The process of Christianization did not end there, stretching out for several more centuries - until the 13th - 14th centuries, but the choice was made: Orthodoxy became the dominant religion of the Russian state. At the same time, this led to the creation of a powerful and extremely influential organization in Russia - Russian Orthodox Church... During the X - XII centuries. the church managed to spread widely across Russia, creating a very ramified structure. It was headed by the Metropolitan of Kiev, to whom the bishops were subordinate. Monasteries began to grow rapidly throughout the country, concentrating considerable wealth in their hands.
Most historians assess the importance of adopting Christianity in Russia extremely highly, primarily in terms of the impact on development ancient Russian culture: writing, schools, architecture, painting, annals - everything was influenced by Christianity. However, a number of historians, sometimes not without convincingness, prove a certain premature of the baptism of Rus, drawing attention to the insufficient readiness of a significant part of the Slavic population to accept the norms of Christian morality.
However, in any case, the baptism of Rus became a significant milestone in the formation of the Russian state, creating one of the most important attributes of statehood in general.
Specific period in Russia
From the second half of the XI century. in Russia, new processes begin, characterized, first of all, by the disintegration of a hitherto unified state into separate, in fact, independent lands.
Soviet historical science for a long time she explained the reasons for the fragmentation by the growing class struggle of the peasants against the exploiters, which forced the latter to keep the forces necessary to suppress it on the ground, as a result of which the independence and authority of the local princes increased. Another reason - already of an economic order - was called the domination of a natural (closed) economy. However, the above reasons do not very well explain the disintegration of Russia. Firstly, we have almost no data on any major mass demonstrations of the 11th-12th centuries (with the exception of news of events in the Suzdal land in 1024 and 1071, or in Kiev in 1068, where unrest is very difficult to define as class), and secondly, the natural nature of the economy is characteristic of both specific and united Russia, and, therefore, this fact alone cannot explain anything. As for the pre-Soviet historiography, in it as main reason disintegration was called the erroneous decision of Yaroslav the Wise to divide the land Kiev state between their sons. However, this statement is also vulnerable to criticism: after all, even before Yaroslav, the princes produced similar sections, but Russia retained unity. Apparently, it is impossible to get an answer to the question about the reasons for the disintegration without understanding what dictated the very unity of the state and how its main functions changed over time.
Ancient Russia was united, first of all, due to the common desire for predatory campaigns against Byzantium. However, by the end of the 10th century. profit in the form of extraction and tribute began to be noticeably inferior in importance to the benefits obtained from the development of conventional trade, which became possible, firstly, thanks to the conclusion of trade agreements with Byzantine Empire, and secondly, in connection with the increase in wealth in the hands of the prince (on whose behalf, in fact, the Russian merchants traded), caused by the increase in the collection of tribute-tax after the stabilization of relations within the state. Thus, the need for military campaigns against Byzantium practically disappeared, which led to their complete cessation. They also managed to stabilize relations with the "steppe". Already Svyatoslav defeated the Khazars, Vladimir and Yaroslav actually put an end to the Pechenegs, and only the Polovtsians continued to harass Russia with their raids. However, the forces of the Polovtsians were very small, so there was no need to involve the troops of the entire Old Russian state to confront them. Moreover, even those relatively small squads that opposed the Polovtsy inflicted such impressive blows that by the end of the XII - the beginning of the XIII centuries. the Cumans found themselves in vassal dependence on Russia (more precisely, on the southern Russian princes).
Concerning internal functions, then they could indeed be carried out with great success within the framework of separate, relatively small territories. Complication public life demanded not rare appearances of the arbiter from the center, but everyday regulation. Local interests are increasingly capturing the princes sitting in separate lands, who are beginning to identify them with their own interests. Thus, by the end of the XI century. revealed the obvious disappearance of those common interests that unite all together, which had previously rather firmly cemented the state. Other connecting threads, say, economic (here, just, and it is worth remembering the natural nature of the economy), simply did not exist. That is why Russia, having lost most of what connected it, disintegrated.
However, the decay was not absolute. Along with this centrifugal tendency, centripetal tendencies also persisted. They were expressed, in particular, in the preservation of the prestige of the title of the Grand Duke of Kiev (although he no longer plays a real unifying role). In addition, the princes from time to time found it necessary to gather at their inter-princes' congresses to discuss emerging common problems. And yet the main trend was undoubtedly the centrifugal one. The main principle of the disintegration was already fixed at the first inter-princes' congress in Lyubech in 1097: "everyone keeps his patrimony." At the same time, the statehood of Russia did not disappear, of course, it just switched to new level- land. Accordingly, there have been changes in the structures of power.
At the land level, two main types of power organization were formed, which can be conditionally defined as "republican" and "monarchist". However essential elements these systems are the same: veche, prince, boyars. But the ratio of these elements in the political systems of various Russian lands is very different. If in the Novgorod land, traditionally referred to the number of "feudal republics", the leading role was played by the veche and the boyars, while the prince performed only the functions of a military leader and guarantor of the judicial system (moreover, a treaty was concluded with him, failure to fulfill which threatened him with expulsion), then in In the principalities, on the contrary, the leading positions were occupied by the prince and his boyars advisors, while the veche could only temporarily acquire a noticeable influence on the power (as a rule, spontaneously, from below, or in the event of a conflict between the prince and the boyars).
The most stable positions within Ancient Rus in the XII century. occupied Novgorod and the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. But, if Novgorod never claimed the leading roles in political life Rus, then the Vladimir princes (Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky) very actively fought with other princes both for separate territories and for obtaining leading positions (if not generally supremacy) among other Russian lands. However, gradually the process of disintegration also captures the Vladimir principality, which, like others, begins to plunge into the abyss of strife. In general, inter-princely strife is almost the main theme of chronicle stories and literary works of the 12th-13th centuries, which often creates a distorted idea of them as main line specific period, depicting the image of the gradual decline of Russia, becoming a defenseless victim of any more or less strong enemy. Sometimes one gets the impression of the fatal inevitability of the death of the Old Russian state. In fact, the influence of strife on the development of Ancient Russia is clearly exaggerated. The specific period was not only not a time of decline, but, on the contrary, meant the flourishing of the Old Russian state and, above all, in the sphere of culture. Of course, strife weakened unity, and hence the possibility of joint rebuff to a major enemy, but in the foreseeable space of such an enemy did not exist in Russia.
1) strife between princes
2) Lack of a firm order of succession to the throne
3) the emergence of new political centers
4) change in the economic life of the country
Conclusion: 1) dynamic economic development Russian lands. 2) The total territory of Russia increased. 3) a decrease in defense potential, enemies appeared in the northwest: Catholic German Orders and Lithuanian tribes, which entered the stage of decomposition of the tribal system, threatened Polotsk, Pskov, Novgorod and Smolensk. Hungary sometimes interfered in the internal affairs of Galich. In 1237 - 1240 there was a Mongol-Tatar invasion from the southeast, after which the Russian lands fell under the rule of the Golden Horde.
Conclusion number 2 of Russia fragmentation was a period flourishing. The growth of cities took place, the old and new craft specialties developed and trade flourished. In cities, remarkable cultural monuments and chronicles were created.
Within the framework of individual lands, the Russian Church was gaining strength. She condemned the internecine wars of the princes, played a great peacekeeping role. Each of the principalities occupied vast lands, the core of which was not only the historical territories of the still old, tribal reigns, but also new territorial acquisitions, new cities that grew up in the lands of these principalities.
In the middle of the XII century, Kievan Rus disintegrated into independent principalities, but formally it existed in limited form until the Mongol-Tatar invasion (1237-1240) and Kiev continued to be considered the main table of Rus. The era of the XII-XVI centuries is usually called the specific period or political fragmentation. 1132, the year of the death of the last powerful Kiev prince Mstislav the Great, is considered to be the boundary of disintegration. The result of the collapse was the emergence of new political formations on the site of the Old Russian state, a distant consequence - the formation modern peoples: Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians.
Outwardly decay Kievan Rus looked like a division of the territory of Kievan Rus between various members of the sprawling princely family. According to the established tradition, local thrones were occupied, as a rule, only by the descendants of the house of Rurik.
The process of the onset of feudal fragmentation was objectively inevitable. He made it possible for the developing system of feudal relations to be more firmly established in Russia.
Feudal fragmentation affirmed not only centrifugal tendencies, but also tendencies towards unity, consolidation; was accompanied by the further development and design of the main forms of medieval statehood: princely power (monarchy) and the veche system.
For some time, under the princes Vladimir Monomakh and his son Mstislav the Great, Kiev rose again as an all-Russian center. These princes were able to resist the growing danger of the invasion of the nomadic Polovtsians. After the death of Mstislav, instead of a single power, about a dozen independent lands arose: Galician, Polotsk, Chernigov, Rostov-Suzdal, Novgorod, Smolensk, etc. The process of economic isolation and political fragmentation was repeated inside these lands, almost each of them, in turn, turned into a system of small and semi-independent feudal principalities... The feudal fragmentation of Rus existed until the end of the 15th century, when most of the territory of the former Kiev state became part of the Moscow state.
Largest lands the era of feudal fragmentation, which played a leading role in the fate of Russia, were Vladimir-Suzdal (Rostov-Suzdal) and Galicia-Volyn principality Novgorod feudal republic.
The Vladimir-Suzdal land occupied the interfluve of the Oka and the Volga. The most ancient inhabitants of this wooded land were the Slavs and Finno-Ugric tribes, some of which were later assimilated by the Slavs. The economic growth of this Zalessky land was favorably influenced by the increased from the XI century. the colonization inflow of the Slavic population, especially from the south of Russia, under the influence of the Polovtsian threat. The most important occupation of the population of this part of Russia was agriculture, which was carried out on fertile outcrops of black soil among forests (the so-called opolya). Crafts and trade associated with the Volga route played a significant role in the life of the region. The most ancient cities of the principality were Rostov, Suzdal and Murom, from the middle of the XII century. Vladimir-on-Klyazma became the capital of the principality.
The apogee of the fragmentation of northeastern Russia falls on the turn of the XIII-XIV centuries. Then, on the lands of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, 14 appanage principalities were formed (Suzdal, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Tver, Moscow, Pereyaslavl, etc.), in turn, divided into even smaller possessions.
Strengthening centripetal tendencies in the XII-XIII centuries. (but not their triumph) was especially clearly manifested in the political development of Galicia-Volyn and Vladimir-Suzdal Rus.
The rulers of the Golden Horde considered the Grand Duke of Vladimir as the head of northeastern Russia. They were supposed to become the eldest in the family from the descendants of Vsevolod the Big Nest. However, the appanage princes soon violated this order, entering into a struggle for the great reign of Vladimir, proceeding from the power of their principalities and the disposition of the Horde khans to them.
When Vsevolod's grandchildren took the place of their fathers. Suzdal land was divided into smaller parts. The Vladimir principality continued to be inherited in turn of seniority, but 3 new destinies emerged from it: Suzdal, Kostroma and Moscow. The Rostov principality also disintegrated into parts: the younger estates of Yaroslavl and Uglitsky emerged from it. The Pereyaslavsky inheritance also split into several parts: next to the older Pereyaslavsky inheritance, two younger ones emerged, from which they separated, Tverskoy and Dmitrovo-Galitsky. Only the principalities of Yuryevskoe and Starodubskoe remained inseparable, for their first princes left only one son each. So, the Suzdal land, which disintegrated into 5 parts during the time of Vsevolod's children, was split into 12 parts with his grandchildren. In a similar progression there was a specific fragmentation in further generations of the Vsevolod tribe.
The territory of the Galicia-Volyn land stretched from the Carpathians to Polesie, capturing the flows of the Dniester, Prut, Western and Southern Bug, and Pripyat rivers. The natural conditions of the principality favored the development of agriculture in the river valleys, in the foothills of the Carpathians - salt mining and mining. Trade with other countries played an important role in the life of the region, in which the cities of Galich, Przemysl, Vladimir-Volynsky were of great importance.
An active role in the life of the principality was played by the strong local boyars, in the constant struggle with which the princely authorities tried to establish control over the state of affairs in their lands. A constant influence on the processes taking place in the Galicia-Volyn land was exerted by the policy of the neighboring states of Poland and Hungary, where both princes and representatives of boyar groups turned for help or in order to find refuge.
The rise of the Galician principality began in the second half of the 12th century. under Prince Yaroslav Osmomysl (1152-1187). After the troubles that began with his death, the Volyn prince Roman Mstislavich managed to establish himself on the Galich throne, who in 1199 united the Galich land and most of the Volyn land into one principality. Waging a fierce struggle with the local boyars, Roman Mstislavich tried to subjugate other lands of Southern Russia.
After the death of Roman Mstislavich in 1205, his eldest son Daniel (1205-1264), who was then only four years old, became his heir. A long period of civil strife began, during which Poland and Hungary tried to divide Galicia and Volhynia. Only in 1238, shortly before the invasion of Batu, Daniil Romanovich managed to establish himself in Galich. After the conquest of Rus by the Mongol-Tatars, Daniil Romanovich found himself in vassal dependence on the Golden Horde. However, the Galician prince, who possessed great diplomatic talents, skillfully used the contradictions between Mongolian state and Western European countries.
The Golden Horde was interested in preserving the Galician principality as a barrier from the West. In turn, the Vatican hoped, with the assistance of Daniel Romanovich, to subjugate the Russian Church and for this promised support in the fight against the Golden Horde and even the royal title. In 1253 (according to other sources in 1255) Daniil Romanovich was crowned, but he did not accept Catholicism and did not receive real support from Rome to fight the Tatars.
After the death of Daniel Romanovich, his successors could not resist the collapse of the Galicia-Volyn principality. By the middle of the XIV century. Volhynia was captured by Lithuania, and the Galician land - by Poland.
Novgorod land from the very beginning of the history of Russia played a special role in it. The most important feature of this land was that the traditional for the Slavs farming, with the exception of growing flax and hemp, did not give a lot of income here. The main source of enrichment for the largest landowners of Novgorod - the boyars - was the profit from the sale of products of the crafts - beekeeping, hunting for fur and sea animals.
Along with the Slavs who lived here since ancient times, the population of the Novgorod land included representatives of the Finno-Ugric and Baltic tribes. In the XI-XII centuries. Novgorodians mastered the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland and held in their hands the outlet to the Baltic Sea, from the beginning of the 13th century. the Novgorod border in the West ran along the line of the Peipsi and Pskov lakes. The importance of for Novgorod was the annexation of the vast territory of Pomorie from the Kola Peninsula to the Urals. Novgorod's sea and forest industries brought enormous wealth.
Trade relations between Novgorod and its neighbors, especially with the countries of the Baltic basin, have been strengthened since the middle of the 12th century. Furs, walrus bone, bacon, flax, etc. were exported to the West from Novgorod. The objects of import to Russia were cloth, weapons, metals, etc.
But, despite the size of the territory of the Novgorod land, it was distinguished by a low level of population density, a relatively small number of cities in comparison with other Russian lands. All the cities, except for the younger brother of Pskov (which had been isolated since 1268), were noticeably inferior in terms of the number of inhabitants and their importance to the main city of the Russian medieval North - Lord Veliky Novgorod.
Supreme body management of Novgorod was a veche, real power was concentrated in the hands of the Novgorod boyars. Three or four dozen Novgorod boyar families held in their hands more than half of the republic's privately owned lands and, skillfully using the patriarchal democratic traditions of Novgorod antiquity in their own interests, did not let out of their control the power over the richest land of the Russian Middle Ages.
From the environment and under the control of the boyars, elections were made to the posts of mayor (head of the city administration) and tysyatsky (head of the militia). Under the boyar's influence, the post of head of the church - the archbishop - was replaced. The archbishop was in charge of the treasury of the republic, external relations of Novgorod, the right of court, etc. The city was divided into 3 (later 5) parts - ends, trade and craft representatives of which, along with the boyars, took a noticeable part in the management of the Novgorod land.
The socio-political history of Novgorod is characterized by private urban uprisings (1136, 1207, 1228-29, 1270). However, these movements, as a rule, did not lead to fundamental changes in the system of the republic. In most cases, social tension in Novgorod was skillfully used in their struggle for power by representatives of rival boyar groups, who dealt with their political opponents by the hands of the people.
The historically formed isolation of Novgorod from other Russian lands had important political consequences. Novgorod was reluctant to participate in all-Russian affairs, in particular, the payment of tribute to the Mongols. The richest and largest land in the Russian Middle Ages, Novgorod, could not become a potential center for the unification of Russian lands. The boyar nobility ruling in the republic strove to protect antiquity, to prevent any changes in the existing balance of political forces within Novgorod society.
Kievan Rus in the specific period
By the end of the XI century. the cities of Kievan Rus reached their heyday, but the centralization of the country did not happen. After Yaroslav the Wise, only an outstanding ruler is noticeable in Kiev - his grandson Vladimir Monomakh(1113 - 1125). He became famous for his successful struggle against the Polovtsians and unsuccessful attempts to establish peace among the princes.
The reason for the princely strife was the economic and political isolation of the cities due to the rapid flourishing of crafts and trade. Feuds and wars were fought mainly over control of trade routes and sources of raw materials.
Political fragmentation, implying the distribution of power over several levels, is the most appropriate organization of society in the conditions of feudalism. The advantages of relatively small, compact state formations quite clearly affected Russia.
The constant movements of princes in search of a richer and more honorable throne ceased. The rulers ceased to perceive the cities and lands under their control as temporary sources of human and material resources in the political struggle. Power has come closer to a person, has become more attentive to his needs.
The princes, who were now passing on their possessions by inheritance, were more concerned about the welfare of cities and estates. Strife, so frequent in a formally unified state in the end of the XI - n. XII centuries. although they did not stop, they acquired a qualitatively different character. Now the princes competed not as contenders for the same throne, but as rulers who tried to solve any problems of their states by military means. The state power itself began to acquire more distinct outlines, it was able to respond in a timely manner to conflict situations (enemy raids, riots, crop failure, etc.). Power has become more effective than in those days when the management of some lands was reduced to the periodic "feeding" of princes and warriors or to the polyuds.
Feudalization state structures took place simultaneously with the formation of feudal, patrimonial land tenure. Agriculture gradually acquired more importance for the well-being of the state than military-trade expeditions. The transformation of many old and new cities into independent political centers promoted the development of crafts and local trade.
The process of development of patrimonial property in Russia in XII - mid. XIII centuries was similar to similar processes taking place in the countries of Western Europe. In Russia, the patrimony was divided into princely, boyar, and church. But in contrast to the West in Russia, the state form of ownership still remained the leading one. With the exception of Novgorod, cities in Russia did not play an independent political role; power in them was in the hands of the princes.
The organization of the military-service nobility is also undergoing a change. This is due to the strengthening of the independence of the boyars, who secured the inheritance of the patrimony.
During the second half of the XII - XIII centuries. the squad split into boyar-votchinniks, who remained vassals of the prince, and the princely court, whose members were called nobles, or servants.
Thus, the prerequisites for the fragmentation of Kievan Rus were, firstly, the complication of the system of state feudalism - the formation of stable regional corporations of the military-service nobility, feeding on part of the income from state taxes, and secondly, the growth of patrimonial property, primarily princely domains.
If in the XI century. Russian princes easily changed the principalities - at the behest of the Kiev prince, by right of inheritance or as a result of internecine wars, then with the strengthening of princely domains in various regions, territories were consolidated behind the branches of the expanded Rurik family and independence from Kiev was gained.
The decline in the role of Kiev as an all-Russian center in the XII century. happened also because from the end of the XI century. Byzantium began to weaken and the trade route along the Dnieper became less important. On the contrary, the importance of the route along the Volga - "from the Varangians to the Persians" is growing, so that the northern cities of Tver, Yaroslavl, Suzdal, Rostov, Kostroma flourish. The inhabitants of the south of Russia, tired of the Polovtsian raids, move here.
While in the Suzdal (from the middle of the 12th century Vladimir-Suzdal) principality the basis of economic life was agriculture, the economy of the Novgorod land retained its predominantly commercial character. Baltic trade in the XII century. flourished, the Vikings almost stopped attacks on the coastal areas of Western Europe. Novgorod merchants established a close relationship with German cities, agriculture on the folding lands was, although not very effective, but safe. The relatively weak feudalization of Novgorod life led to the creation of a state in which merchants and artisans played no less prominent role than the owners of the estates of the boyars. Novgorod became a medieval republic with an elected "minister of war" - a prince and a life (but also elected) bishop.
Other cities did not declare themselves, like Novgorod, independent (in 1136 Novgorod residents drove out the prince and declared that the city was "free in princes"), but by the beginning of the XIII century. Almost all big cities Rus became independent, with the princes they entered into equal treaties.
In the northeast (as well as in the outskirts of Novgorod's possessions), in parallel with the emergence of feudal holding of land and patrimonialism, peasant and monastic colonization of lands took place.
The development of deserted, sparsely populated areas often began with the founding of a monastery, which later became a local center, where the peasants sought protection and help.
The agricultural population of the numerous appanage possessions of North-Eastern Russia (black people) could freely move from estates to estates, from city to city, from one appanage state to another. In such conditions, the prince was not so much a ruler-sovereign, as the owner, owner of the land, and his rights were close to the rights of private landowners-boyars.
The first signal of a terrible danger independent development Russian lands was the crushing defeat of the Russian-Polovtsian army in the battle on the Kalka River in 1223, the enemy who defeated these troops was the Mongol-Tatars. The result of the battle was impressive - six princes died, only every tenth warrior returned from the battlefield. However, no conclusions were drawn, especially since there were no new invasions for the next 15 years.
Only in 1237 did the troops of Khan Batu carry out a massive invasion of the Russian lands. And although the enemy's army was smaller in number, the superiority in military experience and, most importantly, the disunity of the Russian principalities led to the loss of independence for almost two hundred and fifty years. In the history of Russia, the stage of the Mongol-Tatar yoke began.
Since the campaign of 1237 - 1238. began in late autumn, then the enemy cavalry, moving along the frozen rivers, easily reached most of the cities of North-Eastern Russia, capturing, and destroying many. Only the spring thaw saved Novgorod and some other cities of North-Western Russia from a similar fate, and they agreed to pay tribute to the Horde under the threat of punitive raids.
The forms of subordination of the Russian principalities to the Golden Horde were different and did not remain unchanged.
After Batu's ruin in 1237 - 1242. for several decades, the Baskaks, the khan's governors, ruled in Russian cities, whose main tasks were to collect tribute and supervise the princes. After the formation in 1242 of the Golden Horde proper - the multi-tribal state of Batu - the conquered Russian lands became part of this state. Batu and his successors partially retained the pre-invasion control system, the only remedy influencing the situation in Russia was the issuance of labels for reign and the provision of military support to certain princes in the internecine struggle.
The Mongolian blow did not crush either the Russian people or Russian state(it actually disintegrated much earlier), but dealt an irreparable blow to city trade: the Dnieper route finally lost its former significance not only because of the decline of Byzantium, but also because of the Horde's control over the steppes of the Black Sea region, the Volga route also went through the Horde. As a result, only Novgorod conducted free trade with Europe and continued to flourish, retaining democratic self-government even under the Vladimir princes, the rest of Russia turned from a “country of cities” into a “country of villages”. The city veche decayed, and the boyars ceased to be an independent estate: earlier they themselves were in charge of the city's affairs, but now the boyars have become assistants to the prince, who himself was the khan's henchman. So the princes became the masters of the cities, where they used to be the highest paid employees.
This is the beginning of Russian absolutism, which, before the overthrow of the Horde yoke, developed in close cooperation with Russian democracy. Unlike the previous organization of civil democracy (veche, mayor, elders), it became a "military" democracy.
The second man after the prince in the city was the tysyatsky - the head of the militia of the townspeople. The balance of these two forces was shaky and depended on success or failure in the fight against the Horde. Equally uneven was the attitude of the boyars to the princely power. They obeyed this authority insofar as the prince headed the entire economic activity cities and districts, ensuring the regular payment of tribute to the Horde. But now, having lost an active role in the urban economy, the boyars strove to become as independent feudal lords as the barons in Western Europe.
With the establishment of the yoke, the division of the Old Russian state into northeastern and southwestern parts was actually completed, relations between which increasingly began to acquire the character of interstate. In Southwestern Russia, the process of state fragmentation reached its maximum by the time of the Mongol-Tatar conquest. Then, having come under the rule of Lithuania, these lands gradually began to overcome decay and isolation. The Lithuanian-Russian state was a rare form of political cooperation between several emerging nationalities. Lithuania helped to get rid of the isolation imposed by the Mongols, and the Russian lands helped in the fight against German knights.
The lands of northeastern Russia from the second half of the 13th century, on the contrary, underwent further fragmentation, and by the end of the century 13 appanage principalities were formed. At the same time, the weight and importance of the Vladimir principality drops sharply, all the specific principalities acquired real independence, their political significance began to be predominantly determined not by family ties with the Grand Duke, but military force the principality itself.
The only institution that ensured the unity of northeastern Russia at that time was the church. The Mongol-Tatar conquest did not affect her status at all. Following their policy of non-interference in the religious affairs of the conquered countries, the Tatars not only subjected the monasteries to less destruction, but also provided them with certain privileges: in the first years after the conquest, they did not take tribute from the monastic lands and did not collect other payments.
In the west of North-Eastern Russia, the local princes, while maintaining subordination to the horde, were forced to provide active military resistance to the Lithuanian, German and Swedish expansion. Particularly significant successes were achieved during the reign of Prince Alexander of Novgorod.
In the domestic historical literature, several different points of view can be distinguished on the influence of the yoke on the historical development of the country. The first unites those who recognize the very significant and predominantly positive (oddly enough) impact of the conquerors on Russia; the yoke pushed the creation of a single state. The founder of this point of view - N. M. Karamzin ... At the same time, Karamzin noted that the invasion and the yoke detained cultural development. G.V. Vernadsky believed that "autocracy and serfdom were the price that the Russian people paid for national survival."
Another group of historians ( S. M. Soloviev, V. O. Klyuchevsky, S. F. Platonov ) assessed this impact on inner life as insignificant. They believed that the processes that took place during this period, either organically flowed from the tendencies of the previous period, or arose independently of the horde.
Finally, for many, especially Soviet researchers, an intermediate position is characteristic. The influence of the conquerors was regarded as noticeable, but not decisive, and at the same time as extremely negative, inhibiting the development of Russia, its unification. The creation of a single state, according to these researchers, happened not thanks to, but in spite of the horde. In the pre-Mongol period, feudal relations in Russia developed as a whole according to the general European scheme from the predominance of state forms to the strengthening of patrimonial ones, albeit more slowly than in Western Europe. After the invasion, this process slows down and the state forms are preserved. This was largely due to the need to find funds to pay tribute to the horde.
The most important events of the historical period
1113 - 1125 Board of Vladimir II Monomakh.
1125 - 1132 The reign of Mstislav the Great.
1123 - 1137 Board of Yuri Dolgoruky in the Rostov-Suzdal principality.
1126 The first election of a Novgorod mayor by a vechem from among the Novgorod boyars.
1136 Uprising in Novgorod. The beginning of the Novgorod Republic.
1169 The capture of Kiev by Andrey Bogolyubsky. Transfer of the center from Kiev to Vladimir.
1223 Battle of the Kalka River.
1237 - 1238 The invasion of Khan Batu in North-Eastern Russia.
Spring 1239 Batu's invasion of the southern Russian lands.
b December 1240 Siege and capture of Kiev.
1252 - 1263 The reign of Alexander Nevsky in Vladimir.
1276 Formation of an independent Moscow principality.
1299 Resettlement of the Metropolitan of "All Russia" from Kiev to Vladimir.
Questions for self-control:
1. What are the main reasons for the onset of feudal fragmentation?
2. List the main signs of a new stage historical development in the political and economic fields.
3. What are the similarities and differences between the processes of decentralization in the countries of Western Europe and in Russia?
4. What features did the development of individual Russian lands have?
5. What are the main reasons for the victory of the Mongol-Tatar troops during their invasion of the Russian principalities?
6. What was the socio-economic and political situation Russian lands in the conditions of the Mongol-Tatar yoke?
7. What are the characteristics of the development of North-East and North-West Russia? What was the reason for this?
8. How is the Mongol-Tatar yoke evaluated in historical literature?
L.A. Sinyaeva
What do we know
Princely strife
In 1015. the Kiev prince Vladimir died - the struggle began between
sons-heirs
his brothers Boris and Gleb
Svyatopolk the Damned killed
In 1019 the Kiev throne took
In 1054 Yaroslav divided the Russian lands between his sons and bequeathed that they
"Did not violate the lot of the brother"
obey the Kiev prince
In the event of the death of the prince, the heirs of the inheritance became
his sons and grandchildren
Condition for the division of a single Russian state into several independent principalities.
How Yaroslav the Wise tried to prevent feuds between
your sons? What did it lead to?
Yaroslav the Wise replaced lesvichnaya system of inheritance of the principality on hereditary... This created the conditions for the disintegration of the Russian state into separate principalities, but did not save them from civil strife.
Princely conventions
1097 in Lyubech took place
princely convention
each prince rules in his domain.
Board established
dynastic
own dynasty
In every land there are rules
How did the decisions of the Congress of Princes affect the unity of the country?
Congress of princes in Lubich.
The beginning of the specific period. Principality of South Russia § 13
I. We discover new knowledge:
3. Principalities of southern Russia
4. Southern Russia and the Steppe
II. We apply new knowledge. Control: with. 97 - 98.
2 points - c.1.
1 point - c. 3.
2 points - tasks.
1 point - oral answer.
III. Homework: § 13, c. 1 - 4, source.
1. The reasons for the collapse of Ancient Russia
In 1132, after the death of Mstislav, the Old Russian state disintegrated into separate principalities (appanages).
Show on the map the principality and land.
The reasons for political fragmentation -? P. 92.
External danger (Khazar Kaganate, raids of the Varangians)
Trade Routes (East and West)
moved
The role of the Kiev prince, as an all-Russian military leader,
lost value
Local princes are masters
their destinies
The Significance of Political Fragmentation
Preserving cultural unity
Weakening of the military strength of Russia
Fragmentation is a natural and progressive stage in the development of any state, as it is associated with a higher level of development of the economy and political system
2. Three types of statehood in a specific period
URBAN EVENING
ELDER FRIEND (boyars)
WHAT POWER HAS BEEN DECIDING?
TYPES OF STATE AUTHORITY
Monarchy with a large role of boyars
Boyar republic with the decisive role of veche
Monarchy with a dominant role of a prince
Southern Russia:
Kiev, Galicia-Volyn land
Northwest Russia
North-Eastern Russia
What was common in the political life of everyone public education?
3. Principalities of southern Russia
Reign time
Galich principality
Main events
Yaroslav Osmomysl
Roman Mstislavich
Daniil Romanovich
Boyars interfere with the prince's private life. They put the prince on the throne.
(Volyn prince)
Kiev principality
Captured Galich, dealt with the boyars.
Captured Kiev (1203). Created the Galicia-Volyn principality.
Vladimir Monomakh
1240 He conquered Kiev.
Mstislav (senior Monomashich)
Yury Dolgoruky
Andrey Bogolyubsky
Kiev veche invited to the throne
(Suzdal Prince)
Poisoned
He did not recognize the primacy of the Kiev throne.
In 1169 he plundered Kiev. 1203 Kiev was plundered by the princes. KIEV has lost the ROLE OF THE CAPITAL.
4. Southern Russia and the Steppe
Why was the role of the squad in the southern principalities strong? P. 95
External threat - Cumans
Steppe - Polovtsian lands.
nomads
Traded with a strong state
Fought the weak
South Russian princes
Hiking to the Polovtsian lands
Peaceful years - related (weddings)
Show on the map the campaigns of the Russian princes against the Polovtsians
Did the Polovtsian raids hinder the development of the southern Russian principalities?
The invasion of the Polovtsians on the Russian land. Captivity and reprisals against the Russian population
We apply new knowledge and evaluate ourselves
2 points - c.1.
1 point - c. 3.
2 points - tasks.
1 point - oral answer.
h 1. Reasons and consequences of the transition to the specific period
With the disintegration of the Old Russian state into independent principalities, a period of feudal fragmentation began, or, according to the definition of 19th century historians, a specific period.
Not a single early feudal state in Europe escaped political fragmentation. All of them, after a short and rapid flowering, entered a period of crisis and decay. Ancient Russia is no exception. Hence we can conclude that the disintegration of early feudal states is a natural phenomenon, generated by common causes. According to researchers, supporters of the formational approach, the collapse of "barbarian" empires is a direct consequence of the genesis of feudalism, first of all, the formation and development of large feudal land tenure. The feudal class acquires economic and political power. He increasingly focuses on the local prince. Social and political life is fragmented and closed on sovereign lands. In the isolated principalities with hereditary dynasties, the development of the economy and culture proceeds more intensively. The local prince, out of habit, glancing longingly at Kiev, does not break off relations with his hereditary "fatherland", the main source of strength.
The collapse of the Old Russian state is associated with the growth of cities and their transformation into independent political centers. This process intensified with the emergence of local dynasties. From now on, townships with strong veche orders did not want to put up with the infringement of their interests. The natural ally of the cities was the local prince, whose power and strength entirely depended on the support of local landowners and the veche.
The change in trade routes led to the fact that the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" gradually lost its significance as the most important trade artery connecting the East and Byzantium with Europe, and this also had a disastrous effect on the Rurik power.
The pressure of the Polovtsy-Kipchaks on the agricultural regions of the south of the country turned out to be detrimental to the unity of Ancient Rus. The center of the Polovtsian land was located between the Dnieper and Donets rivers. From here, the Polovtsians settled first on the middle Dnieper and upper Donets, then in the lower reaches of the Dnieper, in the Ciscaucasia, in the Crimea, and, finally, already in the 13th century. - in the area between the Don and Volga rivers.
Relations between South Russia and the Steppe were not easy. Differences in lifestyle, language, culture and, most importantly, in the way of doing business - all this left its mark on the relationship. The inhabitants of the southern principalities themselves were interested in peaceful trade - after all, the Polovtsian steppe connected Russia with the countries of the Black Sea and Transcaucasia. The Cumans, like many nomadic pastoralists, in the vicinity of strong states also preferred to maintain trade relations. However, tending to decline and losing its former unity, Ancient Russia could not organize an effective defense of the southern borders. Weakness was perceived by the nomads as an opportunity for military enrichment. Chronicles from year to year report on the raids of hordes, clashes between Russians and Polovtsians. But joint campaigns of Russian princes with Polovtsian khans are not uncommon - sometimes against Russian lands.
The "pulling" of the Polovtsians into strife led to the fact that the princes began to strive to strengthen their relations with dangerous and at the same time much needed neighbors. The practice included dynastic marriages. Back in 1094, Prince Svyatopolk married the daughter of the Polovtsian Khan Tugorkan (his name is known from Russian fairy tales, where he is called Tugarin). Princes Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogo-Lyubsky, Mstislav Udaloy and others married Polovtsy or were themselves half Polovtsi. In the family of the Novgorod-Seversk prince Igor Svyatoslavich, whose campaign to the Polovtsian steppe is sung in "The Lay of Igor's Regiment", five generations of princes were married to the daughters of the Polovtsian khans.
Due to the threat of raids, the inhabitants of the Middle Dnieper region left their habitable places. One stream of migration rushed to the northeast, to the distant Zalessky region, the other to the southwest, to the Galicia-Volyn lands. In the Middle Ages, population density, political and economic prosperity are interrelated concepts.
The exodus of the population directly affected the power of the Kiev princes, who found it difficult to assert their primacy by force.
Thus, the collapse of the Old Russian state is the result of the action of several reasons, some of which are general character for all barbarian states, others are closely related to the peculiarities of the historical development of the state of Rurik.
However, with the collapse of the Old Russian state, the consciousness of the unity of the Russian land was not lost. The principalities continued to live according to common laws - "Russian Truth", within the framework of one Orthodox metropolis they remained united in culture and language. It is appropriate to speak of a kind of federation of Russian principalities, capable, if interests coincide, even of joint actions. Nevertheless, the disintegration into appanages had a detrimental effect on the military and political power of the Russian land.
A well-known paradox is that the loss of political unity, often perceived as a step backward in the development of statehood, testified to the maturity of society. The specific period is characterized by the growth of cities, significant cultural achievements. Weakened militarily, Russia moved forward in economic and socio-political development. It is not difficult to see the contradictory nature of the consequences of fragmentation.
With the onset of the era of fragmentation, the number of appanage principalities grew continuously. In the middle of the XII century. there were 15 of them, by the beginning of the XIII century - 50, and in the XIV century - at least 250. Of this huge number of sovereign lands that were once part of the Old Russian state, the largest were the Vladimir-Suzdal, Galicia-Volyn principality and the Novgorod land. These lands kept a single territory for quite a long time, which predetermined their great influence on the rest of the principalities.
Turning to the theme of the legacy of Ancient Rus, one should pay attention to three main types of the political structure of sovereign principalities and lands. All of them differ in the ratio of "power elements" that were formed in the era of Ancient Rus - the prince, veche, squad (boyars). These differences and the political opportunities associated with them had a huge, and in some cases even a decisive influence on the historical fate of various regions that were once part of the Old Russian state.
The first type of state is represented by the Kiev and Galicia-Volyn principalities. The form of government here is called the early feudal monarchy. In Kiev, and later in Galich and Volyn, the princely power was still strong. The prince relied on the squad and depended on it. Sometimes the boyars even intervened in the private life of the prince. So, in 1173, the Galician prince Yaroslav Osmo-thought was forced to submit to the decision of his boyars. They forced the prince to return from exile his lawful wife, Princess Olga, and his son Vladimir. Yaroslav himself was arrested, the Polovtsian allies who helped him were hacked to death. The princely beloved Nastasya, whose son Oleg Yaroslav gave preference to his legitimate son Vladimir, was burned by the Galician boyars at the stake.
In 1187, the dying Yaroslav was forced to negotiate with his "husbands" about the transfer of power in Galich to his youngest son Oleg, bypassing the elder Vladimir. The southern princes also consulted with their retinues on issues of war and peace. At the same time, the voice of the prince turned out to be decisive, but only after he convinced the vigilantes that he was right. If the prince for some reason could not fulfill his functions, the real power in the southern principalities was taken over by the city vein. This happened in 1113, when the Kiev veche, contrary to the existing order of succession, invited Vladimir Monomakh to the throne. Such a relationship between the prince and the city veche was characteristic not only of Kiev. In 1206 the Hungarians rampaged in Galich. Residents of the city turned to their prince Mstislav for protection. However, he did not manage to appease the uninvited aliens, and then the inhabitants drove the prince away.
A different type of state developed in the north-east of Russia. This region did not have deep veche traditions. Nevertheless, control in Rostov and Suzdal in the XII century. was built on the interaction of the city Vienna and the princes appointed from Kiev. In 1157 Andrey Bogolyubsky became the Grand Duke of Kiev. In the same year, the inhabitants of Rostov, Suzdal and Vladimir-on-Klyazma elected him their prince. In 1162 Andrei Bogolyubsky expelled his brothers and nephews from the Rostov-Suzdal land. Thus, the foundations were laid for the unlimited despotic power of the Vladimir prince, which was established in North-Eastern Russia.
Your type state power formed in the north-west of Russia. Here the prince lost his influence in 1136, after the Novgorodians "showed the way" - they expelled the protege of the Kiev prince Vsevolod Mstislavich from the city. From that time on, the office of the Novgorod prince became elective, and power was significantly limited to the veche. We decided at the veche critical issues life of the republic. Chief among them is the election of officials.
The boyars play a huge role in the life of Novgorod. The economic and political power of the Novgorod boyars allowed them to monopolize the highest positions in the Novgorod government. Thus, the republics were established in Novgorod and Pskov. Considering the huge role that the Novgorod boyars play in political life, many historians speak of a boyar, aristocratic republic.