OLD RUSSIAN PRINCIPALITIES state formations that existed in Russia during the period of feudal fragmentation ( 12 15 centuries).

Arising in the second half

10th c. and became at 11 in. In the second 12 in. to its actual collapse. Conditional holders sought, on the one hand, to turn their conditional holdings into unconditional and achieve economic and political independence from the center, and on the other hand, by subordinating the local nobility, to establish full control over their possessions. In all regions (with the exception of the Novgorod land, where, in fact, the republican regime was established and the princely power acquired a military service character), the princes from the house of Rurikovich managed to become sovereign sovereigns with the highest legislative, executive and judicial functions. They relied on the administrative apparatus, whose members constituted a special service class: for their service they received either part of the income from the exploitation of the subject territory (feeding), or land for holding. The main vassals of the prince (boyars), together with the tops of the local clergy, formed under him an advisory and advisory body - the boyar duma. The prince was considered the supreme owner of all lands in the principality: part of them belonged to him on the basis of personal possession (domain), and he disposed of the rest as the ruler of the territory; they were divided into dominal possessions of the church and conditional holdings of the boyars and their vassals (boyar servants).

The socio-political structure of Russia in the era of fragmentation was based on a complex system of suzerainty and vassalage (the feudal ladder). The feudal hierarchy was headed by the Grand Duke (until the middle

12 in. the owner of the Kyiv table, later this status was acquired by the Vladimir-Suzdal and Galician-Volyn princes). Below were the rulers of large principalities (Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Turov-Pinsk, Polotsk, Rostov-Suzdal, Vladimir-Volyn, Galicia, Muromo-Ryazan, Smolensk), even lower - the owners of appanages within each of these principalities. At the lowest level there was an untitled serving nobility (boyars and their vassals).

From the middle

11 in. the process of disintegration of large principalities began, which first of all affected the most developed agricultural regions (Kyiv and Chernihiv regions). AT 12 first half 13 in. this trend has become universal. Particularly intense fragmentation was in the Kiev, Chernigov, Polotsk, Turov-Pinsk and Muromo-Ryazan principalities. To a lesser extent, it affected the Smolensk land, and in the Galicia-Volyn and Rostov-Suzdal (Vladimir) principalities, periods of disintegration alternated with periods of temporary unification of appanages under the rule of the "senior" ruler. Only Novgorod land throughout its history continued to maintain political integrity.

In the conditions of feudal fragmentation, all-Russian and regional princely congresses acquired great importance, at which domestic and foreign policy issues were resolved (inter-princely feuds, the fight against external enemies). However, they did not become a permanent, regular political institution and could not slow down the process of dissipation.

By the time of the Tatar-Mongol invasion, Russia was divided into many small principalities and was unable to combine forces to repel external aggression. Devastated by the hordes of Batu, it lost a significant part of its western and southwestern lands, which became in the second half of the 13th-14th centuries. easy prey for Lithuania (Turovo-Pinsk, Polotsk, Vladimir-Volyn, Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Smolensk principalities) and Poland (Galician). Only North-Eastern Russia (Vladimir, Muromo-Ryazan and Novgorod lands) managed to maintain its independence. In the 14th century at the beginning of the 16th century. it was "gathered" by the princes of Moscow, who restored the unified Russian state.

Kievan principality. It was located in the interfluve of the Dnieper, Sluch, Ros and Pripyat (modern Kyiv and Zhytomyr regions of Ukraine and the south of the Gomel region of Belarus). It bordered in the north with Turov-Pinsk, in the east with Chernigov and Pereyaslav, in the west with the Vladimir-Volyn principality, and in the south it ran into the Polovtsian steppes. The population was made up of Slavic tribes of Polyans and Drevlyans.

Fertile soils and mild climate favored intensive farming; The inhabitants were also engaged in cattle breeding, hunting, fishing and beekeeping. Here the specialization of crafts took place early; “woodworking”, pottery and leatherworking acquired special importance. The presence of iron deposits in the Drevlyansk land (included in the Kyiv region at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries) favored the development of blacksmithing; many types of metals (copper, lead, tin, silver, gold) were brought from neighboring countries. The famous trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" passed through the Kiev region.

» (from the Baltic Sea to Byzantium); through the Pripyat it was connected with the Vistula and Neman basins, through the Desna with the upper reaches of the Oka, through the Seim with the Don basin and the Sea of ​​Azov. An influential trade and craft industry was formed early in Kyiv and nearby cities.layer.

From the end of the 9th to the end of the 10th c. Kyiv land was the central region of the Old Russian state. At Vladimir the Holy, with the allocation of a number of semi-independent destinies, it became the core of the grand ducal domain; at the same time Kyiv turned into the church center of Russia (as the residence of the metropolitan); an episcopal see was also established in nearby Belgorod. After the death of Mstislav the Great in 1132, the actual disintegration of the Old Russian state took place, and the Kievan land was constituted as

special principality.

Despite the fact that the Kyiv prince ceased to be the supreme owner of all Russian lands, he remained the head of the feudal hierarchy and continued to be considered "senior" among other princes. This made the Kiev principality the object of a fierce struggle between the various branches of the Rurik dynasty. The powerful Kievan boyars and the trade and craft population also took an active part in this struggle, although the role of the people's assembly (veche) by the beginning of the 12th century. decreased significantly.

Until 1139 the Kyiv throne was in the hands of the Monomashichs Mstislav the Great was succeeded by his brothers Yaropolk (11321139) and Vyacheslav (1139). In 1139 it was taken from them by the Chernigov prince Vsevolod Olgovich. However, the rule of the Chernigov Olgoviches was short-lived: after the death of Vsevolod in 1146, the local boyars, dissatisfied with the transfer of power to his brother Igor, called Izyaslav Mstislavich, a representative of the older branch of the Monomashichs (Mstislavichs), to the Kyiv throne. On August 13, 1146, having defeated the troops of Igor and Svyatoslav Olgovich near the Olga grave, Izyaslav captured the ancient capital; Igor, taken prisoner by him, was killed in 1147. In 1149, the Suzdal branch of the Monomashichs, represented by Yuri Dolgoruky, entered the struggle for Kyiv. After the death of Izyaslav (November 1154) and his co-ruler Vyacheslav Vladimirovich (December 1154), Yuri established himself on the Kiev table and held it until his death in 1157. The strife within the house of Monomashich helped the Olgoviches take revenge: in May 1157, Izyaslav Davydovich Chernigov seized the princely power (1157 1159). But his unsuccessful attempt to seize Galich cost him the grand prince's table, which returned to the Mstislavichs Smolensk prince Rostislav (11591167), and then to his nephew Mstislav Izyaslavich (11671169).

From the middle of the 12th century the political significance of the Kyiv land is falling. Its disintegration into destinies begins: in the 1150s and 1170s, the Belgorod, Vyshgorod, Trepol, Kanev, Torche, Kotelniche and Dorogobuzh principalities were distinguished. Kyiv ceases to play the role of the only center of the Russian lands; in the north-east

and in the south-west, two new centers of political attraction and influence are emerging, claiming the status of great principalities, Vladimir on the Klyazma and Galich. The princes of Vladimir and Galicia-Volyn no longer seek to occupy the Kyiv table; periodically subjugating Kyiv, they put their proteges there.

In 11691174 Vladimir prince dictated his will to Kyiv Andrey Bogolyubsky: in 1169 he expelled Mstislav Izyaslavich from there and gave the reign to his brother Gleb (11691171). When, after the death of Gleb (January 1171) and Vladimir Mstislavich (May 1171), who replaced him, the Kyiv table without his consent was taken by his other brother Mikhalko, Andrei forced him to give way to Roman Rostislavich, a representative of the Smolensk branch of the Mstislavichs (Rostislavichs); in 1172 Andrey expelled Roman as well and planted another of his brother Vsevolod the Big Nest in Kyiv; in 1173 he forced Rurik Rostislavich, who had seized the Kievan table, to flee to Belgorod.

After the death of Andrei Bogolyubsky in 1174, Kyiv fell under the control of the Smolensk Rostislavichs in the person of Roman Rostislavich (11741176). But in 1176, having failed in the campaign against the Polovtsy, Roman was forced to give up power, which was used by the Olgovichi. At the call of the townspeople, the Kyiv table was occupied by Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich Chernigov (11761194 with a break of 11

8 one). However, he did not succeed in ousting the Rostislavichs from the Kievan land; in the early 1180s, he recognized their rights to Porosie and the Drevlyane land; Olgovichi strengthened in the Kyiv district. Having reached agreement with the Rostislavichs, Svyatoslav concentrated his efforts on the fight against the Polovtsy, having managed to seriously weaken their onslaught on Russian lands.

After his death in 1194, the Rostislavichi returned to the Kievan table in the person of Rurik Rostislavich, but already at the beginning of the 13th century. Kyiv fell into the sphere of influence of the powerful Galician-Volyn prince Roman Mstislavich, who in 1202 expelled Rurik and installed his cousin Ingvar Yaroslavich of Dorogobuzh in his place. In 1203, Rurik, in alliance with the Polovtsy and Chernigov Olgovichi, captured Kyiv and, with the diplomatic support of the Vladimir prince Vsevolod the Big Nest, the ruler of North-Eastern Russia, held the Kievan principality for several months. However, in 1204, during a joint campaign of the South Russian rulers against the Polovtsy, he was arrested by Roman and tonsured a monk, and his son Rostislav was thrown into prison; Ingvar returned to the Kyiv table. But soon, at the request of Vsevolod, Roman released Rostislav and made him a prince of Kyiv.

After the death of Roman in October 1205, Rurik left the monastery and at the beginning of 1206 occupied Kyiv. In the same year, Prince Vsevolod Svyatoslavich Chermny of Chernigov entered the fight against him. Their four-year rivalry ended in 1210 with a compromise agreement: Rurik recognized Kyiv for Vsevolod and received Chernigov as compensation.

After the death of Vsevolod, the Rostislavichs reasserted themselves on the Kievan table: Mstislav Romanovich the Old (1212/12141223 with a break in 1219) and his cousin Vladimir Rurikovich (12231235). In 1235, Vladimir, having been defeated by the Polovtsy near Torchesky, was taken prisoner by them, and power in Kyiv was seized first by Prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich of Chernigov, and then Yaroslav, son of Vsevolod the Big Nest. However, in 1236, Vladimir, having redeemed himself from captivity, without much difficulty regained the grand prince's throne and remained on it until his death in 1239.

In 12391240, Mikhail Vsevolodovich Chernigovskiy, Rostislav Mstislavich Smolenskiy were sitting in Kyiv, and on the eve of the Tatar-Mongol invasion, he was under the control of the Galician-Volyn prince Daniil Romanovich, who appointed the voivode Dmitr there. In the autumn of 1240, Batu moved to South Russia and in early December took and defeated Kyiv, despite the desperate nine-day resistance of the inhabitants and a small squad of Dmitry; he subjected the principality to terrible devastation, after which it could no longer recover. Returning to the capital in 1241, Mikhail Vsevolodich was summoned to the Horde in 1246 and killed there. From the 1240s, Kyiv became formally dependent on the great princes of Vladimir (Alexander Nevsky, Yaroslav Yaroslavich). In the second half of the 13th c. a significant part of the population emigrated to the northern Russian regions. In 1299, the metropolitan see was transferred from Kyiv to Vladimir. In the first half of the 14th century the weakened Kiev principality became the object of Lithuanian aggression and in 1362, under Olgerd, it became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Principality of Polotsk. It was located in the middle reaches of the Dvina and Polota and in the upper reaches of the Svisloch and Berezina (the territory of the modern Vitebsk, Minsk and Mogilev regions of Belarus and southeastern Lithuania). In the south it bordered on Turov-Pinsky, in the east - on the Smolensk principality,in the north with the Pskov-Novgorod land, in the west and northwest with Finno-Ugric tribes (Livs, Latgales). It was inhabited by the Polochans (the name comes from the Poloty River) a branch of the East Slavic tribe of the Krivichi, partially mixed with the Baltic tribes.

As an independent territorial entity, the Polotsk land existed even before the emergence of the Old Russian state. In the 870s, the Novgorod prince Rurik imposed tribute on the Polotsk people, and then they submitted to the Kyiv prince Oleg. Under the Kiev prince Yaropolk Svyatoslavich (972980), the Polotsk land was a principality dependent on him, ruled by the Norman Rogvolod. In 980, Vladimir Svyatoslavich captured her, killed Rogvolod and his two sons, and took his daughter Rogneda as his wife; since that time, the Polotsk land finally became part of the Old Russian state. Having become the prince of Kyiv, Vladimir transferred part of it to the joint holding of Rogneda and their eldest son Izyaslav. In 988/989 he made Izyaslav the prince of Polotsk; Izyaslav became the ancestor of the local princely dynasty (Polotsk Izyaslavichi). In 992 the diocese of Polotsk was established.

Although the principality was poor in fertile lands, it had rich hunting and fishing lands and was located at the crossroads of important trade routes along the Dvina, Neman and Berezina; impenetrable forests and water barriers protected it from outside attacks. This attracted numerous settlers here; cities grew rapidly, turning into trade and craft centers (Polotsk, Izyaslavl, Minsk, Drutsk, etc.). Economic prosperity contributed to the concentration of significant resources in the hands of the Izyaslavichs, on which they relied in their struggle to achieve independence from the authorities of Kyiv.

Izyaslav's heir Bryachislav (10011044), taking advantage of the princely civil strife in Russia, pursued an independent policy and tried to expand his possessions. In 1021, with his squad and a detachment of Scandinavian mercenaries, he captured and plundered Veliky Novgorod, but then was defeated by the ruler of the Novgorod land, the Grand Duke Yaroslav the Wise on the river Sudoma; nevertheless, in order to ensure the loyalty of Bryachislav, Yaroslav ceded to him Usvyatskaya and Vitebsk volosts.

The Principality of Polotsk achieved special power under the son of Bryachislav Vseslav (10441101), who launched expansion to the north and northwest. Livs and Latgalians became his tributaries. In the 1060s he made several campaigns against Pskov and Novgorod the Great. In 1067 Vseslav ravaged Novgorod, but was unable to keep the Novgorod land. In the same year, Grand Duke Izyaslav Yaroslavich struck back at his strengthened vassal: he invaded the Principality of Polotsk, captured Minsk, defeated Vseslav's squad on the river. Nemiga, by cunning, took him prisoner along with his two sons and sent him to prison in Kyiv; the principality became part of the vast possessions of Izyaslav. After the overthrow

Izyaslav rebellious Kievans September 14, 1068 Vseslav regained Polotsk and even for a short time took the Kyiv Grand Duke's table; in the course of a fierce struggle with Izyaslav and his sons Mstislav, Svyatopolk and Yaropolk in 10691072, he managed to retain the Polotsk principality. In 1078, he resumed aggression against neighboring regions: he captured the Smolensk principality and devastated the northern part of Chernigov land. However, already in the winter of 10781079, Grand Duke Vsevolod Yaroslavich carried out a punitive expedition to the Principality of Polotsk and burned Lukoml, Logozhsk, Drutsk and the suburbs of Polotsk; in 1084 prince of Chernigov Vladimir Monomakh took Minsk and subjected the Polotsk land to a cruel defeat. Vseslav's resources were exhausted, and he no longer tried to expand the limits of his possessions.

With the death of Vseslav in 1101, the decline of the Principality of Polotsk begins. It breaks up into divisions; Minsk, Izyaslav and Vitebsk principalities stand out from it. The sons of Vseslav waste their strength in civil strife. After the predatory campaign of Gleb Vseslavich in the Turov-Pinsk land in 1116 and his unsuccessful attempt to capture Novgorod and the Smolensk principality in 1119, the aggression of the Izyaslavichs against neighboring regions practically ceased. The weakening of the principality opens the way for the intervention of Kyiv: at 11

1 9 Vladimir Monomakh without much difficulty defeats Gleb Vseslavich, seizes his inheritance, and imprisons himself in prison; in 1127 Mstislav the Great devastated the southwestern regions of the Polotsk land; in 1129, taking advantage of the refusal of the Izyaslavichs to take part in the joint campaign of the Russian princes against the Polovtsy, he occupies the principality and at the Kiev Congress seeks the condemnation of five Polotsk rulers (Svyatoslav, Davyd and Rostislav Vseslavich, Rogvolod and Ivan Borisovich) and their expulsion to Byzantium. Mstislav transfers the land of Polotsk to his son Izyaslav, and appoints his governors in the cities.

Although in 1132 the Izyaslavichs, in the person of Vasilko Svyatoslavich (11321144), managed to return the ancestral principality, they were no longer able to revive its former power. In the middle of the 12th century a fierce struggle broke out for the Polotsk princely table between Rogvolod Borisovich (11441151, 11591162) and Rostislav Glebovich (11511159). At the turn of the 1150s and 1160s, Rogvolod Borisovich made the last attempt to unite the principality, which, however, failed due to the opposition of other Izyaslavichs and the intervention of neighboring princes (Yuri Dolgorukov and others). In the second half

7 in. the crushing process deepens; the Drutsk, Gorodensky, Logozhsky and Strizhevsky principalities arise; the most important regions (Polotsk, Vitebsk, Izyaslavl) end up in the hands of the Vasilkoviches (descendants of Vasilko Svyatoslavich); the influence of the Minsk branch of the Izyaslavichs (Glebovichi), on the contrary, is falling. Polotsk land becomes the object of expansion of the Smolensk princes; in 1164 Davyd Rostislavich Smolensky for some time even takes possession of the Vitebsk volost; in the second half of the 1210s, his sons Mstislav and Boris established themselves in Vitebsk and Polotsk.

At the beginning of the 13th c. the aggression of the German knights begins in the lower reaches of the Western Dvina; by 1212 the Sword-bearers conquered the lands of the Livs and southwestern Latgale, tributaries of Polotsk. Since the 1230s, the Polotsk rulers also had to repel the onslaught of the newly formed Lithuanian state; mutual strife prevented them from joining forces, and by 1252 the Lithuanian princes

capture Polotsk, Vitebsk and Drutsk. In the second half of the 13th c. for the Polotsk lands, a fierce struggle unfolds between Lithuania, the Teutonic Order and the Smolensk princes, the winner of which is the Lithuanians. The Lithuanian prince Viten (12931316) takes Polotsk from the German knights in 1307, and his successor Gedemin (13161341) subdues the Minsk and Vitebsk principalities. Finally, the Polotsk land became part of the Lithuanian state in 1385.Chernihiv principality. It was located east of the Dnieper between the Desna valley and the middle reaches of the Oka (the territory of the modern Kursk, Orel, Tula, Kaluga, Bryansk, the western part of the Lipetsk and southern parts of the Moscow regions of Russia, the northern part of the Chernihiv and Sumy regions of Ukraine and the eastern part of the Gomel region of Belarus ). In the south it bordered on Pereyaslavsky, in the east on Muromo-Ryazan, in the north on Smolensk, in the west on Kyiv and Turov-Pinsk principalities. It was inhabited by East Slavic tribes of Polyans, Severyans, Radimichi and Vyatichi. It is believed that it received its name either from a certain Prince Cherny, or from the Black Guy (forest).

With a mild climate, fertile soils, numerous rivers rich in fish, and forests full of game in the north, Chernigov land was one of the most attractive regions of Ancient Russia for settlement. Through it (along the rivers Desna and Sozh) passed the main trade route from Kyiv to northeastern Russia. Towns with a significant artisan population arose early here. In the 11th-12th centuries. The Chernihiv principality was one of the richest and politically significant regions of Russia.

By the 9th century the northerners, who formerly lived on the left bank of the Dnieper, having subjugated the Radimichi, Vyatichi and part of the glades, extended their power to the upper reaches of the Don. As a result, a semi-state entity emerged that paid tribute to the Khazar Khaganate. At the beginning of the 10th c. it recognized dependence on the Kyiv prince Oleg. In the second half of the 10th c. Chernihiv land became part of the grand ducal domain. Under St. Vladimir, the diocese of Chernihiv was established. In 1024, it fell under the rule of Mstislav the Brave, brother of Yaroslav the Wise, and became a principality virtually independent of Kyiv. After his death in 1036, it was again included in the grand ducal domain. According to the will of Yaroslav the Wise, the Chernigov principality, together with the Muromo-Ryazan land, passed to his son Svyatoslav (10541073), who became the ancestor of the local princely dynasty of the Svyatoslavichs; they, however, managed to establish themselves in Chernigov only towards the end of the 11th century. In 1073, the Svyatoslavichs lost their principality, which ended up in the hands of Vsevolod Yaroslavich, and from 1078 to his son Vladimir Monomakh (until 1094). Attempts by the most active of the Svyatoslavichs Oleg "Gorislavich" to regain control of the principality in 1078 (with the help of his cousin Boris Vyacheslavich) and in 10941096

(with the help of the Polovtsy) ended in failure. Nevertheless, by decision of the Lyubech princely congress of 1097, Chernigov and Muromo-Ryazan lands were recognized as the patrimony of the Svyatoslavichs; the son of Svyatoslav Davyd (10971123) became the prince of Chernigov. After Davyd's death, the throne was occupied by his brother Yaroslav of Ryazan, who in 1127 was expelled by his nephew Vsevolod, the son of Oleg "Gorislavich". Yaroslav retained the Muromo-Ryazan land, which from that time turned into an independent principality. The Chernihiv land was divided among themselves by the sons of Davyd and Oleg Svyatoslavich (Davydovichi and Olgovichi), who entered into a fierce struggle for allotments and the Chernigov table. In 11271139 it was occupied by the Olgovichi, in 1139 they were replaced by Davydovichi Vladimir (11391151) and his brotherIzyaslav (11511157), but in 1157 he finally passed to the Olgoviches: Svyatoslav Olgovich (11571164) and his nephews Svyatoslav (11641177) and Yaroslav (11771198) Vsevolodichi. At the same time, the Chernigov princes tried to subjugate Kyiv: Vsevolod Olgovich (11391146), Igor Olgovich (1146) and Izyaslav Davydovich (1154 and 11571159) owned the Kyiv grand prince's table. They also fought with varying success for Veliky Novgorod, the Turov-Pinsk principality, and even for distant Galich. In internal strife andin wars with their neighbors, the Svyatoslavichs often resorted to the help of the Polovtsy.

In the second half of the 12th century, despite the extinction of the Davydovich family, the process of fragmentation of the Chernigov land intensified. It includes Novgorod-Seversk, Putivl, Kursk, Starodub and Vshchizh principalities; the principality of Chernigov proper was limited to the lower reaches of the Desna, from time to time also including the Vshchizh and Starobud volosts. The dependence of the vassal princes on the Chernigov ruler becomes nominal; some of them (for example, Svyatoslav Vladimirovich Vshchizhsky in the early 1160s) show a desire for complete independence. The bitter feuds of the Olgoviches do not prevent them from waging an active struggle for Kyiv with the Smolensk Rostislavichs: in 11761194 Svyatoslav Vsevolodich rules there, in 12061212/1214 intermittently his son Vsevolod Chermny. They are trying to gain a foothold in Novgorod the Great (11801181, 1197); in 1205 they managed to take possession of the Galician land, where, however, in 1211 a catastrophe befell them three princes of the Olgovichi (Roman, Svyatoslav and Rostislav Igorevich) were captured and hanged by the verdict of the Galician boyars. In 1210, they even lose the Chernigov table, which for two years passes to the Smolensk Rostislavichs (Rurik Rostislavich).

In the first third of the 13th c. The Chernigov Principality breaks up into many small destinies, only formally subordinate to Chernigov; Kozelskoe, Lopasninskoe, Rylskoe, Snovskoe, then Trubchevskoe, Glukhovo-Novosilskoe, Karachevo and Tarusa principalities stand out. Despite this, Prince Mikhail Vsevolodich of Chernigov

(12231241) does not stop its active policy towards neighboring regions, trying to establish control over Novgorod the Great (1225, 12281230) and Kyiv (1235, 1238); in 1235 he takes possession of the Galician principality, and later the Przemysl volost.

The waste of significant human and material resources in civil strife and in wars with neighbors, the fragmentation of forces and the lack of unity among the princes contributed to the success of the Mongol-Tatar invasion. In the autumn of 1239, Batu took Chernigov and subjected the principality to such a terrible defeat that it actually ceased to exist. In 1241, the son and heir of Mikhail Vsevolodich, Rostislav, left his fiefdom and went to fight in the Galician land, and then fled to Hungary. Obviously, the last prince of Chernigov was his uncle Andrei (mid-1240s early 1260s). After 1261, the Principality of Chernigov became part of the Principality of Bryansk, founded in 1246 by Roman, another son of Mikhail Vsevolodich; the Bishop of Chernigov also moved to Bryansk. In the middle of the 14th century The Principality of Bryansk and Chernihiv lands were conquered by the Lithuanian prince Olgerd.

Muromo-Ryazan principality. It occupied the southeastern outskirts of Russia the basin of the Oka and its tributaries the Pronya, Osetra and Tsna, the upper reaches of the Don and Voronezh (modern Ryazan, Lipetsk, northeast of Tambov and south of Vladimir regions). It bordered on the west with Chernigov, on the north with the Rostov-Suzdal principality; in the east, its neighbors were the Mordovian tribes, and in the south, the Cumans. The population of the principality was mixed: both Slavs (Krivichi, Vyatichi) and Finno-Ugric peoples (Mordva, Muroma, Meshchera) lived here.

Fertile (chernozem and podzolized) soils prevailed in the south and in the central regions of the principality, which contributed to the development of agriculture. Its northern part was densely covered with forests rich in game and swamps; The locals were mainly engaged in hunting. In the 11th-12th centuries. a number of urban centers arose on the territory of the principality: Murom, Ryazan (from the word "cassock" swampy swampy place overgrown with shrubs), Pereyaslavl, Kolomna, Rostislavl, Pronsk, Zaraysk. However, in terms of economic development, it lagged behind most other regions of Russia.

Murom land was annexed to the Old Russian state in the third quarter of the 10th century. under the Kiev prince Svyatoslav Igorevich. In 988989 St. Vladimir included it in the Rostov inheritance of his son Yaroslav the Wise. In 1010, Vladimir allocated it as an independent principality to his other son Gleb. After the tragic death of Gleb in 1015, she returned to the Grand Duke's domain, and in 10231036 was part of the Chernigov inheritance of Mstislav the Brave.

According to the will of Yaroslav the Wise, the Murom land, as part of the Chernigov principality, passed in 1054 to his son Svyatoslav, and in 1073 he transferred it to his brother Vsevolod. In 1078, having become the great prince of Kyiv, Vsevolod gave Murom to Svyatoslav's sons Roman and Davyd. In 1095 Davyd ceded it to Izyaslav, the son of Vladimir Monomakh, receiving Smolensk in return. In 1096, David's brother Oleg "Gorislavich" expelled Izyaslav, but then he himself was expelled by Izyaslav's elder brother Mstislav the Great. However, by decision

At the Lyubech Congress, the Murom land, as a vassal possession of Chernigov, was recognized as the patrimony of the Svyatoslavichs: it was given to Oleg "Gorislavich", and for his brother Yaroslav, a special Ryazan volost was allocated from it.

In 1123, Yaroslav, who occupied the Chernigov throne, handed over Murom and Ryazan to his nephew Vsevolod Davydovich. But after being expelled from Chernigov in 1127, Yaroslav returned to the Murom table; from that time, the Muromo-Ryazan land became an independent principality, in which the descendants of Yaroslav (the younger Murom branch of the Svyatoslavichs) established themselves. They had to constantly repel the raids of the Polovtsy and other nomads, which diverted their forces from participating in the all-Russian princely strife, but by no means from internal strife associated with the process of fragmentation that had begun (already in the 1140s, the Yelets principality stood out on its southwestern outskirts). From the mid-1140s, the Muromo-Ryazan land became an object of expansion by the Rostov-Suzdal rulers Yuri Dolgoruky and his son Andrey Bogolyubsky. In 1146, Andrei Bogolyubsky intervened in the conflict between Prince Rostislav Yaroslavich and his nephews Davyd and Igor Svyatoslavich and helped them capture Ryazan. Rostislav kept Moore behind him; only a few years later he was able to regain the Ryazan table. Early 1160

- x in Murom, his great-nephew Yuri Vladimirovich established himself, who became the founder of a special branch of the Murom princes, and from that time the Murom principality separated from Ryazan. Soon (by 1164) it fell into vassal dependence on the Vadimir-Suzdal prince Andrei Bogolyubsky; under the subsequent rulers Vladimir Yuryevich (11761205), Davyd Yuryevich (12051228) and Yuri Davydovich (12281237), the Principality of Murom gradually lost its significance.

The Ryazan princes (Rostislav and his son Gleb), however, actively resisted the Vladimir-Suzdal aggression. Moreover, after the death of Andrei Bogolyubsky in 1174, Gleb tried to establish control over the entire North-Eastern Russia. In alliance with the sons of Pereyaslav prince Rostislav Yurievich Mstislav and Yaropolk, he began a struggle with the sons of Yuri Dolgoruky Mikhalko and Vsevolod the Big Nest for the Vladimir-Suzdal principality; in 1176 he captured and burned Moscow, but in 1177 he was defeated on the Koloksha River, was captured by Vsevolod and died in 1178 in prison

. The son and heir of Gleb Roman (11781207) took the vassal oath to Vsevolod the Big Nest. In the 1180s, he made two attempts to dispossess his younger brothers and unite the principality, but the intervention of Vsevolod prevented the implementation of his plans. The progressive fragmentation of the Ryazan land (in 1185-1186 the Principalities of Pronsk and Kolomna separated) led to increased rivalry within the princely house. In 1207, Roman's nephews Gleb and Oleg Vladimirovich accused him of plotting against Vsevolod the Big Nest.; Roman was summoned to Vladimir and thrown into prison. Vsevolod tried to take advantage of these strife: in 1209 he captured Ryazan, put his son Yaroslav on the Ryazan table, and appointed Vladimir-Suzdal posadniks to the rest of the cities; however, in the sameIn the year Ryazanians expelled Yaroslav and his proteges.

In the 1210s, the struggle for allotments intensified even more. In 1217, Gleb and Konstantin Vladimirovich organized in the village of Isady (6 km from Ryazan) the murder of six of their brothers - one brother and five cousins. But Roman's nephew Ingvar Igorevich defeated Gleb and Konstantin, forced them to flee to the Polovtsian steppes and occupied the Ryazan table. During his twenty-year reign (1217-1237), the process of fragmentation became irreversible.

In 1237 the Ryazan and Murom principalities were defeated by the hordes of Batu. Prince Yuri Ingvarevich of Ryazan, Prince Yuri Davydovich of Murom and most of the local princes perished. In the second half of the 13th c. Murom land fell into complete desolation; Murom bishopric at the beginning of the 14th century. was moved to Ryazan; only in the middle of the 14th century. Murom ruler Yuri Yaroslavich revived his principality for a while. The forces of the Ryazan principality, which was subjected to constant Tatar-Mongol raids, were undermined by the internecine struggle between the Ryazan and Pronsk branches of the ruling house. From the beginning of the 14th century it began to experience pressure from the Moscow principality that had arisen on its northwestern borders. In 1301 Moscow Prince Daniil Alexandrovich captured Kolomna and captured Ryazan Prince Konstantin Romanovich. In the second half of the 14th century Oleg Ivanovich (13501402) was able to temporarily consolidate the forces of the principality, expand its borders and strengthen the central government; in 1353 he took Lopasnya from Ivan II of Moscow. However, in the 1370s and 1380s, during the struggle of Dmitry Donskoy with the Tatars, he failed to play the role of a “third force” and create his own center for the unification of the northeastern Russian lands

. In 1393, Prince Vasily I of Moscow, with the consent of the Tatar Khan, annexed the Principality of Murom. The Ryazan principality during the 14th century. gradually fell into greater dependence on Moscow. The last Ryazan princes Ivan Vasilyevich (14831500) and Ivan Ivanovich (15001521) retained only a shadow of independence. Finally, the Ryazan principality became part of the Muscovite state in 1521. Tmutarakan principality. It was located on the Black Sea coast, occupied the territory of the Taman Peninsula and the eastern tip of the Crimea. The population was made up of Slavic colonists and tribes of Yases and Kasogs. The principality had a favorable geographical position: it controlled the Kerch Strait and, accordingly, the Don (from Eastern Russia and the Volga region) and Kuban (from the North Caucasus) trade routes to the Black Sea. However, the Rurikovichs did not attach much importance to Tmutarakan; it was often the placewhere the princes, expelled from their estates, took refuge, and where they gathered forces for the invasion of the central regions of Russia.

From the 7th c. The Taman Peninsula belonged to the Khazar Khaganate. At the turn of the 9th-10th centuries. began its settlement by the Slavs. It ended up under the rule of the Kievan princes as a result of the campaign of Svyatoslav Igorevich in 965, when the Khazar port city of Samkerts (antique Hermonassa, Byzantium Tamatarkha, Russian Tmutarakan), located on its western tip, was probably taken; he became the main Russian outpost on the Black Sea. Vladimir the Holy made this region a semi-independent principality and gave it to his son Mstislav the Brave. Perhaps Mstislav held Tmutarakan until his death in 1036. Then it became part of the grand ducal domain, and according to the will of Yaroslav the Wise in 1054 passed to his son the Chernigov prince Svyatoslav and from that time was considered a territory dependent on Chernigov.

Svyatoslav planted his son Gleb in Tmutarakan; in 1064, Gleb was expelled by his cousin Rostislav Vladimirovich, who, despite Svyatoslav's campaign in Tmutarakan in 1065, was able to keep the principality until his death in 1067. When he died, Svyatoslav, at the request of local residents, again sent Gleb to Tmutarakan, but he did not reign for long and already in 10681069 left for Novgorod. In 1073, Svyatoslav gave Tmutarakan to his brother Vsevolod, but after Svyatoslav's death, his sons Roman and Oleg "Gorislavich" captured it (1077). In 1078, Vsevolod, having become the Grand Duke, recognized Tmutarakan as the possession of the Svyatoslavichs. In 1079, Roman was killed by his Polovtsy allies during a campaign against Pereyaslavl-Russian, and Oleg was captured by the Khazars and sent to Constantinople to the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus III Votaniates, who exiled him to the island of Rhodes. Tmutarakan again fell under the rule of Vsevolod, who ruled it through his posadniks. In 1081, Volodar Rostislavich Przemysl and his cousin Davyd Igorevich Turovsky attacked Tmutarakan, deposed Vsevolodov's governor Ratibor and began to reign there. In 1083 they were expelled by Oleg "Gorislavich" who returned to Russia and owned Tmutarakan' for eleven years. In 1094, he left the principality and, together with his brothers, began to fight for the "fatherland" (Chernigov, Murom, Ryazan). By decision of the Lyubech Congress of 1097, Tmutarakan was assigned to the Svyatoslavichs.

At the end of the 11th century Yaroslav Svyatoslavich sat on the Tmutarakan table. At the beginning of the 12th c. Oleg Gorislavich returned to Tmutarakan, holding it until his death in 1115. Under his heir and son Vsevolod, the principality was defeated by the Polovtsians. In 1127 Vsevolod handed over the reign of Tmutarakan to his uncle Yaroslav, who was expelled by him from Chernigov. However, this title was already purely nominal: Yaroslav until his death in 1129 was the owner of the Muromo-Ryazan land. By this time, the ties between Russia and Tmutarakan had finally been broken.

In 1185, the grandsons of Oleg "Gorislavich" Igor and Vsevolod Svyatoslavich organized a campaign against the Polovtsy in order to restore the Tmutarakan principality, which ended in complete failure (the campaign of Prince Igor). see also KHAZAR KAGANATE.

Turov-Pinsk principality. It was located in the basin of the Pripyat River (the south of the modern Minsk, the east of the Brest and the west of the Gomel regions of Belarus). It bordered in the north with Polotsk, in the south with Kyiv, and in the east with the Chernigov principality, reaching almost to the Dnieper; border with its western neighborThe Vladimir-Volyn principality was not stable: the upper reaches of the Pripyat and the Goryn valley passed either to the Turov or Volyn princes. The Turov land was inhabited by the Slavic tribe of the Dregovichi.

Most of the territory was covered with impenetrable forests and swamps; Hunting and fishing were the main occupations of the inhabitants. Only certain areas were suitable for agriculture; there, first of all, urban centers arose - Turov, Pinsk, Mozyr, Sluchesk, Klechesk, which, however, in terms of economic importance and population could not compete with the leading cities of other regions of Russia. The limited resources of the principality did not allow its owners to participate on an equal footing in the all-Russian civil strife.

In the 970s, the land of the Dregovichi was a semi-independent principality, which was in vassal dependence on Kyiv; its ruler was a certain Tur, from which the name of the region came. In 988989 St. Vladimir singled out the “Drevlyansk land and Pinsk” as an inheritance to his nephew Svyatopolk the Accursed. At the beginning of the 11th century, after the revelation of Svyatopolk's conspiracy against Vladimir, the Principality of Turov was included in the Grand Duchy domain. In the middle of the 11th c. Yaroslav the Wise passed it on to his third son Izyaslav, the ancestor of the local princely dynasty (Turov's Izyaslavichi). When Yaroslav died in 1054 and Izyaslav occupied the grand prince's table, Turovshchina became part of his vast possessions (10541068, 10691073, 10771078). After his death in 1078, the new Kyiv prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich gave the Turov land to his nephew Davyd Igorevich, who held it until 1081. In 1088 it ended up in the hands of Svyatopolk, the son of Izyaslav, who in 1093 sat on the grand prince's table. By decision of the Lyubech Congress of 1097, Turovshchina was assigned to him and his descendants, but soon after his death in 1113, it passed to the new Kyiv prince Vladimir Monomakh

. Under the division that followed the death of Vladimir Monomakh in 1125, the Principality of Turov passed to his son Vyacheslav. From 1132 it became the object of rivalry between Vyacheslav and his nephew Izyaslav, son of Mstislav the Great. In 11421143 it was briefly owned by the Chernihiv Olgovichi (Grand Prince of Kyiv Vsevolod Olgovich and his son Svyatoslav). In 11461147 Izyaslav Mstislavich finally expelled Vyacheslav from Turov and gave him to his son Yaroslav.

In the middle of the 12th century the Suzdal branch of the Vsevolodichis intervened in the struggle for the Turov Principality: in 1155, Yuri Dolgoruky, having become the great Kyiv prince, put his son Andrei Bogolyubsky on the Turov table, in 1155 his other son Boris; however, they failed to hold on to it. In the second half of the 1150s, the principality returned to the Turov Izyaslavichs: by 1158, Yuri Yaroslavich, the grandson of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, managed to unite the entire Turov land under his rule. Under his sons Svyatopolk (until 1190) and Gleb (until 1195), it broke up into several destinies. By the beginning of the 13th century. the principalities of Turov, Pinsk, Slutsk and Dubrovitsky took shape. During the 13th century the crushing process progressed inexorably; Turov lost its role as the center of the principality; Pinsk began to acquire more and more importance. Weak petty rulers could not organize any serious resistance to external aggression. In the second quarter of the 14th c. The Turov-Pinsk land turned out to be an easy prey for the Lithuanian prince Gedemin (13161347).

Smolensk principality. It was located in the basin of the Upper Dnieper(modern Smolensk, south-east of the Tver regions of Russia and the east of the Mogilev region of Belarus).It bordered in the west with Polotsk, in the south with Chernigov, in the east with the Rostov-Suzdal principality, and in the north with the Pskov-Novgorod land. It was inhabited by the Slavic tribe of Krivichi.

The Smolensk principality had an extremely advantageous geographical position. The upper reaches of the Volga, Dnieper and Western Dvina converged on its territory, and it lay at the intersection of two important trade routes from Kyiv to Polotsk and the Baltic states (along the Dnieper, then dragged to the Kasplya River, a tributary of the Western Dvina) and to Novgorod and the Upper Volga region ( through Rzhev and Lake Seliger). Here, cities arose early, which became important trade and craft centers (Vyazma, Orsha).

In 882, Prince Oleg of Kyiv subjugated the Smolensk Krivichi and planted his governors in their land, which became his possession. At the end of the 10th c. St. Vladimir singled her out as an inheritance to his son Stanislav, but after some time she returned to the grand ducal domain. In 1054, according to the will of Yaroslav the Wise, the Smolensk region passed to his son Vyacheslav. In 1057, the great Kyiv prince Izyaslav Yaroslavich handed it over to his brother Igor, and after his death in 1060 he shared it with his other two brothers Svyatoslav and Vsevolod. In 1078, by agreement between Izyaslav and Vsevolod, the Smolensk land was given to Vsevolod's son Vladimir Monomakh; soon Vladimir moved to reign in Chernigov, and the Smolensk region was in the hands of Vsevolod. After his death in 1093, Vladimir Monomakh planted his eldest son Mstislav in Smolensk, and in 1095 his other son Izyaslav. Although in 1095 the Smolensk land was for a short time in the hands of the Olgovichi (Davyd Olgovich), the Lyubech congress of 1097 recognized it as the patrimony of the Monomashichs, and the sons of Vladimir Monomakh Yaropolk, Svyatoslav, Gleb and Vyacheslav ruled in it.

After the death of Vladimir in 1125, the new Kyiv prince Mstislav the Great allocated Smolensk land as an inheritance to his son Rostislav (11251159), the founder of the local princely dynasty of the Rostislavichs; henceforth it became an independent principality. In 1136, Rostislav achieved the creation of an episcopal see in Smolensk, in 1140 he repelled an attempt by the Chernigov Olgoviches (the great Kyiv prince Vsevolod) to seize the principality, and in the 1150s he entered the struggle for Kyiv. In 1154 he had to cede the Kyiv table to the Olgoviches (Izyaslav Davydovich of Chernigov), but in 1159 he established himself on it (he owned it until his death in 1167). He gave the Smolensk table to his son Roman (11591180 intermittently), who was succeeded by his brother Davyd (11801197), son Mstislav Stary (11971206, 12071212/12

1 4), nephews Vladimir Rurikovich (12151223 with a break in 1219) and Mstislav Davydovich (12231230).

In the second half of the 12th century at the beginning of the 13th c. Rostislavichi actively tried to bring under their control the most prestigious and richest regions of Russia. The sons of Rostislav (Roman, Davyd, Rurik and Mstislav the Brave) waged a fierce struggle for the Kyiv land with the older branch of the Monomashichs (Izyaslavichs), with the Olgoviches and with the Suzdal Yuryevichs (especially with Andrei Bogolyubsky in the late 1160s and early 1170s); they were able to gain a foothold in the most important areas of the Kiev region in Posemye, Ovruch, Vyshgorod, Torcheskaya, Trepolsky and Belgorod volosts. In the period from 1171 to 1210, Roman and Rurik sat down at the Grand Duke's table eight times. In the north, Novgorod land became the object of expansion of the Rostislavichs: Davyd (11541155), Svyatoslav (11581167) and Mstislav Rostislavich (11791180), Mstislav Davydovich (11841187) and Mstislav Mstislavich Udatny (12101215 and 12161218); in the late 1170s and in the 1210s, the Rostislavichs held Pskov; sometimes they even managed to create appanages independent of Novgorod (in the late 1160s and early 1170s in Torzhok and Velikiye Luki). In 11641166 Rostislavichs owned Vitebsk (Davyd Rostislavich), in 1206 Pereyaslavl Russian (Rurik Rostislavich and his son Vladimir), and in 12101212 even Chernigov (Rurik Rostislavich). Their success was facilitated by both the strategically advantageous position of the Smolensk region and the relatively slow (compared to neighboring principalities) process of its fragmentation, although some destinies (Toropetsky, Vasilevsky-Krasnensky) were periodically separated from it.

In 1210–1220 the political and economic importance of the Smolensk Principality increased even more. The merchants of Smolensk became important partners of the Hansa, as their trade agreement of 1229 (Smolenskaya Torgovaya Pravda) shows. Continuing the struggle for Novgorod (in 12181221 the sons of Mstislav the Old Svyatoslav and Vsevolod reigned in Novgorod) and Kyiv lands (in 12131223, with a break in 1219, Mstislav the Old sat in Kyiv, and in 1119, 11231235 and 12361238 Vladimir Rurikovich), Rostislavichi also intensified their onslaught to the west and southwest. In 1219 Mstislav the Old captured Galich, which then passed to his cousin Mstislav Udatny (until 1227). In the second half of the 1210s, the sons of Davyd Rostislavich, Boris and Davyd, subjugated Polotsk and Vitebsk; the sons of Boris Vasilko and Vyachko vigorously fought the Teutonic Order and the Lithuanians for the Dvina.

However, from the end of the 1220s, the weakening of the Smolensk principality began. The process of its fragmentation into appanages intensified, the rivalry of the Rostislavichs for the Smolensk table intensified; in 1232, the son of Mstislav the Old, Svyatoslav, took Smolensk by storm and subjected it to a terrible defeat. The influence of the local boyars increased, which began to interfere in princely strife; in 1239 the boyars put Vsevolod, the brother of Svyatoslav, who pleased them, on the Smolensk table. The decline of the principality predetermined failures in foreign policy. Already by the mid-1220s, the Rostislavichs had lost the Podvinye; in 1227 Mstislav Udatnoy ceded the Galician land to the Hungarian prince Andrei. Although in 1238 and 1242 the Rostislavichs managed to repulse the attack of the Tatar-Mongol detachments on Smolensk, they could not repulse the Lithuanians, who in the late 1240s captured Vitebsk, Polotsk and even Smolensk itself. Alexander Nevsky drove them out of the Smolensk region, but the Polotsk and Vitebsk lands were completely lost.

In the second half of the 13th c. the line of Davyd Rostislavich was established on the Smolensk table: it was successively occupied by the sons of his grandson Rostislav Gleb, Mikhail and Theodore. Under them, the collapse of the Smolensk land became irreversible; Vyazemskoye and a number of other appanages emerged from it. The princes of Smolensk had to recognize vassal dependence on the great prince of Vladimir and the Tatar khan (1274). In the 14th century under Alexander Glebovich (12971313), his son Ivan (13131358) and grandson Svyatoslav (13581386), the principality completely lost its former political and economic power; Smolensk rulers unsuccessfully tried to stop the Lithuanian expansion in the west. After the defeat and death of Svyatoslav Ivanovich in 1386 in a battle with the Lithuanians on the Vekhra River near Mstislavl, Smolensk land became dependent on the Lithuanian prince Vitovt, who began to appoint and dismiss Smolensk princes at his own discretion, and in 1395 established his direct rule. In 1401, the Smolensk people rebelled and, with the help of the Ryazan prince Oleg, expelled

Lithuanians; Smolensk table was occupied by the son of Svyatoslav Yuri. However, in 1404 Vitovt took the city, liquidated the principality of Smolensk and included its lands into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.Pereyaslav principality. It was located in the forest-steppe part of the Dnieper left bank and occupied the interfluve of the Desna, Seim, Vorskla and the Northern Donets (modern Poltava, east of Kyiv, south of Chernihiv and Sumy, west of Kharkov regions of Ukraine). It bordered on the west with Kyiv, in the north with the Chernigov principality; in the east and south, its neighbors were nomadic tribes (Pechenegs, Torks, Polovtsy). The southeastern border was not stable it either moved forward into the steppe, or retreated back; the constant threat of attacks made it necessary to create a line of border fortifications and settle along the bordersthose nomads who switched to a settled life and recognized the power of the Pereyaslav rulers. The population of the principality was mixed: both the Slavs (Polyans, northerners) and the descendants of the Alans and Sarmatians lived here.

The mild temperate continental climate and podzolized chernozem soils created favorable conditions for intensive agriculture and cattle breeding. However, the neighborhood with warlike nomadic tribes, which periodically devastated the principality, had a negative impact on its economic development.

By the end of the 9th c. on this territory a semi-state formation arose with a center in the city of Pereyaslavl. At the beginning of the 10th c. it fell into vassal dependence on the Kyiv prince Oleg. According to a number of scientists, the old city of Pereyaslavl was burned by nomads, and in 992 Vladimir the Holy, during a campaign against the Pechenegs, founded a new Pereyaslavl (Pereyaslavl Russian) at the place where the Russian daring Jan Usmoshvets defeated the Pecheneg hero in a duel. Under him and in the first years of the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, Pereyaslavshchina was part of

grand-princely domain, and in 10241036 became part of the vast possessions of brother Yaroslav Mstislav the Brave on the left bank of the Dnieper. After the death of Mstislav in 1036, the Kyiv prince again took possession of it. In 1054, according to the will of Yaroslav the Wise, Pereyaslav land passed to his son Vsevolod; from that time on, it separated from the Kyiv principality and became an independent principality. In 1073, Vsevolod handed it over to his brother, the great Kievan prince Svyatoslav, who, possibly, planted his son Gleb in Pereyaslavl. In 1077, after the death of Svyatoslav, Pereyaslavshchina again fell into the hands of Vsevolod; an attempt by Roman, the son of Svyatoslav, to capture it in 1079 with the help of the Polovtsians ended in failure: Vsevolod entered into a secret agreement with the Polovtsian Khan, and he ordered Roman to be killed. After some time, Vsevolod transferred the principality to his son Rostislav, after whose death in 1093 his brother Vladimir Monomakh began to reign there (with the consent of the new Grand Duke Svyatopolk Izyaslavich). By decision of the Lyubech congress of 1097, the Pereyaslav land was assigned to the Monomashichi. Since that time, she remained their fiefdom; as a rule, the great princes of Kyiv from the Monomashich family allocated it to their sons or younger brothers; for some of them, the Pereyaslav reign became a stepping stone to the Kyiv table (Vladimir Monomakh himself in 1113, Yaropolk Vladimirovich in 1132, Izyaslav Mstislavich in 1146, Gleb Yurievich in 1169). True, the Chernigov Olgovichi tried several times to put it under their control; but they managed to capture only the Bryansk Estate in the northern part of the principality.

Vladimir Monomakh, having made a number of successful campaigns against the Polovtsy, secured the southeastern border of Pereyaslavshchina for a while. In 1113 he transferred the principality to his son Svyatoslav, after his death in 1114 to another son Yaropolk, and in 1118 to another son Gleb. According to the will of Vladimir Monomakh in 1125, Pereyaslav land again went to Yaropolk. When Yaropolk left to reign in Kyiv in 1132, the Pereyaslav table became a bone of contention within the Monomashich family between the Rostov prince Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky and his nephews Vsevolod and Izyaslav Mstislavich. Yuri Dolgoruky captured Pereyaslavl, but ruled there only eight days: he was expelled by the Grand Duke Yaropolk, who gave the Pereyaslav table to Izyaslav Mstislavich, and in the next, 1133, to his brother Vyacheslav Vladimirovich. In 1135, after Vyacheslav left to reign in Turov, Pereyaslavl was again captured by Yuri Dolgoruky, who installed his brother Andrei the Good there. In the same year, the Olgovichi, in alliance with the Polovtsians, invaded the principality, but the Monomashichs joined forces and helped Andrei repel the attack. After the death of Andrei in 1142, Vyacheslav Vladimirovich returned to Pereyaslavl, who, however, soon had to transfer the reign to Izyaslav Mstislavich. When in 1146 Izyaslav

took the Kyiv table, he planted his son Mstislav in Pereyaslavl.

In 1149, Yuri Dolgoruky resumed the struggle with Izyaslav and his sons for dominion in the southern Russian lands. For five years, the Principality of Pereyaslav turned out to be in the hands of Mstislav Izyaslavich (11501151, 11511154), then in the hands of the sons of Yuri Rostislav (11491150, 1151) and Gleb (1151). In 1154, the Yuryevichs established themselves in the principality for a long time: Gleb Yuryevich (11551169), his son Vladimir (11691174), brother of Gleb Mikhalko (11741175), again Vladimir (11

7 51187), grandson of Yuri Dolgorukov Yaroslav the Red (until 1199) and sons of Vsevolod the Big Nest Konstantin (11991201) and Yaroslav (12011206). In 1206, the Grand Duke of Kyiv Vsevolod Chermny from the Chernigov Olgovichi planted his son Mikhail in Pereyaslavl, who, however, was expelled in the same year by the new Grand Duke Rurik Rostislavich. From that time on, the principality was held either by the Smolensk Rostislavichs or the Yuryevichs. In the spring of 1239, the Tatar-Mongol hordes invaded Pereyaslav land; they burned Pereyaslavl and subjected the principality to a terrible defeat, after which it could no longer be revived; the Tatars included him in the "Wild Field". In the third quarter of the 14th c. Pereyaslavshchina became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.Vladimir-Volyn principality. It was located in the west of Russia and occupied a vast territory from the upper reaches of the Southern Bug in the south to the upper reaches of the Nareva (a tributary of the Vistula) in the north, from the valley of the Western Bug in the west to the Sluch River (a tributary of the Pripyat) in the east (modern Volynskaya, Khmelnitskaya, Vinnitskaya, north of Ternopil, north-east of Lvov, most of the Rivne region of Ukraine, west of Brest and south-west of Grodno region of Belarus, east of Lublin and south-east of Bialystok voivodeship of Poland). It bordered in the east with Polotsk, Turov-Pinsky and Kyiv,in the west with the Principality of Galicia, in the northwest with Poland, in the southeast with the Polovtsian steppes. It was inhabited by the Slavic tribe Dulebs, who were later called Buzhans or Volynians.

Southern Volyn was a mountainous area formed by the eastern spurs of the Carpathians, the northern was a lowland and wooded woodland. A variety of natural and climatic conditions contributed to economic diversity; The inhabitants were engaged in agriculture, and cattle breeding, and hunting, and fishing. The economic development of the principality was favored by its unusually favorable geographical position: the main trade routes from the Baltic to the Black Sea and from Russia to Central Europe passed through it; at their intersection, the main urban centers arose Vladimir-Volynsky, Dorogichin, Lutsk, Berestye, Shumsk.

At the beginning of the 10th c. Volyn, together with the territory adjacent to it from the south-west (the future Galician land), became dependent on the Kyiv prince Oleg. In 981, St. Vladimir annexed to it the Peremyshl and Cherven volosts, which he had taken from the Poles, pushing the Russian border from the Western Bug to the San River; in Vladimir-Volynsky, he established an episcopal see, and made the Volyn land itself a semi-independent principality, transferring it to his sons Pozvizd, Vsevolod, Boris. During the internecine war in Russia in 10151019, the Polish king Boleslav I the Brave returned Przemysl and Cherven, but in the early 1030s they were recaptured by Yaroslav the Wise, who also annexed Belz to Volhynia.

In the early 1050s, Yaroslav placed his son Svyatoslav on the Vladimir-Volyn table. According to Yaroslav's will in 1054, he passed to his other son Igor, who held him until 1057. According to some sources, in 1060 Vladimir-Volynsky was transferred to Igor's nephew Rostislav Vladimirovich; that one, however

, owned it for a short time. In 1073, Volhynia returned to Svyatoslav Yaroslavich, who had taken the throne, and gave it to his son Oleg "Gorislavich", but after the death of Svyatoslav at the end of 1076, the new Kyiv prince Izyaslav Yaroslavich took this region from him.

When Izyaslav died in 1078 and the great reign passed to his brother Vsevolod, he planted Yaropolk, the son of Izyaslav, in Vladimir-Volynsky. However, after some time, Vsevolod separated the Przemysl and Terebovl volosts from Volyn, transferring them to the sons of Rostislav Vladimirovich (the future Galician principality). An attempt by the Rostislavichs in 10841086 to take away the Vladimir-Volyn table from Yaropolk was unsuccessful; after the murder of Yaropolk in 1086, Grand Duke Vsevolod made his nephew Davyd Igorevich Volhynia ruler. The Lyubech congress of 1097 secured Volyn for him, but as a result of the war with the Rostislavichs, and then with the Kyiv prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich (10971098), Davyd lost it. By decision of the Uvetichi Congress of 1100, Vladimir-Volynsky went to Svyatopolk's son Yaroslav; Davyd got Buzhsk, Ostrog, Czartorysk and Duben (later Dorogobuzh).

In 1117, Yaroslav rebelled against the new Kyiv prince Vladimir Monomakh, for which he was expelled from Volhynia. Vladimir passed it on to his son Roman (11171119), and after his death to his other son Andrei the Good (11191135); in 1123, Yaroslav tried to regain his inheritance with the help of the Poles and Hungarians, but died during the siege of Vladimir-Volynsky. In 1135, Prince Yaropolk of Kyiv installed his nephew Izyaslav, son of Mstislav the Great, in place of Andrei.

When in 1139 the Olgoviches of Chernigov took possession of the Kyiv table, they decided to oust the Monomashichs from Volhynia. In 1142, Grand Duke Vsevolod Olgovich managed to plant his son Svyatoslav in Vladimir-Volynsky instead of Izyaslav. However, in 1146, after the death of Vsevolod, Izyaslav seized the great reign in Kyiv and removed Svyatoslav from Vladimir, allocating Buzhsk and six more Volyn cities as his inheritance. Since that time, Volyn finally passed into the hands of the Mstislavichs, the eldest branch of the Monomashichs, who ruled it until 1337. Izyaslav Mstislav (11561170). Under them, the process of fragmentation of the Volyn land began: in the 1140-1160s, the Buzh, Lutsk and Peresopnytsia principalities stood out.

In 1170, the Vladimir-Volyn table was occupied by the son of Mstislav Izyaslavich Roman (1170-1205 with a break in 1188). His reign was marked by the economic and political strengthening of the principality. Unlike the Galician princes, the Volyn rulers had an extensive princely domain and were able to concentrate significant material resources in their hands. Having strengthened his power within the principality, Roman in the second half of the 1180s began to conduct an active external

politics. In 1188 he intervened in civil strife in the neighboring principality of Galicia and tried to seize the Galician table, but failed. In 1195 he came into conflict with the Smolensk Rostislavichs and ruined their possessions. In 1199 he managed to subjugate the Galician land and create a single Galicia-Volyn principality. At the beginning of the XIII century. Roman extended his influence to Kyiv: in 1202 he expelled Rurik Rostislavich from the Kyiv table and put his cousin Ingvar Yaroslavich on him; in 1204 he arrested and tonsured a monk, Rurik, who was newly established in Kyiv, and restored Ingvar there. Several times he invaded Lithuania and Poland. By the end of his reign, Roman had become the de facto hegemon of Western and Southern Russia and styled himself "King of Russia"; nevertheless, he failed to put an end to feudal fragmentation under him, old and even new destinies continued to exist in Volhynia (Drogichinsky, Belzsky, Chervensko-Kholmsky).

After the death of Roman in 1205 in a campaign against the Poles, there was a temporary weakening of princely power. His successor Daniel already in 1206 lost the Galician land, and then was forced to flee from Volhynia. The Vladimir-Volyn table turned out to be the object of rivalry between his cousin Ingvar Yaroslavich and cousin Yaroslav Vsevolodich, who constantly turned to the Poles and the Hungarians for support. Only in 1212 Daniil Romanovich was able to establish himself in the Vladimir-Volyn principality; he managed to achieve the liquidation of a number of destinies. After a long struggle with the Hungarians, Poles and Chernigov Olgoviches, in 1238 he subjugated the Galician land and restored the united Galicia-Volyn principality. In the same year, while remaining its supreme ruler, Daniel handed over Volhynia to his younger brother Vasilko (12381269). In 1240 Volhynia was ravaged by the Tatar-Mongol hordes; Vladimir-Volynsky taken and plundered. In 1259 the Tatar commander Burundai invaded Volyn and forced Vasilko to demolish the fortifications of Vladimir-Volynsky, Danilov, Kremenets and Lutsk; however, after an unsuccessful siege of the Hill, he had to retreat. In the same year, Vasilko repulsed the attack of the Lithuanians.

Vasilko was succeeded by his son Vladimir (12691288). During his reign, Volyn was subjected to periodic Tatar raids (especially devastating in 1285). Vladimir restored many devastated cities (Berestye, etc.), built a number of new ones (Kamenets on Losnya), erected temples, patronized trade, and attracted foreign artisans. At the same time, he waged constant wars with the Lithuanians and Yotvingians and intervened in the feuds of the Polish princes. This active foreign policy was continued by Mstislav (12891301), the youngest son of Daniil Romanovich, who succeeded him.

After death ca. 1301 childless Mstislav Galician Prince Yuri Lvovich again united the Volyn and Galician lands. In 1315 he failed in the war with the Lithuanian prince Gedemin, who took Berestye, Drogichin and laid siege to Vladimir-Volynsky. In 1316, Yuri died (perhaps he died under the walls of the besieged Vladimir), and the principality was divided again: most of Volyn was received by his eldest son, the Galician prince Andrei (13161324

) , and Lutsk inheritance the youngest son Lev. The last independent Galician-Volyn ruler was Andrew's son Yuri (13241337), after whose death the struggle for the Volyn lands between Lithuania and Poland began. By the end of the 14th century Volyn became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.Galician principality. It was located on the southwestern outskirts of Russia to the east of the Carpathians in the upper reaches of the Dniester and Prut (modern Ivano-Frankivsk, Ternopil and Lvov regions of Ukraine and the Rzeszow province of Poland). It bordered in the east with the Volyn principality, in the north with Poland, in the west with Hungary, and in the south it rested on the Polovtsian steppes. The population was mixed Slavic tribes occupied the Dniester valley (Tivertsy and streets) and the upper reaches of the Bug (Dulebs, or Buzhans); Croats (herbs, carps, hrovats) lived in the Przemysl region.

Fertile soils, mild climate, numerous rivers and vast forests created favorable conditions for intensive agriculture and cattle breeding. The most important trade routes passed through the territory of the principality: the river route from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea (via the Vistula, the Western Bug and the Dniester) and the land route from Russia to Central and South-Eastern Europe; periodically extending its power to the Dniester-Danube lowland, the principality also controlled the Danube communications between Europe and the East. Here, large shopping centers arose early: Galich, Przemysl, Terebovl, Zvenigorod.

In the 1011 centuries. this region was part of the Vladimir-Volyn land. In the late 1070s and early 1080s, the great Kyiv prince Vsevolod, the son of Yaroslav the Wise, separated the Przemysl and Terebovl volosts from it and gave it to his grand-nephews: the first Rurik and Volodar Rostislavich, and the second to their brother Vasilko. In 10841086, the Rostislavichs unsuccessfully tried to establish control over Volhynia. After the death of Rurik in 1092, Volodar became the sole owner of Przemysl. The Lyubech congress of 1097 secured the Przemyslsky volost for him, and the Terebovlsky volost for Vasilko. In the same year, the Rostislavichi, with the support of Vladimir Monomakh and the Chernigov Svyatoslavichs, repelled an attempt by the Grand Prince of Kyiv Svyatopolk Izyaslavich and the Volyn Prince Davyd Igorevich to seize their possessions. In 1124 Volodar and Vasilko died, and their inheritances were divided among themselves by their sons: Przemysl went to Rostislav Volodarevich, Zvenigorod Vladimirko Volodarevich; Rostislav Vasilkovich received the Terebovl region, allocating a special Galician volost from it for his brother Ivan. After the death of Rostislav, Ivan annexed Terebovl to his possessions, leaving a small Berladsky inheritance to his son Ivan Rostislavich

(Berladnik).

In 1141, Ivan Vasilkovich died, and the Terebovl-Galician volost was captured by his cousin Vladimirko Volodarevich Zvenigorodsky, who made Galich the capital of his possessions (now the Galician principality). In 1144, Ivan Berladnik tried to take Galich from him, but failed and lost his Berladsky inheritance. In 1143, after the death of Rostislav Volodarevich, Vladimirko included Przemysl in his principality; thus, he united under his rule all the Carpathian lands. In 11491154 Vladimirko supported Yuri Dolgoruky in his struggle with Izyaslav Mstislavich for the Kyiv table; he repulsed the attack of Izyaslav's ally the Hungarian king Geyza and in 1152 captured Izyaslav's Upper Pogorynya (the cities of Buzhsk, Shumsk, Tihoml, Vyshegoshev and Gnojnitsa). As a result, he became the ruler of a vast territory from the upper reaches of the San and Goryn to the middle reaches of the Dniester and the lower reaches of the Danube. Under him, the Galician principality became the leading political force in Southwestern Russia and entered a period of economic prosperity; his ties with Poland and Hungary were strengthened; it began to experience a strong cultural influence of Catholic Europe.

In 1153 Vladimirko was succeeded by his son Yaroslav Osmomysl (11531187), during which the Principality of Galicia reached the peak of its political and economic power. He patronized trade, invited foreign artisans, built new cities; under him, the population of the principality increased significantly. Yaroslav's foreign policy was also successful. In 1157, he repelled an attack on Galich by Ivan Berladnik, who settled in the Danube and robbed Galician merchants. When in 1159 the Kyiv prince Izyaslav Davydovich tried to put Berladnik on the Galician table by force of arms, Yaroslav, in alliance with Mstislav Izyaslavich Volynsky, defeated him, expelled him from Kyiv and transferred the Kievan reign to Rostislav Mstislavich Smolensky (11591167); in 1174 he made his vassal Yaroslav Izyaslavich Lutsky prince of Kyiv. Galich's international prestige increased enormously. Author Words about Igor's regiment described Yaroslav as one of the most powerful Russian princes: “Galician Osmomysl Yaroslav! / You sit high on your gold-forged throne, / propped up the Hungarian mountains with your iron regiments, / blocking the way for the king, shutting the gates of the Danube, / the sword of gravity through the clouds, / rowing courts to the Danube. / Your thunderstorms flow across the lands, / you open the gates of Kyiv, / you shoot from the father’s golden throne of the saltans behind the lands.

During the reign of Yaroslav, however, the local boyars intensified. Like his father, he, in an effort to avoid fragmentation, handed over cities and volosts to the holding not of his relatives, but of the boyars. The most influential of them ("great boyars") became the owners of huge estates, fortified castles and numerous vassals. The boyar landownership surpassed the princely in size. The power of the Galician boyars increased so much that in 1170 they even intervened in the internal conflict in the princely family: they burned Yaroslav's concubine Nastasya at the stake and forced him to take an oath to return his legitimate wife Olga, the daughter of Yuri Dolgoruky, who had been rejected by him.

Yaroslav bequeathed the principality to Oleg, his son by Nastasya; he allocated the Przemysl volost to his legitimate son Vladimir. But after his death in 1187, the boyars overthrew Oleg and elevated Vladimir to the Galician table. Vladimir's attempt to get rid of the boyar guardianship and rule autocratically already in the next 1188 ended with his flight to Hungary. Oleg returned to the Galician table, but soon he was poisoned by the boyars, and Volyn Prince Roman Mstislavich occupied Galich. In the same year, Vladimir expelled Roman with the help of the Hungarian king Bela, but he gave the reign not to him, but to his son Andrei. In 1189 Vladimir fled from Hungary to the German Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, promising him to become his vassal and tributary. By order of Frederick, the Polish king Casimir II the Just sent his army to the Galician land, at the approach of which the boyars of Galich overthrew Andrei and opened the gates to Vladimir. With the support of the ruler of North-Eastern Russia, Vsevolod the Big Nest, Vladimir was able to subdue the boyars and hold out in power until

his death in 1199.

With the death of Vladimir, the family of the Galician Rostislavichs ceased, and the Galician land became part of the vast possessions of Roman Mstislavich Volynsky, a representative of the older branch of the Monomashichs. The new prince pursued a policy of terror in relation to the local boyars and achieved its significant weakening. However, shortly after the death of Roman in 1205, his power collapsed. Already in 1206, his heir Daniel was forced to leave the Galician land and go to Volhynia. A long period of unrest began (12061238).

The Galician table passed either to Daniel (1211, 12301232, 1233), then to the Chernigov Olgoviches (12061207, 12091211, 12351238), then to the Smolensk Rostislavichs (1206, 12191227), then to the Hungarian princes (12071209, 12141219, 12271230); in 12121213 the power in Galich was even usurped by the boyar Volodislav Kormilichich (a unique case in ancient Russian history). Only in 1238 did Daniel manage to establish himself in Galicia and restore the united Galicia-Volyn state. In the same year, he, remaining its supreme owner, allocated Volhynia to his brother Vasilko.

In the 1240s, the foreign policy situation of the principality became more complicated. In 1242 it was devastated by the hordes of Batu. In 1245, Daniil and Vasilko had to recognize themselves as tributaries of the Tatar Khan. In the same year, the Chernigov Olgoviches (Rostislav Mikhailovich), having entered into an alliance with the Hungarians, invaded the Galician land; only with great effort, the brothers managed to repel the invasion, having won a victory on the river. San.

In the 1250s, Daniel launched an active diplomatic activity to create an anti-Tatar coalition. He concluded a military-political alliance with the Hungarian king Bela IV and began negotiations with Pope Innocent IV on a church union, a crusade of European powers against the Tatars and recognition of his royal title. At 125

4 the papal legate crowned Daniel with a royal crown. However, the inability of the Vatican to organize a crusade removed the issue of union from the agenda. In 1257, Daniel agreed on joint actions against the Tatars with the Lithuanian prince Mindovg, but the Tatarsmanaged to provoke a conflict between the allies.

After Daniel's death in 1264, the Galician land was divided between his sons Leo, who received Galich, Przemysl and Drogichin, and Shvarn, to whom Kholm, Cherven and Belz passed. In 1269, Shvarn died, and the entire Galician principality passed into the hands of Leo, who in 1272 transferred his residence to the newly built Lvov. Leo intervened in internal political strife in Lithuania and fought (though unsuccessfully) with the Polish prince Leshko Cherny for the Lublin volost.

After the death of Leo in 1301, his son Yuri reunited the Galician and Volhynian lands and took the title "King of Russia, Prince of Lodimeria (i.e. Volhynia)". He entered into an alliance with the Teutonic Order against the Lithuanians and tried to achieve the establishment of an independent church metropolis in Galicia.

After the death of Yuri in 1316, Galicia and most of Volhynia were given to his eldest son Andrei, who was succeeded in 1324 by his son Yuri. With the death of Yuri in 1337, the senior branch of the descendants of Daniil Romanovich died out, and a fierce struggle began between Lithuanian, Hungarian and Polish pretenders to the Galician-Volyn table. In 13491352, the Polish king Casimir III captured the Galician land. In 1387, under Vladislav II (Jagiello), it finally became part of the Commonwealth.Rostov-Suzdal (Vladimir-Suzdal) Principality. It was located on the northeastern outskirts of Russia in the basin of the Upper Volga and its tributaries Klyazma, Unzha, Sheksna (modern Yaroslavl, Ivanovo, most of Moscow, Vladimir and Vologda, southeast of Tver, west of Nizhny Novgorod and Kostroma regions); in the 12th-14th centuries. the principality was constantly expanding in the eastern and northeastern directions. In the west, it bordered on Smolensk, in the south - on Chernigov and Muromo-Ryazan principalities, in the north-west - on Novgorod, and in the east - on Vyatka land and Finno-Ugric tribes (Merya, Mari, etc.). The population of the principality was mixed: it consisted of both Finno-Ugric autochthons (mainly Merya) and Slavic colonists (mainly Krivichi).

Most of the territory was occupied by forests and swamps; fur trade played an important role in the economy. Numerous rivers abounded with valuable species of fish. Despite the rather harsh climate, the presence of podzolic and soddy-podzolic soils created favorable conditions for agriculture (rye, barley, oats, garden crops). Natural barriers (forests, swamps, rivers) reliably protected the principality from external enemies.

In 1 thousand AD. the upper Volga basin was inhabited by the Finno-Ugric tribe Merya. In the 8th-9th centuries. an influx of Slavic colonists began here, who moved both from the west (from the Novgorod land) and from the south (from the Dnieper region); in the 9th century Rostov was founded by them, and in the 10th century. Suzdal. At the beginning of the 10th c. Rostov land became dependent on the Kyiv prince Oleg, and under his closest successors it became part of the grand ducal domain. In 988/989 St. Vladimir singled it out as an inheritance for his son Yaroslav the Wise, and in 1010 he transferred it to his other son Boris. After the assassination of Boris in 1015 by Svyatopolk the Accursed, direct control of the Kyiv princes was restored here.

According to the will of Yaroslav the Wise in 1054, the Rostov land passed to Vsevolod Yaroslavich, who in 1068 sent his son Vladimir Monomakh to reign there; under him, Vladimir was founded on the Klyazma River. Thanks to the activities of the Rostov Bishop St. Leontiy, this area became

actively penetrate Christianity; St. Abraham organized the first monastery here (Bogoyavlensky). In 1093 and 1095 Vladimir's son Mstislav the Great sat in Rostov. In 1095, Vladimir singled out the Rostov land as an independent principality as an inheritance for his other son Yuri Dolgoruky (10951157). The Lyubech congress of 1097 assigned it to the Monomashichs. Yuri moved the princely residence from Rostov to Suzdal. He contributed to the final approval of Christianity, widely attracted settlers from other Russian principalities, founded new cities (Moscow, Dmitrov, Yuryev-Polsky, Uglich, Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Kostroma). During his reign, the Rostov-Suzdal land experienced an economic and political flourishing; the boyars and the trade and craft layer intensified. Significant resources allowed Yuri to intervene in the princely civil strife and spread his influence to neighboring territories. In 1132 and 1135, he tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to bring Pereyaslavl Russian under control, in 1147 he made a trip to Novgorod the Great and took Torzhok, in 1149 he began the fight for Kyiv with Izyaslav Mstislavovich. In 1155, he managed to establish himself on the Kievan grand-ducal table and secure the Pereyaslav region for his sons.

After the death of Yuri Dolgoruky in 1157, the Rostov-Suzdal land broke up into several destinies. However, already in 1161, Yuri's son Andrei Bogolyubsky (11571174) restored its unity, depriving his three brothers (Mstislav, Vasilko and Vsevolod) and two nephews (Mstislav and Yaropolk Rostislavich) of their possessions. In an effort to get rid of the guardianship of the influential Rostov and Suzdal boyars, he moved the capital to Vladimir-on-Klyazma, where there was a numerous trade and craft settlement, and, relying on the support of the townspeople and the squad, began to pursue an absolutist policy. Andrei renounced his claims to the Kyiv table and accepted the title of Grand Prince of Vladimir. In 1169-1170 he subjugated Kyiv and Novgorod the Great, handing them over respectively to his brother Gleb and his ally Rurik Rostislavich. By the early 1170s, the Polotsk, Turov, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Murom and Smolensk principalities recognized dependence on the Vladimir table. However, his campaign in 1173 against Kyiv, which fell into the hands of the Smolensk Rostislavichs, failed. In 1174 he was killed by boyars-conspirators in the village. Bogolyubovo near Vladimir.

After the death of Andrei, the local boyars invited his nephew Mstislav Rostislavich to the Rostov table; Suzdal, Vladimir and Yuryev-Polsky received Mstislav's brother Yaropolk. But in 1175 they were expelled by the brothers of Andrei Mikhalko and Vsevolod the Big Nest; Mikhalko became the ruler of Vladimir-Suzdal, and Vsevolod became the ruler of Rostov. In 1176 Mikhalko died, and Vsevolod remained the sole ruler of all these lands, behind which the name of the great Vladimir principality was firmly established. In 1177 he finally eliminated the threat from Mstislav and Yaropolk

, inflicting a decisive defeat on the Koloksha River; they themselves were taken prisoner and blinded.

Vsevolod (11751212) continued the foreign policy of his father and brother, becoming the chief arbiter among the Russian princes and dictating his will to Kyiv, Novgorod the Great, Smolensk and Ryazan. However, already during his lifetime, the process of crushing the Vladimir-Suzdal land began: in 1208 he gave Rostov and Pereyaslavl-Zalessky as inheritance to his sons Konstantin and Yaroslav. After the death of Vsevolod in 1212, a war broke out between Konstantin and his brothers Yuri and Yaroslav in 1214, ending in April 1216 with Constantine's victory in the Battle of the Lipitsa River. But, although Constantine became the Grand Duke of Vladimir, the unity of the principality was not restored: in 12161217 he gave Yuri Gorodets-Rodilov and Suzdal, Yaroslav Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, and his younger brothers Svyatoslav and Vladimir Yuryev-Polsky and Starodub . After the death of Konstantin in 1218, Yuriy (12181238), who took the Grand Duke's throne, endowed his sons Vasilko (Rostov,

Kostroma, Galich) and Vsevolod (Yaroslavl, Uglich). As a result, the Vladimir-Suzdal land broke up into ten specific principalities Rostov, Suzdal, Pereyaslav, Yuriev, Starodub, Gorodet, Yaroslavl, Uglich, Kostroma, Galicia; the Grand Prince of Vladimir retained only formal supremacy over them.

In February-March 1238, North-Eastern Russia fell victim to the Tatar-Mongol invasion. Vladimir-Suzdal regiments were defeated on the river. City, Prince Yuri fell on the battlefield, Vladimir, Rostov, Suzdal and other cities were subjected to a terrible defeat. After the departure of the Tatars, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich occupied the grand-ducal table, who transferred Suzdal and Starodubskoye to his brothers Svyatoslav and Ivan, Pereyaslavskoye to his eldest son Alexander (Nevsky), and the Rostov Principality to his nephew Boris Vasilkovich, from which the Belozersky inheritance (Gleb Vasilkovich) separated. In 1243, Yaroslav received from Batu a label for the great reign of Vladimir (d. 1246). Under his successors, brother Svyatoslav (12461247), sons Andrei (12471252), Alexander (12521263), Yaroslav (12631271/1272), Vasily (12721276/1277) and grandchildren Dmitry (12771293 ) and Andrei Alexandrovich (12931304), the crushing process was on the rise. In 1247 the principalities of Tver (Yaroslav Yaroslavich) and in 1283 the Moscow (Daniil Alexandrovich) principalities took shape. Although in 1299 the metropolitan, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, moved to Vladimir from Kyiv, its significance as a capital was gradually declining; from the end of the 13th century the grand dukes stop using Vladimir as a permanent residence.

In the first third of the 14th century Moscow and Tver begin to play the leading role in North-Eastern Russia, which enter into rivalry for the Vladimir Grand Duke's table: in 1304/13051317 it is occupied by Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tverskoy, in 13171322 Yuri Danilovich of Moscow, in 13221326 Dmitry Mikhailovich Tverskoy, in 13261327 Alexander Mikhailovich Tverskoy, in 13271340 Ivan Danilovich (Kalita) of Moscow (in 13271331 together with Alexander Vasilyevich Suzdalsky). After Ivan Kalita, it becomes the monopoly of the Moscow princes (with the exception of 13591362). At the same time, their main rivals were the princes of Tver and Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod in the middle of the 14th century. also take the title of great. The struggle for control over North-Eastern Russia during the 14th-15th centuries. ends with the victory of the Moscow princes, who include the disintegrated parts of the Vladimir-Suzdal land into the Moscow state: Pereyaslavl-Zalesskoe (1302), Mozhaiskoe (1303), Uglichskoe (1329), Vladimirskoe, Starodubskoe, Galicia, Kostroma and Dmitrovskoe (13621364), Belozersky (1389), Nizhny Novgorod (1393), Suzdal (1451), Yaroslavl (1463), Rostov (1474) and Tver (1485) principalities.

Novgorod land. It occupied a vast territory (almost 200 thousand square kilometers) between the Baltic Sea and the lower reaches of the Ob. Its western border was the Gulf of Finland and Lake Peipsi, in the north it included Lakes Ladoga and Onega and reached the White Sea, in the east it captured the Pechora basin, and in the south it was adjacent to the Polotsk, Smolensk and Rostov-Suzdal principalities (modern Novgorod, Pskov, Leningrad, Arkhangelsk, most of the Tver and Vologda regions, Karelian and Komi autonomous republics). It was inhabited by Slavic (Ilmen Slavs, Krivichi) and Finno-Ugric tribes(Vod, Izhora, Korela, Chud, All, Perm, Pechora, Lapps).

The unfavorable natural conditions of the North hindered the development of agriculture; grain was one of the main imports. At the same time, huge forests and numerous rivers favored fishing, hunting, and fur trade; The extraction of salt and iron ore was of great importance. Since ancient times, the Novgorod land has been famous for its various crafts and the high quality of handicrafts. Its advantageous location at the crossroads of

The Baltic Sea to the Black and Caspian ensured her the role of an intermediary in the trade of the Baltic and Scandinavia with the Black Sea and the Volga region. Craftsmen and merchants, united in territorial and professional corporations, represented one of the most economically and politically influential strata of Novgorod society. Its highest stratum, large landowners (boyars), also actively participated in international trade.

Novgorod land was divided into administrative districts pyatina, directly adjacent to Novgorod (Votskaya, Shelonskaya, Obonezhskaya, Derevskaya, Bezhetskaya), and remote volosts: one stretched from Torzhok and Volok to the Suzdal border and the upper Onega, the other included Zavolochye (onega interfluve and Mezen), and the third land to the east of the Mezen (Pechora, Perm and Yugra regions).

Novgorod land was the cradle of the Old Russian state. It was here that in the 860s and 870s a strong political entity arose, uniting the Slavs of the Ilmen region, the Polotsk Krivichi, Merya, all and part of the Chud. In 882 Prince Oleg of Novgorod subjugated the Polans and the Smolensk Krivichi and moved the capital to Kyiv. Since that time, Novgorod land has become the second most important region of the Rurik dynasty. From 882 to 988/989 it was ruled by governors sent from Kyiv (with the exception of 972977, when it was the inheritance of St. Vladimir).

At the end of 1011 centuries. Novgorod land, as the most important part of the grand princely domain, was usually transferred by the Kyiv princes to the eldest sons. In 988/989 Vladimir the Holy installed his eldest son Vysheslav in Novgorod, and after his death in 1010 his other son Yaroslav the Wise, who, having taken the grand prince's table in 1019, in turn handed it over to his eldest son Ilya. After Elijah's death c. 1020 Novgorod land was captured by the Polotsk ruler Bryachislav Izyaslavich, but was expelled by the troops of Yaroslav. In 1034 Yaroslav handed over Novgorod to his second son Vladimir, who held it until his death in 1052.

In 1054, after the death of Yaroslav the Wise, Novgorod fell into the hands of his third son, the new Grand Duke Izyaslav, who ruled it through his governors, and then planted his youngest son Mstislav in it. In 1067 Novgorod was captured by Vseslav Bryachislavich of Polotsk, but in the same year he was expelled by Izyaslav. After the overthrow of Izyaslav from the Kyiv table in 1068, the Novgorodians did not submit to Vseslav of Polotsk, who reigned in Kyiv, and turned for help to Izyaslav's brother, Prince Svyatoslav of Chernigov, who sent his eldest son Gleb to them. Gleb defeated the troops of Vseslav in October 1069, but soon, obviously, he was forced to transfer Novgorod to Izyaslav, who returned to the grand prince's table. When in 1073 Izyaslav was again overthrown, Novgorod passed to Svyatoslav of Chernigov, who received the great reign, who planted his other son Davyd in it. After the death of Svyatoslav in December 1076, Gleb again took the throne of Novgorod. However, in July 1077, when Izyaslav regained the Kievan reign, he had to cede it to Svyatopolk, the son of Izyaslav, who returned the Kievan reign. Izyaslav's brother Vsevolod, who became Grand Duke in 1078, retained Novgorod for Svyatopolk and only in 1088 replaced him with his grandson Mstislav the Great, son of Vladimir Monomakh. After the death of Vsevolod in 1093, Davyd Svyatoslavich again sat in Novgorod, but in 1095 he came into conflict with the townspeople and left the reign. At the request of the Novgorodians, Vladimir Monomakh, who then owned Chernigov, returned Mstislav to them (10951117).

In the second half of the 11th c. in Novgorod, the economic power and, accordingly, the political influence of the boyars and the trade and craft layer increased significantly. Large boyar land ownership became dominant. The Novgorod boyars were hereditary landowners and were not a service class; possession of land did not depend on the service of the prince. At the same time, constant

the change of representatives of different princely families on the Novgorod table prevented the formation of any significant princely domain. In the face of the growing local elite, the prince's position gradually weakened.

In 1102, the Novgorod elites (boyars and merchants) refused to accept the reign of the son of the new Grand Duke Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, wishing to keep Mstislav, and the Novgorod land ceased to be part of the Grand Duke's possessions. In 1117 Mstislav handed over the Novgorod table to his son Vsevolod (11171136).

In 1136 the Novgorodians revolted against Vsevolod. Accusing him of bad management and neglect of the interests of Novgorod, they imprisoned him with his family, and after a month and a half they expelled him from the city. From that time on, a de facto republican system was established in Novgorod, although the princely power was not abolished. The supreme governing body was the people's assembly (veche), which included all the free citizens. Veche had broad powers invited and dismissed the prince

, elected and controlled the entire administration, resolved issues of war and peace, was the highest court, introduced taxes and duties. The prince from a sovereign ruler turned into the highest official. He was the supreme commander in chief, could convene a council and issue laws if they did not contradict customs; embassies were sent and received on his behalf. However, when elected, the prince entered into contractual relations with Novgorod and gave an obligation to govern “in the old way”, appoint only Novgorodians as governors in the volosts and not impose tribute on them, wage war and make peace only with the consent of the veche. He did not have the right to remove other officials without trial. His actions were controlled by an elected posadnik, without whose approval he could not make judicial decisions and make appointments.

The local bishop (lord) played a special role in the political life of Novgorod. From the middle of the 12th century the right to elect him passed from the Metropolitan of Kyiv to the veche; the metropolitan only sanctioned the election. The Novgorod lord was considered not only the main clergyman, but also the first dignitary of the state after the prince. He was the largest landowner, had his own boyars and military regiments with a banner and governors, certainly participated in peace negotiations and inviting princes,

He acted as a mediator in internal political conflicts.

Despite the significant narrowing of princely prerogatives, the rich Novgorod land remained attractive to the most powerful princely dynasties. First of all, the senior (Mstislavichi) and junior (Suzdal Yuryevich) branches of the Monomashichs competed for the Novgorod table; Chernihiv Olgovichi tried to interfere in this struggle, but they achieved only episodic successes (11381139, 11391141, 11801181, 1197, 12251226, 12291230). In the 12th century the preponderance was on the side of the Mstislavich clan and its three main branches (Izyaslavichi, Rostislavichi and Vladimirovichi); they occupied the Novgorod table at 11171136, 11421155, 11581160, 11611171, 11791180, 11821197, 11971199; some of them (especially the Rostislavichs) managed to create independent, but short-lived principalities (Novotorzhskoe and Velikoluki) in the Novgorod land. However, already in the second half of the 12th century. the positions of the Yurievichs began to strengthen, which enjoyed the support of the influential party of the Novgorod boyars and, in addition, periodically put pressure on Novgorod, blocking the supply of grain from North-Eastern Russia. In 1147, Yuri Dolgoruky made a trip to the Novgorod land and captured Torzhok, in 1155 the Novgorodians had to invite his son Mstislav to reign (until 1157). In 1160, Andrei Bogolyubsky imposed on the Novgorodians his nephew Mstislav Rostislavich (until 1161); In 1171 he forced them to return Rurik Rostislavich, who had been expelled by them, to the Novgorod table, and in 1172 to transfer him to his son Yuri (until 117

5 ). In 1176 Vsevolod the Big Nest managed to plant his nephew Yaroslav Mstislavich in Novgorod (until 1178).

In the 13th century Yuryevichi (Vsevolod's Big Nest line) achieved complete predominance. In the 1200s, the Novgorod throne was occupied by the sons of Vsevolod Svyatoslav (12001205, 12081210) and Konstantin (12051208). True, in 1210 the Novgorodians were able to get rid of the control of the Vladimir-Suzdal princes with the help of the Toropetsk ruler Mstislav Udatny from the Smolensk Rostislavich family; The Rostislavichs held Novgorod until 1221 (with a break in 12151216). However, then they were finally ousted from the Novgorod land by the Yurievichs.

The success of the Yurievichs was facilitated by the deterioration of the foreign policy situation of Novgorod. In the face of the increased threat to its western possessions from Sweden, Denmark and the Livonian Order, the Novgorodians needed an alliance with the most powerful Russian principality at that time, Vladimirsky. Thanks to this alliance, Novgorod managed to defend its borders. Called to the Novgorod table in 1236, Alexander Yaroslavich, the nephew of the Vladimir prince Yuri Vsevolodich, defeated the Swedes at the mouth of the Neva in 1240, and then stopped the aggression of the German knights.

The temporary strengthening of princely power under Alexander Yaroslavich (Nevsky) was replaced in the late 13th and early 14th centuries. its complete degradation, which was facilitated by the weakening of external danger and the progressive disintegration of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. At the same time, the role of the veche also declined. In Novgorod, an oligarchic system was actually established. The boyars turned into a closed ruling caste that shared power with the archbishop. The rise of the Moscow principality under Ivan Kalita (13251340) and its formation as the center of the unification of Russian lands aroused fear among the Novgorod leaders and led to their attempts to use the powerful Lithuanian principality that had arisen on the southwestern borders as a counterbalance: in 1333 he was first invited to the Novgorod table the Lithuanian prince Narimunt Gedeminovich (although he only lasted a year on it); in the 1440s, the Grand Duke of Lithuania was granted the right to collect irregular tribute from some Novgorod volosts.

Although the 1415 centuries. became a period of rapid economic prosperity of Novgorod, largely due to its close ties with the Hanseatic Trade Union, the Novgorod leaders did not use it to strengthen their military-political potential and preferred to pay off the aggressive Moscow and Lithuanian princes. At the end of the 14th century Moscow launched an offensive against Novgorod. Vasily I captured the Novgorod cities of Bezhetsky Verkh, Volok Lamsky and Vologda with adjacent regions

; in 1401 and 1417 he tried, though unsuccessfully, to seize Zavolochye. In the second quarter of the 15th c. Moscow's offensive was suspended due to the internecine war of 14251453 of Grand Duke Vasily II with his uncle Yuri and his sons; in this war, the Novgorod boyars supported the opponents of Vasily II. Having established himself on the throne, Vasily II imposed tribute on Novgorod, and in 1456 went to war with him. Having suffered a defeat at Russa, the Novgorodians were forced to conclude a humiliating Yazhelbitsky peace with Moscow: they paida significant indemnity and pledged not to enter into an alliance with the enemies of the Moscow prince; the legislative prerogatives of the veche were abolished and the possibilities of conducting an independent foreign policy were seriously limited. As a result, Novgorod became dependent on Moscow. In 1460, Pskov was under the control of the Moscow prince.

In the late 1460s, the pro-Lithuanian party led by the Boretskys triumphed in Novgorod. She achieved the conclusion of an alliance treaty with the great Lithuanian prince Casimir IV and an invitation to the Novgorod table of his protege Mikhail Olelkovich (1470). In response, Moscow Prince Ivan III sent a large army against the Novgorodians, which defeated them on the river. Shelon; Novgorod had to annul the treaty with Lithuania, pay a huge indemnity and cede part of Zavolochye. In 1472 Ivan III annexed the Perm Territory; in 1475 he arrived in Novgorod and massacred the anti-Moscow boyars, and in 1478 liquidated the independence of the Novgorod land and included it in the Muscovite state. In 1570 Ivan IV the Terrible finally destroyed Novgorod's liberties.

Ivan Krivushin

GREAT Kyiv PRINCES (from the death of Yaroslav the Wise to the Tatar-Mongol invasion)1054 Izyaslav Yaroslavich (1)

Vseslav Bryachislavich

Izyaslav Yaroslavich (2)

Svyatoslav Yaroslavich

Vsevolod Yaroslavich (1)

Izyaslav Yaroslavich (3)

Vsevolod Yaroslavich (2)

Svyatopolk Izyaslavich

Vladimir Vsevolodich (Monomakh)

Mstislav Vladimirovich (Great)

Yaropolk Vladimirovich

Vyacheslav Vladimirovich (1)

Vsevolod Olgovich

Igor Olgovich

Izyaslav Mstislavich (1)

Yuri Vladimirovich (Dolgoruky) (1)

Izyaslav Mstislavich (2)

Yuri Vladimirovich (Dolgoruky) (2)

Izyaslav Mstislavich (3) and Vyacheslav Vladimirovich (2)

Vyacheslav Vladimirovich (2) and Rostislav Mstislavich (1)

Rostislav Mstislavich (1)

Izyaslav Davydovich (1)

Yuri Vladimirovich (Dolgoruky) (3)

Izyaslav Davydovich (2)

Rostislav Mstislavich (2)

Mstislav Izyaslavich

Gleb Yurievich

Vladimir Mstislavich

Mikhalko Yurievich

Roman Rostislavich (1)

Vsevolod Yurievich (Big Nest) and Yaropolk Rostislavich

Rurik Rostislavich (1)

Roman Rostislavich (2)

Svyatoslav Vsevolodich (1)

Rurik Rostislavich (2)

Svyatoslav Vsevolodich (2)

Rurik Rostislavich (3)

Ingvar Yaroslavich (1)

Rurik Rostislavich (4)

Ingvar Yaroslavich (2)

Rostislav Rurikovich

Rurik Rostislavich (5)

Vsevolod Svyatoslavich (1)

Rurik Rostislavich (6)

Vsevolod Svyatoslavich (2)

Rurik Rostislavich (7

) 1210 Vsevolod Svyatoslavich (3)

Ingvar Yaroslavich (3)

Vsevolod Svyatoslavich (4)

/1214 Mstislav Romanovich (Old) (1)

Vladimir Rurikovich (1)

Mstislav Romanovich (Old) (2), possibly with his son Vsevolod

Vladimir Rurikovich (2)

1 235 Mikhail Vsevolodich (1)

Yaroslav Vsevolodich

Vladimir Rurikovich (3)

Mikhail Vsevolodich (1)

Rostislav Mstislavich

Daniel Romanovich

LITERATURE Old Russian principalities XXIII centuries. M., 1975
Rapov O.M. Princely possessions in Russia in the X first half of the XIII century. M., 1977
Alekseev L.V. Smolensk land in the IX-XIII centuries. Essays on the history of Smolensk and Eastern Belarus. M., 1980
Kyiv and the western lands of Russia in the IX-XIII centuries. Minsk, 1982
Yury A. Limonov Vladimir-Suzdal Rus: Essays on socio-political history. L., 1987
Chernihiv and its districts in the IX-XIII centuries. Kyiv, 1988
Korinny N. N. Pereyaslav land X first half of the XIII century. Kyiv, 1992
Gorsky A. A. Russian lands in the XIII-XIV centuries: Ways of political development. M., 1996
Aleksandrov D. N. Russian principalities in the XIII-XIV centuries. M., 1997
Ilovaisky D.I. Ryazan principality. M., 1997
Ryabchikov S.V. Mysterious Tmutarakan. Krasnodar, 1998
Lysenko P.F. Turov land, IX-XIII centuries. Minsk, 1999
Pogodin M.P. Ancient Russian history before the Mongol yoke. M., 1999. T. 12
Aleksandrov D. N. Feudal fragmentation of Russia. M., 2001
Mayorov A.V. Galicia-Volyn Rus: Essays on socio-political relations in the pre-Mongolian period. Prince, boyars and city community. SPb., 2001

Answer

Let us turn to article 92 of the Russian Pravda of the lengthy edition, which says: “If there are timid children of your husband, then don’t have their asses, but their freedom by death ( a)”, which means that shy children were released with a slave mother after the death of their father, the slave owner. In other lists - death. The sons of a slave bore the nickname of the slaves. The same article says that such children “don’t have their butts”, that is, they do not receive an inheritance. Thus, the youngest son has the right to challenge this will.

Task 2

2. Vasily gave his neighbor a loan for a year on record with an obligation to pay interest. After the expiration of the term, the neighbor did not return either the money or the interest due. Vasily filed a lawsuit to recover from a neighbor the money given on a loan and the interest due. Solve the dispute on the Pskov Judicial Charter.

Answer

According to Art. 73 of the Pskov Judicial Charter “If someone has to collect a debt on a record, and certain interest will be due to the record, then when the payment deadline comes, he must declare the interest to the court and then has the right to accrue them even after the expiration of the term. If the plaintiff does not make such a statement to the court on time, then he is deprived of interest (for the time elapsed from the due date of payment to the moment of actual payment).

Thus, Vasily has the right to demand the recovery of money with interest from a neighbor.

1. The most important principalities of Russia in the period of feudal fragmentation. State system of Vladimir and Novgorod states

Answer

In the XIII century. The principality of Kiev, seriously affected by the Mongol invasion, is losing its significance as a Slavic state center. But already in the XII century. a number of principalities are separated from it. A conglomerate of feudal states was formed: Rostov-Suzdal, Smolensk, Ryazan, Murom, Galicia-Volyn, Pereyaslav, Chernigov, Polotsk-Minsk, Turovo-Pinsk, Tmutarakan, Kiev, Novgorod land. Within these principalities, smaller feudal formations were formed, the process of fragmentation deepened.

Fragmentation, like any historical phenomenon, has both positive and negative sides. Let's compare Kievan Rus with the ancient Russian principalities in the XII-XIII centuries. Kievan Rus is a developed Dnieper region and Novgorod, surrounded by sparsely populated outskirts. In the XII-XIII centuries. the gap between the centers and the outskirts disappears. The outskirts are turning into independent principalities, which surpass Kievan Rus in terms of economic, socio-political and cultural development. However, the period of fragmentation also has a number of negative phenomena:

1) there was a process of land fragmentation;

2) there were endless internecine wars;

3) weakened the military potential of the country as a whole. Despite attempts to convene princely congresses, which maintained a certain order in fragmented Russia and softened civil strife, the country's military power was weakening.

In the XII-XIII centuries. the system of immunities, which freed the boyar estates from princely administration and court, received great development. A complex system of vassal relations and the corresponding system of landed feudal property were established. The boyars received the right of free "departure", that is, the right to change overlords.

Rostov (Vladimir)-Suzdal Principality, located in the north-east of Russia, later became the center of the unification of Russian lands. During the period of feudal fragmentation (after the 30s of the 12th century) it acted as a competitor to Kyiv. The first princes (Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrey Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod the Big Nest) managed to form a large domain from which they provided land for serving boyars and nobles, creating for themselves a strong social support in their person.

A significant part of the lands of the principality was developed in the process of colonization, new lands became the property of the prince. He did not experience strong economic competition from the boyar families (the old boyar aristocracy and large land estates were absent in the principality). The main form of feudal landownership became landownership.

The prince's social support was the newly formed cities (Vladimir, Pereyaslavl, Yaroslavl, Moscow, Dmitrov, etc.).

Power in the principality belonged to the prince, who had the title of great. The existing organs of power and administration were similar to the systems of organs of the early feudal monarchies: the princely council, veche, feudal congresses, governors and volostels. There was a palace-patrimonial system of government.

These state formations have developed in the north-west of Russia. They were characterized by certain features of the social system and feudal relations: the significant social and economic weight of the Novgorod (Pskov) boyars, which had long traditions and its active participation in trade and fishing activities.

The Novgorod (Pskov) boyars organized commercial and industrial enterprises, trade with their western neighbors (the cities of the Hanseatic trade union) and with the Russian principalities.

By analogy with some regions of medieval Western Europe (Genoa, Venice), a kind of republican (feudal) system developed in Novgorod and Pskov. The development of crafts and trade, more intensive than in other Russian lands (which was explained by access to the seas), required the creation of a more democratic state system. The basis for such a political system was a rather broad middle class of Novgorod-Pskov society: people were engaged in trade and usury, natives (a kind of farmers or farmers) leased or cultivated land, merchants united in several hundred (communities) and traded with Russian principalities and with "abroad" ("guests"). The urban population was divided into patricians ("oldest") and "black people".

The Novgorod (Pskov) peasantry consisted, as in other Russian lands, of communal smerds and dependent peasants (ladles), working "from the floor" for a part of the product on the master's land; pawnbrokers, "mortgaged", entered into bondage, and serfs.

State administration of Novgorod and Pskov was carried out through a system of veche bodies: in the capitals there was a city-wide veche, separate parts of the city (sides, ends, streets) convened their own veche meetings. Formally, the veche was the highest authority (each at its own level), which resolved the most important issues from the economic, political, military, judicial, and administrative spheres. Veche elected the prince.

All the free people of the city took part in the veche meetings. An agenda was prepared for the meetings, as well as candidates for officials elected at the veche. Decisions at the meetings were to be taken unanimously. There was an office and an archive of the veche meeting, office work was carried out by veche clerks. The organizational and preparatory body (preparation of bills, veche decisions, control activities, convening a veche) was the boyar council (“Ospoda”), which included the most influential persons (representatives of the city administration, noble boyars) and worked under the chairmanship of the archbishop.

The highest officials of the "Lord of Veliky Novgorod" were: the posadnik, the thousand, the archbishop, the prince.

The posadnik is the executive body of the veche, elected by him for a term of one to two years. He supervised the activities of all officials, together with the prince was in charge of management and court issues, commanded the army, led the veche meeting and the boyar council, and represented in external relations. Tysyatsky dealt with issues of trade and the merchant court, led the people's militia.

The archbishop was the keeper of the state treasury, the controller of trade measures and weights. (His main role is spiritual leadership in the church hierarchy).

The prince was invited by citizens to reign, served as commander in chief and organizer of the defense of the city. military; and shared judicial activities with the posadnik. The prince, under agreements with the city (about 80 agreements of the 13th-15th centuries are known), was forbidden to acquire land in Novgorod, distribute the land of Novgorod volosts to his entourage, it was forbidden to manage Novgorod volosts, administer justice outside the city, issue laws, declare war and make peace. He was forbidden to conclude agreements with foreigners without the mediation of Novgorodians, to judge serfs, to accept pawns from merchants and smerds, to hunt and fish outside the lands allotted to him. In case of violation of the contract, the prince could be expelled.

The territory of the Novgorod land was divided into volosts and pyatins, governed on the basis of local autonomy. Each pyatina was assigned to one of the five ends of Novgorod. The suburb was the center of self-government.

Once upon a time, Pskov was such a suburb, which, in the course of a stubborn struggle, grew into an independent political center, around which the Pskov state developed. The political and state organizations of Pskov repeated the Novgorod one: the veche system, the elected prince, but instead of the thousandth - two sedate posadniks. There were six ends, twelve suburbs. Administrative division was made into districts (lips), cavities, villages.

The sources of law in this region were: Russkaya Pravda, veche legislation, city treaties with princes, judicial practice, foreign legislation. As a result of the codification of the XV century. appeared Novgorod and Pskov judicial charters.

A fragment has been preserved from the Novgorod Judicial Charter, which gives an idea of ​​​​the judicial system and legal proceedings. All authorities and administrations had judicial rights (veche, posadnik, thousand, prince, boyar council, archbishop, sotsk, headman). Judicial powers were vested in merchant and guild corporations (brothers). The judicial ranks were: clerks, bailiffs, "posters", scribes, mezhniks, clerks, etc.

The Pskov Judicial Charter (PSG) of 1467 consisted of 120 articles. Compared to Russkaya Pravda, it more thoroughly regulates civil law relations and institutions, the law of obligations, judicial law, and considers certain types of political and state crimes.

The Vladimir-Suzdal principality is a typical example of the Russian principality of the period of feudal fragmentation. Occupying a large territory - from the Northern Dvina to the Oka and from the sources of the Volga to its confluence with the Oka, Vladimir-Suzdal Rus eventually became the center around which the Russian lands were united, the Russian centralized state was formed. Moscow was founded on its territory. The growth of the influence of this large principality was largely facilitated by the fact that it was there that the grand ducal title passed from Kyiv. All Vladimir-Suzdal princes, descendants of Vladimir Monomakh, from Yuri Dolgoruky (1125-1157) to Daniil of Moscow (1276-1303) bore this title.

The metropolitan see was also moved there. After the destruction of Kyiv by Batu in 1240, to replace the Greek Joseph, the Patriarch of Constantinople appointed Metropolitan Kirill, a Russian by birth, as the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, who during his travels to the dioceses clearly preferred North-Eastern Russia. The next Metropolitan Maxim in 1299, "not enduring the violence of the Tatars," finally left Kyiv and "sitting in Volodymyr with all his clergy." He was the first of the metropolitans to be called the metropolitan of "All Russia".

Rostov Veliky and Suzdal, two ancient Russian cities, were given from ancient times by the great Kievan princes as inheritances to their sons. Vladimir founded in 1108 Vladimir Monomakh and gave it as an inheritance to his son Andrei. The city became part of the Rostov-Suzdal Principality, where the princely throne was occupied by Andrei's elder brother, Yuri Dolgoruky, after whose death his son Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157-1174) transferred the capital of the principality from Rostov to Vladimir. Since then, the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality has its origins.

The Vladimir-Suzdal principality did not retain its unity and integrity for long. Shortly after its rise under Grand Duke Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176-1212), it broke up into small principalities. In the 70s. 13th century became independent and Moscow principality.

Social system. The structure of the class of feudal lords in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality differed little from that in Kyiv. However, here a new category of petty feudal lords arises - the so-called boyar children. In the XII century. there is also a new term - "nobles". The ruling class also included the clergy, which in all Russian lands of the period of feudal fragmentation, including the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, retained its organization, which was built according to the church charters of the first Russian Christian princes - St. Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise. Having conquered Russia, the Tatar-Mongols left the organization of the Orthodox Church unchanged. They confirmed the privileges of the church with khan's labels. The oldest of them, issued by Khan Mengu-Temir (1266-1267), guaranteed the inviolability of faith, worship and church canons, retained the jurisdiction of the clergy and other church persons to church courts (with the exception of cases of robbery, murder, exemption from taxes, duties and duties). The metropolitan and bishops of the Vladimir land had their own vassals - the boyars, the children of the boyars and the nobles, who carried out their military service.

The bulk of the population of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality were rural residents, who were called here orphans, Christians, and later - peasants. They paid dues to the feudal lords and were gradually deprived of the right to freely move from one owner to another.

Politic system. The Vladimir-Suzdal principality was an early feudal monarchy with strong grand ducal power. Already the first Rostov-Suzdal prince - Yuri Dolgoruky - was a strong ruler who managed to conquer Kyiv in 1154. In 1169, Andrei Bogolyubsky again conquered the "mother of Russian cities", but did not transfer his capital there - he returned to Vladimir, thereby reaffirming its metropolitan status. He also managed to subjugate the Rostov boyars to his power, for which he was nicknamed the "autocracy" of the Vladimir-Suzdal land. Even at the time of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, the Vladimir table continued to be considered the first grand princely throne in Russia. The Tatar-Mongols preferred to leave intact the internal state structure of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality and the tribal order of succession of the grand duke's power.

The Grand Duke of Vladimir relied on the retinue, from which, as in the times of Kievan Rus, the Council under the prince was formed. In addition to the combatants, the council included representatives of the higher clergy, and after the transfer of the metropolitan see to Vladimir, the metropolitan himself.

The Grand Duke's court was ruled by a court (butler) - the second most important person in the state apparatus. The Ipatiev Chronicle (1175) also mentions tiuns, swordsmen, and children among the princely assistants, which indicates that the Vladimir-Suzdal principality inherited the palace-patrimonial system of government from Kievan Rus.

Local power belonged to governors (in cities) and volostels (in rural areas). They also ruled the court in the lands under their jurisdiction, showing not so much concern for the administration of justice, as the desire for personal enrichment at the expense of the local population and replenishment of the grand ducal treasury, because, as the same Ipatiev Chronicle says, “they created a lot of burden for people with sales and virami".

The sources of the law of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality have not reached us, but there is no doubt that the national legislative codes of Kievan Rus were in force in it. The legal system of the principality included sources of secular and ecclesiastical law. Secular law was represented by Russkaya Pravda (many of its lists were compiled in this principality in the 13th-14th centuries). Church law proceeded from the norms of the all-Russian charters of the Kyiv princes of an earlier time - the Charter of Prince Vladimir on tithes, church courts and church people, the Charter of Prince Yaroslav on church courts. These sources again came down to us in the lists compiled in the Vladimir-Suzdal land. Thus, the Vladimir-Suzdal principality was distinguished by a high degree of succession with the Old Russian state.

2. Legal registration of serfdom in Russia (late 15th - first half of the 18th centuries)

At all times, the wealth of the country was created by the labor of the people, whose life was not easy. In the XVI century. the main burden was borne by the peasantry. The word "peasantry" comes from the modified "peasants", the antipode of heterodoxy.

With the revival of economic activity, new categories of peasants arose, their legal status acquired new features. In the XVI century. all estates were in a certain dependence on the state, the court and taxes of the state extended to the peasants, which were paid by both the population of the estates and the “free” peasants. State lands were called "black", and the peasants on them - "chernososhnye" (or black). The position of the black-mossed was somewhat easier, they were not subject to duties in favor of the feudal lords.

The duties of the Russian peasants were very heavy, they provided not only the internal needs of statehood, but also the payment of tribute to the Horde. And all this - in the absence of sources of income from the commercial and industrial sphere. According to some reports, in the XVI century. the tax burden of the Russian peasants was several times higher than in England. Economic problems stimulated the peasants to seek patronage from the feudal lords. Silver coins and ladles fell into economic dependence for borrowed money. Peasant migration developed, categories of new arrivals and new contractors appeared - alien peasants who had tax benefits. In contrast to them, there was a category of old-timers who settled in one place and paid the tax in full.

The transitions of the peasants become the central problem of the economy, the question arises of the development of serfdom.

The issue of serfdom is quite complex and multifaceted. In the XV-XVI centuries. in Western Europe (France, Holland, England) bourgeois relations are developing, while in Eastern Europe (Poland, Lithuania, Germany, Russia), where the possibilities of feudalism have not yet been exhausted, serfdom is spreading. In pre-revolutionary literature, it was indicated that the great geographical discoveries of the 15th-16th centuries played a significant role in this process. As a result, a flood of jewelry poured into the west of Europe, and a “price revolution” began - inflating the cost of food in the first place. Cheaper bread from the east of Europe, getting to the western market, rose in price due to customs duties, its cost in Poland and Russia increased, stimulating a forced reduction in cost by the introduction of serf labor. But decisive in the development of serfdom in Russia were internal conditions.

Peasant transitions and their restrictions probably arose in Russia during the period of fragmentation and Horde domination. They were caused by political and economic needs, the need for the state to have a stable contingent of taxpayers. Prohibitions and permissions to exit were initially included in princely treaties, in the 15th century. formed one term "exit" in the autumn. The Sudebnik of 1497 unified the procedure for the transition by establishing St. George's Day (November 26).

It is important to note several points here. The introduction of St. George's Day is not the beginning of serfdom. St. George's Day is a form of economic relations between the state and the population in the conditions of the country's increased needs for tax revenues from the peasantry. Only after harvesting in the autumn, when the time of cold weather came, the peasant could move to a new place. Allowing this to be done at any time of the year would cause economic and financial chaos. St. George's Day extended to both privately owned and state peasants, since everyone paid state taxes, and privately owned peasants ensured the well-being of the landowner in the service of the state with their labor, that is, they also performed the functions of state support. The peasants were not against St. George's Day, but for it. It was the traditional right of the peasants in the economic conditions of Russia, met their interests, provided the specific right of freedom of movement. Further exit bans were a consequence of the extremely unfavorable economic situation.

The Sudebnik of 1497 (Article 57) establishes a rather simple form of peasant transitions. Peasants had the right to move from volost to volost, from village to village a week before and a week after St. George's Day. At the exit, a fee was set from each yard (elderly) on cultivated lands in the amount of 1 ruble, and on less fertile wooded lands - half a ruble. The legislator quite reasonably approached the question of the financial possibilities of the peasant. The full cost of the elderly was paid only after four years of residence in one place, when the peasant was economically strengthened and became an old-timer with full payment of taxes. Those who lived less than four years paid a quarter of the ruble for each year of residence.

Half a century before the next Sudebnik of 1550, the position of the peasants had not changed much, but the emerging class of nobles had a great influence on the situation. Receiving lands with peasants as a provision for their public service, the noble landowners were interested in attracting peasants to cultivate "their" land (often they were given unsuitable lands for service), and consequently, in the development of corvée and limiting output. The landowner received a special ("obedient") charter, where the state authorities listed the rights of the parties and their obligations for cultivating the land. The landowner was considered by the state as an official, obliged to lead the peasants, support the economy, judge for certain crimes and exercise administrative power. The peasantry itself provided him with the financial needs of the service to the sovereign.

Contrary to the statements available in the literature, the landowner not only could not kill the peasant, he did not have the right to allow any violations of the law against him. The Sudebnik of 1497 (Article 63) states that peasants can apply to the court against the landowner with complaints about land matters.

Probably in the practice of the first half of the XVI century. there were trials of conflicts between landowners and peasants, which determined the content of the relevant sections of the Sudebnik of 1550. In Art. 88, the formula of the Sudebnik of 1497 about the exit of peasants is repeated, with the clarification that the elderly increase by 2 altyns (altyn - 3 kopecks). This is due to monetary inflation. The Sudebnik of 1550 establishes a fee for a “cart” (carriage duty) at 2 altyns per yard, and “besides, there are no duties on it.” The taxes from bread, which were paid to the royal treasury (from bread "standing and milked"), are concretized. An essential guarantee of protecting the interests of the peasantry is the indication that "the elderly imati from the gate." Since the landlords sought to take more of the elderly from each generation of undivided large peasant families, although they lived together, the indication “from the gate” limited them, the peasant household living together was recognized as the payer.

From the middle of the XVI century. a period of extremely unfavorable circumstances begins, which led to the formation of serfdom by the end of the century. The Livonian War forced the state to increase the taxes of the peasants. In addition to ordinary taxes, emergency and additional taxes were practiced. The oprichnina inflicted enormous material harm on the peasants, the “campaigns” and excesses of the guardsmen ruined the population. The economic decline of peasant farms began, supplemented by natural disasters, crop failures and mass epidemics that hit the country. At the end of the 60s, a three-year famine devastated the country, prices rose many times over, it came to cannibalism. At the same time, a plague epidemic broke out, engulfing 28 cities of Russia. The cities were empty, the peasant economy was degraded. In the 70-80s of the XVI century. natural disasters and epidemics continued. So, by the mid-80s of the XVI century. only 14% of cultivated arable land remained in the Moscow district, and taxes kept growing and growing. There was a "great ruin" in the country. The population was removed from their homes and fled to the outskirts, hiding from the authorities.

Under these conditions, the Moscow government had only one way out. In 1580, the census of lands began, and in 1581, “reserved summers” were announced on the lands covered by the census - a ban on the exit of peasants. The peasantry turned out to be enslaved, although initially this measure was considered as temporary. However, the situation remained difficult, the flight of the population continued. In 1597, a five-year term for the investigation of fugitives (“lesson summers”) was introduced. The landowners and estate owners had the opportunity to enrich themselves through the reception and concealment of the fugitive, tax evasion.

In the 17th century unification is planned in the division of the peasants mainly into black and privately owned, their final enslavement takes place. From a taxable class group of landowners, they are gradually becoming an unequal estate. Troubled times at the beginning of the 17th century. destroyed the implementation of the legislation on the peasants, but after 1613 the legal order was gradually restored.

First half of the 17th century characterized by numerous decrees on the timing of the search for illegally departed peasants (nine years, fifteen, ten, etc.). It was more profitable for peasants to live in relatively stable large farms, since the lands of smaller nobles and boyar children were badly devastated. In this regard, the increase in the terms of the investigation turned out to be beneficial to the nobles, the decrease - to the aristocracy. Nobles and petty feudal lords stood for the complete abolition of the prescription of the investigation.

The Cathedral Code of 1649 fixed the indefinite search of the peasants, which was the last point in their enslavement. By tradition, the "owners" of the peasants were considered state "agents" in relation to them and were obliged to maintain proper order on the peasant lands. But in real legislative practice, the state got confused in relation to peasant property and personality. In the 17th century more than once decrees were issued on the punishment of persons who received the fugitives, large fines and punishments with a whip were established for them. However, the perpetrators could pay these fines not from their own, but from the peasant's pocket, and the right to dispose and alienate peasant lands gradually passed to their owners. In the event of the death of a fugitive peasant, it was prescribed that instead of the deceased, he should be given to the owner of others, and again the peasants suffered. The Cathedral Code of 1649 legislated such an order, and at the same time prescribed to “rule the debts” of the nobles on their peasants.

If the black peasants turned out to be attached only to the land, then the privately owned peasants were attached both to the land and to the personality of the owner. The right of peasant ownership of land in the Code was very confusing. The code protected the identity of the peasant, encroachments on his life and honor were criminally punishable. But for the upper classes, punishments were still less severe, and the need for service people forced state bodies to look “through their fingers” at excesses with a fatal outcome.

The Code of 1649 prohibited any illegal actions not only against peasants, but also against the entire population of the country. The law protected any person, although taking into account the class status. The rights of the peasants were stipulated by law, the Code proclaimed the principle of an equal trial for all, and the state apparatus, to the best of its ability, monitored the implementation of laws.

The first decree on the peasants, the text of which has survived in full, is the decree of November 24, 1597, on a five-year term for the search for fugitive peasants. Regarding its significance and the place that it occupied in the general course of enslavement, there are disputes in the historical literature.

The decree of November 24, 1597 is devoted to an important, but still private issue of a procedural nature - the organization of a state investigation of fugitive peasants. Attempts to interpret it more broadly, as a law that abolished the peasant exit, are in conflict with the introductory part of the Cathedral Code of March 9, 1607, where it says that “Tsar Fedor ... ordered the peasants to leave and how many peasants where they made books”, while the decree of 1597 does not say anything about prohibiting the exit and the very term scribe books is absent.

By the beginning of the 17th century, 20 years had passed since the first "commandments" on the peasant exit of Ivan the Terrible and 8 years since the issuance of the decree of Tsar Fyodor, which generalized the practice of reserved years throughout the country. By this time, the prohibition of the peasant exit had become a general rule, the serf order established by the decrees of 1592/93 and 1597, judging by the materials of the order office work, operated without fail. The peasants were assigned to their masters by scribe books and other government documents and could not legally leave their masters. Ownership rights to peasants were determined by their entry in scribes, individual and other government books. In the absence of official documents, the law on the five-year period for filing petitions was applied. All serf relations had to be documented with the participation of government agencies.

In the materials of the clerk's office work of the late 16th - early 17th centuries, letters of commendation and other acts of this time, it is not possible to find any references to reserved years, or any hints of the restoration of St. George's Day in the future. Boris Godunov did not even think about canceling the decree of 1592/93, issued with his active participation. On the contrary, in letters of commendation issued on his behalf at that time, we meet with demands to resolutely suppress all attempts by the peasants to change their owners, which the authorities invariably qualify as flight.

The fluctuations of the government in the process of enslavement, which manifested itself already at the end of the 16th century. in the form of the introduction of fixed years, reached their climax in 1601 - 1602, when, in the midst of a terrible famine and a popular movement, Boris Godunov agreed to a partial resolution of the peasant exit. Decrees 1601 - 1602 represented a concession to the restless peasantry, and did not protect the interests of the nobility. The restoration, albeit on a limited scale, of the peasant exit meant a violation of the decree of 1592/93 on its universal prohibition and on scribe books of the 80s - early 90s of the 16th century. as a legal basis for a peasant fortress. For peasants who, according to decrees of 1601 - 1602. again received the right to exit, these books lost their enslaving value, and for the peasants who did not receive this right, they continued to be the main document that attached them to the land. Such a situation, in the presence of a fierce struggle within the ruling class for workers' hands, was soon to lead to an incredible intricacies of feudal relations, to numerous litigations and circumventions of the law. There was a massive outflow of peasants from ordinary service people to large landowners, secular and spiritual, who, using the beneficial aspects of these laws on the absenteeism of their peasants, managed in various ways to lure the landlord peasants to themselves and strengthen their economic position at the expense of the service masses.

Application of the decrees of 1601-1602 In practice, it gave rise to "distemper", discord and bloodshed among service people. The richest and most enterprising landowners increased the population of their estates, exporting and luring peasants from the small service. Violent conflicts arose, accompanied by murders and protracted lawsuits. Decrees of 1601 - 1602. some sections of the ruling class were opposed to others primarily on a social, and partly on a territorial basis, which made it possible for contemporaries to see in Godunov's actions an attempt to follow the example of Ivan the Terrible, who established the oprichnina. Wishing to prevent the damage caused to the economy by the exit and removal of the peasants, the landowners did not let them go. In turn, the peasants stepped up their resistance to the arbitrariness of the landlords. They interpreted government legislation in their own way, stopped paying state taxes and carried out spontaneous, illegal exits. Implementation of the decrees of 1601 - 1602 far from lessening the class and intra-class contradictions in the countryside, on the contrary, it has considerably sharpened them.

The uprising of I. Bolotnikov, representing the culmination of the Peasants' War of the early 17th century, dealt a strong blow to the serfdom that was being formed in Russia. But at the same time, in the camp of the rebels, estates continued to be distributed to supporters of the movement - evidence that, even having won, the peasants and serfs were not able to radically change social relations. Opposing the serf order, in practice they achieved only the most acceptable modification of feudal relations for themselves.

Already during the suppression of the uprising of I. Bolotnikov, the government of V. Shuisky took measures to restore the broken serf relations in the countryside. The main document that determined the policy of the government of V. Shuisky as a policy of feudal restoration was the Cathedral Code of March 9, 1607. This Code was the reaction of landowners to anti-serfdom slogans and the actions of the rebels. Condemning the indecisiveness and half-heartedness of the laws of 1601-1602, the compilers of the Sobor Code on March 9, 1607, simultaneously proclaimed their loyalty to the Godunov decree of 1592/93 on the universal prohibition of the peasant exit.

The process of enslavement appears to be more complex than it seemed before. The class struggle of peasants and serfs, as well as the contradictions within the ruling class, did not allow the government to move along the path of enslavement as quickly as it would like. The deprivation of the peasants of the right to exit was stretched out for almost 30 years and was accompanied by such a "provider" as the introduction of contingent years for the investigation of exported and fugitive peasants. It took another 40 years to abolish the lesson years. The powerful influence of the Peasants' War and the Time of Troubles on the process of enslavement also had an effect here. Only with the adoption of such an all-Russian serf code as the Council Code of 1649, the contingent years were canceled, an indefinite investigation was proclaimed, and the peasants and members of their families became “eternally strong” to their masters according to scribe and census books.

In pre-revolutionary historiography, there was a tendency to consider the legal status of peasants according to the Code of 1649 mainly within the framework of its Chapter XI, and its main meaning is to reduce the fixed years of the investigation of fugitive peasants and the establishment of a number of other norms of investigation. The opinion of those pre-revolutionary authors (V.O. Klyuchevsky, M.A. Dyakonov), who, based on the general concept of the unruly enslavement of the peasants, did not attach much importance to the Code in this process, and especially its chapter XI, is equally incompetent.

In Soviet historiography, the question of the role of the Code of 1649 in the fate of the Russian peasantry was considered with the involvement of data not only from Chapter XI. However, the central and most important place is occupied by Chapter XI. Its title "The Court of the Peasants" shows that the purpose of the chapter was the legal regulation of the relationship of landowners in matters of peasant ownership. The monopoly right to own peasants was assigned to all categories of service ranks.

The law on hereditary (for feudal lords) and hereditary (for serfs) attachment of peasants, with the ensuing right of an indefinite investigation of fugitives, was the largest and most radical norm of the Code of 1649. The law was extended to all categories of peasants and bobs, including black-mushed. Putting the documents of the state cadastre - scribe books of 1626 and census books of 1646-1649 as the basis for attaching peasants and beavers - Chapter XI introduced mandatory registration in orders of all transactions for peasants.

Thus, the peasant acted primarily as an object of law. But along with this, he was endowed with certain features of the subject of law. The legislation of the 17th century considered the peasant and his property as an inseparable unity. The basis for this was the recognition by law of the economic connection between feudal possessions and peasant economy.

The Code of 1649, having completed the legal registration of serfdom for all categories of peasants, at the same time created, to a certain extent, the legal protection of the estate-class integrity of the peasantry, trying to close it within the boundaries of estates.

In connection with the general concept of serfdom as a legal expression of the production relations of feudal society, Soviet historians associated with the Code of 1649 a new step on the path to the final enslavement of the peasants.

Serfdom included two forms of attaching a direct producer: attachment to land, feudal possession or allotment on black-moss lands, and attachment to the personality of a feudal lord. During the XVII-XIX centuries. the ratio of these forms of attachment changed. At first (including the 17th century), the first prevailed, and later the second. The leading role of attaching peasants to the land was largely associated with the high proportion of the estate system in the 17th century. The peasant acted in the legislation as an organic belonging of the estate and patrimony, regardless of the personality of the owner. The owner had certain rights to dispose of the peasants only when and to the extent that he was the owner of the estate or patrimony.

One of the important aspects of the development of serfdom in the second half of the XVII century. there was an increased importance of the serf act as a legal basis for the enslavement of the peasants. For the most accurate accounting of the serf population, as a result of laying the official basis for the search for fugitive peasants, census books of 1646-1648 were created, which the Cathedral Code of 1649 legalized as the most important basis for attaching peasants. Only on the basis of census books, due to the peculiarities of their composition, could hereditary (with family and tribe) enslavement of peasants be achieved.

Another significant aspect of the development of serfdom was the emergence, as a result of extensive legislative activity, of a kind of code of investigation of fugitive peasants and serfs, which was formalized in the form of a “Mandate for detectives” on March 2, 1683, with subsequent additions to it in a decree on March 23, 1698. In the “Instruction detectives” was reflected in the state-organized mass and impersonal investigation of fugitive peasants as a permanent function of state authorities.

The Cathedral Code did not raise the question of a new system of investigations. The presence of fixed years suggested the procedure for a disparate and individual investigation on the petition of the owners of fugitive peasants, taking into account the period of investigation from the moment of escape or from the moment of filing a petition for escape in each individual case. The liquidation of fixed years according to the Code of 1649 created the conditions for an impersonal, mass and state-organized investigation. The question of such an investigation of the fugitives was raised in their petitions by wide sections of the nobility, which did not fail to be reflected in the legislation. Legislative activity of the government in the field of fugitive peasants began as early as 1658 with the distribution of reserved letters prohibiting the reception of fugitives in villages and cities. For the reception and keeping of the fugitives, the collection of “possession” was established according to the Code of 1649 in the amount of 10 rubles, and the peasants themselves had to be “beaten with a whip mercilessly” for escaping. The latter was new. The Code did not impose punishment for escaping.

According to the "Instruction to detectives" in 1683, the search for hiding peasants was carried out most radically, and the rule of responsibility extended to the past. The order laid the responsibility for receiving fugitives on the landowners and votchinniks. Thus, large estate owners, boyars and duma officials were deprived of the opportunity to hide behind the backs of their clerks when a lawsuit was filed against fugitive peasants.

Art. 28 Nakaz, where only those fortresses for peasants and serfs that were already registered in orders received legal force. However, this provision, reflected in the Decree of 1665, was supplemented by a new regulation, according to which the old fortresses that were not recorded in the order were recognized as valid, if they were not challenged by the recorded fortresses. In the absence of ancient fortresses, the belonging of the peasants was determined by scribes and census books.

The punishment of peasants for escaping remained (Article 34), but without determining its type, which was left to the discretion of the detectives themselves. Torture during the investigation remained under the law only in relation to peasants who, when escaping, committed the murder of landowners or arson of estates, and in relation to those who changed their names on the run. In the Nakaz of 1683, an important rule was preserved on the non-recognition of the immunity rights of non-conviction letters in cases of fugitive peasants.

In general, the Order for detectives acts as a means of settling the mutual claims of feudal lords regarding their rights to fugitives, developed as a result of legislative practice starting with the Code of 1649 and in the course of many years of activity of detectives. Regardless of Ch. 11 of the Code, he acquired an independent meaning.

In historical and legal terms, the "Instruction to detectives" of 1683 reflects the general for a number of major legislative monuments of the second half of the 17th century. the trend of transformation from local and private norms and forms of their legislative expression into the all-Russian code.

The process of enslavement of prisoners taken in the course of hostilities with Poland in the West, and with Tatars, Kalmyks, and others in the East, also entered the sphere of legislative regulation. Service people sent prisoners to their estates and estates. The government, by decrees and letters, authorized the transformation of heterodox captives into serfs and took upon itself the search for fugitives from among them. The first of these decrees of the period of the war with Poland was the Decree of July 30, 1654. The registration of serf acts on prisoners was entrusted to the Order of the servile court and the order huts of the cities. This is stated in the Decree of February 27, 1656. Complete books were kept in the Order of the servants' court and the orders' huts of the cities. Decrees of the 80-90s repeatedly demanded from the landowners and estate owners to write down "fat people" in the Order of the servile court (for example, the Decree of April 20, 1681). A peculiar result of the policy of enslavement of captive people was proclaimed in connection with the conclusion of the Eternal Peace with Poland in 1686, the consolidation of the rights of patrimonials and landowners to peasants and serfs from among the prisoners.

In the legal registration of serfdom of "free people" played a certain role and hand records, which, however, have a number of significant features.

Poruka is an ancient institution of feudal law. Manual records were a form of consolidation and a guarantee of property and other transactions between individual representatives of the ruling class. Mutual responsibility reached its greatest extent in the black-mowed lands. The community-corporate organization of the black-sown peasantry favored the development of guarantees. In addition to the political significance associated with attaching an employee, the bail had a certain economic meaning: in the event of default by the person who became the object of the bail, the damage was compensated by the guarantors. According to the Council Code of 1649, bail received a wide and varied application, mainly in civil and criminal proceedings. In the second half of the XVII century. it began to be used in the course of the investigation of fugitive peasants. The government raised bail into a legislative norm as a means of combating the escapes of peasants and serfs, and at the same time against vagrancy and robbery of walking people. The legislative prescription for issuing bail for aliens is included in the New Decree Articles of 1669 on tateb, robbery and murderous cases. The presence of the powers of the feudal lords in relation to the peasants did not exclude the fact that the peasant, as a subject of law, had certain rights to own his allotment and household. Both in the Code of 1649 and in the second half of the century, both of these interrelated aspects of the legal status of the peasant as an object of feudal law and as a subject of law, having a certain, albeit limited, set of civil law powers, closely interacted.

In fact, within the limits of estates and estates, the jurisdiction of the feudal lords was not regulated by law. However, the property and life of the peasant were protected by law from the extreme manifestation of the willfulness of the feudal lords. Thus, the Decree of June 13, 1682 on the compensation to the Murzas and Tatar feudal lords of estates and estates, previously unsubscribed from them, was instructed "not to oppress or oppress the peasants."

For the legal status of peasants, census books played a significant role. Their main feature is the most detailed data on males for each court, regardless of age, indicating the relationship to the owner's court. In accordance with the task of description, the census books contained information about fugitive peasants. In the books of 1646 there is information about males who fled during the previous ten years (before the Code of 1649, there was a ten-year term for detecting fugitives). The census books of 1649 retained the same features, but information about fugitive peasants is given regardless of the time of the escape, since the search for fugitives became indefinite. The introduction of household taxation on these books led to the spread of the state tax to all categories of backyard and business people (enslaved and voluntary serfs).

Acts of serfdom on peasants and serfs, according to their purpose, can be divided into two groups. The first should include those that concerned the cash mass of the serf population. To the second group - related to newcomers, temporarily free people, dressing up as peasants. In the first group, the most important were grants, refusals, import letters, decrees on the granting of estates and estates, on the sale of estates to estates, etc. With the transfer of feudal ownership of estates and estates, certain rights were transferred to the peasant population attached to land, for which the new owner was given obedient letters to the peasants. Acts that served as a legal form for the implementation of non-economic coercion against peasants were also related to the actual population of feudal estates: separate records, marriages, dowries, residential records on giving into service and apprenticeships, peace, income and given mortgages and bills of sale.

In relation to persons who came from outside and disguised as peasants, residential, orderly, loan and commission records were made.

The difference in the legal status of estates and estates had a significant impact on the practice of applying income records to peasants. The Code of 1649 introduced common grounds and principles for attachment to land and landowners for patrimonial and local peasants. Differences manifested themselves in minor points. It was forbidden to transfer peasants recorded in scribes, censuses, refusals and individual books for estates to patrimonial lands. However, the age of the landed peasants transferred to the patrimony was provided for by the Code itself only if the patrimony passed into other hands. In the second half of the XVII century. the legal grounds for serfdom of peasants, established by the Code of 1649, were in effect. These primarily include scribe books of 1626-1628. and census books of 1646-1648. Later, census books of 1678 and other descriptions of the 80s were added. Legally, the right to own peasants was assigned to all categories of service ranks in the fatherland, although in fact the service "small" did not always have peasants. The law on hereditary (for feudal lords) and hereditary (for serfs) attachment of peasants is the largest norm of the Code, and the abolition of the fixed years of detecting fugitives has become a necessary consequence and condition for the implementation of this norm. The attachment law applied to all categories of peasants and bobyls - privately owned and state. In relation to the estates and landed peasants, for the period after the scribe books in 1626, additional foundations for the fortress were established - separate or abandoned books, as well as "amicable" deals about peasants, including fugitives, mainly in the form of certificates.

3. Criminal law and legal proceedings according to the Council Code of 1649.

The most important legislative source of the XVII century. is the Cathedral Code of 1649. The Cathedral Code differs from previous legislative acts not only in its large volume (25 chapters divided into 967 articles), but also in its more complex structure. A brief introduction outlines the motives and history of the compilation of the Code. The chapters are built according to the object of the offense under consideration, thematically distinguished by peculiar headings “On blasphemers and church rebels” (ch. 1), “On the sovereign’s honor and how to protect his sovereign’s health” (chap. 2), “On money masters who will learn to do thieves dengi "(ch. 5), "On travel letters to other states" (ch. 6), "On the service of all military people of the Moscow State" (ch. 7), . 9), "On the Court" (ch. 10); “On townspeople” (ch. 19), “Court on the serf” (ch. 20), “On robbery and tatin affairs” (ch. 21), “On archers” (ch. 23), “Decree on taverns » (Ch. 25).

The Code contained a set of norms that regulated the most important branches of public administration. These norms can be conditionally referred to as administrative ones. Attaching peasants to the land (ch. 11 "Court on the peasants"); township reform, which changed the position of the "white settlements" (ch. 14); change in the status of the patrimony and estate (Ch. 16 and 17); regulation of the work of local governments (ch. 21); the regime of entry and exit (Article 6) - all these measures formed the basis of administrative and police reforms. With the adoption of the Council Code, changes occurred in the field of judicial law. A number of rules have been developed regarding the organization and work of the court.

There is an even greater division into two forms compared to the Sudebniks: “trial” and “search”. The court procedure is described in Chapter 10 of the Code. The court was based on two processes - the actual "judgment" and "execution", i.e. sentencing, decision. The trial began with the "introduction", the filing of a petition. The defendant was summoned to court by the bailiff, he could introduce guarantors, and also not appear in court twice, if there were good reasons for that.

Chapter 21 of the Council Code of 1649 for the first time establishes such a procedural procedure as torture. The basis for its application could be the results of the “search”, when the testimony was divided: part in favor of the suspect, part against him.

The law divided the subjects of the crime into main and secondary ones, understanding the latter as accomplices. In turn, complicity could be physical (assistance, practical assistance, committing the same actions as the main subject of the crime) and intellectual (for example, incitement to murder in Chapter 22).

The Code also divided crimes into intentional, reckless and accidental. The law singled out three stages of a criminal act: intent (which in itself may be punishable), attempted crime and commission of a crime, as well as the concept of recidivism, which in the Council Code coincides with the concept of “a dashing person”, and the concept of extreme necessity, which is not punishable. only if the proportionality of its real danger on the part of the criminal is observed.

Violation of proportionality meant exceeding the limits of necessary defense and was punished.

According to the Council Code of 1649, the objects of the crime were determined: church, state, family, person, property and morality.

Major changes in the Council Code of 1649 concerned the area of ​​property, obligation and inheritance law. The scope of civil law relations was defined quite clearly. This was prompted by the development of commodity-money relations, the formation of new types and forms of ownership, and the quantitative growth of civil law transactions.

The subjects of civil law relations were both private
(individual) and collective persons, and the legal rights of a private person gradually expanded due to concessions from the collective person. For legal relations that arose on the basis of norms regulating the sphere of property relations, the instability of the status of the subject of rights and obligations became characteristic.

Things according to the Council Code were the subject of a number of powers, relationships and obligations. The main ways of acquiring property were considered to be capture, prescription, discovery, award and direct acquisition in exchange or purchase. The Code of 1649 specifically deals with the procedure for granting land. The contract in the 17th century remained the main way of acquiring ownership of property, and, in particular, land. Ritual ceremonies lose their significance in the contract, formalized actions (participation of witnesses at the conclusion of the contract) are replaced by written acts (“assaults” of witnesses without their personal participation).

For the first time in the Council Code of 1649, the institution of easements was regulated - a legal restriction of the property right of one person in the interests of the right to use another or other persons. The system of crimes covered various aspects of the life of society, concerned both the common people and the wealthy segments of the population, civil servants, and according to the Council Code of 1649, it looked like this: - crimes against the church: blasphemy, seduction of the Orthodox into a different faith, interruption of the liturgy in the temple; - state crimes: any actions and even intent directed against the person of the sovereign or his family, rebellion, conspiracy, treason.

In the system of punishments under the Council Code of 1649, the main emphasis was placed on physical intimidation (starting from whipping to cutting off hands and quartering at the death penalty). Imprisoning a criminal was a secondary task and was an additional punishment. For the same crime, several punishments could be established at once (multiplicity of punishments) - beating with a whip, curtailment of the tongue, exile, confiscation of property. For theft, punishments were set in increasing order: for the first - beating with a whip, cutting off an ear, two years in prison and exile; for the second - beating with a whip, cutting off an ear and four years in prison; for the third - the death penalty.

In the Council Code of 1649, the use of the death penalty was provided for in almost sixty cases (even smoking tobacco was punishable by death). The death penalty was divided into simple (cutting off the head, hanging) and qualified (wheeling, quartering, burning, filling the throat with metal, burying alive in the ground). Self-mutilating punishments included the following: cutting off an arm, leg, cutting an ear, nose, lips, tearing out an eye, nostrils.

These punishments could be applied both as basic and as additional ones. With the adoption of the Code of 1649, property sanctions began to be widely applied (Chapter 10 of the Code in seventy-four cases established a gradation of fines "for dishonor" depending on the social status of the victim). The highest sanction of this kind was the complete confiscation of the criminal's property. Finally, the system of sanctions included ecclesiastical punishments (repentance, excommunication, exile to a monastery, imprisonment in a solitary cell, etc.).

After a period of active “gathering” of lands and “bailing” of tribes by the Kyiv princes in the 10th - first half of the 11th century. the general border of Russia in the west, south and southeast stabilized. In these zones, not only no new territorial additions take place, but, on the contrary, some possessions are lost. This was connected both with internal strife, which weakened the Russian lands, and with the appearance of powerful military-political formations on these borders: in the south, such a force was the Polovtsy, in the west - the kingdoms of Hungary and Poland, in the north-west at the beginning of the 13th century. a state was formed, as well as two German orders - the Teutonic and the Order of the Sword. The main directions where the expansion of the common territory of Russia continued were the north and northeast. The economic benefits of developing this region, a rich source of furs, attracted Russian merchants and fishermen, along whose routes a stream of settlers rushed to new lands. The local Finno-Ugric population (Karelians, Chud Zavolochskaya) did not seriously resist the Slavic colonization, although there are separate reports of skirmishes in the sources. The relatively peaceful nature of the penetration of the Slavs into these territories is explained, firstly, by the low density of the indigenous population, and secondly, by the various natural “niches” that were occupied by local tribes and settlers. If the Finno-Ugric tribes gravitated more towards dense forests, which provided ample opportunities for hunting, then the Slavs preferred to settle in open areas suitable for agriculture.

Specific system in the XII - early XIII century

By the middle of the XII century. The Old Russian state broke up into principalities-lands. In the history of fragmentation, two stages are distinguished, separated by the Mongol-Tatar invasion of the 1230s–1240s. to the lands of Eastern Europe. The beginning of this process is defined by researchers in different ways. The most reasonable opinion seems to be that the trend towards fragmentation is clearly manifested from the middle of the 11th century, when after the death of Yaroslav the Wise (1054), Kievan Rus was divided among his sons into separate possessions - appanages. The eldest of the Yaroslavichs - Izyaslav - received the Kyiv and Novgorod lands, Svyatoslav - the Chernigov, Seversk, Muromo-Ryazan lands and Tmutarakan. Vsevolod, in addition to Pereyaslav land, received Rostov-Suzdal, which included the north-east of Russia to Beloozero and Sukhona. Smolensk land went to Vyacheslav, and Galicia-Volyn - to Igor. Somewhat isolated was the Polotsk land, which was owned by the grandson of Vladimir Vseslav Bryachislavich, who actively fought with the Yaroslavichs for independence. This division was subjected to repeated revision, and even smaller destinies began to form within the existing territories. Feudal fragmentation is fixed by the decisions of several congresses of princes, the main of which was the Lyubech congress of 1097, which established "each and keep his fatherland", thereby recognizing the independence of the possessions. Only under Vladimir Monomakh (1113–1125) and Mstislav Vladimirovich (1125–1132) was it possible to temporarily restore the primacy of the Kyiv prince over all Russian lands, but then fragmentation finally prevailed.

Population of principalities and lands

Kievan principality. After the death of the Kyiv prince Mstislav Vladimirovich and independence of Novgorod in 1136, the direct possessions of the Kyiv princes narrowed to the limits of the ancient lands of the glades and drevlyans on the right bank of the Dnieper and along its tributaries - the Pripyat, Teterev, Ros. On the left bank of the Dnieper, the principality included lands up to Trubezh (the bridge across the Dnieper from Kyiv, built by Vladimir Monomakh in 1115, was of great importance for communication with these lands). In the annals, this territory, like the entire Middle Dnieper region, was sometimes referred to in the narrow sense of the word "Russian land". Of the cities, in addition to Kyiv, Belgorod (on Irpen), Vyshgorod, Zarub, Kotelnitsa, Chernobyl, etc. are known. The southern part of the Kyiv land - Porosye - was an area of ​​​​a kind of "military settlements". There were a number of towns on this territory, which began to be built back in the time of Yaroslav the Wise, who settled captive Poles here (). The powerful Kanev forest was located in the Ros basin, and the fortress towns (Torchesk, Korsun, Boguslavl, Volodarev, Kanev) were erected here thanks to the support that the forest provided against nomads, at the same time, strengthening this natural defense. In the XI century. the princes began to settle in Porosie Pechenegs, Torks, Berendeys, Polovtsy, who were captured by them or voluntarily entered their service. This population was called black hoods. Black hoods led a nomadic lifestyle, and in the cities that the princes built for them, they took refuge only during Polovtsian attacks or for wintering. For the most part, they remained pagans, and apparently got their name from the characteristic headdresses.

hood(from Turkic - "kalpak") - the headdress of Orthodox monks in the form of a high round cap with a black veil falling over the shoulders.

Perhaps the steppe people wore similar hats. In the XIII century. black hoods became part of the population of the Golden Horde. In addition to the cities, Porosye was also fortified by ramparts, the remains of which survived at least until the beginning of the 20th century.

Kiev principality in the second half of the XII century. became the subject of a struggle between numerous contenders for the Kyiv Grand Duke's table. It was owned at various times by the Chernigov, Smolensk, Volyn, Rostov-Suzdal, and later Vladimir-Suzdal and Galician-Volyn princes. Some of them, sitting on the throne, lived in Kyiv, others considered the Kiev principality only as a controlled land.

Pereyaslav principality. Pereyaslavskaya, adjacent to Kievskaya, covered the territory along the left tributaries of the Dnieper: Sula, Pselu, Vorskla. In the east, it reached the upper reaches of the Seversky Donets, which was here the border of the Russian settlement. The forests that covered this area served as protection for both Pereyaslavsky and Novgorod-Seversky principalities. The main fortified line went east from the Dnieper along the border of the forest. It was made up of cities along the river. Sule, the banks of which were also covered with forest. This line was strengthened by Vladimir Svyatoslavich, and his successors did the same. The forests stretching along the banks of the Psel and Vorskla provided the Russian population with an opportunity already in the 12th century. advance south of this fortified line. But progress in this direction was not great and was limited to the construction of several cities, which were, as it were, outposts of the Russian settled way of life. On the southern borders of the principality also in the XI-XII centuries. settlements of black hoods arose. The capital of the principality was the city of Pereyaslavl South (or Russian) on Trubezh. Voin (on the Sula), Ksnyatin, Romen, Donets, Lukoml, Ltava, Gorodets stood out from other cities.

Chernihiv land located from the middle Dnieper in the west to the upper reaches of the Don in the east, and in the north to the Ugra and the middle reaches of the Oka. In the principality, a special place was occupied by the Seversk land located along the middle Desna and the Seim, the name of which goes back to the tribe of the northerners. In these lands, the population was concentrated in two groups. The main mass held on the Desna and the Seimas under the protection of the forest, here were the largest cities: Chernigov, Novgorod-Seversky, Lyubech, Starodub, Trubchevsk, Bryansk (Debryansk), Putivl, Rylsk and Kursk. Another group - Vyatichi - lived in the forests of the upper Oka and its tributaries. At the time in question, there were few significant settlements here, except for Kozelsk, but after the invasion of the Tatars, a number of cities appeared on this territory, which became the residences of several specific principalities.

Vladimir-Suzdal land. From the middle of the XI century. the northeast of Kievan Rus is assigned to the branch of the Rurikids, originating from Vsevolod Yaroslavich. By the end of the century, the territory of this inheritance, which was ruled by Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh and his sons, included the vicinity of Beloozero (in the north), the Sheksna basin, the Volga region from the mouth of the Medveditsa (the left tributary of the Volga) to Yaroslavl, and in the south it reached the middle Klyazma. The main cities of this territory in the X-XI centuries. there were Rostov and Suzdal, located between the Volga and Klyazma rivers, so during this period it was called the Rostov, Suzdal or Rostov-Suzdal land. By the end of the XII century. as a result of successful military and political actions of the Rostov-Suzdal princes, the territory of the principality occupied much more extensive areas. In the south, it included the entire Klyazma basin with the middle course of the Moskva River. The extreme southwest went beyond Volokolamsk, from where the borders went to the north and northeast, including the left bank and the lower reaches of the Tvertsa, Medveditsa and Mologa. The principality included the lands around the White Lake (to the source of the Onega in the north) and along the Sheksna; retreating somewhat south of the Sukhona, the boundaries of the principality went to the east, including the lands along the lower Sukhona. The eastern borders were located along the left bank of the Unzha and the Volga to the lower reaches of the Oka.

The development of the economy here was greatly influenced by relatively favorable natural and climatic conditions. In the Volga-Klyazma interfluve (Zalessky Territory), mainly covered with forest, there were open areas - the so-called opolya, convenient for the development of agriculture. Sufficiently warm summers, good moisture and fertility of the soil, forest cover contributed to relatively high and, most importantly, stable yields, which was very important for the population of medieval Russia. The amount of bread grown here in the 12th - first half of the 13th century made it possible to export part of it to the Novgorod land. Opolya not only united the agricultural district, but, as a rule, it was here that cities appeared. Examples of this are the Rostov, Suzdal, Yuryev and Pereyaslav opoles.

To the ancient cities of Beloozero, Rostov, Suzdal and Yaroslavl in the XII century. a number of new ones are added. Vladimir is rapidly rising, founded on the banks of the Klyazma by Vladimir Monomakh, and under Andrei Bogolyubsky, it became the capital of the whole earth. Yury Dolgoruky (1125–1157), who founded Ksnyatin at the mouth of the Nerl, Yuryev Polskaya on the river, was especially active in urban planning. Koloksha - the left tributary of the Klyazma, Dmitrov on Yakhroma, Uglich on the Volga, built the first wooden one in Moscow in 1156, transferred Pereyaslavl Zalessky from Lake Kleshchina to the Trubezh, which flows into it. He is also credited (with varying degrees of validity) with the foundation of Zvenigorod, Kideksha, Gorodets Radilov and other cities. The sons of Dolgoruky Andrey Bogolyubsky (1157-1174) and Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176-1212) pay more attention to the expansion of their possessions to the north and east, where the rivals of the Vladimir princes are Novgorodians and Volga Bulgaria, respectively. At this time, the cities of Kostroma, Velikaya Salt, Nerekhta arose in the Volga region, somewhat to the north - Galich Mersky (all associated with salt mining and salt trading), further to the northeast - Unzha and Ustyug, on Klyazma - Bogolyubov, Gorokhovets and Starodub. On the eastern borders, Gorodets Radilov on the Volga and Meshchersk became strongholds in the wars with Bulgaria and the Russian colonization of the middle.

After the death of Vsevolod the Big Nest (1212), political fragmentation led to the emergence of a number of independent principalities in the Vladimir-Suzdal land: Vladimir, Rostov, Pereyaslav, Yuryevsky. In turn, smaller destinies appear in them. Thus, Uglich and Yaroslavl separated from the principality of Rostov around 1218. In Vladimirsky, the Suzdal and Starodub principalities were temporarily distinguished as destinies.

Main part Novgorod land covered the basin of the lake and the Volkhov, Msta, Lovat, Shelon and Mologa rivers. The extreme northern Novgorod suburb was Ladoga, located on the Volkhov, not far from its confluence with Lake Nevo (Ladoga). Ladoga became a stronghold of the northwestern Finno-Ugric tribes subordinate to Novgorod - Vodi, Izhora Korela () and Emi. In the west, the most important cities were Pskov and Izborsk. Izborsk - one of the oldest Slavic cities - practically did not develop. Pskov, on the other hand, located at the confluence of the Pskov with the Velikaya River, gradually became the largest of the Novgorod suburbs, a significant trade and craft center. This allowed him to subsequently gain independence (finally, the Pskov land, which stretched from Narva through Lake Peipus and Pskov to the south to the upper reaches of the Great, separated from Novgorod in the middle of the 14th century). Prior to the capture by the order of the sword-bearers of Yuryev with the district (1224), the Novgorodians also owned the lands to the west of Lake Peipsi.

To the south of Lake Ilmen was another of the most ancient Slavic cities of Staraya Russa. Novgorod possessions to the southwest covered Velikiye Luki, on the upper reaches of the Lovat, and in the southeast the upper reaches of the Volga and Lake Seliger (here, on a small Volga tributary of the Tvertsa, Torzhok arose - an important center of Novgorod-Suzdal trade). The southeastern Novgorod borders adjoined the Vladimir-Suzdal lands.

If in the west, south and southeast Novgorod land had fairly clear boundaries, then in the north and northeast during the period under review there is an active development of new territories and the subordination of the indigenous Finno-Ugric population. In the north, the Novgorod possessions include the southern and eastern coasts (Tersky coast), the lands of Obonezhye and Zaonezhye up to. The north-east of Eastern Europe from Zavolochye to the Subpolar Urals become an object of penetration by Novgorod fishers. The local tribes of Perm, Pechora, Yugra were connected with Novgorod by tributary relations.

In the Novgorod lands and in their immediate vicinity, several regions arose where iron ore was mined and iron was smelted. In the first half of the XIII century. on Mologa, the city of Zhelezny Ustyug (Ustyuzhna Zheleznopolskaya) arose. Another area was located between Ladoga and Lake Peipsi in the lands of the Vodi. Iron production also took place on the southern coast of the White Sea.

Polotsk land, which was isolated before everyone else, included the space along the Western Dvina, Berezina, Neman and their tributaries. Already from the beginning of the XII century. an intensive process of political fragmentation was going on in the principality: independent Polotsk, Minsk, Vitebsk principalities, appanages in Drutsk, Borisov and other centers appeared. Some of them in the east come under the authority of the Smolensk princes. Western and northwestern lands (Black Russia) from the middle of the XIII century. depart for Lithuania.

Smolensk principality occupied the territories of the upper reaches of the Dnieper and the Western Dvina. Of the significant cities, in addition to Smolensk, Toropets, Dorogobuzh, Vyazma are known, which later became centers of independent destinies. The principality was an area of ​​developed agriculture and a supplier of bread for Novgorod, and since its territory was the most important transport hub, where the upper reaches of the largest rivers of Eastern Europe converged, the cities carried on a lively intermediary trade.

Turov-Pinsk land was located along the middle reaches of the Pripyat and its tributaries, the Ubort, Goryn, Styr, and, like the Smolensk, had Russian lands on all its borders. The largest cities were Turov (the capital) and Pinsk (Pinesk), and in the XII - early XIII centuries. Grodno, Kletsk, Slutsk and Nesvizh arose here. At the end of the XII century. the principality broke up into Pinsk, Turov, Kletsk and Slutsk destinies, which were dependent on the Galician-Volyn princes.

In the extreme west and southwest, independent Volyn and Galician lands, at the end of the XII century. united into one Galicia-Volyn principality. Galician land occupied the northeastern slopes of the Carpathian (Ugric) mountains, which were a natural border with. The northwestern part of the principality occupied the upper reaches of the San River (a tributary of the Vistula), and the center and southeast - the basin of the middle and upper Dniester. Volyn land covered the territory along the Western Bug and the upper reaches of the Pripyat. In addition, the Galicia-Volyn principality owned lands along the Seret, Prut and Dniester rivers up to, but their dependence was nominal, since the population was very small here. In the west, the principality bordered on. During the period of fragmentation in the Volyn land, there were Lutsk, Volyn, Beresteisky and other destinies.

Muromo-Ryazan land until the 12th century was part of the Chernigov land. Its main territory was located in the basin of the Middle and Lower Oka from the mouth of the Moskva River to the outskirts of Murom. By the middle of the XII century. the principality broke up into Murom and Ryazan, from which Pronskoe later stood out. The largest cities - Ryazan, Pereyaslavl Ryazansky, Murom, Kolomna, Pronsk - were centers of handicraft production. The main occupation of the population of the principality was arable farming, grain was exported from here to other Russian lands.

A separate position stood out Tmutarakan Principality located at the mouth of the Kuban, on the Taman Peninsula. In the east, his possessions reached the confluence of the Bolshoi Yegorlyk with the Manych, and in the west they included. With the onset of feudal fragmentation, Tmutarakan's ties with other Russian principalities gradually faded.

It should be noted that the territorial fragmentation of Russia had no ethnic grounds. Although in the XI-XII centuries. the population of the Russian lands did not represent a single ethnic group, but was a conglomerate of 22 different tribes, the boundaries of individual principalities, as a rule, did not coincide with the boundaries of their settlement. So, the area of ​​​​settlement of the Krivichi turned out to be on the territory of several lands at once: Novgorod, Polotsk, Smolensk, Vladimir-Suzdal. The population of each feudal estate most often formed from several tribes, and in the north and northeast of Russia, the Slavs gradually assimilated some of the indigenous Finno-Ugric and Baltic tribes. In the south and southwest, elements of nomadic Turkic-speaking ethnic groups poured into the Slavic population. The division into lands was largely artificial, determined by the princes, who allotted certain destinies to their heirs.

It is difficult to determine the level of population of each of the lands, since there are no direct indications of this in the sources. To some extent, in this matter, one can focus on the number of urban settlements in them. According to M.P. Pogodin’s rough estimates, in the Kiev, Volyn and Galician principalities, according to the annals, more than 40 cities are mentioned in each, in Turov - more than 10, in Chernigov with Seversky, Kursk and the land of the Vyatichi - about 70, in Ryazan - 15, in Pereyaslavl - about 40, in Suzdal - about 20, in Smolensk - 8, in Polotsk - 16, in Novgorod land - 15, total in all Russian lands - more than 300. If the number of cities was directly proportional to the population of the territory, it is obvious that Russia to south of the line of the upper reaches of the Neman - the upper reaches of the Don was an order of magnitude higher in population density than the northern principalities and lands.

In parallel with the political fragmentation of Russia, church dioceses were being formed on its territory. The boundaries of the metropolis, whose center was in Kyiv, in the XI - the first half of the XIII century. completely coincided with the general borders of the Russian lands, and the borders of the emerging dioceses basically coincided with the borders of specific principalities. In the XI-XII centuries. the centers of the dioceses were Turov, Belgorod on the Irpen, Yuryev and Kanev in Porosie, Vladimir Volynsky, Polotsk, Rostov, Vladimir on the Klyazma, Ryazan, Smolensk, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl South, Galich and Przemysl. In the XIII century. Volyn cities were added to them - Holm, Ugrovsk, Lutsk. Novgorod, which was originally the center of the diocese, in the XII century. became the capital of the first archdiocese in Russia.

I would be grateful if you share this article on social networks:

After the death of the Kyiv prince Yaroslav the Wise in 1054, the process of disintegration of the formerly unified state began in Russia. Similar events took place in Western Europe. This was the general trend of the feudal Middle Ages. Gradually, Russia was divided into several de facto independent principalities with common traditions, culture and the Rurik dynasty. The most important year for the country was 1132, when Mstislav the Great died. It is this date that historians consider the beginning of the final political fragmentation. In this state, Russia existed until the middle of the XIII century, when it survived the invasion of the Mongol-Tatar troops.

Kyiv land

Over the years, the principalities of ancient Russia were divided, united, the ruling branches of the Rurik dynasty changed, etc. Nevertheless, despite the complexity of these events, several key destinies can be distinguished that played the most important role in the life of the country. Even after the actual collapse, de jure, it was the Kyiv prince who was considered the elder.

A variety of specific rulers tried to establish control over the "mother of Russian cities". Therefore, if the specific principalities of ancient Russia had their hereditary dynasties, then Kyiv most often passed from hand to hand. After the death of Mstislav Vladimirovich in 1132, the city briefly became the property of the Chernigov Rurikids. This did not suit the other representatives of the dynasty. Due to the ensuing wars, Kyiv first ceased to control the Pereyaslav, Turov and Vladimir-Volyn principalities, and then (in 1169) it was completely plundered by the army of Andrei Bogolyubsky and finally lost its political significance.

Chernihiv

Ancient Russia on Chernihiv land belonged to the descendants of Svyatoslav Yaroslavovich. They were in conflict with Kyiv for a long time. The Chernihiv dynasty for several decades was divided into two branches: the Olgovichi and the Davydovichi. With each generation, more and more new specific principalities arose that broke away from Chernigov (Novgorod-Seversk, Bryansk, Kursk, etc.).

Historians consider Svyatoslav Olgovich the brightest ruler of this region. He was an ally It is with their allied feast in Moscow in 1147 that the history of the capital of Russia, confirmed by chronicles, begins. When the principalities of ancient Russia united in the struggle against the Mongols who appeared in the east, the specific rulers of the Chernihiv land came out together with the rest of the Rurikovichs and were defeated. The invasion of the steppes did not affect the entire principality, but only its eastern part. Nevertheless, it recognized itself as a vassal of the Golden Horde (after the painful death of Mikhail Vsevolodovich). In the XIV century, Chernihiv, along with many neighboring cities, was annexed to Lithuania.

Polotsk region

The Izyaslavichs (descendants of Izyaslav Vladimirovich) ruled in Polotsk. This branch of Rurikovich stood out earlier than others. In addition, Polotsk was the first to start an armed struggle for independence from Kyiv. The earliest such war took place as early as the beginning of the 11th century.

Like other principalities of ancient Russia during the period of fragmentation, Polotsk eventually split into several small destinies (Vitebsk, Minsk, Drutsk, etc.). Some of these cities as a result of wars and dynastic marriages passed to the Smolensk Rurikovich. But the most dangerous opponents of Polotsk, without a doubt, were the Lithuanians. At first, these Baltic tribes staged predatory raids on Russian lands. Then they moved on to conquest. In 1307, Polotsk finally became part of the growing power of the Lithuanian state.

Volyn

In Volhynia (the south-west of modern Ukraine), two major political centers stood out - Vladimir-Volynsky and Galich. Having become independent from Kyiv, these principalities began to compete with each other for leadership in the region. At the end of the XII century, Roman Mstislavovich united the two cities. His principality was named Galicia-Volyn. The influence of the monarch was so great that he sheltered the Byzantine emperor Alexei III, expelled from Constantinople by the crusaders.

Roman's son Daniel eclipsed his father's successes with his fame. He successfully fought against the Poles, Hungarians and Mongols, periodically making alliances with one of his neighbors. In 1254, Daniel even accepted the title of King of Russia from the Pope, hoping for help from Western Europe in the fight against the steppes. After his death, the Galicia-Volyn principality fell into decay. First, it broke up into several destinies, and then was captured by Poland. The fragmentation of Ancient Russia, whose principalities were constantly at enmity with each other, prevented her from fighting against external threats.

Smolensk region

Smolensk principality was located in the geographical center of Russia. It became independent under the son of Mstislav the Great Rostislav. At the end of the XII century, the principalities of Ancient Russia again began a fierce struggle for Kyiv. The main contenders for power in the ancient capital were the rulers of Smolensk and Chernigov.

The descendants of Rostislav reached the pinnacle of power under Mstislav Romanovich. In 1214-1223. he ruled not only Smolensk, but also Kyiv. It was this prince who initiated the first anti-Mongolian coalition, which was defeated at Kalka. Subsequently, Smolensk suffered less than others during the invasion. Nevertheless, its rulers paid tribute to the Golden Horde. Gradually, the principality found itself sandwiched between Lithuania and Moscow, which were gaining influence. Independence under such conditions could not last long. As a result, in 1404, the Lithuanian prince Vitovt naturally annexed Smolensk to his possessions.

Outpost on the Oka

The Ryazan principality occupied lands on the Middle Oka. It stood out from the possessions of the Chernigov rulers. In the 1160s, Murom broke away from Ryazan. The Mongol invasion hit this region painfully. The inhabitants, princes, principalities of ancient Russia did not understand the threat posed by the eastern conquerors. In 1237, Ryazan was the first of the Russian cities to be destroyed by the steppes. In the future, the principality fought with Moscow, which was gaining strength. For example, the Ryazan ruler Oleg Ivanovich was an opponent of Dmitry Donskoy for a long time. Ryazan was gradually losing ground. It was annexed to Moscow in 1521.

Novgorod Republic

The historical description of the principalities of Ancient Russia cannot be complete without mentioning the Novgorod Republic. This state lived according to its special political and social order. An aristocratic republic was established here with a strong influence of the national council. The princes were elected military leaders (they were invited from other Russian lands).

A similar political system developed in Pskov, which was called "the younger brother of Novgorod." These two cities were centers of international trade. Compared to other Russian political centers, they had the most contacts with Western Europe. After the Baltic States were captured by the Catholic military, serious friction began between the knights and Novgorod. This struggle reached its apogee in the 1240s. It was then that the Swedes and Germans were defeated in turn by Prince Alexander Nevsky. When the historical path from Ancient Russia to the Great was almost completed, the republic was left face to face with Ivan III. He conquered Novgorod in 1478.

Northeast Russia

The first political centers of North-Eastern Russia in the XI-XII centuries. were Rostov, Suzdal and Vladimir. The descendants of Monomakh and his younger son Yuri Dolgoruky ruled here. Father's successors Andrei Bogolyubsky and Vsevolod the Big Nest strengthened the authority of the Vladimir principality, making it the largest and strongest in fragmented Russia.

Under the children of Vsevolod the Big Nest, a large-scale development began. The first specific principalities began to appear. However, real disasters came to North-Eastern Russia along with the Mongols. Nomads ravaged this region, burned many of its cities. During the reign of the Horde, the khans were recognized as the elders in all of Russia. Those who received a special label were put in charge there.

In the struggle for Vladimir, two new opponents emerged: Tver and Moscow. The peak of their confrontation came at the beginning of the XIV century. In this rivalry, Moscow turned out to be the winner. Gradually, its princes united North-Eastern Russia, overthrew the Mongol-Tatar yoke and eventually created a single Russian state (Ivan the Terrible became its first tsar in 1547).

The period of feudal fragmentation, traditionally called the “specific period”, lasted from the 12th to the end of the 15th centuries. Feudal fragmentation weakened the defensive capabilities of the Russian lands. This became noticeable in the second half of the 11th century, when a new strong enemy appeared in the south - the Polovtsy (Turkic nomadic tribes). According to the annals, it is estimated that from 1061 to the beginning of the 13th century. there were more than 46 major invasions of the Polovtsians. A feature of feudal fragmentation in Russia compared to European countries was a simplified feudal hierarchy: it consisted of only 3 main steps - grand dukes, specific princes and their boyars (approximate), and all princely families were offshoots of only two genera - the ruling dynasty of Rurikovich and Gediminovich. As a result of the fragmentation of the ancient Russian state by the middle of the XII century. separated into independent ten states-principalities. Subsequently, by the middle of the 13th century, their number reached eighteen. They were named after the capital cities: Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Muromo-Ryazan. Suzdal (Vladimir). Smolensk, Galician, Vladimir-Volynsk, Polotsk, Novgorod Boyar Republic. In each of the principalities, one of the branches of the Rurikovich ruled, and the sons of princes and governors-boyars ruled over separate destinies and volosts. However, in all lands, the same written language, a single religion and church organization, the legal norms of the Russkaya Pravda, and most importantly, an awareness of common roots, a common historical destiny, were preserved. At the same time, each of the established independent states had its own peculiarities of development. The largest of them, which played a significant role in the subsequent history of Russia, were: Suzdal (later - Vladimir) principality - North-Eastern Russia; Galician (later - Galicia-Volyn) Principality - South-Western Russia; Novgorod Boyar Republic - Novgorod Land (North-Western Russia). The main centers of Russia during the period of specific fragmentation were the great principalities of Vladimir-Suzdal (since 1169, after the victory of his prince Andrei Bogolyusbsky over Kyiv, the city of Vladimir became the nominal capital of all Russia), Kiev (according to tradition, Kyiv for a long time remained the cultural and ecclesiastical center of Russia, only in 1299 the head of the Russian church, the metropolitan, moved to Vladimir), Galicia-Volyn in the west and the Novgorod feudal republic.

Vladimir-Suzdal principality in the period of feudal fragmentation.

Features of development: the main branch of the economy is agriculture due to the abundance of fertile lands, the constant influx of people in search of protection from nomad raids, the rapid growth of cities, the location at the crossroads of trade routes, the unlimited nature of the power of the prince.

Political structure: Prince, Druzhina, Veche, Boyars

Novgorod boyar republic in the period of feudal fragmentation.

Features of development: the leading branches of the economy - trade and craft, poor development of agriculture due to harsh climatic conditions, widespread development of crafts - salt production, hunting, etc., special public administration, constant orientation towards European countries.

Political structure: Veche, Boyar Council, Tysyatsky, Posadnik, Prince.

Consequences of fragmentation:

Positive: 1) the development of crafts and trade. 2) an increase in the number of cities. 3) political stabilization on the ground. 4) flourishing culture

Negative: 1) lack of a unified defense system. 2) external danger for each principality. 3) ruinous civil strife. 4) weakness of the central government

7.Mongol-Tatar invasion and its consequences. Russia and the Golden Horde. At the beginning of the 13th c. in the steppes of Central Asia, the Mongol-Tatars formed a military-feudal power. It was an association not of a single people, but of dozens of nomadic tribes. In 1222, the hordes of Genghis Khan invaded Transcaucasia, passed through Iran and the Caucasus with fire and sword. Having devastated the country of the Alans (Ossetia), the Mongols defeated the Polovtsy and in the spring of 1223 reached the banks of the Don. The threat of the Mongol conquest hung over the Polovtsy, who turned to the Russian princes for help, warning them of the imminent danger. In conditions of feudal fragmentation, far from all the princes supported the Polovtsians. The united Russian-Polovtsian army took the battle with the main forces of the Mongols on May 31, 1223 on the Kalka River. The battle ended with the complete victory of the Mongol-Tatars. The reason for the defeat of the Russians was the complete absence of a common command. After 13 years, the army of the Mongol-Tatars, which was led by the grandson of Genghis Khan Batu, defeated the Volga Bulgaria, began the conquest of Russia. In 1236, Batu invaded the territory of North-Eastern Russia. The first victim of his invasion was the Ryazan principality. In conditions of fragmentation, each principality defended itself. Following the Ryazan army, Batu conquered the Vladimir-Suzdal and Smolensk principalities. In 1239-1240. Batu made a second campaign against Russia. The southwestern principalities were under attack. Having met no organized resistance, he conquered the Chernigov, Pereyaslav and Gapitsin-Volyn principalities. In 1242, Batu created a powerful state - the Golden Horde, with the capital Saray on the Lower Volga. In Russia, the Mongol-Tatar yoke was established. The Mongols retained the former system of government and social relations in the occupied lands, but established control over them. The khans of the horde began to issue permits (labels) for a great reign in Russia. To collect tribute, the Mongol-Tatars introduced the institution of Baskaks (tribute collectors). At first, tribute was collected in kind, then in money. The Mongol conquest led to a long economic, political and cultural decline of the Russian lands. Many territories were devastated and devastated, cities were destroyed, the most skilled artisans were taken to the Horde, a demographic decline began. Despite the severity of the consequences of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, Russia managed to preserve its statehood, religion and culture.

Reasons for the defeat of the Russian principalities in the fight against the Mongol-Tatars:

The absence of a unified Russian army, a significant numerical superiority of the Mongols, the high military skill of the Mongols, fragmentation and lack of unity in the Russian lands, the most severe discipline that reigned in the Mongol army, the lack of horse soldiers in the Russian troops.

Consequences of the Mongol-Tatar invasion:

Migration of the population to the northern regions, the weakening of the military potential of the Russian principalities, the decline of crafts and trade, the conversion of a significant number of the population into slavery, numerous casualties among the civilian population, the preservation of feudal fragmentation, the inhibition of the development of commodity-money relations, the political dependence of the Russian princes, the desolation of agricultural land, stealing to the Horde of artisans.