1. Causes of feudal fragmentation. Socio-economic and political
development of Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation
From the second quarter XII V. in Rus' a period of feudal fragmentation began, which lasted until the end XV V. (Western Europe passed this stage in X - XII centuries).
Modern historical science considers the era of feudal fragmentation as a natural, progressive in its content (before the factor of conquest intervened in normal development) stage in the development of feudal society, which created new, more favorable conditions for the further economic, political and cultural development of Russian lands.
“The period of feudal fragmentation is full of complex and contradictory processes that often baffle historians. The negative aspects of the era are especially noticeable: 1) a clear weakening of the overall military potential, facilitating foreign conquest; 2) internecine wars and 3) the increasing fragmentation of princely possessions... On the other hand, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the initial phase of feudal fragmentation (before the factor of conquest intervened in normal development) is characterized not by the decline of culture... but, on the contrary, by the rapid growth of cities and the bright flowering of Russian culture XII - early XIII V. in all its manifestations."
The main reasons for feudal fragmentation:
1. Growth of productive forces locally –one of the main reasons for feudal fragmentation. How was this reflected?
Firstly, there were significant changes in the development of productive forces in agriculture, which was primarily expressed in the improvement of tools: a wooden plow with an iron ploughshare, sickles, scythes, a two-toothed plow, etc. appeared. This raised the level of agricultural production. Arable farming spread everywhere. The transition to a three-field farming system began.
Secondly, handicraft production has achieved certain successes. The emergence of new agricultural tools made it possible to free up more and more people for the craft. As a result, there was a separation of crafts from agriculture. IN XII - XIII centuries there were already up to 60 different craft specialties. Blacksmithing achieved the greatest success; about 150 types of products were produced from iron and steel alone.
Thirdly, the development of crafts was the impetus for the growth of cities and urban populations. It was in the cities that handicraft production primarily developed. The number of cities is increasing sharply. If in Russian chronicles in XII V. 135 cities are mentioned, then by the middle XIII V. their number grew to 300.
2. Another reason for feudal fragmentation –further strengthening of local centers.
By the 30s. XII V. Even on the most remote outskirts of Kievan Rus, large boyar land ownership developed. Large landowners appeared in the country–princes, sometimes wealthier than those of Kiev. Often they owned not only villages, but also cities. Communal lands were also seized by boyars. Church and monastic land ownership grew.
Feudal estates, like peasant communities, were of a natural character. Their connections with the market were weak and irregular. Under these conditions, it became possible for each region to secede and exist as an independent principality. In each such principality, a local boyars formed–the main political and economic force of the time.
3. The expansion of the base of feudalism entailed an intensification of the class struggle, which was also one of the reasons for the formation of independent feudal principalities in Ancient Russia.
The class struggle intensified between the feudal lords, on the one hand, and the smerds and urban poor–with another.
The forms of class struggle of the peasantry and urban poor against their oppressors were very diverse: escapes, damage to the master's equipment, destruction of livestock, robberies, arson, and finally, uprisings. The peasants' struggle was spontaneous. The performances of peasants and townspeople were scattered. Examples of major uprisings were the uprisings in Novgorod (1136), Galich (1145 and 1188), Vladimir-on-Klyazma (1174-1175). The largest was the uprising in Kyiv in 1113.
4. To suppress the protests of peasants and the urban poor, the ruling circles were required to create a coercive apparatus in every large feudal estate.
The feudal lords were interested in firm local princely power primarily because it made it possible to suppress the resistance of the peasants, who were increasingly enslaved by them. Local feudal lords were no longer dependent on the central government in Kiev; they relied on the military power of their prince.
5. Continuous wars with nomads (Khazars, Pechenegs, Polovtsians, Volga Bulgars) also contributed to the destruction of economic and political ties between the Russian lands.
Thus, overdue XI V. prerequisites for the economic independence of large feudal principalities, estates and cities by the middle XII V. turned into a solid economic base for their political liberation from the grand ducal power.
As a result of the dismemberment of Kievan Rus on the territory of Russia in XI - XII centuries There were 13 largest principalities and feudal republics: Novgorod and Pskov lands, Vladimir-Suzdal, Polotsk-Minsk, Turovo-Pinsk, Smolensk, Galicia-Volyn, Kiev, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Tmutarakan, Murom, Ryazan principalities.
Their princes had all the rights of a sovereign sovereign: they resolved issues of internal structure with the boyars, declared wars, and signed peace. Now the princes fought not to seize power throughout the country, but to expand the borders of their principality at the expense of their neighbors.
With the growing number of feudal dependent people, the exploitation of their labor in the patrimonial economy (and not tribute) became the basis of the economic power of the prince.
Vladimir I distributed his 12 sons throughout Rus', who were the governors of the Grand Duke.
According to the will of Yaroslav the Wise, his sons sat down to reign in different Russian regions. This marks the beginning of the so-called “specific period”: Russia was divided into appanages (in Novgorod–mayor).
The power of the great Kyiv princes fell into decline, and the grand prince's table turned into an object of struggle between the strongest rulers of other principalities. It should be noted that the bearers of political isolation in Rus' were representatives of the ruling classes, and not the people.
Political system. The political system of the principalities during the period of feudal fragmentation was not homogeneous. The following varieties can be distinguished:
– strong princely power in the Vladimir-Suzdal land;
– the boyar feudal republic in Novgorod, where the power of the princes almost disappeared;
– the combination of princely power and the political power of the boyars, a long struggle between them in the Galicia-Volyn principality.
In the remaining principalities, the political system is close to one of the indicated options. Using the example of their principalities and lands, we will consider their inherent characteristic features and their history.
Vladimir-Suzdal land (Moscow, North-Eastern Rus'). The principality (or, as it was called at first, the Rostov-Suzdal) principality acquired the greatest importance among the isolated lands. It occupied a very vast territory from Nizhny Novgorod to Tver along the Volga, to Gorokhovets, Kolomna and Mozhaisk in the south, and included Ustyug and Beloozero in the north. Here to the beginning XII V. A large feudal boyar land tenure developed.
Huge tracts of black earth, cut into rectangles by forest, were called opolya (from the word “field”). Important river routes passed through the principality, and the Vladimir-Suzdal princes controlled trade with Novgorod and the East (along the great Volga route).
The population was engaged agriculture, cattle breeding, fishing, salt mining, beekeeping, and beaver hunting. Crafts were developed in cities and villages. There were many large cities in the principality: Rostov, Suzdal, Yaroslavl, etc.
In 1108 Vladimir Monomakh on the river. The city of Vladimir was founded in Klyazma, which later became the capital of all North-Eastern Rus'.
The first ruler of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality was Yury Dolgoruky (1125 –1157), son of Monomakh. A major political figure, he was the first of the Suzdal princes to achieve not only the independence of his principality, but also its expansion. For his attempts to occupy and hold cities as distant from Suzdal as Kiev and Novgorod, he was nicknamed Dolgoruky.
In 1147 Moscow was first mentioned in the chronicle –a small border town built by Dolgoruky on the site of the estate of boyar Kuchka, which he confiscated.
Yuri Dolgoruky devoted his entire life to the struggle for the Kiev grand-ducal throne. Under him, Ryazan and Murom came under the influence of the Rostov-Suzdal princes. He actively influenced the politics of Novgorod the Great. After occupying Kyiv, Dolgoruky planted his younger sons (from his third wife Elena) in Rostov and Suzdal.–He left Vsevolod and Mikhail, the eldest Andrei in Vyshgorod, near Kiev. But Andrei understood that Kyiv had lost its former role. And after the death of his father, violating his will, he left Vyshgorod and moved to Suzdal, where he immediately behaved like a sovereign ruler.
Andrey Bogolyubsky –second son of Yuri Dolgoruky from a Polovtsian princess. He was born around 1110 and became the first prince of the Rostov-Suzdal land from 1157 to 1174. At the beginning of his reign, he expelled his younger brothers Mikhail and Vsevolod from the principality, then his nephews and many boyars–father's close associates. Andrei found support among small feudal lords and artisans, whose number grew rapidly.
Due to the resistance of the boyar nobility of Rostov and Suzdal to his autocracy, Andrei moved the capital of his fief to Vladimir-on-Klyazma, and he himself mainly lived in Bogolyubovo (a village he built 11 km from Vladimir).
Having given himself the title of Grand Duke of All Rus', Andrei occupied Kyiv in 1169, which he handed over to one of his vassals for administration. Andrei tried to subjugate Novgorod and other Russian lands. His policy reflected the tendency to unite all Russian lands under the rule of one prince.
Unlike his father, Bogolyubsky main focus devoted himself to the internal affairs of his principality: he sought to strengthen the princely power, severely suppressed opposition actions of the local boyars, for which he paid with his life (brutally killed by the conspiratorial boyars on June 28, 1174 in his own palace).
Andrei's policy was continued by his brother Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176 –1212). Vsevolod had many sons, which is why he got his nickname. Vsevolod brutally dealt with the conspiratorial boyars who killed his brother. The struggle between the prince and the boyars ended in favor of the prince. Power in the principality was established in the form of a monarchy. Vsevolod bore the title of Grand Duke and held power over Novgorod and Ryazan quite firmly.
The author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” figuratively emphasized the power of the Vladimir-Suzdal land, writing that its regiments could splash the Volga with oars, and scoop up water from the Don with helmets. During the reign of Vsevolod, the city of Vladimir maintained trade relations with the Caucasus and Khorezm, and the Volga region.
However, despite these successes, both Vsevolod and his son, Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich (1218–1233), were unable to resist the trends of feudal fragmentation.
After the death of Vsevolod, feudal strife resumed in the principality. The process of economic recovery was interrupted by the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars, who subjugated the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality in 1238. The Principality broke up into a number of smaller lands.
Galicia-Volyn, South-Western Rus', Kiev). The Galician-Volyn principality occupied the northeastern slopes of the Carpathians and the territory between the Dniester and Prut rivers.
In Volyn and the Galician land, arable farming and, in addition, cattle breeding, hunting, fishing, etc., have long developed. XII V. there were already about 80 cities in the region (the largest: Galich, Przemysl, Kholm, Lvov, etc.).
One of the characteristic features of the Galician land , which left an imprint on its history was the early formation of large boyar land ownership. The enrichment of the boyars was greatly facilitated by their extensive trade. Gradually, the boyars turned into an influential political force.
The rise of the Galician principality began in the second half XII V. at Yaroslav Osmomysl (1152 –1187). The chronicler portrays him as an intelligent and educated prince who knew different languages.
After the death of Osmomysl, the boyars took an active part in the dynastic struggle for power between his sons from different mothers. The Volyn prince took advantage of this turmoil Roman Mstislavich , who managed to establish himself in Galich in 1199 and unite the Galician land and most of Volyn as part of the Galician-Volyn principality. Roman had to endure a difficult struggle with the boyars, its echoes were preserved in the words attributed to this prince: “Without crushing the bees, there is no honey.” The unification of lands contributed to the development of local cities (Galich, Vladimir, Lutsk, etc.) and trade. Roman took the title of Grand Duke, gaining recognition in some lands in Russia and abroad (Byzantium). Peaceful relations with Poland and Hungary improved. Under him, the Pope's attempts to gain access to Russia for the Catholic clergy failed.
The Galician Chronicle preserves a description of Roman, in which his military activity is especially impressive: “He rushed at the filthy, like a lion; he was angry as a lynx; destroyed them like a crocodile; flew around the earth like an eagle; was brave as a tour.” All the activities of Roman Mstislavich were subordinated to the strengthening of the grand ducal power and the unification of all the southwestern lands of Russia.
The death of Roman in one of the battles (1205) led to the temporary loss of the achieved political unity of Southwestern Rus' and to the weakening of princely power in it. A ruinous feudal war began (1205-1245). The boyars, with the assistance of the papal curia, betrayed the independence of the region, which in 1214 fell under the rule of Hungary and Poland. During the national liberation war against the Hungarian and Polish invaders, which was led by Mstislav Udaloy and the son of Prince Roman Mstislavich Daniil Romanovich, the conquerors were defeated and expelled; With the help of the service boyars, nobility and cities, Prince Daniel took possession of Volyn (1229), the Galician land (1238), and then Kiev (1239). In 1245, in the battle near the city of Yaroslav, he defeated the combined forces of Hungary, Poland, and the Galician boyars and again united all of Southwestern Rus'. The position of princely power was again strengthened.
Daniil Romanovich Galitsky , Prince of Vladimir-Volyn, Prince of Galicia, Grand Duke of Galicia, Grand Duke of Kiev (the last prince of Kievan Rus), lived in Poland and Hungary with his relatives as a child and youth–kings. In Hungary he held a prominent position at the court of King Andrew II Jerusalem, who had no male offspring, wanted to marry his daughter to Daniel and leave him the Hungarian throne. However, in 1214-1220. Galicia was captured by the Hungarian ban Kaloman, who proclaimed himself king of Galicia, and Daniel had to return to his old inheritance - the Vladimir-Volyn principality, so as not to lose him too.
In the 20-30s. XIII V. Daniil took an active part in Russian foreign policy. He took part in the Battle of Kalka (1223), and his squad survived, preserved itself to a greater extent than others, and managed to retreat in an orderly manner, avoiding capture. Having taken the throne of Kiev by right as the eldest in the Rurik family, Daniel left Kiev at the end of 1239-beginning of 1240. under the onslaught of the Mongol-Tatars. But, having returned to Galicia, he still tries in 1240-1242. organize an anti-Tatar coalition Eastern European states: the Kingdom of Galicia-Volyn, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Silesia. However, the disagreement of the monarchs of these countries, as well as the intensification of raids of Lithuanian princes from the north into Volyn, force Daniel to abandon his plans to return to Russia and actually link the fate of his principality-kingdom with Catholic Europe, which separated this part of Russia from Russia for as much as 700 years (1239-1939 gg.), when Western Belarus and Western Ukraine (Volyn and Galician principalities) were again reunited with Russia–THE USSR).
Novgorod-Pskov land (North-Western Rus'). The Novgorod-Pskov land occupied a vast territory, bordering the Vladimir-Suzdal land in the east, with the Smolensk–in the south and with Polotsk- in the South-West.
Novgorod, one of the largest Russian cities, was located on the main trade route linking the Baltic, Black and Caspian seas. The economic growth of Novgorod prepared the necessary conditions for political separation into an independent feudal system.
Novgorod, earlier than other lands, began the struggle for independence from Kyiv. Using the discontent of the Novgorodians (uprising of 1136), the boyars, who had significant economic power and owned a huge land fund, managed to defeat the Novgorod prince Vsevolod Mstislavich. Vsevolod was expelled. The order of the boyar aristocratic republic finally triumphed in Novgorod.
The boyars seized power–owners of extensive estates, who were also engaged in conducting extensive trading operations and usury. Formally, the supreme power in Novgorod belonged to the veche –meeting of all male citizens. The veche decided issues of war and peace, elected senior officials: the mayor, who was in charge of administration and court; Tysyatsky - assistant to the mayor, head of the military forces, who was also in charge of the court among merchants. However, in fact, power was in the hands of the boyars, from among whom the above appointments and replacements occurred (even by inheritance).
The largest feudal lord in Novgorod was bishop (archbishop since 1156). He kept the treasury of Novgorod, was in charge of state lands, participated in the management of foreign policy, and headed the church court. The bishop had his own feudal lords and his own regiment.
invited the veche and prince , mainly for the leadership of the armed forces of the republic. His rights were severely limited. The prince was warned: “Without a mayor, prince, you should not judge the court, you should not hold volosts, you should not give charters.” Attempts by strong princes from other Russian lands to install a ruler they liked in Novgorod met with sharp rebuff from the Novgorodians.
During the first hundred years (1136-1236) of independence, right up to the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the history of the Novgorod Republic was characterized by an acute class struggle, which more than once resulted in uprisings of the urban poor and peasants. The largest of these were the uprisings in 1207 and 1228.
In connection with the development of domestic and foreign trade in Novgorod, the role of the merchants is increasing, thanks to which the trade relations of the republic with the Vladimir-Suzdal principality were strengthened.
The Suzdal princes, pursuing a unification policy, steadily strengthened their positions in the Novgorod Republic. The influence of the Vladimir princes increased noticeably in XIII c., when their troops provided significant assistance to Novgorod and Pskov in the fight against external enemies. Since 1236 he became a prince in Novgorod Alexander Yaroslavich –grandson of Vsevolod the Big Nest, future Nevsky.
The development of feudal relations led to the isolation of the Pskov land, where XIII V. An independent boyar republic emerged.
Thus, by XIII V. the struggle between the forces of feudal centralization and boyar-princely separatism in Russia was in full swing. It was at this time that the process of internal socio-economic and political development was interrupted by external military intervention. It came in three streams:
–from the east – Mongol-Tatar invasion;
–from the northwest and west–Swedish-Danish-German aggression;
– from the southwest – the onslaught of the Poles and Hungarians.
Consequence of feudal fragmentation in Rus'. Consequences of fragmentation: 1. after the death of the son of Vladimir Monomakh, Mstislav the Great, Rus' in 1132 broke up into about 20 principalities and lands of varying sizes. Subsequently, crushing continued. Along with the rise of the economy and culture, this process also had negative consequences: civil strife and a weakening of the country’s defense.
This was sensitive for Rus', which was located on the border with the steppe; 2. The Polovtsian onslaught intensified. The Russian population was forced to leave Belaya Vezha on the Don, Tmutarakan, and leave lands in the Lower Dnieper region; 3. A defense system gradually began to take shape, in which each prince was responsible for his own section of the Russian border. Therefore, the defeat of Prince Igor Svyatoslavovich Novgorod-Seversky and his brother Bui-Tur Vsevolod of Kursk in 1185, described in the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” had dire consequences for Rus', creating a gap in the Russian defense into which the Polovtsians of the khans Bonyak and Konchak invaded.
With great difficulty we managed to push them back into the steppe. The author of the Lay called on the princes to unite military forces for the defense of Rus'. On the eve of the Mongol invasion, this call was very relevant, but the princes as a whole were unable to overcome local interests and rise to an understanding of all-Russian tasks. Nevertheless, social phenomena of a positive order can be noted. For example, in the separate isolated principalities, crafts and cities developed more successfully than before, and estates multiplied, which at that time became the most progressive form of organizing large-scale farming on earth.
New centers of chronicle writing were formed, remarkable architectural structures were built, ancient Russian literature and journalism flourished, and culture became richer and more diverse.
End of work -
This topic belongs to the section:
Feudal fragmentation in Rus' XII – XIII centuries
Fragmentation is a natural stage in the development of Ancient Rus'. Assignment of individual territories-lands to certain branches of the Kyiv princely... Each dynasty no longer considered its principality as an object of military... Each of the lands was ruled by its own dynasty - one of the branches of the Rurikovichs. The sons of the prince and the boyar-deputies ruled...
Definition of feudal fragmentation.
Reasons for feudal fragmentation in Rus':
1) instability of hereditary ties along clan lines, the growth of cities and the process of fragmentation of feudal estates;
2) the formation of strong possessions in places that were burdened by subordination to Kyiv;
3) dominance of subsistence farming, weak economic ties;
4) the need for large military forces and an apparatus of violence on the ground;
5) reduction of external danger, decline in the power of Kyiv.
Distinctive features of the management system in the Rostov-(Vladimir)-Suzdal principality.
Distinctive features of the management system in the Galicia-Volyn principality.
Distinctive features of the management system in Novgorod land.
Features of the relationship between the prince and the boyars in the Rostov-(Vladimir)-Suzdal principality, the Galicia-Volyn principality, and the Novgorod land.
Consequences of feudal fragmentation:
progressive (strengthening local centers);
regressive (weakening of the military power of Kievan Rus).
Territorial and political fragmentation-new, compared to the Old Russian state, form of state-political organization, based on the transfer of ownership of any territory by inheritance from father to son. The legal justification for the new principle of inheritance was consolidated by the congress princes in the city of Lyubech in 1097
The isolation of individual principalities temporarily calmed the princely feuds and made it possible to concentrate all the resources of the region on the development of material and spiritual values.
Objective reasons fragmentation:
- growth of hereditary (patrimonial) land holdings the “possession” and “possession” of communal lands led to the strengthening of the economic power of princes and boyars and, as a consequence, the desire for political separatism;
- development of crafts and trade led to increase in the number of cities And strengthening their roles as local economic, administrative and cultural centers;
- natural nature of agriculture: the absence of surplus production caused the agricultural districts to be closed and fenced off from each other;
- decrease in trade intensity along the way""A Varangian to Greeks" reduced the possibility of the Kyiv prince receiving customs duties and, therefore, weakened his economic strength and political power;
- weakening of external danger on the part of the steppe nomads: cessation of Polovtsian raids
Subjective reasons fragmentation:
- the emergence and strengthening of dynasties of local princes, who considered the subject territory as their patrimony;
- consolidation of local boyars around the local prince, capable of protecting their corporate interests in the event of popular unrest;
- administrative difficulties of governing a vast territory Old Russian state;
On the territory of Kievan Rus by the middle of the 12th century. About 15 lands and principalities were formed by the beginning of the 13th century. - 50, in the 14th century. - 250. Each of the principalities was ruled by its own Rurik dynasty. The largest and most influential: Novgorod land, Rostovo (Vladimir)-Suzdal And Galicia-Volyn principality. Territorial and political fragmentation did not disrupt population relations. Kept awareness of historical community, based on common laws, language and religion.
Novgorod land stood out in 1136: The Novgorodians, together with the Pskovians and Ladoga residents, expelled Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich and declared their independence from Kyiv. The isolation of Novgorod was based on the wealth of its boyars and merchants, which arose as a result of the seizure of communal lands and participation in trade operations.
The territory of Novgorod land extended from the Gulf of Finland in the west to the Urals in the east and from the Arctic Ocean in the north to the headwaters of the Volga in the south. The harsh natural and climatic conditions and the scarcity of land acutely posed the problem of survival for the bulk of the population - in some years there was not even enough bread, which was brought from neighboring principalities. However, rich forest and fishing grounds made it possible to develop crafts, and the skill of Novgorod artisans was well known in Western Europe. Novgorod boyars and merchants actively used the advantageous geographical location at the intersection of trade routes. They not only exported products of local crafts and trades, but also participated in transit trade.
Political system: formally power in Novgorod belonged to veche - people's assembly. Issues of domestic and foreign policy were resolved at it, and the highest and local administrations were elected: mayor - concentrated management and criminal court in his hands; thousand- headed the people's militia and presided over the city commercial court; bishop(Later - archbishop)- was in charge of the treasury, external relations and church affairs; Konchansky(Novgorod was divided into five ends) of the street elders. Consequently, the entire administrative and managerial apparatus was elected from top to bottom, which indicated the presence democratic elements in the political system of Novgorod.
However, the main role in the economic and political life of Novgorod was played by large landowners - boyars. From their top (“the best men” - “300 golden belts”), a Council of gentlemen He prepared the course of the veche, bribing votes, which led to the adoption of a decision favorable to the Council and the selection of representatives from the boyars to the highest posts. Consequently, in the political system of Novgorod there were elements oligarchic (aristocratic) board.
To protect the territory, the veche invited prince(usually from the Vladimir-Suzdal principality) with squad. There was a deal with him row(agreement). The prince was becoming supreme military commander And the highest court. He received income from trade, court and tribute from the conquered peoples, but did not have the right to acquire land property in the Novgorod land, interfere in the internal affairs of city government, remove elected officials and carry out reprisals without trial.
The political system in Novgorod had mixed character. It combined elements democratic, oligarchic and monarchical rule. This distinguished Novgorod from other principalities.
For three and a half centuries, Novgorod maintained its political system and independence, despite attacks from the west (Swedes - 1240 and Crusaders - 1242). In 1478, Novgorod was forcibly annexed to the Moscow state.
Rostovo(Vladimir)-Suzdalskoe The principality occupied the territory from Tver in the west to Nizhny Novgorod in the east, Mozhaisk and Kolomna in the south to Ustyug and Beloozero in the north. In these lands remote from the capital of Kievan Rus, the power of the Kyiv Prince was fragile. She was opposed by a powerful layer of Rostov and Suzdal boyars- large landowners.
At the same time, a significant princely domain, from which the prince rewarded the boyars and warriors who came with him from Kyiv.
The separation of the northeastern lands from Kyiv became apparent during Yuri Vladimirovich (1125-1257), a strong prince who actively intervened in the affairs of his neighbors. Defending the borders of his principality, Yuri built border fortresses. He founded one of them in 1156 in Moscow, first mentioned in the chronicle in 1147.
As the son of Vladimir Monomakh, Yuri laid claim to the great throne of Kiev, which was supposed to emphasize his “seniority”. He “stretched” his hands towards Kyiv, for which he was nicknamed Dolgoruky. He actually managed to occupy the Kiev table in 1155, but two years later Yuri died, and the people of Kiev, dissatisfied with his rule, killed the Suzdal squad that came with the prince.
Yuri's son Andrei (1157-1174) fought with the Rostov-Suzdal boyars who wanted to dictate their will to the prince. Striving for autocracy and using the support of the townspeople, Andrei dealt with the rebellious boyars - he executed some, expelled others from the principality, seizing their lands. The prince moved the capital of North-Eastern Rus' from Rostov - the stronghold of the local boyars to Vladimir-on-Klyazma, but even here he did not feel completely safe. Therefore, 6 km from the city, a new princely residence was built in the village of Bogolyubovo - hence the prince’s nickname - Bogolyubsky.
Andrew assumed the title of Grand Duke and sought to unite some Russian lands. He expanded the territory of the principality, the Volga Bulgars paid him tribute. The international authority of Prince Andrei was great. His son was married to the Georgian queen Tamara and led the Georgian-Armenian army in the fight for the liberation of the Armenian capital, Dvin. Prince Andrei tried to subjugate Novgorod, where he sent his governor. In 1169, Andrei captured Kyiv, but did not take the Kiev throne and remained to rule in Vladimir, directing all efforts to strengthening the principality and decorating its cities. Under him, the shrine of Rus' - the icon of the Vladimir Mother of God - was transferred to Vladimir from Kyiv, the white-stone Golden Gate and the majestic Assumption Cathedral were built. Andrei made an unsuccessful attempt to establish a metropolitan see in Vladimir, equal to Kyiv, in order to turn his capital not only into a political, but also into a religious center.
The prince's excessive autocracy and unjustified repressions gave rise to a boyar conspiracy: Andrei was killed in his residence. The princely-boyar feud and the introduction of new taxes caused discontent among the people, who supported Andrei Bogolyubsky's half-brother, Vsevolod the Big Nest (he received his nickname due to the large number of children). The new prince dealt with the conspiratorial boyars, but began to pursue a more balanced internal policy.
At Vsevolod (1176-1212) The Vladimir-Suzdal principality reached its peak. Novgorod, Ryazan, Chernigov and Smolensk depended on him. Part of the Novgorod lands along the Northern Dvina and Pechora went to the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, and in the east the Volga Bulgars were driven out beyond the Volga. The author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” praising Prince Vsevolod, wrote that his squad “can splash the Volga with oars and scoop up the Don with helmets.” In international relations, the Vladimir-Suzdal principality played a very noticeable role under Prince Vsevolod. He was considered at the court of Frederick Barbarossa. The Pope tried to involve Vsevolod in European affairs on his side: he sent his representatives to him and offered to accept Catholicism, but Rome’s plans failed.
The strength and wealth of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality were based on vast developed and plowed territories with thriving agriculture (Novgorod was supplied with grain), developed crafts and trade. Many new cities - including Moscow - became important administrative, trade, craft and cultural centers.
After the death of Vsevolod, strife arose again, which led to the weakening of the principality. The last prince Yuri Vsevolodovich (1218-1238) died in a battle with the Mongol conquerors on the river. Sit.
Galicia-Volynskoe the principality occupied a huge territory of South-Western Rus' (Galician land in the south and Volyn in the north) from the Danube and the Black Sea region to the Neman and the middle reaches of the Bug, from the Carpathians to the Dniester and Prut. There was a favorable climate, rich natural resources (black earth lands, forests, rivers, salt deposits), thriving arable farming, developed crafts and trades, an advantageous geographical location at the intersection of trade routes from Europe to the East and in relative distance from the steppe nomads. It is no coincidence that not only the Kyiv princes, but also their neighbors - the Hungarians and Poles - sought to own this territory.
Unlike the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, in the Galicia-Volyn land a large boyar landholding developed, exceeding the princely domain. Boyar separatism played a very important role in political life, and bloody strife became an almost constant occurrence. The boyars initiated the separation from Kyiv at the beginning of the 12th century. At first, the Galician and Volyn principalities existed independently of each other.
The heyday of the Galician principality is associated with the reign of Yaroslav I Osmomysl (1153-1187). (His nickname means wise and knowledgeable in eight languages.) He even managed to temporarily capture Kyiv in 1159.
After the death of Yaroslav, the long struggle of his heirs with each other and with the boyars weakened the principality.
In 1199, the Volyn prince Roman Mstyaslavich (1170-1205) captured Galich and united it with Volyn. He dealt with the rebellious boyars, some of them fled to Hungary and Poland.
In 1203, Prince Roman captured Kyiv and assumed the title of Grand Duke. Under his hand, one of the largest and most influential states in Europe was formed. Roman Mstislavich sought to dominate the southern Russian lands and successfully fought with the Cumans and Polish feudal lords.
After Roman's death, the princely throne was taken by his eldest son Daniel (1205-1264). For almost 30 years he fought with the boyars, Hungarian, Polish and even Russian princes. The strife weakened the principality. The boyars brought Hungarian troops to its territory, whose actions caused an upsurge of popular struggle. According to the chronicle, none of the invaders managed to escape alive.
In 1238, Daniel asserted his power, dealt with the boyar freemen and defeated the knights of the Livonian Order. He reunited Galich, Volyn, and even occupied Kyiv in 1240. However, in the same year, the territory of Southwestern Rus' was destroyed by Mongol conquerors. A century later, Rus' lost these lands: Volyn went to Lithuania, A Galich - to Poland.
All major Western European states experienced a period of feudal fragmentation. It was a natural result of previous economic and socio-political development and had both positive features and negative consequences for all Russian lands. Positive features- at first, in the Russian lands there was a rise in agriculture, a flourishing of crafts, the growth of cities, and the development of trade in individual lands. Negative consequences- over time, constant strife between the princes began to deplete the strength of the Russian lands, weakening their defense capability in the face of external danger.
Despite the territorial and political fragmentation, the cultural and spiritual unity Russian people - they retained a single language, laws and religion. Each major principality considered itself successor Kievan Rus, the successor of its traditions and history.
The fragmentation of the Russian principalities persisted until the middle of the 15th century, when the conditions necessary for the unification of the lands into a single state arose.
The first division of lands took place under Vladimir Svyatoslavich; from his reign, princely feuds began to flare up, the peak of which occurred in 1015-1024, when only three of Vladimir’s twelve sons remained alive. The division of lands between princes and strife only accompanied the development of Rus', but did not determine one or another political form of state organization. They did not create a new phenomenon in the political life of Rus'. The economic basis and main cause of feudal fragmentation is often considered to be subsistence farming, the consequence of which was the lack of economic ties. Subsistence farming is the sum of economically independent, closed economic units in which a product goes from its production to consumption. The reference to natural farming is only a correct statement of the fact that took place. However, its dominance, which is characteristic of feudalism, does not yet explain the reasons for the collapse of Rus', since subsistence farming dominated both in united Rus' and in the 14th-15th centuries, when the formation of a single state on the basis of political centralization was underway in the Russian lands.
The essence of feudal fragmentation lies in the fact that it was a new form of state-political organization of society. It was this form that corresponded to the complex of relatively small feudal worlds not connected with each other and the state-political separatism of local boyar unions.
Feudal fragmentation is a progressive phenomenon in the development of feudal relations. The collapse of early feudal empires into independent principalities-kingdoms was an inevitable stage in the development of feudal society, whether it concerned Rus' in Eastern Europe, France in Western Europe or the Golden Horde in the East. Feudal fragmentation was progressive because it was a consequence of the development of feudal relations, the deepening of the social division of labor, which resulted in the rise of agriculture, the flourishing of crafts, and the growth of cities. For the development of feudalism, a different scale and structure of the state was needed, adapted to the needs and aspirations of the feudal lords, especially the boyars.
The first reason for feudal fragmentation was the growth of boyar estates and the number of smerds dependent on them. The 12th and early 13th centuries were characterized by the further development of boyar land ownership in various principalities of Rus'. The boyars expanded their possessions by seizing the lands of free community members, enslaving them, and buying lands. In an effort to obtain a larger surplus product, they increased the natural rent and labor that the dependent stinkers performed. The increase in surplus product received by the boyars due to this made them economically powerful and independent. In various lands of Rus', economically powerful boyar corporations began to take shape, striving to become sovereign masters of the lands where their estates were located. They wanted to administer justice to their peasants themselves and receive fines from them. Many boyars had feudal immunity (the right of non-interference in the affairs of the estate), “Russkaya Pravda” determined the rights of the boyars. However, the Grand Duke (and such is the nature of princely power) sought to retain full power in his hands. He interfered in the affairs of the boyar estates, sought to retain the right to judge the peasants and receive vir from them in all the lands of Rus'. The Grand Duke, considered the supreme owner of all the lands of Rus', and their supreme ruler, continued to consider all the princes and boyars as his service people, and therefore forced them to participate in the numerous campaigns he organized. These campaigns often did not coincide with the interests of the boyars and tore them away from their estates. The boyars began to feel burdened by serving the Grand Duke and tried to evade it, which led to numerous conflicts. The contradictions between the local boyars and the Grand Duke of Kyiv led to the former’s increased desire for political independence. The boyars were also driven to this by the need for their own, close princely power, which could quickly implement the norms of the “Russian Truth”, since the power of the grand ducal virniks, governors, and warriors could not provide quick real assistance to the boyars of lands remote from Kyiv. The strong power of the local prince was also necessary for the boyars in connection with the growing resistance of the townspeople, the Smerds, to the seizure of their lands, enslavement, and increased extortions.
The increase in clashes between the smerds and townspeople and the boyars became the second reason for feudal fragmentation. The need for local princely power and the creation of a state apparatus forced local boyars to invite the prince and his retinue to their lands. But when inviting the prince, the boyars were inclined to see in him only a police and military force that did not interfere in boyar affairs. The princes and squad also benefited from such an invitation. The prince received a permanent reign, his land patrimony, and stopped rushing from one princely table to another. The squad, which was also tired of following from table to table with the prince, was also pleased. Princes and warriors had the opportunity to receive a stable rent-tax. At the same time, the prince, having settled in one land or another, as a rule was not satisfied with the role that the boyars assigned to him, but sought to concentrate all power in his hands, limiting the rights and privileges of the boyars. This inevitably led to a struggle between the prince and the boyars. The third reason for feudal fragmentation was the growth and strengthening of cities as new political and cultural centers. During the period of feudal fragmentation, the number of cities in Russian lands reached 224. Their economic and political role as centers of a particular land increased. It was on the cities that the local boyars and the prince relied in the fight against the Grand Duke of Kyiv. The increasing role of the boyars and local princes led to the revival of city veche meetings. The veche, a unique form of feudal democracy, was a political body. In fact, it was in the hands of the boyars, which excluded real decisive participation in the government of ordinary townspeople. The boyars, controlling the veche, tried to use the political activity of the townspeople to their advantage. Very often the veche was used as an instrument of pressure not only on the great, but also on the local prince, forcing him to act in the interests of the local nobility. Thus, cities, as local political and economic centers that gravitated towards their lands, were a stronghold for the decentralization aspirations of local princes and nobility. The reasons for feudal fragmentation also include the decline of the Kyiv land from constant Polovtsian raids and the decline of the power of the Grand Duke, whose land patrimony decreased in the 12th century.
Rus' broke up into 14 principalities, and a republican form of government was established in Novgorod. In each principality, the princes, together with the boyars, “thought about the land system and the rath.” Princes declared wars, made peace and various alliances. The Grand Duke was the first (senior) among equal princes.
Princely congresses have been preserved, where issues of all-Russian politics were discussed. The princes were bound by a system of vassal relations. It should be noted that for all the progressiveness of feudal fragmentation, it had one significant negative aspect. Constant strife between the princes, which either subsided or flared up with renewed vigor, exhausted the strength of the Russian lands and weakened their defense capability in the face of external danger. The collapse of Rus', however, did not lead to the disintegration of the ancient Russian nationality, a historically established linguistic, territorial, economic and cultural community. In the Russian lands, a single concept of Rus', the Russian land, continued to exist. “Oh, Russian land, you were already behind the hill proclaiming the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” During the period of feudal fragmentation, three centers emerged in the Russian lands: the Vladimir-Suzdal, Galician-Volyn principalities and the Novgorod feudal republic.
Disintegration of Rus' into appanage principalities
1. Causes and consequences of feudal fragmentation in Rus';
2. Features of the feudal development of southern Russian lands during the period of fragmentation;
3. Features of the development of North-Western Rus' during the period of fragmentation.
4. Features of the development of North-Eastern Rus' in the 13th century.
fragmentation in Rus';
In Rus', feudal fragmentation began with 1132 g. (death of the son of Vladimir Monomakh, Mstislav the Great). The situation of the Russian lands during the period of fragmentation became more complicated in 1237-1240. in connection with the Mongol invasion and the establishment of the yoke of the Golden Horde.
Soviet historians developed an understanding of feudal fragmentation as a stage in the political development of feudal society. They showed that the transition to fragmentation was associated with the patterns of socio-economic and political development during the early Middle Ages, and the very onset of fragmentation is evidence of the entry of feudalism into its developed stage. Soviet historians proved that this phenomenon is progressive and natural; they pointed out that from the time of the collapse of Kievan Rus to the Batu invasion, the economy and culture of all Russian lands flourished. But it was emphasized that fragmentation was accompanied by civil strife, weakened the ability to resist external enemies and did not exclude the establishment of despotic power locally.
Representatives of modern historical science in Russia adhere to the same views.
Feudal fragmentation is a stage in the political development of medieval society, when a single state of the early stage of the Middle Ages is fragmented into a number of independent states (in Russia - principalities and lands). At the same time, the grand-ducal power remains, but has only a nominal significance. Local princes were completely independent and often fought with the great princes.
Reasons for feudal fragmentation:
I) economic- growth of productive forces in crafts and agriculture locally. At the end XI-XII century two-field and three-field systems began to spread everywhere. The number of cities grew (in the 10th century - 60, by the beginning XIII V. - 230). IN at the same time, the growth of productive forces occurred under conditions of the dominance of a subsistence economy, the absence of economic ties between Russian lands;
2) social - determined by the development of feudal relations on the ground. In the IX-X centuries. There were quite noticeable differences in the level of development of society between Kiev and its outskirts. But at the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th centuries. the outskirts no longer lagged behind Kyiv in terms of social development. The stratification of society began everywhere.
Under such conditions, the local nobility began to strive to have an apparatus of power capable of coping with social clashes;
3) political - determined by the interest of the local nobility in securing their own princely dynasties to their feudal centers. Already in the Kiev period, a tradition began to take shape according to which certain dynasties began to be established in individual feudal centers. Thus, Chernigov, Tmutarakan and Ryazan began to be listed as the descendants of Svyatoslav Yaroslavich; Pereyaslavl on the Dnieper, Rostov and Suzdal - for the descendants of Vsevolod and Vladimir Monomakh, etc.;
4) ideological - associated with the spread of traditions of suzerainty - vassalage and the idea of independence of each prince in his fiefdom.
Consequences of fragmentation:
1) after the death of the son of Vladimir Monomakh, Mstislav the Great, Rus' in 1132 broke up into about 20 principalities and lands of varying sizes. Subsequently, crushing continued. Along with the rise of the economy and culture, this process also had negative consequences: civil strife and a weakening of the country’s defense. This was sensitive for Russia, which was located on the border with the “steppe”;
2) the Polovtsian onslaught intensified. The Russian population was forced to leave Belaya Vezha on the Don, Tmutarakan, and leave lands in the Lower Dnieper region;
3) a defense system gradually began to take shape, in which each prince was responsible for his own section of the Russian border. Therefore, the defeat of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich of Novgorod-Seversky and his brother Bui-Tur Vsevolod of Kursk in I 185, described in the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” had dire consequences for Rus', creating a gap in the Russian defense into which the Polovtsians of the khans Bonyak and Konchaka. With great difficulty we managed to push them back into the steppe. The author of “The Lay...” called on the princes to unite military forces for the defense of Russia. On the eve of the Mongol invasion, this call was very relevant, but the princes as a whole were unable to overcome local interests and rise to an understanding of all-Russian tasks.