Kir: On the origins of "Ukraine," of Ukraine as we know it, and the Union of Brest
Kir the Wizard
The Sun King
- Location
- Ukraine
[X] Yes.
If there's any war the Commonwealth participated in that was just, it was this one, even if they didn't miss the chance to get some land grabs.
[X] An outside hire, specifically a mercenary captain.
Time to capitalize on our character's traveler upbringing. Another thing is, the Livonian wars were full of disguised intervention, some argue that Ivan's whole unrelenting continuation of war where retreat was more prudent, and the surprise and "specific" Crimean raid, happened as they did because of the Ottoman policy to prop up Muscovy as a possible bridge to the Baltic, and, with both "mercenaries" and threats of harsher raids, keep it in war and away from the multiple valuable armistice possibilities. Similarly, the Germans, both Catholic and Protestant, had their own sympathies and interests in the Baltic (the Livonian bishoprics and the duchy of Courland, respectively), and the German "mercenaries" here have likewise been agents of various interests, with German Flugschriften pamphlets of the time attacking both the Muscovites and the Turks as a joint force planning invasions into Europe. The Livonian War marks the Empire's turn towards the Commonwealth as its main partner in the east of Europe, from its previous, relatively amicable relations with Ivan III and Basil II, even taking their imperial claims seriously, to becoming the Commonwealth's partner at the negotiation table regarding Livonia and the Commonwealth's succession, specifically against the Ottoman Padishah setting himself as the eastern Augustus to Ivan IV's Caesar.
[X] Attempting to convince Firlej of the Imperial camp's good intentions.
If it's possible, sure.
As I promised, I'll add some notes on local topography and the status of Orthodoxy, and why the 1589-1596 union of Brest became such a huge problem for the lands of the Commonwealth, particularly in Ukraine.
Let's start with Ukraine itself, and what it means in late 16th century and onward. The name of "Ukraine" first appears on the maps circa 1580s, and at the time was considered to be roughly the southern part of the Dnieper basin, from the western bank to the east. When trying to explain the name, the Polish would try to argue that it must come from it being "at the edge of the king's lands", and, indeed, many common sources, like the wiki, will tell you that "it means borderland". Thing is, "krai" is a Slavic word that can mean both "edge", "land", and "homeland" (like the Polish Homeland Army: Armia Krajowa), and the usage comes from times before the Commonwealth. The earliest mention comes from the 11th century (though, personally, I suspect that the source was either created or edited much later in the Romanov Empire, but for now let's take it at face value), associating Ukraine with the principalities around Kyiv, particularly the Pereiaslav Dukedom. Extremely hard to name those lands, from the core of Ruthenia itself, the borderlands, but one could argue that for Pereiaslav's eastern lands, perhaps..? The next mentions are from 14th century, using the Vkraina variation (this one is used both in Latin, with the U=V, but also in Ukrainian itself, if mostly in poetic form), but here it's used for the "cut-off lands": "Vkraina Polska" meaning the lands around Lublin captured by the Galicians, and "Vkraina Rus'ska" later on meaning the lands around Chelm captured by the Poles. Then come the Muscovite sources, containing "many ukraines", thus argued to mean "borderlands", but then it can be seen that some of the "ukrainian towns" named by the Muscovites are nowhere near Moscow's borderlands. The situation is better clarified by a source dealing with the diplomatic situation after the Livonian War: the Barkulabiv Chronicle. That Chronicle is written by a knowledgeable politician of the time, likely a bishop, who participated in the negotiations, including the Union of Brest, and the author uses two variations of the word: "Ukraine" and "ukraines, ukrainian". Lets start with the latter one, as he describes the negotiations after the Livonian War, during the Sejm in Warsaw of 1587:
"In the year of our Lord 1587, on the 7th day of the month of June. Thee Muscovite ambassadors went to Warsaw to elect a king for the Kingdom of Poland after the death of King Stephen... There were also at that Sejm from many and distant lands, that is, from the Caesar of Turkey, from the Prince of Moscow Ivan Vasilevich, from Maximilian, the Caesar of Christendom, from the King of Sweden; of all those there were twenty ambassadors from different ukraines." (side note, this Sejm was that big "Moscow gambit" attempt by the Radziwills, with their rationale being that, even if they succeeded, the distances and the laws of the Commonwealth would make it impossible for the Tsar to restrain their rights).
The Barkulabiv chronicle later uses the same "ukraines" to describe the old principalities (also called "lands") of Minsk, Vitebsk, Polotsk, and other ancient principalities in today's Belarus, and also uses "ukrainian" to describe the castles and cities under direct royal or government control. So here it means "state", "land", maybe even "heartland".
As for Ukraine, uppercase, the chronicle uses it to contrast it with Lithuania, which he places in today's Belarus, but also with Rus, which he places around Kyiv. So, Ukraine is the "reclaimed" part of the old Kyiv land by the Cossacks, in this sense: "And in the summer [of 1583] there was a great heat: the grains, the groats, the grass, and also the garden springs, everything burned in Lithuania, and there were fires near Mensk, near Vilna. The pitiable poor went for the breads of to Ruthenia - the lads, the wives, the young girls, many found their lot in Rus' and Ukraine."
Ukraine meaning the southern lands, held by Cossacks, will stick into the 17th century, and transform as the Cossacks establish the Cossack Hetmanate proper, taking the north. It is the Cossacks who start identifying themselves as Ukrainians (though it was more of toponymic rather than an ethnonym prior to the 18th century, when the German ethnographers note it being accepted by the rest of the populace: a 17th century Ukrainian could have specified being of Ruthenian, Vlach, Tatar, or Polish origins - in fact, a famous Polish pamphlet against the Cossack rebellion included a message to the "fellow pans-Ukrainians", meaning the Polish lords settled there). After the establishment of the Cossack state, more and more maps of the second half of 17th - first half of 18th centuries will include, or even focus on "Vkrania, Terra Cossacorum", and the word itself on various maps evolves from being a part of Ruthenia around the Dnieper basin (note how it's no longer included into the Polonia Minor province after the Union of Hadjac of 1658) to a synonym of "Russia Rubra", Red Ruthenia, which originally meant Galicia, but expanded to the rest of similar lands in the region, stretching from Galicia to the east of Zaporozhia.
On the borderland side, you have Sloboda (roughly translated as "small free settlement") Ukraine, which was created in the uninhabited borderland nominally belonging to the Tsar of Moscow, and was, deliberately and specifically, named "Sloboda Borderland". The thing is, the guys who inhabited it were the runaway Cossack rebels of 1630-1640s, who, as I noted, already called themselves Ukrainians by the time, so likely started calling the land to their liking, as a "little piece of Ukraine here". So, in this case, "Sloboda Ukraine" is roughly akin to a "Cossack March". Nevertheless, the world didn't know much of this linguistic transformation, thus the maps like this one, or that one, divided "Ukraine, the Land of Cossacks" and "Dikaia Okraina, the wild outskirts". Overall, I think the similarities of the majority of populating led to the name of Ukraine spreading like it did, and more so wherever the Cossack traditions, specifically, were the strongest - which is why the eastern "borderland Ukraine" survived as a toponym for far longer than the 14th century's "western" ones.
So, this land, a heartland and a borderland at the same time, had major issues with religion. Although if you asked them, they'd say there were no issues at all! The haughty, superior Orthodox denouncing the "Caesaro-Papists" simply did not exist until the lackluster Union of Brest caused discontent, which became one of the main "rivers of discontent" for the many, many people feeling like their ancient realm got the short end of the stick. The Ostrogski, remembering their descent from royalty, were quite unhappy for the west of what they considered their kingdom falling to the rivals in Poland, and their remaining central lands falling under the suzerainty of the Lithuanian Dukes, whom they'd before consider more of a partner in scamming the Tatar Khans and settling Lithuanian fresh blood as vassals, but the strengthening of Poland led the Ostrogskis to full vassalage under Lithuania, and after that the Lithuanian and Polish thrones united (though with ups and comings, not exactly important). The question of religion came into politics after the Battle of Tannenberg in 1410, after the Teutonic Order brought up the issue at the Council of Constance of 1414-1418 (the same that led to the execution of Jan Hus). Now, the Teutons should have known better, seeing as they and the Kings of Ruthenia were good allied just a century ago, but, acting as innocent wronged boys (mad at their defeat at Tannenberg/Grunwald), the Teutons argued for the burning of the Jageillo of Poland and Vytautus of Lithuania for defending pagans against Christianization and bringing infidel Tatars and schismatic Ruthenians to war against fellow Catholics. On his behalf, Vytautas brought the learned Ostrogskis and "other princes from Ruthenia Minor" (at the time meaning the lands of the Galician Arch-Bishopric), and the contested Metropolitan of Kyiv Gregory Tsamblak (Vilno and Moscow contested whose Metropolitan of Kyiv was rightful at the time, and traded favors and gifts to the Ecumenial Patriarch for this goal with differing success, until Moscow seceded from the Union of Florence). Tsamblak and the Ostrogskis claimed that there was no trouble at all, the Tatars were Christianized, and, as for Ruthenians, why, they have always been faithful Catholics, for Ruthenia took the crown from the Popes, and before that the recognition from the Emperors, and recognized the Union of Lyon, and was already Christianizing other countries in 989, long before any schisms, which they never cared about. And the explanation worked well then.
Indeed, Medieval Ruthenia cared little for the schism between Rome and Constantinople, and tried to insert itself into the Crusades (reportedly that's where Volhynian heraldry may come from), and, according to the Annales Magdeburgenses, "though less Catholic", are Catholic enough to join up against the Pagan and Pagan-suspected Prussians and Polabians ("Contra quos etiam Rutheni, licet minus catholici tamen christiani nominis karacterem habentes, inestimabili Dei nutu cum maximis armatorum copiis exiverunt"). The kings and princes would deter to the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor even moreso than the Byzantine one, for example, joining him for the anti-Polish action agains the rebellious king Meshko II, or turning to HRE to resolve the Iziaslav vs Sviatoslav succession crisis, and then Iziaslav's son Yaropolk/Peter going separately to the Pope, with the result being the Emperor recognizing Sviatoslav's line, and the Pope Iziaslav's. Things like these wouldn't happen if they just hated "those darn Catholics", would they? And the Germans, the Franks, the Italians were fine with that. So who wasn't fine with that? Why, the good, neighbourly Poles and Hungarians, who, like those Teutons, should have known better, having the most marriages between them and the Ruthenians, but the aspirations for lands and the division of those between the kings and bishoprics was strong enough to consider cunning plans. As such, the Polish bishops tried to make their Frankish colleagues to believe that, oh no, there was nothing good and Christian in Ruthenia, and, in fact, it was much, much worse, a full-on herecy neither Latin, nor Greek:
"Gens autem ilia Ruthenica,
multitudine innumerabili
ceu sideribus adaequata,
orthodoxae fidei regulam
ac verae religionis instituta non servat.
Non attendens, quoniam
extra catholicam ecclesiam
veri sacrificii locus non est,
nec solum in sacrificio
dominici corporis,
sed in conjugiis repudiandis
et rebaptizandis
atque aliis
ecelesiae sacramentis
turpitei claudicare cognoscitur.
Ita erroribus variis,
immo vero haeretica pravitate
a primordio suae conversionis imbuta
Christum solo quidem nomino confitetur,
factis autem penitus abnegat.
Neque enim vel Latinae vel Graecae
vult esse conformis ecclesiae,
sed seorsum ab utraque divisa
neutri gens praefata
sacramentorum participatione communicat."
That may be part of why the Ruthenians took part in various Crusading activities: to protect their reputations as good Christians and stay amicable with both the western and the eastern Christendom. But was there some truth to those Polish accusations? In some ways yes. It's possible that what the Poles confused for heresy and "neither Latin nor Greek" tradition was the Church Slavic language and all of its related elements of faith associating with Bulgaria, which, naming its ruler a Caesar, did challenge the Byzantine Imperium system, if not the Ecumenial Patriarchate's authority. Thing is, that wasn't much of a problem for most Catholics, whose beef was specifically with the Patriarch. It is also possible that the heresy mentioned is somehow related to another weird aspect of the Ruthenian church, mentioned by Arab travelers, and later on described as the dominant denomination in Muscovy by other travelers, and that is... the Nestorian faith. Wait, what? An obscure, pre-Nicene, largely Central Asian faith somehow dab in the middle of Eastern Europe!? It's a weird aspect of the sources, but it must require an explanation. With Muscovy it is rather easy: through the Golden Horde, it's no wonder that Eastern Christianity freely traveled and intermingled with the main Ruthenian Church authorities in its efforts to Christianize the Turks and Finno-Ugrics. With pre-GH Ruthenia it is much harder, though I would suspect either Arab confusion, or influx of the few Christians living in the neighboring lands of the Steppe World: Khazaria, and later Cumania. Along with the Miaphysite Armenian influx, I think there was enough pre-Nicene Christians living in Ukraine for the foreigners to get confused.
However, as far as the rulers of the land were concerned, there was no trouble. In fact, until the Ottomans took over Constantinople and specifically started pressuring the Ecumenical Patriarch to abandon the Union of Florence, the Ruthenian nobles were supportive of the union, and even without it did not consider the Catholic Pope as something terrible and unlikable. The Orthodox Church authorities was a different case, but they knew how to keep their heads low enough to pass as good little boys. The Poles had little success in the efforts to get Papist support against Ruthenians, though the Hungarians did, getting a Pope-approved claim to the "Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria", which persisted (usually in titular form) all the way to the Habsburg times, until Maria Theresa finally made it "real" in 1772. Nevertheless, the Ruthenian position persisted: "we recognize both Rome and Constantinople, all the unions and crusades in the world, just let us worship as we like in peace (and don't try to divide our churchlands on the prefix of fighting the heretics)". When Poland got the suzerainty over Ukraine in 1569 Union of Lublin Catholic church officials started courting royalty on the topic of making the Ruthenians' allegiance to Catholicism official, since the Ottomans were actively using Orthodoxy to spread dislike of any alliance with the Catholics, and the Protestants were used for fear-mongering. The divison of lands was not so much on the table, but the general idea of increasing control and potential taxes (more on that later) appealed to both the Catholic Church and the royals. Plus, there was chaos in determining denominations in the country. Just look at this map supposedly showing the majority religions in provinces on 1573, the Orthodox barely exist outside of central Ukraine and eastern Lithuania, and a small strip in Galicia, and Volhynia, THE center of power of the Ostrogski-backed Orthodoxy is like "uh, we're all Catholics here, honest!" Compare it with this map of post-Union Greek-Catholic church structure in the 18th century, or the map of Greek-Catholic denomination's greatest widespread, and you can see easily why the "Orthodoxy issue" wasn't even considered such a big deal in Commonwealth! What, those guys at the edge of the map are actually much closer than thought? You don't say.
The issue came from HOW the Union of Brest of 1589-1596 was done. The Ostrogskis and other nobility expected a proper Ecumenical Council to be gathered and decide on the matter. The Catholic hierarchs and the King considered (rightfully, I must say) that the Ottomans would block any such decision, and instead had discussions with separate bishops, so that the Bishoprics would transfer themselves and their faithful to the Roman Pope from the Ecumenial Patriarch, while keeping the same old faith practices, just as the princes asked. However, when the Exarch of the Ecumenial Patriarch in Ruthenia heard of the matter, he published a decree, proclaiming that the bishops who would sign on the Union, would lose their titles and positions. Kostiantyn Vasyl Ostrogski said that the rules were broken (you don't piss off either Rome or Constantinople), and managed to pressure the bishops in Kyiv and western Galicia to revoke their signatures. However, the union articles were already presented to the Pope, so the king and the aligned bishops went forward with the Union anyway, hoping that the rest of the Ruthenian bishops will be pressured to join during the conclave. The Exarch of the Ecumenial Patriarch declared the "Uniate" bishops deposed, and sent the letter to the Polish king to confirm the transfer of their land to new bishops, but it was refused. So on the Council of Brest the hierarchs were given an example of being left landless, and so, the king's gambit worked. It worked very well in Belarus, where everybody joined the Union (and then similarly left it without issue when the Romanov Empire and its anti-Union policies arrived), and in most of central Ukraine, but not everywhere. Ostrogski started counter-action, after his prime ally, Gedeon Balaban, the original "father of the union", who at the last moment revoked his signature at Ostrogski's request, was stripped of his sit in Kyiv, settled in Lviv, and died there. As such, only Lviv and Prszemysl remained active non-Union Orthodox bishoprics with actual lands, while the rest joined the Union. It is arguable whether the Orthodox Church was truly "outlawed" at the time, as many Orthodox-supporters write, but it was certainly in a bad position. With the help from Ostrogski and other Orthodox nobility, the "Orthodox Brotherhoods" were created in Lviv, Ostroh, and other major castles and cities, supporting schools, printing press, and churches, which, due to the lack of any official religious control, were started to get more and more radicalized, with Catholic-bashing crazy coots like Vyshensky and other polemists becoming the popular branch of the church, and dialogue with the "prince in Moscow, who's still Orthodox, people say," to get money for the moneyless church and the brotherhoods (it was from those dealings that the term "Ruthenia Minor", long forgotten from the time when Kyiv and Halych were separate Metropolitans, arose in political form, to divide themselves as "Little Russia", so as not to fail the negotiations with the Metropolitan of Moscow, who was still claiming to be "of Kyiv and All Rus"). In 1620 a Patriarch of JERUSALEM arrived, escorted by the Cossacks under Hetman Konashevych-Sahaidachny, who did the wondrous decision of SIGNING THE WHOLE OF ZAPOROZHIAN HOST INTO THE ORTHODOX BROTHERHOOD OF KYIV, and somehow the Ecumenial Patriarch AND the Poles were FINE with, of all places, JERUSALEM patriarch ordaining new Metropolitans and bishops, separated from the Uniate ones. Now, these bishops wanted land, not just around churches, but all the land they could have potentially had had, that was lost to the Union of Brest. Didn't work out in Belarus, but in Ukraine, suddenly Cossack rebellions started getting more of a divisive topic to them other than just inane military bullshit and "please expand the registry, I wanna fight and raid, not pay taxes". This will culminate in the Khmelnytsky War, where the Hetman will make incredibly generous donations to the non-Uniate Orthodox hierarchs, and all the lands they ever wanted, to the point that the Syrian mission will be wondering seeing the golden chariot of the Metropolitan of Kyiv riding through the streets.
Did this radicalization help the Orthodox much? Well, only those that managed to stay under Cossack rule in late 17th century. You see, the biggest problem with the Union of Brest, outside of "playing not by the rules" and various religious polemica, was that that Union decided whom the Commonwealth actually considered "a church". One of the reasons why the Commonwealth both stayed relatively religiously free, and yet the Catholicism majority persevered, but the east STILL had religious wars, was due to the little point about taxation. Only the Catholic, and the Greek-Catholic ("Uniate") Church was seen as "the church", and thus freed from taxes. The Protestants had to pay the taxes, so the whole "cheaper religion" spiel didn't really work as well as in other places. The Orthodox, as such, those that managed to keep their lands and stay outside the Union, were also treated as a target for taxes. It would not be resolved until the 1658 Union of Hadjac, which, for SOME reason Ukrainian authors pretend "never worked and was ignored by the Poles". But, no, as Professors Kaminski and Pritsak's research shows, the Poles took Hadjac seriously. In particular, the tax exemptions to Orthodox priests, which were still being implemented in Galicia in 1661-1665. This has finally solved the Orthodox-Uniate conflict on the inside... Except now there was a huge threat to the whole of Catholicism from the strengthened Romanov Muscovy, and the Cossack Hetmanate, which treated the Uniates in particular as "acceptable target practice".
Through the irony of fate, while the faithful and the priests of central Ukraine and Belarus jumped from Orthodox and Uniate, there and back again, the Ruthenian Voievodship lands (Galicia) had the longest persevering anti-Union Orthodox bishoprics, despite still staying under the Crown of Poland all the way through the 17th century (to the point that the land became the Polish king's setting for the last-ditch attempt to save Poland from the Deluge after the Lwów Oath), yet the Orthodox still waited. Only in 1692 the Union was accepted by the diocese of Prszemysle, in 1700-1708 in Lviv, 1702 in Lutsk. The irony is, every since that time, especially the late Austro-Hungarian Empire, and still nowadays, these lands became THE bastion of Greek-Catholic Church, and the Church itself became heavily linked with local identity and eventually with Ukrainian nationalism, despite starting out as "those darn money-grabbing, rule-breaking, Pole-loving, scum-sucking tatties!"
If there's any war the Commonwealth participated in that was just, it was this one, even if they didn't miss the chance to get some land grabs.
[X] An outside hire, specifically a mercenary captain.
Time to capitalize on our character's traveler upbringing. Another thing is, the Livonian wars were full of disguised intervention, some argue that Ivan's whole unrelenting continuation of war where retreat was more prudent, and the surprise and "specific" Crimean raid, happened as they did because of the Ottoman policy to prop up Muscovy as a possible bridge to the Baltic, and, with both "mercenaries" and threats of harsher raids, keep it in war and away from the multiple valuable armistice possibilities. Similarly, the Germans, both Catholic and Protestant, had their own sympathies and interests in the Baltic (the Livonian bishoprics and the duchy of Courland, respectively), and the German "mercenaries" here have likewise been agents of various interests, with German Flugschriften pamphlets of the time attacking both the Muscovites and the Turks as a joint force planning invasions into Europe. The Livonian War marks the Empire's turn towards the Commonwealth as its main partner in the east of Europe, from its previous, relatively amicable relations with Ivan III and Basil II, even taking their imperial claims seriously, to becoming the Commonwealth's partner at the negotiation table regarding Livonia and the Commonwealth's succession, specifically against the Ottoman Padishah setting himself as the eastern Augustus to Ivan IV's Caesar.
[X] Attempting to convince Firlej of the Imperial camp's good intentions.
If it's possible, sure.
As I promised, I'll add some notes on local topography and the status of Orthodoxy, and why the 1589-1596 union of Brest became such a huge problem for the lands of the Commonwealth, particularly in Ukraine.
Let's start with Ukraine itself, and what it means in late 16th century and onward. The name of "Ukraine" first appears on the maps circa 1580s, and at the time was considered to be roughly the southern part of the Dnieper basin, from the western bank to the east. When trying to explain the name, the Polish would try to argue that it must come from it being "at the edge of the king's lands", and, indeed, many common sources, like the wiki, will tell you that "it means borderland". Thing is, "krai" is a Slavic word that can mean both "edge", "land", and "homeland" (like the Polish Homeland Army: Armia Krajowa), and the usage comes from times before the Commonwealth. The earliest mention comes from the 11th century (though, personally, I suspect that the source was either created or edited much later in the Romanov Empire, but for now let's take it at face value), associating Ukraine with the principalities around Kyiv, particularly the Pereiaslav Dukedom. Extremely hard to name those lands, from the core of Ruthenia itself, the borderlands, but one could argue that for Pereiaslav's eastern lands, perhaps..? The next mentions are from 14th century, using the Vkraina variation (this one is used both in Latin, with the U=V, but also in Ukrainian itself, if mostly in poetic form), but here it's used for the "cut-off lands": "Vkraina Polska" meaning the lands around Lublin captured by the Galicians, and "Vkraina Rus'ska" later on meaning the lands around Chelm captured by the Poles. Then come the Muscovite sources, containing "many ukraines", thus argued to mean "borderlands", but then it can be seen that some of the "ukrainian towns" named by the Muscovites are nowhere near Moscow's borderlands. The situation is better clarified by a source dealing with the diplomatic situation after the Livonian War: the Barkulabiv Chronicle. That Chronicle is written by a knowledgeable politician of the time, likely a bishop, who participated in the negotiations, including the Union of Brest, and the author uses two variations of the word: "Ukraine" and "ukraines, ukrainian". Lets start with the latter one, as he describes the negotiations after the Livonian War, during the Sejm in Warsaw of 1587:
"In the year of our Lord 1587, on the 7th day of the month of June. Thee Muscovite ambassadors went to Warsaw to elect a king for the Kingdom of Poland after the death of King Stephen... There were also at that Sejm from many and distant lands, that is, from the Caesar of Turkey, from the Prince of Moscow Ivan Vasilevich, from Maximilian, the Caesar of Christendom, from the King of Sweden; of all those there were twenty ambassadors from different ukraines." (side note, this Sejm was that big "Moscow gambit" attempt by the Radziwills, with their rationale being that, even if they succeeded, the distances and the laws of the Commonwealth would make it impossible for the Tsar to restrain their rights).
The Barkulabiv chronicle later uses the same "ukraines" to describe the old principalities (also called "lands") of Minsk, Vitebsk, Polotsk, and other ancient principalities in today's Belarus, and also uses "ukrainian" to describe the castles and cities under direct royal or government control. So here it means "state", "land", maybe even "heartland".
As for Ukraine, uppercase, the chronicle uses it to contrast it with Lithuania, which he places in today's Belarus, but also with Rus, which he places around Kyiv. So, Ukraine is the "reclaimed" part of the old Kyiv land by the Cossacks, in this sense: "And in the summer [of 1583] there was a great heat: the grains, the groats, the grass, and also the garden springs, everything burned in Lithuania, and there were fires near Mensk, near Vilna. The pitiable poor went for the breads of to Ruthenia - the lads, the wives, the young girls, many found their lot in Rus' and Ukraine."
Ukraine meaning the southern lands, held by Cossacks, will stick into the 17th century, and transform as the Cossacks establish the Cossack Hetmanate proper, taking the north. It is the Cossacks who start identifying themselves as Ukrainians (though it was more of toponymic rather than an ethnonym prior to the 18th century, when the German ethnographers note it being accepted by the rest of the populace: a 17th century Ukrainian could have specified being of Ruthenian, Vlach, Tatar, or Polish origins - in fact, a famous Polish pamphlet against the Cossack rebellion included a message to the "fellow pans-Ukrainians", meaning the Polish lords settled there). After the establishment of the Cossack state, more and more maps of the second half of 17th - first half of 18th centuries will include, or even focus on "Vkrania, Terra Cossacorum", and the word itself on various maps evolves from being a part of Ruthenia around the Dnieper basin (note how it's no longer included into the Polonia Minor province after the Union of Hadjac of 1658) to a synonym of "Russia Rubra", Red Ruthenia, which originally meant Galicia, but expanded to the rest of similar lands in the region, stretching from Galicia to the east of Zaporozhia.
On the borderland side, you have Sloboda (roughly translated as "small free settlement") Ukraine, which was created in the uninhabited borderland nominally belonging to the Tsar of Moscow, and was, deliberately and specifically, named "Sloboda Borderland". The thing is, the guys who inhabited it were the runaway Cossack rebels of 1630-1640s, who, as I noted, already called themselves Ukrainians by the time, so likely started calling the land to their liking, as a "little piece of Ukraine here". So, in this case, "Sloboda Ukraine" is roughly akin to a "Cossack March". Nevertheless, the world didn't know much of this linguistic transformation, thus the maps like this one, or that one, divided "Ukraine, the Land of Cossacks" and "Dikaia Okraina, the wild outskirts". Overall, I think the similarities of the majority of populating led to the name of Ukraine spreading like it did, and more so wherever the Cossack traditions, specifically, were the strongest - which is why the eastern "borderland Ukraine" survived as a toponym for far longer than the 14th century's "western" ones.
So, this land, a heartland and a borderland at the same time, had major issues with religion. Although if you asked them, they'd say there were no issues at all! The haughty, superior Orthodox denouncing the "Caesaro-Papists" simply did not exist until the lackluster Union of Brest caused discontent, which became one of the main "rivers of discontent" for the many, many people feeling like their ancient realm got the short end of the stick. The Ostrogski, remembering their descent from royalty, were quite unhappy for the west of what they considered their kingdom falling to the rivals in Poland, and their remaining central lands falling under the suzerainty of the Lithuanian Dukes, whom they'd before consider more of a partner in scamming the Tatar Khans and settling Lithuanian fresh blood as vassals, but the strengthening of Poland led the Ostrogskis to full vassalage under Lithuania, and after that the Lithuanian and Polish thrones united (though with ups and comings, not exactly important). The question of religion came into politics after the Battle of Tannenberg in 1410, after the Teutonic Order brought up the issue at the Council of Constance of 1414-1418 (the same that led to the execution of Jan Hus). Now, the Teutons should have known better, seeing as they and the Kings of Ruthenia were good allied just a century ago, but, acting as innocent wronged boys (mad at their defeat at Tannenberg/Grunwald), the Teutons argued for the burning of the Jageillo of Poland and Vytautus of Lithuania for defending pagans against Christianization and bringing infidel Tatars and schismatic Ruthenians to war against fellow Catholics. On his behalf, Vytautas brought the learned Ostrogskis and "other princes from Ruthenia Minor" (at the time meaning the lands of the Galician Arch-Bishopric), and the contested Metropolitan of Kyiv Gregory Tsamblak (Vilno and Moscow contested whose Metropolitan of Kyiv was rightful at the time, and traded favors and gifts to the Ecumenial Patriarch for this goal with differing success, until Moscow seceded from the Union of Florence). Tsamblak and the Ostrogskis claimed that there was no trouble at all, the Tatars were Christianized, and, as for Ruthenians, why, they have always been faithful Catholics, for Ruthenia took the crown from the Popes, and before that the recognition from the Emperors, and recognized the Union of Lyon, and was already Christianizing other countries in 989, long before any schisms, which they never cared about. And the explanation worked well then.
Indeed, Medieval Ruthenia cared little for the schism between Rome and Constantinople, and tried to insert itself into the Crusades (reportedly that's where Volhynian heraldry may come from), and, according to the Annales Magdeburgenses, "though less Catholic", are Catholic enough to join up against the Pagan and Pagan-suspected Prussians and Polabians ("Contra quos etiam Rutheni, licet minus catholici tamen christiani nominis karacterem habentes, inestimabili Dei nutu cum maximis armatorum copiis exiverunt"). The kings and princes would deter to the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor even moreso than the Byzantine one, for example, joining him for the anti-Polish action agains the rebellious king Meshko II, or turning to HRE to resolve the Iziaslav vs Sviatoslav succession crisis, and then Iziaslav's son Yaropolk/Peter going separately to the Pope, with the result being the Emperor recognizing Sviatoslav's line, and the Pope Iziaslav's. Things like these wouldn't happen if they just hated "those darn Catholics", would they? And the Germans, the Franks, the Italians were fine with that. So who wasn't fine with that? Why, the good, neighbourly Poles and Hungarians, who, like those Teutons, should have known better, having the most marriages between them and the Ruthenians, but the aspirations for lands and the division of those between the kings and bishoprics was strong enough to consider cunning plans. As such, the Polish bishops tried to make their Frankish colleagues to believe that, oh no, there was nothing good and Christian in Ruthenia, and, in fact, it was much, much worse, a full-on herecy neither Latin, nor Greek:
"Gens autem ilia Ruthenica,
multitudine innumerabili
ceu sideribus adaequata,
orthodoxae fidei regulam
ac verae religionis instituta non servat.
Non attendens, quoniam
extra catholicam ecclesiam
veri sacrificii locus non est,
nec solum in sacrificio
dominici corporis,
sed in conjugiis repudiandis
et rebaptizandis
atque aliis
ecelesiae sacramentis
turpitei claudicare cognoscitur.
Ita erroribus variis,
immo vero haeretica pravitate
a primordio suae conversionis imbuta
Christum solo quidem nomino confitetur,
factis autem penitus abnegat.
Neque enim vel Latinae vel Graecae
vult esse conformis ecclesiae,
sed seorsum ab utraque divisa
neutri gens praefata
sacramentorum participatione communicat."
That may be part of why the Ruthenians took part in various Crusading activities: to protect their reputations as good Christians and stay amicable with both the western and the eastern Christendom. But was there some truth to those Polish accusations? In some ways yes. It's possible that what the Poles confused for heresy and "neither Latin nor Greek" tradition was the Church Slavic language and all of its related elements of faith associating with Bulgaria, which, naming its ruler a Caesar, did challenge the Byzantine Imperium system, if not the Ecumenial Patriarchate's authority. Thing is, that wasn't much of a problem for most Catholics, whose beef was specifically with the Patriarch. It is also possible that the heresy mentioned is somehow related to another weird aspect of the Ruthenian church, mentioned by Arab travelers, and later on described as the dominant denomination in Muscovy by other travelers, and that is... the Nestorian faith. Wait, what? An obscure, pre-Nicene, largely Central Asian faith somehow dab in the middle of Eastern Europe!? It's a weird aspect of the sources, but it must require an explanation. With Muscovy it is rather easy: through the Golden Horde, it's no wonder that Eastern Christianity freely traveled and intermingled with the main Ruthenian Church authorities in its efforts to Christianize the Turks and Finno-Ugrics. With pre-GH Ruthenia it is much harder, though I would suspect either Arab confusion, or influx of the few Christians living in the neighboring lands of the Steppe World: Khazaria, and later Cumania. Along with the Miaphysite Armenian influx, I think there was enough pre-Nicene Christians living in Ukraine for the foreigners to get confused.
However, as far as the rulers of the land were concerned, there was no trouble. In fact, until the Ottomans took over Constantinople and specifically started pressuring the Ecumenical Patriarch to abandon the Union of Florence, the Ruthenian nobles were supportive of the union, and even without it did not consider the Catholic Pope as something terrible and unlikable. The Orthodox Church authorities was a different case, but they knew how to keep their heads low enough to pass as good little boys. The Poles had little success in the efforts to get Papist support against Ruthenians, though the Hungarians did, getting a Pope-approved claim to the "Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria", which persisted (usually in titular form) all the way to the Habsburg times, until Maria Theresa finally made it "real" in 1772. Nevertheless, the Ruthenian position persisted: "we recognize both Rome and Constantinople, all the unions and crusades in the world, just let us worship as we like in peace (and don't try to divide our churchlands on the prefix of fighting the heretics)". When Poland got the suzerainty over Ukraine in 1569 Union of Lublin Catholic church officials started courting royalty on the topic of making the Ruthenians' allegiance to Catholicism official, since the Ottomans were actively using Orthodoxy to spread dislike of any alliance with the Catholics, and the Protestants were used for fear-mongering. The divison of lands was not so much on the table, but the general idea of increasing control and potential taxes (more on that later) appealed to both the Catholic Church and the royals. Plus, there was chaos in determining denominations in the country. Just look at this map supposedly showing the majority religions in provinces on 1573, the Orthodox barely exist outside of central Ukraine and eastern Lithuania, and a small strip in Galicia, and Volhynia, THE center of power of the Ostrogski-backed Orthodoxy is like "uh, we're all Catholics here, honest!" Compare it with this map of post-Union Greek-Catholic church structure in the 18th century, or the map of Greek-Catholic denomination's greatest widespread, and you can see easily why the "Orthodoxy issue" wasn't even considered such a big deal in Commonwealth! What, those guys at the edge of the map are actually much closer than thought? You don't say.
The issue came from HOW the Union of Brest of 1589-1596 was done. The Ostrogskis and other nobility expected a proper Ecumenical Council to be gathered and decide on the matter. The Catholic hierarchs and the King considered (rightfully, I must say) that the Ottomans would block any such decision, and instead had discussions with separate bishops, so that the Bishoprics would transfer themselves and their faithful to the Roman Pope from the Ecumenial Patriarch, while keeping the same old faith practices, just as the princes asked. However, when the Exarch of the Ecumenial Patriarch in Ruthenia heard of the matter, he published a decree, proclaiming that the bishops who would sign on the Union, would lose their titles and positions. Kostiantyn Vasyl Ostrogski said that the rules were broken (you don't piss off either Rome or Constantinople), and managed to pressure the bishops in Kyiv and western Galicia to revoke their signatures. However, the union articles were already presented to the Pope, so the king and the aligned bishops went forward with the Union anyway, hoping that the rest of the Ruthenian bishops will be pressured to join during the conclave. The Exarch of the Ecumenial Patriarch declared the "Uniate" bishops deposed, and sent the letter to the Polish king to confirm the transfer of their land to new bishops, but it was refused. So on the Council of Brest the hierarchs were given an example of being left landless, and so, the king's gambit worked. It worked very well in Belarus, where everybody joined the Union (and then similarly left it without issue when the Romanov Empire and its anti-Union policies arrived), and in most of central Ukraine, but not everywhere. Ostrogski started counter-action, after his prime ally, Gedeon Balaban, the original "father of the union", who at the last moment revoked his signature at Ostrogski's request, was stripped of his sit in Kyiv, settled in Lviv, and died there. As such, only Lviv and Prszemysl remained active non-Union Orthodox bishoprics with actual lands, while the rest joined the Union. It is arguable whether the Orthodox Church was truly "outlawed" at the time, as many Orthodox-supporters write, but it was certainly in a bad position. With the help from Ostrogski and other Orthodox nobility, the "Orthodox Brotherhoods" were created in Lviv, Ostroh, and other major castles and cities, supporting schools, printing press, and churches, which, due to the lack of any official religious control, were started to get more and more radicalized, with Catholic-bashing crazy coots like Vyshensky and other polemists becoming the popular branch of the church, and dialogue with the "prince in Moscow, who's still Orthodox, people say," to get money for the moneyless church and the brotherhoods (it was from those dealings that the term "Ruthenia Minor", long forgotten from the time when Kyiv and Halych were separate Metropolitans, arose in political form, to divide themselves as "Little Russia", so as not to fail the negotiations with the Metropolitan of Moscow, who was still claiming to be "of Kyiv and All Rus"). In 1620 a Patriarch of JERUSALEM arrived, escorted by the Cossacks under Hetman Konashevych-Sahaidachny, who did the wondrous decision of SIGNING THE WHOLE OF ZAPOROZHIAN HOST INTO THE ORTHODOX BROTHERHOOD OF KYIV, and somehow the Ecumenial Patriarch AND the Poles were FINE with, of all places, JERUSALEM patriarch ordaining new Metropolitans and bishops, separated from the Uniate ones. Now, these bishops wanted land, not just around churches, but all the land they could have potentially had had, that was lost to the Union of Brest. Didn't work out in Belarus, but in Ukraine, suddenly Cossack rebellions started getting more of a divisive topic to them other than just inane military bullshit and "please expand the registry, I wanna fight and raid, not pay taxes". This will culminate in the Khmelnytsky War, where the Hetman will make incredibly generous donations to the non-Uniate Orthodox hierarchs, and all the lands they ever wanted, to the point that the Syrian mission will be wondering seeing the golden chariot of the Metropolitan of Kyiv riding through the streets.
Did this radicalization help the Orthodox much? Well, only those that managed to stay under Cossack rule in late 17th century. You see, the biggest problem with the Union of Brest, outside of "playing not by the rules" and various religious polemica, was that that Union decided whom the Commonwealth actually considered "a church". One of the reasons why the Commonwealth both stayed relatively religiously free, and yet the Catholicism majority persevered, but the east STILL had religious wars, was due to the little point about taxation. Only the Catholic, and the Greek-Catholic ("Uniate") Church was seen as "the church", and thus freed from taxes. The Protestants had to pay the taxes, so the whole "cheaper religion" spiel didn't really work as well as in other places. The Orthodox, as such, those that managed to keep their lands and stay outside the Union, were also treated as a target for taxes. It would not be resolved until the 1658 Union of Hadjac, which, for SOME reason Ukrainian authors pretend "never worked and was ignored by the Poles". But, no, as Professors Kaminski and Pritsak's research shows, the Poles took Hadjac seriously. In particular, the tax exemptions to Orthodox priests, which were still being implemented in Galicia in 1661-1665. This has finally solved the Orthodox-Uniate conflict on the inside... Except now there was a huge threat to the whole of Catholicism from the strengthened Romanov Muscovy, and the Cossack Hetmanate, which treated the Uniates in particular as "acceptable target practice".
Through the irony of fate, while the faithful and the priests of central Ukraine and Belarus jumped from Orthodox and Uniate, there and back again, the Ruthenian Voievodship lands (Galicia) had the longest persevering anti-Union Orthodox bishoprics, despite still staying under the Crown of Poland all the way through the 17th century (to the point that the land became the Polish king's setting for the last-ditch attempt to save Poland from the Deluge after the Lwów Oath), yet the Orthodox still waited. Only in 1692 the Union was accepted by the diocese of Prszemysle, in 1700-1708 in Lviv, 1702 in Lutsk. The irony is, every since that time, especially the late Austro-Hungarian Empire, and still nowadays, these lands became THE bastion of Greek-Catholic Church, and the Church itself became heavily linked with local identity and eventually with Ukrainian nationalism, despite starting out as "those darn money-grabbing, rule-breaking, Pole-loving, scum-sucking tatties!"
Last edited:
