Everything about Bohdan Khmelnytskyi totally explained
Bohdan Zynovii Mykhailovych Khmel'nyts'kyi (commonly transliterated as
Khmelnytsky; known in
Polish as
Bohdan Zenobi Chmielnicki; in
Russian as Богда́н Хмельни́цкий,
translit. Bogdan Khmelnitsky) (born c.
1595 — died
August 6 1657) was a
hetman of the
Zaporozhian Cossack Hetmanate of
Ukraine. He led the
uprising against the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth magnates (
1648 –
1654) with the goal of creating an independent Ukrainian state. In
1654 he concluded the
Treaty of Pereyaslav with the
Tsardom of Russia, which led to the eventual loss of Ukrainian independence first in the
Russian Empire and later in the
Soviet Union.
Biography
Early life
Although there's no definite proof of the date of his birth, it has been suggested by Ukrainian historian
Mykhaylo Maksymovych that his date of birth was likely
27 December 1595 (
St. Theodore's day). As it was the custom in the
Orthodox Church, he was baptized with one of his middle names - Theodor, transformed into
Ukrainian as Bohdan.
The latest biography of Khmelnytsky by Smoliy and Stepankov, however, challenges the 27 December date and suggests that it's more likely that he was born on
9 November (feast day of St Zenoby, 30 October in
Julian Calendar) and was baptised on
11 November (feast day of
St. Theodore in the Catholic Church)
Khmelnytsky was probably born in the village of
Subotiv, near
Chyhyryn in
Ukraine at the estate of his father
Mykhailo Khmelnytsky. Even though his father, Mykhailo Khmelnytsky, a
courtier of
Great Crown Hetman Stanisław Żółkiewski, was of noble birth himself, and belonged to the Clan
Massalski,
Abdank or
Syrokomla, there was and is still controversy as to whether Bohdan belonged to the szlachta himself. This however didn't prevent Khmelnytsky from considering himself a noble and his father's status as a deputy
Starosta (
elder) of Chyhyryn helped him to be considered as such by others. Later on, however, during the Uprising he'd stress his mother's
Cossack roots and his father's exploits with the Cossacks of the
Sich.
There is also no concrete evidence in regard to Khmelnytsky's early education. Several historians believe he received his elementary schooling from a church clerk until he was sent to one of
Kyiv's Orthodox fraternity schools. He continued his education in
Polish at a
Jesuit college, possibly in
Jaroslaw, but more likely in
Lviv, in the school founded by hetman Żółkiewski. He completed his schooling by
1620 and acquired a broad knowledge of world history and learned Polish and
Latin. Later in addition to these languages he learned
Turkish,
Tatar, and
French. Unlike many of the other Jesuit students, he didn't embrace
Roman Catholicism but remained
Greek Orthodox.
Service with the Cossacks
Upon completion of his studies in 1617, Bohdan entered into service with the Cossacks. As early as
1619 he was sent along with his father to
Moldavia, as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth entered into war with the
Ottoman Empire. His first military engagement was a tragic one. During the
battle of Cecora (Ţuţora) on
17 September 1620, his father was killed, and young Khmelnytsky among many others, including future hetman
Stanisław Koniecpolski, was captured by the Turks. He spent the next two years in captivity in
Constantinople, as a prisoner of a Turkish
Pasha.
While there's no concrete evidence as to how he returned to Ukraine, most historians believe he either escaped or his ransom was paid. Sources vary as to by whom — his mother, friends, the Polish king — but perhaps by
Krzysztof Zbaraski, ambassador of the Rzeczpospolita to the
Ottomans, who in 1622 paid 30,000
thalers in ransom for all
prisoners of war captured at the Battle of Cecora. Upon return to Subotiv, Khmelnytsky took over the running of his father's estate and became a
registered Cossack in the Chyhyryn Regiment. In the meantime, his widowed mother married again, to
Belarusian noble Vasyl Stavetsky, and moved to his estate, leaving Bohdan in charge of Subotiv. In a year she'd another son, Hryhoriy, who curiously enough later preferred to take his mother's name and was known as Hryhoriy Khmelnytsky. For a short time he also served as a
koniuszy to hetman
Mikołaj Potocki, but relatively quickly they parted their ways after a personal conflict. Bohdan Khmelnytsky later married Hanna Somkivna, a daughter of a rich
Pereyaslavl Cossack and they settled in Subotiv. By the second half of the 1620s they already had three daughters: Stepanida, Olena, and Kateryna. His first son
Tymish (Tymofiy) was born in
1632, and another son
Yuriy was born in
1640.
During this time Bohdan Khmelnytsky was running his estate and advanced in his service in the Regiment. He first became a
sotnyk and later advanced to the rank of a regiment scribe. He certainly had significant negotiation skills and commanded respect of his fellow Cossacks as on
30 August,
1637 he was included in a delegation to
Warsaw to plead the Cossacks' case before the Polish King
Władysław IV. Serving in the army of a Polish magnate and great commander, hetman Stanisław Koniecpolski, he participated in a rather successful campaign as the Commonwealth army, part of which was Bohdan's regiment, scored a decisive victory over the
Tatars in
1644. During this time, as some archival documents show, he also had a meeting in Warsaw with the French ambassador Count De Bregie, during which he discussed the possibility of Cossack participation in war in
France. Sources vary as to whether in April of
1645 he traveled to France (to
Fontainebleau) to discuss further details of Cossack service in France; this claim is supported by Ukrainian historiography but disputed by Polish scholarship. In October
1644 around two thousand Polish infantry soldiers (some scholars think they were Cossacks, but the French sources don't actually name them as such) went to France by sea via
Gdansk and
Calais, where they participated in the siege and capture of
Dunkerque. However, no records show that Bohdan Khmelnytsky was among them.
The Czapliński Affair
In the meantime another trouble was brewing at home. Upon the death of magnate Stanisław Koniecpolski, advocate of fair treatment of
Cossacks, his successor
Aleksander redrew the maps of his possessions and laid claim to Khmelnytsky's estate, which he claimed was his. In his attempt to find protection from the powerful magnate, Khmelnytsky wrote numerous appeals and letters to different representatives of the Polish crown — but to no avail. At the end of
1645 the Chyhyryn starost (elder)
Daniel Czapliński officially received authority from Koniecpolski to seize the Subotiv estate. In summer of
1646 Khmelnytsky, using his favorable standing at the Polish court, arranged an audience with King Władysław IV to plead his case. Władysław, who wanted Cossacks on his side in the wars he planned, gave him a royal charter, which protected his rights to the estate. However, such was the structure of the Commonwealth at that time, and the lawlessness of its eastern realms, that even the King wasn't able to avert the confrontation with the local magnates. In the beginning of
1647 Daniel Czapliński openly started to harass Khmelnytsky in an attempt to force him off the land. On two occasions Subotiv was raided: considerable property damage was done and Khmelnytsky's son Yuriy was badly beaten. Finally in April
1647, Czapliński completely forced Khmelnytsky off the land and made him move with his large family to a relative's house in Chyhyryn.
In May of
1647 Khmelnytsky arranged a second audience with the King to plead his case, but found the King unwilling to go into an open confrontation with a powerful magnate. In addition to the loss of the estate, his first wife Hanna died, leaving him alone with the children. While he promptly remarried to Motrona, his second wife, he was still unsuccessful in all of his attempts to find justice in regard to his estate. During this time, he met several higher Polish officials to discuss the Cossacks' issue of the war with the Tatars and used this occasion again to plead his case with Czapliński, still unsuccessfully.
When he found no support from the Polish officials, he found it in his Cossack friends and subordinates. The case of a Cossack being unfairly treated by the Poles found a lot of support not only in his Chyhyryn regiment, but also with others including the
Sich. All through the autumn of
1647 Khmelnytsky traveled from one regiment to another, and had numerous consultations with Cossack leaders throughout Ukraine. His activity raised suspicion among the Polish authorities already used to Cossack revolts; he was promptly arrested. Koniecpolski even issued an order for his execution but the Chyhyryn Cossack
polkovnyk who held Khmelnytsky was persuaded to release him. Not willing to tempt fate any further, Khmelnytsky headed for the
Zaporozhian Sich with a group of his supporters.
The Uprising
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth remained
a union of two nations: of
Poland and
Lithuania, a sizeable population of Orthodox
Ruthenians remained ignored. That left them oppressed by the Polish magnates and their wrath was directed at the Poles' Jewish traders, who often ran their estates for them. The advent of the
Counter-Reformation further worsened the relationship between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Many of the Orthodox Ukrainians saw the
Union of Brest as a threat to their Orthodox faith, and coupled with the frequent abuse of the Orthodox clergy this added the religious dimension to the conflict. This could have been one of the many other frequent Cossack revolts that had been put down by the authorities, but the stature, the skill and the respect of the seasoned 50-year-old negotiator and warrior Khmelnytsky made all the difference.
Initial successes
At the end of the year Khmelnytsky finally made his way to the south, to the
estuary of the
Dnieper river. On
25 January 1648 his small (300–500-man) detachment, with the help of registered Cossacks who went to his side, disarmed the small Polish detachment guarding the area and took over the Zaporozhian Sich — much to the jubilation of many of the Cossacks. An attempt to retake the Sich by the
Poles was decisively fought off as more registered Cossacks joined his forces. At the end of January
1648 a
Cossack Rada was called and Khmelnytsky was unanimously elected a
hetman. A feverish activity followed. Cossacks were sent with hetman's letters to many regions of Ukraine calling on Cossacks and Orthodox peasants to join the rebellion, the defence of
Khortytsia was improved, arrangements were made to acquire and make weapons and anmunition, and emissaries were sent to the
Khan of Crimea,
İslâm III Giray.
Initially, Polish authorities took the news of Khmelnytsky's arrival at the Sich and reports about the rebellion quite lightly. The two sides exchanged lists of demands: the Poles asked for Cossacks to surrender the mutinous leader and disband, while Khmelnytsky and the Rada demanded that the Commonwealth restore the Cossacks' ancient rights, stop the advance of the
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, yield the right to appoint Orthodox leaders of the Sich and of the Registered Cossack regiments, and remove the Commonwealth troops from Ukraine. These demands of Khmelnytsky were taken as an affront by the Polish magnates and an army headed by Stefan Potocki moved in the direction of the Sich. Had the Cossacks stayed at
Khortytsia they might have been defeated as in many other rebellions. But this time, instead of waiting for the Poles, Khmelnytsky marched against them. The two armies met on
16 May 1648 at
Zhovti Vody, where, aided by the Tatars of
Tugay Bey, the Cossacks inflicted their first crushing defeat on the Commonwealth. This was repeated soon after, with the same success, at the
Battle of Korsuń on
26 May 1648. What made these Cossack successess different was the diplomatic and military skill of Khmelnytsky: under his leadership, the Cossack army moved to battle positions following his plans, Cossacks were proactive and decisive in their maneuver and attacks, and most importantly, he not only managed to persuade large contingents of registered Cossacks to switch to his side, but also got the support of the
Crimean Khan — his crucial ally for the many battles to come.
Establishment of the Cossack Hetmanate
On Christmas of
1648, Khmelnytsky made a triumphant entry into Kyiv, where he was hailed as "the Moses, savior, redeemer, and liberator of the people from Polish captivity ... the illustrious ruler of Rus." In February
1649, during negotiations in
Pereiaslav with a Polish delegation headed by senator
Adam Kysil, Khmelnytsky declared that he was "the sole autocrat of Rus" and that he'd "enough power in Ukraine,
Podilia, and
Volhynia ... in his land and principality stretching as far as Lviv,
Chełm, and
Halych." It became clear to the Polish envoys that Khmelnytsky had positioned himself not just as a leader of the
Zaporozhian Cossacks, but of Ukraine, and stated his claims to the heritage of the Rus. A
Vilnius panegyric in Khmelnytsky's honor (
1650–
1651) explained it this way: "While in Poland it's King
Jan II Casimir Vasa, in Rus it's Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky."
After the period of initial military successes the
state-building process began. His leadership was demonstrated in all areas of state-building: in the military, administration, finance, economics, and culture. With political acumen he made the
Zaporozhian Host under the leadership of its hetman the supreme power in the new Ukrainian state, and unified all the spheres of Ukrainian society under his authority. Khmelnytsky built a new government system and developed military and civilian administration.
During this time a new generation of statesmen and military leaders came to the forefront:
Ivan Vyhovsky,
Pavlo Teteria,
Danylo Nechai and
Ivan Nechai,
Ivan Bohun,
Hryhoriy Hulyanytsky. From Cossack polkovnyks, officers, and military commanders, a new elite within the Cossack Hetman state was born. Throughout the years, this elite preserved and maintained the autonomy of the
Cossack Hetmanate in the face of
Russia's attempt to curb it. But it was also instrumental in the onset of the period of
Ruin that followed and eventually destroyed most of the achievements of the Khmelnytsky era.
Complications
Khmelnytsky's initial successes were followed by a series of setbacks as neither Khmelnytsky nor the Commonwealth had had enough strength to stabilize the situation or to inflict a defeat on the enemy. What followed was the period of intermittent warfare and several peace treaties, which neither side put much faith in or cared to abide by. From the spring of
1649 on, the situation turned for the worse for the Cossacks, as the frequency of Polish attacks increased and they were becoming more and more successful. The resulting
Treaty of Zboriv on
August 18 1649 was unfavourable for the Cossacks. This was followed by another defeat at the
battle of Berestechko on
June 18 1651, where the Tatars betrayed him again and even held the hetman captive. The result wasn't only a crushing defeat and a high number of casualties (estimated to be around 30,000 Cossacks), but also the unfavourable
Treaty of Bila Tserkva. That treaty was soon violated, and in the years that followed the two sides were almost in the perpetual state of
warfare. In this situation the
Crimean Tatars played a decisive role — not allowing either side to prevail. It was in their interests to keep both Ukraine and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from getting too strong and becoming an effective power in the region.
Under the circumstances, Khmelnytsky started looking for another foreign ally. Even though the Cossacks established their
de facto independence from Poland, the new state needed legitimacy that was essential in 17th century Europe, and this legitimacy could be provided by a foreign monarch. In search of a protectorate, Khmelnytsky approached the
Ottoman sultan in
1651 and formal embassies were exchanged. The Turks offered vassalship similar to their other arrangements with contemporary
Crimea,
Moldavia and
Walachia. However, the idea of a union with the
Muslim monarch didn't rest well with the general populace and the Cossacks from whom Khmelnytsky drew his support.
The other possible ally was Orthodox
Russia. They, however, remained quite cautious and stayed away from the hostilities in Ukraine. In spite of numerous envoys and calls for help from Khmelnytsky in the name of the shared Orthodox faith, the Tsar preferred to wait until the threat of a Cossack-Ottoman union in
1653 finally forced him to action.
That both sides had somewhat different idea of the treaty and the union, is exemplified by an incident during the oath of allegiance to the Tsar: the treaty was almost broken when the Moscow envoy refused to reciprocate with an oath from the ruler to his subjects as was the custom with the Polish king. At one point Khmelnytsky even stormed out of the church and threatened to cancel the entire treaty. It was only after some consideration that this demand on the part of the Cossacks was rescinded and the treaty stayed. Both sides, however, had different ends in mind and in the case of Ukraine as whole, whatever liberties were allowed to Khmelnytsky due to his stature, they were denied to his successors. That in the end led to the eventual complete incorporation of Ukraine into the Tsardom of Russia and later into the
Russian Empire.
Final years
As a result of the Treaty of Pereyaslav the geopolitical map of the region had changed — a new player,
Russia entered the scene and the Cossacks' former allies, the Tatars, went to the Polish side. That intensified the conflict, as the Tatars were now unrestrained in their warfare against Khmelnytsky.
Tatar raids depopulated whole areas of Ukraine. Cossacks aided by the Tsar's army took revenge on Polish possessions in
Belarus and in the spring of
1654 drove them from much of the country. To complicate the situation even further, another power entered the scene —
Sweden. They were the old adversaries of both Poland and Russia, and at the initial stages they concentrated most of their attacks against the Commonwealth. That put Khmelnytsky into a delicate situation in regard to the Tsar, as he'd been negotiating with the Swedes for some time, coordinating their attacks on the Commonwealth. In
1656 with the Commonwealth on the brink of collapse, the ruler of
Transylvania,
George II Rákóczi, also joined in. Under blows from all sides the Commonwealth only survived by a miracle.
Not satisfied with their spoils in Poland and Lithuania, the Swedes turned against their old enemy Russia. This complicated matters even further for Khmelnytsky, as his ally was now fighting his overlord. In addition to diplomatic tensions between the Tsar and Khmelnytsky, a number of other disagreements between the two surfaced, notably in regard to Russian officials' interference in the finances of the
Hetmanate and in the newly liberated Belarus. One thing that infuriated the hetman the most was the separate treaty the Tsar concluded with the Poles in
Vilnius in
1656. The Hetman's emissaries were not even allowed to attend the negotiations. That prompted Khmelnytsky to write an irate letter to the Tsar accusing him of breaking the Pereyaslav agreement. Another interesting point in the letter was that in his anger Khmelnytsky compared Swedes to the Tsar, claiming that the former were more honourable and trustworthy than the latter. On
July 22 he suffered
cerebral hemorrhage, became paralyzed, and died at 5 A.M. on
July 27 1657. His funeral was held on
August 23, and his body was taken from his capital Chyhyryn to his estate at Subotiv for burial in his ancestral church. In
1664 a Polish noble
Stefan Czarniecki captured Subotiv and ordered the bodies of the hetman and his son
Tymish to be exhumed and desecrated.
Khmelnytsky remembered
It is hard to overestimate Khmelnytsky's contribution and role in the history of Eastern Europe. He not only shaped the future of Ukraine but significantly changed the
balance of power in Eastern Europe. As with any other prominent personality his role in the events and his actions were viewed differently by his various contemporaries, and even now different people sometimes have quite opposing views on his legacy.
Khmelnytsky in Ukrainian history
In Ukraine, Khmelnytsky is generally regarded as a national hero and a
father of the nation. A city and a region of the country bear his name. His image is prominently displayed on Ukrainian
banknotes and his monument in the centre of Kyiv is the focal point of the Ukrainian capital. There have also been several issues of the
Order of Bogdan Khmelnitsky — one of the highest decorations in Ukraine and in the former Soviet Union. With all this positive appreciation of his legacy, even in
Ukraine it's far from being unanimous. He is mostly criticised for his union with
Russia, which in the view of some, proved to be disastrous for the future of the country. This particular view, among others, was expressed by a prominent Ukrainian
poet,
Taras Shevchenko, who was one of Khmelnytsky's very vocal and harsh critics. Furthermore his local reputation was damaged by his alliance with the Crimean Tatars, which permitted the latter to take a large number of Ukrainian peasants as slaves (this may be interpreted as an illustration of the relative indifference of the cossacks as a military caste toward the 'kholopy', the lowest stratum of the Ukrainian people). The traces of this are still found in folk songs. On the balance, the view of his legacy in present-day
Ukraine is more positive than negative, with some critics admitting that the union with Russia was dictated by necessity and an attempt to survive in those difficult times.
Khmelnytsky in Polish history
Until recently Khmelnytsky's role in the history of Poland was viewed mostly in a negative light. The rebellion of
1648 proved to be the end of the
Golden Age of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the beginning of its demise. Even though it would survive the rebellion and the period of
Deluge that followed, within a hundred years it would be no more — its remains would be divided between Russia,
Prussia, and
Austria in the
partitions of Poland. Many blamed Khmelnytsky for the decline of the Commonwealth. Some offered a rather simplified role of Khmelnytsky in the events: for example prominent Polish writer
Henryk Sienkiewicz in his novel
With Fire and Sword offered a view that Khmelnytsky was mostly motivated by his personal animosity and stirred up a rebellion to avenge his personal grudges. This book was written with a clearly stated intent of raising the national spirit in partitioned Poland, and shows the story of Khmelnytsky and the Cossacks from the point of view of the Polish nobles (
szlachta). Thus it glorifies the Polish side while vilifying the rebels. This view is contrasted with a far more comprehensive appreciation of Khmelnytsky's legacy by Polish historians, like
Ludwik Kubala, who in his works compared him with
Oliver Cromwell. A more balanced appreciation prevails — that the fundamental ills of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth resulted in the rebellion that Khmelnytsky led. The film version of
With Fire and Sword (1999) also offered a more balanced, contemporary view on the Ukrainian hetman in Poland.
Khmelnytsky in Russian and Soviet history
In their assessment of Khmelnytsky's legacy the official Russian
historiography stressed the fact that Khmelnytsky entered into union with Moscow's Tsar
Alexei Mikhailovich with an expressed desire to "re-unify" Ukraine with Russia. This view corresponded with the official theory of Moscow being an heir of the
Kievan Rus and thus a gatherer of its former territories.
In this light Khmelnytsky was viewed as a national hero of Russia for bringing Ukraine into the "eternal union" of all Russias — Great, Little and White Russia. As such, he was much respected and venerated in Imperial Russia. His role was presented as a model for all Ukrainians to follow — to aspire for closer ties with Great Russia. This view was expressed in a monument commissioned by the Russian nationalist
Mikhail Yuzefovich, which was installed in the center of
Kiev.
The original variant of the monument (created by sculptor Mikeshin) appeared too
xenophobic even for the Russian authorities, as it was to depict a vanquished Pole,
Jew, and a
Catholic priest under the hoofs of the horse. A more moderate version was installed, but the inscription on the monument read "To Bogdan Khmelnitsky from one and indivisible Russia."
The view of Khmelnytsky as a prominent, positive figure in the Russian history is further displayed in Mikeshin's Monument to the Millennium of Russia in
Novgorod, where Khmelnytsky is shown as one of Russia's prominent figures.
Soviet historiography followed in many ways the Imperial Russian theory of "re-unification" while adding the
class struggle dimension to the story. Thus, Khmelnytsky wasn't only praised for "re-unifying" Ukraine with Russia, but also for organizing the class struggle of oppressed Ukrainian peasants against Polish and Jewish exploiters.
Khmelnytsky in Jewish history
Khmelnitsky role in the atrocities that resulted from the Cossack-Polish war of 1648 is a highly controversial issue. See
Main Article for further information.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Bohdan Khmelnytskyi'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://bohdan_khmelnytsky.totallyexplained.com">Bohdan Khmelnytsky Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
