A specific period of Russian history has positive consequences. Specific period in the history of Russia (XII-XVI centuries)

History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 20th century Nikolaev Igor Mikhailovich

Specific Rus'

Specific (from the word lot) the period was established in Rus' in the middle of the 12th century. By this time, large patrimonial land ownership had finally emerged. In feudal estates, as well as in individual peasant communities, it was dominated natural economy, and only military force kept them within a single state. With the development of feudal land ownership, each land had the opportunity to separate and exist as an independent principality. In the estates, the local boyars were formed, which was the main economic and political force of that time. The boyars were interested in strong local princely power, because it made it possible to quickly resolve various issues, primarily to keep the peasants in obedience. Local feudal lords (boyars) increasingly sought independence from Kyiv, which is why they supported the military power of their prince. We can say that the main force of disunity was the boyars. And the local princes, relying on him, were able to establish power each in their own land. Subsequently, the struggle for power intensified between the boyars and the princes. In different lands it had a different character. For example, in Novgorod, and later in Pskov, the boyars managed to subjugate the princes and establish the so-called boyar feudal republics. In other lands, where the princes were able to subjugate the boyars, the power of the princes was stronger.

The fragmentation of the state was facilitated by the struggle for the Kiev “table”. The confusing order of inheritance was the reason for frequent strife, and the discontent of the princes excluded from the line of power (rogue princes) was a constant source of unrest. The search for a way out of this situation led the princes to a congress in the city of Lyubech in 1097, where each of them was asked to “keep their fatherland” (pass on their inheritance). The princes ceased to perceive the lands under their control as temporary sources of human and material resources and paid more attention to the needs of their estates. The authorities were able to quickly respond to crisis situations (raids, riots, crop shortages, etc.). The role of Kyiv as an all-Russian center has decreased. The trade routes connecting Europe with the East changed, which caused the decline of the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” In addition, the pressure of nomads increased, which led to the departure of farmers to quieter regions of Rus'.

For some time, the strife was stopped thanks to the activities of Prince Vladimir Monomakh. He ascended the Kiev throne when Grand Duke Svyatopolk died in 1113. During his lifetime, Svyatopolk was not loved by the people of Kiev, and his death raised them to revolt. The frightened boyars turned to Vladimir Monomakh with a request to take the Kiev “table”, since he was very popular in Rus' as the leader of numerous campaigns against the Polovtsians and actively opposed strife. The reign of this prince and his son Mstislav was a period of restoration of the unity of the Old Russian state. However, the unity was short-lived. Chronologically, historical tradition considers the beginning of the period of fragmentation to be 1132, when, after the death of Mstislav, Rus' again plunged into internecine strife. They flared up with even greater force, since the reasons for feudal fragmentation really existed: the struggle of princes for the best principalities and territories; independence of patrimonial boyars in their lands; strengthening the economic and political power of cities - centers of princely-boyar power, etc.

New feudal states are emerging. to the 13th century Three noticeable centers of state life emerge - Veliky Novgorod, the Vladimir-Suzdal and Galician-Volyn principalities.

OPINIONS OF HISTORIANS

Researchers have revealed both the causes and the very nature of fragmentation in different ways at different times.

Historians of the pre-Soviet period spoke not about feudal fragmentation, but about the collapse of Kievan Rus as a state. According to N.M. Karamzin and S.M. Solovyov, this period was a kind of turmoil, “a dark, silent time.” IN. Klyuchevsky, characterizing Rus' at that time, spoke about the “appanage system” and often called this period “appanage centuries.” This terminology pointed primarily to state decentralization as a result of the hereditary division of land and power within the princely family. He believed that the specific centuries were a time of transition, a time of difficult trials, the consequence of which was the transition from Kievan Rus to Muscovite Rus. Klyuchevsky pointed out that during this period, despite the crisis of the central government, in the northeast of Rus' there was a process of creating a new ethnic group - Russians based on the unity of language, religion, traditions and mentality.

With the rooting of the formation-class approach in Russian historical science, fragmentation received the definition of feudal; it began to be viewed as a natural stage in the progressive development of productive forces, common for Western Europe and other countries. According to the formational scheme, feudalism presupposes the isolation of economic and political structures. Thus, the main reasons for fragmentation are reduced to economic (basic) and are expressed in the following: 1. The dominance of a closed natural economy, which was associated with the lack of commodity, market relations; 2. Strengthening the feudal estate, which played an organizing role in the development of agricultural production. At the same time, researchers drew attention to the fact that the formation of land relations in Ancient Rus' was influenced by such factors as the presence of communal land use and a huge fund of free land. This restrained the process of feudalization of society, and therefore, feudal relations did not have such a noticeable impact on the collapse of Kievan Rus.

Domestic historians tried to see in feudal fragmentation a higher stage in the development of the feudal system, but at the same time they did not deny the negative consequences of the loss of state unity of Rus': fierce princely strife that weakened Rus' in the face of a growing external threat.

An original explanation of the reasons for the fragmentation of the state was made by L.N. Gumilev. According to his concept, it was the result of a decline in passional energy (the desire for renewal and development) in the system of the ancient Russian ethnos.

From the book Empire - I [with illustrations] author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

3. Rus' and Moscow Rus' on the pages of the Bible Let's move on to another very interesting question - what is said about Rus' in the Bible? Let us remember that according to our new chronology, the Bible, in its modern form, was apparently completed only in the XIV-XVI centuries... That's why

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

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

From the book History of Poland author Kenevich Ian

Chapter II SPECIFIC FRAGRATION The system of princely law laid the foundations for a strong central government, on which even the nobility and clergy were dependent. However, the ruler and his administrative apparatus could not achieve complete political, legal and

From the book Textbook of Russian History author Platonov Sergey Fedorovich

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

From the book Historical Districts of St. Petersburg from A to Z author Glezerov Sergey Evgenievich

From the book The End of the Horde Yoke author Kargalov Vadim Viktorovich

Chapter 3. Rus' is uniting, Rus' is preparing The Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich, the future Donskoy, had to defend his right to the great reign in a stubborn struggle, first with the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod, and then with the Tver prince; and both of them enjoyed the support

From the book History of Russia [for students of technical universities] author Shubin Alexander Vladlenovich

Chapter 2 APATIC Rus' (XII - FIRST HALF OF THE XV CENTURY) § 1. DISCOVERY OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE By the beginning of the period of appanage fragmentation (XII century), Kievan Rus was a social system with the following features:? the state maintained its

From the book Northern Outskirts of St. Petersburg. Lesnoy, Grazhdanka, Ruchi, Udelnaya… author Glezerov Sergey Evgenievich

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

Topic 2. Specific Rus' 2.1. Fragmentation of Rus' By the middle of the 11th century. The Old Russian state reached its peak. But over time, there was no longer a single state united by the power of the Kyiv prince. In its place dozens of completely independent

From the book Features of Folk South Russian History author Kostomarov Nikolay Ivanovich

I SOUTH RUSSIAN LAND. POLYANE-RUSS. DREVLYANE (POLESIE). VOLYN. PODOL. CHERVONAYA Rus' The most ancient news about the peoples who occupied the South Russian land is very scarce; however, not without reason: guided by both geographical and ethnographic features, it should be attributed to

From the book History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 20th century author Nikolaev Igor Mikhailovich

Appanage Rus' The appanage (from the word appanage) period was established in Rus' in the middle of the 12th century. By this time, large patrimonial land ownership had finally emerged. In feudal estates, as well as in individual peasant communities, subsistence farming dominated, and only

From the book History of Russia: end or new beginning? author Akhiezer Alexander Samoilovich

From the book Udelnaya. Essays on history author Glezerov Sergey Evgenievich

From the book Foreign Rus' author Pogodin Alexander Lvovich

IV. Ugric Rus' under the rule of the Magyars. - National awakening of Ugric Rus after 1849 - Bukovinian Rus Above Cheremesh. The position of Ugric Rus under the rule of the Magyars was incomparably more difficult than the position of the Russian Galicians. Here there were still connections with Russia

From the book Russian Explorers - the Glory and Pride of Rus' author Glazyrin Maxim Yurievich

Carpathian Rus' Carpathian Rus' (Galician Rus', Bukovina, Ugric Rus') Rusyns (Rusichs) live mainly in the lands of Slovakia, Poland and “Little” Rus' 1772. Galician Rus' (the main cities of Galich, Przemysl, Zvenigorod) was under the rule of Russian Lithuania. 1772–1918.

From the book Course of Russian History author Devletov Oleg Usmanovich

1.2. Specific Rus' By the middle of the 12th century. Appanage order was established in Rus'. Within the framework of a single state, certain territories were held by the military force of Kyiv. With the development of feudal land ownership, it became possible for each land to exist as an independent

Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword.
Alexander Nevskiy

Udelnaya Rus' originates in 1132, when Mstislav the Great dies, which leads the country to a new internecine war, the consequences of which had a huge impact on the entire state. As a result of subsequent events, independent principalities emerged. In Russian literature, this period is also called fragmentation, since all events were based on the disunion of lands, each of which was actually an independent state. Of course, the dominant position of the Grand Duke was preserved, but this was already a nominal figure rather than a truly significant one.

The period of feudal fragmentation in Rus' lasted almost 4 centuries, during which the country underwent strong changes. They affected both the structure, the way of life, and the cultural customs of the peoples of Russia. As a result of the isolated actions of the princes, Rus' for many years found itself branded with a yoke, which was only possible to get rid of after the rulers of the destinies began to unite around a common goal - the overthrow of the power of the Golden Horde. In this material we will consider the main distinctive features of appanage Rus' as an independent state, as well as the main features of the lands included in it.

The main reasons for feudal fragmentation in Rus' stem from the historical, economic and political processes that were taking place in the country at that point in time. The following main reasons for the formation of Appanage Rus' and fragmentation can be identified:

This whole set of measures led to the fact that the causes of feudal fragmentation in Rus' turned out to be very significant and led to irreversible consequences that almost put the very existence of the state at stake.

Fragmentation at a certain historical stage is a normal phenomenon that almost any state has encountered, but in Rus' there were certain distinctive features in this process. First of all, it should be noted that literally all the princes who ruled the estates were from the same ruling dynasty. There was nothing like this anywhere else in the world. There have always been rulers who held power by force, but had no historical claims to it. In Russia, almost any prince could be chosen as chief. Secondly, the loss of the capital should be noted. No, formally Kyiv retained a leading role, but this was only formal. At the beginning of this era, the Kiev prince was still dominant over everyone, other fiefs paid him taxes (whoever could). But literally within a few decades this changed, since first the Russian princes took the previously impregnable Kyiv by storm, and after that the Mongol-Tatars literally destroyed the city. By this time, the Grand Duke was the representative of the city of Vladimir.

Appanage Rus' - consequences of existence

Any historical event has its causes and consequences, which leave one or another imprint on the processes occurring within the state during such achievements, as well as after them. The collapse of the Russian lands in this regard was no exception and revealed a number of consequences that were formed as a result of the emergence of individual appanages:

Uniform population of the country. This is one of the positive aspects that was achieved due to the fact that the southern lands became the object of constant wars. As a result, the main population was forced to flee to the northern regions to find safety. If by the time the state of Udelnaya Rus was formed, the northern regions were practically deserted, then by the end of the 15th century the situation had already changed radically.
Development of cities and their arrangement. This point also includes economic, spiritual, and craft innovations that appeared in the principalities. This is due to a rather simple thing - the princes were full-fledged rulers in their lands, to maintain which it was necessary to develop a natural economy so as not to depend on their neighbors.
The appearance of vassals. Since there was no single system providing security to all principalities, weak lands were forced to accept the status of vassals. Of course, there was no talk of any oppression, but such lands did not have independence, since in many issues they were forced to adhere to the point of view of a stronger ally.
Decrease in the country's defense capability. The individual squads of the princes were quite strong, but still not numerous. In battles with equal opponents, they could win, but strong enemies alone could easily cope with each of the armies. Batu’s campaign clearly demonstrated this when the princes, in an attempt to defend their lands alone, did not dare to join forces. The result is widely known - 2 centuries of yoke and the murder of a huge number of Russians.
Impoverishment of the country's population. Such consequences were caused not only by external enemies, but also by internal ones. Against the backdrop of the yoke and constant attempts by Livonia and Poland to seize Russian possessions, internecine wars do not stop. They are still large-scale and destructive. In such a situation, as always, the common population suffered. This was one of the reasons for the migration of peasants to the north of the country. This is how one of the first mass migrations of people took place, which gave birth to appanage Rus'.

We see that the consequences of the feudal fragmentation of Russia are far from clear-cut. They have both negative and positive sides. Moreover, it should be remembered that this process is characteristic not only of Rus'. All countries have gone through it in one form or another. Ultimately, the destinies united anyway and created a strong state capable of ensuring its own security.

The collapse of Kievan Rus led to the emergence of 14 independent principalities, each of which had its own capital, its own prince and army. The largest of them were the Novgorod, Vladimir-Suzdal, Galician-Volyn principalities. It should be noted that in Novgorod a political system that was unique at that time was formed - a republic. Appanage Rus' became a unique state of its time.

Features of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality

This inheritance was located in the northeastern part of the country. Its inhabitants were mainly engaged in agriculture and cattle breeding, which was facilitated by favorable natural conditions. The largest cities in the principality were Rostov, Suzdal and Vladimir. As for the latter, it became the main city of the country after Batu captured Kyiv.

The peculiarity of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality is that for many years it maintained its dominant position, and the Grand Duke ruled from these lands. As for the Mongols, they also recognized the power of this center, allowing its ruler to personally collect tribute for them from all destinies. There are a lot of guesses on this matter, but we can still say with confidence that Vladimir was the capital of the country for a long time.

Features of the Galicia-Volyn Principality

It was located in the southwest of Kyiv, the peculiarities of which were that it was one of the largest in its time. The largest cities of this inheritance were Vladimir Volynsky and Galich. Their significance was quite high, both for the region and for the state as a whole. Local residents for the most part were engaged in crafts, which allowed them to actively trade with other principalities and states. At the same time, these cities could not become important shopping centers due to their geographical location.

Unlike most appanages, in Galicia-Volyn, as a result of fragmentation, wealthy landowners very quickly emerged, who had a huge influence on the actions of the local prince. This land was subject to frequent raids, primarily from Poland.

Principality of Novgorod

Novgorod is a unique city and a unique destiny. The special status of this city dates back to the formation of the Russian state. It was here that it originated, and its inhabitants have always been freedom-loving and wayward. As a result, they often changed princes, keeping only the most worthy ones. During the Tatar-Mongol yoke, it was this city that became the stronghold of Rus', a city that the enemy was never able to take. The Principality of Novgorod once again became a symbol of Russia and a land that contributed to their unification.

The largest city of this principality was Novgorod, which was guarded by the Torzhok fortress. The special position of the principality led to the rapid development of trade. As a result, it was one of the richest cities in the country. In terms of its size, it also occupied a leading place, second only to Kyiv, but unlike the ancient capital, the Novgorod principality did not lose its independence.

Significant dates

History is, first of all, dates that can tell better than any words what happened in each specific segment of human development. Speaking about feudal fragmentation, we can highlight the following key dates:

1185 - Prince Igor made a campaign against the Polovtsians, immortalized in the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign”
1223 – Battle of the Kalka River
1237 - the first Mongol invasion, which led to the conquest of Appanage Rus'
July 15, 1240 – Battle of the Neva
April 5, 1242 – Battle of the Ice
1358 – 1389 – The Grand Duke of Russia was Dmitry Donskoy
July 15, 1410 – Battle of Grunwald
1480 - great stand on the Ugra River
1485 – annexation of the Tver principality to the Moscow one
1505-1534 - the reign of Vasily 3, which was marked by the liquidation of the last inheritances
1534 - the reign of Ivan 4, the Terrible, begins.

L.A. Sinyaeva

What do we know

Princely strife

In 1015 Prince Vladimir of Kiev died - a struggle began between

sons-heirs

his brothers Boris and Gleb

Svyatopolk the Accursed killed

In 1019 the Kyiv throne was occupied by

In 1054, Yaroslav divided the Russian lands between his sons and bequeathed that they

“they did not transgress the destiny of their brother”

obeyed the Kyiv prince

In the event of the death of the prince, the heirs of the estate became

his sons and grandchildren

A condition for the division of a single Russian state into several independent principalities.

How Yaroslav the Wise tried to prevent strife between

by your sons? What did this lead to?

Yaroslav Mudry replaced lesvichna system of inheritance of the principality hereditary. This created the conditions for the collapse of the Russian state into separate principalities, but did not save it from civil strife.

Princely congresses

1097 in Lyubech took place

princely congress

Each prince rules in his own fiefdom.

The board was established

dynastic

own dynasty

In every land there are rules

How did the decisions of the congress of princes affect the unity of the country?

Congress of princes in Lyubich.

Beginning of the specific period. Principalities of Southern Rus' § 13

I. Discovering new knowledge:

3. Principalities of southern Rus'

4. Southern Rus' and the Steppe

II. We apply new knowledge. Control: With. 97 – 98.

2 points – v.1.

1 point – c. 3.

2 points – tasks.

1 point – oral answer.

III. Homework: § 13, c. 1 – 4, source.

1. Reasons for the collapse of Ancient Rus'

In 1132, after the death of Mstislav, the Old Russian state broke up into separate principalities (departments).

Show principalities and lands on the map.

Reasons for political fragmentation - ? P. 92.

External danger (Khazar Khaganate, Varangian raids)

Trade routes (East and West)

moved

The role of the Kyiv prince as an all-Russian military leader

lost its meaning

Local princes are the masters

their destinies

The meaning of political fragmentation

Preservation of cultural unity

The weakening of Rus''s military power

Fragmentation is a natural and progressive stage in the development of any state, as it is associated with a higher level of development of the economy and political system

2. Three types of statehood in the specific period

CITY EVENING

SENIOR DEVELOPMENT (boyars)

WHAT FORCE PLAYED THE DECISIVE ROLE?

TYPES OF STATE AUTHORITY

Monarchy with a large role for the boyars

Boyar republic with the decisive role of the veche

Monarchy with the dominant role of the prince

Southern Rus':

Kyiv, Galicia-Volyn land

Northwestern Rus'

North-Eastern Rus'

What was common in the political life of each state entity?

3. Principalities of southern Rus'

Time of reign

Principality of Galich

Main events

Yaroslav Osmomysl

Roman Mstislavich

Daniil Romanovich

The boyars interfere in the prince's personal life. The prince is placed on the throne.

(Volyn prince)

Principality of Kiev

He captured Galich and dealt with the boyars.

Captured Kyiv (1203). Created the Galicia-Volyn principality.

Vladimir Monomakh

1240 Kyiv was conquered.

Mstislav (senior Monomashich)

Yury Dolgoruky

Andrey Bogolyubsky

Kiev Veche invited to the throne

(Suzdal Prince)

Poisoned

He did not recognize the primacy of the Kyiv throne.

In 1169 he plundered Kyiv. 1203 Kyiv was sacked by the princes. Kyiv has lost the ROLE OF A CAPITAL.

4. Southern Rus' and the Steppe

Why was the role of the squad in the southern principalities strong? P. 95

External threat - Cumans

Steppe - Polovtsian lands.

nomads

Traded with a strong state

Fought with the weak

South Russian princes

Hikes to the Polovtsian lands

Years of peace - we became friends (weddings)

Show on the map the campaigns of the Russian princes against the Polovtsians

Did the Polovtsian raids hinder the development of the southern Russian principalities?

Invasion of the Polovtsians on Russian land. Captivity and massacre of the Russian population

We apply new knowledge and evaluate ourselves

2 points – v.1.

1 point – c. 3.

2 points – tasks.

1 point – oral answer.

Causes of feudal fragmentation

Already in the 2nd half. XI century New trends in the socio-economic and political development of Russian lands were clearly defined, which a century later ushered in a new stage in the history of Russian statehood - the era of feudal fragmentation.

Let us highlight its main reasons:

1) The emergence of estates - private large land holdings, which, as a rule, belonged to the boyars. The votchinniki - boyars - owned arable land, herds of horses, herds of cows, and poultry. Unfree workers (slaves - servants, serfs) were also part of the boyar's property. Free people also became dependent on the boyars. These were, for example, the “ryadovichi”, who entered into an agreement (“row”), on the basis of which they worked for the owner. A type of “ryadovichi” were “purchases”, obliged to work off the owner’s “kupu” - a debt.

From now on, the boyars ceased to depend on the prince. Having received regular income from the estate, they no longer needed tribute, and therefore were in no hurry to go on a campaign for the prince. It was not tribute, but land cultivated by the labor of dependent peasants that became the main value. The boyar did not want to tear his smerds away from the arable land, not only for the sake of long-distance campaigns, but sometimes even for the sake of protecting the country from the invasions of nomads, if they did not directly affect his possessions. The princely squad was not needed to pacify and subjugate dependent people. The boyar had his own “apparatus of suppression”: boyar tiun (household manager), elders, guards, etc.

The younger squad remained with the prince. It was not only a military force, but also part of the state apparatus, personally dependent on the prince. She was entrusted with collecting court fines and taxes. Gathered on behalf of the prince, they were the main source of livelihood for the younger warriors, who needed the prince and “fed” his mercy.

At the turn of the XI-XII centuries. The first contradictions emerged between the boyars and the younger squad. The interests of the boyars, who found themselves connected with their estates, often did not coincide with those of the princes. Landowners, who acquired great political power thanks to their wealth, sought independence from the central government and put pressure on local princes to decide at their own discretion on issues of domestic and even foreign policy.

The very nature of princely power prevented this. At that time, in Rus' there was a system of replacing princely thrones based on the principle of clan eldership. Rus' was conceived as a common ancestral domain of the Rurikovichs, and this meant the right of each family member to temporary possession of a certain part of the land in order of seniority. In conditions of lack of stability in political life and loose land holdings, princes often moved from one volost to another. They were passing figures for the population. The princely squad, who came with the prince, only collected tribute and taxes from the population, without worrying at all about the future. The outstanding Russian historian Klyuchevsky wrote: “The constant movement of princes from table to table and the disputes that accompanied it undermined the prince’s zemstvo authority. The prince was not attached to the place of ownership, to this or that table, either by dynastic or even personal connections. He came and soon went away, was a political accident for the region, a wandering comet.”

2) Changes also occurred in the princely environment. The practice of clan eldership when replacing thrones no longer satisfied what had grown by the 12th century. Rurik family. There was no clear order either in the distribution of inheritances or in their inheritance. It became increasingly difficult to establish clan eldership. The “paternal” principle of inheritance from father to son gained strength. Each prince turned from a governor, ready to leave his inheritance, into its permanent and hereditary owner, and Rus' became the territory of the hereditary possessions of the princes.

A complex, slow and contradictory process of the formation of land dynasties began, the integration of transient princes into the social structures of the lands and volosts, whose overlords they became. From this time on, the land interests of local princes and boyars began to coincide. They united in the fight against the central government, and the specific fragmentation of the country became irreversible.

3) Socio-economic progress in the 11th-12th centuries, the rise of agriculture, cattle breeding, crafts and trades, the development of domestic and foreign trade contributed to the growth and strengthening of individual lands and principalities of the Old Russian state. Cities grew, veche life became lively, townspeople actively fought for city liberties and played an important role in political affairs. Therefore, for local socio-economic development, the huge scale of the state as a whole was no longer needed.

4) Ancient Rus' was united, first of all, due to the common desire for predatory campaigns against Byzantium. However, by the end of the 10th century. the benefits in the form of booty and tribute began to be noticeably inferior in importance to the benefits received from the development of ordinary trade, which became possible, firstly, thanks to the conclusion of trade agreements with Byzantium, and secondly, due to the increase in wealth in the hands of the prince (on behalf of which, in fact, was traded by Russian merchants), caused by an increase in tax collection after the stabilization of relations within the state. Thus, military campaigns against Byzantium ceased.

5) It was possible to stabilize relations with the “steppe”. Svyatoslav also defeated the Khazars, Vladimir and Yaroslav actually put an end to the Pechenegs, and only the Polovtsians continued to harass Rus' with their raids. However, the Polovtsian forces were small, so there was no need to mobilize the troops of the entire state.

6) Internal functions - primarily judicial - were carried out with great success within separate, small territories. The increasing complexity of public life required not the rare appearance of a judge-arbiter from the center, but daily regulation. Local interests increasingly capture the princes sitting in individual lands, who begin to identify them with their own interests.

Thus, by the end of the 11th century. the obvious disappearance of those common, uniting interests that had previously cemented the state quite firmly was revealed. Other connecting threads, say, economic ones (subsistence farming), simply did not exist. Therefore, Rus', having lost most of what connected it, fell apart.

The appanage princes stopped paying tribute to Kyiv and severed ties with their supreme overlord. From the 2nd half. XII century in Rus' there already existed 15 principalities and separate lands: Rostov-Suzdal, Murom-Ryazan, Smolensk, Kiev, Chernigov, Galician, Volyn, Novgorod, etc. The number of independent principalities was not stable due to family divisions and the unification of some of them. If in the middle of the 12th century. there were 15 large and small appanage principalities, then on the eve of the Horde invasion (1230s) - about 50, and in the 14th century. the number of principalities of various ranks exceeded 2.5 hundred.

The political structure and form of government have changed. The weakening of the power of the Kyiv prince required compensation by introducing a different method of governance. Thus a system of collective suzerainty was created. Its essence is that the Kiev prince allocated a share in the southern Russian land to someone who recognized his eldership and power and took upon himself the obligation to protect it from enemies. Such decisions of the Grand Duke were approved at a congress with other South Russian princes. The practice became the obligation of the Kyiv prince to “think about the Russian land” (i.e., govern) together with other co-owners. This system turned out to be viable, ensuring relative stability in the socio-political life of Ancient Rus' almost until the time of the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

Old Russian principalities and lands: specifics of political organization

However, the collapse was not absolute. Along with centrifugal tendencies, centripetal ones also persisted. They were expressed, in particular, in maintaining the prestige of the title of Grand Duke of Kyiv (although it no longer plays a real unifying role). In addition, the princes from time to time found it necessary to gather at their inter-princely congresses to discuss emerging common problems.

By the end of the 12th century, the fall of Kyiv became obvious due to inter-princely strife and Polovtsian raids. The population left Kyiv in two directions: to the west, towards the Carpathian Mountains or to the north, to the upper reaches of the Volga. Then these were the outskirts of Rus', in which, to replace the old Kyiv, 3 centers of state life arose

1. Galicia-Volyn land;

2. Vladimir-Suzdal land;

3. Novgorod and Pskov feudal republics.

Assessing the feudal fragmentation of Rus' in the 12th-15th centuries, it should be emphasized that, being the product of a progressive nature, it was a complex and contradictory phenomenon. The highest authority in each principality came closer to the object of control, which, it would seem, should have contributed to the economic prosperity of individual regions. At the same time, the internal life of Rus' at that time was largely determined by princely strife, during which thousands of people died and the very productive forces were destroyed, the development of which led to a state of fragmentation. In addition, the weakening of the central government and the strife of the princes undermined the country's defense capability and made Rus' an easy prey for foreign conquerors.

During the period of feudal fragmentation, the political structure of individual lands and principalities retained traditional features: in most principalities - in the form of a feudal monarchy, in the Galicia-Volyn land - an oligarchic form of government, and in the Novgorod and Pskov lands - in the form of a feudal republic.

a) Vladimir-Suzdal land.

In the principalities of the monarchical type, the princes adhered to the traditional form of government, although each of the Russian lands had its own characteristic features. An example of this is the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality.

In the 11th century Suzdal or Zalesskaya Rus' was located between the Oka, on the one hand, and the Volga, on the other. Until the end of the 11th century. This eastern outskirts of Kievan Rus was a remote and sparsely populated region. At the end of the 11th century. Suzdal land became a special principality. By agreement of the princes, it was given to Vladimir Monomakh, who began to arrange it for his youngest son Yuri Dolgoruky. From this time on, the construction of cities such as Tver, Kostroma, Balakhna, Nizhny Novgorod and others began. The influx of Russian settlers increased here.

The nature of the Vladimir-Suzdal land differed from both Kyiv and Novgorod. There were no rich black soils here, but there was no rocky soil either. Nature allowed for farming and forestry. The Suzdal princes become the most powerful in the entire Russian land.

Yuri Dolgoruky had a strong influence here. Its role in the construction of cities is great. His son Andrei Bogolyubsky develops the city of Vladimir, erects the Assumption Cathedral in it. He strove for autocracy not only in the Suzdal principality, but throughout the entire Russian land.

Under another son of Yuri Dolgoruky, Vsevolod (Big Nest), the Vladimir principality grew and became one of the large feudal states of Europe, widely known outside of Rus'.

The development of feudal relations in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality was subject to the laws of feudal development: a significant increase in large land ownership and the struggle of feudal lords for the land of peasants; the emergence of new groups of feudal-dependent people; strengthening the link between land ownership and political power. Moreover, feudal relations began to develop here later than in other regions of Rus'; princely power arose later, but was strong and had huge land holdings.

Another important factor in the strengthening of princely power is the growth of new cities by the 12th century, such as Moscow, Yaroslavl, Zvenigorod, Dmitrov, etc. Relying on the squad, court and growing cities, the princes suppressed the opposition of the old Rostov-Suzdal boyars and strengthened their power. However, after the death of Vsevolod, the disintegration of the principality began, in the state in which the Tatar-Mongols found him. One of the first was conquered during the Tatar-Mongol invasion. But it was here that the prerequisites for the unification of Rus' began to mature earlier and faster than others.

It was typical for the Vladimir-Suzdal princes:

1. Ownership of princely estates - domains (hereditary land);

2. The supreme power of the prince over large land estates, villages and cities;

3. Creation of palace lands by merging the prince's estates with state lands.

In the 2nd half. XII century In the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, a new class of feudal lords emerges - the nobles. At first, this was a lower social group of the feudal class, which was characterized by the following features: military service with the prince, for which they were rewarded with lands and the right to exploit the peasants. However, this land ownership was conditional and was lost in the event of termination of service. The nobles did not have the right to freely move from prince to prince.

Peasants bore duties in the form of quitrents in kind, labor rent (corvee labor), and state duties. Dependent peasants had the right to move from one feudal lord to another. When they left, they were obliged to pay off the debt.

The urban population of the Vladimir-Suzdal land consisted of artisans, merchants, clergy and boyars.

In the 13th century In connection with the growth of independence, appanage princes turn into heads of feudal estates independent from the Grand Duke. These princes appropriate the title of great princes, and they have their own great princes.

The Grand Duke of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality was the bearer of supreme power. He owned legislative, executive, administrative, judicial and ecclesiastical powers.

The governing bodies of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality were the prince's council, the veche and feudal congresses. The princely council included the most powerful representatives of the service boyars, loyal to the prince. The Veche was convened to resolve the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy, and Feudal Congresses were convened in emergency situations on the initiative of the Grand Duke.

Local government was in the hands of the volost governors, who were the local representatives of the Grand Duke.

The main significance of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality for the history of Russia is that Moscow arose on its territory, which later became the capital of the Russian state. The first mention of Moscow in Russian chronicles dates back to April 4, 1147.

b) Galicia-Volyn land.

Simultaneously with the development of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality in the southwest of Rus', the Volyn and Galician lands began to develop and become richer. At the end of the 12th century. Vladimir Monomakh's grandson Roman Mstislavovich captured the Galician principality adjacent to Volyn, located on the eastern slopes of the Carpathians and laid the foundation for the creation of a single strong Galician-Volyn principality (from 1200). Soon the city of Galich, distinguished by its fertility and richness of land, became its center.

The position of the Galicia-Volyn land was more dangerous than the position of the Suzdal land, because they were not in the center, but on the borders of Russian land and had as their neighbors Poles, Lithuanians, Ugrians, as well as the strong enemies of Russia, the Polovtsians.

In addition, the peculiarity of the social life of Volyn and Galich was that the boyars fought there with the princes, as well as the princely squad.

The effectiveness of the veche in this principality occupied an insignificant place and the princes had to reckon with the boyars. The boyars here acquired destructive power, and their feuds significantly weakened the state.

The urban population of the Galicia-Volyn land was not numerous.

The bulk of the rural population depended on the boyars. The exploitation of peasants here was much stronger than in other lands.

A peculiarity of the state structure of the Galicia-Volyn land was that for a long time it was not divided into appanages.

The highest authorities were the prince, the council of boyars and the veche. The boyars played the leading role in political life. The most important body of the boyars was the Boyar Council (Duma). The veche played a formal role.

A system of palace management was created here, and before influential officials appeared in other lands - a butler, an equerry, a printer.

The entire Galicia-Volyn land was divided into voivodeships, headed by voivodes appointed from among the boyars. “Lesser boyars” were appointed as managers in rural areas and volosts. The Prince was called to power by the Boyar Duma.

A single strong state did not emerge from the Galicia-Volyn principality, the main reason for this was the border position of the principality: on the one hand, the influence of Poland and Lithuania. By the 13th century. the Poles occupied Galicia, on the other hand, the Lithuanians captured Volyn. So, by the 13th century. this principality ceased to exist.

c) Novgorod and Pskov republics.

A typical example of a feudal-republican system of government was Novgorod, which in the 12th century. became a boyar republic with a unique veche system.

In the period from 1136 to 1478. in the north-west of Rus' there was a Novgorod feudal republic, and from 1348 to 1510. A republican form of government also existed in Pskov.

“Mr. Veliky Novgorod” consisted of five districts, which were called 5 “ends”. Accordingly, the entire Novgorod land was divided into 5 provinces. These 5 provinces made up a huge territory from Lake Onega to the Volga. The Novgorod lands also included lands along the Northern Dvina, Pechora, and Vyatka rivers.

The owner of all these possessions was Veliky Novgorod - as it was called, the “elder city” with all its free population. The Novgorodians called their lands “the land of Hagia Sophia” after the name of the main Novgorod temple.

The cities subordinate to Novgorod were fortresses that were supposed to protect the city in the event of an attack by enemies - Germans, Swedes, Danes. Such fortress cities were Pskov (later separated from Novgorod), Izborsk, Staraya Russa, Ladoga.

The entire Novgorod land was infertile, rocky, and covered with swamps. Therefore, Novgorodians imported most of their goods from their eastern and western neighbors.

It is typical that grain was brought from the Volga region to Novgorod, and in exchange they sold those goods that they purchased from their western neighbors - furs, honey, flax. This mediation made it possible to concentrate capital in the hands of the local nobility.

The state structure and administration of Novgorod took shape under the influence of the people's council. The veche elected the prince, and subsequently the ruler, i.e. archbishop.

The Veche decided on the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy: it declared war and made peace, approved treaties and legislative acts.

The prince was invited to Novgorod by agreement to serve as a military commander and arbitrator in the most important legal proceedings. He was forbidden to acquire possessions in the Novgorod land for himself and his squad, to enjoy income in excess of strictly established amounts and to dispose of the city treasury. The prince did not rule the city, but served it. The Novgorodians “showed the clear path to the obstinate princes,” i.e. they were simply kicked out of the city.

All the levers and threads of government in Novgorod were in the hands of several hundred boyars. This “council of gentlemen” controlled the representative and executive power of Novgorod. The highest secular authority in the city was the mayor from the boyars. He convened the meeting, opened its sessions, and carried out its decisions. He also supervised foreign relations, controlled the actions of the prince, and carried out judicial functions. His closest assistant was Tysyatsky, the leader of the city militia, who in peacetime exercised police supervision over order in the city. The bishop, in addition to spiritual power, also had temporal power. He was in charge of the city treasury, foreign relations and had the right of court. Low-level officials were elected from local residents and reported to the mayor.

The prince was deprived of the right to acquire land holdings in Novgorod. The Novgorodians allocated him land, as a rule, on the Volga. For his service, the prince received “gifts” or “tribute” in a precisely defined amount.

The prince in Novgorod was the highest government authority. He led the Novgorod army, was the supreme judge and ruler. However, as an outsider to Novgorod, the prince did not live in the city itself, but 3 miles from it, near Lake Ilmen. The prince undertook to rule Novgorod without changing laws and customs, and with the constant participation of the mayor elected by the veche.

The mayor accompanied the prince to the war, was present at the princely court, and together with the prince appointed officials. The mayor in Novgorod was in charge of civil affairs, and the thousand was the leader of the militia. Subordinate to Tysyatsky were the sotsky commanders of 10 hundreds, which amounted to a thousand. Each of the five ends of the city had Konchan elders, who fielded 200 militia.

The Novgorod lord-archbishop not only was in charge of church affairs, but also played a large role in the political life of Novgorod. He headed the government council, consisting of boyars, and monitored the activities of the veche. Every decision of the veche required the blessing of the bishop. The ruler sealed agreements with foreigners with his seal. The Vladyka was the custodian of the state treasury and the state archive. He had his own staff of officials and even his own regiment, separate from the Novgorod militia. The ruler was a large landowner.

The Veche in Novgorod was the body of the highest state power, made decisions, vested powers in officials, and acted in agreements with foreigners on behalf of the feudal republic.

The population of Novgorod and its lands was divided into two groups - “the best people” and “the younger people.” The first group is the boyars, living people and merchants. Boyars are officials and nobility. Less official, but rich people were called zhilii.

The entire poor population was called "lesser". Within the city these were small traders, artisans, and workers. In the provinces, smaller people were called smerds (peasants) and ladles (farmers who worked for the owners from half the harvest). Smerdas lived in graveyards, and ladles, of which there were many in the Novgorod land, were close in their position to serfs.

The history of Novgorod is one of constant civil strife and turmoil. Political power was in the hands of the boyar council, which, putting pressure on the poor, carried out the necessary decisions through the veche. The veche took up arms against the boyars, and then the poor began to beat and rob the “best people.” Internal contradictions led to the fall of the feudal republic.

Novgorodians began to look for allies in order to maintain their independence. This ruined Novgorod, since the nobility wanted an alliance with Lithuania against Moscow, and the poor wanted an alliance with Moscow against Lithuania. The civil strife ended with the Principality of Moscow conquering Novgorod in 1478 and annexing all its lands.

A system of fortifications was necessary on the western border of Rus', since Pskov stood on the border of Russia next to Lithuania and the Germans. Having become rich in trade, Pskov left the obedience of Novgorod and in 1348 gained independence.

In Pskov there were the same political bodies as in Novgorod. The main body of power was the "council of gentlemen." Just as in Novgorod, the princes were formally limited in their power, although in fact the boyars led the veil.

The veche in Pskov was more peaceful than in Novgorod. There was no sharp property inequality among residents and therefore no acute contradictions.

An example of the political state structure of Pskov is the “Pskov Judicial Charter”. In this document one can find many articles that regulated the relations between landowners and the feudally dependent population - izorniki - plowmen, gardeners and kochetniks (fishermen). Izorniki worked "half-time", i.e. Half of the harvest was given to the landowner. They had the right to leave the owner only on November 26, having returned the taken help or pokrugu (loan) in silver or goods.

The monument of legislation is the "Pskov Judgment Charter". The development of feudal relations, the growth of class contradictions, and the strengthening of protection of the property of feudal lords and merchants led to increased criminal repression for horse theft and theft of church property, which was punishable by death.

Among the serious crimes, the Pskov Judicial Charter also notes such as perevet (treason), bribery to a judge (secret promise), intrusion into a courthouse, etc. The monument of legislation is the "Pskov Judgment Charter". The development of feudal relations, the growth of class contradictions, and the strengthening of protection of the property of feudal lords and merchants led to increased criminal repression for horse theft and theft of church property, which was punishable by death.

The role of the period of feudal fragmentation in the development of Ancient Rus'

In general, inter-princely strife is the main theme of the chronicle stories of the 12th - 13th centuries, which creates a distorted idea of them as the main feature of the appanage period, painting an image of the gradual decline of Rus', becoming a defenseless victim of any strong enemy. Sometimes one gets the impression of the fatal inevitability of the death of the Old Russian state. In fact, the influence of strife on the development of Ancient Rus' is clearly exaggerated.

The appanage period not only was not a time of decline, but, on the contrary, meant the flourishing of the Old Russian state and, above all, in the sphere of culture. Of course, strife weakened unity, and therefore the possibility of joint resistance to a major enemy, but in the foreseeable space such an enemy did not exist in Rus'.

The collapse of the Old Russian state, thus, looks like a natural stage in the development of statehood, forming more developed state structures, laying the foundations for the emergence of a society independent of the state, influencing state policy.

Specific period

Feudal fragmentation- a period of weakening of central power in feudal states due to decentralization varying in duration and effect, due to the strengthening of large feudal lords in the conditions of the seigneurial system of labor organization and military service. New smaller territorial formations lead an almost independent existence; subsistence farming is dominant in them. The term is widespread in Russian historiography and is used in various meanings.

Specific period

The term is used to designate the era of the existence of appanages and includes the entire period from the division of central power (from the first in the year - for the empire of Charlemagne, from the last in 1132 - for Kievan Rus; not from the appearance of the first appanages) in the early feudal state until the liquidation of the latter destiny in a centralized state.

Advanced feudalism

Often the term, which characterizes the state of supreme power in the state and relations within the top of feudal society (see vassalage), is used as a synonym for the concepts feudalism And advanced feudalism, characterizing the economic system and relations between social strata of society. In addition, the concepts refer to different, albeit overlapping, chronological intervals.

Feudal anarchy, aristocratic system

As the ruling dynasty in early feudal states branched out, their territory expanded and the administrative apparatus, whose representatives exercised the power of the monarch over the local population, collecting tribute and troops, the number of contenders for central power increased, peripheral military resources increased, and the control capabilities of the center weakened. The supreme power becomes nominal, and the monarch begins to be elected by large feudal lords from among themselves, while the resources of the elected monarch, as a rule, are limited to the resources of his original principality, and he cannot pass on the supreme power by inheritance. In this situation, the rule “my vassal’s vassal is not my vassal” applies.

The first exceptions are England in the north-west of Europe (the Salisbury oath, all feudal lords are direct vassals of the king) and Byzantium in its south-east (around the same time, Emperor Alexius I Komnenos forced the crusaders, who seized lands during the first crusade to Middle East, recognize vassal dependence on the empire, thereby including these lands within the empire and maintaining its unity). In these cases, all the lands of the state are divided into the domain of the monarch and the lands of his vassals, as in the next historical stage, when the supreme power is assigned to one of the princes, again begins to be inherited and the process of centralization begins (this stage is often called patrimonial monarchy). The full development of feudalism became a prerequisite for the end of feudal fragmentation, since the overwhelming majority of the feudal stratum, its ordinary representatives, were objectively interested in having a single spokesman for their interests:

The local boyars learned to go on campaigns under the Moscow banner and look at the Moscow prince as their leader and sovereign over the sovereigns - other Russian princes. But sooner or later, these other princes begin to notice that power is slipping out of their hands, and they make an attempt to return it by conspiring against Moscow with its opponents. It was then that something happened that should have happened long ago: the local boyars, taking advantage of the right of free departure, went into the service of the Moscow prince, leaving their former overlords without fighting force, depriving them of the very basis of power.

A specific period of Russian history has positive consequences. Specific period in the history of Russia (XII-XVI centuries)

Specific Rus'

Appanage Rus' - consequences of existence

Features of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality

Features of the Galicia-Volyn Principality

Principality of Novgorod

Significant dates

Specific period

Advanced feudalism

Feudal anarchy, aristocratic system

Feudal fragmentation of Rus'

Links

see also

See what “Specific period” is in other dictionaries: