Second important social consequences The development of princely and boyar land ownership was delayed in Russian society by a significant class of slaves and the legal development of the institution of slavery. In the 10th century, servants were exported for the most part abroad. But from the time she found work for her at home, servants accumulated more and more in Rus'. In some places there was such a concentration of it that it even threatened free inhabitants with danger. About the Galician-Volyn prince Roman, who populated all his villages with Lithuanian polyanyniks, his contemporaries had the following alarming proverb: “Roman, who lives a dashing life, is a nut to crack with Lithuania.”
As a result of the accumulation of slaves in Russian society, a legal definition of this class, its position and relation to free people was inevitable. First of all, the sources of this condition were clarified, i.e. who is considered a slave and on what grounds. The ancient source of slavery - captivity - remained in full force. For example, in 1169, the Novgorodians, having repulsed the Suzdal militia and pursuing the retreating ones, captured so many prisoners that “the judges bought 2 nogats each.” Crime and unpaid debt also continued to be reasons for slavery. The princes took serious criminals into slavery along with their wives and children and all their property (traffic and plunder). An insolvent debtor, who through his own fault found himself insolvent, was placed entirely at the disposal of creditors, who had their own choice whether to wait for money on him or sell him.
But along with this, some other sources of slavery appeared. Since slaves began to be kept at home or in villages, marriages between them became possible and, as a natural consequence, the offspring of servants. Marriages between free men and slaves also became possible, as a result of which the rule began to apply: for a slave there is a slave, for a slave there is a slave, the rule that Russkaya Pravda talks about. Since servants were no longer exported abroad, but began to be used for work in Rus', it became possible to sell oneself into slavery out of need, to give children in times of famine to “find” bread, free people to the slave positions of tiuns and key keepers, as a result of which they became slaves, unless they entered into a special agreement with their owners. Since the servants became a native class, the harsh view of the slave as property should naturally have softened. The basic view of the slave as an object, and not a subject of rights, of course, remained. As a result of this, for example, for the murder of a slave, the vira that was due for the murder of free man, but only a reward to the victim and the usual, 12-hryvnia, fine in favor of the prince for the destruction of other people's property. As a result of this and the collection of property, property fell not on the slaves, but on their masters. But along with this, views of the slave as a human personality needing protection by law. Russian Truth, while depriving children of a master and a slave of inheritance after their father, at the same time guarantees them freedom with their mother. But the church charter Prince of Novgorod Vsevolod Mstislavich goes further and provides the “Robichichs” with a share of their father’s property - “a horse, and armor and a twist, according to the belly.” Researchers rightly see in this mitigation of slavery the influence christian church. But this influence could be instilled because the slave became his own, Russian, person, that he ceased to be an object of temporary possession until the first favorable opportunity for sale.
Our introduction to the addicted population ancient Rus' IX - XII centuries shows that among the unfree people of that time, slaves occupied a very significant place. Their labor, perhaps, even prevailed in the ancient Russian estate. That is why clarifying the nature of slavery in Kievan Rus is the urgent task of this research.
In modern historical science The idea of the patriarchal nature of slavery in Rus' is especially popular. 1 But there are other opinions in the literature. P.N. Tretyakov, referring to slavery among the Slavs and Antes, wrote: “Slaves were bought and sold. A member of a neighboring tribe could become a slave. During wars, slaves, especially women and children, were an indispensable, and apparently very important part military spoils. It is hardly possible to consider all this as primitive patriarchal slavery, which was common among all primitive peoples and which did not yet play a big role in their socio-economic life. But this was not, of course, a developed slavery, which took shape as complete system industrial relations" 2 Illuminating the social order Eastern Slavs on the eve of the formation of Kievan Rus, P.N. Tretyakov once again emphasizes that slavery at that time went beyond the boundaries of patriarchy. 3 According to
when he decisively contrasts ordinary people with slaves. - B.D.Grekov. Kievan Rus, pp. 192-193.
1 See: K.V. Bazilevich. Experience of periodization of the history of the USSR during the feudal period. “Questions of History”, 1949, No. 11, p. 66; B.D. Grekov. Peasants in Rus', book. I, p. 150; A.A.Zimin. Slaves of Ancient Rus'. “History of the USSR”, 1965, No. 6, pp. 43, 54, 75; A.G.Prigozhin. About some peculiarities of Russian feudalism. Izv. GAIMK, vol. 72, p. 17; L.V. Cherepnin. From history..., p. 237; S.V. Yushkov. Kiev State(On the question of the social structure of Kievan Rus). “Teaching history at school”, 1946, No. 6, p. 26.
2 P.N. Tretyakov. East Slavic tribes. M., 1953, p. 175.
3 Ibid., p. 291.
A.P. Pyankov, slavery already in the era of the Antes “lost its former patriarchal character.” 1 S.A. Pokrovsky speaks about patriarchal slavery among the Eastern Slavs only at the end of the 6th century. “But the sources of the 9th - 10th centuries. and “Russkaya Pravda” do not allow us to talk about any patriarchal slavery, says S.A. Pokrovsky. - A slave, according to “Russian Truth” and its contemporary chronicles, is a speaking instrument, a thing, he is equated to cattle, an object of purchase and sale. Therefore, it is possible to talk about patriarchal slavery in Kievan Rus only due to an obvious misunderstanding.” 2 Finally, E.I. Kolycheva assures: “... servility in Rus' as a legal institution was not something exceptional, unique. It is characterized by the same important features as slavery in other countries, including ancient slavery.” 3 How does slavery in Ancient Rus' appear to our eyes?
Since slave labor in Rus' did not become the basis of social production, the history of slavery should be transferred, first of all, to the plane of changing forms of exploitation of slaves, that is, forms of organization slave labor in the owner's economy and the conditions for the productive activity of slaves. In the early history of the Eastern Slavs, there was no abyss between slaves and free people: slaves were part of related groups with the rights of junior members and worked equally and together with the rest. Mauritius the Strategist keenly felt the unique position of slaves among the Slavs, who, in his words, limiting the slavery of captives to a certain period, offer them a choice: either “for a certain ransom, return home or stay there (in the land
1 A.P. Pyankov. Serfdom in Rus' before the formation of a centralized state, p. 43.
2 S.A. Pokrovsky. Social system..., pp. 159-160.
3 E.I. Kolycheva. Some problems of slavery and feudalism in works V.I.Lenin And Soviet historiography, pp. 141.
Slavs and Antes. - I.F.) in the position of free and friends. 1 Only the patriarchal nature of slavery explains the metamorphosis of a captive slave into a free one. A voice that sounded several centuries later seems to indicate the same thing: “They (Russians - I.F.) treat slaves well...” 2
Patriarchal morals in the treatment of slaves lasted for a long time. From one confessor who lived in the 11th century, we learn about the most interesting details of the life of slaves. “You asked,” he answers the question of another cleric, “about certain servants who bought the promised prayers, ate with them, and sold them in the afterlife...” 3 This means that the slave lives side by side with the master: he prays with him, eats with him, and, apparently, works with him. Future celebrity Pechersky Monastery, having barely reached the age of 13, he began “to do labor more active than life, just as he begins with his slaves to do with all diligence.” 4
The patriarchal style of relations between slaves and masters was determined by the social affiliation of the slave owner, being most typical for the common people - peasants and artisans who managed to acquire slaves. These relations were built on long-standing traditions that were lost somewhere in the primitive communal world and survived until the times of Kievan Rus.
The situation was different for the rich and privileged owner. Let's look at some examples. Every time Izyaslav Yaroslavich visited the Pechersk monastery, the Monk Theodosius treated him to all sorts of “brushes.” “Many times did I eat such dishes to the Christ-loving Prince Izyaslav and, as if having fun, said to blessed Theodosius, “Behold, as if
weigh, father, that my house is filled with all the good things of this world, so that I have not tasted such sweet meat as I do here now. Many times my servant gave me various kinds of waste and many valuable things, and they are not as sweet as they are. But I pray you, father. After all, where is the sweetness in your meat?” 1 “The Blessed One” explained to the slow-witted prince what the secret of his cooking was. It turned out that Izyaslav’s slaves “worked, welding and walking and swearing at each other, and many times they were beaten from bailiff..." 2 Life was probably no better for the slaves in the household of the noble boyar. Presumably, admonitions were addressed to his fellow servants: "Be kind to your servants as well, give them funeral money; I am shown to be kind, not with rage, but as his children”, “punishing his servants, not starving, but giving contentment”, “if anyone forces the devil of righteousness on his servants and starves, and wounds, and nakedness, and the work of violence.” 5 Between the master who rests at the height of well-being , and his slaves were a whole host of “supervisors.” The patrimony required a different organization of labor than was the case in the household of a simple free artisan or community peasant.
Thus, in the development of ancient Russian slavery, two branches can be outlined, albeit very schematically: one of them continues the old tradition of patriarchal slavery, the other is distinguished by a new type of slave relations, approaching those forms that were known to the ancient world. The second type of slavery arose much later than the first. Its appearance was associated with the separation of a wealthy elite from a previously homogeneous society, which acquired a large farm in which slave labor was widely used.
1 A.V.Mishulin. Ancient Slavs in excerpts from Greco-Roman and Byzantine writers from the 7th century. AD "Bulletin" ancient history", 1941, No. 1, p. 253.
2 V.V.Bartold. Soch., vol. 2, part 1. M, 1963, p. 821.
3 Monuments of ancient Russian canon law, part 1. St. Petersburg, 1908, stb. 10-11.
4 Patericon of the Kyiv Pechersk Monastery. St. Petersburg, 1911, p. 17.
1 Ibid., p. 39.
2 Ibid., p. 40.
3 Monuments of Old Russian canon law, part 1, stb. 124.
4 Ibid., stb. 116.
5 Materials for the history of ancient Russian penitential discipline. Compiled by S.I. Smirnov. “Reading OIDR”, 1912, book. 3, dept. 2, p. 50.
Writes:
"The English word slave comes from Old French sclave, from the Medieval Latin sclavus, from the Byzantine Greekσκλάβος, which, in turn, comes from the ethnonym Slav, because in some early mediaeval wars many Slavs were captured"
The American Webster Dictionary and the English-language Wikipedia believe that in English language the word "slave" ("Slav" in the sense of "slave") appeared in the 14th century. It came to England from France, in French it migrated from Latin, and into Latin from Byzantine Greek. From this we can assume that Byzantium acquired Slavic slaves in huge quantities, and sold them in huge quantities further to the west . When did this Slavic catastrophe on the scale of the Mongol-Tatar yoke occur?
By the way, Mongol invasion to Rus' began only in the 13th century. At this time, the Byzantine Empire had shrunk to such a size that the Mongol-Tatars would still have to look for it if they wanted to sell a huge number of Slavs (not Russ!) there. By the way, the Mongols never reached Byzantium, and even if they did, it would not be for trade. In addition, the Mongol-Tatar attack on Rus' began only 50 years before the word “slave” appeared in the English language, which in the absence of the Internet is extremely short for the spread of an alien word (each language probably had its own word “slave”). If you give 100 years for each transition of a word from language to language, then this word passed into Latin around the 11th century. In addition, we must give 100 years for it to take root in Byzantium itself. It turns out that the word “slave” in the sense of “Slav” took root in Byzantium around the turn of the 10th-11th centuries. This is the time of the baptism of Rus'. By the way, at that time Byzantium still distinguished between the Rus and the Slavs. So it is this period that interests us.
How many Slavs would have to be captured annually (or bought) for their name to become a household name, a synonym? native word"slave"? This quantity had to exceed all possible receipts of slaves from other sources. Slavic slaves could be sold to Byzantium on a permanent basis only by those who enslaved the Slavs
, unless Byzantium itself conquered Rus', but this, as we know, did not happen. Byzantium fought least of all with the Slavs. The main enemies of Byzantium were Bulgaria and Armenia. If Rus' had a land border with Byzantium, it would hardly be able to resist Byzantium. Another thing is to take advantage of the Greek troops leaving for war and raid the capital across the sea. By the way, this is a common tactic of the Normans (aka Vikings, Varangians, Murmans and Urmans). For example, this is how they took Paris many times:
"At the end of the 9th century, the city was subjected to raids by the Normans. In 856-857, they ravaged the left bank of Paris. From 885 to 887, the city was besieged by at least 40 thousand Normans on 700 ships."
Please note that the Russians acted similarly:
"For the first time, the Rus were noted for their campaign against Constantinople in 860. ... In 907, the Russian prince Oleg made a successful campaign against Constantinople and concluded the first Russian-Byzantine trade agreement. In 941, Prince Igor was defeated under the walls of Constantinople, but after that peaceful relations resumed. The new ruler of Rus', Princess Olga, paid a visit to the capital of Byzantium and was baptized there."
For a constant "supply" of slaves in the form of captives, the Slavs had to be defeated near Constantinople almost every year, but they may not have been among the attackers at all (see below). Moreover, the Rus, on the contrary, often traveled with embassies to Byzantium. Where did Christianity come to Rus' from?
"At Kiev prince Vladimir of Byzantium managed to baptize Rus' in 988, in return giving Vladimir the purple-born princess Anna, sister of Emperor Vasily II, as his wife. Between Byzantium and Old Russian state a military alliance was concluded that lasted until 1040s".
That is, it is unlikely that at this time Byzantium captured at least any significant number of Slavs in battles. By the way, the Byzantines seemed to be well aware of who they were fighting with, and did not call the Rus Slavs.
If we discard Byzantium, then the enemies of Rus' were also the Cumans, Pechenegs and Hungarians, but in the 10th-12th centuries Rus' either did not fight with foreigners at all, or did not lose to them major battles(full list of significant battles). That is, Rus' was not conquered and, therefore, could not be a constant source of a huge number of slaves. Who supplied Byzantium with Slavic slaves?
To understand this, let's take a look at literary monuments ancient Rus', which speak not only about the arrival of non-Slavs - the Rus, but also about their attitude towards the Slavs.
The Tale of Bygone Years sets out the formation of Rus' on the basis of legends written down 250 years after the events themselves, and dates them back to 860. Union northern peoples, which included Slavic tribes Ilmen Slovenes and Krivichi, as well as the Finno-Ugric tribes Chud and Ves, invited the Varangian princes from overseas in order to stop internal strife and internecine wars. According to the Ipatiev list “rkosha Rus, wonder, Slovenia, And Krivichi and all: our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it: let you come to reign and rule over us.”
Please note that the Polyans (Kyivans), like many other southern Slavic tribes, are not among the members of the union. They didn’t call Rurik. Here are the residents of this Northern Union, in which the Slavs may have been a minority, and were later called Rus. The fact that the Slavs were a minority in this union is confirmed by the call to power of non-Slavs (if there was one at all - most likely, the Northern Union was in one way or another subordinated to the Rus - one of the Scandinavian tribes). We must not forget that these northern lands Until recently they belonged to tribes that went to Scandinavia, and the Slavs were far from the best warriors of that time. True, the Slavs had a developed entertainment culture (a variety of Slavic musical instruments several times greater in the variety of weapons), there could be more of them than any other individual people of the Northern Union, and the language in the territory could well have been established as Slavic.
There were several ways to become a slave in Rus'. One of them is the capture of foreign prisoners. Such “Polonyan” slaves were called “servants.”
In one of the articles of the agreement concluded in 911 with Byzantium after the successful raid of the ancient Rus on Constantinople, the Byzantines were offered to pay 20 gold coins (solids) for each “servant” captured. This amounted to about 90 grams of gold and was twice the average market price for slaves.
After the second campaign against Byzantium (944), which ended less successfully, prices were reduced. For “a good boy or girl” this time they gave 10 gold coins (45 grams of gold) or “two pavoloks” - two pieces of silk fabric. For a “seredovich” - a middle-aged slave or slave - eight coins were awarded, and for an old man or child - only five.
“Servants” were most often used for various unskilled jobs, for example, as domestic servants. Polonian women, especially young ones, were valued higher than men - they could be used for love pleasures. Many of them became concubines and even wives of slave owners.
According to “Russkaya Pravda” - a collection of laws of the 11th century - average cost“Chelyadin” was five to six hryvnia. Many historians believe that we're talking about not about silver hryvnias, but about kuna hryvnias, which were four times cheaper. Thus, at that time, about 200 grams of silver or 750 tanned squirrel skins were given for a slave.
In 1223, after an unsuccessful battle with the Mongols on Kalka Prince of Smolensk Mstislav Davidovich concluded an agreement with Riga and Gotland merchants, according to which the cost of one servant was estimated at one hryvnia in silver (this corresponded to 160-200 grams of silver and approximately 15 grams of gold).
Prices for servants depended on the region. So, in Smolensk a slave was a little cheaper than in Kyiv, and three times cheaper than in Constantinople... more people captured into slavery during military campaigns, the more the price fell.
We have all heard about the era of Western slavery, when for several centuries European civilization built her well-being in a barbaric way on the bones of free slave force. In Russia there were completely different orders, and the cruelty that dominated from England to Poland never existed.
I bring to your attention a short excursion into the history of Russian serfdom. After reading, I only had one question: “was there slavery in Russia?” (in the classical sense of the word).
Well, in our country, since ancient times, there have been forced people - slaves. This category included prisoners of war, unpaid debtors, and convicted criminals. There were “purchases” that received a certain amount of money and went into service until it was worked off. There were “rank and file” who served on the basis of a concluded agreement. The owner had the right to punish the careless and find the fugitives. But, unlike European countries, had no power over the life of even the lowest of slaves. In Kievan Rus' right death penalty were located by appanage and great princes. In Muscovite Rus' - the sovereign himself with the boyar duma.
In 1557 - 1558, at the same time when tens of thousands of peasants driven off the land were being enslaved in England, Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible issued a series of decrees limiting servitude. He pinned down the moneylenders and forcibly reduced the loan interest rates to 10% per annum. Forbade turning into bondage for debts service people(nobles, children of boyars, archers, service Cossacks). Their children, who became slaves for the debts of their parents, were freed immediately, and adults could file lawsuits to return to a free state. The sovereign also protected his subjects from forced enslavement. From now on, a person could be considered a slave only on the basis of “bondage”, special document, registered in the zemstvo institution. The king limited bondage even for prisoners. They also had to be formalized into bondage in accordance with the established procedure. The children of the “polonyanik” were considered free, and he himself was freed after the death of the owner and was not passed on by inheritance.
But we note that it would be incorrect to equate the terms “slave” and “slave” in general. Slaves were not only workers, but also housekeepers - managers of princely, boyar, and royal estates. There were military serfs who made up the personal squads of boyars and princes. They took an oath to the owner and served him, but at the same time they lost their legal independence. That is, this term determined a person's personal dependence.
By the way, in addresses to the tsar, not all people called themselves “servants”, but only servicemen - from an ordinary archer to a boyar. The clergy wrote to the king “we, your pilgrims.” And the common people, peasants and townspeople - “we, your orphans.” The designation “serf” was not self-deprecation, it expressed real relationship between the monarch and the given public group. Those who were in the service were indeed not free in relation to the sovereign: he could send them there today, here tomorrow, or give some order. From the form of appeal of the clergy, it is clear that the tsar is obliged to help them: they also support the sovereign with their prayers. And the address “orphan” indicates that the monarch stands “in place of a father” to the common people, obligated to take care of his children.
But the share of slaves in the Russian population and in the economy was extremely insignificant. Usually they were used only in household. And serfdom in our country for a long time didn't exist at all. The peasants were free. If you don’t like it, you could leave the landowner for another place by paying a “senior fee” (a certain fee for the use of a hut, equipment, a plot of land - depending on the area and length of residence). Grand Duke Ivan III determined a single deadline for such transitions - a week before St. George's Day and a week after St. George's Day (from November 19 to December 3).
And only in late XVI century, the situation was changed by Boris Godunov. He was a “Westernizer” by nature, tried to copy foreign practices, and in 1593 he pushed Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich to adopt a decree abolishing St. George’s Day. And in 1597, Boris passed a law establishing a 5-year search for runaway peasants. Moreover, according to this law, any person who served for hire for six months became, together with his family, lifelong and hereditary slaves of the owner. This also hit the urban poor, small artisans, gave rise to a lot of abuses and became one of the causes of the Troubles.
Boris's law on servitude was soon repealed, but serfdom survived after the Troubles, it was confirmed Council Code Alexei Mikhailovich in 1649. The search for fugitives was established not for 5 years, but for an indefinite period. But it is worth emphasizing that the very principle of serfdom in Rus' was very different from the Western one. It was not man, but the land that had a certain status! There were “black-growing” volosts. The peasants living here were considered free and paid taxes to the state. There were boyar or church estates. And there were estates. They were given to the nobles not for good, but for service, instead of payment. Every 2-3 years the estates were turned over and could go to another owner.
Accordingly, the peasants provided for the landowner, patrimonial owner, or worked for the church. They were “attached” to the ground. But at the same time they could completely manage their own household. They could bequeath it as an inheritance, donate it, sell it. And then the new owner, together with the farm, acquired the “tax” of paying taxes to the state or maintaining the landowner. And the former was freed from the “tax” and could go anywhere. Moreover, even if a person ran away, but managed to start a household or get married, Russian laws protected his rights and categorically forbade separating him from his family and depriving him of property.
IN In the 17th century, no more than half of the peasants in Russia were enslaved. All of Siberia, the North, and significant regions in the south were considered “sovereign estates”; there was no serfdom there. Tsars Mikhail Fedorovich and Alexei Mikhailovich also recognized self-government Cossack regions, the law “there is no extradition from the Don.” Any fugitive who got there automatically became free. The rights of serfs and slaves were protected by the rural community, the Church, and they could find protection from the tsar himself. There was a “petition window” in the palace for filing complaints personally with the sovereign. For example, the serfs of Prince Obolensky complained that the owner forced them to work on Sunday and “barked obscenely.” Alexey Mikhailovich put Obolensky in prison for this and took away the village.
In Europe, by the way, the relationships between layers of society were much different, and because of this, misunderstandings occurred. It seemed to the high-ranking Danish ambassadors returning from Moscow that the Russian men were taking them slowly, and they began to push them forward with kicks. The coachmen were sincerely surprised by this treatment, unharnessed their horses near Nakhabino and declared: they were going to complain to the tsar. The Danes had to ask for forgiveness and appease the Russians with money and vodka. And the wife of an English general, who entered the service in Moscow, hated the maid and decided to brutally deal with her. I didn’t consider myself guilty - you never know, noble lady tried to kill my servant! But in Russia this was not allowed. The tsar’s sentence read: given that the victim remained alive, the criminal would “only” have her hand cut off, her nostrils torn out and exiled to Siberia.
The position of the serfs began to deteriorate under Peter I. The redistribution of estates between nobles stopped, they turned into permanent property. And instead of “household” taxation, “per capita” taxation was introduced. Moreover, each landowner began to pay taxes for his serfs. Accordingly, he acted as the owner of these “souls”. True, it was Peter who was one of the first in Europe, in 1723, to ban slavery in Russia. But his decree did not affect the serfs. Moreover, Peter began to assign entire villages to factories, and the factory serfs had a much harder time than the landowners.
Trouble came under Anna Ioannovna and Biron, when the laws on serfs from Courland spread in Russia - the same ones where peasants were equated with slaves. That's when the infamous peasant retail trade began.
What happened, happened. The excesses of Daria Saltykova are also known. These were no longer the times of Alexei Mikhailovich, and the lady managed to hide the crimes for 7 years. Although another thing can be noted: after all, two serfs still managed to file a complaint with Catherine II, an investigation began, and the maniac was sentenced to life imprisonment in the “penitential” cell of the Ivanovo Monastery. A completely adequate measure for a mentally ill person.
"The Liberation of the Peasants." Artist B. Kustodiev.
However, Saltychikha became “notorious” because in our country she was the only one who descended into atrocities that were quite common on those same American plantations. And the laws protecting the property rights of serfs have not been repealed in Russia. In 1769, Catherine II issued a decree calling on peasants to start private industries, for this it was necessary to buy for 2 rubles. special ticket in the manufacturing college. Since 1775, such tickets have been issued free of charge. Enterprising peasants took advantage of this, quickly made fortunes, bought their freedom, and then began buying up villages from their landowners. Serfdom began to weaken. Already during the reign of Nicholas I, its abolition was gradually being prepared. Although it was only abolished by Alexander II in 1861.
Following Columbus, slave trading ships began to cross the ocean.
But let us emphasize once again: for the 18th – 19th centuries similar phenomena remained ordinary. England, traditionally portrayed as the most "advanced" power, in 1713, after the War of spanish inheritance, considered the main gain not the conquest of Gibraltar, but “asiento” - a monopoly on the sale of Africans in Latin America. The Dutch, French, Brandenburgers, Danes, Swedes, Courlanders, and Genoese were also active in the slave trade. The total number of slaves exported from Africa to America is estimated at 9.5 million people. About the same number died out along the way.
The French Revolution loudly abolished slavery in 1794, but in reality it flourished; French ships continued to trade in slaves. And Napoleon restored slavery in 1802. True, he forced the abolition of serfdom in Germany (in order to weaken the Germans), but he kept it in Poland and Lithuania - here the gentlemen were his support, why offend them?
Great Britain abolished slavery in 1833, Sweden in 1847, Denmark and France in 1848 - not so much ahead of Russia. By the way, it is worth remembering that the criteria of “freedom” themselves are in no way indicators of prosperity. Thus, in 1845, potatoes failed to grow in Ireland. Peasants, unable to pay rent because of this, began to be driven off the land and their farms destroyed. In 5 years, about a million people died of hunger! Did anything similar happen in feudal Russia? Never…
But this is so, by the way, it had to be. If we return to the chronology of the abolition of slavery, it turns out that not all Western powers were ahead of the Russians in this regard. Some fell behind. The Netherlands abolished it in 1863, the USA in 1865, Portugal in 1869, Brazil in 1888. Moreover, among the Dutch, Portuguese, Brazilians, and even in the American southern states, slavery took much more brutal forms than Russian serfdom.
It is also worth remembering that in American war Between the North and the South, the northerners were supported by Russia, and the southerners by England. And if slavery was abolished in the USA, in the 1860s – 1880s it was widely practiced by landowners in Australia. Here, sea captains Hayes, Lewin, Pease, Boyce, Townes, and Dr. Murray were actively involved in slave hunting. The city of Townsville was even named after Townes. The exploits of these “heroes” consisted in the fact that they depopulated entire islands in Oceania, smashed and captured the inhabitants, stuffed them into holds and brought them to Australian plantations.
By the way, even in England itself, the first full-fledged legal act, officially prohibiting slavery and serfdom and recognizing them as a crime, was adopted... three years ago! This is the Coroners and Justice Act, which came into force on 6 April 2010. So why blame the Russians then?
Yes, the peasants of Russia worked hard and lived poorly, but they were not slaves either, because the sovereign’s power protected their human rights to life and not violence against them. The bondage was mainly economic and the fact that the peasant was assigned to the land of a specific landowner, on which he lived and had to work off his due dues, did not allow the peasant to rise financially. These heavy landlord burdens, placed on the peasants, and in the cities on the workers (a somewhat different situation), accumulated revolutionary potential in the souls of the people, which they were easily able to set on fire with promises better life Bolsheviks.
Life of a peasant around the 18th-19th century
