The Post-Iaroslav Years

Before his death, Iaroslav divided his kingdom up into separate inheritances for his five sons, with the eldest, Iziaslav, receiving Kiev and Novgorod and the others being granted territories within the control of the Kievan state. The princes were expected to act together to keep Kiev together, but this system is that it did not provide for inheritance by sons, but rather by the brothers of the ruler. The reigning princes met in 1097 and agreed to change the system of inheritance to favor sons, except for the Grand Princedom of Kiev, which would continue to rotate from brother to brother.

This agreement was reached in large part because of the civil wars which plagued Kiev from the time of Iaroslav's death in 1054 forward. There were also increased invasions from a new groups of barbarians, the Polovtsy (Cumans), another Turkic tribe which had defeated the Pechenegs and occupied the steppe region.

The first attack by the Polovtsy occurred in 1061, and from that time on they were an almost constant threat and a continual drain on resources. The princes that descended from Iaroslav realized that without some sort of agreement, they were all doomed.

The one major revival of strength of the Kievan Rus occurred was under the rule of Vladimir Monomakh. He was one of the grandsons of Iaroslav and he acted for his father Vsevolod in many conferences and meetings between the princes. In addition, he actually led troops into battle against the Popovtsy, emerging victorious in 1111. As a result, he was elevated to the Grand Princedom of Kiev in 1113 and served until 1125, and spent most of his time fighting; this would become a trend for many of the Russian leaders.

Monomakh's reign, although not as significant as Vladimir's or Iaroslav's, was nonetheless an important one for the Kievan state. He actually introduced legislation to help debtors, was a talented writer, and was responsible for the building of fortresses and cities, possibly including the city of Vladimir, which would become the next seat of Russian government.

The Fall of Kiev

Monomakh was succeeded by his son Mstislav, who was succeeded by his brother Iaropolk; Mstislav was a more than capable ruler, and little is known about Iaropolk's reign.

Kiev began to decline as the Grand Princedom increasingly came under contention between nephews and uncles, and in 1169, one of the contenders, Andrei Bogoliubskii sacked Kiev and transferred the capital to the city of Vladimir. Kiev was sacked again in 1203 and then destroyed by the Mongols in 1240.

Why did the Kievan state fall? A variety of theories have been put forth:

1. The lack of centralisation in the Kievan state and the loose confederation between the territories. Some historians (including Riasanovsky) question whether or not Kiev was actually even a state. Simply put, the fact that holding Kiev together required a remarkable adept leader meant that it would only remain stable for as long as capable rulers were in place, and Kiev actually had an exceptionally lucky run. In the years following Iaroslav's death, the leadership was involved in fighting over nearly half of their reigns (compare this to the luck of the Capet dynasty in producing male heirs to the throne, and you can see the role that luck plays in ruling, on occasion).

2. The enormous distances between cities within the state, and a lack of communication, also hindered governing. The Kievan state had not adopted a system of communication, as many of its successors would, and a result it was difficult to communicate with those immediately outside the area of the city of Kiev itself.

3. Social factors also might have been a cause; the number of urban poor were increasing (as indicated by Monomakh's legislation) and the enserfment of peasants can be dated from this time (although the Russian peasantry was not formally and permanently enserfed until 1649, legislation was introduced that prevented peasants from moving during various times of the year, etc).

4. Economic factors, primarily a dramatic reduction in the trading that took place between the barbarian tribes to the east and the western colonies, weighed on the Kievan Grand Princes. As trade began to travel through the Mediterranean and the Italian city states, and the western and eastern powers formed their own alliances, Kiev was largely bypassed as a trading partner. In addition, the Crusades increased trade but not through the southern part of Russia.

5. Finally, the impact of outside pressures cannot be ignored; the barbarian tribes which placed pressure on the Kievan state certainly had some impact, and Kiev was almost always dealing with some sort of invasion from the east. The end of the barbarian invasions did not occur until the rise of the Mongols, who delivered the final blow by destroying the city of Kiev in 1240.