15
Dariusz Dąbrowski
Then the Prussians, forced out from their land by Germans, came to Traidenis (Tpoйдeн).1 He welcomed them and settled some of them in Grodno, and some of them in Slonim. Then Vladimir2 came to an agreement with Leo, his brother,3 they sent their army to Slonim to conquer it, lest they capture the land. After this, however, Troiden sent his brother Sirputj and fought near Kamien. And Vladimir moved against him and took from him Turiysk [located] on the Neman River, and the nearby villages. And after that they made peace and they both began to live in great love. And then God put a good thought into Prince Vladimir’s heart. He began to think about building a town somewhere outside Brest. … He began to look for a suitable place to build a castle-town somewhere [there]. This land had been abandoned for 80 years after Roman.4 Now God uplifted it with His mercy. And Vladimir sent a fit man named Oleksa,5 who during his father’s time built many castle-towns. And Vladimir sent him, with the locals in boats, up the Liasnaja River, to find somewhere such a place to build the fortress. Oleksa found such a place. And he came to the prince and started talking about it. So the prince himself went with the boyars and the servants and took a liking to this place on the bank of the Liasnaja River and had it grubbed-up. And then he built a castle on it and named it Kamenec.6
This quotation, concerning the events taking place not long after the winter of 1275–1276,7 provides good insight into the complexity of relations between Galician-Volhynian Rus’ and its pagan Baltic neighbours, Lithuanians and Prussians.8 The analysis of this text will serve as a starting point for further deliberations, conducted somewhat digressively, which in fact perfectly reflects the nature of the constantly changing relations on the Rus’-Baltic border. We also note that the problem of relations between these states and groups of people is very extensive and has been of interest to researchers for a long time.9 But because it is so vast, it is practically impossible to cover in one chapter; hence the decision to focus on presenting some key issues, many of which are referred to in the quoted passage.
Firstly, let us pay attention to the sentence that contains some important information: “Then the Prussians, forced out from their land by Germans, came to Traidenis. He welcomed them and settled some of them in Grodno, and some of them in Slonim”. Let us note that, although this is a side issue from the perspective of the discussed topic, we are talking about Prussian emigration to Lithuania related to the fierce battles fought by this Baltic people against the Teutonic Order.10 Traidenis’ actions strengthened the Baltic ethnic component in the borderland, which – as is clearly visible in the later part of the analysed passage – was of concern to the Romanovichi.
The information about the settlement of Prussian newcomers in Grodno and Slonim by Traidenis is extremely important for clarifying the history of the Rus’-Baltic borderlands. It clearly confirms the rule of Lithuanians over these Rus’ castle towns and districts in the mid-1270s. This state of affairs was the result of the successful expansion of the young Lithuanian state into Rus’ territory. In the 1240s, it had already taken on considerable dimensions. A detailed presentation of Lithuania’s activities in other “Rus’” directions will not be given here. They are, in fact, well covered in the literature. For the sake of order, let us only point out that we can distinguish three basic forms.11 Firstly, the Lithuanians organised devastating plundering expeditions to the lands of their Rus’ neighbours, sometimes going very far into their lands.12 Secondly, individual Lithuanian kunigases tried to rule over various Rus’ thrones. So, for example, in 1239, the Lithuanians took over, albeit for a short time, Smolensk.13 According to Galician-Volhynian Chronicle (GVL), before 1254 Vaišelg,14 son of Mindaugas,15 personally ruled in Novogrudok.16 His estate also included other districts, because under a peace agreement he was able to hand over to Roman Danilovich17 “Slonim and Vawkavysk and all the castle-towns”.18 Various sources mention the reign of Tautvilas in Polotsk in 1258–1263.19 In turn, no later than in 1266, but most probably a year earlier, Daumantas fled from Lithuania to Pskov. Later, he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, named himself Theophilus, took power in this significant town, and ruled there until his death on 20 May 1299. Now he is venerated as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church.20 The reasons for the seizure of Rus’ thrones by representatives of the Lithuanian ruling elite were various, which is an extremely interesting issue, but beyond the scope of this chapter. Thirdly and finally, Rurikovichis who usually controlled small areas of borderlands were subordinated by the Lithuanians. It is highly probable that, in 1238, the Prince of Novogrudok, Iziaslav, was subordinate to Mindaugas.21 The document issued on 28 December 1263 shows that the Kunigas of Nalshchany, Girdenis, controlled Polotsk and Vitebsk at that time.22 On the other hand, around 1265, the Princes Iziaslav of Polotsk and Iziaslav of Vitebsk remained dependent on Vaišelg.23
After this digression, let us return to more general issues concerning the borderlands between the state ruled by Romanovichi and Lithuania. First, let us note that the Duchy of Grodno, bordering on the indigenous Lithuanian lands, still existed at the end of the 12th century.24 It was ruled by Rurikovichi, descended from Vsevolod and probably the son of Yaroslav Yaropelkovich, and not David Igorievich, as some literature assumed.25 The last mention of its representatives is dated 1184.26 The further fate of this branch of the Rurikovichi dynasty and their state is impossible to ascertain due to the lack of sources. As for Grodno itself, it is mentioned again much later, in the mid-thirteenth century. From the accounts of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, we learn that it was probably captured by the Romanovichi army in the winter of 1251–1252.27 However, it can be presumed that after peace was concluded at the turn of 1254–1255, the castle town was retaken by Lithuanians, because during the invasion of Lithuania by Burundai in the winter of 1258–1259, Daniel28 wanted to fight against him, but the expedition did not take place due to the poor condition of the Rus’ troops and concerns about the Mongolian plans.29 In turn, probably in 1275, Traidenis sent the Grodno warriors to conquer Drohiczyn.30 Later, the rulers of Galician-Volhynian Rus’ attacked Grodno together with Mongolian troops and a group of other Rurikovichis in the winter of 1275–1276. Although the tower, which was manned by the Prussians, standing in front of the main gates of the castle town was captured, eventually an agreement was reached between the parties and the siege was abandoned.31 Interestingly, a few years later in 1284, Grodno was, for the first time, taken over by Teutonic Knights.32 In the 13th century, Romanovichi’s troops did not venture there anymore. In any case, sources are silent about it.
Meanwhile, Slonim is one of the castle towns of Rus’ on the upper Neman River (the so-called “Black Rus’”), located at the mouth of Isa flowing into the Shchara River, which was probably fortified in the 12th century and most likely part of the Duchy of Grodno33 in earlier times. Written sources provide little information about it. During the civil war in Lithuania, in 1250, it was successfully attacked by the Romanovichi army, which proves that the supporters of Mindaugas (probably Vaišelg’s people) were in the town.34 After peace was made between Galician-Volhynian Rus’ and Lithuania in 1254–1255, Slonim, as we already know, was handed over to Roman Danilovich, and it probably remained part of his estate until the end of 1258.35 Then, the castle town again came under the control of Lithuania, because – as we know – before the winter of 1275–1276 (probably in 1274), Traidenis settled a group of Prussians there, which provoked a retaliatory expedition from the Romanovichi. As a result, Slonim was conquered and became part of their state. It seems that it remained under the rule of Vladimir Vasilkovich, perhaps as a dependent principality, until the death of this Rurikovich. We can deduce this from the fact that the existence of Prince Vasilko of Slonim, remaining in the service of Vladimir, is well confirmed,36 regardless of the claim by some researchers who, without any justification, considered him to be the son of Roman Danilovich.37 It can be presumed that the Romanovichi also ruled in Slonim during the times of Mstislav (II) Danilovich, because there are no records of any aggressive steps by Lithuania towards Volhynia until the end of Vladimir’s reign, and because the Lithuanian princes Butigeidis and Butvydas (Pukuveras), in order to maintain good relations with Mstislav, gave him nearby Vawkavysk.38
The fate of the two castle towns mentioned in the records analysed clearly shows the changeability of the situation on the borderlands between Lithuania and Ruthenia in the 13th century, with the simultaneous functioning of a regularity consisting in the systematic strengthening of Lithuanian influence in this region or, to put it more directly, the territorial expansion – despite the emergence of various hampering factors – of the gradually growing pagan state. It should be noted that the permanent takeover of Grodno was beyond the Romanovichi’s capacity, and Slonim, along with its district, was an area that changed hands [before 1250–1254/1255 it belonged to Lithuania; from 1254–1255 to winter 1258–1259 it belonged to the Romanovichi, but as a Rus’-Lithuanian condominium; from winter 1258–1259 to after winter 1275–1276 it belonged to Lithuania; after winter 1275–1276 (at least until 1289, but probably longer) it belonged to the Romanovichi dynasty]. Let us add that the fates of other remarkable castle towns of the Rus’ on the upper Neman River, such as Novogrudok or Vawkavysk, were similar.39
Here, it is worth having another digression to discuss another very interesting topic on how the political situation was shaped in the borderlands between Galician-Volhynian Rus’ and Lithuania. As a result of the peace agreement of 1254–1255, Roman Danilovich, apart from Slonim and Vawkavysk, which he received from Vaišelg, also obtained Novogrudok, which was allegedly given to him personally by Mindaugas.40 In this way, a large part of the Rus’-Baltic borderland on the upper Neman River came under the control of a representative of the Romanovichi dynasty. We have no doubts that in order to strengthen his position in this region, probably on the initiative of Daniel, Roman was married to the daughter of an undoubted Rurikovich, but of an undefined lineage – Gleb.41
In fact, Roman’s status was not as obvious as it appears at first glance. From some information contained in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, we learn that Daniel, who was preparing a great expedition on Yotvingia in the winter of 1255–1256, sent for his son in Novogrudok, who came to help his father “with all the inhabitants of Novogrudok, with his father-in-law Gleb and Iziaslav Svislotski”.42 However, on the other hand, the same source states that a few months earlier, in the spring of 1255, when the king of Rus’ was preparing a military action against the Mongols and their Rus’ allies from the so-called Bolochov region and its surroundings: “He sent Mindaugas to Daniel [saying]: ‘I will send you Roman and the inhabitants of Novogrudok’”.43 Incidentally, it is clear from a further part of the narrative that a significant number of the prince’s warriors were pagan Lithuanians.44 At the same time, whether they were part of the troops sent by Mindaugas or whether there were Lithuanian forces formally stationed on Roman’s lands remains an open question. So, it seems that the estate of this Danilovich, which included the Rus’ lands south of the Neman River, was a kind of condominium. Roman depended on both his father and Mindaugas. At the same time, he probably exercised some control over a group of minor Rurikovichi living in the lands that were not directly under his control.45
Roman’s reign over the aforementioned lands turned out to be short-lived. During the invasion of Lithuania by the Mongolian army of Burundai in the winter of 1258–1259, the prince was captured by Vaišelg and Tautvilas.46 This shows the fragility of his position and – moreover – is one of the arguments confirming the fact that the so-called “Black Rus’” lands at the time in question were not striving to join their Rus’ kinsmen from Galicia and Volhynia, but that their inhabitants preferred to remain dependent on Lithuania.47
I will quote another fragment, which is crucial in order to shed light on the relationship between the state ruled by Romanovichi and its Baltic neighbours:
Vladimir came to an agreement with Leo, his brother, they sent their army to Slonim to conquer it, lest they capture the land. After this, however, Troiden sent his brother Sirputj and fought near Kamien. And Vladimir moved against him and took from him Turiysk [located] on the Neman River, and the nearby villages. And after that they made peace and they both began to live in great love.
This quote demonstrates the volatility of bilateral relations and illustrates the situation on the borderlands, not only in the first half of the 1270s but also in earlier decades and afterwards. I will begin its analysis with a remark on the political situation inside the Romanovichi state. The chronicler named two of the four then adult male representatives of the dynasty, Vladimir Vasilkovich and Leo Danilovich. The first of them, in whose circles the analysed fragment of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle was created, after the death of his father48 around 1269, became the ruler of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir, which was the main region, centrally located, and stretching far north towards these borderlands with former duchies of the so-called “Black Rus’” part of Volhynia. The most important castle towns of the Duchy of Vladimir were Vladimir, Brest, Bielsk, Liuboml and Kamenec.49 At that time, Leo Danilovich ruled over the principalities of Galicia, Przemysl and Belz.50 In the narrow northern section, in the area of Drohiczyn and Mielnik, his lands bordered the so-called “Black Rus’”, and in the northwest they bordered Yotvingia.
The source’s description of Vladimir and Leo as brothers is absolutely correct. They were grandchildren of Roman Mstislavovich, and so the relationship between them was very close.
Meanwhile, the two adults not mentioned in the account, who in the first half of the 1270s played a certain role in relations with Lithuania and Yotvingia, were Mstislav (II) Danilovich51 and Yuri Lvovich.52 The first of them ruled over eastern Volhynia, with the more important castle towns in Luck and Dubno and – perhaps – in Krzemieniec and Peremyl.53 In my opinion, he received these lands after the death of Vasilko Romanovich.54 Then, he was designated by Vladimir Vasilkovich as the heir to the throne of Vladimir.55 As a result, Mstislav (II) united Volhynia under his rule which, however – it seems – weakened the relative unity of the Romanovichi state, which had in fact been cracking since Daniel’s death. One can guess that at some point Yuri received from his father the estate, which included Belz, Chelm, Czerwen, Drohiczyn and Mielnik.56 Of course, Leo was the supreme ruler of this area.
The passage analysed shows that some time before the winter of 1275–1276, an anti-Lithuanian agreement was reached between Vladimir and Leo. The emphasis on this fact by the chronicler requires a comment. So, in the earlier period, the relations between these Romanovichi, including in regard to Lithuanian politics, were at times bad. They were very different from the times when Vasilko, Vladimir’s father, worked closely with Daniel Romanovich, the father of Leo. Vasilko remain loyal to his older brother, who was the unquestioned supreme ruler of the Galician-Volhynian Rus’. However, after Daniel’s death, the exemplary solidarity among the Romanovichi disintegrated, which was connected, on the one hand, with the issues of internal territorial divisions of the state and sovereignty over it and, on the other, with the assessment of priorities in foreign policy.57 As a result, Leo, who was most likely prevented by his father from gaining supreme power over his land, which was bestowed on Shvarno, found himself in opposition to his much younger brother and uncle.58 We will be most interested in two episodes of this conflict, which are closely related to the issues of the Romanovichi’s Lithuanian policy. Indeed, in the civil war in Lithuania resulting from Mindaugas’ death, Shvarno Danilovich and Vasilko Romanovich strongly supported Vaišelg. It was thanks to the help of the Rus’, especially the Romanovichi but also the Pinsk princes, that the aforementioned son of Mindaugas defeated internal opponents and became the supreme ruler of Lithuania.59 Then, in obscure circumstances, he renounced his rule – which was a rare phenomenon in the history of Rus’-Lithuanian relations – and was replaced by Shvarno. For the second time in his life he then became a monk, this time settling at the monastery of St. Daniel in Uhrusk, more or less halfway between Wladimir (Vasilko’s seat) and Chelm (Shvarno’s seat).60 Incidentally, one might add that, from the turn of 1254–1255, Shvarno was Vaišelg’s brother-in-law. The marriage at the root of this relationship was concluded as a result of a peace agreement between Galician-Volhynian Rus’ and the state under Mindaugas’ rule after the civil war in Lithuania, in which the Romanovichi actively participated.61 In short, it turns out that the elements of the family connections policy were also used in Rus’-Lithuanian relations, and the marriage of Shvarno to the daughter of Mindaugas was to be one of the safeguards of the peaceful relations that prevailed between the first kings of Lithuania and Rus’. Interestingly, and worth emphasising, this was not the first time that the members of Romanovichi dynasty and Lithuanian kunigases married. After all, Daniel himself, probably between 1242 and 1245, married a woman of unknown name62 who was the daughter of Dausprungas, older brother of Mindaugas.63 This, in turn, was undoubtedly one of the factors influencing the older Romanovich’s decision to support a particular party in the civil war in Lithuania, which began in 1248. In order to shed light on this issue, let us see what the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle says about it:
In the same year, Mindaugas exiled his nephews, Tevtyvil and Edivid, and sent them to war along with their warriors. To the war, with Wikint, to Rus’ to fight, towards Smolensk. And he said: “Who will take whatever, will have it”. Because of enmity, because of hostility with them, [he took] Lithuania. For this reason [also] the entire land of Lithuania was subordinated, and their innumerable property was seized [and] their wealth [all of it]. And he sent his warriors against them to kill them. They both, having found out, fled to Prince Daniel and Vasilko. And they came to Vladimir. Mindaugas, after having called his envoys, said, “Have no mercy for both of them”. Neither Daniel nor Vasilko listened, because their sister was [married] to Daniel.64
As one can see, the Lithuanian relatives fled to the court of the older Romanovich, who, aware of the centralising aspirations of Mindaugas and the potential threat that could be brought by Galician-Volhynian Rus’, supported them in order to weaken their opponent’s strength. It is worth noting at this point because it is a very interesting matter that, thanks probably to the marriage of Daniel to Dausprungas’ daughter and the very close relations with her closest relatives and their Lithuanian circles, a lot of information about, for example, pagan customs and Lithuanian rites, as well as the local pantheon, reached the court of the older Romanovich.65 This probably also resulted from Shvarno’s relationship with the daughter of Mindaugas, as well as the close relationship of the aforementioned Danilovich and his uncle with Vaišelg. However, this issue is beyond the scope of this text.
Having digressed, let us return to the main theme of our considerations. Leo, who was unexpectedly sidelined after his father’s death and basically not participating in the rivalry for the Lithuanian throne, could have been afraid of further marginalisation caused by the strengthening of Vasilko’s and Shvarno’s positions in the north. In order to change this unfavourable situation, he decided to take an astonishing, unprecedented step. Namely, he asked his uncle to organise a tripartite meeting. Although Vaišelg was afraid of him, which might have been related to the role he played in capturing Roman Danilovich, at Vasilko’s request, he went to Vladimir. There, on Easter 1267, during an alcohol-drenched meeting, Leo murdered Vaišelg, and everything indicates that he did so personally.66 This deed, although probably at least partially motivated by a desire for revenge, significantly weakened Shvarno’s position in Lithuania.67 Another argument points to the mainly political motivations for the murder. The chronicler working in the circles of Vladimir Vasilkovich recalls, with a kind of disapproval, that for some time after Vasilko’s death Leo lived in great love with Traidenis, whereas in fact the prince of Vladimir waged wars with the ruler of Lithuania.68 As one can see, there were fundamental differences within the Romanovichi dynasty regarding the attitude towards Lithuanian issues.
However things looked on the other side of the border at that time, the then superior ruler of Lithuania, Traidenis, who took power after the death of Shvarno Danilovich – that is, around 126969 – had a terrible reputation at the court of Vladimir Vasilkovich. A chronicler working in this circle called him “damned and ungodly and cursed and unmerciful”, and then stated, “[W]e could not describe his lawlessness out of shame. For he was such an ungodly person as Antiochus of Syria and Herod of Jerusalem and Nero of Rome”.70 Such an accumulation of epithets was not even brought against any Mongol khans or chiefs or the Hungarian magnate Füle, who was genuinely hated in Daniel Romanovich’s circle. This is a clear testimony to the hostility of the elite of the Duchy of Vladimir towards the ruler of Lithuania.
Traidenis had several loyal brothers who worked with him. One of them, Sirputis, was mentioned in the passage analysed, which confirms his dependence on Traidenis and his loyal attitude towards his probably older brother.71 The other brothers of the Lithuanian ruler were known by name as Barza, Liesis and Svalkenis. All three – which is worth adding because it shows the cultural and religious processes taking place among the Lithuanian elite – were baptised, undoubtedly under the influence of contacts with the neighbour of Rus’ and almost certainly in the Eastern rite. The Volhynian chronicler also spoke positively about them.72 The tendency to adopt Eastern Orthodoxy by at least some representatives of the Lithuanian kunigas dynasties was clearly a factor that evoked positive reactions among the inhabitants of Rus’. It built a sense of community on a religious level, and at least it eliminated the natural reluctance of Christians towards pagans. It was also an undeniably important factor in political relations, which made it easier for the converted Lithuanians to rule over their Orthodox subjects.
Traidenis had three other brothers with names unknown to the sources, but undoubtedly different from those mentioned previously. They all died in the battles with Vasilko, that is, before 1268–1269,73 presumably during the civil war in Lithuania that flared up after the death of Mindaugas. The aforementioned son of Roman Mstislavovich and his nephew Shvarno actively participated in it. This is a testimony to the then poor relations between the ruler of Volhynia and one of the factions in Lithuania, represented by, among others, Traidenis.
Let us return, however, to the military issues outlined in the passage under analysis. To begin with, we may point out that the Romanovichi must have been seriously concerned about the strengthening of the Baltic component by Traidenis by settling Prussians in this area. This was probably an important factor that led to the conclusion of an anti-Lithuanian alliance by relatives (cousins) disliking each other. Moreover, the passage analysed shows the scope and nature of the Rus’-Lithuanian battles at that time. They took place in the Rus’ territories, those already subordinate to Lithuania, or else those belonging to the Romanovichi’s state. It seems that the princes of Volhynia were not able, as had been the case previously, to break into indigenous Lithuanian areas.74 The troops of Vladimir and Leo managed to reach only Turiysk on the Neman River,75 while Sirputis’ troops attacked the vicinity of Kamien.76 As for its nature, it was a war waged by relatively small forces, harassing and plundering the enemy’s lands and attacking unexpectedly in the chosen direction. This statement is fully confirmed by the mentions of the fights that took place between Vladimir Vasilkovich and Traidenis and then between the aforementioned Lithuanian ruler and Leo Danilovich. In the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, we find the following information about these events:
And [Traidenis] did not live in love with Vladimir, … but fought with him, though with small units. And Traidenis sent his infantry to fight against and plunder Vladimir, and Vladimir also went to fight against Traidenis. And so they fought against each other for a whole year.77
What is most interesting, however, is the matter of the unexpected Lithuanian attack on lands belonging to Leo Drohiczyn. GVL provides the following information about it:
Then Traidenis, having forgotten his love for Leo, sent people from Grodno, ordering [them] to take Drohichyn, and Trid was with them. The latter knew about the castle-town, how [it] could be conquered. So he went down by night, and they captured it just on the Easter day. And they killed everyone from little ones to big ones. Leo, hearing that, was saddened by it.78
Several facts in this account draw our attention. Firstly, let us note that the attack was carried out by the Grodnians and, therefore, in all probability by the Rus’ people. Their commander, of unknown ethnic origin, must have been absolutely familiar with the topography of the castle town and the habits of its inhabitants, as is stated in the source. The cruelty of the attackers is also noteworthy. Although it was not written down directly, apparently Drohiczyn was not taken over by the people of the Lithuanian ruler, but brutally devastated. What prompted Traidenis to suddenly break off good relations with Leo, and what was behind the invaders’ massacre of the inhabitants of Drohiczyn will remain a mystery. In any case, the honeymoon years in their relations ended abruptly, and Danilovich, so as to punish his former ally, turned to the Mongols: “And he began to ponder, and sent” – as the source tells – “to the Tatars, to the great emperor Mengu-Timur, asking him for help for himself against Lithuania”.79 So, we see a new way for the rulers of Galician-Volhynian Rus’ – connected with Leo’s relations with the Golden Horde – to regulate conflicts with the Lithuanians. Incidentally, the request by the Rus’ prince was granted. In addition to the Mongol troops, he received reinforcements from other Romanovichi, Roman of Bryansk, Gleb of Smolensk and other princes from the other side of the Dnieper River. However, despite the involvement of a large force, the expedition, apart from the devastation of the Novogrudok district subordinate to Lithuania, did not result in any significant changes.80
Contrary to appearances, the following sentences also closely relate to the issue of the Rus’-Baltic borderlands:
He began to look for a suitable place to build a castle-town somewhere [in it]. This land was abandoned for 80 years after Roman[’s death]. …81 Therefore, the prince himself went with the boyars and the servants and took a liking to this place on the bank of the Lesna River and cleared it. And then he built a castle-town on it and named it Kamenec.
The devastation of the Volhynian – “Black Rus’” borderland – was confirmed by the fact that it was the place where Kamenec was founded. According to well-confirmed sources, this devastation was caused by numerous invasions by Baltic peoples of the states ruled by the Romanovichi and their closest relatives after the death of Roman Mstislavovich (recall 19 June 1205).82 One might add that, during the reign of this ruler, the mutual relations with the Balts were quite different. From the account of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, it is known that Roman was fighting in the Yotvingian lands, and the author of the relevant fragment of the source expressed this information in a symptomatic way, undoubtedly with an apologetic undertone: “Many tributes were paid by the Yotvingias to King Daniel, son of Grand Prince Roman. Since after the Grand Prince Roman, no one from the Rus’ princes fought against them except for his son Daniel”.83 Considering the ideological tone of the note, one should agree with the statement that, after the death of Roman in 1205, the Rus’ people almost completely, for over 40 years, stopped taking military operations against the Yotvingians and Lithuanians, limiting themselves to repelling the plundering attacks on their own lands by the Baltic peoples. The fact is that these raids were mainly the work of Yotvingians, because in 1219 an agreement was concluded between the Romanovichi and a group of Lithuanian and Samogitian kunigases.84 This accord regulated the relations between the parties for many consecutive years. Moreover, it gave Daniel the opportunity to use the Lithuanians as allies in conflicts with Polish princes. Thus, in 1220, at his instigation, Lithuanian troops attacked the state ruled by Leszek the White,85 while in 1238, Mindaugas and Iziaslaw of Novogrudok, inspired by the older Romanovich, invaded the lands of Konrad I of Mazovia.86 The situation regarding mutual relations did not alter until the early 1240s, and we associate this change not only with the conviction of Lithuanian kunigases about the serious weakening of the Romanovichi caused by the Batu Khan invasion but above all with some internal struggles in Lithuania. At this point, we should note a few premises that make up a logical whole. Around 1242, Vaišna (Aishvno), Ruškaitis and Lengvenis attacked Volhynia.87 They were opponents of Mindaugas, whose niece – as we know – was married to Daniel around that time. Moreover, in 1245, the Romanovichi, attacked by Rostislav Mikhailovich who was leading the Hungarian troops along with supporting warriors from Lesser Poland and the faithful Galician boyars, turned for help to, among others, Mindaugas.88
The relations of Roman Mstislavovich’s sons with Mindaugas, who was striving – with increasing success – to gain domination in Lithuania, changed some time after the final unification of Galician-Volhynian Rus’ under Daniel’s reign in 1245. It was then that the Romanovichi, probably aware of the threat posed by the increased power of their former Baltic ally, actively joined the actions against him and also began the invasion of Yotvingia, in agreement with the Polish princes, while considering the interests of the Teutonic Order.89
In any case, as it transpires from the analysed passage, the Baltic raids from the period between 1205 and 1242 apparently caused far-reaching, long-lasting devastation of the northern parts of Volhynia, specifically in areas north of Brest.
We should also note that, as can be seen from the analysed fragment, the areas around the future Kamieniec were not completely depopulated, because master Oleksa could have gone up the river in search of a suitable place to build a castle town for local people. However, the area was wild and wooded, and the population was probably minimal and not involved in agriculture. In short, we can see the only certain political stabilisation in the borderlands that took place after the peace with Traidenis was concluded, and then the weakening of Lithuania after his death, and this state’s necessity to struggle against the increasing pressure from the Teutonic Knights was an important factor enabling the Prince of Vladimir to conduct an internal settlement campaign, connected with the establishment of a vastly strengthened centre of power in what had previously been poorly developed areas between Brest and “Black Rus’”. We know that, as a result of these actions at the end of Vladimir’s reign, Kamenec became one of the most important administrative and military centres of his small state. It was there that the prince took refuge during the Mongol invasion of Polish lands in 1287–1288, which also affected the Rus’ lands.90 The advancement of Kamenec can be interpreted as a testimony to the success of the settlement endeavours. It seems obvious that the castle town had to have its own back-up facilities.
Conclusions
Let us first note that, in the 13th century, the borderlands of Lithuania and the Romanovichi’s state were undoubtedly the lands of Rus’ on the Neman River.
Changes in the situation in this area were very dynamic. This state of affairs was caused primarily by the ferment related to the situation in Lithuania, the birth of this state in the midst of internal and external fights and the unrest that had plagued the principality of Galicia and Volhynia for 40 years, in connection with the fierce rivalry for power over these Rus’ lands (Roman’s legacy).
In any case, at the time of our interest, when it comes to bilateral political relations, we can talk about the emergence of a special status quo. The Romanovichi were not able to seriously threaten Lithuania and had to be content with more or less temporary gains in Rus’ on the Neman River, while at that time the Lithuanians did not have sufficient force to conquer any part of the Romanovichi’s state. The only exception to this rule is the case of Vaišelg’s voluntary relinquishment of power in favour of his brother-in-law Shvarno Danilovich. His reign in Lithuania, which is impossible to thoroughly examine due to the almost complete lack of sources, turned out to be a short-lived episode (probably from the second half of 1266 to – perhaps – 1269). However, it also proves the existence of ties close enough that at least some of the Lithuanian elites were able to accept the “foreign” ruler who, moreover, reigned in a part of Galician-Volhynian Rus’ at the same time.
The mutual relations, of course, did not take place in a vacuum. They were also strongly influenced by relations with other state organisms, especially with the Teutonic Order, Polish principalities (especially Lower Poland and Mazovia), other Rus’ principalities (especially with Turov-Pinsk, Veliki Novogorod and Pskov, Smolensk, Polotsk and Vladimir-Suzdalian Rus’) and the Mongolian empire.
According to Henryk Paszkiewicz, the interactions with the Rurikovichi’s ecumene were of significant importance for the emerging state from one more point of view. Almost 100 years ago, the Warsaw researcher presented an intriguing hypothesis that, “[I]n the 13th century, the grand princes of Lithuania’s main reason for conquering parts of Rus’ was to become able, with the help of Rus’ forces, to achieve dominance and supremacy over the Lithuanian kunigases”.91 Perhaps, by being aware of the threat posed by the emergence of a strong power in Lithuania concentrated in one hand, the Romanovichi tried, as much as possible, to counteract such developments in various ways. On the other hand, the circumstances forced the conclusion of more or less permanent bilateral agreements.
It is also worth noting one more aspect of bilateral political contacts. In no way can they be viewed through the prism of ethnic or even religious differences. After all, Eastern Orthodox Rus’ and pagan Lithuanian warriors fought side by side. On the other hand, the Romanovichi entered into alliances with individual Lithuanian kunigases against even close relatives (for example, the agreement between Leo Danilovich and Traidenis directed against Vasilko Romanovich, Shvarno Danilovich and later Vladimir Vasilkovich), while Lithuanian dynasts, fighting for power, turned for help to the princes of Galicia-Volhynia with an analogous purpose (the alliance of the opponents of Mindaugas with the Romanovichi, and then Vaišelg’s alliance with Vasilko and Shvarno). Moreover, a very telling example of the far-reaching ethnoreligious confusion of the relations just described is the attack on Drohiczyn organised by Traidenis. After all, the people living there were attacked and murdered by Grodnans, undoubtedly mostly of Rus’ and Eastern Orthodox origin.
The relations between Galician-Volhynian Rus’ and Lithuania were obviously multilevel, and not only in the political sphere. Thus, in the interactions of these state organisms, a meeting place of two peoples and two religions was created. Undoubtedly, this was conducive not only to getting to know each other but also to the evident Rus’ cultural and religious expansion, and at the same time to the territorial expansion of Lithuania which, however, did not directly affect Galician-Volhynian Rus’ at that time. Let us note that among the representatives of the Lithuanian ruling elite mentioned in the chapter, at least six converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church (Vaišelg, Daumantas, Sirputi, Barza, Liesis and Svalkenis), compared to two who were baptised in the Latin rite (Tavtvilas and Mindaugas). Two representatives of the Romanovichi dynasty married female representatives of the Lithuanian ruling elite, which undoubtedly resulted in some familiarisation of the Galician-Volhynian courts with the customs (including pagan religion) of the neighbouring Baltic people, although we do not doubt that the duchess of Lithuanian origin must have been baptised. After all, the ties of kinship were not the only reason for the group of kunigases to stay with the Romanovichi at different times, maintaining close relations with them, which is best evidenced by the fact that Yuri Lvovich was baptised by Vaišelg.92 Closeness and good mutual acquaintance, however, did not always bring positive results, as the inhabitants of Drohiczyn became painfully aware.
Of course, in our deliberations we rely solely on the accounts of written sources, which not only almost completely ignore the great sphere of relations in the broadly understood domain of material culture but also provide very little information about the mutual relations of the lower strata of the populace, which did not arouse the interest of chroniclers. Indeed, the mutual abduction of people is known to have occurred, albeit without any further details and almost nothing else.
In any case, research on such phenomena must, of necessity, be left to appropriate experts (archaeologists, anthropologists, etc.). The reflections presented show the importance and value of interdisciplinary studies.
Notes
· 1 The ruler of Lithuania in the years ca. 1268–1282. There is a good quality biography of Trojden (= Traidenis) by a Vilnius researcher, Arturasa Dubonisa, Traidenis. Monarcho valdţios atkűrimas Lietuvoje 1268–1282 (Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2009). In relation to this ruler, apart from quotations taken from a Rus’ source, we use the Lithuanian form of the name – Traidenis. This rule also applies to the other Lithuanian kunigases (Lithuanian princes) mentioned in the chapter.
· 2 Vladimir-Ivan Vasilkovich (ca. 1247–1249 to 10 December 1288). The only son and one of two children of Vasilko Romanovich and Dubrava, daughter of Konrad I of Masovia. There is no separate study about this prince. For his genealogy, see Dariusz Dąbrowski, Rodowód Romanowiczów książąt halicko-wołyńskich (Poznań and Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Historyczne, 2002), 187–96; Dariusz Dąbrowski, Genealogia Mścisławowiczów. Pierwsze pokolenia (do początku XIV w.) (Krakow: Avalon, 2008), 383–26; Dariusz Dąbrowski, Genealogija Mstislavichej. Pervye pokolenija (do nachala XIV v.), trans. and foreword Ę. Erusalimskij and O. Ostapchuk (Sankt-Peterburg: Dmitrij Bulanin, 2015), 406–9.
· 3 Leo Danilovich (ca. 1225–1228 to ca. 1299–1300) was the eldest of Daniel Romanovich’s sons, who reached adulthood and became politically active. He was the son-in-law of King Bela IV of Hungary and undoubtedly one of the most outstanding representatives of the dynasty. His activity has not been yet covered in a proper case study, although there is a Ukrainian biography of the prince in two versions (L. Vojtovych, Lev Danylovych, knjaz’ halyc’ko-volyns’kyj (bl. 1225 – bl. 1301), L’viv: Instytut ukrajinoznavstva im. I. Kryp’jakevycha NAN Ukrajiny, 2014: These are bibliographic data for the larger of them), also translated into Polish (Lew Daniłowicz książę halicko-wołyński (ok. 1225 – ok. 1301), Krakow: Avalon, 2020). It is worth noting that Leontij Voitovich also published an article specifically devoted to Leo’s Lithuanian policy: Litovskaja politika knjazja L’va Danilovicha, in: Colloquia Russica, Ser. II, vol. II: Vidurio Rytř Europa mŭđio prie Mëlynřjř Vandenř, eds. V. Jankauskas and V. Nagirnyy (Kaunas – Krakow: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas Kaunas – Krokuvos Jogailaičų universitetas, 2013), 65–79.
· 4 Roman Mstislavovich (1155–1156 to 19 June 1205) in the last few years of his life was the Prince of Halych-Volodymyr and the founder of the Romanovich dynasty, which ruled in the southwest of Rus’ (in Halych-Volhynia Rus’) from 1205 to 1340. He was one of the most outstanding members of the Rurikovichi dynasty of his time, arousing enormous interest in literature. Suffice it to say that, among the large number of scientific works devoted to him, there are several biographies of varying quality: P. Kraljuk, Roman Mstyslavovych, knjaz’ volyns’kyj i halyc’kyj (Luc’k: Nadstyr’ja, 1999); O. Holovko, Knjaz’ Roman Mstyslavych ta joho doba (Kyjiv: Stylos, 2001); Ŕ. Gorovenko, Ěĺch Romana Galickogo. Knjaz’ Roman Mstislavich v istorii, epose I legendakh (Sankt-Peterburg: Dmitrij Bulanin, 2011); Ŕ. V. Ěŕjorov, Hŕlyc’ko-volyns’kyj knjaz’ Roman Mstyslavovych, volodarđ,vojin, dyplomat, vol. I–II (Bila Cerkva, Oleksandr Pshonkivs’kyj, 2011).
· 5 One of the few mentions of medieval Rus’ artists – in this particular case, a builder.
· 6 Kronika halicko-wołyńska.Kronika Romanowiczów, translation, introduction and comments D. Dąbrowski and Adrian Jusupović (Krakow and Warsaw: Avalon, 2017), 228–29. It should also be pointed out that all quotations from the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle (The Romanovichi Chronicle), hereinafter cited as the GVC, were translated by Władysław Bibrowski on the basis of the Polish edition of the source (see earlier discussion). However, I did not use the English translation of the source by Georg Perfecky as a basis due to its deviations from the original text (The Galician-Volynian Chronicle, trans. G. A. Perfecky (= The Hypatian Codex, part 2), in: Harvard Series in Ukrainian Studies, vol. XVI, 2 (München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1973). The original text was based on the edition, Chronica Galiciano-Voliniana (Chronica Romanoviciana), eds. D. Dąbrowski, A. Jusupović, I. Juriewa, A. Majorow, and T. Wiłkuł, in: Monumenta Poloniae Historica nova series, vol. XVI (Krakow and Warsaw: PAU – IH PAN, 2017), 482–88, and goes as follows:
Посем[ь] же прїидоша проуси къ Троиденеви из своеѧ землѣ неволею пред[ъ] нѣм[ь]ци. Он[ъ] же пїа [sic] ѧ къ собѣ, и посади чѧст[ь] их[ъ] в Горѡднѣ, а чѧстьr их[ъ] посади оу Слонимѣ. Вълѡдимер[ъ] же здоума съ Л[ь]вѡм[ь] съ братѡм[ь] своим[ь], пославша рат[ь] свою къ Слонимоу, взѧста, а быша землѣ не пѡд[ъ]сѣдали. Посем[ь] же Троидени послав[ъ] брата своего Сирьпоут[ь] ѧ, и воева около Камена. Волѡдимер[ъ] же противоу томоу пославь и възa оу него Тоурїискь на рѣци на Немнѣ и села около его поима. И посем[ь] же оумиристасѧ и начѧста быти въ велици люб[ъ]ви. И посем[ь] вложи Б[ог]ъ въ с[ь]рд[ь]це мысль бл[а]гоу кнѧѕю Волѡдимероу: нача събѣ доумати, а бы где за Берестїемь поставити горѡд[ъ] … нача искати мѣста пѡдобна,а бы где поставити горѡд[ъ]. Сїа же землѧ бѧше опоустѣла по п҃ лѣт[ъ] по Романѣ н[ы]нѣ Б[ог]ъ въздвигноу ю м[и]л[о]стїю Своею. И посла Волѡдимерь мѫжа хитра именем[ь] Олеѯоу, иже бѧше и при ѡт[ь]ци его многы городы роубѧ, и посла его Вълѡдимерь с тоземци въ челнънох[ъ] въ връх[ъ] рѣкы Л[ь]сны, а бы где изнайти таково мѣсто горѡд[ъ] поставити. Съи же нашед[ъ] мѣсто таково, и прїеха къ кнѧѕю, и начѧ повѣдати. Кнѧз[ь] же сам[ъ] еха съ боѧры и слоугами, и оулюби мѣсто то над[ъ] берегѡм[ь] рѣкы Льстны, и ѡт[ъ]требї е, и потѡм[ь] сроуби на нем[ь] горѡд[ъ] и нареч[е] имѧ емоу Каменець, зане быс[ть] землѧ камена.
I would like to recall that researchers commonly use the publication of the source prepared by Alexei Shakhmatov repeatedly reissued in a phototypic form [Ipat’evskaja letopis’, in: Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisej, vol. II, Sankt-Peterburg: Tipografija M. A. Aleksandrova, 1908 (reprints: Moscow 1962, 1998, 2001)].
· 7 These events can be dated in relation to the Mongolian-Rus’ invasion of Lithuania or, more precisely, of Navahrudak and Grodno, which were dependent on it. This military campaign took place in winter 1275–1276 (Ě. Hrushevs’kyj, “Khronolohija podij Halyc’ko-Volyns’koji litopysi,” [2 ed.], in Ňvory u 50 tomakh, t. VII, ed. Ě. Hrushevs’kyj (L’viv: Svit, 2005), 368, 386; Dubonis, Traidenis, 113, 188; Ju. V. Seleznev, Russkoordynskie konflikty XIII–XV vekov (Moskva: Kvadriga, 2010), 45.
· 8 As can be seen, in this segment there is no mention of Yotvingians, the people who were among important Baltic partners of the Romanovichi and were definitely more significant than the Prussians.
· 9 The relations between Galician-Volhynian Rus’ and the Balts in the 13th century were discussed in numerous works essentially devoted to broader issues, but touching in various ways the our issue of interest. Of course, it is not a sensible or possible solution to present the full bibliography of the issue. Instead, I present the works that for various reasons I consider as the most important. See, for example: J. Latkowski, “Mendog,” in Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności. Wydział Historyczno-Filozoficzny, Ser. II, vol. III (Kraków: Akademia Umiejętności, 1892), 300–453; Ě. Hrushevs’kyj, ˛storija Ukrajiny-Rusy, vol. II: XI–XIII vik (Ęyjiv: Naukova Dumka, 1992; vol. III: dî roku 1340, Ęyjiv: Naukova Dumka, 1993); J. Totoraitis, Die Litauer unter dem König Mindowe bis zum Jahre 1263 (Freiburg: St-Paulus Druckerei, 1905); H. Łowmiański, Studja nad początkami społeczeństwa i państwa litewskiego, vol. I–II (Wilno: Towarzystow Przyjaciół Nauk w Wilnie, 1931–1932); H. Paszkiewicz, Jagiellonowie a Moskwa, vol. I: Litwa a Moskwa w XIII i XIV wieku (Warszawa: Fundusz Kultury Narodowej, 1933), 49–163; V. T. Pashuto, Îcherki po istorii Galicko-Volynskoj Rusi (Ěoskvŕ: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1950); V. T. Pashuto, Obrazovanie litovskogo gosudarstva (Ěoskvŕ: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1959); Z. Ivinskis, Lietuvos Istorija Iki Vytauto Didžiojo mirties (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991); E. Gudavičius, Mindaugas (Vilnius: Žara, 1998); Ŕ. K. Ęraucevich, Stvarenne Vjalikaga Ęnjastva Litouskaga (Ěensk: Belaruskaja navuka, 1998); M. Bartnicki, Polityka zagraniczna księcia Daniela Halickiego w latach 1217–1264 (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2005), 159–80; Gіstoryja Belarusi, vol. 2: Bеlarus’ u peryjad Vjalikaga Knjastva Litouskaga (Minsk: Ekopoerspektiva, 2008), 52–96; D. Baronas, A. Dubonis, and R. Petrauskas, Lietuvos istorija, vol. III: XIII a. – 1385 m. Valstybës iđkilimas tarp rytř ir vakarř (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2011); D. Dąbrowski, Daniel Romanowicz król Rusi (ok. 1201–1264). Biografia polityczna (Krakow: Avalon, 2012); D. G. Khrustalev, Severnye krestonoscy. Rus’ v borbe za sfery vliPycü â áopáe ça côepű âëč˙íč˙ â Bocňo÷íoé Ďpčáaëňčęe XII–XIII ââ. (Sankt-Petersburg: Evrazija, 2012); A. S. Kibin’, Ot Jatvjazi do Litvy. Russkoe pogranich’e s jatvjagami i litvoj v X–XIII vv (Ěîskva: Kvadriga, 2014). A complete list of information on Lithuanian-Ruthenian relations during the period of interest can be found in Regesta Lithuaniae ab originem usque ad Magni Ducatus cum Regno Poloniae unionem, t. I: Tempora usque ad annum 1315 complectens, ed. Henryk Paszkiewicz (Varsaviae: Kasa im. Mianowskiego, Instytut Popierania Nauki, 1930). In works where information about the relations between the Romanovich dynasty and the Balts is too scattered, I do not specify on which pages it can be found.
· 10 As for the dating and circumstances of this event, see, for example, Ě. Hrushevs’kyj, Khronologija podij, 369, 386 (1276 r.); Regesta Lithuaniae, 109 (1276); Е. Оkhman’skij, “Inozemnye poselenija v Litve XIII–XIV vv.v svete etnonimicheskikh mestnykh nazvanij,” in Bаlto-slavjanskie issledovanija. 1980 (Моskvа: Nauka, 1981), 121 (1276); Lłtopys rus’kyj za Ipats’kym spyskom, trans. L. Makhnovec’ (Ęyjiv: Dnipro, 1989), 429 (1276); Dubonis, Traidenis, 114, 187 (1274). The fact that Traidenis settled Prussians in Grodno is confirmed in the chronicle of Piotr of Dusburg: Petrus de Dusburgk, “Chronica terrae prussiae,” in MPH n. s., eds. J. Wenta and S. Wyszomirski, vol. 13 (Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2007), 173, 191.
· 11 The question of the reaction of the Rus’ princedoms to various forms of Lithuanian actions directed against them was discussed collectively in the article by D. Dąbrowski, Nim doszło do Sinych Wód. Księstwa ruskie wobec Litwy w pierwszych dziesięcioleciach po najeździe mongolskim, Colloquia Russica, Ser. II, vol. II: Vidurio Rytř Europa mŭđio prieMëlynřjř Vandenř, eds. V. Jankauskas and V. Nagirnyy (Kaunas – Kraków: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas Kaunas – Krokuvos Jogailaičų universitetas, 2013), 83–86.
· 12 According to the collective calculations by Henryk Łowmiański, in the years 1200–1268, the Lithuanians attacked Livonia 29 times, Teutonic Prussia twice, Rus’ 35 times and Polish lands 13 times. In the period 1269–1306, such invasions were not as frequent – 16 attacks on Livonia, 9 on Prussia, only 5 on Rus’ and 16 on Poland: H. Łowmiański, Prussia-Lithuania-Teutonic Knights, selected, edited, and with an introduction and an afterword by Marceli Kosman (Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1989), 194–95.
· 13 Regesta Lithuaniae, 36.
· 14 I agree with the view of Juliusz Latkowski that Vaišelg was the son of Mindaugas from his relationship with the widow of Vismantas (J. Latkowski, Mindaugas, 372). Sometime after his father’s death, he took power in Lithuania, which he most likely passed on to Shvarno Danilovich after June 1266 to become an Orthodox monk again. Several separate articles are devoted to the colourful fate of this character: D. Goldfrank, “Lithuanian Prince-monk Vojselk: A Study of Competing Legends,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 11 (1988): 1–2, 44–76; D. Dąbrowski, “‘Powieść o Wojsiełku’. Szkic historiograficzny,” in Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės istorijos šaltiniai. Faktas. Kontekstas. Interpretacija (Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 2007), 31–66; Т. L. Vilkul, “Halyc’ko-Volyns’kyj litopys pro postrizhennja litovs’koho knjazja Vojshelka,” Ukrajins’kyj istorychnyj zhurnal 4 (2007): 26–37; T. L. Vilkul, Pоstrizhenija knjazja Vojshelka: Polityka knjazja Danyla i stratehy litopysciv, in Knjazha doba: istorija i kul’tura 2 (2008): 123–29; A. S. Kibin’, “Litovskij knjaz’ i indejskij carevich, v poiskakh skhodstva (Istorija o Vojshelke),” Petĺrburgskie slavanskie I balkanskie issledovanija 2, no. 10 (2011): 11–28.
· 15 An outstanding ruler of Lithuania; baptised in the Latin rite in 1251, and then crowned thanks to the decision of Pope Innocent IV on June 6, 1253. In 1260, he became an apostate. Murdered as a result of a kunigase conspiracy in the autumn of 1263. Among the multitude of works devoted to Mindaugas, there are some biographies of good quality (J. Latkowski, Mendog; E. Gudavičius, Mindaugas).
· 16 GVC, 381, 438–39. However, elsewhere in the source it is mentioned that Roman got Novogrudok from Mindaugas (Ibid., 362). But this probably shows that the king of Lithuania exercised supremacy over his son.
· 17 GVC, 361–62.
· 18 Galician-Volhynian Chronicle (Romanovichi Chronicle), 195–96. Original text: GVC, 361–62.
· 19 GVC, 1165.
· 20 According to Andrei Kuz’min, Daumantas, perhaps as early as the summer of 1265, started negotiations with Pskov and Veliky Novgorod and fled with his entourage to the former of the aforementioned Rus’ states a year later: A. V. Kuz’min, V. I. Okhotnikova, and A. S. Preobrazhenskij, “Dоvmont,” in Pravoslavnaja enciklopedija, vol. 15, accessed September 12, 2021, www.pravenc.ru/text/178701.html. According to Denis Khrustalev, Dowmont arrived in Pskov at the end of 1264, and in the early summer of 1265, he organised his first expedition to Lithuania (Khrustalev, Severnye krestonoscy, 455, 463). However, Anti Selart, for example, stated that this kunigas became the ruler of Pskov in 1265: Livland und die Rus’ im 13. Jahrhundert (Köln, Weimar and Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 2007), 232. There is also an English version of this book: Livonia, Rus’ and the Baltic Crusades in the Thirteenth Century, trans. Fiona Robb (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007), 235. Sources about Dowmont – Timofei, including those related to his canonisation, have been published in V. I. Okhotnikova, Povest’ o Dovmonte.Issledovanija iteksty (Leningrad: Nauka, 1985), c. 188–231; V. I. Okhotnikova, Pskovskaja agiografija XIV–XVII vv., vol. I: Zhitija knjazej Vsevoloda – Gavrila I Timofeja – Dovmonta (issledovanija i teksty) (Sankt-Peterburg: Dmitrij Bulanin, 2007), c. 351–570. There is also a work in English on Daumantas Timofei (S. C. Rowell, “Between Lithuania and Rus’: Dovmont-Timofey of Pskov,” Oxford Slavonic Papers. New Series 25 (1992): 1–33).
· 21 GVC, 201. Aleksej Kibin’ wrote extensively and competently about the filiation of this prince (Ot Jatvjazi do Litvy, 147–48).
· 22 Polockie gramoty XIII – nachala XVI vv., vol. I ed. A. L. Khoroshkevich, Моskva: Institut istorii AN SSSR, 1977, nr 1. See also Polockie gramoty XIII – nachala XVI v., vol. I (Мoskva: Russkij Fond Sodejstvija Obrazovaniju i Nauke, 2015), nr 1; vol. II, 7–10. In this document it is not explicitly mentioned that Girdenis personally exercised power over these principalities, although – of course – such a possibility is not out of the question.
· 23 Polockie gramoty XIII – nachala XVI vv., vol. 1, nr 2. Polockie gramoty XIII – nachala XVI v., vol. I, nr 1; vol. II, 11–13.
· 24 N. N. Voronin, “Drevnnee Grodno (po materialam arkheologicheskikh raskopok 1932–1949 gg.),” in Маterialy i issledovanija po arkheologii drevnerusskikh gorodov, vol. 3 (Моskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1954); A. V. V. Kuza, Malye goroda Drevnej Rusi (Moskva: Nauka, 1989), 93–94; L. V. Alekseev, Zŕpadnye zemli domongol’skoj Rusi. Ocherki istorii, arkheologii, kul’tury: v dvukh tomakh, vol. 1 (Moskva: Nauka, 2006), 243–48; V. V. Sedov, “Grodno,” in Drevnjaja Rus’ v srednevekovom mire. Enciklopedija, eds. Elena A. Mel’nikova and Vladimir Ja. Petrukhin (Моskva: Ladomir, 2014), 215–16 (under the rule of Lithuania but not before the end of the 1240s).
· 25 Such a credible opinion was presented by A. S. Kibin’, Ot Jatvjazi do Litvy, 106–10. There are bibliographic references and a discussion with the views of the predecessors. Cf. from newer literature: S. N. Abukov, “K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii gorodenskikh knjazej,” Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N. I. Lobachevskogo, No. 3 (2016): 9–14 (Vsevolodko was the son of Mstislav Wsevolodovich, and grandson of Igor Yaroslavovich); A. G. Gushchin, “Davidovichi gorodenskie,” in Drevnjaja Rus’ v srednevekovom mire. Enciklopedija, eds. E. A. Mel’nikova and V. Ja. Petrukhin (Моskva: Ladomir, 2014), 220 (the founder was David Igorevich, grandson of Yaroslav the Wise).
· 26 Ipat’evskaja letopis’, col. 631; А. V. Nazarenko, Gоrodenskoe knjazhestvo i gorodenskie knjaz’ja v XII v., in: idem, DrevnjajaRus’ i Slavjane, Moskva: Russkij Fond Sodejstvija Obrazovaniju i Nauke, 2009 (= Drevnejshie gosudarstva Vostochnoj Evropy, 2007 god), 125, 147–48 (the author noted that the fate of the offspring of Vsievolodkovichi, from the last mention about Mstislav to the capture of Grodno by the Lithuanians in the first half of the 13th century, is not recorded in the sources; however, it can be assumed that they belong to the dynasty of Gleb, Roman Danilovich’s father-in-law); A. S. Kibin’, Ot Jatvjazi do Litvy, 115 (Mstislav was the last representative of the dynasty). According to the unjustified opinion of A. W. Soloviov, Vsievolodkovichi stayed in Grodno until the Mongol invasion in 1241, and Gleb (father-in-law of Roman Daniłovich), Iziaslav Svislotski and Vasilko Slonimski were also representatives of this Rurik line; А. V. Solov’ev, “Gorodenskie knjaz’ja i Deremela,” Russia Medievalis 7, no. 1 (1992): 76–77.
· 27 GVC, 329. As for dating, see Hrushevs’kyj, Khronologija podij, 356–57, 384; Dąbrowski, Daniel Romanowicz król Rusi, 317.
· 28 Daniel Romanovich (ca. 1201–1264), the older of Roman Mstislavovich’s two sons; one of the greatest Ruriks of his era, creator of the Galician-Volhynian state, whose capital he moved to Chelm. At the end of 1253, he was crowned by Pope Innocent IV as the King of Rus’. Daniel’s activity obviously aroused enormous interest among historians. There are several biographies of the ruler, of which the following are worth mentioning: M. F. Kotljar, Danylo Halyc’kyj (Kyjiv: PU NANU, 2002); N. F. Kotljar, Daniil, knjaz’ Galickij. Dokumental’noe povestvovanie (Sankt-Peterburg: Aleteja, 2008); D. Dąbrowski, Daniel Romanowicz król Rusi; idem, Król Rusi Daniel Romanowicz. O ruskiej rodzinie książęcej, społeczeństwie i kulturze w XIII w (Kraków: Avalon, 2016); V. Aleksandrovych and L. Vojtovych, Korol’ Danylo Romanovych (Bila Cerkva: Oleksandr Pshonkovs’kyj, 2013).
· 29 GVC, 409.
· 30 GVC,475–76.
· 31 GVC,489–93. For the price of withdrawing from Grodno, the Rus’ people obtained the release of their prisoners previously captured during this campaign by the Prussians and Borts at the castle town.
· 32 Petrus de Dusburgk, Chronica terrae prussiae, 190–91.
· 33 A. V. Kuza, Malye goroda Drevnej Rusi, 96; L. V. Alekseev, Zŕpadnye zemli domongol’skoj Rusi, vol. 1, 250; L. V. Alekseev, “Slonim,” in Drevnjaja Rus’ v srednevekovom mire. Enciklopedija, eds. Elena A. Mel’nikova and Vladimir Ja. Petrukhin (Моskva: Ladomir, 2014), 761.
· 34 GVC, 319.
· 35 GVC, 407–8. It was then that Roman was treacherously imprisoned by Vaišelg and Tautvilas, and soon after, in unclear circumstances, he died.
· 36 GVC, 509, 511, 514, 516, 522.
· 37 The problem of the origin of Vasilko “Slonimskij,” which goes beyond the scope of the chapter, was clarified by D. Dąbrowski in Rodowód Romanowiczów, 271–75. It includes references to sources and a discussion with researchers who consider the prince to be a Romanovich.
· 38 GVC, 620–21.
· 39 I skip this problem by referring interested parties to the works mentioned primarily in endnote 9.
· 40 See endnote 16.
· 41 Dąbrowski, Rodowód Romanowiczów, 138–39; Dąbrowski, Daniel Romanowicz król Rusi, 378.
· 42 Kronika halicko-wołyńska (Kronika Romanowiczów), 196. Original text: GVC, 362–63. As for dating, see Dąbrowski, Daniel Romanowicz król Rusi, 389.
· 43 Kronika halicko-wołyńska (Kronika Romanowiczów), 202. Original text: GVC, 383–84. As for dating, see Dąbrowski, Daniel Romanowicz król Rusi, 386–88, 398–99.
· 44 GVC, 385–89.
· 45 This can be supposed from information about Iziaslav Svislotski, who took part, alongside Roman, in an expedition to Yotvingia at the turn of 1255–1256 (see endnote 41).
· 46 GVC, 408.
· 47 Dąbrowski, Nim doszło do Sinych Wód, 86–87.
· 48 GVC, 470–71.
· 49 Vladimir was the capital castle town of the principality and the seat of the eparchy. The prince’s court was also located there. Others were located in Brest, Bielsk, Luboml, Rai near Luboml and Kamieniec (GVC, 467, 548–49, 553, 635).
· 50 This is how the range of Leo’s land was defined in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle when it was recounting the events taking place in 1288 r. (GVC, 586). Meanwhile, according to the information from that source concerning the end of the 1260s, Leo ruled in Chelm and Galich (Ibid., 471). However, this is not a contradiction, but a different way of defining the prince’s reign.
· 51 Mstislav (II) was the son of Daniel from his second Lithuanian marriage, not the one with the same name born of the first union of the older Romanovich. He was born between 1247 and 1250 and died probably between 1300 and 1305. The name and origin of his wife are unknown. There is no biography of this prince. As for his genealogy, see Dąbrowski, Rodowód Romanowiczów, 153–54, 174–80; Dąbrowski, Gĺnealogija Mstislavichej, 384–88, 399–404.
· 52 Yuri (1255–1308), the only son of Leo Danilovich and Constance, daughter of the King of Hungary, Bela IV. It is highly probable that after the death of Mstislav (II), he united the Galician-Volhynian Rus’ under his rule. There is no biography of this prince. As for his genealogy, see Dąbrowski, Rodowód Romanowiczów, 197–217 (with the incorrect date of birth); Dąbrowski, Król Rusi Daniel Romanowicz, 121–2 (revision of the previous view).
· 53 GVC, 529–30, 565–66.
· 54 Dąbrowski, Daniel Romanowicz król Rusi, 459–60. Vasilko Romanovich, Daniel’s younger brother and his faithful associate, was born around 1203 and most probably died between the 1st of March 1268 and November 1269. His first wife was the daughter of Yuri Vsevolodovich, the prince of Vladimir-Suzdal, and the second was Dubravka, daughter of Konrad I of Mazovia. It is not clear whether she is identical with the “Duchess Vasilkova Helen”, whose death is mentioned in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle (Dąbrowski, Rodowód Romanowiczów, 77–98; Dąbrowski, Ăĺíĺŕëîăč˙ Ěńňčńëŕâč÷ĺé, 326–31). There is no separate biography of this prince.
· 55 GVC, 545–47, 550–52, 557, 564–65.
· 56 GVC, 580–81.
· 57 It seems that Leo had a different view from this father about the relations between Galician-Volhynian Rus’ and the Mongol Empire. While Daniel held an intransigent attitude towards the steppe invaders, the attitude of his son was definitely more pragmatic. Besides, Leo – in all likelihood – joined the camp opposite that of his father during the Hungarian Civil War. The former supported the old king, Bela IV, while the latter, his rebellious son, Stephan; see, on this subject, Dąbrowski, Daniel Romanowicz król Rusi, 455–58; D. Dąbrowski, “Danylo Romanovich Versus the Civil War in Hungary in the Years 1261–1264 and the Specificity of Information Contained in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle (The Romanovichi Chronicle) on Hungarian Matters,” in Hungary and Hungarians in Central and East European Narrative Sources (10th–17th Centuries), eds. Dániel Bági, Gábor Barabás, Márta Font, and Endre Sashalmi (Pécs: University of Pécs, 2019), 87–89).
· 58 Cf., for example, B. Włodarski, Polska i Ruś 1194–1340 (Warsaw: PWN, 1966), 150–51; D. Dąbrowski, Daniel Romanowicz król Rusi, 455–59.
· 59 Paszkiewicz, Jagiellonowie a Moskwa, vol. I, 109–10, 113–14; Baronas, Dubonis, and Petrauskas, Lietuvos istorija, vol. III, 422–25.
· 60 GVC, 464–65.
· 61 GVC, 315–30, 361–62.
· 62 On the Lithuanian marriage of Daniel, see D. Dąbrowski, “Małżeństwa Daniela Romanowicza (aspekt genealogiczny i polityczny),” in Venerabiles, nobiles et honesti. Studies in the History of the Society of Medieval Poland. Works Donated to Professor Janusz Bieniak on the Seventieth Anniversary of His Birth and Forty-Five Years of Scientific Work (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 1997), 48–50; Dąbrowski, Rodowód Romanowiczów, 75–76; Dąbrowski, Król Rusi Daniel Romanowicz, 134–35.
· 63 The family relationship between Dausprungas and Mindaugas is stated in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle (GVC, 72).
· 64 The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, 184. Original text, GVC, 315–16.
· 65 In GVC, information about Lithuanian deities and religious customs appear in two places (GVC, 321–23, 385–86).
· 66 GVC, 466–68. A chronicler wrote that Lev killed Vaišelg out of envy that he gave Lithuanian land to Shvarno.
· 67 B. Włodarski, Polska i Ruś 1194–1340 (Warsaw: PWN, 1966), 151.
· 68 GVC, 474–75.
· 69 Paszkiewicz, Jagiellonowie a Moskwa, vol. I, 117–19 (at the earliest 1269); Pashuto, Obrazovanie litovskogo gosudarstva, 387 (1270); Ivinskis, Lietuvos Istorija, 201 (1270); Dubonis, Traidenis, 67–70, 168 (1268 r.). Baronas, Dubonis, and Petrauskas, Lietuvos istorija, vol. III, 427 (1268).
· 70 Kronika halicko-wołyńska, 224. Original text: GVC, 468–69.
· 71 He was also the commander of the expedition to Lublin organised by Traidenis (GVC,493–94).
· 72 GVC, 469–70.
· 73 GVC, 474–75 and note 1236.
· 74 It is about the participation of the Galician-Volhynian forces in the civil war in Lithuania in the years 1248–1254, and then in the battles for the Lithuanian throne led by Vaišelga in the years 1263–1265.
· 75 Ë. Ŕëĺęńĺĺâ, Çŕďŕäíűĺ çĺěëč äîěîíăîëüńęîé Đóńč, 253.
· 76 The location of the township is unclear. It may be the village of Kamien (Ęŕěeíü) located east of Kobryn in Brest Oblast in Belarus, rather than Kamen Koshyrski (Ęŕěłíü-Ęŕřčđńüęčé), a town in the Volhynia Oblast in Ukraine (The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, footnote 1499 on 228).
· 77 The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, 226. For original text, see GVC, 474–75.
· 78 The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, 226–27; GVC, 475–76. The attack on Drohiczyn is dated quite consistently at Easter (that is 14 April) 1275. See, for example, Hrushevs’kyj, Khronolohija podij, 368, 386; Hrushevs’kyj, Litopys rus’kyj, p. 428; Ęraucevich, Stvarenne Vjalikaga Knjastva Litouskaga, 217; Kronika halicko-wołyńska, note 1482 on 227. According to Arturas Dubonis, this event took place on April 1, 1274 (Traidenis, 112, 187).
· 79 GVC, 476.
· 80 GVC, 476–82.
· 81 The chronicler made no mistake in counting the years from Roman’s death, but used a biblical reference (GVC, footnote 1257 on 486).
· 82 In the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, we find a good amount of important information about the Balts’ attacks on Volhynia and the surrounding lands. Thus, around 1210, Lithuania and the Yotvingia invaded Turisk (Volhynia) and the vicinity of Komov, reaching Cherven. The chronicler summed up this invasion (and perhaps also others) with the statement that there was poverty in the Vladimir region due to the Lithuanian and Yotvingian wars (GVC, 20–22). At the beginning of 1228, the Yotvingians plundered the vicinity of Brest (Ibid., 122). The following year, the Romanovichi, who went on an expedition to Poland, left Vladimir, the Prince of Pinsk, in Brest to guard the area against Yatvingians. At that time, Wladimir defeated a Lithuanian incursion that appeared near Brest (Ibid., 131–32). Probably at the end of 1234, the Yotvingian incursion ravaged the vicinity of Ochoza and Busovno. The retreating aggressors were caught by Vasilko Romanovich near Drohiczyn and defeated (Ibid., 267–69). The information about Vasilko guarding the state against Lithuanians and about the raids of Balts in the vicinity of Peresopnica and Mielnica can be dated to ca. 1242 (Ibid., 250, 263–67). Finally, we find in the source a general mention about the devastation of the Pinsk soil and other lands by the Yotvingian commanders Skomand and Borut (Ibid., 269–70).
· 83 The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, 199. The original text GVC, 374–75.
· 84 GVC, 71–74.
· 85 GVC, 74. This expedition is also confirmed in Czech and Polish sources, which in 1220 inform about the devastation of Polish lands by the Prussians and Rus’: Letopisy české od roku 1196 do roku 1278, in Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, vol. II, ed. J. Emler (Praha: Museum Královstvá Českého, 1874), 283; Johannes Neplachonis Abbatis Opatovicensis Chronicon, in Ibid., vol. III, ed. J. Emler (Praha: Nadáni Františka Palackého, 1882), 472; Rocznik Krasińskich do 1351 r., ed. A. Bielowski, in MPH 3 (1878), 132. We do not doubt that despite, the different names of the invaders, it is the same military action (GVC, note 249).
· 86 GVC, 201.
· 87 GVC, 263–66.
· 88 That is how these events were described by Edvardas Gudavičius, Mindaugas, 209–10.
· 89 A tripartite treaty between the Prussian Landmeister Burchard von Hornhusen, the Mazovian prince Siemowit I and the King of Rus’, Daniel Romanovich, which was concluded in Raciąż in 1254. The Teutonic Order gave up 1/3 of the area of the conquered Yatvingia to the two rulers: Nowy kodeks dyplomatyczny Mazowsza, part II: Dokumenty z lat 1248–1355, eds. I. Sułkowska-Kuraś, S. Kuraś, K. Pacuski, and H. Wajs (Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk and Łódź: Ossolineum, 1989), no. 20; Dąbrowski, Daniel Romanowicz król Rusi, 370–71.
· 90 GVC, 548–49, 553.
· 91 H. Paszkiewicz, “Z zagadnień ustrojowych Litwy przedchrześcijańskiej,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 44 (1930): 308.
· 92 GVC, 440.