefly to the following causes:
(1) Its geographical position exposed it to the constant inroads of
the nomads of the steppe. This evil, it is true, existed from remotest
times, but its seriousness was increased by the action of the Russian
princes themselves, who employed the nomads in their civil wars.
Many of these nomads, Torks, Berendians, and Petchenegs, settled
on the Ros and Dnieper, meddled in Russian affairs, and contributed
to the barbarising of the country. (2) Every new grand-prince brought
with him into Kiev a new following from his own principality. These
foreign elements contributed ever anew to the unsettling of existing
conditions, and prevented the growth of a landed aristocracy that
had its roots in the soil, and of a burgher class. The establishment of
a political tradition thus became impossible. (3) The trade with
Greece had greatly declined owing to the increasing dangers of the
journey to the sea, and more than once the princes were obliged to
defend caravans to and from Byzantium with their entire army.
But while the south was decaying, a new
[1157-1175 a.d.] centre was forming in the north that was
destined to gather around itself the whole of
Russia, the principality of Suzdal-Rostov. The city of Rostov, situated
in the country of the Finnish Merians, was one of the oldest in
Russia, and it is reported that Rurik had bestowed it on one of his
warriors. Suzdal also arose at an early date, at the latest toward the
end of the ninth century. The early history of the region is not known
to us, but we know that Iaroslav founded the city of Iaroslavl, that it
was temporarily united to Novgorod, and that after the death of
Sviatoslav II (1076) it was merged in the principality of Pereiaslavl.
Vladimir Monomakh founded Vladimir on the Kliasma, a tributary of
the Oka, and built a church at Rostov. The congress of Lubetz
assigned the entire territory to Monomakh’s sons, and Iuri Dolgoruki
became the first independent prince of Rostov. Although this prince
always looked to the south, yet the colonisation of the north made
rapid progress during his reign. We know that three cities were
founded by him, and the chronicle also attributes to him the
foundation of Moscow in 1147. Suzdal was his capital. When he
became grand-prince of Kiev he bestowed this whole country upon
his son Vassilko, while he gave Vishgorod, to the north of Kiev, to his
eldest son Andrew.
 But the latter had no liking for the south, and fled from Vishgorod
with a miracle-working image of the Virgin, which he deposited in a
church that he built at a place where he had a vision and which he
called Bogolubovo (God’s love). After the death of his father, in 1157,
Rostov and Suzdal refused to obey his younger brothers and called
in Andrew, who was also joined by those of his father’s followers who
had fled from Kiev. But it is most characteristic of the man and his
far-sighted policy that he made no claims to the throne of Kiev, nor
did he establish himself at Rostov or Suzdal but stayed at Vladimir,
where there were no old families nor refractory citizens to deal with.
His brothers, his nephews, the boyars of his father, he expelled from
his dominions and made himself sole ruler. In 1169 he gave Kiev to
his brother Gleb, but he took to himself the title of grand prince. To
become the virtual master of the whole of Russia he only needed to
subject Novgorod, and though the combination of princes that he
formed against it was routed before its gates, yet he ultimately
succeeded, by cutting off its supply of corn, in compelling it to
acquiesce in his supremacy and to accept the prince that he chose
for it.
This first would-be autocrat of Russia also comprehended the
importance of making the clergy subservient to his will. He tried to
make his capital Vladimir independent of Kiev in church affairs by
establishing in it a metropolitan, and though he failed in his object,
owing to the determined refusal of the patriarch of Constantinople,
yet he succeeded in obtaining the important concession that in future
the Russian metropolitan was to be appointed only with the assent of
the grand prince.
His despotic and cruel rule finally made him
[1205-1221 a.d.] hated by his nobles, and he was assassinated
on June 29th, 1175, at Bogolubovo. After a
period of confusion his second brother, Vsevolod, became grand
prince. During this reign the influence of Suzdal was still further
increased, and the entire north, and even the Olgovitchi of
Tchernigov, recognised his supremacy. In the west and south,
however, Roman Mstislavitch of Volhinia, who conquered Galicia and
ruled temporarily at Kiev, offered a successful resistance. But after
the death of the latter in battle with the Poles in 1205, Vsevolod
conquered Riazan, and even deprived the Olgovitchi of Tchernigov,
giving them Kiev in exchange. This prince, like his predecessor,
attained his object by diplomacy rather than by the sword, and at his
death in 1212 he was the most powerful prince in Russia.
His death was followed by a civil war between his two sons
Constantine and Iuri. The latter, though the younger, was nominated
by Vsevolod as his successor, but in 1217 he was beaten by
Constantine and his allies—Novgorod amongst them—and
compelled to resign the throne. But Constantine died in 1218 and Iuri
reigned undisturbed till 1237. He fought with success against the
Volga Bulgarians, and founded Nijni-Novgorod (1221). But his power
never became as great as had been that of his father, and he
exerted no influence in southern Russia, which was devastated by
Petchenegs from the steppe and by Poles and Hungarians from the
west. All south Russia now lay exhausted before the impending
irruption of the Tatars.c

FOOTNOTES

[9] [They were during the Middle Ages the representatives of

the money-power throughout Europe—a foreign element in the
“natural economy” of that time. Hence the universal hatred against
them.]
 CHAPTER III. THE TIME OF TATAR DOMINATION
In the thirteenth century the steppes of central
[1235-1462 a.d.] Asia sent forth a new conquering horde,
constituting the last wave of that migration of
peoples which had commenced in remote antiquity.[10] This Mongol-
Tatar horde dominated Russia for 240 years and left enduring traces
of its domination. It definitively broke the bond between western and
eastern Russia, and thus contributed to the formation of the
principality of Lithuania in the west; while in the east it promoted the
rise of the principality of Moscow, which finally absorbed all the other
Russian principalities, threw off their Tatar yoke, recoiled in its turn
upon the steppe, and finally, by turning Russia into an empire, made
forever impossible another invasion from the steppe.
The cradle of the Mongolian race was in all probability the country
lying at the foot of the Altai Mountains. At the time of the appearance
of Jenghiz Khan the Mongols were divided into numerous tribes,
which were governed by their elders and lived in mutual enmity. An
unpleasing description of the exterior and life of the Mongols is given
by a Chinese writer, a contemporary of Jenghiz Khan, and also by
Mussulman writers:
 “Their faces are wide, flat, and square, with prominent cheek-
bones, their eyes have no upper lashes, their beard and moustaches
are of scanty growth, their general appearance is repulsive. But the
present Tatar sovereign, Temuchin (Jenghiz Khan) is of enormous
stature, with broad forehead and long beard, and distinguished for
his valour. They reckon the year according to the growth of grass.
When one of them is asked for his age, he replies—so many
grasses. When asked for the number of the month, they laugh and
reply that they do not know. The Tatars are born in the saddle and
grow up on horseback. They learn to fight almost by instinct, for they
hunt the whole year round. They have no infantry, but only cavalry, of
which they can raise several hundred thousand. They hardly ever
resort to writing, but all, from the commander-in-chief to the
commander of ten, give their orders in person. When they want to
take a big town, they first attack the small places in the vicinity, take
all the inhabitants prisoners, and drive them forward to the attack.
For this purpose a command is issued that every man on horseback
should capture ten prisoners, and when this number is completed
they are compelled to collect a certain amount of grass or wood,
earth or stones. The Tatars urge them on night and day, killing those
who become exhausted. Having reached the town, they are
compelled to dig trenches or fill up fosses. In a siege the Tatars reck
not of the loss of tens of thousands: hence they are invariably
successful. When they capture a city they kill all without sparing
either young or old, the beautiful or the ugly, rich or poor, those who
submit or those who resist. No person, however distinguished,
escapes this unrevokable penalty of death. The spoil is divided in
proportionate shares among high and low. This people have no need
of baggage or provision wagons; their herds of sheep, cows, horses,
and other animals follow them on their marches, and they eat meat
and nothing else. Their horses do not know barley, but they tear up
the ground with their hoofs and live on the roots. As to their faith, the
Tatars worship the sun at the time of its rising. They do not regard
anything as forbidden, and eat all animals, even dogs and pigs.
Marriage is unknown to them, but many men come to a woman, and
when a child is born it does not know its father.”
 Similar descriptions are met with in the narratives of Europeans
who knew the Mongols in the days of their power.

JENGHIZ KHAN; THE TATAR INVASION

It was among this rude nomad people that Jenghiz Khan was born
in 1162. The son of the chief of a tribe dwelling at the mouths of the
Onon and the Ingoda, affluents of the Amur, Jenghiz was far
removed from the focus of central Asian political life, and his power
was originally very small. The first forty years of his life were spent in
struggles with the surrounding peoples; it is even said that for ten
years he was in captivity with the Nyûché, or Chûrché (the
Manchurian rulers of northern China known under the name of the
dynasty of Kin), during which time he became acquainted with
Chinese customs and manners, and also with the weakness of the
rulers of China. Having conquered various Mongolian tribes, he
proclaimed himself emperor at a general assembly of the princes,
which was held at the sources of the river Onon (1206).
“By thus taking the imperial title,” says V. P. Vasiliev, “he gave
perfect expression to the purely Chinese conception that, as there is
only one sun in the heavens, so there must be only one emperor on
earth; and all others bearing this title, all states having any
pretensions to independent existence thereby offend the will of
heaven and invite chastisement.” His successes in Mongolia are
explained by his surpassing military talent, the system of purely
military organisation adopted by him, and by the fact that he gave
places in his service to all those who were gifted, of whatever race
they might be.[11] Jenghiz Khan’s conquests advanced rapidly; in
1206 he devastated the kingdom of Tangut (in southern Mongolia)
and in 1210 he commenced a war with the Nyûché, ruling in northern
China. The war dragged on, and meanwhile the shah of Khuarezm
(Bokhara) gave offence to Jenghiz Khan by slaying the Mongolian
ambassadors. Leaving his captains in China, the Mongolian khan
marched to Bokhara (1219), whence, partly in pursuit of the shah
and partly led on by the passion for pillage, the Mongolian troops
directed their way to the west, doubled the southern shore of the
Caspian Sea, crossed the Caucasus, and penetrated into the
steppes of the Polovtsi.
The leaders of these troops were Chépé and
[1223-1228 a.d.] Subutai Bahadar. The Polovtsi applied for help
to the Russian prince Mstislav Mstislavitch, and
he called together the princes of southern Russia, amongst whom
the most important were Mstislav Romanovitch of Kiev and Mstislav
Sviatoslavitch of Tchernigov. The armies of the princes moved to the
help of the Polovtsi, and although the Tatars sent ambassadors
saying, “God has permitted us to come on our steeds with our slaves
against the accursed Polovtsi; come and make peace with us, for we
have no quarrel with you,” the princes decided upon a battle which
took place by the river Kalka in the government of Iekaterinoslav.
The Russian princes, who did not act in unison, were beaten (1223),
and many were killed, amongst others Mstislav of Kiev. The Tatars
did not penetrate far into Russia, but turned back and were soon
forgotten.[12] Meanwhile the Tatar captains returned to Jenghiz
Khan, who, having definitively subdued Tangut and northern China,
died in 1227. He had during his lifetime divided his possessions
amongst his four sons: to the descendants of Juji (then already
dead) was allotted Kiptchak (that is the steppe extending from
central Asia into southern Russia); to Jagatai, Turkestan; to Okkodai
(Ogdai) China; to Tuli, the nomad camps adjoining the share of
Okkodai. Over these princes was to be exalted the great khan,
chosen in a solemn assembly of all the princes. In 1228 Okkodai
was proclaimed great khan.
At first the question of succession, then the
[1237-1241 a.d.] final consolidation of the empire in northern
China, and then again the commencement of
the war with the south kept the princes around the great khan, and it
was only in 1235 that Okkodai sent his nephew Batu, son of Juji,
together with Manku, son of Tuli, and his own son Kuiuk, to conquer
the western lands; to their number was added Sabutai, famous for
his Kiptchak campaign. First of all they conquered the Bulgarians on
the Volga, and then came to the land of Riazan. Here they exacted
from the princes a tribute of a tenth of all their possessions both in
lands and in men; the courageous resistance of the Riazan princes
proved unsuccessful, chiefly because the princes of northern Russia
did not unite, but decided on defending themselves separately. After
the devastation of Riazan and the slaughter of her princes (1237),
followed that of Suzdal. Having taken Moscow, the Tatars marched
to Vladimir, where they slew the family of the grand prince, while he
himself was defeated and killed on the banks of the Sit (1238).
Thence they were apparently going to Novgorod, but returned—
probably to avoid the marshes. On their way back, Kozelsk detained
them for a long time, but it was finally taken and pillaged.
The tactics of the Tatars in this war consisted in first
encompassing each region as hunters do, and then joining forces at
one centre, thus devastating all. In the years 1239-1240 the Tatars
ravaged southern Russia, and in 1240 they took and laid waste Kiev.
All Europe trembled at the horrors of the Tatar invasion; the emperor
Frederick II called for a general arming, but his calls were in vain.
Meanwhile the Tatars advanced to Hungary (1241) and Poland, and
defeated the Polish princes at Liegnitz in Silesia; and it was only the
courageous defence of Olmütz in Moravia, by the Czech voyevod
Iaroslav, and the gathering of armies under the command of the
Czech king and the dukes of Austria and Carinthia, that finally
caused the Tatars to turn back. They then founded their chief
dwelling place on the Volga, where near the present town of Tsareva
(government of Astrakhan) they established a wintering place for the
horde—Sarai. There the Russian princes began to arrive with tribute.
At first, however, they were obliged to go to the great khan in
Mongolia; for the first khans, Okkodai, Kuiuk, and Mangku, were
lawfully chosen by the princes, and maintained their authority over all
the empire of Jenghiz Khan; and it was only from the time of Kublai
(1260), who arbitrarily took possession of the throne and removed
the seat of government to China, that the bond was definitively
severed.

INFLUENCES OF TATAR DOMINATION

 The domination of the Tatars over Russia is regarded by historians
from various points of view: some (such as Karamzin and especially
N. I. Kostomarov) ascribe a decided influence to the Tatars in the
development of Russian life. S. M. Soloviov, on the contrary, is of the
opinion that the influence of the Tatars was not greater than that of
the Polovtsi. Both these opinions are extreme: it is senseless to deny
the influence of the Tatars, for the reason that Russia was long
associated with them, and that, since in her intercourse with the
east, Moscow employed Tatar services, much that was eastern
entered into the administration, notably the financial system; traces
of eastern custom may also be found in the military organisation.
These are direct consequences; the indirect ones are hardly less
important, because a considerable share in the interruption of
civilisation and the roughening of the manners and customs of the
people may be ascribed to the separation of eastern Russia from
western. On the other hand, it is impossible to regard the corporal
punishments as entirely Tatar, for they were known in Byzantium,
and came to Russia in the manuals of church statutes; they were
known also in the west, and are to be met with in places which were
but little under Tatar domination, such as Pskov. The opinion that the
autocratic power had its origin in the domination of the Tatars must, it
would seem, be entirely rejected, especially when we call to mind the
constant preaching of the clergy, and the fact that John the Terrible
directly appeals to the authority of the Bible and the example of the
Roman emperors.
Civilisation and letters were almost unknown to the Tatars. The
writers in their chanceries were for the greater part taken from the
nations they had conquered, as were also the artists who
embellished the wintering places of their khans. Much luxury was to
be met with amongst them, but neither elegance nor cleanliness: in
this respect they kept to the very end the customs of the Mongolian
steppes. Also in moral respects they showed themselves dwellers of
the steppes even to the end of their career in history. Cruel and
coarse though they were, they possessed, however, some good
qualities. They were temperate in their lives, and their cupidity was
not so great as that of other Asiatic nations; they were far less given
to deceit in trade—in general, with them, violence predominated over
deceit.b
Throughout all of their conquests in Russia, they obviously acted
upon a principle which was well calculated to facilitate their own
complete ascendency. At first they destroyed the walled places that
stood in the way of their projects, and afforded a means of defence
to the people; they destroyed the population wherever they went, in
order that the remnant which survived should feel the more surely
the weight of their power; and, at length, as their advance became
the more safe and certain, they relaxed slightly in their cruelties,
enrolling under their standard the slaves they captured, thus turning
their conquests into armaments. But the climate of Russia rendered
it an unsuitable place for their location. As they could not remain
upon the soil which they had vanquished, they established
themselves on the frontiers to watch over their new possessions,
leaving nominal Russian princes to fight for them against the
invading tribes that continually rushed in. Those very invasions
served also to strengthen the Tatar yoke, by weakening the resisting
power of the natives.d
In conquering Russia they had no wish to take possession of the
soil, or to take into their own hands the local administration. What
they wanted was not land, of which they had enough and to spare,
but movable property which they might enjoy without giving up their
pastoral, nomadic life. They applied, therefore, to Russia the same
method of extracting supplies as they had used in other countries.
As soon as their authority had been formally acknowledged they sent
officials into the country to number the inhabitants and to collect an
amount of tribute proportionate to the population. This was a severe
burden for the people, not only on account of the sum demanded,
but also on account of the manner in which it was raised. The
exactions and cruelty of the tax-gatherers led to local insurrections,
and the insurrectionists were of course always severely punished.
But there was never any general military occupation nor any
wholesale confiscations of land, and the existing political
organisation was left undisturbed. The modern method of dealing
with annexed provinces was wholly unknown to the Tatars. The