Dimitriy Baida Vyshnievetskyi

(08.11.1517-1563)


Dimitry Bayda Vyshnevetskyi (born Nevid — 1563) — hetman of the Zaporozhye Cossacks (1550—1563). Ukrainian tycoon, prince.

In the 1950s, he was an elder of Cherkasy and Kaniv. He led the fight against Tatar-Turkish aggression, led the campaigns to the Crimea (1556-1557). Aslan-Kermen, Ochakiv won.

The activity of Dmytro Vyshnevetsky convincingly testified that by the second half of the 16th century. the state-building tendencies of the activity of the Ukrainian Cossacks were almost formed. The constant threat from the south from the Tatars and Turks required the Cossacks to unite and build fortifications that would protect the Cossack community from enemies. It was at this time that Dmytro Vyshnevetsky appeared on the historical arena of Eastern Europe - a man who was destined to become not only a commander, but also an outstanding personality of Ukrainian history - the Cossack Sviatoslav. He was the first to try to realize the Ukrainians' dream of their own national state.
There is information that Dmytro's father, Ivan Mykhailovych Vyshnevetskyi, owned many estates in Piedno-Western Volhynia: Vyshnevets, Pidgaitsi, Oknyn, and other estates in Kremenech region. In 1541, he was the elder of Kaniv and Cherkasy. After 10 years, Dmytro became their owner.

Dmitry's mother is Anastasia Semenivna Olizarivna, daughter of Semyon Olizarovych and Maria Ostrozka, sister of Konstantin Ivanovich Ostrozka. According to other versions, his mother was a descendant of the Serbian princely dynasty. If this is so, then Anastasia's sister became the mother of Elena Glinska. So, Ivan the Terrible turns out to be Dmytro Vyshnevetskyi's first cousin. Dmitry had three more brothers: Andriy, Konstantin and Sigismund, and sisters Kateryna and Oleksandra. It is not known when he was born. Probably in the first half of the 16th century, which goes without saying. His father participated in the organization of the defense of Ukraine against the Tatars. It is known that Ivan Mykhailovych organized separate bands that attacked the Tatar detachments and even carried out pre-emptive sorties. Perhaps Dmytro also took part in them, perhaps he visited Sich in the early 1540s.

But this is an assumption. And Dmytro's first exploits, known from documents, are the court trials of 1547-78 due to a quarrel with the Czartoryskis over a house in Vilna and the beating and robbery of Queen Bona's subjects. And only after these knightly adventures in 1550 Dmytro arrived in Cherkasy. Since then, he constantly attacked the hostages of the Ochakiv Turkish castle, which the Turks complained to the Polish king.

He could take care of estate affairs and not actively interfere in the anti-Tatar struggle. However, he intervened. The person who could influence him was Bernard Pretvych, who was supposed to guard Podillia from the south by order of the Polish government. He appeared there, in Podilla, in 1537 as the head of the cavalry department and was obliged to protect fishermen and beekeepers with several dozen Cossacks. How he organized the defense is evidenced by the legend that during Pretvych's time the Tatar roads were overgrown with grass. Had 70 battles — and won them all.

The damage and loss registers that the Turks submitted to the Polish king are linked to Pretvych's activities. Among the biggest robbers, the book is mentioned there. Bogush Koretsky, Yaroslav and Mykola Senyavski and our hero - book. Dmytro Vyshnevetskyi. Dmitry headed a separate unit of the Cossacks. His joint activity with others led to the fact that the king was forced to demand a report from Pretvych: the Tatars and Turks constantly complained and demanded compensation. But Pretvych continued to attack, and so successfully that he was removed from Podillia. So there was a need for another defender of the region, who could organize an effective defense. In addition, it is known that the parents of the prince and the family of his cousin were captured.

They say that along with the duty to organize defense, he took responsibility for the future of the Ukrainian people. As the headman of Kaniv and Cherkasy, he controlled a fairly large territory and had appropriate opportunities. The main task was to block the Black Way, which went north from the Black Sea, through the confluence of the Dnieper and the Southern Bug, and further, beyond Zhytomyr, to Polissia. For this Dmytro decided to use the Cossacks and Cossacks. Such attempts were made before, but no one managed to bring the idea to completion. It was difficult not only because of the lack of effective state support, but also because the Cossacks themselves were unstructured, disorganized and very mobile. Its leaders cannot be considered representatives of any large group. Even if someone managed to organize such and such a mass of Cossacks, he tried not to attract special attention to it, so as not to provoke the protest of the Turks and Tatars.
Be that as it may, during the years 1548-1553, the Polish king and Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund II August repeatedly received threatening letters from Suleiman II, who demanded to take decisive measures against Dmytro and punish him. The Crimean khan Devlet-Girey also complained: "sheep are occupied and herds of horses and oxen are taken away."
Dmytro Vyshnevetskyi was able to unite the Cossack militia - he had a warlike, adventurous character and was a descendant of the rulers of this country (the Vyshnevetskyi princes traced their lineage to Olgerd Gedyminovich), so he felt the strength of a statesman in himself. Therefore, he decided to form a Cossack center and built a castle on the island of Mala Khortytsia.

The Cossacks gladly accepted both the prince himself and his intentions. However, contemporaries characterized them ambiguously. Some dignitaries believed that the prince was trying to use the Cossacks to implement his own, very ambitious plans. The fortress was built as the prince saw fit, and this work was started, perhaps, in 1552. At the same time, the Cossacks chose him as their hetman.

Serhiychuk believes that "having established the first fortified castle in Khortytsia, behaving independently of the efforts of the Polish government to keep Sich under complete subordination, he began to separate the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks into an autonomous, and later, independent organization from the Polish-Lithuanian state."
The prince does not stop his unauthorized operations against the Tatars. The sympathy of the Cossacks for him and constant complaints to the king put the prince before a choice: either become an ordinary elder, like everyone else, or ignore the Polish authorities and do things his own way. Vyshnevetskyi chose Cossacks — he refused the post of headman.
What happened next is not known for sure. We can only say for sure that in 1553 Dmytro suddenly finds himself in Turkey with all the Cossacks and boyhood that he kept close to him. There are several versions of where exactly he was. According to some, he arrived directly to the Turkish sultan in Istanbul, according to others - to the Turkish commandant of Akkerman. I stayed here for six months. He was well received. It is considered a coincidence: at that time Roksolana played a prominent role in the life of Turkey, which apparently managed to stop the attacks of Tatars and Turks on Ukrainian lands. Perhaps Dmytro had some plans and was counting on Roksolana's support. After all, later he did get to the Sultan and as an independent feudal lord had every right to seek his favor in the matter of creating a national Ukrainian state, whose suzerain he saw as Suleiman II. However, he did not receive an answer to his proposals. (Zagrebelny, Yavornytskyi.)

There is another view of these events: Vyshnevetskyi could negotiate as the head of Cherkasy and Kaniv about the settlement of border conflicts, hoping that Turkey would be able to press on Crimea. (Hrushevsky, Serhiychuk.)

Another version: he went there on family business to negotiate the ransom of his relatives. Wyshnevetskyi's stay in Turkey frightened Poland - they were afraid that the prince would lead the Turks to Polish lands. In the end, the Turkish sultan took the prince into service, but then allowed him to return. This trip can be considered the first official Cossack embassy to a foreign country. Before his return, Wyshnevetskyi made sure that he was received kindly in Poland: he obtained a letter of protection from the king, justified himself to him through the mediation of his friend Mykola Senyavskyi. What's more, he gets back his chieftainships - Kaniv and Cherkasy - and receives an assignment to guard Khortytsia against the Tatars and restrain the excessive activity of the Cossacks.

It is here that Dmytro becomes the object of foreign policy calculations of Poland, Moscow and Crimea. Crimea could seek to use the Cossacks and the prince in the fight against Moscow. Instead, Moscow, which demonstrated readiness to fight with Crimea with the help of the same Vyshnevetskyi, actually tried to provoke his attacks on Crimea and thus introduce constant discord into the relations between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Crimea. On the other hand, Poland, sanctioning the prince's cooperation with Moscow, wanted to bring Moscow into conflict with Crimea. According to Hrushevskyi, the prince himself pursued his policy both relying on Lithuania and Moscow and opposing them.

He is now much more serious about building a castle on Malia Khortytsa. The previous castle may have been wooden, and it was quickly destroyed. Now stone fortifications are built. It happened around 1556.

It is believed that the first large and high-profile sea campaigns of the Zaporizhia against the Tatars and Turks began precisely under Dmytro. It was he who probably ordered the construction of light boats made of buffalo skins that could be carried in the hands. At least the Tatars and Turks, describing Dmytrashka's campaigns, always talk about the boats for his troops.

Around that time, Crimea gathered an army to fight the Moscow state. Ivan the Terrible is also gathering an army, and they are moving towards each other. Cherkasy and Kaniv Cossacks joined the Moscow army - they were led by chieftains Glynskyi and Yeskovych. In the summer, this army captured the city of Islam-Kermen (according to other sources, it was not possible to capture it), Azov and gathered booty, but the Tatars rushed after them, but the Cossacks, led by the Moscow count Rzhevsky, beat them. In the end, the Tatar troops were forced to withdraw from the lower Dnieper. Suleiman II was angry and demanded from the Polish king to punish the prince.

After a successful campaign for the Cossacks, the prince returns to Khortytsia and completes the fortifications. Now his castle became his residence - the residence of a ruler, almost independent of royal power. However, as an honest subject, he informed the king about the construction of the fortress. The king answered: "As for the castle you have built, and your service to us, such is your service, when for us, the master, you have built it in such a necessary place, and especially where there could be a safe precaution to restrain the pests of wicked people to ensure our dominions; and in order for us to strengthen that castle with men and artillery, as he [wrote] about it to us, then without your presence among us it was not considered [possible] for us to do that now for certain reasons, it was also not appropriate to take you from there at this time, having information from you and from other Ukrainians about the intention of the great prince of Moscow to build castles on the Dnieper, I would especially like to build gardens on our soil, and for bait, so that in your absence the Cossacks would not dare to do [what] would bring danger to our possessions, against why should you, staying there, be very careful and not allow the shepherds and uluses of the Turkish emperor to harm the Cossacks [...]".

However, very soon the king's opinion changed dramatically: "We do not think differently about Vishnevetskyi, except that it is difficult to hope that this matter could lead to something good, on the contrary, it can bring a lot of disaster. Therefore, it would be best to take Vyshnevetsky from there as soon as possible. In this way: send him the quality of a gift and write to come to us for a short time, and put his cousin in his place." The king also says about him: "Nowadays, such servants would be needed as much as possible, but not with such a temper."

Meanwhile, in Khortytsia, what we can consider Khortytsia Sichcha is finally forming, a political formation headed by Dmytro Vyshnevetskyi. And this "head" finally felt the need to realize his state-building aspirations. The Ukrainian tycoon, prince, inheritor of the Old Russian traditions of the princely-marriage system becomes the spiritual father of the seeds of the new Ukrainian plebeian republic. This was supposed to raise the prestige of Cossacks in the eyes of the Cossacks themselves. Dmitry felt free from obligations to any lord. However, he did not take into account that the situation on the border could prevent the creation of any state body.
Ignoring the mood of the Polish king, he focused on the fight against the Tatars and Turks. Prepares a big campaign to the Crimea and appeals to Sigismund II Augustus and Ivan the Terrible for help, asks for troops and guns. The king did not respond to his request, and Ivan the Terrible helped very little: he sent his envoys with letters and gifts. But it was then that an active relationship was established between him and the prince: Dmytro announced his intention to leave the king and go into the service of the king. So far, the tsar reacts cautiously to such proposals, and Dmitry decides to show himself: in October 1556, the Cossacks captured the Islam-Kermen fortress. Khan complains to the king, to which the king replies: we know, they say, that he visited you, received gifts, that's why they put him at the border, hoping that he remains your friend.

Khan thought about attracting Dmytro to his side, but it didn't work out, so he starts preparing for the campaign. In January 1557, Devlet-Girey attacked Khortytsia for the first time, besieged it for almost a month, but in the end nothing came of it.

In the summer of 1557, Devlet-Girey made a new campaign: from the east - the khan and his horde, from the south - the Turks-janissaries, from the west - the Vlachs, subject to the Turks. The siege lasted four months. Supplies ran out, and the Cossacks were forced to leave the fortress. Dmytro returns to Cherkasy. Khortytsia itself was destroyed, the rest of the Cossacks also fled. Therefore, the prince's efforts to find accomplices and create an alliance of states against the Tatars and Turks did not yield the expected result. It is also possible that the surrounding lords did not want to recognize Vyshnevetskyi as a potential ruler. The destruction of Khortytsia quite possibly led to the fact that the borders of Ukraine became undefended for a long time - the horde gained freedom of action.

After the death of Khortytsia, Dmytro turned to Ivan the Terrible for patronage, offering him the Cherkasy and Kaniv chiefdoms. But the tsar did not want to complicate relations with Poland and only invited the prince to serve, without lands. In November 1557, Dmitry came to Moscow. The tsar met him solemnly, gave him the fiefdom of the city of Belov with parishes and villages near Moscow.

At this time, Ivan the Terrible was preparing for the Livonian War, and therefore Dmitri's presence in the south was very appropriate. A month after his arrival, the prince went on a campaign against the Crimea, as the Crimean khan demanded the payment of tribute and threatened to go on a campaign if it was not paid. In January 1558, Dmytro, who led 5 regiments, reached Perekop, defeated the Tatars there, but did not go to the Crimea. Later, the tsar recalled Dmitri to help in the Baltics, but the prince sent the army, and he himself remained in the Dnieper region, waiting for further military operations against the Tatars and Cossacks, and perhaps he did not want to interfere in Polish-Moscow affairs, so as not to close his way to of Poland

On the same day, 1558, he recaptured the Volyn Yasir from the Tatars and learned that they were preparing a campaign against the Muscovite state. Khan decided to take advantage of the fact that Moscow was bogged down in the Baltics. At the end of 1558, the Tatars really entered the borders of the Moscow State, but were turned back, because the main Moscow forces had not yet been sent to the Baltic States.

At the beginning of 1559, Ivan the Terrible decided to close the issue: by his order, Dmitry led a detachment of 5 thousand men together with another leader, Danylo Adashev. Adashev captured Turkish ships near the mouth of the Dnieper, and then attacked the Crimea with Ukrainian Cossacks and freed many slaves. Meanwhile, Dmytro launched an assault on Azov. He stormed three or even four times, failed to capture it, but the Turks were frightened - after all, after taking Azov, the Cossacks could cut off the supply of food - and sent help to the Tatars. Dmytro Azov did not take, could not take Kerch by storm, but his zeal did not pass - the prince began to prepare for the campaign to the Crimea again, building small fortresses along the Don.

The following year, in 1560, Turkey began to fortify Azov, sent a squadron there, detachments of janissaries, in case of conflict, detachments of Moldavian and Wallachian hosts were to join. It was the only time in Turkey's history that it had deployed such forces against an individual. At first, Ivan the Terrible also planned to fight against the Crimea, but then he changed his mind - the war in the north was taking away more and more forces, so he did not want to quarrel with the Crimea and Turkey. He would not be able to keep the Crimea, even if he conquered it, it was more important for him to subjugate the tribes that inhabited the Kuban. Meanwhile, Dmytro was recruiting Cossacks, both Ukrainian and Don, to his army. However, his actions were not successful: the Turks managed to repulse the assault on Azov and Kafa. Therefore, the expedition against Crimea failed. It also failed because the Tatars and Turks learned about Dmitry's plans in advance, perhaps through intelligence, perhaps through betrayal.

In 1561, with small detachments, Dmytro was going to attack Azov and Kafa, as well as Georgia again. This did not please Ivan the Terrible, and he recalled the prince to him. Dmitry was disappointed in the king and decided to return to the Polish king. Before that, he tried for the last time to convince the tsar of the need for a large-scale war with the Crimea, but failed. The tsar only dispatched him in 1562 to the lower reaches of the Dnieper to harm Lithuania and the Crimea. However, already in July of the same year, Dmitry returned to the service of the Polish king. As they said about him in Moscow: "Vyshnevetsky rushed to our sovereign like a dog, and ran away from our sovereign like a dog." Ivan the Terrible called him a traitor, who, however, did not harm him.

Dmytro returned to the service of Sigismund II Augustus, who returned all titles and lands to him. In Kraków, the prince was met with great joy by the people. The king also received him kindly and forgave him his fault. Soon Dmitry fell ill, and the king, taking pity on the prince, sent his doctors to him. They put the patient on his feet.
During his stay in Krakow, the prince met Albrecht Lasky, who dreamed of joining Moldavia to Poland. Both figures were thinking about the same thing: Lasky wanted to seize Moldavia with the help of the Cossacks and become the master there. Vyshnevetskyi wanted the same. Lasky began to implement his plans even earlier: he captured Khotyn and Suceava, expelled the local authorities from there.

Vyshnevetskyi was the best contender for the Moldavian table, because he was a relative of the Mulat dynasty, which in the middle of the 16th century. ruled Moldavia, as well as the grandson of Stephen the Great and cousin of one of the recent voivodes, Peter Raresh. Part of the Moldavian boyars also expressed their support for his candidacy.
So, it is likely that the prince wanted to become the master of Moldavia. But perhaps he acted in line with his previous plans (creating an anti-Tatar and anti-Turkish coalition). Moldavia could become a bridgehead, because the local population was friendly to the Cossacks. Vyshnevetsky could hope, by leading a separate state entity, relying on the support of the Zaporizhzhya and Don Cossacks, to create such an armed force that would be able to eliminate the Tatar threat.

So, in 1563, Vyshnevetsky led a 4,000-strong army and marched to Moldavia. Before that, together with Lasky, he came to Kamianets-Podilskyi and began to recruit volunteers. The Moldavian master Despot, hearing about this, wrote a letter to the Polish king, offering to accept him as a subject along with Moldavia and protect him from an attack on Suceava. However, the king promised that no one would attack the Despot, and if he did, he would be helped by Yuri Yazlovetskyi, a castellan from Kamianets.

However, while the king was delaying the answer, volunteers flocked to Vyshnevetskyi in Kamianets. The despot once again turned to the Polish king with a request to influence Wyshnevetskyi. And the king, as it were, again promised the Despot help, but only verbally - a conversation with the prince. It seems that Wishnevetskyi's plans did not bother the Polish king too much.

The reassuring answer of the Polish king did not reach the Despot: an uprising began in Moldavia, the prince went there with his detachment, waiting for the support of Lasky. At this time, a delegation of Moldavian boyars arrived at Vyshnevetsky's camp above the Dniester. They claimed that a new contender for the Moldavian crown had appeared in Suceava - Stefan Tomsha, who had started an uprising against the Despot, and that Vishnivetsky should immediately go to Suceava.

Tomsha apparently promised that he only temporarily seized Suceava and led the Moldavian army to depose the Despot, and after the Despot was deposed, he, Tomsha, would cede the Moldavian table to Vishnevetskyi. The boyars asked that the prince come quickly and not take troops with him, that they themselves would give him troops.
Vyshnevetskyi believed and went on a campaign to Suceava with a detachment of 500 men. Perhaps he counted on the support of the local population. Approaching the city, he offered the Despot to surrender. He did not agree. In the meantime, Tomsha prepared an ambush for the prince: he attacked the Cossack detachment, which he had promised to support. Vyshnevetskyi was ill at the time - he could not walk and traveled around the army in a cart. The Cossack army, although it was smaller than the Moldavian army, began to crowd the Moldavian army, but reinforcements soon arrived and they defeated the Cossacks. Along with the prince, Ivan Pyasetsky, a relative and associate of Dmytro, was captured. Vyshnevetsky, together with some of his soldiers, who were also captured, were sent to Istanbul.

After many years of struggle, Porta had a fierce enemy, whom she was never able to overcome in open combat. Vyshnevetskyi and Piasetskyi were thrown from the Galata Tower onto pitchfork-like hooks embedded in the walls near the sea bay on the road from Istanbul to Galata. Pyasetsky died immediately because his rib got caught on the hooks and he turned head down. And Dmytro Vyshnevetsky, caught on the hook, lived like that for three days, because his head turned upwards. Even then, the Turks killed him with bows for insulting their faith. And they shot so as not to kill immediately, they used it as a target.

This is how the life of one of the most famous Cossack leaders, Ukrainian prince Dmytro Vyshnevetskyi, ended. From the blood and bones of Olgerdovych, he became not just the leader of the free brotherhood, but the founder of the first fortification on the Dnieper islands, the Zaporozhye sich. Free to choose whom to serve, he looked for his suzerains (king, tsar, sultan) with regard not to his own benefit, but to national interests, taking into account the union with which of them would ensure a peaceful life for the Ukrainian lands. Maybe that's why the figure of the prince became legendary in popular memory as soon as he died. It was said that Vyshnevetskyi was offered to renounce Orthodoxy before his death, promising life and freedom, but he did not agree. And also, hoping to gain the courage of the famous hetman, the Turks cut open his chest and took out his heart, divided it and ate it. So it is not surprising that the feats of the famous knight Baida have been praised by the Ukrainian people for several centuries.

Igor Orlovsky,
journalist, historian.

Reference materials:

Mykhailo Hrushevskyi "History of Ukraine-Rus". Kyiv, 1991

"Vyshnevetsky undoubtedly poured a lot of new enzyme into these steppe relations, into the life of the Cossacks in those 1550s. His short, intermittent, lightning activity is worthy of all attention from this side. Unfortunately, we only see the superficial moments — and then only some, rare, detached, and we have to guess the whole, the leading hint of this activity. And this is all the more difficult because it is not always possible to be certain of such a leading guess, some deeper plan in those actions of this steppe king, who did not leave us any authentic commentary on them, no explanation of his own. To previous researchers, his actions seemed to be mostly aimless throwing of a restless spirit. unbalanced energy. But even in the worst case, even if it were fair, this phenomenon against the background of the static, patterned life of our Ukrainian magnates is so unusual and brilliant that it must attract the attention of every researcher of the life of that time. There is an indisputable boldness of the idea, boundless courage in the scope of this energy - something that is so valuable in a man of all times, and I am sure that this adventurous, restless energy did not disappear without a trace, but fertilized with certain ideas, certain concrete examples of the life of the Ukrainian frontier. I see clear analogies, certain ideological connections with Vyshnevetskyi’s activities not only in the very idea of ​​Zaporozhye as a permanent stronghold in the middle of the steppe sea, but also in the politics of the later Cossack leaders — in their competition to play a certain international role, relying on neighboring states whose interests converged here in the steppes. Before that, we did not see this, and I prove here not only post hoc, but also propter hoc. This steppe adventurer had followers of his ideas, albeit smaller, more modest, more restrained and balanced. Of his predecessors, he reminds Dashkovich in many ways, only more unrestrained, unrestrained, broad. And that's why when Dashkovich ended up playing the role of statesman, Staatsmann, Vyshnevetskyi ended up being an adventurer."

"This tragic end and heroic death of Vyshnevetskyi, as an image of the victory of an ideal spirit over brute physical force, a symbol of the powerlessness of the predatory Bisurmen world to morally defeat the Ukrainian world, in general the Christian world, made a strong impression. In Ukrainian, Polish, and Lithuanian circles, the story of Vyshnevetskyi's death began to be retold in legendary forms, embellished with various poetic details, in the wake of the event. It was said that he ended his life, hanged on a hook by his rib in Tsargorod, and hung like that for three days, laughing at the Turks and cursing them for their mockery of Mohammed, so that the Turks, unable to stand these mockery, shot him and thus ended his torment appointed Marveling at his courage and tenacity, they divided his heart among themselves and ate it, in order to appropriate something of his courage and the contempt of death which he had shown. Then, more and more different poetic words are woven into this story. The Turkish Sultan, full of amazement at Vyshnevetskyi's bravery and exploits, wants to attract him, make him a Turk, promising all kinds of favors, but Bayda despises all this and goes to a terrible death, instead of ruling with bisurmen. Hanging on a hook, he asks for a bow and arrows and shoots the Turks, even the Sultan himself. These stories were also processed in poetic form, and one of these poetic fragments, in the form of a Ukrainian folk song, flew to us across the gap of three centuries, lingering in the mouths of the people.
This is a popular song about Bayda, spread throughout the entire Ukrainian territory, from Halychyna to Zadniprovye. Ignoring his life, she deals exclusively with his heroic death. The frivolity of life and life's luxuries, contempt for death is its leading motive, and having grasped it, the poet thought it better to replace the historical figure of the prince-tycoon with the typical figure of a Cossack reveler who, in an unexplained way, found himself in Tsargorod and is drinking here:
In Tsargorod to the market
Oh, Bayda drinks honey-vodka;
Oh, bye Bayda — but not a day, not two,
Not for one night and not for an hour.
The Turkish king sends to him,
Baidu says to himself:
"Oh, you, Baido, are so glorious
"Be a knight and faithful to me!
"Take my little princess,
"You will be the master of all Ukraine!"
"Your faith, king, is cursed,
"Your little princess is bad!"
Oh, shouted the king to his hajduks:
Take Bayda well in your hands,
Take it, hang it,
Hook the rib on the hook!
Oh, Bayda hangs and nods,
But he looks at his wife:
"Oh dear, my young one,
"Give me a bow and a heavy one
"Oh, I see three doves -
"I want to kill for his daughter!"
Oh, how he shot - the king survived,
And the queen in the back of the head,
His daughter is in the head.
The abundance of editions of this song testifies to its wide popularity. A tragic death deservedly crowned this stormy, brilliant life."

Volodymyr Holobutsky "Zaporozhian Cossacks". Kyiv, 1994

"Who is Dmytro Vyshnevetskyi, whom Ukrainian thought equates with the legendary Cossack Bayda, and some authors even called him the founder of Zaporizhzhya Sich? Prince Dmytro Vyshnevetsky was indeed a bright historical figure, an outstanding diplomat and commander, whose activities left a noticeable mark in the history of the struggle against the Turks and Tatars. It should be said that the author's personal view of the role of Dmytro Vyshnevetskyi has changed somewhat over the past 30 years. In the work "Zaporozhskoe Kozachestvo" (1957), emphasizing the policy of the Ukrainian, Polish and Lithuanian feudal lords towards the free population, especially the Cossacks, which already at the end of the 15th century constituted a separate social stratum, I downplayed the role of such Ukrainian feudal lords as Dashkevich, Ruzhinsky, Pretvych and especially Dmytro Vyshnevetsky, in the defense of the borders of Ukraine against the nomadic hordes and their overlord, the Ottoman Porte. Later, especially under the influence of documents from the Turkish archives, published in the work of the French scientist S. Lemercier-Kelkeje, kindly sent to me by the author, I had the opportunity to deepen my characterization of Dmytro Vyshnevetsky and get rid of what S. Lemercier-Kelkeje called the "minimization" of the role Vyshnevetskyi.
In campaigns against the Turks and Tatars, Vyshnevetsky, without a doubt, often relied on the Cossacks. But the available sources do not give a clear answer to the question: did the Zaporozhians take part in his campaigns? In addition, the Polish government obliged him to do something completely different — to restrain the Zaporozhians from arbitrary marches to the Crimea and Turkey and generally demanded that they be placed under the control of the government. But this, of course, meant the banning of the Cossacks from settling beyond the thresholds, where they could be free from all interference in their lives by the Polish government.
In order to deter the Zaporozhians from independent actions against the Tatars and Turks, Vyshnevetsky in the fall of 1556 completed the construction of a castle on Malya Khortytsia. The Polish king and Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund Augustus was pleased to receive Vishnevetsky's news about this: "And what does yours concern us," the king wrote in his reply, "your service is such a pleasure, because (because) it is for us, master, for so he built a castle in the necessary place, and especially (especially) where there could be safe caution to the blanket of pests of evil people (my discharge. — V. G. ) with the assurance of our lordships". In a letter (1557) to the Crimean khan, the Polish king warned: the Vishnevetskyi castle serves as a strong point in the event that " whenever the behavior of evil people becomes a habit of villainy". According to the king, Vyshnevetsky's task in Zaporozhye was only to " repress the Cossacks, but not allow them to do harm ." Finally, as the king tried to assure the khan, Vyshnevetskyi had to ensure that the Russians did not pass through Zaporozhye to the Crimea and that they did not build a fortress on the Dnieper.
However, in reality, Vyshnevetskyi felt free from all obligations to both the king and the khan.

"Undoubtedly, a talented statesman and military figure, whose fight against the Turks and Tatars was of great importance for the protection of the southern borders of Ukraine, tragically ended his life.
At one time, I wrote that the image of the legendary Cossack Bayda was combined with the historical figure of the Ukrainian prince. In general, this issue, in my opinion, is secondary, because it is still about a poetic image. Why it happened that the image of the prince was replaced by the image of the legendary Cossack Baida is successfully explained by M. C. Hrushevskyi. "In Ukrainian, Polish, and Lithuanian circles," he writes, "following the hot traces of the event, the story of Vyshnievetskyi's death began to be retold in legendary forms embellished with various poetic details (my discharge. — V. G. ) ... These stories were processed in a poetic form, and one of these poetic adaptations, in the form of a Ukrainian folk song, flew to us across the gap of three centuries, lingering in the mouths of the people. A very popular song about Bayda is spread throughout the entire Ukrainian territory, from Halychyna to Transdnieper. Ignoring his life , she deals exclusively with his heroic death. Taking life and life's luxuries lightly, disdain for death is its integral motive, and grasping it him, the poet considered it better to replace the historical figure of the prince-tycoon with a typical figure of a reveler-Cossack, who in an unexplained way ended up in Tsargorod and gets drunk here "(my interpretation. — V. G. ).
Mykhailo Drahomanov also saw the difference between the historical figure of Vyshnevetskyi and the image of the Cossack Bayda. The most outstanding leaders of the Cossacks were, he says, Liantskoronskyi and "Dmytro Vyshnevetskyi, then a song about Bayda was added to it (my interpretation. — V.G. )
Kost Guslystiy once noted that D. Vyshnevetskyi founded the Zaporizhzhya Sich and also identified him with the legendary Bayda. K. Guslysty's opinions about D. Vyshnevetskyi, let's say here, did not stand still, although some of the authors do not want to notice it. We will not quote all his statements, let's focus only on the last one, which was said before his death. In the section of the "History of the Ukrainian SSR" we read: "A notable figure in the struggle against the Turks was the Ukrainian magnate, Prince Dmytro Vyshnevetskyi. In order to protect against Tatar raids, as well as to strengthen his influence in the Dnieper region, in particular to subjugate the Cossacks, Vyshnevetskyi built a castle (around 1554-1555) behind the Dnieper rapids on the island of Mala Khortytsia, which some bourgeois historians baselessly consider Zaporizhzhya Sichcha or its prototype. Some historians equated Dmytro Vyshnevetsky with the hero of one of the most popular Ukrainian folk songs, Baida. However, there are reasons to believe that the song about Baida, a fighter against the Turkish-Tatar aggression, existed even before Vyshnevetskyi, and the version connected with his name, in which he is also nicknamed Baida, appeared later." (my italics. — V. G. ).
The well-known Polish historian Władysław Sierczyk adheres to a similar opinion: "For some time it was believed that the hero of the Cossack poems (songs), the Cossack Bayda, is identical to Wyshnevetsky."
However, the point is not that these researchers are inclined to the point of view that I expressed in the 50s. I also have fierce opponents. I will at least name a historian from the Ukrainian diaspora, L. Vynar, who even calls me a forger.
Yaroslav Dzyra, the most serious contemporary expert on Cossacks, joined the chorus of my critics. He writes: "... Lately, Holobutsky has put forward a dubious assumption that D. Vyshnevetskyi and Bayda, the national hero, are completely different people. To support his opinion, Holobutsky absolutizes the social moment, all his arguments are one-sided and unconvincing"
The most important thing in this angry tirade is accusing me of absolutizing a social moment. Well, to some extent it is, because we are talking about a book that was published in 1957 and could not have been different under the conditions of that time. But that's not what worries me. The fact is that in the process of overcoming the remnants of the Marxist vulgar sociological method, there is a threat of another extreme, which characterizes a misunderstanding or incorrect interpretation of the same social factor. This does not apply to Ya. Dzyra himself, but such a tendency exists and forces me to emphasize once again: expressing the opinion that Prince Dmytro Vyshnevetsky cannot be considered as the founder of Zaporozhian Sich, I really proceeded primarily from the social nature of the Cossacks, which existed for about three centuries and was a kind of a revolutionary, democratic movement, fundamentally anti-feudal and national liberation, and Zaporozhye Sich is the center and leader of this movement. By basing the question of the origin of Cossacks on the activities of Prince Dmytro Vyshnevetskyi and attributing to him the role of the founder of Zaporizhzhya Sich, we will not only not understand the history of the emergence of Cossacks, but we will also not understand the figure of Dmytro Vyshnevetskyi himself. Its significance lies in the fact that at a time when the Turkish-Tatar invasion threatened not only Ukraine, but also all the Christian states of Europe, he tried to contain the danger that was approaching the continent with his struggle. Dmytro Vyshnevetsky, in fact, tried to create a union of states against Turkish-Tatar aggression. Another thing is that the struggle that did not subside between the European states stood in the way of creating such a union. The incorrect interpretation of the social conditions of the emergence of the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks and the role of Dmytro Vyshnevetskyi in its history leads to such, to put it mildly, "conclusions". Pay attention to the unappealing tone of the author: "We repeat (sic!): Ukrainian prince Dmytro Vyshnevetskyi really belonged to the ruling class of the Polish-Lithuanian state. But in a difficult hour for his native land, he, like Prince Dmytro Pozharsky in Russia at one time, fights with enemies.
Dmytro Ivanovich Vyshnevetskyi was not only ready to give his life for the honor and freedom of the Ukrainian land and not only led the Cossacks in campaigns against Turkish castles and Tatar uluses. He undertook the mission of rallying the Zaporozhian Cossacks from former fugitives from feudal oppression (italics mine. — V. G. ). This is precisely what showed his state and military foresight." Comments are redundant."

Natalya Yakovenko "Essays on the History of Medieval and Early Modern Ukraine". Kyiv, 2009

"Changes that accumulated during the first half of the 16th century. both in the way of life and in the general image of the frontier steppe herdsman-Cossack, the logic of their own development pushed for the organizational design of the Cossack community, which would contribute to the survival of the individual in conditions of constant danger. The changing rhythm of existence, where every moment a person had to be ready to go from peace to war, relying only on his own courage and God's grace, required other forms of social grouping, a different internal law and order than that which was produced by the institutions of a stable world. Therefore, the fundamental foundations of the Cossack community, which were formed in the middle of the 16th century. and are well-known from later examples, they simply could not be different, because otherwise the community itself would not have survived. First of all, it had to be a group of equals, in which preference is given to physical strength, endurance, and a quick reaction to danger, rather than fertility or wealth. Further, the Cossack community could not be divided into "own" and "strangers" on the basis of ethnicity or any other characteristic (as is characteristic of a stable society of the Middle Ages), since its members were united by a higher community of "we", opposed to threats from the outside. In the end, the feeling of "we" had to completely suppress each specific "I", because only this ensured collective security; therefore, the authority of the leaders depended primarily on their ability to fulfill the collective will of the group, which guaranteed the necessary unity and perseverance in achieving the goal in extreme conditions.
The model of such a closed group is characteristic of archaic corporate unions and male military brotherhoods bound by mutual oath. Echoes of ancient times can be heard in many internal laws and customs of the Cossack community, such as:
a) replacement of the Christian name with a new one used in the collective (cf. famous Cossack surnames);
b) the way of making decisions not by majority, but by method general agreement when opponents could simply be eliminated physically;
c) the ban on the admission of women to the place of residence of the collective and the celibacy of Cossacks — members of the male military union;
d) a moral prescription according to which young Cossacks must be educated in Sich, living far from human settlements and participating in campaigns, i.e. due to war and robbery (reminiscences of the ancient "wolf warrior" cult).
As a rule, the emergence of a bright personality of a universally recognized leader endowed with real property and charismatic (by all accounts - princely) power becomes the impetus for the unification of dispersed clans and communities into a strong collective of the mentioned type. The adventurous Christian knight-hero Prince Dmytro Vyshnevetskyi, who entered the history of the country under the Cossack surname, perfectly met these requirements. Baida [from Tatar — carefree man].
Among those representatives of the social elite who were driven to the Field by the thirst for adventure and knightly glory or personal ambitious aspirations, Prince Vyshnevetsky, according to the figurative expression of Mykhailo Hrushevskyi, flew "a particularly brilliant, radiant meteor across the Ukrainian sky" . Him a short adventurous biography and proud courage, without exaggeration, turned a new page in the history of Ukraine."