Causes of feudal fragmentation of Russian lands. Feudal fragmentation in Rus' - causes and consequences. Territorial division during the period of fragmentation

The essence and causes of feudal fragmentation.

In the second half of the 11th century. In Rus', signs of increasing feudal fragmentation are becoming more and more clear.

Prince Yaroslav the Wise gained the paternal throne in a fierce internecine struggle. With this in mind, he left a will in which he clearly defined the inheritance rights of his sons. He divided the entire Russian land into five “districts” and determined which of the brothers should reign in which. The Yaroslavich brothers (Izyaslav, Svyatoslav, Vsevolod, Igor, Vyacheslav) fought together for two decades against invasions and preserved the unity of the Russian land.

Moreover, at 1073 ᴦ. Svyatoslav expelled his brother Izyaslav from Kyiv, deciding to become the sole ruler. Izyaslav, having lost his possessions, wandered for a long time and was able to return to Rus' only after the death of Svyatoslav in 1076 ᴦ. From that time on, a bloody struggle for power began.

At the root of the bloody unrest lay the imperfection of the appanage system created by Yaroslav, which could not satisfy the expanded Rurik family. There was no clear order in the distribution of inheritance and inheritance. According to ancient custom, the eldest in the family was supposed to inherit the reign. But Byzantine law, which came with the adoption of Christianity, recognized inheritance only by direct descendants. The inconsistency of inheritance rights and the uncertainty of the boundaries of appanages gave rise to ever new civil strife.

The bloody feuds were aggravated by the continuous raids of the Polovtsians, who skillfully exploited the disunity of the Russian princes. Other princes took the Polovtsians as allies and brought them to Rus'.

At 1097 ᴦ. On the initiative of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, the son of Vsevolod Yaroslavovich, a congress of princes was held in Lyubech. At this meeting, in order to stop civil strife, it was decided to establish a new order of organizing power in Rus'. In accordance with the new principle, each principality became the hereditary property of the local princely family.

The adopted law became the main cause of feudal fragmentation and destroyed the integrity of the ancient Russian state. It became a turning point, as there was a turning point in the distribution of land ownership in Rus'.

The disastrous mistake in lawmaking did not immediately make itself felt. The need for a joint struggle against the Polovtsians, the strong power and patriotism of Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125) postponed the inevitable for a while. His work was continued by his son Mstislav the Great (1125-1132). At the same time, from 1132 ᴦ. the former counties, having become hereditary “fatherlands,” gradually turned into independent principalities.

In the middle of the 12th century. civil strife reached unprecedented severity, the number of participants increased as a result of the fragmentation of the princely possessions. At that time there were 15 principalities in Rus', in the next century - 50, and during the reign of Ivan Kalita - 250. Many historians consider one of the reasons underlying these events to be the large number of children of princely families (by distributing lands by inheritance, they multiplied the number of principalities ).

The largest state entities were:

Principality of Kiev (despite the loss of all-Russian status, the struggle for its possession continued until the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars);

Vladimir-Suzdal Principality (in the 12th-13th centuries, economic growth began, the cities of Vladimir, Dmitrov Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Gorodets, Kostroma, Tver, Nizhny Novgorod arose);

Chernigov and Smolensk principalities (the most important trade routes to the upper reaches of the Volga and Dnieper);

Galicia-Volyn principality (located between the Bug and Dniester rivers, the center of arable land-owning culture);

Polotsk-Minsk land (had an advantageous location at the crossroads of trade routes).

Feudal fragmentation was characteristic of the history of many states of the Middle Ages. Uniqueness and severe consequences for the Old Russian state were its duration - about 3.5 centuries.

The essence and causes of feudal fragmentation. - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Essence and causes of feudal fragmentation." 2017, 2018.

The period of fragmentation is a natural process of development of the medieval state, which countries such as the Holy Roman Empire and France experienced. In this article we will look at the prerequisites for feudal fragmentation, the causes and consequences of the division of the powerful Kievan Rus into dozens of small principalities.

In contact with

The meaning of feudalization

Collapse of Kievan Rus is a long process of fragmentation of the state, which occurred after the death of Yaroslav the Wise, and led to the creation of dozens of small state entities on the territory of a previously relatively centralized country.

The collapse of the ancient Russian state contributed to many political, social and cultural processes that were taking place in the territory at that time of Eastern Europe.

Regarding the period of fragmentation, many consider the word “fragmentation” to be an exclusively negative phenomenon in the life of any state. In fact, during the Middle Ages, feudal fragmentation was a natural process of state development, which also had many positive effects.

Reasons for the division of the ancient Russian state

Historians agree that the fragmentation of Russian lands began after the death of Yaroslav the Wise. The Grand Duke of Kiev did not leave one heir, but divided the lands of Rus' between his sons.

The fragmentation was finally consolidated in 1097, when the so-called Lyubech Congress took place. Prince Vladimir stated that civil strife over the ownership of territories should be ended, and asserted that the princes receive only those lands that were previously legally owned by their fathers.

Among many facts, historians believe that the following reasons for feudal fragmentation became the main ones:

• social;
• economic;
• political.

Social causes of feudal decay

The collapse of the ancient Russian state was facilitated by the oppressed conditions of the peasants and other segments of society, such as serfs and mobs. Their very presence hampered the development of the economy and society as a whole, and also caused discontent among the dependent sections.

Economic reasons for feudal fragmentation

Each prince wanted to develop his principality as much as possible and show his neighbor that his possessions were at a much higher level.

This competition led to the fact that each territorial unit turned into a full-fledged political and economic entity that did not depend on anyone - all trade could be carried out within one region.

Because of this also income level has fallen from trade abroad, but previously Rus' received huge income from this to the treasury, which made it one of the richest states in Europe.

The high level of development of subsistence farming in each principality allowed them to exist as if completely independent state. These were self-sufficient organisms that did not need to unite into one whole in order to solve certain economic problems. This was one of the most important factors that led to fragmentation.

Political reasons

What were political reasons for fragmentation Old Russian territorial formation? Kyiv was once the most powerful, rich and prosperous city in Eastern Europe. In the 12th century, its role in the political and economic arena declined greatly. This prompted many principalities to separate from Kyiv. Small counties and volosts were completely subordinate to the Grand Duke of Kyiv. Now they wanted complete independence.

Another political reason is the presence of government bodies in each volost. The disunity of Russian lands had virtually no effect on political life of societies and, since each principality had a body that controlled all processes occurring on its territory.

After the death of the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise, Mstislav the Great, firm order in Rus' was no longer maintained from the capital. The princes declared their land free, but the ruler of Kiev could not do anything, since he simply did not have the means and strength to stop them.

They were like that main reasons for fragmentation ancient Russian state. Of course, these are far from the only factors and prerequisites for feudal fragmentation, but they played a key role in this historical process.

Important! Among the reasons for fragmentation, one can also highlight the absence of an external threat during the period of the late 11th and early 13th centuries. The principalities were not afraid of invasion and saw no reason to create one powerful army ready to respond to the invasion of the adversary - this played a cruel joke on them in the future.

Pros and cons of feudal fragmentation in Rus'

Like any process, the feudal fragmentation of Russian lands had not only negative, but also positive consequences.

The disunity of ancient Russian lands, contrary to many opinions, had a positive effect on the development of society in Eastern Europe.

Among the advantages, the accelerated economic development of Rus' during this period should be noted. Each principality sought to create a powerful economy, and most succeeded. They became so independent economically that they no longer needed conduct foreign trade with others.

The economic development of Rus' was not the only positive aspect - the cultural life of society also received a significant impetus. However, the most important thing is that total territory Rus' grew somewhat as the principalities strengthened their power by conquering new lands.

And yet, political disunity had its negative consequences, which in the future led to the destruction of Kievan Rus.

Important! The main signs of a fragmented state are the lack of general governance, which was very necessary during the 1990s.

The fragmentation of Rus' during the Mongol invasion undermined the defense capability of individual territories. Each of the princes did not consider the threat from the nomadic tribes to be serious, and planned to defeat the enemy alone. The fragmentation of actions led to devastating defeat and fall of Kyiv.

In addition to the Golden Horde, the principalities were under attack by German Catholic orders. To a lesser extent, the integrity of the state was threatened by the Polovtsian tribes.

Attempts at unification

Fragmentation of Rus' during the Mongol invasion led to the decline of power Slavs in Eastern Europe. However, it was precisely the threat from nomadic tribes that helped create new powerful centralized formations on the territory of the former Kievan Rus.

IN beginning of XII In the 1st century, Prince Vsevolod Yurievich ruled the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. Vsevolod gained such powerful authority that the majority of the previously scattered princes obeyed him.

However, truly effective attempts at unification occurred with the advent of to the throne of Galich Roman Mstislavovich. He founded a strong dynasty that began to rule the Galicia-Volyn principality.

During the reign of Danylo Galitsky it reached its greatest prosperity. Danilo Galitsky was named king by the Pope himself. For 40 years he tried to maintain the independence of his state, waging war with the Golden Horde and with its neighbors in the West.

Signs of fragmentation of Kievan Rus

Historians agree that in the event of the disunity of Rus', there were The following signs and causes are typical: fragmentation of the ancient Russian state:

• loss of the leading role of Kyiv and the Kyiv prince (due to the loss of prestige of the capital, the principalities came under self-government);
• fragmentation was legally consolidated in 1097 at a congress of princes;
• the lack of a defensible army, which greatly undermined military power and made the country vulnerable to external threats;
• personal contradictions between most of the princes.

Feudal fragmentation in Rus': brief conclusions

In this article we discussed a topic such as: “Feudal fragmentation in Rus',” and now it’s time to sum it up. We learned that fragmentation is a natural process of development of the classical medieval state.

The process had not only negative, but also positive effects that strengthened the economic structure of the principalities. It led to rapid urban development. Previously, only Kyiv developed, and the rest were just passive cities. And yet, one single drawback of such fragmentation led to the destruction of Rus'. The country has lost its defensive capability. Lacking a common command, the troops of individual princes were destroyed by a single army of the Mongols.

Has led to disunity a number of reasons and factors, including political, military, economic and social. Among the key ones were the presence of dependent classes, the absence of an external threat, and the independence in the economic and political plans of some principalities. An equally important role was played by the personal desire of the princes to stand out from the rest - they strengthened their territories so much that most of them could exist independently of each other.

Official start date of the period of disunity considered to be 1091 when the Lyubech Congress of Princes took place. A similar system of existence of Kievan Rus was officially formed there. The beginning of this process was the death and will of Yaroslav the Wise, who did not leave a single heir, but distributed the lands to his three sons.

Reasons for the feudal fragmentation of Kievan Rus

Fragmentation of Kievan Rus, facts, consequences

In Rus', the period of feudal fragmentation begins in the 30s. XII century In 1132, the Grand Duke of Kiev Mstislav (1125–1132), son of Vladimir Monomakh, died. In place of a single state, sovereign principalities arose, equal in scale to Western European kingdoms. Novgorod and Polotsk separated themselves earlier than others; followed by Galich, Volyn and Chernigov, etc. The period of feudal fragmentation in Rus' continued until the end of the 15th century.

The factors that caused the collapse of Kievan Rus are diverse.

1. Established by this time subsistence farming system in the economy, contributed to the isolation of individual economic units (family, community, inheritance, land, principality) from each other. Each of them provided itself with food and consumed it; there was no commodity exchange.

Cities grew and strengthened as new centers.

2. Also existed socio-political preconditions. Representatives of the feudal elite(boyars), turning from the military elite (combatants, princely husbands) into feudal landowners, strived for political independence. The process of “settling the squad to the ground” was underway. In the financial field, it was accompanied by the transformation of tribute into feudal rent. Conventionally, these forms can be divided as follows: tribute levied by the prince on the grounds that he was the supreme ruler and protector of the entire territory over which his power extended; rent collected by the owner of the land from those who live on this land and use it.

During this period, the system of public administration changes: the decimal system is replaced palace-patrimonial. Two control centers are formed: the palace and the fiefdom. All court ranks (master, bed guard, equerry, etc.) are simultaneously government positions within each individual principality, land, appanage, etc.

3. Finally, in the process of collapse of the relatively unified Kyiv state important role played foreign policy factors. The invasion of the Tatar-Mongols and the disappearance of the ancient trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” which united the Slavic tribes around itself, completed the collapse.

Consequences of fragmentation.

On the one hand, being a natural phenomenon, fragmentation contributed to the dynamic economic development Russian lands: the growth of cities, the flourishing of culture.

On the other hand, fragmentation led to a decrease in defense potential, which coincided with an unfavorable foreign policy situation. By the beginning of the 13th century, in addition to the Polovtsian danger, Rus' was faced with aggression from two other directions. Enemies appeared in the northwest: Catholic German Orders and Lithuanian tribes. In 1237-1240 there was a Mongol-Tatar invasion from the southeast, after which the Russian lands fell under the rule of the Golden Horde.

However, the Principality of Kiev, although formally, cemented the country; The all-Russian Orthodox Church, which advocated the unity of Rus' and condemned the princely strife, retained its influence.

Russian principalities in conditions of political fragmentation (Kiev, Vladimir-Suzdal, Galicia-Volyn). Features of feudal relations, development of princely power.

In the 13th century. Principality of Kiev , seriously damaged by the Mongol invasion, it loses its significance as a Slavic state center. But already in the 12th century. A number of principalities are separated from it. A conglomerate of feudal states was formed: Rostov-Suzdal, Smolensk, Ryazan, Murom, Galicia-Volyn, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Polotsk-Minsk, Turovo-Pinsk, Tmutarakan, Kiev, Novgorod land. Smaller feudal formations formed within these principalities, and the process of fragmentation deepened.

In the XII-XIII centuries. the system has received great development immunities, liberating boyar estates from princely administration and court. A complex system of vassal relations and a corresponding system of feudal land ownership was established. The boyars received the right of free “departure”, that is, the right to change overlords.

Rostovo (Vladimir)-Suzdal The principality, located in the northeast of Rus', later became the center of the unification of Russian lands. During the period of feudal fragmentation (after the 30s of the 19th century) it acted as a competitor to Kyiv. The first princes (Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod the Big Nest) Social system. The structure of the feudal class in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality was not much different from that of Kyiv. However, here a new category of small feudal lords arises - the so-called boyar children. In the 12th century. A new term also appears - “nobles”. The ruling class also included the clergy, which in all Russian lands during the period of feudal fragmentation, including the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, retained its organization, built according to the church charters of the first Russian Christian princes - Vladimir the Holy and Yaroslav the Wise. Having conquered Rus', 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 vassals - boyars, children of boyars and nobles who performed military service with them.

Politic system. The Vladimir-Suzdal principality was an early feudal monarchy with a 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 move his capital there - he returned to Vladimir, thereby re-establishing its capital status. He managed to subjugate the Rostov boyars to his power, for which he was nicknamed the “autocracy” of the Vladimir-Suzdal land. Even during the time of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, the Vladimir table continued to be considered the first grand princely throne in Rus'. The Tatar-Mongols preferred to leave the interior intact government structure The Vladimir-Suzdal principality and the clan order of succession of grand-ducal power. The Grand Duke of Vladimir relied on his squad, from among which, as in the times of Kievan Rus, the Council under the prince was formed. In addition to the warriors, the council included representatives of the highest clergy, and after the transfer of the metropolitan see to Vladimir, the metropolitan himself. The Grand Duke's court was ruled by a dvoresky (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 volosts (in rural areas). They administered justice in the lands under their jurisdiction, showing not so much concern for the administration of justice, but a desire for personal enrichment at the expense of the local population and replenishment of the grand ducal treasury, for, as the same Ipatiev Chronicle says, “they created a lot of burdens for the people with sales and Virami".

Right. The sources of 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 there. The legal system of the principality included sources of secular and ecclesiastical law. Secular law was represented by the Russian Truth (many of its lists were compiled in this principality in the 13th-14th centuries). Church law was based on the norms of 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 to us in 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.

Galicia-Volyn Principality Social system. A feature of the social structure of the Galicia-Volyn principality was that a large group of boyars was formed there, in whose hands almost all land holdings were concentrated. The most important role was played by the “Galician men” - large fiefdoms, who already in the 12th century. oppose any attempts to limit their rights in favor of princely power and growing cities.

The other group consisted of service feudal lords. The sources of their land holdings were princely grants, boyar lands confiscated and redistributed by the princes, as well as seized communal lands. In the vast majority of cases, they held land conditionally while they served. Serving feudal lords supplied the prince with an army consisting of peasants dependent on them. It was the support of the Galician princes in the fight against the boyars.

The feudal elite also included large church nobility in the person of archbishops, bishops, and abbots of monasteries, who owned vast lands and peasants. The church and monasteries acquired land holdings through grants and donations from princes. Often they, like princes and boyars, seized communal lands, turning peasants into monastic and church feudal-dependent people. The bulk of the rural population in the Galicia-Volyn principality were peasants (smerds). The growth of large land ownership and the formation of a class of feudal lords was accompanied by the establishment of feudal dependence and the emergence of feudal rent. Such a category as slaves has almost disappeared. Slavery merged with the peasants sitting on the ground.

There were over 80 cities in the Galicia-Volyn principality. The largest group of the urban population were artisans. In the cities there were jewelry, pottery, blacksmith and other workshops, the products of which went not only to the domestic but also to the foreign market. The salt trade brought great profits. Being a center of crafts and trade, Galich also gained fame as a cultural center. The Galician-Volyn Chronicle and other written monuments of the 11th-111th centuries were created here.

Political system. The Galicia-Volyn principality maintained its unity longer than many other Russian lands, although power in it belonged to the large boyars. The power of the princes was fragile. Suffice it to say that the Galician boyars even controlled the princely table - they invited and removed princes. The history of the Galicia-Volyn principality is full of examples when princes who lost the support of the top boyars were forced to go into exile. The boyars invited Poles and Hungarians to fight the princes. The boyars hanged several Galician-Volyn princes.

The boyars exercised their power with the help of a council, which included the largest landowners, bishops and persons holding the highest government positions. The prince did not have the right to convene a council at his own request, and could not issue a single act without his consent. Since the council included boyars who held major administrative positions, the entire state administrative apparatus was actually subordinate to it.

The Galician-Volyn princes from time to time, in emergency circumstances, convened a veche, but it did not have much influence. They took part in all-Russian feudal congresses. Occasionally congresses of feudal lords and the Galician-Volyn principality itself were convened. In this principality there was a palace-patrimonial system of government.

The territory of the state was divided into thousands and hundreds. As the thousand and sotskys with their administrative apparatus gradually became part of the palace-patrimonial apparatus of the prince, the positions of governors and volostels arose in their place. Accordingly, the territory was divided into voivodeships and volosts. The communities elected elders who were in charge of administrative and minor judicial matters. Posadniks were appointed to the cities. They had not only administrative and military power, but also performed judicial functions, collected tributes and duties from the population.

Definition of feudal fragmentation.

Reasons for feudal fragmentation in Rus':

1) instability of hereditary ties according to generic sign, the growth of cities and the process of fragmentation of feudal estates;

2) the formation of strong possessions in places that were burdened by subordination to Kyiv;

3) dominance of subsistence farming, weak economic ties;

4) the need for large military forces and an apparatus of violence on the ground;

5) reduction of external danger, decline in the power of Kyiv.

Distinctive features management systems in the Rostov-(Vladimir)-Suzdal principality.

Distinctive features of the management system in the Galicia-Volyn principality.

Distinctive features of the management system in Novgorod land.

Features of the relationship between the prince and the boyars in the Rostov-(Vladimir)-Suzdal principality, the Galicia-Volyn principality, and the Novgorod land.

Consequences of feudal fragmentation:

progressive (strengthening local centers);

regressive (weakening military power Kievan Rus).

Territorial and political fragmentation-new, compared to the Old Russian state, form of state-political organization, based on the transfer of ownership of any territory by inheritance from father to son. The legal justification for the new principle of inheritance was consolidated by the congress princes in the city of Lyubech in 1097

The isolation of individual principalities temporarily calmed the princely feuds and made it possible to concentrate all the resources of the region on the development of material and spiritual values.

Objective reasons fragmentation:

- growth of hereditary (patrimonial) land holdings the “possession” and “possession” of communal lands led to the strengthening of the economic power of princes and boyars and, as a consequence, the desire for political separatism;

- development of crafts and trade led to increase in the number of cities And strengthening their roles as local economic, administrative and cultural centers;

- natural character Agriculture: the absence of surplus production caused the agricultural districts to be closed and fenced off from each other;

- decrease in trade intensity along the way""A Varangian to Greeks" reduced the possibility of the Kyiv prince receiving customs duties and, therefore, weakened his economic strength and political power;

- weakening of external danger on the part of the steppe nomads: cessation of Polovtsian raids

Subjective reasons fragmentation:

- the emergence and strengthening of dynasties of local princes, who considered the subject territory as their patrimony;

- consolidation of local boyars around the local prince, capable of protecting their corporate interests in the event of popular unrest;

- administrative difficulties of governing a vast territory Old Russian state;

On the territory of Kievan Rus by the middle of the 12th century. About 15 lands and principalities were formed by the beginning of the 13th century. - 50, in the 14th century. - 250. Each of the principalities was ruled by its own Rurik dynasty. The largest and most influential: Novgorod land, Rostovo (Vladimir)-Suzdal And Galicia-Volyn principality. Territorial and political fragmentation did not disrupt population relations. Kept awareness of historical community, based on common laws, language and religion.

Novgorod land stood out in 1136: The Novgorodians, together with the Pskovians and Ladoga residents, expelled Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich and declared their independence from Kyiv. The isolation of Novgorod was based on the wealth of its boyars and merchants, which arose as a result of the seizure of communal lands and participation in trade operations.

The territory of Novgorod land extended from the Gulf of Finland in the west to the Urals in the east and from the Arctic Ocean in the north to the headwaters of the Volga in the south. The harsh natural and climatic conditions and the scarcity of land acutely posed the problem of survival for the bulk of the population - in some years there was not even enough bread, which was brought from neighboring principalities. However, rich forest and fishing grounds made it possible to develop crafts, and the skill of Novgorod artisans was well known in Western Europe. Novgorod boyars and merchants actively used the profitable geographical position at the intersection of trade routes. They not only exported products of local crafts and trades, but also participated in transit trade.

Political system: formally power in Novgorod belonged to veche - people's assembly. Issues of domestic and foreign policy were resolved at it, and the highest and local administrations were elected: mayor - concentrated management and criminal court in his hands; thousand- headed the people's militia and presided over the city commercial court; bishop(Later - archbishop)- was in charge of the treasury, external relations and church affairs; Konchansky(Novgorod was divided into five ends) of the street elders. Consequently, the entire administrative and managerial apparatus was elected from top to bottom, which indicated the presence democratic elements in the political system of Novgorod.

However, the main role in the economic and political life of Novgorod was played by large landowners - boyars. From their top (“the best men” - “300 golden belts”), a Council of gentlemen He prepared the course of the veche, bribing votes, which led to the adoption of a decision favorable to the Council and the selection of representatives from the boyars to the highest posts. Consequently, in the political system of Novgorod there were elements oligarchic (aristocratic) board.

To protect the territory, the veche invited prince(usually from the Vladimir-Suzdal principality) with squad. There was a deal with him row(agreement). The prince was becoming supreme military commander And the highest court. He received income from trade, court and tribute from the conquered peoples, but did not have the right to acquire land property in the Novgorod land, interfere in the internal affairs of city government, remove elected officials and carry out reprisals without trial.

The political system in Novgorod had mixed character. It combined elements democratic, oligarchic and monarchical rule. This distinguished Novgorod from other principalities.

For three and a half centuries Novgorod retained its political system and independence, despite attacks from the west (Swedes - 1240 and Crusaders - 1242). In 1478, Novgorod was forcibly annexed to the Moscow state.

Rostovo(Vladimir)-Suzdalskoe The principality occupied the territory from Tver in the west to Nizhny Novgorod in the east, Mozhaisk and Kolomna in the south to Ustyug and Beloozero in the north. In these lands remote from the capital of Kievan Rus, the power of the Kyiv Prince was fragile. She was opposed by a powerful layer of Rostov and Suzdal boyars- large landowners.

At the same time, a significant princely domain, from which the prince rewarded the boyars and warriors who came with him from Kyiv.

The separation of the northeastern lands from Kyiv became apparent during Yuri Vladimirovich (1125-1257), a strong prince who actively intervened in the affairs of his neighbors. Defending the borders of his principality, Yuri built border fortresses. He founded one of them in 1156 in Moscow, first mentioned in the chronicle in 1147.

As the son of Vladimir Monomakh, Yuri laid claim to the great throne of Kiev, which was supposed to emphasize his “seniority”. He “stretched” his hands towards Kyiv, for which he was nicknamed Dolgoruky. He actually managed to occupy the Kiev table in 1155, but two years later Yuri died, and the people of Kiev, dissatisfied with his rule, killed the Suzdal squad that came with the prince.

Yuri's son Andrei (1157-1174) fought with the Rostov-Suzdal boyars who wanted to dictate their will to the prince. Striving for autocracy and using the support of the townspeople, Andrei dealt with the rebellious boyars - he executed some, expelled others from the principality, seizing their lands. The prince moved the capital of North-Eastern Rus' from Rostov - the stronghold of the local boyars to Vladimir-on-Klyazma, but even here he did not feel completely safe. Therefore, 6 km from the city, a new princely residence was built in the village of Bogolyubovo - hence the prince’s nickname - Bogolyubsky.

Andrew assumed the title of Grand Duke and sought to unite some Russian lands. He expanded the territory of the principality, the Volga Bulgars paid him tribute. The international authority of Prince Andrei was great. His son was married to the Georgian queen Tamara and led the Georgian-Armenian army in the fight for the liberation of the Armenian capital, Dvin. Prince Andrei tried to subjugate Novgorod, where he sent his governor. In 1169, Andrei captured Kyiv, but did not take the Kiev throne and remained to rule in Vladimir, directing all efforts to strengthening the principality and decorating its cities. Under him, the shrine of Rus' - the icon of Vladimir - was transferred to Vladimir from Kyiv Mother of God, the white stone Golden Gate and the majestic Assumption Cathedral were built. Andrei made an unsuccessful attempt to establish a metropolitan see in Vladimir, equal to Kyiv, in order to turn his capital not only into a political, but also into a religious center.

The prince's excessive autocracy and unjustified repressions gave rise to a boyar conspiracy: Andrei was killed in his residence. The princely-boyar feud and the introduction of new taxes caused discontent among the people, who supported Andrei Bogolyubsky's half-brother - Vsevolod the Big Nest (received his nickname because of large quantity children). The new prince dealt with the conspiratorial boyars, but began to pursue a more balanced internal policy.

At Vsevolod (1176-1212) The Vladimir-Suzdal principality reached its peak. Novgorod, Ryazan, Chernigov and Smolensk depended on him. Part of the Novgorod lands along the Northern Dvina and Pechora went to the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, and in the east the Volga Bulgars were driven out beyond the Volga. The author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” praising Prince Vsevolod, wrote that his squad “can splash the Volga with oars and scoop up the Don with helmets.” In international relations, the Vladimir-Suzdal principality played a very noticeable role under Prince Vsevolod. He was considered at the court of Frederick Barbarossa. The Pope tried to involve Vsevolod in European affairs on his side: he sent his representatives to him and offered to accept Catholicism, but Rome’s plans failed.

The strength and wealth of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality were based on vast developed and plowed territories with thriving agriculture (Novgorod was supplied with grain), developed crafts and trade. Many new cities - including Moscow - became important administrative, trade, craft and cultural centers.

After the death of Vsevolod, strife arose again, which led to the weakening of the principality. The last prince Yuri Vsevolodovich (1218-1238) died in a battle with the Mongol conquerors on the river. Sit.

Galicia-Volynskoe the principality occupied a vast territory of Southwestern Rus' (Galician land in the south and Volyn in the north) from the Danube and the Black Sea region to the Neman and the middle reaches of the Bug, from the Carpathians to the Dniester and Prut. There was a favorable climate, rich Natural resources(chernozem lands, forests, rivers, salt deposits), thriving arable farming, developed crafts and trades, an advantageous geographical location at the intersection of trade routes from Europe to the East and in relative distance from the steppe nomads. It is no coincidence that not only the Kyiv princes, but also their neighbors - the Hungarians and Poles - sought to own this territory.

Unlike the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, in the Galicia-Volyn land a large boyar landholding developed, exceeding the princely domain. Boyar separatism played a very important role in political life, and bloody strife became an almost constant occurrence. The boyars initiated the separation from Kyiv at the beginning of the 12th century. At first, the Galician and Volyn principalities existed independently of each other.

The heyday of the Galician principality is associated with the reign of Yaroslav I Osmomysl (1153-1187). (His nickname means wise and knowledgeable in eight languages.) He even managed to temporarily capture Kyiv in 1159.

After the death of Yaroslav, the long struggle of his heirs with each other and with the boyars weakened the principality.

In 1199, the Volyn prince Roman Mstyaslavich (1170-1205) captured Galich and united it with Volyn. He dealt with the rebellious boyars, some of them fled to Hungary and Poland.

In 1203, Prince Roman captured Kyiv and assumed the title of Grand Duke. Under his hand, one of the largest and most influential states in Europe was formed. Roman Mstislavich sought to dominate the southern Russian lands and successfully fought with the Cumans and Polish feudal lords.

After Roman's death, the princely throne was taken by his eldest son Daniel (1205-1264). For almost 30 years he fought with the boyars, Hungarian, Polish and even Russian princes. The strife weakened the principality. The boyars brought Hungarian troops to its territory, whose actions caused an upsurge of popular struggle. According to the chronicle, none of the invaders managed to escape alive.

In 1238, Daniel asserted his power, dealt with the boyar freemen and defeated the knights of the Livonian Order. He reunited Galich, Volyn, and even occupied Kyiv in 1240. However, in the same year, the territory of Southwestern Rus' was destroyed by Mongol conquerors. A century later, Rus' lost these lands: Volyn went to Lithuania, A Galich - to Poland.

All major Western European states experienced a period of feudal fragmentation. It was a natural result of previous economic and socio-political development and had both positive features and negative consequences for all Russian lands. Positive features- at first, in the Russian lands there was a rise in agriculture, a flourishing of crafts, the growth of cities, and the development of trade in individual lands. Negative consequences- over time, constant strife between the princes began to deplete the strength of the Russian lands, weakening their defense capability in the face of external danger.

Despite the territorial and political fragmentation, the cultural and spiritual unity Russian people - they retained a single language, laws and religion. Each major principality considered itself successor Kievan Rus, the successor of its traditions and history.

The fragmentation of the Russian principalities persisted until the middle of the 15th century, when the conditions necessary for the unification of the lands into a single state arose.

Since the 30s. XII century Kievan Rus entered a period of feudal fragmentation. This was a natural stage of socio-economic development, caused by objective prerequisites.

Let us name the main reasons and prerequisites for feudal fragmentation:

1) the growth of large appanage princely and boyar land ownership (patrimony) created the conditions for political independence;

2) the dominance of subsistence farming and weak economic ties allowed isolated princely and boyar households to lead an independent economic life and not depend on the central authority of the Kyiv prince;

3) as a result of the rapid development of crafts, the transformation of large cities into new political and cultural centers, some of them (Novgorod, Pskov, etc.) became independent administrative centers around which local markets developed and the power of governor-boyars and local princes was established;

4) small feudal lords were interested in firm princely power in the localities to jointly suppress peasant revolts and repel external dangers;

5) the weakening of the central power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv was largely due to the inheritance of the princely throne not by the eldest son, but by the eldest in the family, which gave rise to quarrels, military clashes and the creation of new independent principalities.

With the establishment of feudal fragmentation in Rus', the specific order (destiny - princely possession), when the princes ruled the free population of their principalities as sovereigns and owned their territories as private owners. With the cessation of the movement of princes among principalities in order of seniority, all-Russian interests were replaced by private ones: increasing one’s principality at the expense of its neighbors.

With the change in the position of the prince, the position of the rest of the population also changed. Now the boyars and boyar children had the opportunity to choose whom to serve, which was recorded in the right of departure. While maintaining their land holdings, they had to pay tribute to the prince in whose principality their estates were located.

Political fragmentation led to an unprecedented economic and cultural rise of each Russian land separately, and in this sense it undoubtedly played a progressive role. On the other hand, the political disunity of the Russian lands led to a weakening of their military potential, which turned out to be disastrous during the era of the Mongol invasion.

Formation of a single Great Russian state (XIV – first quarter of the 16th centuries)

The Mongol-Tatar invasion radically changed the territorial and economic structure of Rus'. Fleeing from the Horde, the Russians moved north of the Oka and to the upper reaches of the Volga, which resulted in the economic rise of the cities of Pereyaslavl, Gorodets, Kostroma, and Moscow. In the XIV century. In Rus', new large political associations took shape - the Moscow, Tver and Ryazan principalities, between which rivalry developed for the great reign of Vladimir and the role of the unifier of all Russian lands. As a result, victory went to the Moscow Principality, which led the unification process in the northeast of Rus'.

Economic and socio-political prerequisites were formed for the unification of Russian lands:

1) the growth of the population of North-Eastern Rus' and the reasonable policy of its princes, who invited boyars with their numerous warriors and servants from other principalities to serve, contributed to the intensive development of new lands and the elimination of economic isolation;

2) the vigorous restoration of agriculture in North-Eastern Rus' (along with cutting and fallowing, the “steam” system of agriculture with three-field crop rotation began to spread; plows with two iron coulters (ploughshares) and water mills appeared) contributed to the revival of old cities and the emergence of new ones, and consequently , the development of crafts and the growth of the townsfolk population, the strengthening of trade relations and the formation of a common economic space;

3) the interest of peasants, townspeople, small and medium-sized feudal lords in a strong princely power capable of stopping feudal strife and protecting the interests of the entire population;

4) the interests of self-defense and the fight against external enemies in the east and west dictated the need for unification, developed national consciousness, the desire for consolidation and independence of all forces of the Russian people;

5) active support for unifying trends Orthodox Church, who acted as the spiritual leader of all Russian people and the guarantor of strengthening the supreme power of the prince, who personified the power of the Russian people and defender of religion. In 1299, the residence of Metropolitan Maxim was transferred from Kyiv to Vladimir-on-Klyazma, who turned spiritual power into a powerful weapon in the struggle for the unification of the Slavs on the basis of a single faith, recognized the sacred duty of Christians to fight the Horde yoke, pursued a policy of “conciliarity”, those. spiritual unity of all people.

The beginning of the collection of Russian lands

At the end of the XIII - beginning of the XIV century. First the Pereyaslav, Gorodets, then the Tver, and finally the Moscow princes joined the struggle for leadership in the northeast.

Moscow, as a peripheral inheritance, went to one of the younger lines of descendants of Vsevolod the Big Nest, the fourth son of Alexander Nevsky, Prince Daniil(1273-1303), who became the founder of the Moscow princely house .

In 1316, Daniel’s son Yuri (1303-1325) married the sister of Khan Uzbek - Konchak, thereby “snatching” from the Tver prince Mikhail the golden label for the great reign of Vladimir and strengthened his patrimony - the Moscow principality, which became the centers of unification of Russian lands. Under Prince Yuri, the residence of Metropolitan Peter was moved from Vladimir to Moscow, which made it the spiritual center of Rus'.

He played a major role in the unification of Russian lands around Moscow. Ivan Danilovich Kalita (1325-1340), who led the fight against Tver princes for the khan's label, bypassing seniority. In 1328, Ivan received from Khan Uzbek a golden label for the great reign of Vladimir, as well as the right to collect tribute (“exit”) from all Russian lands and send it to the Horde. Thus, the Russian people were delivered from the Baskaks, and a relative peace. Tribute began to be collected on plows, i.e. depending on the amount of cultivated land and industries. The collection of tribute allowed Ivan to improve the financial affairs of the principality. Because of this, he went down in history under the nickname Kalita (wallet).

Ivan Kalita managed to transfer the title of Grand Duke of Vladimir to his son Simeon the Proud (1340-1353), and then to his grandson - Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy (1359-1389).

Prince Dmitry from a young age showed strength of character, a desire for independence and independence from the Horde. He expanded the boundaries of the Moscow principality, annexing Dmitrov, Starodub (Suzdal) and Kostroma. During the period of the Horde yoke, he introduced his own coinage (with the image of a cockerel), which testified to the increased independence of Moscow. Prince Dmitry was the first to raise the banner of the all-Russian armed struggle against the Mongol yoke. In 1374, he stopped paying tribute to the Golden Horde, which at that moment was experiencing a process of feudal civil strife.

After the victory on the Kulikovo field, he included the Vladimir principality into his Moscow fiefdom, without asking permission from the Golden Horde, and from that time on, the throne of the Grand Duke of Moscow-Vladimir was inherited from father to son, and the “escheated” appanage principalities became the property of the Grand Duke .

In 1389, after the death of Dmitry Donskoy, his eldest 18-year-old son Vasily I (1389-1425) ascended the Grand Duke's Moscow-Vladimir throne. He bought Nizhny Novgorod, Gorodets, Tarusa and Meshchera from the khan of the Golden Horde and annexed Nizhny Novgorod, Gorodets, Tarusa and Meshchera to Muscovy, and practically stopped paying annual tribute to the Golden Horde.

After the death of Vasily I in North-Eastern Rus', an almost 30-year internecine feudal war for the grand-ducal throne (1425-1453). The reason for the discord was the will of Dmitry Donskoy, according to which after his death the throne passes to his son Vasily Dmitrievich (Vasily I), who was not yet married and had no children. Therefore, Dmitry Donskoy ordered that in the event of Vasily’s death, the great reign should pass to his uncle, Prince Yuri Dmitrievich of Galicia-Zvenigorod. But before his death in 1425, Vasily I bequeathed the Moscow throne to his 10-year-old son Vasily II (1425 - 1462). The war between Vasily II and Yuri Dmitrievich, and then his sons (Vasily Kosy and Dmitry Shemyaka), lasted about 20 years and reached excessive cruelty on both sides.

Results of the feudal war:

1) by the end of his reign, all the appanages of the Moscow principality, except Verei, were concentrated in the hands of Vasily II. The Grand Duke's possessions increased 30 times compared to the beginning of the 14th century;

2) the victory of Vasily II consolidated a new order of inheritance from father to eldest son. During his lifetime, he forced his son Ivan III to be recognized as the “Grand Duke”, which made him the generally recognized heir to the great reign according to the new order of inheritance;

3) Vasily II, who did not divide his possessions equally between his sons, laid the foundation of the state in the princely inheritance;

4) the Grand Duke ceased to be first among equals and found himself in the position of a master in relation to the appanage princes.

The final stage of the unification of Great Russia is associated with the activities of the son of Vasily II, Ivan III.

Having become the Grand Duke of Moscow, he outlined the main directions of foreign and domestic policy Moscow:

1) further collection of Russian lands

Calculating, strong-willed and decisive, Ivan III managed to successfully achieve all his main goals. Suzdal and Nizhny Novgorod (1462), Yaroslavl (1463), Perm Territory (1472), Rostov the Great (1474), Tver (1485), etc. were annexed to the Moscow principality. The independence of Novgorod was liquidated (1478)

2) the creation of a single centralized state with unified legislation, a unified system of weights and measures.

In 1464 he introduced the coat of arms of Moscow - St. St. George the Victorious on horseback, slaying the dragon. In 1472, he married the niece of the last emperor of Byzantium, Constantine XI, who was overthrown by the Turks, Sophia Paleologus and proclaimed himself the successor of the Byzantine emperors, and Moscow - the center of the Christian world. Even the name of the country changed; they began to call it “Russia” in the Greek manner instead of “Rus”. In 1485, Ivan III accepted the title of Sovereign of All Rus', thereby declaring that he was the sovereign ruler of a single state to which his subjects must swear allegiance; the sovereign has the right to put disgrace on the boyars, take away their possessions and even execute the disobedient. Finally, in 1497, Ivan III adopted the first state emblem of Russia - a double-headed Byzantine eagle, on the chest of which was the coat of arms of Moscow.

3) a system of central government bodies began to take shape - the Palace and the Treasury, which were directly subordinate to the Grand Duke.

4) In 1497, the first set of laws of the unified Russian state (Code Code) was adopted, which was supposed to unite the judicial systems of different lands, based largely on the “Russian Truth”.

5) During the reign of Ivan III, Rus'’s dependence on the Golden Horde was destroyed. Ivan III did not go to bow to the khan, and from 1475 he stopped paying tribute. In 1480, Khan Akhmat decided to restore the payment of tribute by the Moscow principality and moved to Rus'. As a result of “standing on the river. Ugra "Mongol-Tatars admitted their defeat, and the Mongol-Tatar yoke, which lasted almost two and a half centuries, was finally overthrown.

two trends in the development of the state, a dynastic crisis.

Related information.