LOEV CAMPAIGN OF UKRAINIAN ARMY IN 1649:
DEBATING POINTS AND OPEN QUESTIONS

Valerii STEPANKOV
Doctor of Historical Sciences (Dr. hab. in History), Professor,
Kamianets-Podilskyi National Ivan Ohiienko University
(Ukraine, Kamianets-Podilskyi), This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2963-6726

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/ul2021.06.060

Download PDF

Abstract

One of the significant events of Ukraine's struggle for independence during the first period of the National Revolution (1648 – June 1652) was Loev campaign of its troops, which despite the defeat and hetman S.M. Krychevsky’s death nevertheless prevented the Lithuanians invasion. Though for the first time in historiography V. Lypynskyі proved convincingly in his monographic study the falsity of neglecting its role in the Ukrainian-Polish military-political confrontation in the summer of 1649, as well as the works of subsequent scholars (including modern ones) did. But up to now Lithuanian theater of hostilities has been considered traditionally as an event with a minor effect. However this is far from the case! For example although it was not decisive in 1649 and 1651, it is by no means possible to interpret as something insignificant. It is firstly. Secondly, except for confessions ("confession") of captured Ukrainian soldiers and rebels, the lack of Ukrainian origin sources (no one letter, universal, report, diary, message or the story of the battle participant have been saved) is still a major obstacle for the reconstruction by the researchers of more or less a complete picture of the Ukrainian army’s Loev campaign. They only managed to reproduce the most important events in very general / contour features and even then through the prism of information material from Lithuanian and Polish sources. Instead, its course with the Lithuanian units’ participation is depicted scrupulously thanks to the efforts of Polish authors. However in general due to the schematic presentation of the Ukrainian command strategic plan, the steps taken for its implementation, the factors that significantly changed the course of the battle and determined its results, the overall panorama of the event looks somewhat simplified, devoid of internal dynamics and drama and in some ways with the spraying of popularity while imaging the infallibility of the Lithuanian polny hetman J. Radziwill decisions and actions. In order to outline the ways to correct shortcomings and fill scientific gaps the author’s research focus is on identifying a number of actual problems of the Ukrainian army’s Loev campaign. Having analyzed heritage and discovered source base, the author considers those actual problems need rethinking, finding new ways to solve them, further discussions or even starting their study. They included the following ones: to clarify the essence of B. Khmelnytsky's strategic plan, developed in May-June, regarding the place and role of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) in the forthcoming campaign against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; to find out the time and place of the Acting Hetman S. Krychevsky departure to the Lithuanian theater of hostilities and the route of its promotion; to specify the number of soldiers who took part in the battle on both sides; to find out the essence of S. Krychevsky’s activity since his appearance in Chernobyl (about July, 8) till the capture of Kholmech (July, 29); to determine the nature of his relations with colonel S. Pobodailo, who defended the crossing of the Dnieper opposite Loev; to coverage the action plan of the latter, the reasons for their passivity and inconsistency with the attack of the Acting Hetman on the Lithuanian camp in the morning of July, 31, etc. The author is aware that hoping for their full clarification will be a fiction until the sources which had been created by Ukrainians, the participants of the campaign are found. Nevertheless, the painstaking work of researchers in archives and manuscripts departments of scientific libraries in Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Lithuania and other countries will undoubtedly enrich the existing source base as a whole and contribute, albeit slightly, to enrich knowledge in the study of this problem.

Keywords

Loev, campaign, historiography, problem, sources, Acting Hetman, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, B. Khmelnytsky, S.M. Krychevsky, J. Radzivill, S. Pobodailo.

Archives

Vasyl Stefanyk National Library of Ukraine in Lviv
The Central Archive of Ancient Documents in Warsaw

Referens

  1. Biernacki, W. (2006). Powstanie Chmielnickiego. Działania wojenne na Litwie w latach 1648–1649. Zabrze: Wydawnictwo inforteditions. [in Polish].
  2. Dzherela z istorii Natsionalno-vyzvolnoi viiny ukrainskoho narodu 1648–1658 rr. Kyiv: [b. v.]. (1648–1649 rr.) (Vol. 1). [in Ukrainian].
  3. Gawryliuk, I. (2019). Niewygrana wojna. Sztuka wojenna Bohdana Chmielnickiego i innych dowódców kozackich w latach 1648–1651. Oswięcim: Wydawnictwo Napoleon V. [in Polish].
  4. Hrushevskyi, M. (1995). Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy: v 11 t., 12 kn. Kyiv: Naukova dumka. Khmelnychchyna v roztsviti (1648–1650) (Vol. VIII, ch. III). [in Ukrainian].
  5. Hrushevskyi, M. (1997). Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy: v 11 t., 12 kn. Kyiv: Naukova dumka. Roky 1654–1657 (Vol. IX, ch. II). [in Ukrainian].
  6. Komuda, J. (2002). Wyprawa łojowska Janusza Radziwiłła w 1649 r. Staropolska sztuka wojenna XVI–XVII wieku. Prace ofiarowane Professorowi Jaremie Maciszewskiemu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DIG, 114–129. [in Polish].
  7. Kotłubaj, E. (2006). Życie Janusza Radziwiłła. Oswięcim: Wydawnictwo Napoleon V. [in Polish].
  8. Krypiakevych, I., Hnatovych. B., Stefaniv, Z. ta in. (1992). Istoriia ukrainskoho viiska (vid kniazhykh chasiv do 20-kh rokiv XX st.). Vyd. 4-te, zminene i dopovnene. Lviv: Vydavnytstvo "Svit". [in Ukrainian].
  9. Lypynskyi, V. (1980). Tvory. Arkhiv. Studii. Filiadelfiia; Pennsylvaniia: [b. v.]. Uchast shliakhty u Velykomu ukrainskomu povstanni pid provodom hetmana Bohdana Khmelnytskoho (Vol. 2). [in Ukrainian].
  10. Michałowski, J. (1864). Księga pamiętnicza. Kraków: w drukarni C. K. Uniwersytetu. [in Polish].
  11. Mytsyk, Yu. (2009). Bytva pid Loievom. Albaruthenica. Studii z istorii Bilorusi. Kyiv: Instytut ukrainskoi arkheohrafii ta dzhereloznavstva im. M. S. Hrushevskoho, 150–158. [in Ukrainian].
  12. Mytsyk, Yu. (2009). Illia Holota i Zahalska bytva 1649 r. v svitli novykh dokumentiv. Albaruthenica. Studii z istorii Bilorusi. Kyiv: Instytut ukrainskoi arkheohrafii ta dzhereloznavstva im. M. S. Hrushevskoho NAN Ukrainy, 158–180. [in Ukrainian].
  13. Mytsyk, Yu. (2009). Loiv u roky Natsionalno-vyzvolnoi viiny ukrainskoho narodu 1648–1658 rr. Albaruthenica. Studii z istorii Bilorusi. Kyiv: Instytut ukrainskoi arkheohrafii ta dzhereloznavstva im. M. S. Hrushevskoho, 147–150. [in Ukrainian].
  14. Mytsyk, Yu. (2009). Polkovnyk Illia Holota i Zahalska bytva 1649 r. u svitli novykh dokumentiv. Albaruthenica. Studii z istorii Bilorusi. Kyiv: Instytut ukrainskoi arkheohrafii ta dzhereloznavstva im. M. S. Hrushevskoho, 158–180. [in Ukrainian].
  15. Mytsyk, Yu. (2009). Stefan Podobailo (Pobodailo). Albaruthenica. Studii z istorii Bilorusi. Kyiv: Instytut ukrainskoi arkheohrafii ta dzhereloznavstva im. M. S. Hrushevskoho, 200–210. [in Ukrainian].
  16. Mytsyk, Yu. (2018). Dzherela z istorii Bilorusi doby Natsionalno-vyzvolnoi viiny ukrainskoho narodu 1648–1658 rr. Albaruthenica. Studii z istorii Bilorusi. (Vol. 2). Kyiv: Instytut ukrainskoi arkheohrafii ta dzhereloznavstva im. M. S. Hrushevskoho, 118–252. [in Ukrainian].
  17. Nagielski, M. (2012). Batalia łojowska (31 lipca 1649 r.) w świetle diariusza kancelaryjnego hetmana polnego litewskiego Janusza Radziwiłła. Theatrum Humanae Vitae. Studii na poshanu Natali Yakovenko. Kyiv: Laurus, 372–388. [in Polish].
  18. Pereiaslavskyi, O. (1935). Loiv-Loiv. Kalish: [b. v.]. [in Ukrainian].
  19. Serczyk, W. A. (1999). Na płonącej Ukrainie. Dzieje Kozaczyzny 1648–1651. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo "Książka i Wiedza", 370. [in Polish].
  20. Smolii, V. & Stepankov, V. (2009). Bohdan Khmelnytskii. Sotsialno-politychnii portret. Tretie, doopr. vyd. Kyiv: Tempora. [in Ukrainian].
  21. Stepankov, V. (1998). Krychevskyi Mykhailo (Stanislav). Polkovodtsi Viiska Zaporozkoho. Istorychni portrety. (Vol. 1). Kyiv: Vydavnychyi dim "KM Academia", 177–192. [in Ukrainian].
  22. Stepankov, V. S. (2009). Loievska bytva 1649. Entsyklopediia istorii Ukrainy. (Vol. 6: La–Mi). Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 257–258. [in Ukrainian].
  23. Storozhenko, I. (1996). Bohdan Khmelnytskyi i voienne mystetstvo u Vyzvolnii viini ukrainskoho narodu seredyny XVII stolittia. (Vol. 1: Voienni dii 1648–1652 rr.). Dnipropetrovsk: DFU. [in Ukrainian].
  24. Vossoedinenie Ukrainy s Rossiej. Dokumenty i materialy v treh tomah. Moskva: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Osvoboditelnaya vojna ukrainskogo naroda i borba za vossoedinenie s Rossiej. 1648–1651 gody (Vol. II). [in Russian].
  25. Wisner, H. (2000). Janusz Radziwiłł 1612–1655 wojewoda wileński hetman wielki litewski. Warszawa: Mada. [in Polish].