THE VIKING RUS ON THE VOLGA AS SEEN BY AHMAD IBN FADLAN AND AN ACCOUNT OF PRINCE SVIATOSLAV IGOREVICH: A HEATHEN RUS

Part 1: Ibn Fadlan’s Observations of the Viking Rus (921 CE)

In 921–922 CE, Ahmad Ibn Fadlan, a secretary of an embassy from the Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad to the Volga Bulgars, encountered a group of Norse merchants known as the Rus (or Rusiyyah) camped along the Volga River. He left a vivid ethnographic record of these “Viking Rus,” detailing their appearance, customs, and rituals in striking (and sometimes shocked) terms​. His account provides a rare outsider’s glimpse of the Rus at a Volga trade station in the early 10th century.

Ibn Fadlan was impressed by the physical stature and beauty of the Rus. He described them as “the most perfect physical specimens” he had ever seen – tall and muscular like towering date-palms, with blond hair and ruddy skin​. The men wore a kind of Norse-style cloak or wrap, fastened so that the sword arm was unencumbered​. All Rus men were armed: “Each man has an axe, a sword, and a knife and keeps each by him at all times,” Ibn Fadlan noted​. The swords were described as straight, broad and grooved in the “Frankish” style. Many of the Rus were also elaborately tattooed from “fingernails to neck” with dark green (possibly blue) symbols and tree-like patterns​, which Ibn Fadlan took note of as a striking adornment. The women of the Rus adorned themselves with equally conspicuous jewelry: he observed that women wore ornate brooches or “boxes” on their breasts, made of iron, silver, copper, or gold depending on their husband’s wealth, with knives suspended from these brooches​. Women also wore heavy necklaces of gold and silver torques, one for every 10,000 dirhams of the husband’s wealth, so that some had many such rings on their necks​. In short, the Rus presented a picture of fierce, well-armed traders, impressive in physique and richly adorned in their own barbaric fashion.

Notions of Cleanliness and Daily Habits

Despite admiring their physique, Ibn Fadlan was appalled by the Rus’s hygiene and personal habits, which sharply contrasted with the cleanliness standards of the Muslim world. He famously branded them “the filthiest of God’s creatures” in their customs​. The Rus, according to Ibn Fadlan, did not wash after relieving themselves or after sexual intimacy, nor did they wash their hands before eating – habits that violated Islamic notions of purity. He remarks with disgust that they behaved “like wild asses” when it came to these matters​. Each morning, Ibn Fadlan observed, a servant girl would bring a basin of water to her Rus master. He would wash his face, hair, and rinse his mouth in this basin – even blowing his nose and spitting into the water. Then, shockingly, the bowl was passed to the next man in the household to do the same. Each man in turn would wash his face and hair in the same dirty water, and also use it to blow his nose and spit​. This communal washbowl routine, repeated every morning, struck Ibn Fadlan as the height of uncleanness. (In his Muslim perspective, clean water should not be reused for ablutions, so the re-use of the basin was especially repellent​.) Ibn Fadlan also records the utter lack of privacy or modesty among the Rus in matters of natural functions and sexuality. He notes that the Rus men would openly engage in sexual intercourse with slave girls in the presence of their companions with no embarrassment​. In the trading camp, it was not uncommon for a man to be copulating with a slave girl out in the open while others watched or carried on nearby. If a prospective buyer arrived to purchase a slave-girl, he might have to wait until the Rus seller had finished his public intimacy with her before completing the transaction​. Such candid behavior further reinforced Ibn Fadlan’s impression of the Rus as “uncouth” and lacking proper decency or restraint.

Religious Practices and Beliefs

In matters of religion, Ibn Fadlan observed that the Rus were polytheistic heathens, very far from the monotheism of Islam or Christianity. He describes an intriguing ritual the Rus performed upon arriving at the river market. When their ships moored at the Volga’s banks, the Rus would go ashore to a tall wooden idol – an upright post carved with a face, surrounded by smaller carved figures​. The Viking trader would prostrate himself before the large idol and pray aloud to it, saying: “O my lord, I have come from a far land with many girls and furs to trade. I bring you these gifts.” He would then lay offerings (bread, meat, milk, or other provisions) at the idol’s feet, beseeching the deity to favor him: “I ask that you send me a buyer with plenty of dinars and dirhams who will purchase all I have to sell, and who will not haggle over my price.”​ After praying, the merchant would depart. If business was slow or unsatisfactory, Ibn Fadlan notes, the Rus would return to make additional offerings. They would even present gifts to the smaller surrounding idols, calling them “the wives and children of my lord,” and entreat these lesser gods for intercession​. This indicates the Rus worshiped a pantheon of deities, with a primary god and attendant divine family figures – a practice consistent with Norse heathenism (their main god might have been akin to Odin or Thor, with lesser gods as his family). Should a Rus merchant succeed in selling all his goods, Ibn Fadlan says he would slaughter several sheep or cattle in thanksgiving. The trader “gives part of the meat as alms, and lays the rest before the great idol and the little idols around it”, even hanging the animal heads on poles as an offering​. Through these rituals, the Rus sought the favor of our gods for prosperity in trade.

The Volga Rus Funeral: Ship Burial and Human Sacrifice

One of the most remarkable portions of Ibn Fadlan’s account is his eyewitness description of a chieftain’s funeral among the Rus – a ceremony that involved elaborate rites and human sacrifice. Ibn Fadlan had heard that when a great leader (jarl) of the Rus died, they conducted a spectacular ship burial, and he was determined to witness it​. He got his chance when one wealthy Rus merchant or noble died during their stay on the Volga. First, the dead Rus leader’s body was temporarily interred in the ground for ten days while the preparations for the funeral were made​. During this time, they sewed fine new garments for the corpse. If the deceased had been a poor man, Ibn Fadlan notes, the Rus would have simply fashioned a small wooden boat for the body and burned it quickly​. But this man was rich and eminent, so a much grander ritual was arranged. The dead man’s wealth was divided into three parts: one third went to his family; another third was used to purchase the rich funeral clothes and adornments for the body; and the last third was spent on quantities of nabīdh (a fermented drink, likely a form of mead or beer) for a great funeral feast​. The Rus companions drank this ale continually for those ten days, often intoxicated day and night as they commemorated their departed leader​. Ibn Fadlan wryly observes that they drank to the point that “sometimes one of them dies cup in hand” during this period​. Crucially, the Rus believed that a worthy man should not enter the afterlife alone. “When a great personage dies, the people of his household ask his slave girls and young slaves: ‘Who will die with him?’” Ibn Fadlan reports. Usually, a favorite girl-slave volunteers to join her master in death​. Once a slave girl offered herself, there was no turning back – she was thereafter treated as a “bride” destined to accompany her lord. In this case, one of the deceased chieftain’s slave women stepped forward and proclaimed, “I will go with him.” Immediately, she was taken aside by two other women called the “Angels of Death” (possibly priestesses or elder attendants) who guarded and cared for her until the final day. She was indulged and honored; according to Ibn Fadlan, for ten days the chosen girl drank freely and “abandoned herself to joy,” singing and adorning herself in fine clothes and jewelry as if preparing for a great event​. When the appointed day of cremation arrived, Ibn Fadlan went to the riverside to watch the ceremony. The Rus had pulled the deceased’s longship up onto the shore. They constructed a wooden platform like a ship’s cradle and placed the vessel on this platform​. They then prepared the inside of the ship: in the center they erected a tent or pavilion of wood, draped in rich fabrics, to serve as a chamber for the corpse​. The dead chieftain’s body was exhumed from its temporary grave and dressed in the sumptuous new clothes made for him – a silk caftan with gold buttons, a brocaded cap of fur, boots, and all his finest garments​. The body was placed inside the tent on the ship, seated upright on a couch with cushions, as if in state​. They arranged a lavish array of goods to accompany him: bowlfuls of fruit, platters of meat and onions, jugs of intoxicating drink were placed beside the corpse​. They sacrificed animals as well: a dog was killed and laid in the ship; two horses were run to exhaustion, then cut into pieces and placed on board; and a rooster and hen were slaughtered and thrown in​. These offerings presumably were meant to provide the dead chief with provisions and companions in the next world. Meanwhile, the slave girl destined for sacrifice was going through her own final ritual. According to Ibn Fadlan, the girl entered each of the tents of the Rus community and had sexual intercourse with the men one after another. Each man, as he lay with her, told her “Tell your master I do this out of love for him”, underscoring that this was a tribute in the lord’s honor​. This startling detail suggests the sacrifice was seen almost as a wedding of the girl to the departed, with the men symbolically “giving” her to their master by this act of communal sexual send-off. After this, the girl was led to an improvised wooden doorway or frame. There, she was lifted up three times above the frame by the attending women, and each time she spoke phrases that the onlookers prompted. On the first elevation, she said she **“sees her father and mother” in the otherworld; on the second, she said “I see all my departed kin”; and the third time, she announced, “I see my master in Paradise, and it is beautiful and green. He is waiting for me – take me to him.” This dramatic proclamation, interpreted by Ibn Fadlan’s translator, affirmed to the Rus that the girl was ready to join her master in the afterlife and that she believed she was going to a pleasant abode. Following this, the willing victim removed her jewelry, gifting her adornments to the two young women who had attended her and to the older woman known as the “Angel of Death” who would perform the killing​. The girl was then helped onto the ship and given cups of strong drink. She sang and bade farewell to her companions, drinking deeply to dull her nerves​. Finally, the “Angel of Death,” a grim old woman described as a stocky, brusque crone​, led the girl into the tent with the corpse. Men began to beat their shields with sticks, raising a thunderous noise so that the girl’s screams would not be heard by the crowd (and perhaps to ritually drum her spirit into the next world)​. Inside the tent, six men grabbed the girl, and the old woman swiftly stabbed her to death with a dagger between the ribs while two others strangled her with a cord​. Thus the slave “bride” was slain to accompany her lord in death.

Immediately after the human sacrifice, the dead chieftain’s closest kinsman stepped forward. The relative took a torch and, walking backward toward the boat (to avoid looking directly at the death scene), he lit the prepared pyre wood under the ship​. All the assembled Rus then came up with their own torches or firebrands to ignite the funeral ship. Within moments, flames engulfed the timber scaffolding, the longship, the tent, the corpse, the slaughtered animals, and the slain girl​. The pyre burned fiercely, fanned by a sudden gust of wind – which the Rus interpreted as a favorable omen that the spirit of the deceased was indeed being whisked up to heaven​. In under an hour, the ship and its contents were reduced to ash​. Finally, the Rus erected a small mound like a burial barrow at the site and raised a large marker post of birch wood in the center. On this marker they carved the name of the dead man and his king, memorializing him, and then departed to continue their journey. Throughout this entire funeral process, Ibn Fadlan – though horrified by the brutality of the ritual – maintained his composure as an observer. He even conversed with one of the Rus men during the cremation. The Rus man was curious (or perhaps mocking), and through an interpreter he confronted Ibn Fadlan about Islamic burial customs. “You Arabs are fools,” the Rus warrior scoffed, “You take the people most dear to you and put them in the ground, where worms and insects devour them. We [burn our dead] in a moment, so that he enters Paradise immediately.”​

The Rus man laughed and pointed at the roaring blaze, saying that the wind which came was “the Great Lord’s” way of whisking the honored dead to paradise within the hour​. Ibn Fadlan had to concede that within an hour nothing was left of the ship, the chieftain, or the girl but ashes​. This exchange illustrates the Rus’ confidence and even pride in their funeral custom, seeing cremation as a swift passage to the afterlife and scorning the Muslim practice of interment. Ibn Fadlan’s detailed recording of this scene has become one of the most important pieces of evidence of Norse Viking funeral practices, corroborating later saga accounts of ship-burials and sacrificing slaves (like the legendary ship funerals in Norse sagas)​. In sum, Ibn Fadlan’s account paints a complex portrait of the Volga Rus: formidable in appearance and martial bearing, adventurous traders richly adorned with weapons and tattoos, yet startlingly unhygienic by Muslim standards, openly indulgent in sexual and intoxicating behaviors, devoted to heathen idols, and capable of both elaborate hospitality and shocking violence. His encounter on the Volga offers a rare contemporary glimpse of Viking Rus society far from their Scandinavian homeland, at a moment when these Norse adventurers were intermediaries between the Islamic world and Northern Europe.

Part 2: The Life of Prince Sviatoslav Igorevich – The Last Heathen Prince of Kyiv

Where Ibn Fadlan’s Rus were transient traders on the Volga, another branch of the Viking Rus had by the 10th century established a powerful polity in Eastern Europe: Kievan Rus’. Among the rulers of Kievan Rus, Prince Sviatoslav I Igorevich (c.943–972) stands out as a fearsome warrior-king and the last heathen sovereign of the early medieval Rus’. Sviatoslav’s life was characterized by relentless military campaigns and a staunch adherence to old Slavic-Norse heathen traditions, even as the rest of Europe was Christianizing. His legacy, while forged in blood and battle during his life, has endured into modern Ukrainian historical memory as a symbol of national strength and independence.

Norse Lineage and Warrior Upbringing

Sviatoslav was born around 943 CE to the ruling Rurik dynasty of Kievan Rus. He was the son of Prince Igor of Kiev (Old Norse: Ingvar) and Princess Olga. The Rurikids were of Varangian (Norse) lineage – their legendary forebear Rurik was a Scandinavian chieftain invited to rule over the Eastern Slavs in the 9th century​. This Viking heritage is evident even in Sviatoslav’s name: in Old East Slavic it is Svętoslavŭ, but contemporary Byzantine writers recorded his name in Old Norse as “Sveinald.”​Raised in Kyiv, the young prince was immersed in both Slavic and Norse culture. Following his father Igor’s assassination in 945, Sviatoslav technically succeeded to the Kiev throne as an infant, but real power was held by his mother, Olga, who ruled as regent until Sviatoslav came of age​. During this time, Olga converted to Christianity (after a famous visit to Constantinople), but importantly Sviatoslav himself remained heathen, showing no interest in his mother’s new faith​. From an early age, Sviatoslav was groomed to be a warrior. According to the Primary Chronicle, he was tutored by a Varangian warrior named Asmud, reflecting a tradition that Viking mentors were employed to train the sons of Rus princes​. This Varangian influence equipped Sviatoslav with the martial skills and ethos of his Viking ancestors. He reportedly had little patience for court life or administration; instead, “his life was spent with his druzhina (war-band) in permanent warfare.”. Even as a young man, Sviatoslav developed a reputation for boldness and military prowess. He would launch sudden raids riding light, with minimal baggage. Chroniclers note that Sviatoslav traveled extremely lean – he carried no wagons or heavy kettles when on campaign and did not even boil meat for food. He and his companions would slice off strips of horseflesh or game, roast it over a fire, and eat in the field​. He also refused to use a tent, instead sleeping on the ground under the sky with only a horse blanket, using his saddle as a pillow, just like any common soldier​. All his retainers lived and slept as simply as he did​. This spartan lifestyle, recorded in the Rus’ chronicle, underscores Sviatoslav’s image as a rough, egalitarian warrior-prince who shared hardships with his men and disdained luxury. Contemporaries and later historians describe Sviatoslav as embodying the steppe warrior ideal.

Princess Olga and Prince Sviatoslav meet the body of Prince Igor by Vasily Surikov (1915)

The Byzantine chronicler Leo the Deacon, who actually met Sviatoslav during negotiations, left a famous description of the prince’s appearance. Sviatoslav was of medium height but powerfully built, with a broad chest and thick neck, looking much more robust than the Byzantine Emperor John Tzimiskes whom he confronted​. His head was shaved except for a long lock of hair on one side (a traditional sign of noble lineage among steppe warriors), and he sported a thin beard with a prominent bushy mustache​. He favored white garments that were cleaner than those of his men, yet in fashion he was hardly distinguishable from a regular warrior​. Uniquely, Sviatoslav wore a single gold earring adorned with two pearls and a red carbuncle gemstone​. This mix of Norse, Slavic, and steppe elements in his attire and style (shaven head with sidelock, Viking-style earring, plain white coat) made Sviatoslav a striking figure to his contemporaries. The portrait is of a hardy, no-nonsense fighter who looked the part of a steppe chieftain as much as a Varangian prince.

Heathen Conqueror: Campaigns in the East

Upon taking the reins of power from his mother (around 962 CE), Prince Sviatoslav embarked on a series of aggressive military campaigns that vastly expanded the territory of Kievan Rus’. In the tradition of his Viking forefathers, he proved to be an intrepid and often audacious commander. With his druzhina of Norse and Slavic warriors, he first turned eastward and southward, toward the Volga steppe and the rich trade routes controlled by the Turkic Khazar Khaganate. For centuries the Khazar Khaganate had dominated the lower Volga and Don regions, exacting tribute from Slavic tribes and controlling commerce between the Caspian and Black Seas. Sviatoslav set out to smash this power. Around 964–965 CE, he led his warriors down the Volga, defeating the Volga Bulgars and the Burtas on his way​. He forged alliances with or coerced the submission of various Eastern Slavic tribes that had been under Khazar overlordship – for example, he compelled the Viatichi to pay tribute to Kiev instead of the Khazars​. One by one, he picked off the Khazars’ vassals, clearing a path for an all-out assault on Khazaria itself. Sviatoslav’s Khazar campaign was a stunning success. The Primary Chronicle and later sources report that Sviatoslav destroyed the key Khazar fortress of Sarkel (on the Don River) around 965​, and shortly thereafter he attacked and razed Atil, the capital city of the Khazar Khaganate at the mouth of the Volga​. A contemporary account marvelled that “The Rus attacked, and no grape or raisin remained, not a leaf on a branch” in the Khazar lands after Sviatoslav’s passage​– a florid way to describe the complete devastation brought upon the flourishing Khazar domains. With Itil and Sarkel in ruins, the Khazar Khaganate effectively collapsed as a major power​.

This was a watershed moment in Eastern European history: Sviatoslav removed a centuries-old buffer state and opened the way for Kievan Rus’ to dominate the fertile lands and trade routes of the south. On his way back from the Caspian, Sviatoslav also campaigned in the North Caucasus region, subjugating the Yas (Alans) and other peoples who lived there​. By around 966, Sviatoslav had carved out a vast swath of new territory for the Rus’, stretching from the middle Dnieper down to the lower Volga and North Caucasus. He earned a fearsome reputation – one Byzantine historian later referred to him as the “Scythian king” who dealt a mortal blow to the Khazars. It’s worth noting that Sviatoslav’s motivations were not solely imperial greed; there were also strategic and perhaps economic reasons for targeting Khazaria. The Khazars had long collected tolls and duties from the trade along the Volga route (as Ibn Fadlan’s account also indirectly showed). By crushing Khazaria, Sviatoslav eliminated the Khazar tax on Rus’ commerce, freeing Kiev’s trade with the Islamic east​. Some historians also speculate that the Byzantine Empire incited or bribed Sviatoslav to attack the Khazars, who were sometimes Byzantine adversaries​. Indeed, the Byzantines had their own reasons to see the Jewish-ruled Khazar state weakened, and Sviatoslav’s actions conveniently aligned with Byzantine interests​. Whether he acted on Byzantine prompting or independent ambition, Sviatoslav was clearly eager to prove his valor and expand his domain at the expense of his neighbors. Sviatoslav’s eastern campaigns cemented his image as a heathen warrior-chief of the first rank. He was consistently allied with various nomadic steppe peoples during these wars – for instance, he incorporated Pecheneg and Oghuz (Turkic) auxiliaries into his army​, taking advantage of their superb cavalry to complement his foot soldiers. In later years, he also maintained an uneasy alliance with the Pechenegs (a Turkic nomad confederation) and the Magyars (early Hungarians), depending on the shifting politics of the steppe​. In these dealings we see Sviatoslav operating very much as a warlord of the steppe, leveraging tribal alliances sealed by warfare and shared enemies.

Wars in the Balkans and Conflict with Byzantium

Flush with victory in the East, Sviatoslav next turned his gaze to the Balkans. The First Bulgarian Empire to the southwest – at that time weakened by internal strife – became his next target. The impetus for Sviatoslav’s Balkan foray came from the Byzantine Empire. In the late 960s, the Byzantines under Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas were engaged in a grueling war with the Bulgarians. Finding it opportune to employ barbarian muscle against their foe, the Byzantines paid Sviatoslav a huge sum (15,000 pounds of gold) to invade Bulgaria from the north​. Sviatoslav eagerly agreed, seeing both riches and new lands to conquer. In 967 or 968, he sailed down the Dnieper with a large force (perhaps 60,000 men, including many Pecheneg mercenaries) and attacked Bulgaria with ferocity​. The campaign was swift: Sviatoslav defeated Tsar Peter of Bulgaria and seized the Bulgarian capital of Preslav, and he took control of much of the northern Bulgarian territories​. The Bulgarian ruler Boris II became essentially a Byzantine captive, and Sviatoslav established his own authority over the conquered region. Sviatoslav was so enamored of the Balkan conquests that he reportedly wanted to **move his capital from Kiev to Pereyaslavets on the Danube (a town in the conquered region)​. According to the chronicles, Sviatoslav declared Pereyaslavets to be the “center of my realm” because of its strategic location: “There all riches shall flow: gold from the Greeks, fine cloth from the Czechs and Hungarians, silver and horses from the Rus’”, he said, envisioning a great emporium at the crossroads of Europe​. However, events forced him to divert his attention. While Sviatoslav was campaigning in Bulgaria, the Byzantines treacherously incited the Pechenegs to attack Kiev (hoping to distract him).

In 968, a Pecheneg horde did indeed besiege Kiev, endangering Sviatoslav’s family; his mother Olga and his young sons (Yaropolk, Oleg, and Vladimir) were trapped in the city​. Sviatoslav had to rush back north to lift the siege and save his capital. He succeeded in driving off the Pechenegs that time, and Olga, who had been the wise ruler of Kiev in his absence, chastised him for neglecting the defense of his homeland. Olga’s death in 969 removed a stabilizing influence, and Sviatoslav – restless for more conquest – headed back to Bulgaria to resume his ambitions there. By this time (970–971), the Byzantine throne was held by Emperor John I Tzimiskes, an even more formidable adversary. Initially, Sviatoslav’s forces advanced again: he crossed the Danube and even raided into Thrace, reportedly reaching the outskirts of Adrianople (not far from Constantinople), causing panic among the Byzantines​. Sviatoslav proved to be a bold and near-invincible opponent on the battlefield, at one point inflicting a severe defeat on a Byzantine force at the Battle of Arcadiopolis (970) where his raiding party (with Pecheneg and Magyar support) routed the imperial troops​. However, Emperor John Tzimiskes personally led a massive counteroffensive in 971. The Byzantines, using superior strategy and perhaps better discipline, managed to surround Sviatoslav’s army at Dorostolon (Dorostorum) on the Danube. A fierce siege of Dorostolon ensued, lasting several months​. Sviatoslav and his Rus fought stubbornly – Byzantine historians note that even in defeat, the Rus prince negotiated fiercely. Ultimately, Sviatoslav was compelled to make peace. In the treaty of 971, Sviatoslav agreed to withdraw from Bulgaria and cease hostilities in exchange for the safe passage of his army back to Kiev. Notably, during the peace negotiations, the Byzantines observed Sviatoslav and his men swearing oaths by the gods – Perun (the thunder god) and Veles (the god of cattle and commerce) – since they refused to swear by the Christian God​. This detail, recorded in Greek sources, underscores that Sviatoslav remained devoutly heathen to the end, true to the old Slavic pantheon even in diplomacy. According to the Primary Chronicle, Sviatoslav had earlier explicitly rejected his mother Olga’s attempts to Christianize him, fearing that his warrior retainers would mock him and abandon him if he took on the new faith​. The fierce heathen warlord thus returned from the Byzantine war beaten but unconverted.

Death on the Dnieper Rapids.

Having evacuated the Balkans, Sviatoslav began the journey back to Kievan Rus’ in early 972. He had to navigate the Dnieper River, including the treacherous cataracts (rapids) in its lower stretch. Meanwhile, the Pecheneg nomads – who had been alternately Sviatoslav’s allies and enemies – lay in ambush. It appears the Byzantines had bribed the Pecheneg khan, Kurya, to eliminate Sviatoslav on his way home​. At the Dnieper Rapids (near Khortytsia), Sviatoslav’s force was set upon by the Pechenegs. Weakened from the long siege and journey, the Rus’ were overwhelmed. In this ambush, Prince Sviatoslav was killed. The Primary Chronicle recounts grimly that the victorious Pecheneg chieftain had Sviatoslav’s skull fashioned into a drinking chalice (cup)​– a macabre trophy in steppe warrior tradition. Later sources specify that Khan Kurya of the Pechenegs lined Sviatoslav’s skull with gold and drank from it in celebration​. While gory, this was in fact a form of homage: many steppe people believed that possessing the skull of a valiant enemy conferred their strength, and drinking from it was an honor reserved for the worthiest foes​. Thus ended the life of Sviatoslav Igorevich at approximately 30 years of age. His death plunged Kievan Rus’ into a succession crisis, as his sons warred for the throne (eventually, his youngest son Vladimir would triumph and become Vladimir “the Great,” converting Rus’ to Christianity in 988).

Legacy and Cultural Memory of Sviatoslav

Prince Sviatoslav’s immediate legacy was a mixed one. On one hand, he had built the largest Rus’ realm yet seen – stretching from the Volga to the Danube at its peak​– and had eliminated rivals like Khazaria, paving the way for Kievan Rus’ to flourish. On the other hand, his rapid expansions were largely temporary conquests that crumbled after his death. Because Sviatoslav left no orderly succession (and did not live to consolidate his empire), much of the territory he conquered fell away: the Balkans returned to Byzantine hands, and the steppe zones required constant defense. His reign, though spectacular in military terms, was too brief to found lasting institutions. Nonetheless, in the national historical consciousness of Ukraine (and Russia and Belarus alike), Sviatoslav became a heroic figure – the epitome of the brave, heathen warrior prince who stood at the threshold of a new era​. Later generations, especially in Ukrainian history, often celebrate him as “Sviatoslav the Brave” (Святослав Хоробрий), emphasizing his courage and martial skill. In Ukrainian cultural memory, Sviatoslav represents the fierce independence of the early Rus’ and is sometimes regarded as a proto-Ukrainian hero who resisted foreign influence (notably Byzantine Christianity) to the last. He has been the subject of countless works of art, literature, and even modern media. For instance, 18th- and 19th-century romantic nationalism revived interest in Sviatoslav during the Russian Empire – Catherine the Great’s court sponsored paintings and plays about him, seeing parallels between Sviatoslav’s push toward Constantinople and Russian imperial ambitions​. In the 20th century, Sviatoslav’s image continued to be lionized.

A well-known monument in present-day Ukraine is the statue of “Sviatoslav the Brave” in Stari Petrivtsi near Kyiv, which depicts the prince in heroic pose and serves as a reminder of his place in the nation’s early history​. Modern Ukraine has officially commemorated Sviatoslav as well. In 2002, the National Bank of Ukraine issued a commemorative silver coin (10 hryvnia denomination) in Sviatoslav’s honor, as part of a series celebrating the rulers of Kievan Rus’​. This coin features his image and symbols, underscoring how Sviatoslav is regarded as an important figure of statehood. Even more profoundly, the very national emblem of Ukraine – the gold trident (Tryzub) on a blue shield – has roots in Sviatoslav’s dynasty. The trident symbol was the dynastic mark of the Rurikids in the 10th–11th centuries​. In fact, a seal of Prince Sviatoslav Ihorovych has been found bearing a bident (two-pronged trident) emblem​. This ancestral symbol, passed to his son Vladimir who modified it into a trident, was reborn in 20th-century Ukraine as the Tryzub national coat-of-arms. Thus, one can say Sviatoslav’s personal insignia lives on today as a core symbol of the Ukrainian state​. Sviatoslav’s exploits have also inspired modern creative works. He appears as a character in novels and films (for example, in the Soviet-era film The Legend of Princess Olga, Sviatoslav is portrayed in his youth and adulthood, highlighting his role in Olga’s story​). Various Ukrainian patriotic songs and literature reference him as well, celebrating his famous battle cry. According to the chronicles, Sviatoslav had a habit of sending a terse warning to his enemies before attacking: “Іду на ви” (“I am coming for you”). This phrase has become legendary, cited as an example of his boldness and straightforward war-making. In modern times, especially during surges of patriotism, Sviatoslav’s name and the “I’m coming at you” ethos are invoked to symbolize Ukraine’s resolve against its foes. In conclusion, Prince Sviatoslav I Igorevich of Kiev stands as a defining figure at the end of the heathen era of Eastern Europe. Born of Viking stock and raised on the Dnieper, he lived and died by the sword.

Viking sword now at the Museum of the Zaporozyhe Cossacks

Sviatoslav’s Norse warrior upbringing, his heathen faith in Perun, and his ruthless military genius enabled him to topple old empires and challenge the great powers of his day. Though his empire did not long survive him, Sviatoslav’s memory survived the centuries – as the last heathen prince of Kiev, and as a symbol of a fiercely independent Rus’ spirit that modern Ukrainians honor as part of their deep historical heritage. From the detailed chronicles that describe his spartan life and dramatic death, to the enduring national symbols and monuments that trace back to his reign, Sviatoslav’s presence is still felt more than a millennium later​. In the grand sweep of history, he bridges the world of the Vikings and the world of Orthodox Slavs – truly a monumental figure at the crossroads of a civilization’s transformation.

#ibnfadlan #rusviking #vikingrus #militaryheathen #rusheathen #heathenrus #heathenkiev, #Sviatoslav

Sources and Footnotes:

Ahmad ibn Fadlan, Risala (Travelogue) – English translation excerpts detailing his encounter with the Rus merchants on the Volga in 922 CE.

Ibn Fadlan’s description of the physical appearance, dress, and weaponry of the Rus, noting their tall stature, blond hair, and extensive tattoos​.

Ibn Fadlan’s remarks on the Rus’ unhygienic habits (e.g. not washing after bodily functions, communal use of a washbowl, etc.) and lack of modesty​.

Observations of the Rus’ religious practices, including idol worship and prayer for successful trade, as recorded by Ibn Fadlan​.

Detailed account of the Rus ship burial ritual witnessed by Ibn Fadlan, including the voluntary sacrifice of a slave girl and the cremation of the chieftain on a longship pyre​.

Ibn Fadlan’s conversation with a Rus man during the funeral, highlighting the Rus’ belief in cremation as a swift passage to paradise and their view of Muslim burial as foolish​.

Primary Chronicle and Byzantine sources on Prince Sviatoslav I of Kiev – summaries of his lineage, upbringing by Varangians, and heathen beliefs​.

Accounts of Sviatoslav’s appearance and personal habits (Primary Chronicle, Leo the Deacon), describing his shaved head with sidelock, single golden earring, white garments, and rough living conditions shared with his men​.

Sviatoslav’s military campaigns: destruction of Khazaria (Sarkel and Itil) and victories over the Volga Bulgars and others, as documented in the East Slavic chronicles and corroborated by historical analysis​.

Sviatoslav’s invasion of the First Bulgarian Empire and war with the Byzantine Empire, including his occupation of Pereyaslavets and battles with Emperor John Tzimiskes (Arcadiopolis, siege of Dorostolon)​.

The death of Sviatoslav in 972 at the hands of the Pechenegs and the legendary making of his skull into a drinking chalice by Khan Kurya, as recorded in the Primary Chronicle​.

Sviatoslav’s status as the last heathen ruler of Rus’, refusing Christian baptism due to loyalty of his druzhina and swearing oaths by Perun and Veles even in treaties with the Byzantines​.

Modern remembrance of Sviatoslav: regarded as a hero in Ukrainian (and East Slavic) history, celebrated in art and literature; for example, monuments like the “Sviatoslav the Brave” statue in Kiev region​and commemorative coins issued in independent Ukraine bearing his name​.

The Ukrainian national symbol Tryzub (trident) as derived from the Rurikid dynasty’s emblem – notably, a seal of Sviatoslav I with a bident/trident is among the oldest examples, linking his legacy to modern Ukraine’s coat of arms​.