When did the period of feudal fragmentation in Rus' begin? Weakening in the face of invaders. Strengthening the centralized state under Ivan IV "the Terrible". Oprichnina: essence, its goals and methods of achieving them, consequences. History of the country after the oprichnina.

25.09.2019

Essay in the academic discipline "History of Russia"

on the topic: "Feudal fragmentation of Rus'"

Plan

1. Introduction

2. Preconditions for feudal fragmentation

3. Division of the territory of Rus' into separate principalities-states

4. Consequences of the feudal fragmentation of Rus'

5. Conclusion

6. References

1. Introduction.

In practice, in the development of every state, a stage of feudal fragmentation begins. This is most often due to the fact that the ruling family is growing and each member of this family acquires its own specific power status, which allows him, regardless of other family members, to make and implement decisions that contribute to personal material enrichment. But sometimes the interests of individual family members intersect, which leads to military clashes and, accordingly, to the division of the state into separate principalities.

Like Western Europe, Rus' begins to experience the process of feudal disintegration in the 11th century. Modern historians define this period from the 12th to the 15th centuries, when the state was intensively divided into appanage principalities. The chronicle of 1134 reads: “the whole Russian land was in rage.” This remark indicates that the process of fragmentation has already entered its full stage.

The impetus for feudal fragmentation was the death of Vladimir Monomakh (in 1125), and then Mstislav the Great (in 1132), under them Rus' was united. A complication occurred in connection with the Tatar-Mongol invasion (1237 - 1240) and the establishment of the Golden Horde.

Resistance to centrifugal forces was expected, feudal fragmentation turned out to be an inevitable phenomenon. But the uniqueness of this process was such that it allows us to assert: fragmentation in Rus' was not a collapse, but an analogue of the federation, headed by the Kiev prince. Relations between the princes were regulated by the then existing customary law and agreements concluded between them.

The period of feudal fragmentation of Rus' belongs to one of the most difficult and contradictory periods of Russian history. Until now, historians have not come to a single assessment of this time: in what way should the process of feudal fragmentation be perceived - as favorable or as negative, since features of both are noted here. The unsolved nature of the problem determines the relevance of studying the topic.

2. Prerequisites for feudal fragmentation.

Historians consider the starting point in Rus'’s desire for feudal fragmentation to be the city of Lyubech, where in 1097 a congress of all the most noble representatives of the family of Yaroslav the Wise took place. At the congress, a decision was made according to which the lands belonging to the grandchildren of Yaroslav the Wise (Svyatopolk, Oleg and Vladimir) were inherited by their children. Of course, the prerequisites for the division of Rus' into separate principalities existed before, but the congress held in 1097, in fact, endowed representatives of the families of the grandchildren of Yaroslav the Wise with the legal right to own separate territories of a single state, which could not but affect the integrity Kievan Rus.

The crisis of the grand ducal power was caused by a number of reasons, in particular, an increase in the level of social upheaval in the state. It was they who contributed to the acceleration of the process of fragmentation of Rus'. Under such conditions, Kyiv lost its former ability to preserve the interests of the feudal lords, since the territory of the country was very vast. Thus, there is a need to create an “apparatus for curbing” the people of local importance [Zakharevich; 72]. This event did not contribute in any way to strengthening the authority and former strength of Kyiv. As a result, since the 70s. XI century the tendency towards isolation begins to progress at an alarming rate. Thus, in 1073, the city of Izyaslav was expelled from Kyiv, causing the Yaroslavich union to collapse.

Modern historians see feudal fragmentation as evidence of the natural development of feudalism. It is impossible not to notice the negative aspects of this phenomenon: constant civil strife, which damaged the external strength of the state and weakened the ability to resist foreign enemies. At the same time, there is also a positive trend, consisting in the flourishing of culture and the rise of the economy, in the period from the collapse of Kievan Rus to the invasion of Batu.

Feudal fragmentation is usually called a special stage in the development of medieval society, when an integral state disintegrates into a number of independent territories - principalities and lands, as was the case in Russian history. At the same time, the preservation of grand-ducal power and at the same time the formation of local power were noted. Thus, the grand-ducal power retained only a nominal significance.

There were several reasons for feudal fragmentation. These include economic, social, political and ideological. Let's look at each of them.

The economic reasons were that locally there was an active growth of productive forces in agriculture and craft sector. Of great importance was the widespread use of two-field and three-field systems, which occurred at the end of the 11th - 12th centuries. The number of cities increased. If in the 10th century there were sixty of them, then at the beginning of the 12th there were already two hundred and thirty. At the same time, there was an increase in productivity in subsistence farming. At the same time, there were no economic ties between farms.

Social reasons depended on the development of local feudal relations. In the IX - X centuries. Between the outskirts and the capital - Kiev - there were noticeable differences in social development. This was already noticed by the author of “The Tale of Bygone Years”, who, having a critical look at his contemporary society, noted that the glades have a “meek disposition”, and the Drevlyans live like cattle, “animal customs”, “they eat everything and are unclean”, “they swear before their wives" [The Tale of Bygone Years]. This indicates that the Drevlyans were a more backward tribe, poorly aware of and not fulfilling Christian covenants. But at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th centuries. among the outlying peoples there was no longer such a strong lag behind Kyiv in social development. The process of general social stratification begins.

Such conditions pushed the local nobility to establish their own apparatus of power, which would be able to cope with unrest and clashes of a social nature.

Political reasons depended on the degree of interest of the local principality in consolidating and establishing A.V.’s own dynasties. Zakharevich writes: “The stay of the princes at the local princely tables in the laddered order of ascension to power was temporary” [Zakharevich; 86]. For this reason, they practically ignored local problems and affairs. This situation could not satisfy the local nobility. At the same time, a tradition of the emergence and consolidation of dynasties in individual feudal centers had already begun to take shape in Kievan Rus. According to this tradition, cities such as Ryazan, Chernigov, Tmutarakan were assigned to the dynasty of Svyatoslav Yaroslavich; Suzdal, Pereyaslavl on the Dnieper, Rostov were considered the descendants of Vladimir Monomakh and Vsevolod.

The ideological reasons were that the traditions of suzerainty began to spread rapidly - i.e. the establishment of vassalage (a system in which some feudal lords are dependent on others) and the idea of the sovereignty of each prince in his fiefdom.

3. Division of the territory of Rus' into separate principalities-states.

The division of Rus' into separate principalities began in 1132, immediately after the death of the Kiev prince Mstislav Vladimirovich - the son of Vladimir Monomakh and the last representative of the royal family capable of maintaining the unity of the state.

Researchers have identified at least about 13 such large principalities: Novgorod land, Smolensk principality, Polotsk-Minsk principality, Chernigov principality, Turov-Pinsk principality, Vyatka land, Galician principality, Volyn principality, Ryazan principality, Kiev principality, Novgorod-Seversk principality, Pereyaslavl principality, Vladimir-Suzdal principality.It is worth highlighting four large land centers: southern Russian lands, northwestern lands, Galicia-Volyn lands, northeastern lands.

Each principality had a leader - a Prince. Around him there was a military elite - the squad. On the territory of the principality, their own god was revered or polytheism existed. Laws and rules on the territory of different principalities also differed from each other. The lands were ruled by boyars. The boundaries of the principalities were then, of course, conditional, since the lands were either united or split into small principalities.

This was the case in the southern Russian lands. The death of Mstislav the Great in 1132 and the subsequent struggle for the throne between the Olgovichi and Monomakhovichi were turning points in the history of Kyiv. It was during this period that he lost control over Novgorod, the Rostov-Suzdal land and Smolensk.

Kyiv no longer followed the political course of Eastern and European politics. At this time, a new type of foreign policy was taking shape; it only affected the fight against Polovtsian raids, as well as the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, which managed to capture Pereyaslavl under the reign of Yuri Dolgoruky (1099 - 1157). But if the fight against the Polovtsians was relatively successful (not without the help of other princes), then Kyiv was unable to cope with Dolgoruky. In 1155, the Prince of Suzdal captured Kyiv. His desire to be the only ruler was not shared by the Kyiv boyars. In 1157, Dolgoruky unexpectedly died, and, according to some historians, his death was due to poisoning. Power in Suzdal passes to Andrei Bogolyubsky (1111 - 1174), the son of Dolgoruky. In 1169, Prince Andrei also captured Kyiv, but did not remain in it, but only committed a brutal pogrom.

Kyiv managed to survive this and continued to remain in the status of the capital of the largest principality. Prosperity and stability came to it under Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich (1123 - 1194), who ruled jointly with Rurik Rostislavovich of Smolensk (1167 - 1194). This circumstance is explained by the fact that in some cases the Kyiv princes united on the throne of warring dynasties, with the goal of avoiding civil strife. After the death of Svyatoslav, Rurik, until the very beginning of the 13th century, shared rule with Roman Mstislavovich Volynsky from the Monomakh family (c. 1150 - 1205). But with the advent of the new century, a struggle began between them, which was aggravated by the intervention of Prince Vsevolod the Big Nest (1154 - 1212). During this civil strife, Kyiv repeatedly passed from one hand to another. If Rurik won, then his allies - the Polovtsians - carried out predatory raids on Kyiv. Subsequently, Roman managed to capture Rurik. He tonsured Rurik and his entire family as a monk. In 1215, Roman was killed during negotiations with the Poles. He caused them not unfounded fears, since he had an undoubted talent as a commander.

After Roman's death, things deteriorated significantly: the Kyiv rulers made it a rule to trade the Kyiv throne. Those who had the desire and financial capabilities took it. Thus, the former attitude towards Kyiv as the “mother of Russian cities” gradually faded away.

The South Russian lands also included the Chernigov and Seversk principalities. The separation of Chernigov from Kyiv began to occur in the 30s and 40s. XII century. The reasons for the secession lay not only in the personal ambitions of the Olgovichs, but also in the political and economic specifics of this region. Previously, a very strong boyars had formed in Chernigov, which was based on patrimonial land ownership. The Chernigov principality even had its own bishop. There was an active development of trade here, which was international in nature - Chernigov traders even traveled to London. Militarily, Chernigov was also very strong and had a powerful squad. Ryazan and Murom were subordinate to Chernigov. Everything changed after the death of Oleg Svyatoslavovich (c. 1053 - 1115). The Chernigov principality came into the possession of his sons and was divided between them. In 40 - 50 years. XII century There is a partial separation of the Seversk land with a center in Novgorod-Seversky, ruled by Svyatoslav Olegovich. (1107 - 1164).

It is necessary to note the specifics of the relations formed between the Principality of Chernigov and the Polovtsians. These relations stem from the era of Oleg Svyatoslavovich, when the Polovtsians assisted him in the fight against Vladimir Monomakh, for which the prince was condemned more than once by chroniclers. But in this case, the problem was not the personal sympathy of the ruler and his descendants for the Polovtsians, but the fact that the lands of the nomads, i.e. The Black Sea region has been part of the Chernigov principality since ancient times. That is why the steppe nomads were long-time neighbors of the Chernigov people, with whom they fought more than made friends.

Almost the entire second half of the 12th century, the descendants of Prince Oleg actively fought with the descendants of Monomakh for power in Kyiv. Thus, a situation of dual rule arises in the capital, as discussed above. She contributed to the successful fight against the Cumans at the end of the 12th century. In 1185, Prince Igor Svyatoslavovich carried out an independent campaign against the steppe nomads. Russian troops discovered Polovtsian villages between the Sea of Azov and the Seversky Donets, managed to defeat them and capture considerable booty. This happened on the twenty-third of April, and on the twenty-fourth, Khan Konchak and his army arrived to help the related tribes. The battle that began near the Kayala River lasted three days. The Polovtsians almost completely defeated the Russian squad, Prince Igor himself and other noble persons were captured.

Encouraged by their success, the Polovtsians went further, deeper into Rus'. Because Prince Igor’s military operation was poorly prepared and his troops were not distinguished by a large number of warriors, this campaign served as the impetus for a global invasion by enemies. Only through extraordinary effort was it possible to repel the Polovtsian invasion. The prince himself managed to escape from captivity, after which he took part in several more campaigns against the Polovtsians. In 1198, he was the senior representative of the Olgovich dynasty and took the throne of the Chernigov principality. In 1202, he died, and his sons, who at that time were on the territory of the Galician land, established strict power and pursued an aggressive policy against the boyars. As a result of this policy, almost five hundred boyars were killed. The matter ended with the hanging of the boyars themselves in 1208 in Galich.

The subsequent history of the Chernigov-Seversk land is not of interest, since it is characterized mainly by civil strife among numerous representatives of the Olgovich family.

Let us turn to the lands of Northwestern Rus'. Veliky Novgorod, which belongs to this region, was the largest during the period of feudal fragmentation we are considering. It occupied almost half of the Russian Land, its territory began at the Gulf of Finland and ended in the Northern Urals. It was the Novgorodians who were pioneers in Siberia, in the lower reaches of the Ob River, and even reached the Arctic Ocean. The year 1138 was marked in the history of Novgorod as the beginning of its independence from Kyiv. This happened as a result of the expulsion of Prince Vsevolod Mstislavovich from the city.

The natural conditions of Novgorod were very favorable. They created excellent conditions for the development of crafts and various trades. Things were a little worse with the development of agriculture, since the soils were poor and not fertile.

Thus, Novgorod turns into the largest craft and trade center of Rus'. In terms of crafts, this primarily concerns iron processing - the Novgorodians had no equal here. The growth of crafts and trade turns Novgorod into a real window to Europe for medieval Rus'. Novgorod was a member of the trade union of cities - the Hansa, which is why the Hanseatic courtyard functioned there. But due to the peculiarities of the soil, Novgorod lacked its own bread, so it had to be purchased in other regions of Rus', in particular in the North-Eastern.

So, it is quite obvious that the economic structure of Novgorod had significant differences from agricultural regions. This defines the specifics of the social system, in which special influence belonged to the democratic stratum, consisting of merchants and artisans. The latter created their own professional organizations, similar to European workshops. Moreover, each of the professions had their own settlements, occupying entire streets or so-called. "city ends". Merchants also owned their own associations. A striking example of this is “Ivanovo hundred”. Judging by the name, it grouped one hundred merchants at the Church of St. John, located on Opoki. Merchants kept their treasury in the church.

Trade in Novgorod was carried out on a large scale, in wholesale. Treaties concluded between Novgorod and the Hansa show that retail trade was prohibited to foreign merchants. At the same time, they were obliged to purchase Russian goods: lard, bread, wax, furs and other goods. Foreigners also had to buy oriental goods that Novgorodians traded.

The elite of Novgorod society were the boyars, who owned huge estates. After the boyars, service people followed in the feudal hierarchy. At the lowest position were the peasants who lived in rural areas, were required to pay taxes, and were dependent on their masters.

The social system also had its own characteristics, and this specificity of Novgorod life influenced the political system. In Novgorod there was still a tradition of the veche, which was a relic of patriarchal democracy. The People's Assembly, in which only men could take part, also played a very important role. Elections of government officials took place at the meetings. The veche usually met on the Trade Side, which was located on the Yaroslavl courtyard, and the city authorities were elected there: posadnik (city ruler), tysyatsky (chief of the militia). Historians call Vechevoy Novgorod an aristocratic republic, where boyars and partly merchants occupied the leading positions. Next came the “living people” (as the owners of city yards were called). The main stratum of the Novgorod population was the so-called. Posad or “black people”, which included hunters, farmers and industrialists.

The prince played a truly minimal role in Novgorod life. Sometimes the veche invited him, and then he exercised command of the army, which included his squad. But the prince did not have the right to live in Novgorod; his palace was located outside the city. The archbishop occupied a significant position in public life, as opposed to the prince. He had influence on the boyars, the thousand, and the mayor.

The heyday of Novgorod democracy occurred in the period from the 12th to the 13th centuries, and then the aristocracy began to dominate in the republic, the importance of the veche was practically leveled.

Thanks to democratic influence, an original feudal culture was formed in Novgorod. Democracy was especially evident in the chronicles, which clearly reflected the trade relations that usually existed in a rich city. There were no calls for unity in the Novgorod chronicles, but market prices and natural phenomena were recorded. Due to the fact that the city was located on the border, in the chronicles one can find colorful descriptions of the confrontation with the German Livonian Order and the Swedes; episodes of social conflicts.

If we talk about Novgorod culture, then its leading features were simplicity, severity and capitalism, since the buildings were designed for defensive actions.

Novgorod was a real exception in medieval Rus'. The remaining lands of this period were a feudal monarchy. The largest principality of this type was Galicia-Volyn. It was formed in 1199 as a result of the unification of the Galician principality and the Vladimir-Volyn principality by Prince Roman Mstislavovich. Its capital was the cities of Galich, Kholm, and Lvov. The northern border of the principality ran along the right bank of the river. Narev, a tributary of the Western Bug; the eastern border began south of Grodno, crossed the upper reaches of the Pripyat, the middle reaches of the river. Styr, the upper reaches of the Goryn and Sluch, up to the Dniester, the upper reaches of the Prut and Seret; in the southwest the border ran along the sources of the Prut, Tisa, San, Wisloch, in the west it ran almost parallel to the right bank of the Vistula, then cut the middle course of the Western Bug and Narew.

The lands in this region were very fertile, which is why arable farming was developed. The main occupations of the population were traditional for that time. Residents of the Galicia-Volyn principality were engaged in hunting, cattle breeding, beekeeping, and fish farming. Rich salt deposits did not go unnoticed by residents; salt was actively mined. Common types of activities included jewelry and construction, iron processing, and pottery. Trade ties were maintained with ancient Russian lands, as well as Byzantium, the Czech Republic, Poland, Germany and Lithuania.

The boyars had a direct influence on politics. After the death of Roman Mstislavovich, the Galician-Eastern Principality broke up into a number of principalities with centers in Lutsk, Belz, Peresopnytsia, etc. Hungarian and Polish expansion intensified. In 1221, Mstislav Udaloy expelled Hungarian troops from Galicia.

During the reign of Prince Daniil Romanovich (1205 - 1264), the Galician-Volyn principality reached its peak. In 1240 - 1241 There was an attack on the principality of Khan Batu. In 1245, the situation worsened so much that the ruler could not help but admit: his principality was dependent on the Mongol Empire.

It is impossible to ignore the peculiarities of development in this period of North-Eastern Rus'. It was in this area that the state created the standard of the feudal monarchy - the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality. Here, agriculture played one of the most important roles, unlike, for example, Novgorod, where trade and craft relations were the basis. It was precisely the fact that in the social hierarchy of the Vladimir-Suzdal state there was practically no trade and craft stratum that formed the core of an unusually strong princely power.

Yuri Dolgoruky received special fame, former son Vladimir Monomakh. Previously, he very actively fought for the Kiev throne, which he managed to seize in 1155. But even before the Kyiv period, Prince Yuri led a struggle directed against the boyars. The result of this struggle were new cities and fortresses. In 1134 the city of Ksnyatin grew up, located at the mouth of the Nerl River; in 1152 - two cities at once, Yuryev-Polsky and Pereyaslavl-Zalessky; in 1154 - Dmitrov. It was in the principality of Yuri Dolgoruky that Moscow was born in 1147, which turned into a fortress in 1156.

The intensive development of new cities, in which traders, artisans and military men lived, who were dependent on the prince, contributed to the formation of firm princely power.

Dolgoruky's son Andrei Bogolyubsky shared the policies of his father and also sought to consolidate power. The exaltation of the Vladimir-Suzdal land is his merit. Prince Andrei was of the opinion that the center of Russian lands was Vladimir, and not Kyiv, and therefore he made Vladimir the capital of his principality. Andrei Bogolyubsky put a lot of effort into significantly expanding the city’s fortifications. He built Vladimir with magnificent white stone buildings. During his reign, a large number of warriors came forward, who showed loyalty and devotion to their master. In gratitude, the prince provided them with land for temporary use, called “nobles” or “almsmen.”

Subsequently, in the princely cities, in particular in Vladimir, the trade and craft stratum increased. Due to this circumstance, Prince Andrei’s plans did not include the conquest of Kyiv. Therefore, when he finally took Kyiv in 1169, he did not take the throne, but limited himself to robbery. He appointed his brother Gleb as ruler of Kyiv.

In 1170, Andrei Bogolyubsky carried out a campaign against Novgorod the Great. For a certain period, he forced Novgorod to submit to his authority: both the prince and the mayor were replaced there. Thus, Andrei implemented his plans for Vladimir’s leadership. This also applied to the religious sphere, since the prince made an attempt to create his own independent metropolis, separate from Kyiv.

The activities of Andrei Bogolyubsky, although very active, still could not bring desired result. This was hampered by the prevailing historical conditions in the state - fragmentation, instability of the positions of cities, unstable economic ties between them. Fatal role The despotic character of the prince also played a role, especially manifested in his relations with the boyars. In 1174, they organized a conspiracy, and Prince Andrei was killed in his own castle in Bogolyubovo.

The murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky was the impetus for the popular uprising, which lasted five days. With the support of the Ryazan prince Gleb, the boyars tried to establish in Vladimir those princes who most impressed them. Prince Vsevolod the Big Nest, who had a large family and the support of the townspeople, won this fight. Vsevolod was a born diplomat and politician, he managed to convince the public that he was right, and therefore he was able to suppress the boyar resistance.

Vsevolod made four campaigns - in 1177, 1180, 1187 and 1207. and in the end, Ryazan still broke. Playing diplomatic games and planting intrigues, Vsevolod increasingly increased the power of his influence in Southern Rus'. He successfully quarreled the princes among themselves, and as a result took the position of leader, one of the strongest Russian princes.

The author of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” gave his squad the following description: “could have sprinkled the Volga with oars and scooped up the Don with helmets” [The Lay of Igor’s Campaign; 53]. However, the death of Vsevolod (1212) shook the position of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. This came to the benefit of the Novgorodians, who could not put up with their dependent position. The battle on the Lipitsa River in 1216 granted Novgorod the independence it desired.

But even this failure did not deprive the Vladimir-Suzdal principality of the status of the most powerful state in the era of feudal fragmentation. Among the other principalities, it stood out due to its indestructible boyars and the powerful power of the prince.

So, feudal Rus' consisted of three major political centers, each of which determined the foreign policy of the lands adjacent to it. The Vladimir-Suzdal principality influenced western and north-eastern Rus', the Galician-Volyn principality influenced the south-western and southern, and Novgorod, which was a federal republic, influenced the north-west.

The princes had the powers of sovereign rulers, and the principalities were in the process of establishing their own legal norms. Each of the principalities was characterized by its own specifics, but at the same time they were closely linked by the federal system.

4. Consequences of the feudal fragmentation of Rus'.

The consequences of feudal fragmentation turned out to be peculiar. The first of these was the collapse of the state. After the death of Mstislav the Great - the son of Vladimir Monomakh - the country broke up into no less than thirteen principalities with varying sizes of land. The crushing process continued further. And although there was economic growth and a rise in culture, extremely negative consequences emerged: internecine strife and a weakening of the state’s defensive capabilities. This was especially evident in those parts of the territory of Rus' that bordered the steppe.

The increased pressure from the Polovtsians provoked population migration. Residents of Tmutarakan and Belaya Vezha on the Don were forced to leave their lands. This also affected the inhabitants of the Lower Dnieper region.

Subsequently, a defensive system began to take shape, which led to the fact that each prince was responsible for his own section of the state border. That is why the defeat of Prince Igor (1151 - 1201) and his brother Vsevolod (1155 - 1196), which is so eloquently described in “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” (1185), resulted in very dire consequences for the country. It created a hole in the defensive system, through which the Polovtsians invaded Rus' under the leadership of the khans Konchak (? - 1203) and Bonyak (? - approximately after 1167).

It took a lot of effort for the Russian squads to push the Polovtsians back into the steppe. The author of the Lay called on the Russian princes to unite in order to strengthen the country's defense power. His call was never heard, but before the approaching Tatar-Mongol invasion it was more relevant than ever. The princes were unable to overcome narrow local interests and rise to an awareness of universal tasks.

Strife tore apart all parts of Rus'. Internal conflicts weakened the country in the face of the looming danger in the form of the Tatar-Mongol yoke. In the end, all this led to the fact that almost all Russian princes were captured by the Mongol conquerors.

The fight against nomads and princely strife cost many victims to the population of the Russian principalities. As a result of the raids, vast areas were depopulated; peasants left the fertile southern lands to the north. Entire cities fell into desolation and disappeared.

According to historians, in the 12th century the Polovtsians made forty-six major raids on Rus', while small ones cannot be counted at all. In addition, the Russian princes themselves often called on Polovtsian troops for help in the fight against their neighbors. In the 13th century, the Polovtsians began to switch to a sedentary lifestyle and even partially accept Christianity, but then they were all absorbed by a new wave of conquerors - the Mongol-Tatars.

5. Conclusion.

As can be seen from the events described above, in addition to individual members of the Rurik family, the local elite of power, which included the boyars and nobles, was always interested in the independence of the principality from the center. Without their approval, not a single local prince could hold his post for long. This indisputable fact gave them the opportunity to directly influence the outcome of decisions made by the prince. The coincidence of interests of individual members of the Rurikovich family and various groups of boyars, apparently, led to the feudal fragmentation of Rus'. Consequently, the feudal fragmentation of Rus' was inevitable.

Feudal fragmentation had both positive and negative sides. The positive aspects include: the growth of cities, the rise of culture and economy, and commodity production. The negative aspects include: weakening of external positions and popular forces. This circumstance had a tragic echo during the invasion Tatar-Mongol invasion. If we keep in mind the prospect of further development, then feudal fragmentation created the conditions for the further unification of the country, but only at a different, more suitable and lasting level.

6. List of references.

1. Zakharevich A.V. History of the Fatherland/A.V. Zakharevich. - M.: ITK.: Dashkov and K˚, 2005. - 756

2. History of Russia: textbook / Sh. M. Munchaev, V. M. Ustinov. - 5th ed., revised. and additional - M.: Norma: INFRA-M, 2011. - 752 p.

3. History of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century: textbook / I. Ya. Froyanov. - S-P.: Layout, 1998. - 228 p.

4. History of Russia from ancient times to the present day: textbook / A. N. Sakharov, A. N. Bokhanov, V. A. Shestakov; edited by A. N. Sakharov. - Moscow: Prospekt, 2012. - 768 p.

5. History of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century: a textbook for students humanizes. specialist. / R. A. Arslanov, V. V. Kerov, M. N. Moseikina, T. M. Smirnova; edited by V.V. Kerova. - M.: Higher. school, 2001. - 784 p.

6. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century: textbook. For 10th grade. general education institutions / N. I. Pavlenko, I. L. Andreev; edited by N. I. Pavlenko. - 2nd ed., stereotype. - M.: Bustard, 2002. - 336 pp.: ill., 8 l. color on

7. Klyuchevsky V.O. Selected lectures from the “Course of Russian History” / V. O. Klyuchevsky. - Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2002. - 672 p.

8. A Tale of Bygone Years. - L.: Nauka, 2007. - 672 p.

9. A word about Igor’s campaign. - M.: Fiction, 1987. - 222 p.

The period of feudal fragmentation, traditionally called the “appanage period,” lasted from the 12th to the end of the 15th centuries.

Feudal fragmentation weakened the defensive capabilities of the Russian lands. This became noticeable in the second half of the 11th century, when a new strong enemy- Polovtsians (Turkic nomadic tribes). According to the chronicles, it is estimated that from 1061 to the beginning of the 13th century. There were more than 46 major Cuman invasions.

The internecine wars of the princes, the associated destruction of cities and villages, and the removal of the population into slavery became a disaster for peasants and townspeople. From 1228 to 1462, according to S. M. Solovyov, there were 90 wars between Russian principalities, in which there were 35 cases of taking cities, and 106 external wars, of which: 45 - with the Tatars, 41 - with the Lithuanians, 30 - with Livonian Order, the rest - with the Swedes and Bulgars. The population begins to leave Kyiv and neighboring lands to the northeast to the Rostov-Suzdal land and partially to the southwest to Galicia. Occupying the southern Russian steppes, the Polovtsians cut off Rus' from foreign markets, which led to a decline in trade. During the same period, European trade routes changed to Balkan-Asian directions as a result of the Crusades. In this regard, the Russian principalities experienced difficulties in international trade.

In addition to external ones, there were also internal reasons decline of Kievan Rus. Klyuchevsky believed that this process was influenced by the degraded legal and economic position of the working population and the significant development of slavery. The courtyards and villages of the princes were full of “servants”; the position of the “purchasers” and “hiremen” (semi-free) was on the verge of a slave state. The Smerds, who retained their communities, were crushed by princely exactions and the growing appetites of the boyars. Feudal fragmentation and the growth of political contradictions between independent principalities expanding their territories led to changes in their social system. The power of the princes became strictly hereditary, the boyars, who received the right to freely choose their overlord, grew stronger, and the category of free servants (former ordinary warriors) multiplied. In the princely economy, the number of unfree servants grew, engaged in production and material support for the prince himself, his family, and members of the princely court.

Features of the divided Russian principalities

As a result of the fragmentation of the ancient Russian state by the middle of the 12th century. separated into independent ten states-principalities. Subsequently, by the middle of the 13th century, their number reached eighteen. They were given names based on the capital cities: Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Muromo-Ryazans. Suzdal (Vladimir). Smolensk, Galicia, Vladimir-Volynsk, Polotsk, Novgorod Boyar Republic. In each of the principalities, one of the branches of the Rurikovichs ruled, and the sons of princes and governor-boyars ruled individual appanages and volosts. However, all lands retained the same written language, a single religion and church organization, the legal norms of the “Russian Truth”, and most importantly, an awareness of common roots, a common historical destiny. At the same time, each of the established independent states had its own development characteristics. The largest of them, which played a significant role in the subsequent history of Rus', were: Suzdal (later - Vladimir) principality - North-Eastern Rus'; Galician (later - Galician-Volyn) principality - South-Western Rus'; Novgorod boyar republic - Novgorod land (North-Western Rus').

Principality of Suzdal was located between the Oka and Volga rivers. Its territory was well protected from external invasions by forests and rivers, it had profitable trade routes along the Volga with the countries of the East, and through the upper reaches of the Volga - to Novgorod and to the countries of Western Europe. The economic recovery was also facilitated by a constant influx of population. The Suzdal prince Yuri Dolgoruky (1125 - 1157), in the struggle with his nephew Izyaslav Mstislavich for the Kiev throne, repeatedly captured Kyiv. For the first time in the chronicle under 1147, Moscow is mentioned, where negotiations between Yuri and the Chernigov prince Svyatoslav took place. Yuri's son, Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157 - 1174) moved the capital of the principality from Suzdal to Vladimir, which he rebuilt with great pomp. The northeastern princes ceased to lay claim to rule in Kyiv, but sought to maintain their influence here, first by organizing military campaigns, then through diplomacy and dynastic marriages. In the fight against the boyars, Andrei was killed by the conspirators. His policy was continued by his half-brother, Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176 - 1212). He had many sons, for which he received such a nickname.

The settlers, who made up a significant proportion of the population, did not preserve the state traditions of Kievan Rus - the role of the “veche” and “mirs”. Under these conditions, the despotism of the power of the princes is growing, and they are intensifying the fight against the boyars. Under Vsevolod it ended in favor of the princely power. Vsevolod managed to establish close ties with Novgorod, where his sons and relatives reigned; defeated the Ryazan principality, organizing the resettlement of some of its inhabitants to his own possessions; successfully fought with Volga Bulgaria, putting a number of its lands under his control, and became related to the Kyiv and Chernigov princes. He became one of the strongest princes in Rus'. His son Yuri (1218 - 1238) founded Nizhny Novgorod and strengthened himself in the Mordovian lands. The further development of the principality was interrupted by the Mongol invasion.

Galicia-Volyn Principality occupied the northeastern slopes of the Carpathians and the territory between the Dniester and Prut rivers. Favorable geographical location (neighborhood with European countries) and climatic conditions contributed to economic development, and the second migration flow from the southern Russian principalities was also sent here (to safer areas). Poles and Germans also settled here.

The rise of the Galician principality began under Yaroslav I Osmomysl (1153 - 1187), and under the Volyn prince Roman Mstislavich in 1199 the unification of the Galician and Volyn principalities took place. In 1203 Roman captured Kyiv. The Galician-Volyn principality became one of the largest states in feudal-fragmented Europe, its close ties were established with European states, and Catholicism began to penetrate Russian soil. His son Daniel (1221 - 1264) waged a long struggle for the Galician throne with its western neighbors (Hungarian and Polish princes) and the expansion of the state. In 1240, he united Southwestern Rus' and the Kyiv land and established his power in the fight against the boyars. But in 1241, the Galicia-Volyn principality was subjected to Mongol devastation. In the subsequent struggle, Daniel strengthened the principality, and in 1254 he accepted the royal title from the Pope. However, the Catholic West did not help Daniel in his fight against the Tatars. Daniel was forced to recognize himself as a vassal of the Horde khan. Having existed for about another hundred years, the Galician-Volyn state became part of Poland and Lithuania, which had a great influence on the formation of the Ukrainian people. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania included Western Russian principalities - Polotsk, Vitebsk, Minsk, Drutsk, Turovo-Pinsk, Novgorod-Seversk, etc. The Belarusian nation was formed within this state.

Novgorod Boyar Republic. Novgorod land is the most important component of the ancient Russian state. During the period of feudal fragmentation, it retained its political significance, economic and trade relations with the West and the East, covering the territory from the Arctic Ocean to the upper reaches of the Volga from north to south, from the Baltic states and almost to the Urals from west to east. A huge land fund belonged to the local boyars. The latter, using the uprising of the Novgorodians in 1136, managed to defeat the princely power and establish a boyar republic. The supreme body became the veche, where the most important issues of life were decided and the Novgorod government was elected. In fact, the owners of it were the largest boyars of Novgorod. The mayor became the main official in the department. He was elected from the noblest families of Novgorodians. The veche also elected the head of the Novgorod church, who managed the treasury, controlled foreign relations and even had his own army. From the end of the 12th century. The position of the head of the trade and economic sphere of life in Novgorod society was called “tysyatsky”. It was usually occupied by large merchants. The princely power also retained certain positions in Novgorod. The veche invited the prince to wage war, but even the prince’s residence was located outside the Novgorod Kremlin. The wealth and military power of Novgorod made the Novgorod Republic an influential force in Rus'. Novgorodians became a military support in the fight against German and Swedish aggression against Russian lands. The Mongol invasion did not reach Novgorod. Wide trade ties with Europe determined the significant influence of the West in Novgorod Republic. Novgorod became one of the major trade, craft and cultural centers not only in Rus', but also in Europe. The high level of culture of the Novgorodians shows the degree of literacy of the population, as can be seen from the “birch bark letters” discovered by archaeologists, the number of which exceeds a thousand.

Appearance in the second half of the 11th century. - first third of the 13th century. new political centers contributed to the growth and development of culture. During the period of feudal fragmentation, one of the greatest creations arose ancient Russian culture"The Tale of Igor's Campaign." Its author, touching upon the circumstances of the defeat of the Novgorod-Seversk prince Igor Svyatoslavich in an everyday clash with the Polovtsians (1185), was able to turn it into a tragedy on a national scale. “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” became a prophetic warning against the danger of princely strife, sounded four decades before the crushing Tatar-Mongol invasion.

Introduction

3..Vladimiro - Suzdal land

4..Galitsko - Volyn principality

5..Novgorod land

6..Kiev Principality

7. The significance of the period of fragmentation in Russian history

Conclusion

Introduction

The topic of history considered in the work Ancient Rus' seems not only interesting, but also very relevant. Recent years have been marked by changes in many areas of Russian life. The lifestyle of many people has changed, the system of life values has changed. Knowledge of the history of Russia, the spiritual traditions of the Russian people, is very important for increasing national identity Russians. A sign of the revival of the nation is the ever-increasing interest in the historical past of the Russian people, in their spiritual values.

Time from the beginning of the XII to the end of the XV century. traditionally called the specific period. And indeed, on the basis of Kievan Rus, approximately 15 principalities and lands were formed by the middle of the 12th century, about 50 principalities by the beginning of the 13th century, approximately 250 - 14th centuries.

The territory of the Kyiv state was concentrated around several political centers that were once tribal. In the second half of the 11th - early 12th centuries. Quite stable principalities began to form within Kievan Rus. As a result of the merger of East Slavic tribes during the period of Kievan Rus, the Old Russian people gradually formed, which was characterized by a certain commonality of language, territory and mental makeup, manifested in a common culture.

The Old Russian state was one of the largest European states. The fight of Rus' against the raids of nomads was of great importance for the security of the countries of both Western Asia and Europe. Rus''s trade relations were extensive. Rus' maintained political, trade and cultural relations with the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria, had diplomatic ties with Byzantium, Germany, Norway and Sweden, and also established ties with France and England. The international significance of Rus' is evidenced by the dynastic marriages concluded by Russian princes. Treaties with Byzantium contain valuable evidence of public relations in Kievan Rus and its international significance.
However, already in the 12th century. separated from the ancient Russian state whole line principalities

The main goal of this work is to consider the causes and factors of the fragmentation of Ancient Rus', which led to the creation of the formation of new state centers, to consider the largest of these centers and to analyze the significance of this period in the history of Russia.

1. Causes and factors of fragmentation

By the middle of the 11th century. The Old Russian state reached its peak. Sometimes Kievan Rus is even called an early feudal monarchy. Over time, the single state united by the power of the Kyiv prince no longer existed.

According to the generally accepted point of view, from the middle of the 11th to the beginning of the 12th century. The Old Russian state entered a new stage in its history - the era of political and 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 XI-XII 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 a world trade center, and consequently, the main ancient route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” which for many centuries allowed the Kievan 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 united several dozen large tribal unions. The constant raids of nomads on the Dnieper lands also 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 primordium in Russian feudal law. This principle, which existed in many states of Western Europe, provided that all land holdings of a particular feudal lord passed only to the eldest of their sons. In Rus', land holdings after the death of the prince could be divided among all heirs.

Most modern historians consider the development of large private feudal land ownership to be one of the most important factors that gave rise to feudal fragmentation. Back in the 11th century. There is a process of “settling of the vigilantes to the ground”, the emergence of large feudal estates - boyar villages. The feudal class gains economic and political power. The presence of a large number of large and medium-sized feudal estates became incompatible with the early feudal state, which had a vast territory and a weak state apparatus.

Kievan Rus was a vast but unstable state entity. The tribes that were part of it maintained their isolation for a long time. Under the dominance of subsistence farming, individual lands could not form a single economic space. In addition, in the XI-XII centuries. New factors are emerging that contribute to the fragmentation of this unstable state.

The main force in the process of separation was the boyars. Relying on his power, local princes were able to establish their power in each land. However, subsequently, inevitable contradictions and a struggle for influence and power arose between the strengthened boyars and the local princes.

The growth of population and, accordingly, the military potential of various regions of Rus' became the basis for the formation of a number of sovereign principalities. Civil strife among the princes arose.

The gradual growth of cities, trade and economic development of individual lands led to the loss of Kiev's historical role due to the movement of trade routes and the emergence of new centers of craft and trade, increasingly independent from the capital of the Russian state.

The social structure of society became more complex and the nobility emerged.

Finally, the collapse of the unified state was facilitated by the absence of a serious external threat to the entire East Slavic community. Later, this threat appeared from the Mongols, but the process of separating the principalities had already gone too far by that time.

These processes actually manifested themselves in the middle of the second half of the 11th century. Prince Yaroslav the Wise, shortly before his death (1054), divided the lands between his five sons. But he did this in such a way that the sons' possessions mutually divided each other; it was almost impossible to manage them independently. Yaroslav tried to solve two problems at once in this way: on the one hand, he sought to avoid bloody strife between the heirs, which usually began after the death of the Kyiv prince: each of the sons received lands that were supposed to ensure his existence as a sovereign prince; on the other hand, Yaroslav hoped that his children would jointly defend all-Russian interests, related primarily to the defense of borders. The Grand Duke did not intend to divide the united Rus' into independent, independent states; he only hoped that now it, as a single whole, would be ruled not by one person, but by the entire princely family.

It is not entirely clear how exactly the subordination of various lands to Kyiv was ensured, or how these lands were distributed among the princes. Described by historians of the 19th century. the principle of gradual (alternate) movement of princes from one throne to another was more of an ideal scheme than a practically functioning mechanism.

CM. Soloviev, analyzing the political structure of Rus' after Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054), came to the conclusion that the lands subject to the Grand Duke were not divided into separate possessions, but were considered as the common property of the entire Yaroslavich family. The princes received for temporary control any part of this common possession - the better, the “older” this or that prince was considered. Seniority, according to Yaroslav's plan, was to be determined as follows: all his brothers followed the ruling Grand Duke of Kyiv; after their death, their eldest sons succeeded their fathers in the line of princes, gradually moving from less prestigious thrones to more important ones. At the same time, only those princes whose fathers managed to reign in the capital could claim the title of Grand Duke. If some prince died before it was his turn to take the throne in Kyiv, then his descendants were deprived of the right to this throne and reigned somewhere in the province.

This system of “ladder ascension” - the “next order” of inheritance, was very far from perfect and gave rise to constant strife between the brothers and children of the princes (the eldest son of the Grand Duke could take his father’s throne only after the death of all his uncles). Disputes about seniority between uncles and nephews were a frequent occurrence in Rus' in a later period, until in the 15th century. there was no established procedure for transferring power from father to son.

At every opportunity, the Yaroslavichs strove to break the order - of course, for the benefit of themselves or their closest relatives and allies. The “ladder scheme” turned out to be unviable; the confusing order of inheritance was the reason for frequent strife, and the discontent of the princes, excluded from the line for power, led to the fact that they turned to the Hungarians, Poles, and Cumans for help.

Thus, since the 50s. XI century The process of determining the boundaries of future independent lands was underway. Kyiv became the first among the principality-states. Soon other lands caught up with it and even outstripped it in their development. A dozen independent principalities and lands emerged, the boundaries of which were formed within the framework of the Kyiv state as the boundaries of appanages, volosts, where local dynasties ruled.

As a result of fragmentation, the principalities emerged as independent principalities, the names of which were given to the capital cities: Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Murmansk, Ryazan, Rostov-Suzdal, Smolensk, Galicia, Vladimir-Volyn, Polotsk, Turovo-Pinsk, Tmutarakan, Novgorod and Pskov lands. Each of the lands was ruled by its own dynasty - one of the branches of the Rurikovichs. New form The state-political organization became political fragmentation, which replaced the early feudal monarchy.

In 1097, on the initiative of Yaroslav’s grandson, Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh of Pereyaslavl, a congress of princes met in the city of Lyubech. It established a new principle for the organization of power in Rus' - “everyone holds his own homeland.” Thus, the Russian land ceased to be the combined possession of an entire clan. The possessions of each branch of this family - the fatherland - became its hereditary property. This decision consolidated feudal fragmentation. Only later, when Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125) became the Grand Duke of Kyiv, and also under his son Mstislav (1126-1132), the state unity of Rus' was temporarily restored. Rus' maintained relative political unity.

The beginning of the period of fragmentation (both political and feudal) should be considered from 1132. However, Rus' was ready for collapse a long time ago (it is no coincidence that V.O. Klyuchevsky determines the beginning of the “appanage period,” i.e., the period of independence of Russian principalities, not from 1132, but from 1054, when, according to the will of Yaroslav the Wise, Rus' was divided between his children). Since 1132, the princes stopped reckoning with the Grand Duke of Kyiv as the head of all Rus'.

The collapse of the Old Russian state did not destroy the established Old Russian nationality. Art historians and philologists note that the spiritual life of various Russian lands and principalities, with all its diversity, retained 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 passed from the lake. Ilmen and r. Western Dvina to the Dnieper, from the Neva to the Volga, the Dnieper was also connected to 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.

2. Formation of new government centers

Some modern historians do not use the term “feudal fragmentation” to characterize the processes that took place in the Russian lands at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th centuries. They see the main reason for the fragmentation of Rus' in the formation of city-states. The super-union led by Kiev broke up into a number of city-states, which, in turn, became centers of land-volosts that arose on the territory of the former tribal unions. According to these views, Rus' entered the period of the existence of autonomous communal unions, which took the form of city-states.

The principalities and lands of Rus' during the appanage period were fully established states, comparable in territory to European ones. Kyiv, suffering from raids by nomads and princely strife, gradually lost its importance. And although throughout almost the entire XII century. Traditionally, it continued to be looked upon as the main city of Rus'; it actually turned into the capital of the small Principality of Kyiv, located in the Middle Dnieper region. Most important at the turn of the 12th – 13th centuries. acquire the Vladimir-Suzdal and Galician-Volyn principalities, as well as the Novgorod land, which became the political centers of North-Eastern, South-Western and North-Western Rus', respectively. Each of them develops a unique political system: a princely monarchy in the Vladimir-Suzdal land, a princely-boyar monarchy in the Galicia-Volyn region and a boyar republic in the Novgorod region.

Vladimiro (Rostovo) – Suzdol land

An important role in political life Rus' was played by Vladimir - Suzdal land. At the turn of the XII – XIII centuries. it covered vast areas between the Oka and Volga rivers. This territory, now considered the very center of Russia, was completely sparsely populated a thousand years ago. Since ancient times, Finno-Ugric tribes lived here, later almost completely assimilated by the Slavs. The growth of the population of Kievan Rus caused the need to develop new territories. In the XI – XII centuries. the southern borders of the state were constantly subject to raids by nomads. At this time, the intensive movement of Slavic settlers to the northeastern region began. The city of Rostov becomes the center of the newly developed lands.

The main factors that influenced the formation of a rich and powerful principality:

distance from the steppe nomads in the south;

landscape obstacles for easy penetration of the Varangians from the north;

possession of the upper reaches of waterways (Volga, Oka), through which rich Novgorod merchant caravans passed; good opportunities for economic development;

significant emigration from the south (population influx);

developed since the 11th century. network of cities (Rostov, Suzdal, Murom, Ryazan, Yaroslavl, etc.);

very energetic and ambitious princes who headed the principality.

There was a direct relationship between the geographical features of North-Eastern Rus' and the formation of strong princely power. This region was developed on the initiative of the princes. The lands were considered as the property of the prince, and the population, including the boyars, as his servants. Vassal and druzhina relations, characteristic of the period of Kievan Rus, were replaced by princely and subject relations. As a result, a patrimonial system of power developed in North-Eastern Rus'. (scheme 1)

The names of Vladimir Monomakh and his son Yuri Dolgoruky (1125-1157), who was distinguished by his desire to expand his territory and subjugate Kyiv (for this he received the nickname Dolgoruky), are associated with the formation and development of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. He captured Kyiv and became the Grand Duke of Kyiv; actively influenced the politics of Novgorod the Great. Ryazan and Murom fell under the influence of the Rostov-Suzdal princes. Yuri carried out extensive construction of fortified cities on the borders of his principality. In 1147, the chronicle first mentioned Moscow, built on the site of the former estate of the boyar Kuchka, confiscated by Yuri Dolgorukov. Here, on April 4, 1147, negotiations between Yuri and the Chernigov prince Svyatoslav took place, who brought Yuri a leopard skin as a gift.

The son and successor of Yuri, Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157-1174), so nicknamed for his significant reliance on the church, fell to the unification of Russian lands and the transfer of the center of all Russian political life from the rich boyar Rostov, first to a small town, and then built up with unprecedented speed, Vladimir - on - Klyazma. Impregnable white stone gates were built, and the majestic Assumption Cathedral was erected. In the country residence of Bogolyubovo on a dark July night in 1174, Andrei was killed as a result of a conspiracy of boyars, led by the boyars Kuchkovichi, the former owners of Moscow.

The policy of unifying all Russian lands under the rule of one prince was continued by Andrei’s half-brother, Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176-1212), so nicknamed for his large family. Under him, there was a significant strengthening of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, which became the strongest in Rus' and one of the largest feudal states in Europe, the core of the future Moscow state.

Vsevolod influenced the politics of Novgorod, received a rich inheritance in the Kiev region, almost completely controlled the Ryazan principality, etc. Having completed the fight against the boyars, he finally established a monarchy in the principality. By this time, the nobility was increasingly becoming the support of princely power. It consisted of servicemen, military men, courtyard people, and servants who depended on the prince and received from him land for temporary use, payment in kind, or the right to collect princely income.

The economic rise of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality continued for some time under the sons of Vsevolod. However, at the beginning of the 13th century. it disintegrates into destinies: Vladimir, Yaroslavl, Uglich, Pereyaslav, Yuryev, Murom. Principalities of North-Eastern Rus' in the XIV-XV centuries. became the basis for the formation of the Moscow state.

4. Galicia - Volga Principality

The Galician and Volyn principalities were formed in the southwest of Rus'. They occupied northeastern slopes of the Carpathians and the territory between the Dniester and Prut. (Scheme 2).

Features and conditions of development:

fertile lands for agriculture and vast forests for fishing;

significant deposits of rock salt, which were exported to neighboring countries;

convenient geographical location (neighborhood with Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic), which allowed active foreign trade;

the lands of the principality were relatively safe from the nomads;

the presence of an influential local boyars, who fought for power not only among themselves, but also with the princes.

The Principality of Galicia strengthened significantly during the reign of Yaroslav Osmomysl (1153-1187). His successor, the Volyn prince Roman Mstislavovich, managed to unite the Volyn and Galician principalities in 1199. At the beginning of the 13th century, after the death of Roman Mstislavovich in 1205, an internecine war broke out in the principality with the participation of Hungarians and Poles. Roman's son, Daniil Galitsky (1221-1264), broke the boyar resistance and in 1240, having occupied Kyiv, managed to unite the southwestern and Kyiv lands. However, in the same year, the Galicia-Volyn principality was devastated by the Mongol-Tatars, and 100 years later these lands became part of Lithuania (Volyn) and Poland (Galich).

5. Novgorod land

The Novgorod land, which occupied the northwestern territory of the former Old Russian state, was one of the first to emerge from the power of the Kyiv prince. At the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century. A peculiar political formation has developed here, which in modern historical literature called a feudal republic. The Novgorodians themselves called their state beautifully and solemnly - “Mr. Veliky Novgorod.” Novgorod possessions extended from the Gulf of Finland in the west to the Ural Mountains in the east, from the Arctic Ocean in the north to the borders of the modern Tver and Moscow regions in the south.

The Novgorod land developed along a special path (Diagram 3):

was far from the nomads and did not experience the horror of their raids;

wealth consisted 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, bee farming - 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 intersection of trade routes connecting Western Europe with Russia, and through it with the East and Byzantium;

both in Novgorod and later in Pskov land (originally part of Novgorod), a socio-political system developed - a boyar republic;

a favorable factor in the fate of Novgorod: it was not subjected to severe Mongol-Tatar plunder, although it paid tribute. In the struggle for the independence of Novgorod, Alexander Nevsky (1220-1263) became especially famous, who not only repelled the onslaught of German-Swedish aggression (Battle of the Neva, Battle of the Ice), but also pursued a flexible policy, making concessions to the Golden Horde and organizing resistance to the advance of Catholicism in the west;

The Novgorod Republic was close to the European type of development, similar to the city-republics of the Hanseatic League, as well as the city-republics of Italy (Venice, Genoa, Florence)

As a rule, Novgorod was owned by the prince who held the Kiev throne. This allowed the eldest prince among the Rurikovichs to control the great path and dominate Rus'.

Using the discontent of the Novgorodians (uprising of 1136), the boyars, who had significant economic power, managed to finally defeat the prince in the struggle for power. Novgorod became a boyar republic. In fact, power belonged to the boyars, the highest clergy and eminent merchants.

All the highest executive bodies- posadniki (heads of government), thousand (heads of the city militia and judges in commercial matters), bishop (head of the church, manager of the treasury, controlled the foreign policy of Veliky Novgorod), etc. - were replenished from the boyar nobility. At the same time, senior officials were elected. So, for example, in the second half of the 12th century. Novgorodians, like no one else in the Russian lands, began to choose their own spiritual shepherd - the Bishop (Archbishop of Novgorod).

On this land, earlier than in Europe, reformist tendencies towards the church appeared, anticipating the European Reformation, and even atheistic sentiments.

The position of the prince was peculiar. He did not have full state power, did not inherit the Novgorod land, and was invited only to perform representative and military functions.

Any attempt by the prince to interfere in internal affairs inevitably ended in his expulsion (in just over 200 years there were 58 princes).

The rights of the highest authority belonged to the people's assembly - the veche, which had broad powers:

Consideration of the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy;

Inviting the prince and concluding an agreement with him;

Election of trade policy important for Novgorod, election of mayor, judge for trade matters, etc.

Along with the citywide veche, there were “Konchansky” (the city was divided into five districts, and the entire Novgorod land into five regions, Pyatyn) and “Ulichansky” (uniting street residents) veche gatherings. The actual hosts at the meeting were 300 “golden belts” - the largest boyars of Novgorod. By the 15th century they actually usurped the rights of the people's council.

6. Principality of Kiev

The Principality of Kiev, endangered by nomads, lost its former importance due to the outflow of population and the decline in the role of the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks”; however, it still remained a major power. According to tradition, the princes still competed for Kyiv, although its influence on all-Russian life had weakened. On the eve of the Mongol invasion, the power of the Galician-Volyn prince Daniil Romanovich was established in it. In 1299, the Russian metropolitan moved his residence to Vladimir-on-Klyazma, as if establishing a new balance of power within Rus'. The Mongol invasion from the east, the expansion of the Catholic Church from the west, changes in the world (the weakening of Byzantium, etc.) largely determined the nature of the further development of the Russian principalities and lands - the successors of the Kyiv state.

7. The significance of the period of fragmentation in Russian history

Fragmentation, like any historical phenomenon, has both positive and negative sides. Let's compare Kievan Rus with the ancient Russian principalities in the 12th-13th centuries. Kievan Rus is a developed Dnieper region and Novgorod, surrounded by sparsely populated outskirts. In the XII-XIII centuries. The gap between centers and outskirts is disappearing. The outskirts are turning into independent principalities, which, in terms of economic, socio-political and cultural development superior to Kievan Rus. However, the period of fragmentation also has a number of negative phenomena:

1) there was a process of land fragmentation. With the exception of Veliky Novgorod, all the principalities were divided into internal fiefs, the number of which grew from century to century. If by 1132 there were about 15 isolated territories, then at the beginning of the 13th century. There were already 50 independent principalities and fiefs, and at the end of the 13th century. – 250.

On the one hand, the resistance of the appanage princes and boyars restrained the despotic desire of many senior princes, who wanted to subordinate the life of entire principalities to their personal ambitious plans. But on the other hand, often the appanage princes, supported by the appanage boyars, became defenders of civil strife and tried to take possession of the senior table. The local aristocracy plotted and rebelled;

2) there were endless internecine wars. Contradictions between senior and junior princes within one principality, and between princes of independent principalities, were often resolved through war. According to S.M. Solovyov’s calculations, from 1055 to 1228 in Rus' there were 93 peaceful years in which strife occurred.

It was not the battles that were terrible, but their consequences. The victors burned and plundered villages and cities, and most importantly, they captured numerous villages, turned the captives into slaves, and resettled them on their lands. Thus, the grandson of Manomakh Izyaslav of Kiev in 1149 took away 7 thousand people from the Rostov land of his uncle Yuri Dolgoruky.

3) the military potential of the country as a whole was weakened. Despite attempts to convene princely congresses, which maintained a certain order in fragmented Rus' and softened civil strife, the country's military power weakened.

Western Europe experienced this relatively painlessly due to the absence of strong external aggression. For Rus', on the eve of the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the decline in defense capability turned out to be fatal.

Conclusion

Based on the work done, we analyzed the causes and factors of the fragmentation of Ancient Rus', saw what led to the creation of the formation of new state centers, reviewed the largest of these centers and examined the significance of this period in the history of Russia.

This period was an important prerequisite for the formation of a single and integral state.

Feudal fragmentation in Rus' was a natural result of the economic and political development of early feudal society. The formation of large landholdings - estates - in the Old Russian state under the dominance of a natural economy inevitably made them completely independent production complexes, the economic ties of which were limited to the immediate surroundings.

The process of onset of feudal fragmentation was objectively inevitable. He made it possible to more firmly establish the developing system of feudal relations in Rus'. From this point of view, we can talk about the historical progressiveness of this stage of Russian history, within the framework of the development of economics and culture.

Literature

1. Kirillov V.V. History of Russia: textbook. manual for universities - M.: Yurayt, 2007.

2. Kulikov V.I. History of public administration in Russia: textbook. for universities - M.: Masterstvo, 2001.

3. Derevyanko A.P., Shabelnikova N.A. History of Russia: textbook. manual - M.: Prospekt, 2007.

4. Orlov A.S., Georgiev V.A., Georgieva N.G., Sivokhina T.A. History of Russia: textbook - M.: Prospekt, 2001.

5. Polevoy P.N. History of Russia - M.: AST Moscow, 2006.

Domestic history: lecture notes Kulagina Galina Mikhailovna

2.1. Fragmentation of Rus'

By the middle of the 11th century. The 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.

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 a world trade center, and consequently, the ancient route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” which for many centuries allowed the Kievan 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 particular feudal lord. In Rus', land holdings after the death of the prince could be divided among all heirs.

Most modern historians consider one of the most important factors that gave rise to feudal fragmentation 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, retained 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.

From the book History of Russia. From ancient times to the 16th century. 6th grade author Kiselev Alexander Fedotovich

§ 13. SPECIFIC FRAGRATION IN Rus' Specific fragmentation and its causes. The son of Vladimir Monomakh, Prince Mstislav, faithful to the behests of his father, strengthened the unity of Rus' with a firm hand. After the death of Mstislav in 1132, difficult times came for the state - appanage

From the book History of Russia from ancient times to the 16th century. 6th grade author Chernikova Tatyana Vasilievna

§ 10. POLITICAL FRONTATION OF Rus' 1. The beginning of fragmentationIn the 12th century, Rus' entered a new period of historical development - a period of fragmentation. It lasted 300 years - from the 12th to the end of the 15th century. In 1132, the son of Vladimir Monomakh, Prince of Kiev Mstislav the Great, died, and

From the book Rurikovich. Gatherers of the Russian Land author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

Is this fragmentation? In the 10th century there was no unity of Rus'. By the 12th century, the idea of the unity of Rus' was established - the unity of language, national identity, and Orthodox faith. Rus' is seen as a region of similar veche customs, the region of rule of the Rurik family. Neither

author Skazkin Sergey Danilovich

Feudal fragmentation In the Middle Ages, Italy was not a single state; three main regions historically developed here - Northern, Central and Southern Italy, which, in turn, broke up into separate feudal states. Each region retained its own

From the book History of the Middle Ages. Volume 1 [In two volumes. Under the general editorship of S. D. Skazkin] author Skazkin Sergey Danilovich

Political fragmentation Along with numerous feudal principalities, the picture of complete feudal fragmentation of Italy in the X-XI centuries. complemented by numerous cities. The early development of cities in Italy led to their early liberation from the power of feudal

From the book History of the Middle Ages. Volume 1 [In two volumes. Under the general editorship of S. D. Skazkin] author Skazkin Sergey Danilovich

Feudal fragmentation in the 11th century. With the final establishment of feudalism, the fragmentation that reigned in France acquired certain characteristics in various parts of the country. In the north, where feudal relations of production were most fully developed,

From the book Textbook of Russian History author Platonov Sergey Fedorovich

§ 36. Alexander Nevsky, specific fragmentation of Suzdal Rus' Development of the specific order. After Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich, who died in the battle on the river. City, his brother Yaroslav Vsevolodovich became the Grand Duke of Suzdal Rus' (1238). When the Tatar army went south,

author

CHAPTER VI. Feudal fragmentation of Rus' in the XII - early XIII

From the book HISTORY OF RUSSIA from ancient times to 1618. Textbook for universities. In two books. Book one. author Kuzmin Apollon Grigorievich

TO CHAPTER VI. Feudal fragmentation of Rus' IN THE XII - EARLY XIII centuries. From an article by D.K. Zelenin “On the origin of the Northern Great Russians of Veliky Novgorod” (Institute of Linguistics. Reports and communications. 1954. No. 6. P.49 - 95) On the first pages of the initial Russian chronicle it is reported

From the book History of the Persian Empire author Olmsted Albert

Fragmentation in Asia Under such conditions, it was inevitable that Athens would gradually begin to encroach on the sovereign rights of the alliance members. It was also inevitable that the new alliance would eventually follow in the footsteps of the previous Delhi League and become an enemy of Persia. However, at that time

From the book Domestic History: Lecture Notes author Kulagina Galina Mikhailovna

2.1. Fragmentation of Rus' By the middle of the 11th century. The 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.

From the book History of the Czech Republic author Pichet V.I.

§ 2. Feudal fragmentation The Czech lands were united into one state, but their political unity was supported only by the authority of the princely authorities with the assistance of central and provincial governments. Under the dominance of natural

From the book Reader on the History of the USSR. Volume 1. author author unknown

CHAPTER VIII FEUDAL FRONTATION IN NORTHEASTERN Rus' AND STRENGTHENING OF THE MOSCOW DUCTIMALITY IN THE XIV - FIRST HALF OF THE XV CENTURIES 64. FIRST NEWS ABOUT MOSCOW According to the “Ipatiev Chronicle”. In the summer of 6655, Ida Gyurgi2 fought the Novgorochka volost, and came to take Bargaining3 and taking all the revenge ; A

From the book A Short Course in the History of Russia from Ancient Times to the Beginning of the 21st Century author Kerov Valery Vsevolodovich

Topic 5 State fragmentation of Ancient Rus' (XII-XIII centuries) PLAN1. Prerequisites.1.1. Formation of local princely dynasties.1.2. Strengthening the local boyars.1.3. Development of crafts and trade.1.4. Changing the position and role of Kiev.1.5. Reducing the Polovtsian danger.1.6.

From the book The Formation of the Russian Centralized State in the XIV–XV centuries. Essays on the socio-economic and political history of Rus' author Cherepnin Lev Vladimirovich

§ 1. Feudal fragmentation in Rus' in the XIV–XV centuries. - a brake on the development of agriculture. Feudal fragmentation was a big brake on the development of agriculture. They are found in the chronicles (and in the Novgorod and Pskov chronicles - quite

From the book Russian History. Part I author Vorobiev M N

FEUDAL Fragmentation 1. The concept of feudal fragmentation. 2. - The beginning of fragmentation in Rus'. 3. - System of succession to the throne in Kievan Rus. 4. - Congresses of Russian princes. 5. - Causes of feudal fragmentation. 6. - Economic aspect. 7. - Feudalism and Russian

Feudal fragmentation in Rus' existed from the beginning of the XII to the end of the XY centuries. (350 years).

Economic reasons:

1. Successes in agriculture.

2. The growth of cities as centers of craft and trade, as centers of individual territories. Craft development. More than 60 craft specialties.

3. Subsistence farming dominated.

Political reasons:

1. The desire to pass on wealth to the son. “Otchina” is the father’s legacy.

2. As a result of the process of “settlement of the squad on the land,” the military elite turns into landowning boyars (feudal lords) and strives to expand feudal land tenure and independence.

3. Immunities are formed. The Kiev prince transfers a number of rights to the vassals: the right of court, the right to collect taxes.

4. Tribute turns into a fief. rent. Tribute - to the prince for protection, rent - to the owner of the land.

5. Feudal lords create local squads, their own apparatus of power.

6. The power of individual feudal lords is growing and they do not want to submit to Kyiv.

7. To ser. XII century The trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” -> “Amber Road” loses its significance.

8. The Principality of Kiev itself fell into decline due to the raids of the nomadic Polovtsians.

The process of disintegration of the country was slightly slowed down by V. Monomakh (1113-1125). He was the grandson of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Monomakh. V. Monomakh became a prince at the age of 60. His son Mstislav the Great (1125-1132) managed to continue his father’s policies and maintain what he had achieved. But immediately after his death the division of Rus' begins. At the beginning of the feud. fragmentation, there were 15 large and small principalities, and in the beginning. XIX century It was already the peak of the feud. fragmentation - » 250 principalities. There were 3 centers: the Vladimir-Suzdal kingdom, the Galicia-Volyn kingdom and the Novgorod feud. republic.

Feudal fragmentation in Rus': causes, essence, stages and consequences.

Positive: along with Kiev, new centers of craft and trade appeared, increasingly independent from the capital of the Russian state, old cities developed, large and strong principalities were formed, strong princely dynasties were created in large Russian principalities, a tradition of transferring power from father to son was formed, rapid growth took place cities, the peasant economy was steadily developing, new arable land and forest land were being developed. Wonderful cultural monuments were created there. The Russian Orthodox Church was gaining strength there.

Negative (which, unfortunately, are more noticeable than positive): the state became vulnerable, since not all of the resulting principalities were on good terms with each other, and there was no unity that later saved the country more than once; constant bloody civil strife weakened the military and the economic power of the country, Kyiv - the former capital of the Old Russian state - lost the power glorified in legends and epics and itself became the cause of strife, many princes sought to occupy the grand-ducal table in Kyiv.

The power in the city often changed - some princes were expelled, others died in battles, others left, unable to resist the new contenders. What about the reasons... Formal: the Polovtsian danger significantly reduced the attractiveness of the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” The centers through which trade relations between Europe and the East were carried out, thanks to the Crusades, gradually moved to Southern Europe and the Mediterranean, and control over this trade was established by the rapidly growing northern Italian cities and the pressure of the steppe nomads.

Genuine: political prerequisites: endless inter-princely feuds and long-term fierce internecine struggle among the Rurikovichs, the strengthening of local princes, the boyars turn into feudal landowners, for whom the income received from the estates becomes the main means of subsistence. And further: the decline of the Principality of Kyiv (loss of its central position, the movement of world trade routes away from Kyiv) was associated with the loss of the 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.

Vladimir-Suzdal and Galician-Volyn principalities. Novgorod boyar republic. A. Nevsky.

On the way to feudal fragmentation . From the 11th century Kievan Rus, just like Western Europe, begins to experience a period of feudal fragmentation. The disintegration of Rus' into appanage principalities began during the life of Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054) and intensified after his death. This process is somewhat suspended under the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise - Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh (1113-1125). By the power of his authority, he maintained the unity of Rus'. On his initiative, a congress of Russian princes took place in 1097 in the city of Lyubech. It adopted two important decisions. First, stop the princely strife. Secondly, adhere to the principle “Let each one keep his homeland.”

Thus, the fragmentation of Russian lands was actually legitimized. In this situation, Kyiv was losing its former leadership significance, but at the same time remained a capital city. The Kiev state, one of the most powerful, richest and most brilliant in its culture in all of medieval Europe, was rapidly heading towards destruction due to internal feudal strife, weakened by the constant struggle with the steppe. The princes strengthened their personal feudal power, sacrificing the unity of their Fatherland. The Kyiv state was in decline.

After the death of Vladimir Monomakh, Rus' existed for some time as a single state. Monomakh's son, Mstislav the Great (1125-1132), inherited the title of Grand Duke of Kyiv from his father. Mstislav Vladimirovich had the same strong character as his father. His short reign was marked by great military victories. Under his command, the Polovtsian hordes were defeated on the southern borders of the state. His campaigns against the Chuds and the Lithuanian tribes living on the northwestern borders of Rus' ended in victory. He established order by force throughout the vast Russian land and enjoyed unquestioned authority among all the appanage princes. Mstislav the Great died in 1132, and Rus' finally disintegrated into separate appanages or principalities, each with its own table.

Time from the beginning of the 12th century. until the end of the fifteenth century. called a period feudal fragmentation or specific period. Based on Kievan Rus by the middle of the 12th century. About 15 lands and principalities were formed by the beginning of the 13th century. - 50, in the XIV century. - 250. Each of the principalities was ruled by its own Rurik dynasty.

Causes of feudal fragmentation

Modern researchers understand feudal fragmentation as the period of the 12th - 15th centuries. in the history of our country, when from several dozen to several hundred large states were formed and functioned on the territory of Kievan Rus. Feudal fragmentation was a natural result of the previous political and economic development of society, the so-called period of the early feudal monarchy. There are four most significant reasons for the feudal fragmentation of the Old Russian state.

The main reason was political. The vast expanses of the East European Plain, numerous tribes, both Slavic and non-Slavic origin, at different stages of development - all this contributed to the decentralization of the state. Over time, the appanage princes, as well as the local feudal nobility represented by the boyars, with their independent separatist actions began to undermine the basis for government building. Only strong power concentrated in the hands of one person, the prince, could hold government agency change from decay.

And the Grand Duke of Kiev could no longer completely control the policy of local princes from the center; more and more princes left his power, and in the 30s. XII century he controlled only the territory around Kyiv. The appanage princes, sensing the weakness of the center, now did not want to share their income with the center, and the local boyars actively supported them in this. In addition, the local boyars needed strong and independent princes locally, which also contributed to the creation of their own state structure and the withering away of the institution of central power. Thus, acting in selfish interests, the local nobility neglected the unity and power of Rus'. The next reason for feudal fragmentation was social.

By the beginning of the 12th century. The social structure of ancient Russian society became more complex: large boyars, clergy, merchants, artisans, and urban lower classes appeared. These were new, actively developing layers of the population. In addition, it was born nobility, who served the prince in exchange for a land grant. His social activity was very high. In each center, behind the appanage princes stood an impressive force in the person of the boyars with their vassals, the rich elite of cities, church hierarchs. The increasingly complex social structure of society also contributed to the isolation of the lands.

Economic reasons also played a significant role in the collapse of the state. Within the framework of a single state, over three centuries, independent economic regions emerged, new cities grew, and large patrimonial estates of the boyars, monasteries and churches arose. Subsistence nature of the economy provided the rulers of each region with the opportunity to separate from the center and exist as an independent land or principality. This was largely due to the rapid enrichment of a certain part of the population that controlled the land.

Her desire to improve her well-being also led to feudal fragmentation. In the 12th century. The foreign policy situation also contributed to feudal fragmentation. Rus' during this period did not have serious opponents, since the Grand Dukes of Kyiv did a lot to ensure the security of their borders. A little less than a century will pass, and Rus' will face a formidable enemy in the person of the Mongol-Tatars, but the process of the collapse of Rus' by this time will have gone too far, and there will be no one to organize the resistance of the Russian lands.

It is necessary to note an important feature of the period of feudal fragmentation in Rus'. All major Western European states experienced a period of feudal fragmentation, but in Western Europe the engine of fragmentation was the economy. In Rus', during the process of feudal fragmentation, the political component was dominant. In order to receive material benefits, the local nobility - the princes and boyars - needed to gain political independence and strengthen their inheritance, to achieve sovereignty. The main force in the process of separation in Rus' was the boyars.

At first, feudal fragmentation contributed to the rise of agriculture in all Russian lands, the flourishing of crafts, the growth of cities, and the rapid development of trade. But over time, constant strife between the princes began to deplete the strength of the Russian lands and weaken their defense capability in the face of external danger. Disunity and constant hostility with each other led to the disappearance of many principalities, but most importantly, they became the cause of extraordinary hardships for the people during the period of the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

Of the states that emerged on the territory of Ancient Rus', the largest and most significant were the Galicia-Volyn, Vladimir-Suzdal principalities and the Novgorod boyar republic. It was they who became the political heirs of Kievan Rus, i.e. were centers of gravity for all Russian life. Each of these lands developed its own original political tradition and had its own political destiny. Each of these lands in the future had the opportunity to become the center of the unification of all Russian lands.

Cultural development of medieval Rus' (X - XVI centuries).

Old Russian wisdom, as the initial stage of the development of Russian thought, has a number of distinctive features as an integral cultural and historical phenomenon. On the one hand, it adopted some elements of the East Slavic pagan worldview, multi-component in its composition, since the Old Russian people were formed with the participation of Finno-Ugric, Baltic, Turkic, Norman, and Iranian ethnic groups. Using written, archaeological, ethnographic sources, specialists (B.A. Rybakov, N.N. Veletskaya, M.V. Popovich) are trying to reconstruct the pre-Christian picture of the world and model of existence.

On the other hand, after accepting Christianity as official ideology and the displacement of the pagan type of worldview to the periphery of consciousness, domestic thought intensively absorbed and creatively processed, through Byzantine and South Slavic mediation, the theoretical positions, attitudes and concepts of developed Eastern Christian patristics.

Batu's invasion of Rus'. Liberation struggle of the population of ancient Russian principalities. Consequences of the “Batu pogrom”.

The fight against the Horde yoke began from the moment it was established. It took place in the form of spontaneous popular uprisings, which could not overthrow the yoke, but contributed to its weakening. In 1262, in many Russian cities there were protests against the tax farmers of the Horde tribute - the Besermens. The Besermen were expelled, and the princes themselves began to collect tribute and take it to the Horde. And in the first quarter of the 14th century, after repeated uprisings in Rostov (1289, 1320) and Tver (1327), the Baskaks also left the Russian principalities. Liberation struggle of the masses brought its first results. The Mongol-Tatar conquest had extremely dire consequences for Rus'; the “Batu pogrom” was accompanied by mass murders of Russian people, many artisans were taken into captivity.

Cities that were experiencing a period of decline suffered especially. Many complex crafts disappeared, and stone construction ceased for more than a century. The conquest caused enormous damage to Russian culture. But the damage caused by the conquerors of Rus' was not limited to the “Batu Pogrom”. The entire second half of the 13th century. filled with Horde invasions. “Dudenev’s army” of 1293, in its destructive consequences, was reminiscent of Batu’s own campaign. And just for the second half XIII V. The Mongol-Tatars undertook large campaigns against North-Eastern Rus' 15 times.

But it was not just military attacks. The Horde khans created a whole system of robbing the conquered country through regular tribute. 14 types of various “tributes” and “burdens” depleted the Russian economy and prevented it from recovering from ruin. The leakage of silver, the main monetary metal of Rus', hindered the development of commodity-money relations. Mongol-Tatar conquest. The economic development of the country was delayed for a long time.

The cities, future centers of capitalist development, suffered the most from the conquest. Thus, the conquerors seemed to preserve for a long time the purely feudal nature of the economy. While Western European countries, having escaped the horrors of the Mongol-Tatar invasion, moved to a more advanced capitalist system, Rus' remained a feudal country.

As already mentioned, the impact on the economic sphere was expressed, firstly, in the direct devastation of territories during the Horde campaigns and raids, which were especially frequent in the second half of the 13th century. The heaviest blow was dealt to the cities. Secondly, conquest led to the systematic siphoning off of significant material resources in the form of the Horde “exit” and other exactions, which bled the country dry.

The consequence of the invasion of the 13th century. there was an increase in the isolation of the Russian lands, the weakening of the southern and western principalities. As a result, they were included in the structure that arose in the 13th century. early feudal state - the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: Polotsk and Turov-Pinsk principalities - by the beginning of the 14th century, Volyn - in the middle of the 14th century, Kiev and Chernigov - in the 60s of the 14th century, Smolensk - at the beginning of the 15th century.

Russian statehood (under the suzerainty of the Horde) was preserved as a result only in North-Eastern Rus' (Vladimir-Suzdal land), in the Novgorod, Murom and Ryazan lands. It was North-Eastern Rus' from approximately the second half of the 14th century. became the core of the formation of the Russian state. At the same time, the fate of the western and southern lands was finally determined. Thus, in the XIV century. The old political structure, which was characterized by independent principalities-lands, governed by different branches of the princely family of Rurikovich, within which smaller vassal principalities existed, ceased to exist.

The disappearance of this political structure also marked the disappearance of the one that had emerged with the formation of the Kyiv state in the 9th - 10th centuries. Old Russian people - the ancestor of the three currently existing East Slavic peoples. In the territories of North-Eastern and North-Western Rus', the Russian (Great Russian) nationality begins to take shape, while in the lands that became part of Lithuania and Poland - the Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalities.

In addition to these “visible” consequences of conquest, significant structural changes can also be traced in the socio-economic and political spheres of ancient Russian society. In the pre-Mongol period, feudal relations in Rus' developed in general according to the pattern characteristic of all European countries: from the predominance state forms feudalism at an early stage to a gradual strengthening of patrimonial forms, albeit more slowly than in Western Europe. After the invasion, this process slows down, and state forms of exploitation are conserved. This was largely due to the need to find funds to pay the “exit”. A. I. Herzen wrote: “It was during this unfortunate time that Russia allowed Europe to overtake itself.”

The Mongol-Tatar conquest led to increased feudal oppression. The masses fell under double oppression - their own and the Mongol-Tatar feudal lords. The political consequences of the invasion were very severe. The khans' policy boiled down to inciting feudal strife in order to prevent the country from uniting.

The system of Horde rule in Rus': features and chronological framework. The influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on the development of Russian lands.

Never before in its history did Ancient Rus' experience such a shock as in 1237-40. Neither the raids of the Polovtsians, nor the attacks of the “Poles” and the Hungarians could be compared with what the ancient Russian lands experienced during the years of Batu’s invasion.

The main blow fell on the cities - the craft, trade, administrative and cultural centers of the lands. According to archaeologists, out of 74 cities, 49 were destroyed, and almost a third of them were not restored. City life in Rus' fell into decline. Craft and trade suffered enormous damage. Many types of crafts disappeared, and there was a general coarsening and simplification of technical techniques. Stone construction ceased for almost a century.

The destruction of cities is a blow to the culture of Ancient Rus'. Priceless book and art treasures disappeared in the fires, and architectural monuments were destroyed.

The invasion complicated the demographic situation (some researchers even talk about a demographic catastrophe). It took years for the population to recover. True, different categories of the population suffered differently. During the assault on the cities, many residents died. The number of feudal lords also decreased sharply. The warriors, boyars, and princes fell in an unequal confrontation. Of the twelve Ryazan princes, nine died, led by Prince Yuri Igorevich. As part of the so-called Old Moscow boyars - the faithful servants of Ivan Kalita and his successors - there are no boyar families mentioned in the sources of the pre-Mongol period. The rural population, who had the opportunity to hide in the forests, apparently suffered less.

After the invasion, Rus' became part of the Golden Horde. The system of political and economic domination of the Golden Horde rulers over the Russian lands is defined as the Horde yoke. Sovereign rights passed to the supreme ruler - the Khan of the Golden Horde, who in Rus' was called the Tsar. The princes, as before, ruled the subject population; the previous order of inheritance was preserved, but only with the consent of the ruler of the Golden Horde. The princes flocked to the Horde for labels to reign.

Princely power was integrated into the management system in the Mongol Empire, which presupposed strictly fixed subordination. The appanage princes were subordinate to their senior princes, the senior princes (albeit formally) to the Grand Duke, who, in turn, was considered the “ulusnik” of the Khan of the Golden Horde.

Potentially, such a system strengthened the authoritarian traditions of North-Eastern Rus'. The princes, absolutely powerless before the khan, disposed of their subjects. The veche was not recognized as an institution of power, because from now on the only source of all power was the khan's label. Boyars and warriors turned into servants, completely dependent on the prince's favors.

In 1243, the Vladimir prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich received a special letter from Batu, allowing him to rule in the Russian lands on behalf of the Horde khan - a label for the great reign. In terms of its significance for the further history of Rus', this event was no less important than the Mongol invasion itself. For the first time, the prince was granted the right to represent the interests of the Horde in Russian lands. Thus, the Russian princes recognized complete dependence on the Horde, and Rus' was included in the Great Mongol Empire. Leaving Batu's headquarters, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich left his son Svyatoslav hostage. The practice of hostage-taking was widespread in the Mongol Empire. It will become the norm in relations between the Horde and Rus' for a long time.

Formation of nation states in Europe. Features of the centralization process on the territory of Russian lands.

Formation of the Russian State: Formation of the Russian State. Power and estates Contents 1. Introduction - 2 2. The mechanism of functioning of the estate system - 2 3. The local system - 4 4. Zemsky councils - 10 5. The Boyar Duma - 19 6. The role of the church in government - 29 7. The order system - 31 8. The beginnings of absolutism - 36 9. Conclusion - 37 10. Literature - 39 INTRODUCTION The main constantly operating factors of Russian historical process are, first of all, a special spatial and geopolitical situation, a specific mechanism for the functioning of the class system and, most importantly, the place of the state and its institutions in the regulation of social relations.

Period XV-XVII centuries. was characterized by two interrelated processes of development of a centralized state: the formation of a single state territory through the unification of Russian lands, the strengthening of the political system and the real power of the monarch. New territories that were part of the state primarily became the object of economic development and peasant agriculture. The basis of prosperity remained agricultural labor, which created social wealth and provided the state with material and demographic resources for normal functioning.

The main trends in the development of state policy, as well as the contradictions between society and the state, were directly related to the issue of land ownership and the peasant class. MECHANISM OF FUNCTIONING OF THE CLASS SYSTEM The mechanism of functioning of the class system had greater specificity in Russia compared to the countries of Western Europe... .

Formation of a centralized state with a center in Moscow: reasons, stages, features. State activities of the first Moscow princes. Dmitry Donskoy and the historical significance of the Battle of Kulikovo.

In the second half of the 14th century. in northeastern Rus', the tendency towards land unification intensified. The center of unification became the Moscow principality, which was separated from the Vladimir-Suzdal principality in the 12th century. Causes.

The role of unifying factors was played by the weakening and collapse of the Golden Horde, the development of economic ties and trade, the formation of new cities and the strengthening of the social stratum of the nobility. A system developed in the Moscow Principality local relations: the nobles received land from the Grand Duke for their service and for the duration of their service. This made them dependent on the prince and strengthened his power. Also the reason for the merger was struggle for national independence.

Features of the formation of the Russian centralized state:

When talking about “centralization,” two processes should be kept in mind: the unification of Russian lands around a new center - Moscow and the creation of a centralized state apparatus, a new power structure in the Moscow state.

The state developed in the northeastern and northwestern lands of the former Kievan Rus; From the 13th century Moscow princes and the church begin to carry out widespread colonization of the Trans-Volga territories, new monasteries, fortresses and cities are formed, and the local population is conquered.

The formation of the state took place in a very short time, which was due to the presence of an external threat in the form of the Golden Horde; the internal structure of the state was fragile; the state could at any moment disintegrate into separate principalities;

the creation of the state took place on a feudal basis; a feudal society began to form in Russia: serfdom, estates, etc.; in Western Europe, the formation of states took place on a capitalist basis, and bourgeois society began to form there.

Features of the process of state centralization And boiled down to the following: Byzantine and Eastern influence determined strong despotic tendencies in the structure and politics of power; the main support of autocratic power was not the union of cities with the nobility, but the local nobility; centralization was accompanied by the enslavement of the peasantry and increased class differentiation.

The formation of the Russian centralized state took place in several stages:

Stage 1. The Rise of Moscow(late XIII - early XIV centuries). By the end of the 13th century. the old cities of Rostov, Suzdal, Vladimir are losing their former significance. The new cities of Moscow and Tver are rising.

The rise of Tver began after the death of Alexander Nevsky (1263). During last decades XIII century Tver acts as a political center and organizer of the struggle against Lithuania and the Tatars and tried to subjugate the most important political centers: Novgorod, Kostroma, Pereyaslavl, Nizhny Novgorod. But this desire encountered strong resistance from other principalities, and above all from Moscow.

The beginning of the rise of Moscow is associated with the name of the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky - Daniil (1276 - 1303). Daniel inherited the small village of Moscow. In three years, the territory of Daniil’s possession tripled: Kolomna and Pereyaslavl joined Moscow. Moscow became a principality.

His son Yuri (1303 - 1325). entered into a struggle with the Tver prince for the Vladimir throne. A long and stubborn struggle for the title of Grand Duke began. Yuri's brother Ivan Danilovich, nicknamed Kalita, in 1327 in Tver, Ivan Kalita went to Tver with an army and suppressed the uprising. In gratitude, in 1327 the Tatars gave him a label for the Great Reign.

Stage 2. Moscow is the center of the fight against the Mongol-Tatars (second half of the 14th - first half of the 15th centuries). The strengthening of Moscow continued under the children of Ivan Kalita - Simeon Gordom (1340-1353) and Ivan II the Red (1353-1359). During the reign of Prince Dmitry Donskoy, the Battle of Kulikovo took place on September 8, 1380. The Tatar army of Khan Mamai was defeated.

Stage 3. Completion of the formation of the Russian centralized state (late 15th - early 16th centuries). The unification of Russian lands was completed under the great-grandson of Dmitry Donskoy, Ivan III (1462 - 1505) and Vasily III (1505 - 1533). Ivan III annexed the entire North-East of Rus' to Moscow: in 1463 - the Yaroslavl principality, in 1474 - the Rostov principality. After several campaigns in 1478, the independence of Novgorod was finally eliminated.

Under Ivan III, one of the most important events in Russian history took place - the Mongol-Tatar yoke was thrown off (in 1480 after standing on the Ugra River).

The activities of Ivan III “The Great” and Vasily III. Overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. Formation of national-state ideology and symbols of the national state.

In the current conditions of feudal fragmentation, the Novgorod, Pskov, Tver, Ryazan, and Nizhny Novgorod lands began to objectively gravitate toward reunification into a single state. At the same time, centrifugal tendencies, caused by the separatism of local princes, continued to persist. That is why the Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich (Donskoy) had to wage a stubborn struggle with the princes. Fighting the separatism of the princes, Dmitry Ivanovich subordinated the most powerful principalities (Tver and Ryazan) to the power of the Moscow prince. Thus, Moscow's leading role in the unification of Russian lands was finally consolidated.

The reign of Dmitry Donskoy left a deep mark on Russian history.

Among the important results of his activities are the following:

- securing for Moscow the status of the national capital, and for the Moscow princes - the great reign in Rus';

- preservation of the integrity of patrimonial possessions passed to Dmitry Ivanovich from his ancestors; strengthening the defense capability of Rus' as a result of the fight against foreign invaders, especially the Horde;

- the introduction of silver coinage earlier than in other feudal centers of Rus';

- economic support for the urban trade and craft population.

Thanks to the successful activities of Dmitry, the further strengthening of the Moscow Principality continues. Fear of foreign enslavement and the desire to preserve and maintain state order made firm power desirable, so that ultimately the feudal war contributed to the strengthening of the grand ducal power. The unification policy of the Grand Dukes was supported by the most diverse social strata of Russian society, since an important factor in the process of unification of the principalities was the nationwide struggle for national independence and the overthrow of the Horde yoke, for an independent and strong statehood capable of providing protection to the people.

Objectively, the process of political unification of Russian lands began in Rus' with the territorial growth and political strengthening of individual principalities. In the struggle that began between them for political dominance, an all-Russian political center emerged, leading the struggle for the unification of the scattered Russian lands into a single state and for the overthrow of the Golden Horde yoke. The winner in this struggle was the Principality of Moscow, whose capital - Moscow - during the reign of Dmitry Donskoy became the generally recognized political and national center of the emerging Russian state. The Orthodox Church also contributed to the unification of Russian lands.

She supported the flexible policy of a forced alliance with the Golden Horde of Alexander Nevsky, inspired Dmitry Donskoy to the Massacre of Mamayevo; during feudal war openly opposed the outdated policy of appanage princes behind strengthening the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow. The alliance of the church with the Moscow princes was further strengthened during the period of elimination of feudal fragmentation.

At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century. The more than two-century struggle of the Russian people for their state unity and national independence ended with the unification of the Russian lands around Moscow into a single state. The main territory of the Russian state, which emerged at the end of the 15th century, consisted of the Vladimir-Suzdal, Novgorod-Pskov, Smolensk and Murom-Ryazan lands, as well as part of the lands of the Chernigov principality. The territorial core of the formation of the Russian people and the Russian state was the Vladimir-Suzdal land.

The state united around Moscow represented a qualitatively new stage in the development of statehood. In 1462, Ivan III Vasilyevich ascended the Moscow throne. By this time he was 22 years old, and he was already a fully established person and ruler. His accession to the Moscow throne occurred according to the will of Vasily II. This did not require any approval from the Horde. This already spoke of the great independence of Rus' from the Horde. But there was still the payment of tribute. It was a strong thread connecting Rus' with the Horde. Most of the Russian lands have already become part of the Moscow state. But Novgorod, Tver, the Ryazan principality, and Pskov still remained independent. After the death of his father, Ivan III continued his work.

Firstly, he tried to protect Rus' from the constant onslaught of the Tatars. Already in the first years of his reign, Ivan III showed that Moscow would continue to fight for its freedom and independence from the Tatar khanates. Secondly, as with his father, Ivan III had to settle relations in his family. Any worsening of relations with the brothers threatened a new war. Therefore, Ivan III left them their inheritance. Third, Ivan III energetically continued the policy of subjugating independent Russian lands to Moscow. In January 1478, Ivan III solemnly entered “his fatherland” - Novgorod. The grand ducal governors took power in the city. The most stubborn opponents of Moscow were arrested and sent to prison. Ivan III spent a month in the once independent Novgorod Republic, establishing the Moscow order.

Liberation from the Horde yoke

In 1478, Ivan III stopped paying tribute to the Horde. Once again Rus' tried to free itself from this humiliating order. And now Ivan III, after the victory over Novgorod, again took a decisive step. The international situation also required this. After the fall of Constantinople, Rus' remained the largest Orthodox state in Europe at that time, and now all Orthodox people looked to Moscow as their hope and support. In addition, by this time, Ivan III, after the death of his first wife, the Tver princess, took as his wife the niece of the last Byzantine emperor.

Under these conditions, Ivan III broke off relations with the Horde. This meant war. The Horde decided to roughly punish Rus' and return it to the yoke of slavery. The ruler of the Great Horde, Khan Akhmat, led more than one hundred thousand warriors to Rus'. He agreed on allied actions with Lithuania. But Ivan III also took reciprocal diplomatic steps. He took advantage of the enmity between the Crimean Khanate and Akhmat and entered into allied relations with Crimea not only against the Horde, but also against Lithuania. On October 8, 1480, the Tatars attempted to cross the Ugra and attack the Russian camp. But everywhere the Russian regiments repulsed them: intense shooting was carried out from cannons, arquebuses, and bows.

This was the first time the Russians used firearms in the field. The Horde army suffered heavy losses and retreated. At this time, Ivan III hastily left for Moscow in connection with the rebellion of his brothers, who reproached him for being too autocratic. Some Moscow politicians persuaded Ivan III to make peace with Akhmat. Ivan hesitated: the risk was great. But then ordinary Muscovites spoke out, calling on the prince to return to the army. High church leaders also showed inflexibility in the fight against the Horde. Ivan III quickly settled relations with his brothers, promising to increase their inheritance, and soon their troops appeared on the Ugra. The Grand Duke also arrived there. The choice was made: the struggle is not life, but to death.

It was starting to get cold. And the two armies stood opposite each other on opposite banks of the river. December came, Ufa was covered with ice. Akhmat tried to start negotiations with Ivan III and return Rus' to its former dependence. But Ivan III, without giving up negotiations, played for time, strengthened the army, and waited for greater cold weather. And then Akhmat could not stand it and gave the order to retreat. Soon the Tatars' retreat turned into a flight. Ivan III's ally, the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey, struck a blow at the Lithuanian possessions.

The so-called situation on the Ugra was of great importance in the history of Russia. After this confrontation, Rus' was finally freed from the last traces of Horde oppression. The Grand Duchy of Moscow became a completely independent, sovereign state.

Strengthening the centralized state under Ivan IV "the Terrible". Reforms of the “Elected Rada”. The formation of an estate-representative monarchy. Eastern foreign policy of Ivan IV.

By the end of the 1540s, under the young ruler Ivan IV a circle of figures was formed to whom he entrusted the conduct of affairs in the state. Later, Andrei Kurbsky called the new government “The Chosen Rada.” Its most famous members were Aleksey Fedorovich Adashev, confessor Sylvester, Viskovaty Ivan Mikhailovich - head of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, and several other noble princes.

Reforms of the Chosen Rada

The first steps towards reforms were meetings of nobles and governors. In 1549, the February Meeting took place, which became the first Zemsky Sobor. The main political strategy of the Elected Rada was the centralization of the Russian state according to the civilizational model of the West. A change in strategy required a set of reforms. The reforms of the Chosen Rada had an anti-boyar orientation. It relied on landowners, nobles, and townspeople, and therefore expressed exclusively their interests. The elected council, whose reforms took place in 1549-1560, implemented changes in all spheres of society. The changes affected the administrative, church, legal, financial, tax and other systems.

Reforms of the Elected Rada in the legal and administrative systems

By decision of the Council of Reconciliation in 1549, a new set of laws was being prepared. The revised Code of Laws was established in 1550. The relationship between feudal lords and peasants has not changed; the same norms and laws have been preserved. At the same time, the power of local feeders was somewhat limited, and the process of forming orders was accelerated. Orders are the first functional governing bodies that were in charge of individual areas of government affairs (otherwise they were called chambers, courtyards, etc.). The most famous were the Petition, Streletsky, Posolsky and other orders. At the same time, local government was centralized. Viceroyal administrations were replaced by an elected administration. These and other innovations strengthened the position of the nobles in society and united the provincial nobility into service towns.

Army reform

In the mid-50s of the 16th century, the “Code of Service” was adopted. A strict order of service was established. All landowners, regardless of the size of their holdings, became service people. The government of Alexei Adashev organized the Streltsy army and formed a detachment of Streltsy to guard the Tsar. As a result of military reforms, tens of thousands of soldiers now have weapons, equipment and food.

Church reforms of the Elected Rada

In 1551, Stoglav was adopted, in which one hundred chapter-articles were published on the answers of Ivan the Terrible about the structure of the church. Stoglav strengthened general discipline in the church and regulated life. The Tsar intended to confiscate the land from the church, but these intentions were not approved by the Elected Rada. The Church tried in every possible way to strengthen its authority, which was steadily declining in the eyes of the people.

Reforms of the Elected Council in the financial system

No administrative reforms could be carried out without perestroika tax system. In 1550, a census of the entire population was carried out. Household taxation was replaced by land taxation. In the central territory, a tax unit called the “big plow” was introduced, its value varied depending on the position of the landowners. The payment of taxes by the population became increasingly centralized. The “feeding income” was replaced by a nationwide “feeding tax”.

In general, the reforms of the Chosen Rada under Ivan the Terrible were controversial. They were of a compromise nature. The reforms helped strengthen power and improve the position of the nobility. Their implementation was interrupted due to the resignation of the Elected Rada in 1560.

Strengthening the centralized state under Ivan IV "the Terrible". Oprichnina: essence, its goals and methods of achieving them, consequences. History of the country after the oprichnina. Livonian War.

The childhood of Ivan IV passed during the period of “boyar rule” of conspiracies at the top, city uprisings, which undermined state power and weakened the state in the face of external threats. The future king was distinguished by his intelligence, education, iron grip, and at the same time, moral depravity and nervous temperament.

In 1547, he was solemnly crowned king and officially accepted the title of Tsar. Surrounded by Ivan IV, a Selected Food was formed - a “government circle” of advisers - nobleman Adashev, Prince Kurbsky, Metropolitan Macarius, priest Sylvester, Queen Anastasia, who developed the main reforms.

The policy of Ivan IV took place in two stages:

1st - reforms of the 50s strengthened autocratic power, limited by estate-representative institutions in the center and locally (Zemsky Sobor, orders):

2nd - reform of the 60s, which contributed to the strengthening of absolute monarchical power.

The new Code of Laws was expanded and systematized. The transition of peasants on St. George's Day was confirmed, but the “elderly” (payment to the feudal lord upon transition) was increased. The legal status of peasants was approaching the status of kholop (slave). Punishments have become stricter. For the first time, punishments were introduced for boyars and bribe-taking clerks, the rights of volost governors were limited, and sectoral central government bodies were created - orders (ambassador, yam, robber, etc.). The adoption of the Code of Law marked the beginning of a number of reforms:

1556, “Code of Service” - completes the formation of the Russian army. The mounted militia of the nobles formed the basis of the army; to resolve important state issues, the highest state body arises - the Zemsky Sobor, in which the boyars, clergy, nobles, and merchants participated; instead of governors, zemstvo elders appear, chosen from wealthy townspeople and peasants; Church reform was carried out - services, church rituals were unified, measures were taken to strengthen the authority of the church, and the canonization of saints was carried out to unite the Russian people.

The reforms of the first period strengthened state power and increased the authority and role of the king. However, Ivan IV sought immediate results, while the Elected Rada carried out reforms gradually, counting on a long period. Rapid movement towards centralization was possible only with the help of terror. The elected Rada was against this. A fall Elected Rada became a prologue to the oprichnina.

In December 1564, the tsar and his family left Moscow, taking all church relics, and went to Alexandrovskaya Sloboda. Rumors spread throughout Moscow that the tsar abandoned the people because of the betrayal of the boyars. The condition for the return of the tsar was the convening of a state council of boyars and clergy, where he proposed the conditions under which he would take back power. The tsar demanded the sovereign's allotment in the center of the country (oprichna - part of the entire Russian land), which began to be called oprichnina, and all other lands - zemshchina. Boyars and nobles who were not registered in the oprichnina were deprived of their possessions and moved to the zemshchina. A sovereign army was created - the guardsmen, who were supposed to “sniff out” enemies and “sweep out” them.

All this turned into mass terror and led to:

1) to the mass exodus of peasants to the south of the country, there was no one to sow and plow.

2) to the decline of trade;

3) to the loss of the successfully started Livonian War;

4) to the weakening of the southern borders. In 1574, the Crimean Khan Girey made a campaign against Moscow, set it on fire and demanded that the tsar give up Kazan and Astrakhan.

All these consequences forced Ivan the Terrible to abandon the oprichnina, but the terror did not stop.

The activities of Ivan the Terrible, on the one hand, contributed to the strengthening of the Russian state and autocracy, and on the other hand, led to the ruin of the people and contributed to such a phenomenon as the Troubles.

18 “Time of Troubles”: the causes and essence of the socio-political crisis in Russia. B. Godunov. The struggle for power and social movements during the Time of Troubles.

Events at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries. received the name "Time of Troubles". The causes of the unrest were the aggravation of social class, financial and international relations at the end of the reign of Ivan IV and his successors. The huge costs of the Battle of Levon and the destruction led to an economic crisis. 50% of the land was not cultivated, and prices increased 4 times. In order to enslave the peasants, “Reserved Summers” were introduced - years when the transition from feudal lord to feudal lord was prohibited. In 1597, a decree was passed on a five-year search for fugitive peasants. On March 18, 1584, Ivan the Terrible died while playing chess. His eldest son Ivan was killed by his father in a fit of anger (1581), his youngest son Dmitry was only two years old.

Together with his mother, Ivan IV's seventh wife Maria Naga, he lived in Uglich, which was given to him as an inheritance. The middle son of Ivan the Terrible, twenty-seven-year-old Fyodor Ivanovich (1584-1598), took the throne, gentle by nature, but incapable of governing the state. The personality of Fyodor Ivanovich, who grew up in an atmosphere of medieval cruelty, attracted the attention of many writers and artists. “Am I a king or not a king,” is the sacramental phrase put into his mouth by A.K. Tolstoy, successfully characterizes Fyodor Ivanovich. Realizing that the throne was passing to Blessed Feodor, Ivan IV created a kind of regency council under his son.

In 1598, after the death of the childless Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the Zemsky Sobor elected Boris Godunov as Tsar. All segments of the population opposed the tsar; this was taken advantage of by the Moscow monk Grigory Otrepiev, who fled to Poland under the guise of the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry. In 1604, he and a Polish detachment set out on a campaign against Moscow, Russia. Boris Godunov suddenly dies and in May 1605 the False Dmitry I is proclaimed tsar, but he did not fulfill his promise to the Poles. The Poles plundered Russian lands and in May 1606 an anti-Polish uprising broke out in Moscow. The false Dmitry I was killed, and Vasily Shuisky was proclaimed king.).

He gave an obligation, formalized in the form of a kissing cross (kissed the cross), to preserve the privileges of the boyars, not to take away their estates and not to judge the boyars without the participation of the Boyar Duma. The nobility now tried to resolve the deep internal and external contradictions that had created with the help of the boyar king. One of Shuisky's most important affairs was the appointment of a patriarch. Patriarch Ignatius the Greek was stripped of his rank for supporting False Dmitry I. Vasily Shuisky managed to gain a foothold in Moscow, but the outskirts of the country continued to seethe. The political conflict generated by the struggle for power and the crown grew into a social one. The people, having finally lost faith in improving their situation, again opposed the authorities.

In the spring of 1608, False Dmitry II emerged from Poland. In 1610, Shuisky was overthrown, power was seized by the boyars (“Seven Boyars”), who surrendered Moscow to the Poles and invited the Polish prince Vladislav to the throne. Only by relying on the people could it be possible to win and preserve the independence of the Russian state. In 1610, Patriarch Hermogenes called for a fight against the invaders, for which he was arrested. At the beginning of 1611, the first militia was created in the Ryazan land, which was led by the nobleman P. Lyapunov. The militia moved to Moscow, where an uprising broke out in the spring of 1611. The interventionists, on the advice of the traitorous boyars, set fire to the city. Troops fought on the approaches to the Kremlin. Here, in the Sretenka area, Prince D.M. was seriously wounded. Pozharsky, who led the forward detachments.

The first militia disintegrated. By this time, the Swedes had captured Novgorod, and the Poles, after a months-long siege, had captured Smolensk. The Polish king Sigismund III announced that he himself would become the Russian Tsar, and Russia would join the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the fall of 1611, the townsman of Nizhny Novgorod, Kozma Minin, appealed to the Russian people to create a second militia. With the help of the population of other Russian cities, the material base for the liberation struggle was created: the people raised significant funds to wage war against the interventionists. The militia was headed by K. Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky. In the spring of 1612, the militia moved to Yaroslavl. Here the provisional government of Russia “Council of All the Earth” was created.

In the summer of 1612, from the Arbat Gate, the troops of K. Minin and D.M. Pozharsky approached Moscow and united with the remnants of the first militia. Almost simultaneously, Hetman Khodasevich approached the capital along the Mozhaisk road, moving to the aid of the Poles holed up in the Kremlin. In the battle near the walls of Moscow, Khodasevich’s army was driven back. On October 22, 1612, on the day of the discovery of the icon of the Kazan Mother of God, who accompanied the militia, Kitay-Gorod was taken. Four days later, the Polish garrison in the Kremlin surrendered. In memory of the liberation of Moscow from the interventionists on Red Square, funded by D.M. Pozharsky, a temple was erected in honor of the icon of Our Lady of Kazan. The victory was won as a result of the heroic efforts of the Russian people.

Polish-Swedish intervention in Russia at the beginning. XVII century I and II Militia. K. Minin and D. Pozharsky.

Early 17th century was marked by a general political crisis, and social contradictions intensified. All layers of society were dissatisfied with the rule of Boris Godunov. Taking advantage of the weakening of statehood, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden attempted to seize Russian lands and include it in the sphere of influence of the Catholic Church.

In 1601, a man appeared who pretended to be Tsarevich Dmitry, who had miraculously escaped. He turned out to be a runaway monk, defrocked deacon of the Chudov Monastery, Grigory Otrepiev. The pretext for the start of the intervention was the appearance of False Dmitry in 1601-1602. in the Polish possessions in Ukraine, where he declared his claims to the royal throne in Rus'. In Poland, False Dmitry turned for help to the Polish gentry and King Sigismund III. To get closer to the Polish elite, False Dmitry converted to Catholicism and promised, if successful, to make this religion the state religion in Rus', and also to give Western Russian lands to Poland.

In October 1604, False Dmitry invaded Russia. The army, joined by runaway peasants, Cossacks, and servicemen, quickly advanced towards Moscow. In April 1605, Boris Godunov died, and his warriors went over to the side of the pretender. Fedor, Godunov's 16-year-old son, was unable to retain power. Moscow went over to the side of False Dmitry. The young tsar and his mother were killed, and on June 20 a new “autocrat” entered the capital.

False Dmitry I turned out to be an active and energetic ruler, but he did not live up to the hopes of those forces that brought him to the throne, namely: he did not give the outskirts of Russia to the Poles and did not convert the Russians to Catholicism. He aroused dissatisfaction among Moscow subjects by non-compliance with ancient customs and rituals, and there were rumors about his Catholicism. In May 1606, an uprising broke out in Moscow, False Dmitry I was overthrown and killed. Boyar Vasily Shuisky was “shouted out” as tsar on Red Square. In 1607, a new impostor appeared in the city of Starodub, posing as Tsarevich Dmitry.

He gathered an army from representatives of the oppressed lower classes, Cossacks, service people and detachments of Polish adventurers. False Dmitry II approached Moscow and camped in Tushino (hence the nickname “Tushino Thief”). went over to his side a large number of Moscow boyars and princes.

In the spring of 1609, M.V. Skopin-Shuisky (the Tsar’s nephew), having gathered detachments of people’s militia from Smolensk, the Volga region, and the Moscow region, lifted the 16,000-strong siege of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. The army of False Dmitry II was defeated, he himself fled to Kaluga, where he was killed.

In February 1609, Shuisky concluded an agreement with Sweden. This gave the Polish king, who was at war with Sweden, a reason to declare war on Russia. The Polish army moved towards Moscow under the command of Hetman Zholkiewski, near the village of Klushino it defeated Shuisky's troops. The Tsar finally lost the trust of his subjects and was overthrown from the throne in July 1610. The Moscow boyars invited the son of Sigismund III, Vladislav, to the throne, and surrendered Moscow to Polish troops.

The “great devastation” of the Russian land caused a widespread upsurge of the patriotic movement in the country. In the winter of 1611, the first civil uprising, which was headed by Prokopiy Lyapunov. In March, the militia approached Moscow and began a siege of the capital. However, the split between the nobles and peasants with the Cossacks did not make it possible to achieve victory. In the fall of 1611, in Nizhny Novgorod, the zemstvo elder Kuzma Minin organized a second militia. Prince D.M. Pozharsky is invited to lead the zemstvo army. At the end of August 1612, the army of Minin and Pozharsky approached Moscow and began its siege; On October 27, 1612, the Poles surrendered. Thanks to the heroism of the Russian people, Moscow was liberated, and the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Romanov as Russian Tsar.

In 1617, the Peace of Stolbov was concluded between Russia and Sweden. Russia returned Novgorod, but lost the coast of the Gulf of Finland. In 1618, the Deulin truce was concluded with Poland, which received Smolensk, Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversk lands. Despite the dire consequences of the Swedish-Polish intervention, Russia retained the most important thing - its statehood.

Socio-economic development of Russia in the 17th century. Folding of the domestic market. Development of feudal relations. Economic activities of the first Romanovs.

The most important result of the development of agriculture in the first half of the 17th century. consisted of eliminating the consequences of the Troubles, during which huge expanses of uncultivated land appeared, which had managed to be overgrown with forest. In some counties, arable land has decreased tenfold. The restoration process took three decades - from the 20s to the 50s. XVII century
The main trend in the socio-economic development of Russia in the 17th century. consisted in the further strengthening of the feudal-serf system. Among the nobility, the direct connection between service and its land compensation was gradually lost: estates remained with the family even if its representatives stopped serving.

The rights to dispose of estates were expanded (barter, transfer as a dowry). The estate is losing the features of conditional ownership and is approaching a fiefdom. In the 17th century there is a further growth of feudal land ownership. The new Romanov dynasty, strengthening its position, made extensive use of the distribution of land to the nobles.
Vigorous government measures to prevent the flight of peasants were essential for strengthening feudal land ownership. Due to mass exodus and population losses during the Livonian War and the oprichnina, the central regions of the country began to become deserted.

Many landowners went bankrupt, which was unprofitable for the state, since the noble militia still remained the basis of the army. Due to the flight of peasants, the flow of taxes into the treasury also decreased, since privately owned peasants were the main payers of taxes. All this led to the strengthening of the enslavement policy: the period for searching peasants was increased (in 1637 - up to 9 years, 1641 - up to 10-15 years). Even under V. Shuisky, peasant escapes were transferred from the category of civil offenses to the category of state crimes, therefore, the investigation was now carried out not by the owner of the peasants himself, but by the administrative and police authorities.

The legal formalization of the system of serfdom was completed by the Council Code of 1649: the search for runaway peasants became indefinite, the heredity of serfdom was established, and the inhabitants of the towns were assigned to the tax towns communities.

New phenomena in the Russian economy in the 17th century:

Deepening specialization in agriculture (the Middle Volga region, black earth lands in the Orel and Vologda region produced commercial grain; the Upper Volga region was a region of commercial cattle breeding; in the cities located around Moscow, garden crops were grown; cattle breeding developed in the Vladimir region) and crafts (metallurgy centers became Tula-Serpukhov-Moscow region, Ustyuzhno-Zheleznopolskaya region - between Novgorod and Vologda; Tver, Kaluga, Nizhny Novgorod region specialize in the production of textile products; Novgorod-Pskov region, Moscow, Yaroslavl, leather products; Kazan, Vologda);

Transformation of crafts into small-scale production (production of products for sale);

Growth of cities (in the second half of the 16th century - 170 cities, in mid-17th century V. - 254 cities; the largest city was Moscow, which had about 200 thousand inhabitants);

Development of commodity-money relations; the spread of cash rent in infertile lands; the emergence of fairs of all-Russian significance (Makaryevskaya near Nizhny Novgorod, Irbitskaya in the Urals);

The emergence of the first manufactories. The first manufactories - Pushkarsky Dvor, Mint - appeared in the 16th century. In the 17th century There were about 30 manufactories in Russia. Metallurgical factories were built in the Urals and in the Tula region, leather factories were built in Yaroslavl and Kazan. The state provided the owners of manufactories with land, timber, and money. Manufactories founded with the support of the state later received the name “possession” (from the Latin “possession” - possession);

Formation of the labor market. Since there were no free workers in the country, the state began to assign peasants to manufactories. The assigned peasants had to work off their taxes at the enterprise at certain rates;

The beginning of the formation of the all-Russian market, strengthening of internal economic ties;

Development of foreign trade, strengthening trading role Arkhangelsk and Astrakhan. Thus, in the 17th century. The feudal-serf system remained dominant in all spheres of the economy. At the same time, small-scale production and trade grew significantly, manufacturing spread as a form of organization of production, an all-Russian market began to form, and significant capital began to accumulate in the sphere of trade.

The political system of Russia in the 17th century. Domestic and foreign policy activities of the first Romanovs.

The first Romanovs include Mikhail Fedorovich (reigned 1613-1645) and Alexei Mikhailovich (reigned 1645-1676). To this time they also add the reign of Princess Sophia as regent of her younger brothers Ivan and Peter.

To the main events of the first time Romanovs include:

1. Stabilization of the internal life of the country, the establishment of relative order, the formalization of the legal status of the nobility, the Boyar Duma, Zemsky Councils and, accordingly, the strengthening of the autocracy;

2. Church reform, which split society into those who accepted and those who did not accept the new interpretation of church services;

3. Formation of larger military-administrative units - discharges in the border regions of the country;

4. In foreign policy this was the century of Ukraine’s entry into Russia;

5. In culture and everyday life - the spread of education, the increase in the production of printed books, mainly religious content and textbooks.

In the first years of his reign, Mikhail, due to his youth, sickness and spiritual gentleness, could not do without the help and guidance of his elders. This help was provided to him by relatives on his mother’s side - the boyars Saltykovs, until his father, a monk, Filaret, returned from exile to Moscow. Most historians agree that Michael performed the formal function of the king, and his parents were the actual rulers.

However, the most important factor in his governance were the Zemsky Sobors, which provided significant moral support to the young tsar. Arriving from Kostroma to Moscow after his election, Mikhail did not dissolve the elected zemstvo people, but kept them with him. The elected officials changed from time to time, but the cathedral operated continuously in Moscow for 10 years and helped the Tsar in all important and difficult matters. The staff of the Zemsky Sobor was important for their awareness, knowledge of affairs in the country and its regions, and gave advice on various sectors of the economy.

Throughout the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, the main feature of the Zemsky Sobors was a significant increase in the representation of the lower classes. Unlike the time of Ivan the Terrible and Boris Godunov, representatives of the nobles and townspeople played in the Zemsky Sobors under Mikhail Fedorovich. After the death of Patriarch Filaret (the Tsar's father), some nobles proposed transforming the Zemsky Sobor into a permanent parliament. But this did not suit the autocratic government and over time the Zemsky Sobors met less frequently at first, and then their activities were stopped altogether.

One of the last to be convened was the Zemsky Sobor in 1653 and accepted the population of Left Bank Ukraine and Kyiv into Russian citizenship. Since then, power began to rely not on the representation of the population, but on the bureaucracy and the army. But the most recent council convened was in 1683, the main issue at which should