Progress and regression of feudal fragmentation. Feudal fragmentation as a natural stage in the development of ancient Russian statehood

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

development of Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation

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

Modern historical science considers the era of feudal fragmentation as a natural, progressive in its content (before the factor of conquest intervened in normal development) stage in the development of feudal society, which created new, more favorable conditions for the further economic, political and cultural development of Russian lands.

“The period of feudal fragmentation is full of complex and contradictory processes that often baffle historians. The negative aspects of the era are especially noticeable: 1) a clear weakening of the overall military potential, facilitating foreign conquest; 2) internecine wars and 3) the increasing fragmentation of princely possessions... On the other hand, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the initial phase of feudal fragmentation (before the factor of conquest intervened in normal development) is characterized not by the decline of culture... but, on the contrary, by the rapid growth of cities and the bright flowering of Russian culture XII - early XIII V. in all its manifestations."

The main reasons for feudal fragmentation:

1. Growth of productive forces locally –one of the main reasons for feudal fragmentation. How was this reflected?

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

Secondly, handicraft production has achieved certain successes. The emergence of new agricultural tools made it possible to free up more and more people for the craft. As a result, there was a separation of crafts from agriculture. IN XII - XIII centuries there were already up to 60 different craft specialties. Blacksmithing achieved the greatest success; about 150 types of products were produced from iron and steel alone.

Thirdly, the development of crafts was the impetus for the growth of cities and urban populations. It was in the cities that handicraft production primarily developed. The number of cities is increasing sharply. If in Russian chronicles in XII V. 135 cities are mentioned, then by the middle XIII V. their number grew to 300.

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

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

Feudal estates, like peasant communities, were of a natural character. Their connections with the market were weak and irregular. Under these conditions, it became possible for each region to secede and exist as an independent principality. In each such principality, a local boyars formed–the main political and economic force of the time.

3. The expansion of the base of feudalism entailed an intensification of the class struggle, which was also one of the reasons for the formation of independent feudal principalities in Ancient Russia.

The class struggle intensified between the feudal lords, on the one hand, and the smerds and urban poor–with another.

The forms of class struggle of the peasantry and urban poor against their oppressors were very diverse: escapes, damage to the master's equipment, destruction of livestock, robberies, arson, and finally, uprisings. The peasants' struggle was spontaneous. The performances of peasants and townspeople were scattered. Examples of major uprisings were the uprisings in Novgorod (1136), Galich (1145 and 1188), Vladimir-on-Klyazma (1174-1175). The largest was the uprising in Kyiv in 1113.

4. To suppress the protests of peasants and the urban poor, the ruling circles were required to create a coercive apparatus in every large feudal estate.

The feudal lords were interested in firm local princely power primarily because it made it possible to suppress the resistance of the peasants, who were increasingly enslaved by them. Local feudal lords were no longer dependent on the central government in Kiev; they relied on the military power of their prince.

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

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

As a result of the dismemberment of Kievan Rus on the territory of Russia in XI - XII centuries There were 13 largest principalities and feudal republics: Novgorod and Pskov lands, Vladimir-Suzdal, Polotsk-Minsk, Turovo-Pinsk, Smolensk, Galicia-Volyn, Kiev, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Tmutarakan, Murom, Ryazan principalities.

Their princes had all the rights of a sovereign sovereign: they resolved issues of internal structure with the boyars, declared wars, and signed peace. Now the princes fought not to seize power throughout the country, but to expand the borders of their principality at the expense of their neighbors.

With the growing number of feudal dependent people, the exploitation of their labor in the patrimonial economy (and not tribute) became the basis of the economic power of the prince.

Vladimir I distributed his 12 sons throughout Rus', who were the governors of the Grand Duke.

According to the will of Yaroslav the Wise, his sons sat down to reign in different Russian regions. This marks the beginning of the so-called “specific period”: Russia was divided into appanages (in Novgorod–mayor).

The power of the great Kyiv princes fell into decline, and the grand prince's table turned into an object of struggle between the strongest rulers of other principalities. It should be noted that the bearers of political isolation in Rus' were representatives of the ruling classes, and not the people.

Political system. The political system of the principalities during the period of feudal fragmentation was not homogeneous. The following varieties can be distinguished:

– strong princely power in the Vladimir-Suzdal land;

– the boyar feudal republic in Novgorod, where the power of the princes almost disappeared;

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

In the remaining principalities, the political system is close to one of the indicated options. Using the example of their principalities and lands, we will consider their inherent characteristic features and their history.

Vladimir-Suzdal land (Moscow, North-Eastern Rus'). The principality (or, as it was called at first, the Rostov-Suzdal) principality acquired the greatest importance among the isolated lands. It occupied a very vast territory from Nizhny Novgorod to Tver along the Volga, to Gorokhovets, Kolomna and Mozhaisk in the south, and included Ustyug and Beloozero in the north. Here to the beginning XII V. A large feudal boyar land tenure developed.

Huge tracts of black earth, cut into rectangles by forest, were called opolya (from the word “field”). Important river routes passed through the principality, and the Vladimir-Suzdal princes controlled trade with Novgorod and the East (along the great Volga route).

The population was engaged agriculture, cattle breeding, fishing, salt mining, beekeeping, and beaver hunting. Crafts were developed in cities and villages. There were many large cities in the principality: Rostov, Suzdal, Yaroslavl, etc.

In 1108 Vladimir Monomakh on the river. The city of Vladimir was founded in Klyazma, which later became the capital of all North-Eastern Rus'.

The first ruler of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality was Yury Dolgoruky (1125 –1157), son of Monomakh. A major political figure, he was the first of the Suzdal princes to achieve not only the independence of his principality, but also its expansion. For his attempts to occupy and hold cities as distant from Suzdal as Kiev and Novgorod, he was nicknamed Dolgoruky.

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

Yuri Dolgoruky devoted his entire life to the struggle for the Kiev grand-ducal throne. Under him, Ryazan and Murom came under the influence of the Rostov-Suzdal princes. He actively influenced the politics of Novgorod the Great. After occupying Kyiv, Dolgoruky planted his younger sons (from his third wife Elena) in Rostov and Suzdal.–He left Vsevolod and Mikhail, the eldest Andrei in Vyshgorod, near Kiev. But Andrei understood that Kyiv had lost its former role. And after the death of his father, violating his will, he left Vyshgorod and moved to Suzdal, where he immediately behaved like a sovereign ruler.

Andrey Bogolyubsky –second son of Yuri Dolgoruky from a Polovtsian princess. He was born around 1110 and became the first prince of the Rostov-Suzdal land from 1157 to 1174. At the beginning of his reign, he expelled his younger brothers Mikhail and Vsevolod from the principality, then his nephews and many boyars–father's close associates. Andrei found support among small feudal lords and artisans, whose number grew rapidly.

Due to the resistance of the boyar nobility of Rostov and Suzdal to his autocracy, Andrei moved the capital of his fief to Vladimir-on-Klyazma, and he himself mainly lived in Bogolyubovo (a village he built 11 km from Vladimir).

Having given himself the title of Grand Duke of All Rus', Andrei occupied Kyiv in 1169, which he handed over to one of his vassals for administration. Andrei tried to subjugate Novgorod and other Russian lands. His policy reflected the tendency to unite all Russian lands under the rule of one prince.

Unlike his father, Bogolyubsky main focus devoted himself to the internal affairs of his principality: he sought to strengthen the princely power, severely suppressed opposition actions of the local boyars, for which he paid with his life (brutally killed by the conspiratorial boyars on June 28, 1174 in his own palace).

Andrei's policy was continued by his brother Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176 –1212). Vsevolod had many sons, which is why he got his nickname. Vsevolod brutally dealt with the conspiratorial boyars who killed his brother. The struggle between the prince and the boyars ended in favor of the prince. Power in the principality was established in the form of a monarchy. Vsevolod bore the title of Grand Duke and held power over Novgorod and Ryazan quite firmly.

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

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

After the death of Vsevolod, feudal strife resumed in the principality. The process of economic recovery was interrupted by the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars, who subjugated the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality in 1238. The Principality broke up into a number of smaller lands.

Galicia-Volyn, South-Western Rus', Kiev). The Galician-Volyn principality occupied the northeastern slopes of the Carpathians and the territory between the Dniester and Prut rivers.

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

One of the characteristic features of the Galician land , which left an imprint on its history was the early formation of large boyar land ownership. The enrichment of the boyars was greatly facilitated by their extensive trade. Gradually, the boyars turned into an influential political force.

The rise of the Galician principality began in the second half XII V. at Yaroslav Osmomysl (1152 –1187). The chronicler portrays him as an intelligent and educated prince who knew different languages.

After the death of Osmomysl, the boyars took an active part in the dynastic struggle for power between his sons from different mothers. The Volyn prince took advantage of this turmoil Roman Mstislavich , who managed to establish himself in Galich in 1199 and unite the Galician land and most of Volyn as part of the Galician-Volyn principality. Roman had to endure a difficult struggle with the boyars, its echoes were preserved in the words attributed to this prince: “Without crushing the bees, there is no honey.” The unification of lands contributed to the development of local cities (Galich, Vladimir, Lutsk, etc.) and trade. Roman took the title of Grand Duke, gaining recognition in some lands in Russia and abroad (Byzantium). Peaceful relations with Poland and Hungary improved. Under him, the Pope's attempts to gain access to Russia for the Catholic clergy failed.

The Galician Chronicle preserves a description of Roman, in which his military activity is especially impressive: “He rushed at the filthy, like a lion; he was angry as a lynx; destroyed them like a crocodile; flew around the earth like an eagle; was brave as a tour.” All the activities of Roman Mstislavich were subordinated to the strengthening of the grand ducal power and the unification of all the southwestern lands of Russia.

The death of Roman in one of the battles (1205) led to the temporary loss of the achieved political unity of Southwestern Rus' and to the weakening of princely power in it. A ruinous feudal war began (1205-1245). The boyars, with the assistance of the papal curia, betrayed the independence of the region, which in 1214 fell under the rule of Hungary and Poland. During the national liberation war against the Hungarian and Polish invaders, which was led by Mstislav Udaloy and the son of Prince Roman Mstislavich Daniil Romanovich, the conquerors were defeated and expelled; With the help of the service boyars, nobility and cities, Prince Daniel took possession of Volyn (1229), the Galician land (1238), and then Kiev (1239). In 1245, in the battle near the city of Yaroslav, he defeated the combined forces of Hungary, Poland, and the Galician boyars and again united all of Southwestern Rus'. The position of princely power was again strengthened.

Daniil Romanovich Galitsky , Prince of Vladimir-Volyn, Prince of Galicia, Grand Duke of Galicia, Grand Duke of Kiev (the last prince of Kievan Rus), lived in Poland and Hungary with his relatives as a child and youth–kings. In Hungary he held a prominent position at the court of King Andrew II Jerusalem, who had no male offspring, wanted to marry his daughter to Daniel and leave him the Hungarian throne. However, in 1214-1220. Galicia was captured by the Hungarian ban Kaloman, who proclaimed himself king of Galicia, and Daniel had to return to his old inheritance - the Vladimir-Volyn principality, so as not to lose him too.

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

Novgorod-Pskov land (North-Western Rus'). The Novgorod-Pskov land occupied a vast territory, bordering the Vladimir-Suzdal land in the east, with the Smolensk–in the south and with Polotsk- in the South-West.

Novgorod, one of the largest Russian cities, was located on the main trade route linking the Baltic, Black and Caspian seas. The economic growth of Novgorod prepared the necessary conditions for political separation into an independent feudal system.

Novgorod, earlier than other lands, began the struggle for independence from Kyiv. Using the discontent of the Novgorodians (uprising of 1136), the boyars, who had significant economic power and owned a huge land fund, managed to defeat the Novgorod prince Vsevolod Mstislavich. Vsevolod was expelled. The order of the boyar aristocratic republic finally triumphed in Novgorod.

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

The largest feudal lord in Novgorod was bishop (archbishop since 1156). He kept the treasury of Novgorod, was in charge of state lands, participated in the management of foreign policy, and headed the church court. The bishop had his own feudal lords and his own regiment.

invited the veche and prince , mainly for the leadership of the armed forces of the republic. His rights were severely limited. The prince was warned: “Without a mayor, prince, you should not judge the court, you should not hold volosts, you should not give charters.” Attempts by strong princes from other Russian lands to install a ruler they liked in Novgorod met with sharp rebuff from the Novgorodians.

During the first hundred years (1136-1236) of independence, right up to the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the history of the Novgorod Republic was characterized by an acute class struggle, which more than once resulted in uprisings of the urban poor and peasants. The largest of these were the uprisings in 1207 and 1228.

In connection with the development of domestic and foreign trade in Novgorod, the role of the merchants is increasing, thanks to which the trade relations of the republic with the Vladimir-Suzdal principality were strengthened.

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

The development of feudal relations led to the isolation of the Pskov land, where XIII V. An independent boyar republic emerged.

Thus, by XIII V. the struggle between the forces of feudal centralization and boyar-princely separatism in Russia was in full swing. It was at this time that the process of internal socio-economic and political development was interrupted by external military intervention. It came in three streams:

–from the east – Mongol-Tatar invasion;

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

– from the southwest – the onslaught of the Poles and Hungarians.

At the turn of the XI - XII centuries. Kievan Rus entered a new phase of historical development. Historians of the 19th century This era was called the appanage period, and Soviet researchers called it feudal fragmentation. Feudal fragmentation – a natural stage in the development of feudalism. It replaces the early feudal monarchy and is characterized by the economic and political independence of the regions.

It must be especially emphasized that in the specific era of the existence of the ancient Russian state one should not talk about the liquidation of statehood as such. The state structure of the Russian lands during this period resembled a federation. Despite the political independence of the regions, there were still factors that kept the Russian land from final collapse.

The Old Russian people, united by a religious and linguistic community, continued to recognize themselves as an integral organism. Since the middle of the 12th century. The throne of Kiev is gradually losing its significance as a consolidating center. At the same time, the title of Grand Duke continues to exist, “wandering” from principality to principality.

It is worth highlighting three groups of reasons that contributed to the isolation of Russian lands during the period of feudal fragmentation.

1. Economic reasons. The economy of Kievan Rus was based on subsistence farming, which, together with all other factors, led to the economic self-sufficiency of individual regions. Changes in the sphere of productive forces contributed to improvements in agriculture. The appearance of a wooden plow with an iron share and a two-toothed plow made it possible to raise the level of production. The two-field system was replaced by a three-field farming system, although both fallow and cutting were used. The separation of crafts from agriculture gave impetus to the growth of cities. Their number increased from 60 in the 11th century. to 130 in the 12th century. Cities sought independence from Kyiv, and representatives of the local aristocracy supported this trend.

In the XI – XII centuries. the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” lost its former significance. During the Crusades, all trade moved to the Mediterranean region. The most important cities in Europe, connecting Europe and Asia, were Genoa and Venice. Kyiv has ceased to be a center of trade at the European level.

2.Basic social cause, contributing to the decentralization of Kievan Rus, was the separation of Old Russian boyars Having become a powerful social force, formed from the tribal nobility and princely warriors, the boyars supported separatist sentiments. The boyars who received estates sought to isolate their possessions from the princely power, inevitably entering into political confrontation with it.

3. Political reason was the confusion of the principle of succession to the throne, introduced by Yaroslav the Wise. The Russian princes belonged to the same family, but this did not save them from internecine conflicts. Gradually, a tendency emerged towards the princes assigning the estates of their fathers. IN 1097 in Lyubech A congress of princes took place, which determined: “Let everyone keep his fatherland.” This decision was the reason for Rus'’s entry into a specific period of its history, which had its positive and negative consequences.

Political decentralization of power contributed to the concentration of all material resources in individual Russian lands. This led to the flourishing of the economy and culture of the federation of Russian lands. Local princes, interested in developing foreign trade relations, tried to secure trade routes and ensure the safety of merchants. In some lands it was easier to maintain law and order.

First half of the 12th – beginning of the 13th centuries. were characterized by a rapid rise in economic and cultural activity in all Russian lands. This was manifested in an increase in the volume of foreign trade transactions, widespread urban growth, and stone construction. At the same time, the appanage era was accompanied by a colossal weakening of the military-strategic power of the state. Despite the fact that the Kiev throne lost its significance as a political center, internecine struggle was waged by appanage rulers for the title of grand duke. The princes sought to conquer Kyiv, but, having received the grand-ducal throne, they did not remain in the ancient Russian capital, but returned with this title to their principality. The situation was complicated not only by the confrontation within the princely dynasty, but also by the entry into the political struggle of the boyar class, which laid claim to power in most Russian lands. The instability of political life inevitably influenced the nature of the internal economic development of the Russian principalities and republics. Gradually, trade between Russian lands faded, and the socio-economic ties that united individual regions weakened.

As a result of the action of centrifugal forces, the Old Russian state in the middle of the 12th century. broke up into 14 principalities at the beginning of the 13th century. there were already 50 of them. The largest Russian lands, in which various models of socio-political development were formed, were the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality in the northeast, the Galician-Volyn Principality in the southwest and the Novgorod Boyar Republic in the north-west.

Vladimir-Suzdalskoe The principality was formed on the lands of northeastern Rus', which became isolated at the end of the 12th century, when Slavic settlers began to move from southern Rus' to territory that was not subject to the devastation of the Polovtsians. The economic development of the young principality was ensured by fertile lands and the Volga river artery, along which the trade route to the Caspian Sea passed. This allowed the Vladimir-Suzdal princes not only to conduct profitable trade with the countries of the East, but also to control the trade relations of Novgorod, as well as indirectly influence its policies.

The separation of northeastern Rus' occurs under the son of Vladimir Monomakh Yuri Dolgoruk (1125-1157). The heyday of this principality occurred in the second half of the 12th – beginning of the 13th centuries. and is associated with the reign of the sons of Yuri Dolgoruky Andrei Bogolyubsky and Vsevolod the Big Nest. Activity Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157-1174) The reign of the Moscow princes is rightfully considered a prototype. He undertook two campaigns against Kyiv, as a result of one of which Bogolyubsky captured the title of grand duke. However, the prince did not intend to rule in Kyiv. Having accepted the title of Grand Duke, he returned to Vladimir on Klyazma, the new capital of northeastern Rus'. The subject of Bogolyubsky's concerns was the rise of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. To do this, he even tried to create an autonomous Vladimir metropolis, which would be subordinate only to Constantinople, and not to Kyiv. However, these plans were not destined to come true. In order to strengthen the idea of ​​God's chosenness of the grand ducal power in society and to establish the Vladimir-Suzdal principality as a new all-Russian center, he took several ideologically important measures. From near Kyiv, Bogolyubsky secretly transported to Vladimir one of the most revered icons of the Mother of God, which, according to legend, was painted by the Evangelist Luke. Today this icon is known as the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God. With the assistance of Andrei Bogolyubsky, the Feast of the Intercession of the Mother of God (October 14) was established, a number of unique churches were built, such as the Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir, the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl.

Not everyone in the prince’s entourage liked the policy of one-man rule that he pursued. A boyar conspiracy was formed against Andrei Yuryevich, as a result of which the prince was brutally murdered on his estate Bogolyubovo, not far from Vladimir. The political line aimed at strengthening the grand ducal power was continued by the brother of Andrei Bogolyubsky Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176-1212). In his possessions, sole princely power was established, since the fight against the boyars ended in his favor. The successes of the socio-economic development of the Vladimir-Suzdal land promoted the principality to the role of the political center of Rus'. However, the process of consolidation of Russian lands around the grand ducal power was interrupted by the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

A different political model of governance has developed in Galicia-Volyn land. Southwestern Rus' developed in favorable natural and climatic conditions. Fertile chernozems made it possible to obtain high yields of grain crops, and salt production and trade brought significant income. The most important trade routes connecting Russian lands with Poland, Hungary, and Moravia passed through the Galicia-Volyn principality.

The Galician-Volyn land was distinguished by large boyar land ownership. The Galician “great boyars”, who had significant material resources to support their own squads, formed an opposition to the prince. A particularly brutal confrontation between the prince and the boyars unfolded at the beginning of the 13th century. In 1199, the Volyn prince Roman Mstislavich united two principalities into one. At the beginning of the 13th century. he took the title of Grand Duke. Pope Innocent III offered the prince a royal title in exchange for accepting Catholicism, but Roman Mstislavich remained faithful to Orthodoxy.

The final battle over the boyars was won by his son - Daniil Galitsky. According to S.M. Solovyov, in the Russian lands of the 13th century. there were two talented politicians - Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky and Daniil Romanovich Galitsky. However, their geopolitical strategies had a multidirectional vector. Academician G.V. Vernadsky, comparing the policies of Alexander Nevsky and Daniil Galitsky, noted that Nevsky pursued a policy of appeasement and conciliation with the Horde, but stood up to defend Russian borders from Catholic expansion that came from the West.

Daniil Romanovich chose a different path. Participating in the struggle for the grand-ducal throne, he took possession of Kiev, which in the same year (1240) was devastated by the Mongol-Tatars. After restoring the destroyed cities, he began to look for allies to unite Rus' and openly fight against the Horde. His desire to confront the Mongol-Tatars brought him closer to Alexander Nevsky’s younger brother, Andrei. Subsequently, Daniil Romanovich found support from the Roman Pontiff, who promised the Russian prince to start a crusade against the Great Steppe. From him, Daniil of Galicia accepted the royal title (1253) in exchange for the spread of Catholicism. However, after the coronation, the Russian clergy did not recognize the power of Rome (Metropolitan Kirill II of Kiev, who had previously supported Daniil Romanovich, moved to Vladimir). The campaign against the Mongol-Tatars, promised by the Catholics, did not happen. After the death of Daniil Romanovich, the Galician kingdom was divided between his three sons, but already in the 14th century. the southwestern lands became part of Poland and Lithuania, and the single ancient Russian nation ceased to exist.

One of the largest centers of the period of feudal fragmentation was Novgorod Republic. It occupied a vast territory from the White Sea to the upper Volga, from the Baltic to the Urals. Novgorod did not have enough grain of its own, so it was purchased from neighboring lands. The basis of the economy of the Novgorod Republic was crafts and trade. The basis of its exports were valuable furs, leather, whale and walrus oil, resin, wax, and timber. Elective posadnichestvo in Novgorod apparently arose in the 11th century. The main political body was veche. The mayor, the mayor, or any group of citizens could convene the veche. The owners of the city estates “300 golden belts” had the right to vote, although sometimes residents of the Novgorod suburbs took part in the meeting. The functions of the veche were comprehensive: adoption of laws; invitation and conclusion of agreements with the prince; selection of city administration; solution to the question of war and peace.

The veche elected the head of the Novgorod church - the bishop, who was later confirmed by the Kyiv (then Vladimir) metropolitan. The bishop was in charge of the treasury of Veliky Novgorod and controlled the standards of weights and measures. The head of the Novgorod administration was mayor. Posadniks were elected from 4 boyar families at the veche. The administration and the court were in his hands. Job title Tysyatsky– assistant mayor was also elected. He exercised control over the tax system and handled litigation in trade matters.

It is characteristic that Novgorod did not have its own princely dynasty. Initially, the Grand Duke of Kiev installed one of his sons in Novgorod by agreement with the townspeople, but then republican orders prevailed, and the prince began to be invited to Veliky Novgorod as a hired military leader. An agreement was concluded with him. The prince and his squad were not allowed to have possessions in Novgorod or to participate in the economic and political life of the city. Sometimes the prince was given the suburbs of Novgorod to “feed”. Thus, the type of government that has developed in Novgorod can be defined as feudal boyar republic with elements of direct democracy.

Feudal fragmentation did not lead to the disappearance of ancient Russian statehood. Rather, we should talk about a certain polycentrism within the framework of one very amorphous state entity. The political fragmentation of Kievan Rus did not entail economic and cultural decline. Each land was looking for forms of political structure in which its development would be most effective. However, a number of internal reasons (internecine struggle between the princes and the boyars) and external (threat from the West and the Golden Horde) weakened the results of these attempts. The religious community that united the population of the scattered Russian lands, as well as the unity of the church organization, later became the underlying prerequisites for the formation of a unified Russian state. The question was which form of political structure would become dominant in the process of consolidation of Russian lands - oligarchic rule, monarchy or republic.

By the end of the 11th century. In the states of Western and Central Europe, the process of formation of feudal relations was completed. This contributed to the rapid rise of medieval societies in technical, economic and cultural terms.

There were significant changes in the development of the main branch of the medieval economy - agriculture. Uncultivated lands were developed, land cultivation improved, three-field farming spread, and tools were improved (wheeled plow, etc.). An important technological revolution was the spread of water and windmills. The production of grain and industrial crops - flax, hemp, and woad - expanded. There was a sharp increase in crop yields and an increase in agricultural output. Livestock farming received further development - sheep breeding began to play a major role, and livestock breeds improved. A new harness appeared - the collar, which contributed to the widespread use of horses in agriculture. New branches of agriculture have emerged: vegetable gardening, horticulture, viticulture, and cultivation of oilseeds. Winemaking, oil-making, and milling developed and improved.

Progressive changes in the development of the medieval economy allowed the peasant to accumulate surplus agricultural products and exchange them for products made by professional artisans. In turn, craft activities required increasing specialization, which was no longer compatible with peasant labor. The technique and technology of the craft were improved. Metallurgy, blacksmithing and weaponry, leather processing, pottery and construction have achieved great success. The achievements in cloth making are especially worth noting. They learned to make woolen fabrics, which contributed to the gradual displacement of fur and linen clothing throughout Europe (the main centers of cloth making were Northern Italy and Flanders). Thus, handicraft production separated from agriculture, constituting a special form of labor activity, and the professional artisan turned into a small commodity producer. Thus, the preconditions were created for the emergence of cities and the development of trade.

Village artisans made up the original population of the medieval city. New cities appeared near castles and fortresses, the walls of which could serve as reliable protection (Strasbourg, etc.); around monasteries where large numbers of people gathered (Saint Germain, Sant Iago, etc.); near bridges and river crossings (Cambridge, Oxford, etc.); on the shores of bays and bays convenient for ships, where traditional markets have long operated. Cities acquired great economic importance, becoming centers of crafts and trade. Sometimes these were administrative, military and church centers.

The population of the medieval city was extremely heterogeneous in its composition. City residents were busy:

In the sphere of production of goods and trade: artisans of various specialties and traders (who sold their goods themselves), gardeners and fishermen; the most representative part of the townspeople were professional traders - merchants engaged in domestic and foreign trade

Sales of services and servicing the market: sailors, cab drivers, porters, barbers, innkeepers, etc.;

In large cities that were political and administrative centers lived:

· feudal lords with their entourage (servants and military detachments), serving bureaucracy, notaries, doctors, school and university teachers, students, masters and other representatives of the emerging intelligentsia. A noticeable part of the population was the clergy;

· day laborers, laborers, people who lived at odd jobs, beggars.

Medieval cities arose on the land of kings, secular and spiritual feudal lords. City residents fell into land, personal and judicial dependence on them. This created favorable conditions for the active struggle of the urban population against the feudal lords for their rights and independence.

The most important results of this difficult struggle were:

1. Liberation of the vast majority of citizens from personal dependence.

2. Formation of a special medieval class of townspeople. Economically, this class was associated with trade and craft activities. In political and legal terms, members of this class enjoyed a number of specific privileges and liberties (personal freedom, participation in the city militia, in the formation of a municipality, etc.).

3. Development of city government. Cities became the second (after feudal lords) political force, which contributed to the emergence of new elements in the mechanisms of state power. In the XIII-XIV centuries. In Western Europe, estate-representative institutions emerged - prototypes of modern parliaments.

In all countries where feudal relations have prevailed, one constant trend can be traced - political disintegration, the formation of more or less independent fiefs, a decline in the strength and importance of central power. Only exceptional circumstances, such as the conquest of England in 1066, could hinder or delay this trend.

Economic and cultural growth was also observed in Rus', where the final formalization of feudal relations also took place. Great successes were associated with the development of agriculture, and especially farming (farming was the main occupation of approximately 90% of the population). The zone of arable farming has advanced far to the northeast. In more southern regions, the fallow system was replaced by a system with two-field and three-field crop rotation. Tillage technology has improved. Archaeological material indicates the presence of a rawl with a narrow blade without a runner, a plow with a ploughshare, a rawl with a wide blade, a multi-toothed plow, hoes, sickles, pink salmon braids, etc. New crops began to be grown. The number of livestock increased sharply. Cattle breeding provided wool, meat, milk, butter, leather, and draft animals.

Of great importance in the life of Russian society in the 10th – 12th centuries. cities played. The urban population of Rus' amounted to no more than 1.5-3% of all residents. Country of Cities” numbered by the 10th century. 20 cities, by the 11th century. - 32, and XII century. – more than 60 cities. True, according to historians, many of them were small fortresses in which heroic outposts were located, and there was no posad at all. But two or three dozen cities lived up to their name. These were political, cultural, trade, craft and defense centers of Rus'. Russian cities differed from Western European stone towns in their more spacious streets and manor building principle.

Domestic and foreign trade was active. Rus''s trading partners were Byzantium, Scandinavian and countries and states of Western Europe. Important export items were fur, wax, honey, damask steel weapons, and import items were religious and luxury items, books, precious metals, etc.

There was a flourishing of crafts. In the cities there were craft workshops that worked mainly to order, but sometimes exchanged or sold their products on the market. The most important branch of the craft was iron processing. Old Russian blacksmiths mastered many technological techniques: forging, welding, cementing, turning, inlaying with non-ferrous metals, polishing. The range of iron products reached 150 items. In the forges of the 11th – 12th centuries. A special type of steel was smelted - damask steel. Russian damask swords were unusually strong and sharp and were highly valued in the East. The largest blacksmith centers in Rus' were the cities of Kyiv, Novgorod, Smolensk, Galich and Vyshgorod.

In Rus' in the XI-XII centuries. The jewelry business flourished. Moreover, in terms of technology and quality of production of enamel and finest casting, Russian artisans were ahead of Western Europeans. Other types of crafts also flourished: pottery, carpentry, making glassware and jewelry, construction and related crafts - carpentry, carving and stone cutting, lime and brick firing (plinths). Stone construction is expanding (albeit on a much smaller scale than in the West), mainly church construction.

Thus, in the X - XII centuries. In the development of the countries of Western Europe and Rus', there is a fundamental commonality of many processes.

At this time, in parallel with the entry of feudalism into the stage of maturity, the collapse of early feudal states in Western and Central Europe occurred. And within the framework of this pan-European process, the fragmentation of Russian lands is taking place. In historical science, this process is called feudal fragmentation and is considered by researchers as a natural stage in the development of a feudal state, characterized by a high level of development of feudal relations. The period of feudal fragmentation lasted 300 years in Rus' - from the 12th to the end of the 15th century.

Based on an analysis of the socio-economic and cultural development of European countries and Rus', the reasons for feudal fragmentation can be clearly identified:

1. Common to all feudal states:

A) The dominance of subsistence farming ensured, on the one hand, the development of patrimonial land ownership, a sharp rise in local economy and trade, and on the other hand, the lack of economic specialization of regions and the limitation of economic ties between individual lands.

B) “Settling” of the squad to the ground, i.e. the transformation of its members into feudal lords, whose most important class privilege was the right to own land. Inextricably linked with this is the power of the feudal lord over the peasantry, his right to judge and punish without trial. This influenced the weakening of the political dependence of individual lands on the central government. The prerequisites were created for solving military-political (defensive-offensive) tasks with local forces.

2. Specific to Rus':

A) The decline of the role of Kyiv as an all-Russian center due to the appearance of the Polovtsians in the southern Russian steppes, which made the route along the Dnieper dangerous, increasing the outflow of the population from Kyiv and its environs to the north-west.

B) The order of succession to the Kyiv grand princely throne, which combined two tendencies of inheritance: from father to son (Byzantine law) and to the eldest in the family (Russian custom), which intensified internecine struggle.

C) Weakening of the external threat after the defeat of the Khazar Khaganate and the Pechenegs, a decrease in the activity of the Varangians and the stabilization of relations with the Byzantine Empire.

D) The presence of a specific system created by Yaroslav the Wise. After his death (1054) under Yaroslavich, Rus' began to be rocked by internecine wars. The state unity of Rus' wavered. The Old Russian state from a single monarchy turned into a federal monarchy, headed by several of the most powerful and authoritative princes - the Yaroslavichs.

The unity of Rus' was fully restored by the Chernigov prince Vladimir Monomakh (Kiev prince in 113-1125). After the death of Vsevolod of Kyiv (1093), he became the most popular prince in Rus'. On his initiative, a congress of princes was convened in Lyubich in 1097. Its main objectives were: a) ending internecine struggle; and b) joining forces in the fight against the Polovtsians (in 1093 the Polovtsians carried out a devastating raid on Rus', the princes suffered a crushing defeat + 1095 - a new campaign of the Polovtsians). At this congress, the princes agreed that “each prince should keep his own estate,” but act together and obey the eldest prince.

In 1113, an uprising broke out in Kyiv. Svyatopolk, hated by the people of Kiev, died, who did business with Jewish moneylenders (they took 100-200% for debts, and turned debtors into slaves. The people of Kiev began to destroy the houses of money lenders and many boyars. “The best people” sent for Vladimir Monomakh, who was able to calm Kiev.

Feudal fragmentation is the weakening of central state power with the simultaneous strengthening of the peripheral regions of the country. The term applies exclusively to its subsistence economy and system. Feudal fragmentation was generated by the increase

members of royal dynasties who simultaneously claimed the throne. Along with this factor, the relative military weakness of medieval kings before the combined forces of their own vassals led to the fact that previously vast states began to be fragmented into numerous principalities, duchies and other self-governing fiefs. The fragmentation was, of course, generated by the objective evolution of the economic and social development of Europe, but the conditional moment of the beginning of feudal fragmentation is the year 843, when the Treaty of Verdun was signed between the three grandsons of Charlemagne, dividing the state into three parts. It was from these scraps that France and Germany were subsequently born. The end of this period in European history dates back to the 16th century, the era of strengthening royal power - absolutism. Although the same German lands managed to unite into a single state only in 1871. And that’s not counting the ethnically German Liechtenstein, Austria and parts of Switzerland.

Feudal fragmentation in Rus'

The pan-European trend of the 10th-16th centuries did not bypass the domestic principalities. At the same time, the feudal fragmentation of the medieval Russian state had a number of features that distinguished its character from the Western version. The first signal for the collapse of the integrity of the state was the death of Prince Svyatoslav in 972, after which the first for the Kiev throne began between his sons. The last ruler of the united Kievan Rus is considered to be the son of Vladimir Monomakh, Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich, who died in 1132. After his death, the state was finally divided into fiefdoms by the heirs and never rose again in its former form.

Of course it was

It would be wrong to talk about the immediate collapse of the Kyiv possessions. Feudal fragmentation in Rus', as in Europe, was a consequence of objective processes of strengthening the local landed boyar nobility. Having become sufficiently strong and having extensive possessions, it became more profitable for the boyars to support their own prince, who relied on them and took their interests into account, rather than remain loyal to Kyiv. This is what allowed the younger sons, brothers, nephews and other princely relatives to resist centralization.

As for the peculiarities of the domestic collapse, it lies primarily in the so-called flatterial system, according to which, after the death of the ruler, the throne passed to his younger brother, and not to the eldest son, as was the case in (Salic law). This, however, became the cause of multiple internecine conflicts between the sons and nephews of the Russian dynasty of the 13th-16th centuries. During the period of feudal fragmentation, Russian lands began to represent a number of large independent principalities. The rise of local noble families and princely courts gave Rus' the rise of the Galicia-Volyn and Vladimir-Suzdal principalities, the creation and It was the Moscow princes who destroyed feudal fragmentation and created the Russian kingdom.

From the strife of the princes - the death of Rus'!

The brothers argue: this is mine and this is mine!

Evil discord is started from small words,

They forge sedition against themselves,

And they come to Rus' with victories

Dashing enemies from everywhere!

"The Tale of Igor's Campaign"

In general, the fragmentation of the former Kievan Rus is similar to the fragmentation of Europe. But We have some differences, our princes fought for power, while there the royal dynasty ruled, there the church had no influence on fragmentation, while our church advocated unity. The regression is characterized by: a general weakening of the military power of the state, as a result of the “squabbling” of the princes for Kiev, because only in the period from the middle of 12 to the middle of 13, Kiev changed hands 46 times and constant skirmishes were supposed to weaken the troops of the princes.

Probably fragmentation also influenced the disunity of the people, as a result, again, of constant clashes for power and the desire for isolation. But at the same time, local centers of trade, craft, and administration strengthened in individual principalities, which means cities expanded as a result of isolation from Kiev, because the princes needed complete autonomy and independence from Kiev.

In general, fragmentation, in my opinion, weakened the state from the outside but strengthened it from the inside. And the appanage principalities were essentially the “children” of the “father of Russian cities” - Kyiv, and they, like matured children, left the care of their parents and acquired their own property, but remained members of their family.

Progress and regression of feudal fragmentation: