The Dutch artist Abraham van Westerfeld (1620/21 - 1692) accompanied the army of the Lithuanian hetman Janusz Radziwill in 1651.
The hetman with the army made a campaign against Kiev, and the artist made several drawings of the city at that time.
And already on the title page we see the overgrown ruins of stately buildings.
It is believed that these are mainly images of the ruins of the Hagia Sophia. Although there is a drawing showing the cathedral in relatively good condition.
Here the cathedral is completely intact. Or is it not Westerfeld's drawing?
There are some drawings that supposedly depict the ruins of this cathedral. Because they simply cannot be attributed to some other structures. Or we must admit that there were other buildings in Kiev that were not inferior to the St. Sophia Cathedral. Here is, for example, a drawing that supposedly depicts the ruins of the galleries of this cathedral.
Promotional video:
Personally, this seems to me quite controversial. A couple more drawings of the cathedral gallery.
Children are running, people are looking at the remains of outlandish buildings. Just like us, when we go on tourist trips, look at the ruins of Greek temples.
The tower with the wall is also attributed to the ruins of the Hagia Sophia.
This album contains several drawings that could not be attributed to any buildings.
A drawing that belongs to the ruins of an unknown temple.
For some reason, I immediately have associations with photographs of Dresden destroyed by the bombing.
In general, one gets the impression that all of Kiev is in ruins.
Here is a drawing of another unknown temple.
Judging by the trees growing on the walls, these buildings have been in this state for at least 50 years.
People walk among the ruins, amuse themselves. They live some kind of separate life, absolutely not trying to restore anything.
Another unknown temple in ruins.
In some of the ruins, famous church buildings are still recognizable. Here are the ruins of the Fedorov Church.
That there used to be many churches in Kiev can be understood from the description of this city compiled by the Polish diplomat Reingold Heidenshtein (1553 - 1620) in 1596.
Another statement of this chronicler is a little surprising.
Firstly, for some reason, there is a division into at least two Rus (or Russia). Indeed, by the time this manuscript was written, Russia was already united. Ivan the Terrible by the end of his reign (1584) conquered everyone.
What kind of “other Rus” does Heydenstein write about (by the way, a strange name for a Polish diplomat)?
And why does he claim that at the end of the 16th century the history of Kiev is completely unknown?
It is completely known and understandable to today's historians.
And you can't call Heydenstein an uneducated person.
Apparently, the universities of that time were not taught to work with historical sources at all.
The fact that Kiev was practically all in ruins can be understood from another statement of this Pole with German roots.
Again twenty-five. Which means "sometime was crowded and great."
In 1596 Kiev is not crowded or what? And not great?
Somehow I don't really believe it.
But the walls around the city were indeed in poor condition. This is what the Golden Gate looked like, for example.
The question remains who destroyed all this. Basically, there is a reference to Khan Batu, who in 1240, having passed more than 4500 km from Mongolia, attacked Kiev. During this attack, most of the temples were destroyed. Why the khan wanted to destroy everything so badly is not explained.
There is a theory, put forward by A. Ye. Musin, that Batu's army brought battering weapons with them and with their help destroyed the walls of the temples.
The version is more than controversial. I remember in post-revolutionary newsreels, when the Bolsheviks began to destroy churches, they blew them up. And it was not always possible to do this the first time. Still, the thickness of the walls of the temples was in the region of one meter.
About the destruction of the Hagia Sophia in Wikipedia, it is generally written extremely vague.
It turns out that no one destroyed it, just three hundred and fifty years was in desolation. But the service continued.
That is, bricks fell on your head, but no one paid attention? Strange priests lived in those days.
And what about Westerfeld's drawings?
What cathedral ruins did he paint?