In the second half of the 11th century. In Rus', signs of increasing feudal fragmentation are becoming more and more clearly evident.

Bloody feuds were aggravated by continuous raids, which skillfully exploited the disunity of the Russian princes. Other princes took the Polovtsians as allies and brought them to Rus'.

In 1097, on the initiative of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, son of Vsevolod Yaroslavovich, it took place in Lyubech. To stop civil strife, it was decided to install new order organization of power in Rus'. In accordance with the new principle, each principality became the hereditary property of the local princely family.

The adopted law became the main cause of feudal fragmentation and destroyed the integrity of the Old Russian state. It became a turning point, as there was a turning point in the distribution of land ownership in Rus'.

The disastrous mistake in lawmaking did not immediately make itself felt. The need for a joint struggle against the Polovtsians, the strong power and patriotism of Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125) postponed the inevitable for a while. His work was continued by his son - (1125-1132). However, from 1132, the former counties, having become hereditary “fatherlands,” gradually turned into independent principalities.

In the middle of the 12th century. civil strife reached unprecedented severity, the number of participants increased as a result of the fragmentation of the princely possessions. At that time there were 15 principalities in Rus', in the next century - 50, and during the reign - 250. Many historians consider one of the reasons underlying these events to be the large number of children of princely families: by distributing lands by inheritance, they multiplied the number of principalities.

The largest state entities were:

• Principality of Kiev (despite the loss of all-Russian status, the struggle for its possession continued until the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars);
• Vladimir-Suzdal Principality (in the 12th-13th centuries, economic growth began, the cities of Vladimir, Dmitrov Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Gorodets, Kostroma, Tver, Nizhny Novgorod arose);
• Chernigov and Smolensk principalities (the most important trade routes to the upper reaches of the Volga and Dnieper);
• Galicia-Volyn principality (located between the Bug and Dniester rivers, the center of arable land-owning culture);
• Polotsk-Minsk land (had an advantageous location at the crossroads of trade routes).

Feudal fragmentation characteristic of the history of many states of the Middle Ages. The uniqueness and grave consequences for the Old Russian state lay in its duration - about 3.5 centuries.

Feudal fragmentation in Rus' in the 12th–13th centuries: reasons, main principalities and lands, differences in the state system.

Reason to start political fragmentation was the formation of large land holdings, received on the basis of freehold ownership.

Feudal fragmentation – historical period in the history of Rus', which is characterized by the fact that, formally being part of Kievan Rus, the appanage principalities are constantly separated from Kyiv

Start – 1132 (death Prince of Kyiv Mstislav the Great)

Ending – formation of a unified Russian state at the end of the 15th century

Causes of feudal fragmentation:

Preservation of significant tribal fragmentation under conditions of dominance of subsistence farming (social)

The development of feudal land ownership and the growth of appanage, princely-boyar land ownership - estates (economic)

Power struggle between princes, feudal civil strife (internal political)

Constant raids of nomads and outflow of population to the northeast of Rus' (foreign policy)

The decline of trade along the Dnieper due to the Polovtsian danger and the loss of Byzantium's leading role in international trade (economic)

The growth of cities as centers of specific lands, the development of productive forces (economic)

The absence in the middle of the 12th century of a serious external threat (Poland, Hungary), which rallied the princes to fight

The emergence of the main principalities:

Novgorod Boyar Republic:

The Novgorod land (northwestern Rus') occupied a vast territory from the Arctic Ocean to the upper Volga, from the Baltic to the Urals.

The Novgorod land was far from the nomads and did not experience the horror of their raids. The wealth of the Novgorod land lay in the presence of a huge land fund that fell into the hands of the local boyars, who grew out of the local tribal nobility. Novgorod did not have enough of its own bread, but commercial activities - hunting, fishing, salt making, iron production, beekeeping - received significant development and provided the boyars with considerable income. The rise of Novgorod was facilitated by its exceptionally favorable geographical position: the city was located at the crossroads of trade routes connecting Western Europe with Russia, and through it with the East and Byzantium. Dozens of ships stood at the berths of the Volkhov River in Novgorod.

The Novgorod boyar republic is characterized by certain features of the social system and feudal relations: the significant social and feudal weight of the Novgorod boyars, which has long traditions, and its active participation in trade and fishing activities. The main economic factor was not land, but capital. This determined a special social structure of society and a form of government unusual for medieval Rus'. The Novgorod boyars organized commercial and industrial enterprises, trade with their western neighbors (the Hanseatic Trade Union) and with the Russian principalities.

By analogy with some regions of the medieval Western Europe(Genoa, Venice) in Novgorod a peculiar republican (feudal) system. The development of crafts and trade, more intensive than in the ancient Russian lands, which was explained by access to the seas, required the creation of more democratic state system, the basis of which was a fairly broad middle class Novgorod Society: live People engaged in trade and usury, fellow countrymen (a kind of farmer or farmer) rented out or cultivated the land. Merchants united into several hundred (communities) and traded with the Russian principalities and with “abroad” (“guests”).

The urban population was divided into patricians (“oldest”) and “black people.” The Novgorod (Pskov) peasantry consisted, as in other Russian lands, of smerds - community members, lads - dependent peasants working “from the floor” for part of the product on the master’s land, mortgagers (“mortgaged”), those who entered into bondage and slaves.

State administration of Novgorod was carried out through a system of veche bodies: in the capital there was citywide meeting , separate parts of the city (sides, ends, streets) convened their own veche meetings. Formally, the veche was the highest authority (each at its own level).

Veche - meeting of the unit male population of the city, had broad powers (“citywide” veche): there were cases that it called the prince, judged his “guilts,” “showed him the way” from Novgorod; elected mayor, thousand and ruler; resolved issues of war and peace; made and repealed laws; established the amounts of taxes and duties; elected government officials in the Novgorod possessions and judged them.

Prince - invited by citizens to reign, served as commander-in-chief and organizer of the defense of the city. He shared military and judicial activities with the mayor. According to agreements with the city (about eighty agreements of the 13th-15th centuries are known), the prince was forbidden to acquire land in Novgorod and distribute the land of Novgorod volosts to his associates. Also, according to the agreement, he was forbidden to manage the Novgorod volosts, administer court outside the city, make laws, declare war and make peace. It was also forbidden to enter into agreements with foreigners without the mediation of Novgorodians, judge slaves, accept pawns from merchants and smerds, hunt and fish outside the designated please him. In case of violation of treaties, the prince could be expelled.

Posadnik - Executive branch was in the hands of the mayor, the first civil dignitary, chairman of the people's veche. Their functions included: relations with foreign states, courts and internal administration. During the performance of their duties, they were called sedate (from the word “degree” - the platform from which they addressed the veche). Upon retirement, they received the name of the old mayor and the old thousand.

Tysyatsky was the leader of the Novgorod militia, and his responsibilities included: tax collection, commercial court.

The Council of Gentlemen is a kind of Novgorod supreme chamber. The council included: archbishop, mayor, thousand, Konchan elders, sotsky elders, old mayors and thousand.

The regulation of the relationship between the Council of Gentlemen, the mayor and the veche with the prince was established by special letters of agreement.

The sources of law in this region were Russian Pravda, veche legislation, agreements between the city and princes, judicial practice, and foreign legislation. As a result of codification in the 15th century, Novgorod judgment letters appeared in Novgorod.

As a result of the war of 1471 and the campaign of Moscow troops against Veliky Novgorod in 1477-1478. Many institutions of republican power were abolished. The Novgorod Republic became an integral part of the Russian state, while maintaining some autonomy. Vladimir - Suzdal Principality

The Vladimir-Suzdal principality is a typical example of a Russian principality during the period of feudal fragmentation. Occupying a large territory - from the Northern Dvina to the Oka and from the sources of the Volga to its confluence with the Oka, Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' over time became the center around which the Russian lands united, the formation of Russian centralized state. Moscow was founded on its territory. The growth of the influence of this large principality was greatly facilitated by the fact that it was there transferred from Kyiv the title of grand duke. All Vladimir-Suzdal princes, descendants of Vladimir Monomakh - from Yuri Dolgoruky (1125-1157) to Daniil of Moscow (1276-1303) - bore this title.

The metropolitan see was also moved there. The Vladimir-Suzdal principality did not retain its unity and integrity for long. Soon after its rise under the Grand Duke Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176-1212), it broke up into small principalities. In the 70s XIII century The Principality of Moscow also became independent.

Social system. The structure of the feudal class in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality was not much different from that of Kyiv. However, here a new category of small feudal lords arises - the so-called boyar children. In the 12th century. a new term appears - " nobles". The ruling class also included clergy, which in all Russian lands during the period of feudal fragmentation, including the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, retained its organization, built according to the church charters of the first Russian Christian princes - Vladimir the Holy and Yaroslav the Wise. Having conquered Rus', the Tatar-Mongols left the organization of the Orthodox Church unchanged. They confirmed the privileges of the church with khan's labels. The oldest of them, issued by Khan Mengu-Temir (1266-1267), guaranteed the inviolability of faith, worship and church canons, retained the jurisdiction of the clergy and other church persons to church courts (with the exception of cases of robbery, murder, exemption from taxes, duties and duties). The metropolitan and bishops of the Vladimir land had their own vassals - boyars, children of boyars and nobles who performed military service with them.

The bulk of the population of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality were rural residents, called here orphans, Christians, and later peasants. They paid quitrents to the feudal lords and were gradually deprived of the right to freely move from one owner to another.

Politic system. The Vladimir-Suzdal principality was early feudal monarchy with strong grand ducal power. Already the first Rostov-Suzdal prince - Yuri Dolgoruky - was a strong ruler who managed to conquer Kyiv in 1154. In 1169, Andrei Bogolyubsky again conquered the "mother of Russian cities", but did not move his capital there - he returned to Vladimir, thereby re-establishing its capital status. He managed to subjugate the Rostov boyars to his power, for which he was nicknamed the “autocracy” of the Vladimir-Suzdal land. Even during the time of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, the Vladimir table continued to be considered the first grand princely throne in Rus'. The Tatar-Mongols preferred to leave intact the internal state structure of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality and the clan order of succession to grand-ducal power.

The Grand Duke of Vladimir relied on his squad, from among which, as in the times Kievan Rus, the Council was formed under the prince. In addition to the warriors, the council included representatives of the highest clergy, and after the transfer of the metropolitan see to Vladimir, the metropolitan himself.

The Grand Duke's court was ruled by a dvorsky (butler) - the second most important person in the state apparatus. The Ipatiev Chronicle (1175) also mentions tiuns, swordsmen, and children among the princely assistants, which indicates that the Vladimir-Suzdal principality inherited from Kievan Rus palace-patrimonial management system.

Local power belonged to governors (in cities) and volosts (in rural areas). They administered justice in the lands under their jurisdiction, showing not so much concern for the administration of justice, but a desire for personal enrichment at the expense of the local population and replenishment of the grand ducal treasury, for, as the same Ipatiev Chronicle says, “they created a lot of burdens for the people with sales and Virami".

Right. The sources of law of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality have not reached us, but there is no doubt that they acted in it national legislative codes of Kievan Rus. The legal system of the principality included sources of secular and ecclesiastical law. Secular law was introduced Russian Truth. Church law was based on the norms of all-Russian charters of the Kyiv princes of an earlier time - the Charter of Prince Vladimir on tithes, church courts and church people, the Charter of Prince Yaroslav on church courts.

Galicia-Volyn principality

Social system. A feature of the social structure of the Galicia-Volyn principality was that a large group of boyars was formed there, in whose hands almost all land holdings were concentrated. The most important role was played by " Galician men" - large patrimonial owners, who already in the 12th century opposed any attempts to limit their rights in favor of princely power and growing cities.

The other group consisted service feudal lords. The sources of their land holdings were princely grants, boyar lands confiscated and redistributed by the princes, as well as seized communal lands. In the vast majority of cases, they held land conditionally while they served. Serving feudal lords supplied the prince with an army consisting of peasants dependent on them. It was the support of the Galician princes in the fight against the boyars.

The feudal elite also included large church nobility in the person of archbishops, bishops, abbots of monasteries who owned vast lands and peasants. The church and monasteries acquired land holdings through grants and donations from princes. Often they, like princes and boyars, seized communal lands, turning peasants into monastic and church feudal-dependent people.

The bulk of the rural population in the Galicia-Volyn principality were peasants (smerdas). The growth of large land ownership and the formation of a class of feudal lords was accompanied by the establishment of feudal dependence and the emergence of feudal rent. Such a category as slaves has almost disappeared . Slavery merged with the peasants sitting on the ground.

The largest group of the urban population were artisans. In the cities there were jewelry, pottery, blacksmith and other workshops, the products of which went not only to the domestic, but also to the foreign market. Brought great income salt trade. Being a center of crafts and trade, Galich also gained fame as a cultural center. The Galicia-Volych Chronicle and other written monuments of the 11th-111th centuries were created here.

Political system. The Galicia-Volyn principality maintained its unity longer than many other Russian lands, although power in him belonged to large boyars . The power princes was fragile. Suffice it to say that the Galician boyars even controlled the princely table - they invited and removed princes. The history of the Galicia-Volyn principality is full of examples when princes who lost the support of the top boyars were forced to go into exile. The boyars invited Poles and Hungarians to fight the princes. The boyars hanged several Galician-Volyn princes. The boyars exercised their power with the help of a council, which included the largest landowners, bishops and persons holding the highest government positions. The prince did not have the right to convene a council at his own request, and could not issue a single act without his consent. Since the council included boyars who held major administrative positions, the entire state administrative apparatus was actually subordinate to it.

The Galician-Volyn princes from time to time, in emergency circumstances, convened a veche, but it did not have much influence. They took part in all-Russian feudal congresses. Occasionally congresses of feudal lords and the Galician-Volyn principality itself were convened. In this principality there was a palace-patrimonial system of government.

The territory of the state was divided into thousands and hundreds. As the thousand and sotskys with their administrative apparatus gradually became part of the palace-patrimonial apparatus of the prince, the positions of governors and volostels arose in their place. Accordingly, the territory was divided into voivodeships and volosts. The communities elected elders who were in charge of administrative and minor judicial matters. Posadniks were appointed to the cities. They had not only administrative and military power, but also performed judicial functions, collected tributes and duties from the population.

Feudal fragmentation: definition, causes, consequences, characteristic features, chronological framework.

Causes:

1) Decline of the Principality of Kyiv (loss of central position, relocation of world trade routes away from Kyiv).

Was associated with the loss of importance of the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks"

Ancient Rus' is losing its role as a participant and mediator in trade relations between the Byzantine, Western European and Eastern worlds.

2) land is the main value.

Land is the main means of payment for service.

3) One of the reasons for the beginning of feudal fragmentation in Rus'. there was... a significant increase in the country's productive forces.

4) The most important sign of feudal fragmentation in the 12th-13th centuries. was... subsistence farming.

5) Strengthening local princes.

6) Boyars turn into feudal landowners, for whom the income received from estates becomes. main means of subsistence

7) Weakening of defense capabilities.

8) The weakening of Kyiv and the movement of centers to the outskirts was caused by the pressure of the steppe nomads.

Consequences:

1.strengthening local princes

2. boyars turn into feudal landowners, for whom income received from estates becomes the main means of subsistence

3. weakening of defense capability

Characteristics:

1) state fragmentation Ancient Rus'

2) appanage principalities

3) the formation of Russian feudalism

The legal formalization of the principle of feudal fragmentation was recorded: by the Lubech princely congress of 1097, “let everyone keep his fatherland.”

Feudal fragmentation- a natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal estates. Feudal fragmentation is most often understood as the political and economic decentralization of the state, the creation on the territory of one state of practically independent state entities that formally had a common supreme ruler (in Rus', the period of the 12th - 15th centuries).

Already in the word “fragmentation” the political processes of this period are recorded. By the middle of the 12th century, approximately 15 principalities had emerged. By the beginning of the 13th century - about 50. By the 14th century - approximately 250.

How to evaluate this process? But are there any problems here? The unified state disintegrated and was relatively easily conquered by the Mongol-Tatars. And before that there were bloody strife between the princes, from which the common people, peasants and artisans suffered.

Indeed, approximately this stereotype emerged recently when reading scientific and journalistic literature, and even some scientific works. True, these works also spoke about the pattern of fragmentation of Russian lands, the growth of cities, and the development of trade and craft. All this is true, however, the smoke of the fires in which Russian cities disappeared during the years of Batu’s invasion still obscures the eyes of many today. But can the significance of one event be measured by the tragic consequences of another? "If not for the invasion, Rus' would have survived."

But the Mongol-Tatars also conquered huge empires, such as China. The battle with Batu’s countless armies was a much more complex undertaking than the victorious campaign against Constantinople, the defeat of Khazaria, or the successful military operations of the Russian princes in the Polovtsian steppes. For example, the forces of only one of the Russian lands - Novgorod - turned out to be enough to defeat the German, Swedish and Danish invaders by Alexander Nevsky. In the person of the Mongol-Tatars, there was a clash with a qualitatively different enemy. So, if we pose the question in the subjunctive mood, we can ask another way: could the Russian early feudal state have been able to resist the Tatars? Who dares to answer in the affirmative? And the most important thing. The success of the invasion cannot in any way be attributed to fragmentation.

There is no direct cause-and-effect relationship between them. Fragmentation is the result of the progressive internal development of Ancient Rus'. An invasion is an external influence with tragic consequences. Therefore, to say: “Fragmentation is bad because the Mongols conquered Rus'” does not make sense.

Thus, fragmentation differs from the times of state unity not by the presence of strife, but by the fundamentally different goals of the warring parties.

Main dates of the period of feudal fragmentation in Rus':

1097 Lyubechsky Congress of Princes.

1132 Death of Mstislav I the Great and the political collapse of Kievan Rus.

1169 The capture of Kyiv by Andrei Bogolyubsky and the plunder of the city by his troops, which testified to the socio-political and ethnocultural isolation of individual lands of Kievan Rus.

1212 Death of Vsevolod “Big Nest” - the last autocrat of Kievan Rus.

1240 The defeat of Kyiv by the Mongol-Tatars.

1252 Presentation of the label for the great reign to Alexander Nevsky.

1328 Presentation of the label for the great reign to Moscow Prince Ivan Kalita.

1389 Battle of Kulikovo.

1471 Ivan III's campaign against Novgorod the Great.

1478 Incorporation of Novgorod into the Moscow State.

1485 Incorporation of the Tver Principality into the Moscow State.

1510 Inclusion of the Pskov land into the Moscow state.

1521 Incorporation of the Ryazan Principality into the Moscow State.

Causes of feudal fragmentation.

Formation of feudal land ownership: the old tribal nobility, once pushed into the shadow of the capital's military service nobility, turned into zemstvo boyars and, together with other categories of feudal lords, formed a corporation of land owners (boyar land ownership emerged). Gradually, tables turned into hereditary tables in princely families (princely land ownership). “Settling” on the ground, the ability to do without the help of Kyiv led to the desire to “settle” on the ground.

Development Agriculture: 40 types of rural agricultural and fishing equipment. Steam (two- and three-field) crop rotation system. The practice of fertilizing the land with manure. The peasant population often moves to "free" (free lands). The bulk of the peasants are personally free and farm on the lands of the princes.

The direct violence of the feudal lords played a decisive role in the enslavement of the peasants. Along with this, economic enslavement was also used: mainly food rent, and to a lesser extent, labor.

Development of crafts and cities. In the middle of the 13th century, according to chronicles, there were over 300 cities in Kievan Rus, in which there were almost 60 craft specialties. The degree of specialization in the field of metal processing technology was especially high. In Kievan Rus, the internal market is being formed, but priority still remains with external market. “Detintsi” are trade and craft settlements made up of runaway slaves. The bulk of the urban population are lesser people, bonded "hiremen" and declassed "poor people", servants who lived in the yards of feudal lords. Urban feudal nobility also live in cities and a trade and craft elite is formed. XII - XIII centuries in Rus' this is the era of the heyday of veche meetings.

The main reason for feudal fragmentation is the change in the nature of the relationship between the Grand Duke and his warriors as a result of the latter settling on the ground. In the first century and a half of the existence of Kievan Rus, the squad was completely supported by the prince. The prince, as well as his state apparatus, collected tribute and other exactions. As the warriors received land and received from the prince the right to collect taxes and duties themselves, they came to the conclusion that income from military spoils was less reliable than fees from peasants and townspeople. In the 11th century, the process of the squad’s “settling” to the ground intensified. And from the first half XII century in Kievan Rus, the predominant form of property became the patrimony, the owner of which could dispose of it at his own discretion. And although ownership of the estate imposed on the feudal lord the obligation to perform military service, his economic dependence on the Grand Duke weakened significantly. The incomes of the former feudal warriors no longer depended on the mercy of the prince. They provided for their own existence. With the weakening of economic dependence on the Grand Duke, political dependence also weakens.

A significant role in the process of feudal fragmentation in Rus' was played by the developing institution of feudal immunity, which provided for a certain level of sovereignty of the feudal lord within the borders of his estate. In this territory, the feudal lord had the rights of the head of state. The Grand Duke and his authorities did not have the right to act in this territory. The feudal lord himself collected taxes, duties, and administered justice. As a result, a state apparatus, squads, courts, prisons, etc. are formed in independent principalities-patrimonial lands, appanage princes begin to manage communal lands, transferring them in their own name to the power of boyars and monasteries.

In this way, local princely dynasties are formed, and local feudal lords make up the court and squad of this dynasty. The introduction of the institution of heredity to the land and the people inhabiting it played a huge role in this process. Under the influence of all these processes, the nature of relations between local principalities and Kiev changed. Service dependence is replaced by relations of political partners, sometimes in the form of equal allies, sometimes suzerain and vassal.

All these economic and political processes in political terms meant the fragmentation of power, the collapse of the former centralized statehood of Kievan Rus. This collapse, as was the case in Western Europe, was accompanied by internecine wars. Three most influential states were formed on the territory of Kievan Rus: the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality (North-Eastern Rus'), the Galician-Volyn Principality (South-Western Rus') and the Novgorod Land (North-Western Rus'). Both within these principalities and between them , for a long time there were fierce clashes, destructive wars that weakened the power of Rus' and led to the destruction of cities and villages.

The main dividing force was the boyars. Relying on his power, local princes were able to establish their power in each land. However, subsequently, contradictions and a struggle for power arose between the growing boyars and the local princes. Causes of feudal fragmentation

Internal political. A single Russian state no longer existed under the sons of Yaroslav the Wise, and unity was supported rather by family ties and common interests in defense from the steppe nomads. The movement of princes through cities along the “Yaroslav Row” created instability. The decision of the Lyubech Congress eliminated this established rule, finally fragmenting the state. Yaroslav's descendants were more interested not in the struggle for seniority, but in increasing their own possessions at the expense of their neighbors.

Foreign policy. Polovtsian raids on Rus' largely contributed to the consolidation of Russian princes to repel external danger. The weakening of the onslaught from the south broke the alliance of the Russian princes, who themselves more than once brought Polovtsian troops to Rus' in civil strife.

Economic. Marxist historiography brought economic reasons to the fore. The period of feudal fragmentation was considered as a natural stage in the development of feudalism. Domination subsistence farming did not contribute to the establishment of strong economic ties between regions and led to isolation.

The emergence of a feudal fiefdom with the exploitation of the dependent population required strong power locally, and not in the center. The growth of cities, colonization and the development of new lands led to the emergence of new large centers of Rus', loosely connected with Kiev.

Feudal fragmentation: historiography of the problem.

Chronologically, the historical tradition considers the beginning of the period of fragmentation to be 1132 - the death of Mstislav the Great - “and the whole Russian land was torn apart” into separate principalities, as the chronicler wrote.

The great Russian historian S. M. Solovyov dated the beginning of the period of fragmentation to 1169 - 1174, when the Suzdal prince Andrei Bogolyubsky captured Kyiv, but did not remain in it, but, on the contrary, gave it to his troops for plunder as a foreign enemy city, which indicated, according to according to the historian, about the isolation of Russian lands.

Until this time, the grand ducal power did not experience serious problems from local separatism, since the most important political and socio-economic levers of control were assigned to it: the army, the vicegerency system, tax policy, the priority of the grand ducal power in foreign policy.

Both the causes and the nature of feudal fragmentation in historiography were revealed differently at different times.

The dominance of a closed natural economy is the lack of interest among direct producers in the development of market commodity-money relations. It was believed that the natural isolation of individual lands made it possible to more fully use the local potential.

The development of feudal estates in Kievan Rus, which played an organizing role in the development of agricultural production due to higher opportunities than peasant farms for running a diversified economy.

The selection of these reasons from the complex cause-and-effect complex was associated with the tradition of Soviet historiography to unify Russian history with the history of Western Europe.

Kievan Rus emerged as a result of the decline in passionary tension in the system of the ancient Russian ethnos. He saw the manifestations of this decline in the weakening of public and intrastate ties, due to the victory of narrow selfish interests and consumer psychology, when the state organization was perceived by ordinary people as a burden, and not as a guarantee of survival, stability and protection. During XI and in beginning of XII centuries military clashes between Rus' and its neighbors did not outgrow the framework of military conflicts. Relative safety has become familiar to the Russian people. For the thinking part of ancient Russian society, fragmentation was a negative phenomenon (for example, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” 1185). The negative consequences of fragmentation were not long in coming. At the end of the 12th century, the onslaught of the Polovtsians intensified. The Polovtsians, together with internal strife, led the country to decline. The population of southern Rus' began its resettlement to the North-East of Rus' (colonization of the Vladimir-Suzdal land). Against the background of the decline of Kyiv, the relative rise of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus', Smolensk and Novgorod the Great was evident. However, this rise at that time could not yet lead to the creation of an all-Russian center capable of uniting Rus' and fulfilling strategic tasks. In the second half of the 13th century, Rus' faced its most difficult test, when the Mongols attacked from the east, and Germans, Lithuanians, Swedes, Danes, Poles and Hungarians from the west. The Russian principalities, weakened by infighting, were unable to unite to repel and resist the enemy.

General characteristics of the period of fragmentation

With the establishment of feudal fragmentation in Rus', the appanage order finally triumphed. (Appanage - princely possession.) “The princes ruled the free population of their principalities as sovereigns and owned their territories as private owners, with all the rights of disposal arising from such ownership” (V.O. Klyuchevsky). With the cessation of the movement of princes among principalities in order of seniority, all-Russian interests are replaced by private interests: increasing one’s principality at the expense of its neighbors, dividing it among one’s sons at the will of the father.

With the change in the position of the prince, the position of the rest of the population also changes. Service with the prince has always been voluntary for a free person. Now the boyars and boyar children have the opportunity to choose which prince to serve, which was recorded in the so-called right of departure. While maintaining their land holdings, they had to pay tribute to the prince in whose principality their estates were located.

Positive:

Growth of cities, crafts and trade;

Cultural and economic development of individual lands.

Negative:

Weak central authority;

Independence of local princes and boyars;

Disintegration of the state into separate principalities and lands;

Vulnerability to external enemies.

Since the 15th century it appears new form services - local. An estate is land, the holder of which had to perform compulsory service in favor of the prince and did not enjoy the right of departure. Such possession is called conditional, since the owner of the estate was not its owner in full. He owned it only while his service lasted. The prince could transfer the estate to another, take it away completely, or retain the ownership under the condition of the service of the landowner's sons...

All land of the principality was divided into state land ("black"), palace land (belonging personally to the prince), boyar land (patrimony) and church land. Principality lands

The land was inhabited by free community members who, like the boyars, had the right to transfer from one landowner to another. This right was not used only by personally dependent people - arable slaves, purchasers, servants.

Political history of Kievan Rus during the period of feudal fragmentation

Thanks to the generally recognized authority of Monomakh, after his death in 1125, the Kiev throne was occupied by his eldest son, Mstislav (1125-1132), although he was not the eldest among the remaining princes. He was born around 1075 and for a long time was a prince in Novgorod, waged wars with the Chud and defended the Suzdal land from princes Oleg and Yaroslav Svyatoslavich. Having become the Grand Duke, Mstislav continued the policy of his father: he kept the appanage princes in strict obedience and did not allow them to start internecine wars. In 1128, Mstislav took possession of the Principality of Polotsk and gave it to his son Izyaslav. The Polotsk princes were forced to go into exile in Byzantium. In 1132 Mstislav fought with Lithuania and died in the same year.

Mstislav was succeeded by his brother Yaropolk (1132-1139). Under Vladimir Monomakh and his eldest son, Mstislav, the unity of the Old Russian state was restored. However, under Yaropolk Vladimirovich, discord began again between the heirs of Monomakh. The sons of Oleg Svyatoslavich also joined the fight for Kyiv. The Polotsk princes also took advantage of the strife and again occupied Polotsk.

After the death of Yaropolk, Oleg Svyatoslavich's eldest son, Vsevolod, expelled Vladimir Monomakh's son Vyacheslav from Kyiv and became the Grand Duke (1139 - 1146). Vsevolod wanted to be succeeded by his brother Igor. But the people of Kiev did not like the Olegovichs and called Izyaslav Mstislavich (1146-1154) as prince, and killed Igor. By occupying Kyiv, Izyaslav violated the right of seniority of his uncle Yuri Dolgoruky, the son of Vladimir Monomakh. A war began between them, in which other Russian princes, as well as Hungarians and Polovtsians, took part. The war went on with varying degrees of success. Yuri expelled Izyaslav from Kyiv twice, but in 1151 he was defeated by him and took the Kiev throne only in 1154, after the death of Izyaslav. Yuri Dolgoruky (1154-1157) was youngest son Vladimir Monomakh from his second wife. Born around 1090. Since childhood, he lived constantly in his father’s places - Rostov the Great, Suzdal, Vladimir. Monomakh gave him this inheritance with the intention - let the youngest son strengthen Rus' here and gain his wealth. Yuri lived up to his father's hopes.

Mongol-Tatar yoke.

The system of rule of Mongol-Tatar feudal lords over Russian lands in the 13th-15th centuries, which had the goal of regular exploitation of the conquered country through various extortions and predatory raids. M.-t. And. was established as a result of the Mongol conquests in the 13th century (See Mongol conquests in the 13th century).

The Russian principalities did not directly become part of the Mongol feudal empire and retained the local princely administration, the activities of which were controlled by the Baskaks and other representatives of the Mongol-Tatar khans. The Russian princes were tributaries of the Mongol-Tatar khans and received from them labels for ownership of their principalities. There was no permanent Mongol-Tatar army on the territory of Rus'. M.-t. And. was supported by punitive campaigns and repressions against rebellious princes. Until the beginning of the 60s. 13th century Rus' was under the rule of the great Mongol khans, and then the khans of the Golden Horde.

M.-t. And. was formally established in 1243, when the father of Alexander Nevsky, Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, received from the Mongol-Tatars a label for the Grand Duchy of Vladimir and was recognized by them as “the oldest prince in the Russian language.” Regular exploitation of Russian lands through the collection of tribute began after the census of 1257-59, carried out by Mongol “numerals” under the leadership of Kitat, a relative of the Great Khan. The units of taxation were: in cities - the yard, in rural areas - the farm (“village”, “plow”, “plough”). Only the clergy, which the conquerors tried to use to strengthen their power, were exempt from tribute. There are 14 known types of “Horde burdens”, of which the main ones were: “exit”, or “tsar’s tribute”, a tax directly for the Mongol khan; trade fees (“myt”, “tamka”); carriage duties (“pits”, “carts”); maintenance of the khan's ambassadors (“food”); various “gifts” and “honors” to the khan, his relatives and associates, etc. Every year, a huge amount of silver left the Russian lands in the form of tribute. “Moscow exit” was 5-7 thousand rubles. silver, “Novgorod exit” - 1.5 thousand. Large “requests” for military and other needs were periodically collected. In addition, the Russian princes were obliged, by order of the khan, to send soldiers to participate in campaigns and in round-up hunts (“lovitva”). The “Horde hardships” depleted the Russian economy and interfered with the development of commodity-money relations. Gradual weakening of M.-t. And. was the result of the heroic struggle of the Russian people and other peoples of Eastern Europe against the conquerors.

In the late 50s - early 60s. 13th century tribute from the Russian principalities was collected by Muslim merchants - “besermen”, who bought this right from the great Mongol Khan. Most of the tribute went to Mongolia, to the Great Khan. As a result of the popular uprisings of 1262 in Russian cities, the “besermen” were expelled. The responsibility for collecting tribute passed to the local princes. To maintain M.-t. And. The khans of the Golden Horde repeatedly launched invasions of Russian lands. Only in the 70-90s. 13th century they organized 14 trips. However, Rus''s struggle for independence continued. In 1285 Grand Duke Dmitry, the son of Alexander Nevsky, defeated and expelled the punitive army of the “Horde prince”. At the end of the 13th - 1st quarter of the 14th centuries. repeated “veche” performances in Russian cities (in Rostov - 1289 and 1320, in Tver - 1293 and 1327) led to the elimination of the Baska system. With the strengthening of the Moscow Principality of M.-t. And. gradually weakens. Moscow Prince Ivan I Danilovich Kalita (reigned 1325-40) achieved the right to collect “exit” from all Russian principalities. From the middle of the 14th century. The orders of the khans of the Golden Horde, not backed up by real military force, were no longer carried out by the Russian princes. The Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy (1359-89) did not obey the khan's labels issued to his rivals and seized the Grand Duchy of Vladimir by force. In 1378 he defeated the punitive Mongol-Tatar army on the river. Vozhe (in the Ryazan land), and in 1380 he won a victory in the Battle of Kulikovo 1380 (See Battle of Kulikovo 1380) over the ruler of the Golden Horde Mamai (See Mamai). However, after Tokhtamysh’s campaign and the capture of Moscow in 1382, Rus' was forced to again recognize the power of the Mongol-Tatar khans and pay tribute, but already the Moscow prince Vasily I Dmitrievich (1389-1425) received a great reign without a khan’s label, as “his fatherland.” With him M.-t. And. was nominal in nature. Tribute was paid irregularly, and the Russian princes pursued a largely independent policy. The attempt of the head of the Golden Horde Edigei (See Edigei) (1408) to completely restore power over Russia ended in failure: he failed to take Moscow. The strife that began in the Golden Horde called into question the further preservation of M.-t. And.

In the years feudal war In Rus' in the mid-15th century, which weakened the military forces of the Russian principalities, the Mongol-Tatar feudal lords organized a series of devastating invasions (1439, 1445, 1448, 1450, 1451, 1455, 1459), but were no longer able to restore their rule over Russia. The political unification of the Russian lands around Moscow created the conditions for the liquidation of M.-t. And. The Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III Vasilyevich (1462-1505) in 1476 refused to pay tribute. In 1480, after the unsuccessful campaign of the Khan of the Great Horde Akhmat and the so-called. “Standing on the Ugra 1480” M.-t. And. was finally overthrown.

M.-t. And. had negative, deeply regressive consequences for the economic, political and cultural development of Russian lands, and was a brake on the growth of the productive forces of Rus', which were at a higher socio-economic level compared to the productive forces of the Mongol-Tatars. It artificially preserved for a long time the purely feudal natural character of the economy. Politically, the consequences of M.-t. And. manifested itself in a violation of the process of state consolidation of the Russian Federation. lands, in the artificial maintenance of feudal fragmentation. M.-t. And. led to increased feudal exploitation of the Russian people, who found themselves under double oppression - their own and the Mongol-Tatar feudal lords. M.-t. and., which lasted about 240 years, was one of the main reasons for Rus'’s lag behind some Western European countries.

Horde rule separated Rus' from Western Europe for a long time. In addition, the formation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on its western borders strengthened the external isolation of the Russian principalities. Approval in the 15th century. Catholicism in Lithuania and much earlier in Poland made them conductors of Western influence on Russian civilization. Some of the Russian principalities became part of the Lithuanian state, where the Russian language was widespread, and the Orthodox Church was not persecuted for a long time. Galicia was included in Poland, which expanded its possessions to the southwestern Russian lands. Under these conditions, the ancient Russian population is divided into three branches: Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians. The Russian nationality takes shape in the central, eastern and northern regions of Rus'. The Belarusian and Ukrainian nationalities are formed on the territory of the Principality of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland.

In general, the foreign yoke depleted the people's strength, the development of the East Slavic peoples slowed down sharply, and there was a significant lag in the economic field, public relations and cultural level from Western European civilization.

Chronology of the invasion of the Golden Horde:

Southern Siberia

1215 North China's conquest of Korea

1221 conquest of Central Asia

1223 Battle of Kalka

Volga Bulgaria repelled the blow

Ryazan (the story of the ruin of Ryazan by Batu)

1241 conquest of Rus'.

Vladimir-on-Klyazma (north-eastern Rus' lost its capital, a symbol of political independence)

Kozelsk (“evil city”) Torzhok

Vladimir-not-Volyn

1236 conquest of Volga Bulgaria

1237-1238 the Ryazan and Vladimir principalities were defeated (about 20 cities)

1239-1240 Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Kiev, Galicia-Volyn principalities fell

1241 trips to Europe.

In the second half of the 11th century. In Rus', signs of increasing feudal fragmentation are becoming more and more clearly evident.

Prince Yaroslav the Wise gained the paternal throne in the most severe internecine struggle. With this in mind, he left a will in which he clearly defined the inheritance rights of his sons. He divided the entire Russian land into five “districts” and determined which of the brothers should reign in which. The Yaroslavich brothers (Izyaslav, Svyatoslav, Vsevolod, Igor, Vyacheslav) fought together for two decades against invasions and preserved the unity of the Russian land.

However, in 1073 Svyatoslav expelled his brother from Kyiv Izyaslav, deciding to become the sole ruler. Izyaslav, having lost his possessions, wandered for a long time and was able to return to Rus' only after the death of Svyatoslav in 1076. From that time on, a bloody struggle for power began.

The bloody unrest was based on the imperfection of the appanage system created by Yaroslav, which could not satisfy the expanded clan Rurikovich. There was no clear order in the distribution of inheritance and inheritance. According to ancient custom, the eldest in the family was supposed to inherit the reign. But Byzantine law, which came with the adoption of Christianity, recognized inheritance only by direct descendants. The inconsistency of inheritance rights and the uncertainty of the boundaries of inheritance gave rise to more and more civil strife.

Bloody feuds were aggravated by the continuous raids of the Polovtsians, who skillfully exploited the disunity of the Russian princes. Other princes took the Polovtsians as allies and brought them to Rus'.

In 1097, on the initiative of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, the son of Vsevolod Yaroslavovich, a congress of princes took place in Lyubech. In order to stop civil strife, it was decided to establish a new order of organizing power in Rus'. In accordance with the new principle, each principality became the hereditary property of the local princely family.

The adopted law became the main one reason feudal fragmentation and destroyed the integrity of the ancient Russian state. It became a turning point, as there was a turning point in the distribution of land ownership in Rus'.

The disastrous mistake in lawmaking did not immediately make itself felt. The need for a joint struggle against the Polovtsians, the strong power and patriotism of Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125) postponed the inevitable for a while. His son continued his work Mstislav the Great(1125-1132). However, from 1132, the former counties, having become hereditary “fatherlands,” gradually turned into independent principalities.

In the middle of the 12th century. civil strife reached unprecedented severity, the number of participants increased as a result of the fragmentation of the princely possessions. At that time there were 15 principalities in Rus', in the next century - 50, and during the reign Ivan Kalita- 250. Many historians consider one of the reasons underlying these events to be the large number of children of the princely families (by distributing lands by inheritance, they multiplied the number of principalities).

The largest state entities were:

- Principality of Kiev(despite the loss of all-Russian status, the struggle for its possession continued until the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars);

- Vladimir-Suzdalskoe principality (in the 12th-13th centuries, economic growth began, the cities of Vladimir, Dmitrov Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Gorodets, Kostroma, Tver, Nizhny Novgorod arose);

- Chernigovskoe And Smolensk principalities (the most important trade routes to the upper reaches of the Volga and Dnieper);

- Galicia-Volynskoe principality (located between the Bug and Dniester rivers, the center of arable land-owning culture);

Polotsk-Minsk land (had an advantageous location at the crossroads of trade routes).

Feudal fragmentation was characteristic of the history of many states of the Middle Ages. The uniqueness and grave consequences for the Old Russian state lay in its duration - about 3.5 centuries.

National history: lecture notes Kulagina Galina Mikhailovna

2.1. Fragmentation of Rus'

2.1. Fragmentation of Rus'

By the middle of the 11th century. Old Russian state reached its peak. But over time, there was no longer a single state united by the power of the Kyiv prince. In its place, dozens of completely independent states-principals appeared. The collapse of Kievan Rus began after the death of Yaroslav the Wise in 1054. The prince's possessions were divided between his three eldest sons. Soon, conflicts and military strife began in the Yaroslavich family. In 1097, a congress of Russian princes took place in the city of Lyubech. “Let everyone keep his fatherland” - this was the decision of the congress. In fact, this meant consolidating the existing order of dividing the Russian state into ownership of individual lands. However, the congress did not stop the princely strife: on the contrary, at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century. they flared up with renewed vigor.

The unity of the state was temporarily restored by the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise, Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh (1113–1125), who reigned in Kyiv. The policy of Vladimir Monomakh was continued by his son Mstislav Vladimirovich (1125–1132). But after the death of Mstislav, the period of temporary centralization ended. For many centuries the country entered an era political fragmentation. Historians of the 19th century called this era specific period, and the Soviet ones – by feudal fragmentation.

Political fragmentation is a natural stage in the development of statehood and feudal relations. Not a single early feudal state in Europe escaped it. Throughout this era, the power of the monarch was weak and the functions of the state were insignificant. The trend towards unity and centralization of states began to appear only in the 13th–15th centuries.

The political fragmentation of the state had many objective reasons. The economic reason for political fragmentation was, according to historians, the dominance of subsistence farming. Trade relations in the 11th–12th centuries. were developed rather poorly and could not ensure the economic unity of the Russian lands. By this time, the once powerful Byzantine Empire began to decline. Byzantium ceased to be world shopping center, and therefore, the ancient route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” which for many centuries allowed the Kyiv state to carry out trade relations, lost its significance.

Another reason for the political disintegration was the remnants of tribal relations. After all, Kievan Rus itself united several dozen large tribal unions. The constant raids of nomads on the Dnieper lands played a significant role. Fleeing from raids, people went to live in sparsely populated lands located in the northeast of Rus'. Continuous migration contributed to the expansion of territory and the weakening of the power of the Kyiv prince. The process of continuous fragmentation of the country could have been influenced by the absence of the concept of primogeniture in Russian feudal law. This principle, which existed in many states of Western Europe, provided that only the eldest son could inherit all the land holdings of a feudal lord. In Rus', land holdings after the death of the prince could be divided among all heirs.

One of the most important factors, which gave rise to feudal fragmentation, most modern historians believe development of large private feudal landownership. Back in the 11th century. there is a process of “settlement of vigilantes on the ground”, the emergence of large feudal estates - boyar villages. The feudal class gains economic and political power.

The collapse of the Old Russian state did not destroy the established Old Russian nationality. The spiritual life of various Russian lands and principalities, with all its diversity, preserved common features and unity of styles. Cities grew and were built - the centers of the newly emerged appanage principalities. Trade developed, which led to the emergence of new routes of communication. The most important trade routes led from Lake Ilmen and the Western Dvina to the Dnieper, from the Neva to the Volga, the Dnieper also connected with the Volga-Oka interfluve.

Thus, the specific period should not be considered as a step back in Russian history. However, the ongoing process of political fragmentation of lands and numerous princely strife weakened the country's defense capability in the face of external danger.