Causes of feudal fragmentation in Russia. Feudal fragmentation in Russia: background, causes, essence and historical consequences

Feudal fragmentation- a natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal estates. Feudal fragmentation is most often understood as the political and economic decentralization of the state, the creation on the territory of one state of practically independent from each other, independent state entities that formally had a common supreme ruler (in Russia, the period of the 12th - 15th centuries).

Already in the word "fragmentation" the political processes of this period are fixed. By the middle of the 12th century, there were approximately 15 principalities. By the beginning of the XIII century - about 50. By the XIV century - about 250.

How to evaluate this process? But is there a problem here? The unified state broke up and was relatively easily conquered by the Mongols-Tatars. And before that, there were bloody strife between princes, from which ordinary people, peasants and artisans suffered.

Indeed, approximately such a stereotype was formed until recently when reading scientific and journalistic literature, and even some scientific works. True, these works also spoke of the pattern of fragmentation of Russian lands, the growth of cities, the development of trade and handicrafts. All this is true, however, the smoke of the conflagrations in which Russian cities disappeared during the years of the Batu invasion, and today many people obscure their eyes. But can the significance of one event be measured by the tragic consequences of another? "If not for the invasion, Russia would have survived."

But after all, the Mongol-Tatars also conquered huge empires, such as, for example, China. The battle with the countless armies of Batu was a much more difficult undertaking than the victorious campaign against Constantinople, the defeat of Khazaria, or the successful military operations of the Russian princes in the Polovtsian steppes. For example, the forces of only one of the Russian lands - Novgorod - turned out to be enough to defeat the German, Swedish and Danish invaders by Alexander Nevsky. In the face of the Mongol-Tatars, there was a collision with a qualitatively different enemy. So if we put the question in the subjunctive mood, we can ask in another way: could the Russian early feudal state resist the Tatars? Who dares to answer it in the affirmative? And the most important thing. The success of the invasion cannot be attributed to fragmentation.

There is no direct causal relationship between them. Fragmentation is the result of the progressive internal development of Ancient Russia. The invasion is an external influence that is tragic in its consequences. Therefore, to say: "Fragmentation is bad because the Mongols conquered Russia" - it makes no sense.

It is also wrong to exaggerate the role of feudal strife. In the joint work of N. I. Pavlenko, V. B. Kobrin and V. A. Fedorov "History of the USSR from ancient times to 1861" they write: "You cannot imagine feudal fragmentation as some kind of feudal anarchy. Moreover, princely strife in a single state, when it came to the struggle for power, for the throne of the grand duke or these or those rich principalities and cities, were sometimes more bloody than during the period of feudal fragmentation. prince of Kyiv, although his power was weakening all the time and was rather nominal ... The goal of strife during the period of fragmentation was already different than in a single state: not to seize power throughout the country, but to strengthen its own principality, expanding its borders at the expense of neighbors.

Thus, fragmentation differs from the times of state unity not by the presence of strife, but by fundamentally different goals of the warring parties.

The main dates of the period of feudal fragmentation in Russia:

The first division of the lands took place under Vladimir Svyatoslavich, from his reign princely strife began to flare up, the peak of which fell on 1015-1024, when only three of Vladimir's twelve sons survived. The division of land between the princes, strife only accompanied the development of Russia, but did not determine one or another political form of state organization. They did not create a new phenomenon in the political life of Russia. The economic basis and main cause of feudal fragmentation is often considered subsistence farming, the result of which was the absence of economic ties. Subsistence economy - the sum of economically independent, closed economic units in which the product goes from its manufacture to consumption. The reference to subsistence farming is only a true statement of the fact that has taken place. However, its dominance, which is typical for feudalism, does not yet explain the reasons for the collapse of Russia, since subsistence farming dominated both in united Russia and in the XIV-XV centuries, when a single state was formed in the Russian lands on the basis of political centralization.

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 little worlds not connected with each other and to the state-political separatism of local boyar unions.

Feudal fragmentation is a progressive phenomenon in the development of feudal relations. The collapse of the early feudal empires into independent principalities-kingdoms was an inevitable stage in the development of feudal society, whether it concerned Russia in Eastern Europe, France in Western Europe, or the Golden Horde in the East. Feudal fragmentation was progressive because it was the result of the development of feudal relations, the deepening of the social division of labor, which resulted in the rise of agriculture, the flourishing of handicrafts, 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, primarily the boyars.

The first reason for feudal fragmentation was the growth of boyar estates, the number of smerds dependent on them. The 12th-beginning of the 13th centuries were characterized by the further development of boyar land ownership in various principalities of Russia. The boyars expanded their possession by seizing the lands of free community smerds, enslaving them, buying lands. In an effort to get a larger surplus product, they increased the natural quitrent and working off, which were performed by dependent smerds. The increase in the surplus product received by the boyars as a result of this made them economically powerful and independent. In various lands of Russia, economically powerful boyar corporations began to take shape, striving to become sovereign masters of the lands where their estates were located. They wanted to judge their peasants themselves, to receive vira fines from them. Many boyars had feudal immunity (the right of non-interference in the affairs of the patrimony), 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 intervened 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 Russia. The Grand Duke, considered the supreme owner of all the lands of Russia, 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, tearing them away from their estates. The boyars began to be burdened by the service of the Grand Duke, sought to elude her, which led to numerous conflicts. The contradictions between the local boyars and the great prince of Kyiv led to the strengthening of the desire of the former for political independence. The boyars were also driven to this by the need for their close princely power, which could quickly implement the norms of Russkaya Pravda, since the strength of the grand-princely virniks, governors, combatants could not provide quick real help to the boyars of the 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, smerds to the seizure of their lands, enslavement, and increased requisitions.

The growth of clashes between smerds and townspeople with the boyars became the second reason for feudal fragmentation. The need for local princely power, the creation of a state apparatus forced the local boyars to invite the prince and his retinue to their lands. But, inviting the prince, the boyars were inclined to see in him only a police and military force, not interfering in boyar affairs. Such an invitation was also beneficial for the princes and squad. The prince received a permanent reign, his land estate, stopped rushing from one princely table to another. The squad was also satisfied, which was also tired of following from table to table with the prince. 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 assigned to him by the boyars, 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 the Russian lands reached 224. Their economic and political role increased as the centers of a particular land. It was on the cities that the local boyars and the prince relied in the struggle against the great Kievan prince. The growing role of the boyars and local princes led to the revival of city veche assemblies. Veche, a peculiar form of feudal democracy, was a political body. In fact, it was in the hands of the boyars, which excluded the real decisive participation in the management of ordinary citizens. The boyars, controlling the veche, tried to use the political activity of the townspeople in their own interests. 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 the stronghold of the decentralization aspirations of local princes and nobility. The reasons for feudal fragmentation should also include the decline of the Kievan land from the constant Polovtsian raids and the decline in the power of the Grand Duke, whose land estate decreased in the 12th century.

Russia broke up into 14 principalities, 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 military." The princes declared wars, concluded peace and various alliances. The Grand Duke was the first (senior) among equal princes.

Princely congresses have been preserved, where questions 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 point. Constant strife between the princes, either subsiding or flaring up with renewed vigor, exhausted the strength of the Russian lands, weakened their defenses in the face of external danger. The disintegration of Russia, however, did not lead to the disintegration of the ancient Russian nationality, the historically established linguistic, territorial, economic and cultural community. In the Russian lands, a single concept of Russia, the Russian land, continued to exist. “Oh, Russian land, you already proclaimed the author of The Tale of Igor's Campaign behind the hill. During the period of feudal fragmentation, three centers emerged in the Russian lands: the Vladimir-Suzdal, Galicia-Volyn principalities and the Novgorod feudal republic.

Feudal fragmentation of Russia, all causes and consequences.

ʼʼThe Word about Igor's Campaignʼʼ.

The feudal fragmentation of Russian lands (XIII-XV centuries) is a natural stage in the development of feudalism, a period of rapid growth of local political centers and various parts of the country.

Main causes of feudal fragmentation:

1) the dominance of natural economy with the simultaneous underdevelopment of economic ties;

2) the emergence of large feudal landownership in the form of a boyar estate;

3) the strengthening of the political influence of the boyars, their desire for independence from Kyiv;

4) the weakening of the military and political power of the central government, caused by the struggle of the princes for Kyiv;

5) the development of cities in Russia as local centers of economic (trade, handicraft) and political life.

The collapse of Kievan Rus outwardly looked like a division of land among the descendants of Yaroslav the Wise. In 1097 ᴦ. in ᴦ. Lyubech (near Kyiv) a congress of Russian princes took place, the decisions of which became the beginning of the formation of independent principalities. At the same time, princely strife continued. To internal strife was added a danger from the outside - the invasion of the nomadic Polovtsians. The Polovtsians turned out to be a strong and dangerous enemy. The military campaigns of individual princes (for example, the campaign of the Seversky prince Igor in 1185 ᴦ.) ended unsuccessfully. To defeat the Polovtsy, it was necessary to unite the forces of the Russian princes, to stop the princely strife. With such a patriotic appeal, the nameless author of ʼʼThe Lay of Igor's Campaignʼʼ turned to the princes. For some time, the unity of Russia was restored by Prince Vladimir Monomakh (1113–1125). After his death, quarrels between the princes flared up with renewed vigor, and the Russian lands broke up into independent states.

The largest lands of the time of feudal fragmentation were Vladimir-Suzdal Principality, Galicia-Volyn Principality and the Novgorod Republic.

The Vladimir-Suzdal principality was located in the north-east of Russia, between the Oka and Volga rivers. Nature and climate favored the development of agriculture and cattle breeding. The main cities of the principality - Suzdal, Rostov, Vladimir - became centers of crafts and trade. The princely and boyar landholdings grew rapidly. North-eastern Russia became independent under Prince Yuri Dolgoruky (1125–1157), nicknamed for his intervention in princely strife and the desire to seize distant cities and lands. His policy of expanding the principality, continued by his sons Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157–1174) and Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176–1212), turned by the beginning of the XIII century. northeastern Russia into the strongest state among the Russian lands.

The Galicia-Volyn principality was located southwest of Kyiv with rich lands and developed trade. The largest cities - Vladimir Volynsky, Galich, Kholm, Berestye - were famous as craft centers. In contrast to the northeast, in the southwest of Russia, large boyar land ownership developed early. Having grown rich, the boyars began to compete for power with the Galician and Volhynian princes, ruining the country with long and fruitless military campaigns. The principality reached its power during the reign of princes Yaroslav Osmomysl (1152–1187 r.), Roman Mstislavich (1199–1205 r.) and Daniil Romanovich (1238–1264 r.).

Novgorod land was located in the north and north-west of Russia. The center of this state was Novgorod, the second largest city in Russia after Kyiv. Located at the crossroads of trade routes, Novgorod became the largest center of trade with the south, east, and especially with the west.

In the Novgorod land, a political system different from other Russian lands developed. From 1136 ᴦ., when the uprising of the Novgorodians ended with the expulsion of the prince, Novgorod enjoyed the right to independently choose a prince from any princely family. The prince and his army were invited in cases of extreme importance to defend the borders and wage wars, but he could not interfere in internal relations. The head of the city-state was the bishop (later - the archbishop), the highest church judge, the keeper of the city treasury. The executive power belonged to the posadnik, and the governor of the Novgorod militia was the thousand. The posadnik and the tysyatsky were annually elected from among the Novgorod boyars at a general meeting of the townspeople - a veche.

Consequences of feudal fragmentation were different. Positive:

1) the difficulties of life in the south forced people to leave for the north and east of the country, populating and developing these previously undeveloped outskirts of ancient Russia.

2) each prince, having received part of the Russian lands in permanent possession, strives for their improvement - he builds new cities, encourages the development of agriculture, handicrafts, trade;

3) in the Russian principalities, a system of vassalage is taking shape, when small landowners are in the position of subjects and servants, and not relatives and co-rulers of the prince;

4) there is an active social life.

Negative:

1) the ruin of the population due to the endless princely civil strife;

2) an increase in external danger, the possibility of complete enslavement of Russian lands by foreign invaders.

An analysis of the socio-political structures of Ancient Russia allows us to single out three centers of attraction that to some extent influenced social development:

· state power in the person of the prince with swordsmen surrounding him, virniki, "mercifuls" and other administrative agents;

· the boyars in the person of the tribal and tribal nobility, who at a certain stage switched to the exploitation of their relatives and fellow tribesmen, and the top of the princely squad;

· urban people's self-government in the person of the "old men of the city" and the veche.

In the future, the ratio of these power elements at certain historical stages will determine one or another type of statehood.

Feudal fragmentation of Russia, all causes and consequences. - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Feudal fragmentation of Russia, all causes and consequences." 2017, 2018.

1. Causes of feudal fragmentation. Socio-economic and political

development of Russia in the period of feudal fragmentation

From the second quarter XII in. in Russia began a period of feudal fragmentation, which lasted until the end XV in. (Western Europe passed this stage in X - XII centuries).

Modern historical science considers the era of feudal fragmentation as a natural progressive stage in the development of feudal society (before the conquest factor interfered with normal development), 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 general military potential, which facilitates 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 in. in all its manifestations."

The main reasons for feudal fragmentation:

1. Growth of local productive forces –one of the main causes of feudal fragmentation. What is it reflected in?

First, there were significant shifts in the development of productive forces in agriculture, which was primarily reflected in the improvement of tools: a wooden plow with an iron plowshare, sickles, scythes, a two-pronged plow, etc. appeared. This raised the level of agricultural production. Arable agriculture spread everywhere. The transition to a three-field system of agriculture began.

Secondly, handicraft production has achieved certain success. The emergence of new agricultural implements made it possible to free up more and more people for the craft. As a result, handicrafts were separated from agriculture. AT 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 population. It was in the cities that handicraft production developed mainly. The number of cities is increasing dramatically. If in Russian chronicles in XII in. 135 cities are mentioned, then by the middle XIII in. their number has grown to 300.

2. Another reason for feudal fragmentation –further strengthening of local centers.

By the 30s. XII in. even on the most remote outskirts of Kievan Rus, a large boyar land ownership developed. Large landowners appeared in the country–princes, sometimes more wealthy than those of Kiev. Often they owned not only villages, but also cities. Communal lands were also seized by the boyars. Church and monastic landownership grew.

Feudal patrimonies, like peasant communities, were natural in nature. Their links to the market were weak and irregular. Under these conditions, it became possible for each region to separate and exist as an independent principality. In each such principality, a local boyar was formed.–the main political and economic power of that 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 aggravation of the class struggle took place between the feudal lords, on the one hand, and the smerds and the urban poor–with another.

The forms of the class struggle of the peasantry and the urban poor with the oppressors were very diverse: escapes, damage to the master's inventory, extermination of livestock, robberies, arson, and finally, uprisings. The struggle of the peasants was of a spontaneous nature. 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 actions of the peasants and the urban poor, the ruling circles were required to create an apparatus of coercion in each large feudal estate.

The feudal lords were interested in a firm princely power in the localities, primarily because this made it possible to suppress the resistance of the peasants, who were becoming more and more enslaved by them. Local feudal lords now did not depend on the central government in Kiev, they relied on the military power of their prince.

5. Continuous wars with nomads (Khazars, Pechenegs, Polovtsy, Volga Bulgars) also contributed to the destruction of economic and political ties between Russian lands.

Thus, ripe with XI in. prerequisites for the economic independence of large feudal principalities, estates and cities by the middle XII in. turned into a solid economic base for their political liberation from grand ducal power.

As a result of the dismemberment of Kievan Rus on the territory of Rus in XI-XII centuries 13 largest principalities and feudal republics were formed: Novgorod and Pskov lands, Vladimir-Suzdal, Polotsk-Minsk, Turov-Pinsk, Smolensk, Galicia-Volyn-skoe, Kiev, Pereyaslav, 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 growth in the number of feudal dependent people, the exploitation of their labor in the patrimonial economy (rather than tribute) became the basis of the economic power of the prince.

Vladimir I distributed across Russia his 12 sons, who were the deputies of the Grand Duke.

According to the will of Yaroslav the Wise, his sons sat down to reign in various Russian regions. From this begins the so-called "specific period": Russia was divided into appanages (in Novgorod–posadnik).

The power of the great Kyiv princes fell into decay, 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 representatives of the ruling classes, and not the people, were the carriers of political isolation in Russia.

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;

– a combination of princely power and the political strength of the boyars, a long struggle between them in the Galicia-Volyn principality.

In the rest of the principalities, the political system is close to one of the indicated options. On the example of their principalities and lands, let us consider their characteristic features, their history.

Vladimir-Suzdal land (Moscow, North-Eastern Russia). Of the isolated lands, the principality (or, as it was called at first, Rostov-Suzdal) acquired the greatest importance. It occupied a very vast territory from Nizhny Novgorod to Tver along the Volga, to Gorokhovets, Kolomna and Mozhaisk in the south, including Ustyug and Beloozero in the north. Here to the top XII in. there was a large feudal boyar land ownership.

Huge massifs of black earth, cut into rectangles by forests, were called opolya (from the word "field"). Important river routes passed through the principality, and the Vladimir-Suzdal princes held trade with Novgorod and the East (along the great Volga route) in their hands.

The population was engaged agriculture, cattle breeding, fishing, salt mining, beekeeping, beaver fishing. 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. Klyazma was founded the city of Vladimir, which later became the capital of all North-Eastern Russia.

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 attempts to occupy and hold cities as far from Suzdal as Kiev and Novgorod, he was nicknamed Dolgoruky.

In 1147 Moscow was mentioned for the first time in the chronicle. –a small border town built by Dolgoruky on the site of the estate of the boyar Kuchka confiscated by him.

Yuri Dolgoruky devoted his whole life to the struggle for the throne of Kyiv. Under him, Ryazan and Murom fell under the influence of the Rostov-Suzdal princes. He actively influenced the policy of Novgorod the Great. After the occupation of Kyiv, Dolgoruky planted his younger sons in Rostov and Suzdal (from the third wife of Elena)–He left Vsevolod and Mikhail, the elder Andrey, 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 as an autocratic ruler.

Andrey Bogolyubsky –the second son of Yuri Dolgoruky from the 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–close father. Andrew found support among petty 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 inheritance to Vladimir-on-Klyazma, and he himself mainly lived in Bogolyubovo (a village he built 11 km from Vladimir).

Assigning to himself the title of the Grand Duke of all Russia, Andrei occupied Kyiv in 1169, which he transferred to the management of one of his vassals. 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 he devoted himself to the internal affairs of his principality: he sought to strengthen the princely power, severely suppressed the opposition speeches of the local boyars, for which he paid with his life (he was brutally killed by the boyars-conspirators on June 28, 1174 in his own palace).

Andrey's policy was continued by his brother Vsevolod Big Nest (1176 –1212). Vsevolod had many sons, which is why he got his nickname. Vsevolod brutally dealt with the boyars-conspirators 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 quite firmly held power over Novgorod and Ryazan.

The author of The Tale of Igor's Campaign figuratively emphasized the power of the Vladimir-Suzdal land, wrote that its regiments could splash the Volga with oars, and scoop water from the Don with helmets. During the reign of Vsevolod, the city of Vladimir maintained trade relations with the Caucasus and Khorezm, with the Volga region.

However, despite these successes, both Vsevolod and his son, Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich (1218–1233), were unable to resist the tendencies of feudal fragmentation.

After the death of Vsevolod, feudal strife resumed again 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 Russia, Kyiv). Galicia-Volyn principality occupied the northeastern slopes of the Carpathians and the territory between the rivers Dniester and Prut.

In Volyn and in the Galician land, arable farming has long developed, and, in addition, cattle breeding, hunting, fishing, etc. XII in. in the region there were already about 80 cities (the largest: Galich, Przemysl, Kholm, Lvov, etc.).

One of the characteristic features of the Galician land that left an imprint on its history was the early formation of a large boyar land ownership. The enrichment of the boyars was largely 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 in. at Yaroslav Osmomysl (1152 –1187). The chronicler draws 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. Volyn prince took advantage of this turmoil Roman Mstislavich , who managed in 1199 to establish himself in Galicia and unite the Galician land and most of Volhynia as part of the Galicia-Volyn principality. Roman had to endure a difficult struggle with the boyars, echoes of it 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 (Galych, Vladimir, Lutsk, etc.) and trade. Roman took the title of Grand Duke, having received recognition in some lands in Russia and abroad (Byzantium). Peaceful relations were established with Poland and Hungary. Under him, the attempts of the Pope of Rome to gain access to Russia to the Catholic clergy failed.

In the Galician chronicle, a description of Roman is preserved, in which his military activity is especially impressive: “He rushed at the filthy ones, like a lion; 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, the unification of all the southwestern lands of Russia.

The death of Roman in one of the battles (1205) led to a temporary loss of the achieved political unity of Southwestern Russia, to a weakening of princely power in it. A devastating 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, 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, the nobility and cities, Prince Daniel took possession of Volhynia (1229), 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, the Galician boyars and again united the entire South-Western Russia. The positions of princely power were again strengthened.

Daniel Romanovich Galitsky , Prince of Vladimir-Volynsk, Prince of Galicia, Grand Duke of Galicia, Grand Duke of Kyiv (the last prince of Kievan Rus), in childhood and youth lived in Poland and Hungary with his relatives–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 the king of Galicia, and Daniel had to return to his old inheritance - the Vladimir-Volyn principality, so as not to lose him.

In the 20-30s. XIII in. Daniel took an active part in Russian foreign policy. He participated in the Battle of Kalka (1223), and his squad survived, preserved itself to a greater extent than others, and managed to retreat in an organized manner, avoiding capture. Having occupied the Kyiv throne by right of the eldest in the Rurik family, Daniel left Kiev at the end of 1239 and the beginning of 1240. under the pressure of the Mongol-Tatars. But, having returned to Galicia, he is still trying in 1240-1242. organize an anti-Tatar coalition Eastern European states: Galicia-Volyn Kingdom, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Silesia. However, the disagreement of the monarchs of these countries, as well as the intensification of the raids of the Lithuanian princes from the north to Volhynia, force Daniil to abandon plans for returning to Russia and actually link the fate of his principality-kingdom with Catholic Europe, which tore this part of Russia away from Russia for as much as 700 years (1239-1939 years), when Western Belarus and Western Ukraine (Volyn and Galician principalities) were again reunited with Russia–USSR).

Novgorod-Pskov land (North-Western Russia). Novgorod-Pskov land occupied a vast territory, bordering on Vladimir-Suzdal land in the east, with Smolensk–in the south and from 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 before other lands began the struggle for independence from Kyiv. Using the discontent of the Novgorodians (the 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. In Novgorod, the orders of the boyar aristocratic republic finally triumphed.

Boyars seized power–owners of vast estates, who were also engaged in conducting extensive trade operations and usury. Formally, the supreme power in Novgorod belonged to the veche –assembly of all male citizens. The veche resolved issues of war and peace, elected senior officials: the posadnik, who was in charge of administration and court; tysyatsky - assistant posadnik, head of the military forces, who was also in charge of the court among the merchants. However, in fact, power was in the hands of the boyars, from among whom the above appointments and replacements (even by inheritance) took place.

The largest feudal lord in Novgorod was bishop (since 1156 archbishop). 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 service 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 posadnik, you, prince, do not judge courts, do not keep volosts, do not give letters.” Attempts by strong princes from other Russian lands to install in Novgorod a ruler they liked met with a sharp rebuff from the Novgorodians.

For the first hundred years (1136-1236) of independence, up to the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the history of the Novgorod Republic was characterized by a sharp 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 was increasing, thanks to which the trade relations of the republic with the Vladimir-Suzdal principality were strengthened.

The Suzdal princes, pursuing a unifying policy, steadily strengthened their positions in the Novgorod Republic. The influence of the Vladimir princes increased markedly in XIII century, when their troops provided Novgorod and Pskov with significant assistance in the fight against external enemies. From 1236 he became a prince in Novgorod Alexander Yaroslavich –grandson of Vsevolod the Big Nest, the future Nevsky.

The development of feudal relations led to the isolation of the Pskov land, where in XIII in. an independent boyar republic was formed.

Thus, by XIII in. 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. She went in three streams:

–from the east - Mongol-Tatar invasion;

–from the northwest and west–Swedish-Danish-German aggression;

- from the southwest - onslaught of Poles and Hungarians.

Feudal fragmentation in Russia was from the beginning of the XII to the end of the XY centuries. (350 years).

Economic reasons:

1. Successes of agriculture

2. The growth of cities as centers of crafts and trade, as centers of individual territories. Craft development. More than 60 craft specialties. 3. Subsistence economy dominated.

Political reasons:

1. The desire to transfer wealth to the son. "Fatherland" - the legacy of the father.

2. As a result of the process of "settlement of the squad on the ground", the military elite turns into landowners-boyars (feudal lords) and strives for the expansion of feudal land ownership and for independence.

3. Immunities are formed. The Kyiv prince transfers a number of rights to the vassals: the right to judge, the right to collect taxes.

4. Tribute turns into a feud. rent. Tribute - to the prince for protection, rent - to the owner of the land.

5. The feudal lords create a squad on the ground, their own apparatus of power.

6. There is an increase in the power of the department. feudal lords and they do not want to obey Kyiv.

7. K ser. XII century. loses its value of the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” -> “amber route”.

8. The principality of Kiev itself fell into decay due to the raids of the nomadic Polovtsians.

V. Monomakh (1113-1125) slowed down the process of disintegration of the country a little. He was the grandson of the Byzantine emperor Constantine Monomakh. V. Monomakh became a prince at the age of 60. His son Mstislav the Great (1125-1132) managed to continue his father's policy and maintain what had been achieved. But immediately after his death, the division of Russia begins. At the beginning of the feud. fragmentation, there were 15 large and small principalities, and in the beginning. 19th century already was the peak of the feud. fragmentation - » 250 principalities. There were 3 centers: Vladimir-Suzdal kn-in, Galicia-Volyn kn-in and Novgorod feud. republic.

№ 8 Feudal fragmentation in Russia: causes, essence, stages and consequences.

Positive: along with Kyiv, new centers of crafts and trade appeared, increasingly independent of the capital of the Russian state, old cities developed, large and strong principalities formed, strong princely dynasties were created in large Russian principalities, a tradition of transferring power from father to son was taking shape, there was a stormy the growth of cities, there was a steady development of the peasant economy, new arable lands and forest lands were developed. Wonderful cultural monuments were created there. The Russian Orthodox Church was gaining strength there. Negative (which, unfortunately, are more tangible than positive ones): the state became vulnerable, since not all the principalities that formed were on good terms with each other, and there was no unity that later saved the country more than once, constant bloody civil strife weakened the military and the economic power of the country, Kyiv - the former capital of the Old Russian state - lost its power sung in legends and epics and itself became the cause of contention, many princes sought to take the grand prince's table in Kyiv. Power in the city often changed - some princes were expelled, others died in battles, others left, unable to resist new applicants. What about the reasons ... Formal: the Polovtsian danger significantly reduced the attractiveness of the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks." The centers through which trade relations between Europe and the East were carried out, thanks to the crusades, are gradually moving to southern Europe and the Mediterranean, and control over this trade is established by the rapidly growing northern Italian cities, the pressure of the steppe nomads. Genuine: political prerequisites: endless inter-princely feuds and a long bitter internecine struggle among the Rurikovichs, the strengthening of local princes, the boyars turn into feudal landowners, for whom the income received from the estates becomes the main means of subsistence. And one more thing: the decline of the Kyiv principality (the loss of a central position, the movement of world trade routes away from Kyiv), was associated with the loss of the importance of the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks", Ancient Russia is losing the role of a participant and mediator in trade relations between Byzantine, Western European and Eastern the world.

№ 9 Vladimir-Suzdal and Galicia-Volyn principalities. Novgorod boyar republic. A. Nevsky.

On the way to feudal fragmentation . From the 11th century Kievan Rus, just like Western Europe, begins to experience a period of feudal fragmentation. The disintegration of Russia into specific principalities begins during the life of Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054) and intensifies after his death. This process is somewhat suspended under the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise - Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh (1113-1125). By the power of his authority, he kept the unity of Russia. On his initiative, in 1097, a congress of Russian princes was held in the city of Lyubech. It made two important decisions. First, to stop the princely strife. Secondly, to adhere to the principle "Let everyone keep his fatherland." Thus, the fragmentation of the Russian lands was actually legalized. In this situation, Kyiv was losing its former leading role, but at the same time remained a capital city. The Kievan state, one of the most powerful, richest and most brilliant in its culture in all of medieval Europe, was rapidly going to ruin due to internal feudal strife, weakened by the constant struggle with the steppe. The princes strengthened their personal feudal power, sacrificing the unity of their Fatherland. The Kievan state was in decline. After the death of Vladimir Monomakh, Russia existed for some time as a single state. The son of Monomakh - Mstislav the Great (1125-1132) inherited from his father the title of Grand Duke of Kyiv. Mstislav Vladimirovich had the same strong character as his father. His short reign was marked by great military victories. Under his command, the Polovtsian hordes were defeated on the southern borders of the state. His campaigns against the Chud and the Lithuanian tribes living on the northwestern borders of Russia ended in victory. He established order by force over the vast Russian land and enjoyed unquestioned authority among all the specific princes. Mstislav the Great died in 1132, and Russia finally breaks up into separate destinies or principalities, each with its own table.

Time since the beginning of the XII century. until the end of the fifteenth century. called a period feudal fragmentation or specific period. On the basis of Kievan Rus by the middle of the XII century. formed about 15 lands and principalities, by the beginning of the XIII century. - 50, in the XIV century. - 250. In each of the principalities, their own dynasty of Rurikovich ruled. Causes of feudal fragmentation. Modern researchers understand feudal fragmentation as the period of the XII - XV centuries. in the history of our country, when from several dozen to several hundred large states were formed and functioned on the territory of Kievan Rus. Feudal fragmentation was a natural result of the previous political and economic development of society, the so-called period of the early feudal monarchy. There are four most significant reasons for the feudal fragmentation of the Old Russian state. The main reason was political. The vast expanses of the East European Plain, numerous tribes of both Slavic and non-Slavic origin, which are at different stages of development - all this contributed to the decentralization of the state. Over time, the specific princes, as well as the local feudal nobility in the person of the boyars, began to undermine the foundation under the state building with their independent separatist actions. Only strong power, concentrated in the hands of one person, the prince, could keep the state organism from disintegration. And the great Kyiv prince could no longer fully control the policy of local princes from the center, more and more princes left from under his authority, and in the 30s. 12th century he controlled only the territory around Kyiv. The specific princes, having felt the weakness of the center, now did not want to share their income with the center, and the local boyars actively supported them in this. In addition, the local boyars needed strong and independent local princes, which also contributed to the creation of their own state structure and the withering away of the institution of central power. Thus, acting in selfish interests, the local nobility neglected the unity and power of Russia. The next reason for feudal fragmentation was social. By the beginning of the XII century. the social structure of ancient Russian society became more complex: large boyars, clergy, merchants, artisans, and urban lower classes appeared. These were new, actively developing segments of the population. Moreover, it was born nobility, who served the prince in exchange for a land grant. His social activity was very high. In each center, behind the specific princes, there was an impressive force in the person of the boyars with their vassals , the rich top of the cities, church hierarchs. The increasingly complex social structure of society also contributed to the isolation of the lands.

The economic reason also played a significant role in the collapse of the state. Within the framework of a single state, independent economic regions have developed over three centuries, new cities have grown, large patrimonial possessions of the boyars, monasteries and churches have arisen. The natural character of the economy gave the rulers of each region the opportunity to separate from the center and exist as an independent land or principality. This was largely due to the rapid enrichment of a certain part of the population that controlled this land. Her desire to improve her well-being also led to feudal fragmentation. In the XII century. contributed to feudal fragmentation and foreign policy situation. Russia during this period did not have serious opponents, since the great princes of Kyiv did a lot to ensure the security of their borders. A little less than a century will pass, and Russia will face a formidable enemy in the person of the Mongols - Tatars, but the process of the collapse of Russia by this time will have gone too far, there will be no one to organize the resistance of the Russian lands. It is necessary to note an important feature of the period of feudal fragmentation in Russia. All the major Western European states experienced a period of feudal fragmentation, but in Western Europe the economy was the engine of fragmentation. In Russia, in the process of feudal fragmentation, the political component was dominant. In order to receive material benefits, the local nobility - the princes and the boyars - needed to gain political independence and gain a foothold in their inheritance, to achieve sovereignty. The boyars became the main force of the disunity process in Russia.

At first, feudal fragmentation contributed to the rise of agriculture in all Russian lands, the flourishing of handicrafts, the growth of cities, and the rapid development of trade. But over time, constant strife between the princes began to deplete the strength of the Russian lands, weaken their defenses in the face of external danger. Disunity and constant enmity with each other led to the disappearance of many principalities, but most importantly, they caused extraordinary hardships for the people during the period of the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

Of the states that developed on the territory of Ancient Russia, the largest and most significant were Galicia-Volynskoye, Vladimir-Suzdal principality and Novgorod boyar republic. It was they who became the political heirs of Kievan Rus, i.e. were the centers of gravity of all Russian life. Each of these lands developed its own original political tradition, had its own political destiny. Each of these lands in the future had the opportunity to become the center of the unification of all Russian lands.

№ 10 Cultural development of medieval Russia (X-XVI centuries).

Old Russian wisdom, as the initial stage in the development of Russian thought, has a number of distinctive features as an integral cultural and historical phenomenon. On the one hand, she accepted some elements of the East Slavic pagan worldview, multicomponent in its composition, since the ancient Russian people was formed with the participation of the Ugro-Finnish, Baltic, Turkic, Norman, Iranian ethnic groups. According to written, archaeological, ethnographic sources, specialists (B.A. Rybakov, N.N. Veletskaya, M.V. Popovich) are trying to reconstruct the pre-Christian picture of the world and the model of being.

On the other hand, after the adoption of Christianity as the official ideology and the displacement of the pagan type of worldview to the periphery of consciousness, Russian thought intensively absorbed and creatively processed through Byzantine and South Slavic mediation the theoretical positions, attitudes and concepts of developed Eastern Christian patristics.

From Byzantium, the keeper of the ancient heritage, the most developed country of the early Middle Ages, Russia received many names, images, concepts of the Hellenic civilization fundamental to the entire European culture, but not in its pure, but in a Christianized form and not in full, but in a partial version, since the Greek few people knew the language, and the available translations covered primarily the array of patristic literature. The works of ancient philosophers were known in fragments, according to retellings, collections of the type published in the 13th century. "Bees", often only in name. One of the exceptions is the presence in the Old Russian environment of the work of Epictetus "Enchiridion" translated in the Balkans with comments by Maximus the Confessor. Under the name "Hundreds" it was included in many-sided use as an ascetic instruction to monastics)