2. The emergence of a state among the Eastern Slavs.

a) The first mentions of Rus'.

The first mentions of the name “Rus” date back to the 5th–7th centuries AD. Describing the tribes that lived between the Dnieper and the Dniester, the Greeks called them Antes, Scythians, Sarmatians, Gothic historians called them Rosomans (Russian people), and the Arabs called them Rus. But it is obvious that we are talking about the same people.

The question of the beginning of the state of Rus' gave rise to a long discussion between Normanists and anti-Normanists, in which political and ideological considerations will play a large role. The Normanists created and defended the Norman theory, arguing that the state in Rus' was created by the Scandinavians - the Normans (Varangians): in the middle of the 9th century (according to the chronicle in 862), at the call of the Novgorod Slavs, Krivichi and Chuds, Rurik came to reign from Scandinavia to them, which, apparently, was called in order to have the strength of the Vikings and to overcome acute internal contradictions, the objective basis for which was created by the complex ethnic composition of the Ilmen region.

Opponents vehemently denied the theory of the Normanists and looked for the first rulers and creators of the state of Rus' among other peoples - Western Slavs, Finns, Hungarians, Khazars, etc. However, both of them often identified the origin of the state with the origin of the ruling dynasty in it. The problem of the origin of the name “Rus” is also debatable. The most developed is the "Scandinavian" version, which comes from the meaning of the Old Norse verb "row", meaning warrior oarsmen or princely warriors.

b) Founding of Kyiv.

Already by the end of the 5th century AD, scientists date the events contained in the Russian chronicle related to the founding of the great city - Kyiv - the capital of one East Slavic tribal union, named by name, which later became the capital of the ancient Russian state.

The chronicle says that one of the Polan princes, Kiy, together with his brothers Shchek and Khoriv and sister Lybid, founded the city and named it Kiev in honor of their elder brother. Then Kiy “went to the Tsar - the city,” that is, to Constantinople, was received there by the emperor with great honor, and returning back, he settled with his squad on the Danube, founded a “gradok” there, but subsequently entered into a fight with the local residents and again returned to the banks of the Dnieper, where he died. This legend finds well-known confirmation in archaeological data, which suggests that at the end of the 5th - 6th centuries there was a fortified urban-type settlement on the Kyiv Mountains, which was the center of the Polyan union of tribes.

The history of the formation of the ancient city takes place throughout the history of the ancient Russian state. After all, a once small settlement of Slavs gave its name to the whole state.

c) Formation of the state among the Eastern Slavs.

By the beginning of the 8th century, the name Rus began to be applied to the Eastern Slavs - this indicates the emergence of statehood among them, but before that they had to go a long way.

On the eve of the unification of most East Slavic tribes under the rule of Kyiv, at least 15 large tribal unions existed here. In the Middle Dnieper region lived a powerful union of tribes, united by the name “Polyane”. The Middle Dnieper region was the most developed region among other East Slavic lands. It was here, on the free black soil lands, in favorable climate conditions, on the trade “Dnieper” road, that the largest number of the population was concentrated. It was here that the ancient traditions of arable farming, cattle breeding, and gardening developed and were preserved, iron and pottery production was improved, and other craft specialties were born. Agriculture, the main type of economy of the early medieval world, continued to improve especially intensively. Tools of labor improved. The plow became a widespread type of agricultural machinery, and sickles began to be used when harvesting crops. Stone and bronze tools are a thing of the past. Every year, arable lands expanded, steppe and forest-steppe lands suitable for agriculture were widely developed. Two-field and three-field crop rotations began to spread in the Slavic lands, replacing shifting agriculture, which was characterized by clearing the land from under the forest, using it until exhaustion, and then abandoning it. Soil humiliation began to be widely practiced. And this made harvests higher and people’s livelihoods more secure. The constantly improving economy of the Eastern Slavs eventually led to the fact that an individual family, an individual house no longer needed the help of their clan or relatives. The single family household began to disintegrate, huge houses accommodating up to a hundred people increasingly began to give way to small family dwellings. Common family property, common arable land, farmland began to break up into separate plots belonging to families. The appearance of a plow with an iron plowshare, an iron axe, a shovel, a hoe, a bow and arrows, and steel swords significantly expanded and strengthened the power of an individual person, an individual family over nature and contributed to the withering away of the clan community.

Now it became a neighborhood one, where each family had the right to its share of communal property. This is how the right of private ownership, private property was born, and the opportunity arose for individual strong families

To develop large tracts of land, obtain more products through fishing activities, and create certain surplus accumulations. Under these conditions, the power and economic capabilities of tribal leaders, elders, tribal nobility, and warriors surrounding the leaders increased sharply. This is how property inequality arose in the Slavic environment, which most often fell into the hands of the propertied, deepened the property difference between rich and poor, and gave rise to classes. And also the products of artisans multiplied every year. Gradually their work became increasingly separated from rural labor. The artisans themselves began to settle where it was more convenient and easier for them to sell and exchange their products.

Such places became, of course, settlements located where shrines were located, where many people came to worship. This contributed to the formation of cities and the development of trade relations.

Cities originated as settlements that simultaneously performed all political, economic, religious, and military tasks. They had prospects for further development and turned into large population centers, uniting vast territories with each other, which acquired the status of a state.

d) Formation of Kievan Rus as a state.

The political side of the genesis of feudal society among the Slavs in the 8th – 10th centuries was the formation of medieval states. It came in two main forms: in Great Moravia, in Rus', in Poland and the Czech Republic - by subordinating the tribal principalities of other unions to one union; in Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia - within the same union of tribal principalities. With the exception of the territories south of the Danube, taken by the Slavs from the Eastern Roman Empire, Slavic states arose in areas that were not part of the zone of ancient civilization, and their feudal relations, unlike Western Europe, developed in a slow, non-synthetic way. The state of the Eastern Slavs arose in the 9th – 10th centuries. Its capital became the city of Kyiv. This is where the name of the state came from - Kievan Rus. Already in the 7th-9th centuries, a social structure had developed in it - military democracy, which represented the last period of the primitive communal system, which already contained signs of social inequality and future class relations. The leaders of the tribe now turned into princes, in whose hands the control of the tribe and the union of tribes was concentrated. They were marked by wealth, the presence of associates and military support. Next to the prince, the governor, the leader of the tribal army, also stood out. A more important role was played by the squad, personally devoted to the prince. She was separated from the tribal militia, whose main job was war, a feature-privilege in society. The main part of the tribe was made up of free people - smerds, who had the right to participate in war and folk tribal meetings - veche. Then, among the free people, they began to single out those who had to obey them - servants. At the lowest levels of society were the “slaves” - the poor people of the community who did not have their own families and households. And the very bottom of the social ladder was filled with “slaves” - captives engaged in forced labor. Thus, the structure of tribal life of the ancient Russian state had a complex, branched system in which social differences were clearly distinguished.

The early feudal state was still characterized by such features as the underdevelopment of the state apparatus and the presence of remnants of the tribal organization of society (veche, a militia of peasants and artisans, a court based on customs).

e) Submission of the East Slavic tribes to the Russian princes.

In the 8th – 10th centuries, the Kyiv princes gradually subjugated the East Slavic unions of tribal principalities. The leading role in this was played, of course, by the military-service nobility - the squad. Some of the unions were subjugated in two stages. At first, they only paid taxes - tribute, while maintaining internal autonomy. Tribute was collected through polyudye - collection of tribute from vassal tribes from late autumn to spring. At the second stage, the unions were directly subordinated to the Kyiv prince. The local reign was liquidated, and a representative of the Kyiv dynasty was appointed as governor. At the same time, in order to neutralize the separatist tendencies of the local nobility, a new “city” was built instead of the old tribal center: Vladimir-Volynsky, Turov, Smolensk, etc.

The lands of the Drevlyans, Dryagovichs, Radimichis, and Krivichis were subjugated in the 9th century. The Vyatichi still fought for their independence for a long time. The Volynians and Croats immediately submitted to Kyiv, but only at the end of the 10th century. The lands of the Ulichs and Tivirs were occupied by the Pechenegs, also in the 10th century.

f) The first Russian princes.

As mentioned earlier, the founder of the reign in Rus' was Rurik, invited from Scandinavia by the Slavic tribes. But after his death in 879, the throne in Kyiv was seized by his successor - Oleg - uniting the two most important centers of the Eastern Slavs: Kyiv and Novgorod. According to chronicles, in 882 Oleg lured out of Kyiv and killed Askold and Dir, the Varangians who liberated the glades from tribute to the Khazars. Then he subjugated the Drevlyans, northerners, and Radimichi. The prince ruled in Kyiv for 33 years. The legend of his death was sung by A.S. Pushkin in the “Song of the Prophetic Oleg”. Thus, the more developed Middle Dnieper region became the core of the state territory of Rus', and the northern lands became a region subordinate to the Kyiv princes.

Oleg's successor was Igor (912 - 945), according to the chronicle - the son of Rurik, who was killed while collecting additional tribute from the Drevlyans in 945. His widow, Olga, cruelly took revenge on the Drevlyans, destroying their lands and exterminating the nobility.

g) Activities of the first Russian princes.

Already during the reign of Rurik, the Russian army carried out military campaigns against the Crimean possessions of Byzantium, moving on high-speed boats along the Black, Azov, and Caspian seas, conquering the coast of Crimea from Chersonese to Kerch. As a result of these campaigns and an accidental serious illness, Rurik was the first to be baptized. Thanks to Rurik, by the beginning of the 9th century, Rus' was freed from paying tribute to the Khazars. After Byzantium, Rurik headed to Asia Minor, conquering lands along the Dnieper, in the regions of the Black and Azov Seas, the Volga, the Caspian Sea, as well as conquering the Greeks and Khazars, Avars and Balts. So, Rurik marked the beginning of the emergence of a powerful power with certain military and strategic interests.

Oleg, having come to power, strengthened it by accepting the title of Grand Duke, making other princes his tributaries. He also carried out campaigns against Byzantium.

This was one of the most important directions of Russian foreign policy, because the campaigns of the Kyiv princes, ending in victory, opened the most important trade routes that promised prosperity and strengthening to the barely formed ancient Russian state.

It should also be said that the first Russian princes took the initiative to add the eastern title “Kagan” to the title “prince”. This act symbolized independence from Khazaria, a Turkic state that formed in the 7th century between the lower Don and Volga rivers, which also bore the name Khazar Kaganate.

3. Kievan Rus at the end of the 9th century.

The formation of the territorial structure of the state of Rus' was completed at the end of the 9th century, although not completely. But by this time, autonomy had been eliminated in almost all East Slavic unions of tribal principalities, except for the Vyatichi, Volynians and Croats. The form of collecting tribute also changed. Polyudye was liquidated. The tribute was now collected by the governors of the Kyiv prince. Two-thirds of it was sent to Kyiv, and the remaining part was distributed among the prince’s warriors - the governors. The territories governed by princely governors received the name volost. In general, in the 9th century the state was called “Rus”, “Russian Land”. The name spread from the Middle Dnieper region to the entire territory subject to the great Kyiv princes.

III. Conclusion.

So, in the 9th century AD, the Eastern Slavs formed the feudal state of Rus', the common historical cradle of three peoples: Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. After the name of its capital, this power of the Eastern Slavs was called Kievan Rus. From Kievan Rus there is a continuous thousand-year line of historical development to Muscovite Rus of the 15th – 17th centuries, to the Russian Empire of the 18th – early 20th centuries and, finally, to the modern state – Russia of the 21st century. That is why it is very important for each of us to know not only the history of Kievan Rus, but also to find out the question of how this largest state, which is our Motherland, emerged in Europe. This question interests scientists to this day. To answer it, you need to understand the historical roots of the Russian and other Slavic peoples, identify their place on the ancient geographical map of Europe, and understand their relationships with other European peoples. These issues are passed on from generation to generation, while Russia is considered the only country in the world, a kind of world bridge, where two world civilizations, Europe and Asia, meet, and where their active interpenetration and mutual influence takes place.

Bibliography

S.G. Goryainov, A.A. Egorov. History of Russia IX - XVIII centuries. V. Rostov-on-Don. "Phoenix". 1996

John Fenner. The crisis of Medieval Rus'. Moscow. "Progress". 1989.

Textbook: History of Russia. Moscow. "Bustard". year 2000.

B.A. Rybakov. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities. Moscow. " The science ". 1993

A.N. Sakharov, V.I. Buganov. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. Moscow. "Enlightenment". 1997

Subjugating the mass of ordinary members of the community, it needs to maintain its dominance in state structures. The processes of decomposition of the primitive communal system and the split of society into classes precede the formation of the ancient Russian state and proceed immanently, of course in connection with the outside world, evidence of which is foreign trade, coins, and treasures, but without its decisive participation...

They call another one - “the third Rus'”. As studies have shown, Baltic Rus' and the “third Rus'” are closely related. And this problem today is one of the most important in the topic of the origin of Rus' and the formation of the Old Russian state. The previously mentioned legend of the 15th century about the origin of Rurik from the territory of Neman Rus' was intended to disavow another legend: about the origin of Lithuanian (or...

And showing Igor, he said: “Here is the son of Rurik!” In a word, Askold and Dir, sentenced to execution, fell dead at the feet of the Olegs under the swords of the murderers.” III. The formation of the Old Russian state ancient Rus' Varangians Kyiv 1. Initial forms of Russian statehood The embryonic form of statehood was represented by East Slavic tribal unions that united into super-unions, however...

Lands and tribal principalities. The Old Russian state has not yet taken shape; its formation ends with the merger of the Dnieper region with the Ilmen region, Kyiv and Novgorod, the two most important centers of Rus'. The merger of Kyiv and Novgorod completed the formation of the Old Russian state. The chronicle associated this event with the name of Oleg. In 882 As a result of the campaign of the squads led by Oleg from Novgorod to Kyiv along...

KRASNOYARSK INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS
ST. PETERSBURG ACADEMY
MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS (NOU VPO)

TEST

Discipline: Russian history

Topic: “The emergence of statehood among the Slavs”

Centrist theory .

Modern historians are trying to overcome the extremes of both these theories. They came to the following conclusions:

The Normans themselves did not have statehood at that time;

The process of state formation began before the arrival of Rurik; the very fact of his invitation to reign suggests that this form of power was already known to the Slavs;

The question of whether Rurik is a real historical figure is not related to the problem of the formation of the state; no matter how he came to power (there is a version that he captured Novgorod by force), he took possession of it in the form in which it existed among the Ilmen Slavs

Oleg, having united the Novgorod and Kyiv lands and established control over the two most important sections of the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” laid the economic basis for the emerging state.

The theories of the emergence of statehood among the Slavs can be presented in the form of a table:

Theories of the emergence of the state of the Eastern Slavs
Norman: creation of the Old Russian state by the Normans (Varangians with the voluntary consent of the Slavs, who could not do this on their own (G.Z. Bayer, A.L. Shletser, G.F. Miller (XVIII century) N.M. Karamzin, S.M .Soloviev (XIX century))	Anti-Norman: The role of the Varangians in the formation of the Old Russian state and their calling to reign is denied (M.V. Lomonosov (XVIII century), B. A. Rybakov (XX century))	Centrist: the emergence of the Old Russian state as a result of the internal social development of the Slavs, but also with the participation of the Varangians (A.L. Yurganov, L.A. Katsva (XX century) and most modern historians)

VI. Features of the formation of the state of the Eastern Slavs.

Among the main features of the formation of the Old Russian state by the end of the 10th century are the following:

1. tribute collection system;

2. the territorial principle of settlement, displacing the tribal one;

3. the simplest state apparatus represented by the squad and the prince’s governors;

4. dynastic (tribal) princely power;

5. religion, enhancing the process of imparting sacredness to princely power.

The severity of the climatic conditions of Eastern Europe, as well as isolation from the centers of ancient civilization, delayed and slowed down the process of state formation among the Eastern Slavs. It was formed as a result of a complex interaction of internal and external factors, which allowed it to appear, growing only on one communal basis. The Germanic tribes, having adopted the achievements of Roman civilization, approached state forms of organizing social life earlier and faster.

One of the features of the ancient Russian state was that from its very beginning it was multi-ethnic in composition. In the future, this will contribute to the fact that the main forces ensuring internal unity will be the state and the Orthodox religion.

Conclusion

Having examined the prerequisites for the emergence of statehood among the Eastern Slavs, their occupations, religion, theories of the origin of the Old Russian state, as well as the peculiarities of the formation of the state of the Eastern Slavs, we can draw the following conclusions:

The formation of the state of Rus' (the Old Russian state or, as it is called after the capital, Kievan Rus) is the natural completion of a long process of decomposition of the primitive communal system among one and a half dozen Slavic tribal unions that lived on the way “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” The formation of the state created favorable conditions for the development of crafts, agriculture, and foreign trade.

The emergence of property inequality, the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of clan and tribal leaders, the formation of military squads loyal to the leader, the transition from a consanguineous community to a territorial one - all this created the preconditions for the emergence of state power.

The state also influenced the formation of the social structure. Thus, the fulfillment of power functions in a later period contributed to the transformation of princes and boyars into landowners.

Within the framework of the Old Russian state, the formation of a single Old Russian nationality took place - the basis of three East Slavic peoples: Great Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian. For centuries after its emergence, the Old Russian state took the blow from nomads, thereby providing favorable conditions for the development of European civilization.

Rus' became a kind of bridge through which cultural and trade exchanges took place between the West and the East. However, the intercivilizational position of Rus' largely influenced its own path of development, causing internal contradictions.

The established state was at the very beginning of its journey: primitive communal traditions retained their place in all spheres of life of East Slavic society for a long time.

1. Vernadsky G.V. Russian history. Ancient Rus': translation from English - M., 2001.

2. Isaev I.A. History of state and law of Russia: Textbook. − M., 2004.

3. Kirillov V.V. History of Russia: Textbook. − M., 2007.

4. Novikov S.V. Story. Applicant's Handbook. − M., 1997.

5. Orlov A.S., Georgiev V.A., Georgieva N.G., Sivokhina T.A. History of Russia from ancient times to the present day: Textbook. − M., 2001.

6. Chistyakov O.I. History of domestic state and law. Part 1: Textbook. – M., 2001.

Vernadsky G.V. Russian history. Ancient Rus': Transl. from English – M., 2001. P. 64-65.

Introduction 3
1. The emergence of statehood among the Eastern Slavs 4
2. Kievan Rus as an early feudal monarchy 5
3. The formation of ancient Russian law. "Russian Truth" 8
Conclusion 16
List of references 17

Introduction

In the VI century. from a single Slavic community, the East Slavic branch (the future Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian peoples) stands out. The emergence of large tribal unions dates back to approximately this time.
The formation of a state among the Eastern Slavs was a natural result of a long process of decomposition of the tribal system and the transition to a class society. The process of property and social stratification among the community members led to the separation of the most prosperous part from among them. The tribal nobility and the wealthy part of the community, subjugating the mass of ordinary community members, need to maintain their dominance in state structures.
The embryonic form of statehood was represented by East Slavic tribal unions, which united into super-unions, albeit fragile ones. One of these associations was, apparently, a union of tribes led by Prince Kiy. Eastern historians talk about the existence, on the eve of the formation of the Old Russian state, of three large associations of Slavic tribes: Cuiaba, Slavia and Artania. Kuyaba, or Kuyava, was then the name of the region around Kyiv. Slavia occupied territory in the area of ​​Lake Ilmen. Its center was Novgorod. The location of Artania - the third major association of the Slavs - has not been precisely established.
In the test we will talk about the emergence of statehood among the Eastern Slavs, about Kievan Rus as an early feudal monarchy, “Russian Truth” and the formation of ancient Russian law.

1. The emergence of statehood among the Eastern Slavs

According to the Tale of Bygone Years, the Russian princely dynasty originates in Novgorod. In 859, the Northern Slavic tribes, who were then paying tribute to the Varangians, or Normans (according to most historians, immigrants from Scandinavia), drove them overseas. However, soon after these events, internecine struggle began in Novgorod. To stop the clashes, the Novgorodians decided to invite the Varangian princes as a force standing above the warring factions. In 862, Prince Rurik and his two brothers were called to Rus' by the Novgorodians, marking the beginning of the Russian princely dynasty.
The date of formation of the Old Russian state is conventionally considered to be 882, when Prince Oleg, who seized power in Novgorod after the death of Rurik (some chroniclers call him Rurik’s governor), undertook a campaign against Kyiv. Having killed Askold and Dir, who reigned there, he for the first time united the northern and southern lands as part of a single state. Since the capital was moved from Novgorod to Kyiv, this state is often called Kievan Rus.
Kievan Rus IX – X centuries. - the first state of the Eastern Slavs, uniting more than 200 small Slavic, Finno-Ugric and Latvian-Lithuanian tribes. The term “Kievan Rus” is very convenient to designate a certain chronological period - the 9th - early 12th century, when Kiev stood at the head of a huge state, which ushered in a new, feudal period in the history of the peoples of Eastern Europe, a period that replaced primitiveness and lasted almost a thousand years.
But the oldest source of law is custom. The earliest monument of Russian law is the text of treaties between Rus' and Byzantium (911, 944 and 971). the texts contain norms of Byzantine and Russian law related to international, commercial, industrial and criminal law. They contain references to the “Russian law,” which is a set of customary law norms.

2. Kievan Rus as an early feudal monarchy

Here it is impossible to characterize the entire centuries-old history of relations between Rus' and Byzantium, starting with the visit to Constantinople of the first (who ruled at the turn of the 8th-9th centuries) Kiev prince Kiy, who, according to the chronicle, “received great honor” from the Byzantine emperor. Let us dwell only on the first military clash between the Russians and the Byzantines. On June 18, 860, the army of Rus' besieged Constantinople (information about earlier similar attacks is unreliable). The latest research has shown that this campaign was carried out under the dictates of the Khazar Kaganate. This is indisputably clear, in particular, from the fact that in the same year 860, Byzantium sent an embassy led by Saints Cyril and Methodius not to Kiev, but to the then capital of the Khazar Kaganate - Semender in the North Caucasus (there are, however, serious reasons to believe , that on the way back this embassy also visited Kyiv). I will also note that in one of the later Byzantine works, the leader of the campaign against Constantinople (this was, obviously, the Kiev prince Askold) is precisely defined as the “voivode of the Kagan” (that is, the ruler of the Khazars).
Of particular, even exceptional importance for us are the stories of a direct witness and direct participant - the events of one of the most outstanding figures of Byzantium in its entire history, the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Photius (he, by the way, calls the Russians a “slave” people, referring, as is believed, to the then subordination of Rus' to the Khazar Kaganate; it was on his initiative that the embassy of his great disciples St. Cyril and Methodius was sent to the Khazars).
St. Photius testified that in June 860, Constantinople “was almost raised on a spear,” that the Russians “could easily take it, but the inhabitants could not defend it,” that “the salvation of the city was in the hands of the enemies and its preservation depended on their generosity. .. the city was not taken by their mercy”, etc. Photius was even stung, as he noted, “infamy from this generosity.” But one way or another, on June 25, the inhabitants of Constantinople unexpectedly “saw the enemies... moving away, and the city, which was threatened with plunder, freed from ruin.”
Subsequently, in the 11th century, Byzantine chroniclers, not wanting, in all likelihood, to recognize this Russian “magnanimity,” invented that a storm, by divine will, scattered the attacking fleet (this fiction was also accepted by our chronicle). Meanwhile, Photius, an eyewitness to the events, unambiguously reports that during the Russian invasion, “the sea quietly and serenely spread its ridge, giving them a pleasant and longed-for voyage.”
Early feudal society is not identical to feudal society. The main characteristic features of the feudal formation have not yet developed to a mature state, and many phenomena inherent in previous formations exist. We are talking not so much about the predominance of one way or another at a given moment, but rather about the trend of development, about which of the ways is developing and which are gradually dying out. In the ancient Russian state, the future belonged precisely to the feudal structure.
The political system of the Old Russian state combined the institutions of the new feudal formation and the old, primitive communal one. The head of the state was a hereditary prince. The rulers of other principalities were subordinate to the Kyiv prince. Few of them are known to us from the chronicle. However, the treaties of Oleg and Igor with Byzantium contain a mention that there were quite a few of them.
The prince was a legislator, military leader, supreme judge, and recipient of tribute. The functions of the prince are precisely defined in the legend about the calling of the Varangians: “to rule and judge by right.” The prince was surrounded by a squad. The warriors lived in the prince's court, feasted with the prince, took part in campaigns, and shared tribute and spoils of war. The relationship between the prince and the warriors was far from the relationship of citizenship. The prince consulted with his squad on all matters. At the same time, the squad also needed the prince, but not only as a real military leader, but also as a kind of symbol of statehood.
The most respected, senior warriors who made up the permanent council, the “Duma” of the prince began to be called boyars. Some of them could have their own squad. To designate the junior squad, the terms “youths”, “child”, “gridi” were used. If the boyars acted as governors, then the younger warriors performed the duties of administrative agents: swordsmen (bailiffs), virniks (fines collectors), etc. The princely squad, separated from the community and dividing tribute among themselves, represented the emerging class of feudal lords.
Princely power was also limited by the elements of preserved popular self-government. The People's Assembly - the veche - was active in the 9th-11th centuries. and later. The people's elders - the "city elders" - participated in the princely Duma, and without their consent it was apparently difficult to make one decision or another. The chronicles reflected the decline in the role of the veche in political life: its mention is usually associated with extraordinary situations when the weakened princely administration either needed additional support or lost power. However, there were exceptions: the people's assembly in Novgorod and a number of other cities retained strong positions.
An analysis of socio-political structures allows us to speak of three centers of gravity that influenced social development: first of all, the princely power, the growing squad (boyars), and the people's veche. In the future, it is the relationship of these power elements that will determine one or another type of statehood that will prevail in the territories that were once part of the Rurikovich state.
In the 12th century, the most important officials included: the courtier - in charge of the entire princely household; voivode - commander of all armed forces of the principality; stable tiun - was responsible for the princely stables; steward - was in charge of organizing the supply of food to the princely court. Smaller officials were tiuns and elders.
The division of principalities into administrative units was not clear. Chronicles mention a volost, a churchyard. The princes carried out local government in cities and volosts through mayors and volostels, who were representatives of the prince. From the middle of the 12th century, instead of posadniks, the position of governors was introduced. Officials of the local administration did not receive salaries from the Grand Duke, but were supported by levies from the population. This system is called a feeding system.
The body of local peasant self-government was the verv - a rural territorial community.
The power of the prince and his administration extended to cities and the population of lands that were not the property of the boyars. Boyar estates gradually acquired immunity and were freed from princely jurisdiction. The population of these estates becomes completely subservient to the boyar-owners.

Download for free

The processes of class formation among the Slavs took place against the background of the formation of tribal unions, the disintegration of the large family and the development of the clan community into a neighboring one. Undeveloped slaveholding relations played a prominent role.

The form of social relations of the Slavs in the 7th-8th centuries. can be defined as a military democracy. Its features were: participation of all members (men) of the tribal union in solving the most important social problems; the special role of the people's assembly as the highest authority; general armament of the population

The ruling layer was formed from the old tribal aristocracy (leaders) and community members who got rich from the exploitation of slaves and neighbors. The presence of a neighboring community and patriarchal slavery hampered the process of social development.

The formation of statehood among the Eastern Slavs coincided with the decomposition of tribal relations. They were replaced by territorial, political and military ties. By the 8th century. In the territory inhabited by Slavic tribes, 14 tribal unions were formed, which arose as military associations. The organization and preservation of these entities required strengthening the power of the leader and the ruling elite. As the main military force and at the same time the ruling social group, the prince and
princely squad.

Tribal unions for military-political purposes are united into even larger formations - “unions of unions.” Kyiv became the center of one of them. The sources mention three large political centers that can be considered proto-state associations: Cuiaba (Kyiv), Slavia (Novgorod), Artania (Ryazan). In the 9th century. Most of the Slavic tribes merge into the territorial union “Russian Land”. The center of unification was Kyiv.

In 882, the two largest political centers of the ancient Slavs. Kiev and Novgorod united under the rule of Kyiv, forming the Old Russian state. From the end of the 9th to the beginning of the 11th century. this state included the territories of other Slavic tribes - the Drevlyans, Northerners, Radimichi, Ulichs, Tivertsi, Vyatichi. At the center of the new state formation was the Polyan tribe.

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. Within Kievan Rus, fairly stable principalities and semi-states began to form: the Kiev, Chernigov, and Pereyaslav lands.

In the IX-XI centuries. In the formation of Old Russian statehood, a certain role was played by the “Varangian element”, around which in historical literature there was a long debate between supporters and opponents of the “Norman theory” of the origin of the Old Russian state. IN
This process was undoubtedly influenced by immigrants from Scandinavia and the Baltics.

Novgorod was an ancient tribal center. Novgorod carried out its expansion by extending tribute and court to new territories, but it
the fast pace led to great fragmentation of feudal estates. In the fight against Novgorod, the Kiev prince Yaroslav ceded Ladoga and Pskov to him. From the 11th century Novgorod expansion is stopped by counter movement from Polotsk and Smolensk.

By the middle of the 12th century. (Polozov) all the territories of the “semi-states” that made up the Kiev state are merging into one. The name “Russian Land,” previously referring only to southern Rus', extends to the entire territory of the state, which united more than 20 peoples and tribes.

More on the topic The emergence of statehood among the Eastern Slavs:

1. 1.1. The emergence of supreme power among the Eastern Slavs and the formation of a system of reigns
2. 1.3. Common law of the Eastern Slavs and legal monuments of the X-XIH centuries.
3. THE ARISE OF STATE AMONG THE SLAVS. FORMATION OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE. THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE

History as a science, subject, goals and principles of its study.

The content of history as a science is the historical process. It is revealed in the phenomena of human life that concern the life of peoples and states, the activities of individuals, and international relations.
The subject of the Russian history course is the Russian historical process from antiquity to the present.
In the revival of the Fatherland, along with economic factors, the intellectual potential of society plays an important role. And this to some extent depends on higher education, on the place and importance of the humanities in it. In the process of studying history, a person develops a historical consciousness, the content of which includes a number of elements:
1. Knowledge of historical facts;
2. The ability to consider reality in all three time dimensions: past, present, future;
3. Generalized historical experience and the lessons of history arising from it;
4. Social forecasting based on the study of social processes.
In the formation of historical consciousness, knowledge and consideration of the principles of studying history play an important role:
1. The principle of objectivity means consideration of each historical phenomenon in its diversity and inconsistency, the study of all facts in their totality and correspondence to historical reality, in the entirety of historical truth. History cannot be “bad” or “good.”
2. The principle of historicism means consideration of historical facts and events in connection with a specific historical situation.
Thus, the task of the course on the history of the Fatherland is the formation of historical consciousness, which allows one to obtain relevant knowledge, acquire a broad view of the historical perspective, and develop an independent position in assessing and understanding modern processes. V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote: “... each of us must be at least a little historian in order to become a conscious and conscientious citizen.”

Origin of the Slavs. The emergence of statehood among the Eastern Slavs.

The ancestors of the Slavs - the Proto-Slavs - belonged to the Indo-European family of peoples who inhabited vast territories of the European continent, stretching from Europe to India, in the 4th-3rd millennia BC.

In the second half of the 1st millennium BC, the ancient Slavs settled the lands from the Elbe and Oder in the West to the Upper Dnieper and Middle Dnieper in the East. During the period of cohabitation, the Slavic tribes spoke the same Proto-Slavic language. However, as they settled, they began to move further and further away from each other, which was especially evident in language and culture.

Somewhat later, the Slavic family was divided into three branches, which served as the basis for three modern nations - Western Slavs (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks), Southern Slavs (Bulgarians, Croats, Serbs, Slovenes, Macedonians, Bosnians, Montenegrins), Eastern Slavs (Russians, Belarusians , Ukrainians).

Settlement of the Eastern Slavs in ancient times

In the VI-IX centuries, the Eastern Slavs settled the territory stretching from east to west from the upper reaches of the Don and Middle Oka to the Carpathians and from south to north from the Middle Dnieper to the Neva and Lake Ladoga. The main occupation of the East Slavic tribes was agriculture.

In the process of settlement of Slavic tribes across the East European Plain, they experienced a gradual decomposition of the primitive communal system. As stated in the Tale of Bygone Years, individual tribes united around one strongest tribe into tribal unions or reigns. The chronicles mention more than a dozen such associations and places of their settlement. Eastern tribal unions were headed by princes from the tribal nobility. Particularly important decisions for the tribe were made at general meetings - veche gatherings.

The most influential, according to historians, was the union of glades that inhabited the territory of the middle reaches of the Dnieper. According to ancient chronicles, the land of glades was called “Rus”. It is considered to be the core of the ancient Russian state.

The process of gathering the Slavic lands into a single whole took place from north to south around two centers: in the north-west - Novgorod, in the south - Kyiv. As a result, Novgorod-Kievan Rus was formed. Conventionally, the date of this unification is considered to be the reign of Oleg - 882. The dual-centred system actually remained in the future, despite the fact that Kyiv was named the capital. are considered the ancestors of modern Chuvash, partly Tatars, Mari, and Udmurts.

There are three main versions of the origin Old Russian state:
1. Norman theory
2. Anti-Normanism (Slavic theory)
3. Neo-Norman theory
If you believe the chroniclers of the early 12th century, then in 862 Prince Rurik and his two brothers were called to Rus' by the Novgorodians, laying the foundation for a princely dynasty. The legend about the calling of the Varangian princes served as the basis for the creation of the Norman theory.
M.V. Lomonosov denied the Varangian origin of the word "Rus", linking the word with the Ros River in the south of Slavic territory. The “Southern” hypothesis of the origin of the name “Rus”, the thesis about the internal development of the Old Russian state contributed to the formation of the anti-Norman theory. There are also several other suggestions for the name “Rus”: from the word “blond” - fair-haired, from the word “russo” - red.
During the first half of the 20th century, the neo-Norman theory was formed, the essence of which is that the state cannot be imposed from the outside, it is a purely internal process of any society. The Slavs were at that stage of development when they should have had a state, but if the chronicle reports about the Varangians, then, apparently, they were and contributed to the acceleration of the emergence of a state among the Eastern Slavs.
Reasons for the formation of the Old Russian state:
1. The collapse of the clan community, its property stratification, the emergence of a neighboring community;
2. Influx of population into the lands of North-Eastern Rus';
3. Formation of tribal unions.
Stages of statehood formation.
First, tribal alliances arise. Russian chronicles name two - northern and southern: Southern - with a center in Kyiv, Northern - with a center in Novgorod.
In 882, Prince Oleg made a campaign against Kyiv, killed the Kyiv princes Askold and Dir and proclaimed Kyiv the mother of Russian cities. Thus, the process of formation of a single Old Russian state is completed. The Kyiv princes sought to seize the surrounding Slavic and non-Slavic lands. The expansion of the state was facilitated by wars against the Khazars, Volga and Danube Bulgaria. The authority of the Old Russian state was also raised by campaigns against Byzantium. The Old Russian state was early feudal, state property dominated in it, and the property of feudal lords was only being formed. Therefore, the exploitation of the population was carried out by the state mainly in the form of tribute (polyudye). The trend towards strengthening the state was observed until the middle of the 11th century, but already under Yaroslav the Wise by the beginning of the 12th century. the process of feudal fragmentation grew, through which all states went.

▲ 3. Socio-political structure of the ancient Russian state.

Kievan Rus was a state of the early feudal type, since the process of class formation had not yet been completed, feudal land ownership was just emerging, and the bulk of the smerds were still free. At the same time, boyar land ownership was already being formed, communal lands were seized by princes and boyars, donated and distributed along with the community members themselves, who must pay rent to the feudal owner.

The form of government in Kievan Rus is a typical early feudal monarchy. At its head was a monarch - the Grand Duke of Kiev, who relied on a squad and a council of elders. He was the eldest (suzerain) in relation to the local princes.

Locally (in other cities), the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv was exercised by his governors and volostels (in rural areas).

Signs of the early feudal monarchy:

Transfer of power not legally enshrined in the order of inheritance;

Lack of legal responsibility of the ruler;

Lack of government institutions;

Lack of regulation of the activities of the council under the prince;

The Veche was not a permanent representative body;

Limitation of power to a permanent city meeting.

The political structure of the Kyiv principality was unstable. Composed of many tribal and urban districts, this principality could not form into a single state even in the 11th century. fell apart. Therefore, it would be most accurate to define Kievan Rus as a set of many reigns united by one dynasty, the unity of religion, tribe, language and national identity, which cannot be classified as either a unitary or a federal state system. Gradually in the XI-XII centuries. relations between Kyiv and the appanage principalities and the princes and the boyars took shape in a system that was called the palace-patrimonial system. The class of people is divided into townspeople (merchants, artisans) and villagers, of whom the free were called smerds, and the dependent were called zakup.

Church society had its own hierarchy (priesthood, monasticism, clergy).

There was no political regime in Rus' due to the underdevelopment of society.

Judicial bodies did not exist as special institutions. The armed forces consisted of the squad of the Grand Duke, the feudal militia (military detachments, etc.).