In the 12th century On the territory of Rus', a period of political fragmentation begins, a natural historical stage in the development of feudalism.
The specific period is full of complex, contradictory processes. On the one hand, there was the flourishing and strengthening of individual lands, for example, Novgorod, Vladimir, on the other hand, a clear weakening of the overall military potential, the increasing fragmentation of the princely possessions. If in the middle of the 12th century. There were 15 states in Rus' at the beginning of the 13th century. - about 50, then in the 14th century, when the process of consolidation had already begun, the number of states reached 250.
This process was natural not only for the history of Rus'. Similar processes took place in Europe, for example, the collapse of the Carolingian Empire.
The real power of the Kyiv princes already in the middle of the 12th century. limited to the borders of Kyiv itself. The attempt of Yaropolk, who became the prince of Kyiv after the death of Mstislav, to arbitrarily dispose of the “fatherland” of other princes was decisively stopped. Despite the loss of all-Russian significance by Kiev, the struggle for its possession continued until the Mongol invasion. The Kiev table passed from hand to hand depending on the balance of power between the rival princely and boyar factions. Soon the rulers of the strongest principalities, who had become “great” in their lands, began to place dependent princes - “subordinates” - on the Kiev table. The strife turned the Kyiv land into an arena of frequent military operations, as a result of which cities and villages were ruined and the population was driven into captivity. All this predetermined the gradual decline of Kyiv.
The complex of reasons that gave rise to fragmentation covered almost all spheres of society:
Dominance of subsistence farming;
Lack of strong economic ties between various parts Kievan Rus;
Features of the transfer of princely power not from father to son, but to the eldest in the family, division of territory between the heirs;
Civil strife between princes;
Growth of cities;
Weakening of central power, i.e. Prince of Kyiv;
Strengthening the administrative apparatus in each feudal estate;
The growth of economic and political independence of local princely dynasties, the growth of political separatism;
The development of large land ownership, the active development of crafts, the complication of the social structure, the emergence of the nobility;
Loss of Kiev's historical role due to the movement of trade routes from Europe to the East.
In 1097, the Lyubechsky Congress established: “let each one maintain his own fatherland.” This was a transition to a new political system.
Among the most famous new formations stood out: Vladimir-Suzdal, Galicia-Volyn, Kiev, Polotsk, Smolensk, Chernigov principalities, as well as the boyar republics: Novgorod and Pskov, which separated from it somewhat later.
A feature of the new era was that in the named entities, as they continued their economic and political development, the process of fragmentation and the allocation of new possessions and destinies did not stop.
The feudal fragmentation of Rus' led to the following consequences:
The rise of the economy and culture of individual principalities and lands;
Division of principalities between heirs;
Conflicts between princes and local boyars;
Weakening of Rus''s defense capability.
From the feudal formations into which it split Old Russian state the most noticeable in terms of power and influence on all-Russian affairs were: the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, the Galician-Volyn principality and the Novgorod land.
The Vladimir-Suzdal principality occupied the territory between the Oka and Volga rivers, covered by forests from Polovtsian raids. The population moved here in droves from the southern principalities bordering the steppe. In the XII - XIII centuries. The Rostov-Suzdal land experienced an economic and political upsurge, which propelled it into the ranks of the strongest principalities of Rus'. The cities of Dmitrov, Kostroma, Tver arose, Nizhny Novgorod, Gorodets, Galich, Starodub, etc. In 1108, Vladimir Monomakh founded the city of Vladimir on the Klyazma River, which later became the capital of all North-Eastern Rus'. The political importance of the Rostov-Suzdal land increases sharply under Yuri Dolgoruky (1125-1157). In 1147, the chronicle first mentioned Moscow, a small border town founded by Yuri Dolgoruky. In 1156, a wooden “city” was built in Moscow.
Dolgoruky pursued an active foreign policy, subjugated Ryazan and Murom to his power, and organized several campaigns against Kyiv. This policy was continued by his son Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157-1174), who initiated the struggle of the Suzdal princes for political supremacy over the rest of the Russian lands. In internal affairs, relying on the support of townspeople and warriors, Andrei harshly dealt with the rebellious boyars, expelled them from the principality, and confiscated their estates. To strengthen his position, he moved the capital from the ancient citadel of Rostov to Vladimir, a young city with a significant trade and craft district. After the successful campaign against Kyiv in 1169, the role of the political center of Rus' passed to Vladimir.
The discontent of the boyar opposition led to the murder of Andrei, followed by a two-year struggle and further strengthening of princely power. It flourished under the reign of Andrei's brother, Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176-1212). During his reign, the Vladimir-Suzdal land reached its greatest prosperity and power, playing a decisive role in political life Rus'. He broke the resistance of the old boyars. Ryazan and Novgorod were again “at hand” of the Vladimir prince. However, after his death, a new period of strife in the principality nullified all efforts, which especially weakened Rus' before the Mongol invasion.
The Galicia-Volyn land extended from the Carpathians to the Black Sea region in the south, to the Polotsk land in the north. In the west it bordered with Hungary and Poland, in the east - with the Kyiv land and the Polovtsian steppe. Favorable conditions have developed here for the development of agriculture and cattle breeding. Crafts reached a high level, there were more cities than in other Russian lands (Galich, Przemysl, Vladimir-Volynsky, Kholm, Berestye, etc.). Galician land until the middle of the 12th century. was divided into several small principalities, which in 1141 were united by the Przemysl prince Vladimir Volodarevich, who moved his capital to Galich. The Galician principality reached its highest prosperity under Yaroslav Osmomysl (1152-1187). After his death, the principality for a long time became an arena of struggle between princes and influential boyars.
The Volyn land separated from Kyiv in the middle of the 12th century, becoming the “fatherland” of the descendants of the Kyiv Grand Duke Izyaslav Mstislavovich. Unlike the Galician land, a large princely domain was formed early in Volyn - the basis of strong princely power. Boyar land ownership grew mainly due to princely grants to serving boyars; their support allowed the Volyn princes to actively fight for the expansion of their “fatherland.”
In 1199, the Volyn prince Roman Mstislavovich united the Volyn and Galician lands, and with his occupation of Kyiv in 1203, the entire Southern and Southwestern Rus'. Favorable geographical location contributed to growth political significance principality, its economic prosperity. The rise of the economy was explained by the decline in the international role of the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” which came under the control of the Polovtsians - trade routes moved west, to the Galician lands.
After the death of Roman, who actively fought against the boyars, a period of feudal unrest began (1205-1236). Hungary and Poland actively intervened in the internal political struggle of the principality. Relying on the trade and craft population, Roman's son Daniel in 1236 managed to break the main forces of the opposition. The grand ducal power won, and there was a tendency to overcome fragmentation. But this process was interrupted by the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols.
The special political system of the feudal republic, different from the monarchical reigns, took shape in the 12th century. in Novgorod land.
Three factors were of decisive importance for the economy of Novgorod:
1. The outstanding role of trade, especially external - Novgorod from the north controlled the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks”;
2. Large share of handicraft production in the economy;
3. The abundance of colony lands, which were an important source of commercial products.
Distinctive feature here was that in the management of the city, in addition to the princely power, the veche - the people's assembly of free residents of the city - played a huge role. Executive power was exercised by the mayor and the thousand.
Novgorod's struggle for independence, which reached its peak in the 30s of the 12th century, ended in 1136-1137. victory. The independent Novgorod Republic arose. The supreme power passed into the hands of the veche, which called princes to the throne and concluded treaties with them. Despite the democratic form of government, the real masters in Novgorod were the boyars and the elite of the merchant class. They directed the activities of the veche, often monopolizing the positions of mayors and thousanders.
By the 13th century. the struggle between the forces of feudal centralization and boyar-princely separatism in Rus' was in full swing. It was at this time that the process of internal socio-economic and political development was interrupted by external military intervention. It came in three streams: from the east - the Mongol-Tatar invasion; from the northwest and west - Swedish-Danish-German aggression; southwest - military attacks by Poles and Hungarians.
§ 2. The beginning of the political fragmentation of Rus'
Since the 30s. XII century Rus' irreversibly entered a period of feudal fragmentation, which became a natural stage in the development of all large European states during the period early Middle Ages. If its early manifestations were still extinguished by the force of inertia, the will of such outstanding statesmen as Vladimir Monomakh and Mstislav, then after their departure from the historical arena, new economic, political, and social trends powerfully declared themselves.
By the middle of the 12th century. Rus' split into 15 principalities, which were only formally dependent on Kyiv. At the beginning of the 13th century. there were already about 50 of them. During the 12th century. political map Rus' has become like a patchwork quilt.
Of course, one of the reasons for this state of statehood in Russia was the constant princely divisions of land between the Rurikovichs, their endless internecine wars and new redistributions of land. However, not only political reasons were at the root of this phenomenon. Within single state Over the course of three centuries, independent economic regions emerged, new cities grew, large patrimonial farms, the estates of monasteries and churches arose and developed. In each of these centers, behind the backs of the local princes stood the grown and united feudal clans - the boyars with their vassals, the rich elite of the cities, church hierarchs.
The formation of independent principalities within Rus' took place against the backdrop of the rapid development of the productive forces of society, the progress of agriculture, crafts, domestic and foreign trade, and the increasing exchange of goods between individual Russian lands.
The social structure of Russian society also became more complex; its layers in individual lands and cities became more defined: large boyars, clergy, merchants, artisans, the lower classes of the city, including serfs. The dependence of rural residents on landowners developed. All this new Russia no longer needed the previous early medieval centralization. Lands that differed from others in natural and economic characteristics became increasingly isolated under the new conditions. The new economic structure required a different scale of state than before. The huge united Rus' with its very superficial political cohesion, necessary primarily for defense against an external enemy, for organizing long-distance campaigns of conquest, now no longer corresponded to the needs of large cities with their branched feudal hierarchy, developed trade and craft layers, and the needs of patrimonial owners striving to have power , close to their interests - and not in Kiev, and not even in the person of the Kiev governor, but their own, close, here, on the spot, which could fully and decisively defend their interests.
The nobility arose, the basis of whose life was service to the overlord in exchange for a land grant for the duration of this service. This system further strengthened the position of local princes; in their fight against the willfulness of the boyars, they also often relied on the increased political activity of the townspeople. The urban strata began to turn into a certain counterweight in the relations between the princes and the boyars. All this determined the mixing of historical accents from the center to the periphery, from Kyiv to the centers of individual principalities; the loss of Kiev’s historical role was to a certain extent connected with the movement of the main trade routes in Europe and Western Asia. Due to the rapid growth of Italian cities and the activation of the Italian merchants in Southern Europe and the Mediterranean, ties between Western and Central Europe, between Byzantium and Asia Minor.
The Crusades brought the Middle East closer to Europe. These ties developed, bypassing Kyiv. In Northern Europe, German cities were gaining strength, towards which Novgorod and other cities of the Russian north-west increasingly began to focus. The former shine of the once glorious “route from the Varangians to the Greeks” has faded.
Centuries of intense struggle with the nomads - the Pechenegs and Polovtsians - could not pass without a trace for Kyiv and the Russian land. This fight was exhausting popular forces, slowed down the overall progress of the region, dooming it to lag in the new economic, social and political conditions. Those areas of the country that, although located in less favorable natural conditions (Novgorod land,
Rostov-Suzdal Rus'), did not experience such constant and debilitating pressure from the nomads as the Middle Dnieper region.
All this taken together determined the weakening of Kyiv, the power of the great princes and determined the beginning of the political collapse of Rus'. The fierce struggle of the princes with each other, the endless civil strife were only an external expression of the deep processes of development of the Russian lands. If earlier civil strife was a reflection of trends or tribal separatism or were associated with crises of power after the death of the great princes, now these wars were a consequence of new circumstances of Russian life. They defended the right of princes to decide the fate of their possessions. As one historian figuratively put it, Rus' “nursed and raised other Russian principalities, and now they, like independent chicks, have scattered around the world.”
In the minds of subsequent generations, the political disintegration of Rus' into separate parts was understood as a great misfortune, as a rollback of society. Moreover, such a collapse led to the activation of the opponents of Rus' - the Polovtsians. Subsequently, fragmented Rus' was unable to resist the hordes of Mongol-Tatars. All this is true. But history measures not in years or even decades, but in centuries. From the point of view of general historical development, the political fragmentation of Russia is only a natural stage on the path to the future centralization of the country and future economic and political takeoff on a new civilizational basis. This is evidenced by the rapid growth of cities and patrimonial farming in individual principalities, and the entry of these practically independent states into the foreign policy arena: Novgorod and Smolensk later concluded their own agreements with the Baltic lands and German cities; Galich in Volyn actively conducted diplomatic relations with Poland, Hungary and even with Papal Rome. In each of these principality-states, culture continued to develop, remarkable architectural structures were built, chronicles were created, literature and journalism flourished. The famous “Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was born precisely at the time of this political collapse of the once united Russia.
Within the framework of the principality-states, the Russian Church was gaining strength. During these years, many remarkable literary, philosophical and theological creations emerged from the circles of the clergy. And most importantly, in the conditions of the formation of new economic regions and the formation of new political entities, there was a steady development of the peasant economy, new arable land, there was an expansion and quantitative multiplication of estates, which for their time became the most progressive form of running a large complex economy, although this happened due to the forced labor of the dependent peasant population, either given by the prince to the patrimonial owner along with the lands, or who, due to poverty, fell into bondage to a rich landowner . But such are the paradoxes of history, where progress is sometimes based on suffering and where the future prosperity of a country sometimes passes through its great difficulties.
Moreover, the political collapse of Rus' was never complete. Centripetal forces remained, which constantly opposed centrifugal forces. First of all, it was the power of the great Kyiv princes. Let it be ghostly at times, but it existed, and even Yuri Long; Ruky, remaining in the far northeast, called himself the Great Prince of Kiev. And later, among other Russian principalities, there was the Principality of Kiev, which, albeit formally, cemented all of Russia. It is not without reason that for the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” the power and authority of the Kyiv prince stood on a high political and moral pedestal.
The all-Russian church also retained its influence. The Kyiv metropolitans were the leaders of the entire church organization. The Church, as a rule, advocated the unity of Rus', condemned the internecine wars of the princes, and played a major peacekeeping role. An oath on the cross in the presence of church leaders was one of the forms of peace agreements between the warring parties.
A counterbalance to the forces of disintegration and separatism was the constant external danger to the Russian lands from the Polovtsians. On the one hand, the rival princely clans attracted the Polovtsians as allies, and they ravaged the Russian lands; on the other hand, the idea of unity of forces in the fight against an external enemy constantly lived in the all-Russian consciousness; the ideal of a prince - a guardian for the Russian land, which was Vladimir I and Vladimir II Monomakh. It is not for nothing that in Russian epics the images of these two princes merged into one ideal image of the defender of the Russian land from the evil “enemies”.
All these contradictory forces of Russian society still had to pass the test of time. But history has allocated surprisingly little of this time - only a few decades: a new formidable danger was approaching from the east - the Mongol-Tatars.
Since the 30s of the 12th century. In Rus', the process of feudal fragmentation begins, which was a natural stage in the development of feudalism. The great princes - Monomakh and his son Mstislav - managed to temporarily slow down the inevitable process of fragmentation of Kievan Rus, but then it resumed with new strength: AND Lyubech Congress princes in 1097 established: “... let everyone maintain his fatherland.”
The following reasons for feudal fragmentation in Rus' can be named:
· firstly, the features of the formation of feudalism in Rus'. The princes endowed their heirs not with a complex of vast estates, but with a rent-tax. Guarantees were needed that the heir would eventually be the head of the principality. At the same time, the increase in princely families and the relatively small growth of the total surplus product intensified the struggle between the princes for the best principalities and territories from which more taxes could be received. Therefore, princely feuds are, first of all, a struggle for the redistribution of taxes, which made it possible to seize the most profitable principalities and gain a foothold in the rank of head of a sovereign principality;
· secondly, subsistence farming and the lack of economic ties contributed to the creation of relatively small feudal worlds and separatism of local boyar unions;
· thirdly, the development of boyar land ownership: the expansion of boyar estates by seizing the lands of community members, the purchase of land, etc. - led to increased economic power and independence of the boyars and, ultimately, to an aggravation of contradictions between the boyars and the Grand Duke of Kyiv. The boyars were interested in such princely power that could provide them with military and legal protection, in particular in connection with the growing resistance of the townspeople, the Smerds, to contribute to the seizure of their lands and increased exploitation. Local boyars began to invite the prince and his retinue, but at first assigned them only police functions. Subsequently, the princes, as a rule, sought to gain full power. And this, in turn, led to an intensification of the struggle between the boyars and local princes;
· fourthly, the growth and strengthening of cities as new political and cultural centers;
· fifthly, in the 12th century. trade routes began to bypass Kyiv; European merchants, as well as Novgorodians, were increasingly attracted to Germany, Italy, the Middle East, the “path from the Varangians to the Greeks” gradually lost its significance;
· sixthly, the fight against nomads weakened the Principality of Kiev and slowed down its progress; in Novgorod and Suzdal it was much calmer.
So, in the middle of the 12th century. Kievan Rus broke up into 15 large and small principalities, and at the beginning of the 13th century. their number increased to 50.
Consequences of feudal fragmentation:
The disintegration of Rus' into separate principalities played not only a negative role (weakening before the Mongol-Tatar invasion), but also a positive role: it contributed to the rapid growth of cities and estates in individual principalities, the development of trade with the Baltic states, with the Germans, the development of local culture - architectural structures were built, chronicles were created, etc. Rus' did not completely collapse. The Principality of Kiev, although formally, cemented the country; the all-Russian Orthodox Church, which advocated the unity of Rus', condemned the princely strife;
complete separatism (separation) was prevented by the external danger from the Polovtsians.
Composition of Rus':
The largest principalities were:
· Kyiv (Kyiv);
· Chernigovskoe (Chernigov), Severskoe (Novgorod-Seversky);
· Galicia-Volynskoye (Galich and Vladimir-Volynsky);
· Vladimir-Suzdal (Vladimir-on-Klyazma);
· Novgorod land (Veliky Novgorod).
But three main political centers were identified: in the southwest - the Galician-Volyn principality; in the northeast - the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality and the Novgorod Land.
Vladimir-Suzdal Principality.
For many centuries, North-Eastern Rus' was a wild outskirts, which the Eastern Slavs settled relatively late. Only in the 8th century. The Vyatichi tribe appeared here. Fertile soils, rich forests, many rivers and lakes created favorable conditions for the development of agriculture, cattle breeding and crafts. Trade routes to the south, east and west passed here, which led to the development of trade. It was also important that the northeastern lands were well protected by forests and rivers from the raids of nomads. Large urban centers have developed here - Rostov, Suzdal, Yaroslavl, Murom, Ryazan. Under Vladimir Monomakh, the cities of Vladimir and Pereyaslavl were built. In 1125 he became the prince of Suzdal younger son Monomakh - Yuri (1125-1157), for his thirst for power, received the nickname Dolgoruky for his military activity. Under Prince Yuri, the Rostov-Suzdal principality separated from Kyiv and became a vast independent state. He constantly fought with the Volga Bulgaria, fought with Novgorod for influence on the border lands and twice seized the Kiev throne. Moscow was mentioned for the first time when, after one of his victories over his rivals, Yuri invited his ally, Prince Svyatoslav of Chernigov, to celebrate this event in Moscow. On April 4, 1147, the allies met in Moscow, where a feast was held. This date is generally considered to be the year of the founding of Moscow, although archaeologists believe that a settlement on the site of Moscow arose in the 11th century. Moscow was built by Dolgoruky on the site of the estate of the boyar Kuchka. In 1157, Yuri died in Kyiv (poisoned) and power in the Rostov-Suzdal land passed to Yuri's son Andrei, nicknamed Bogolyubsky. Andrei Bogolyubsky continued his father’s policy aimed at expanding the Rostov-Suzdal principality: he fought with Novgorod and Volga Bulgaria. At the same time, he strove to elevate his principality over other Russian lands, went to Kyiv, took it, subjected it to terrible destruction, but did not stay in Kyiv. Andrei Bogolyubsky pursued a tough policy towards the boyars in his principality. Attacking their rights and privileges, he brutally dealt with the disobedient, expelled them from the principality, and deprived them of their estates. In an effort to further separate from the boyars and rely on the townspeople, he moved the capital from Rostov to the young commercial and industrial city of Vladimir. It was near Vladimir in the town of Bogolyubovo that he set up his residence, for which he received the nickname Bogolyubsky. A serious conflict was brewing between Andrei Bogolyubsky and the boyars. A conspiracy arose against the prince, in which Andrei's servants were involved - the Ossetian Anbal, the housekeeper Efrem Mozevich. On June 29, 1174, the conspirators broke into the prince's house and hacked the prince to death. After Andrei's death, strife began. The Rostov and Suzdal boyars tried to give the throne to their proteges, but the residents of Vladimir offered the sons of Yuri - Mikhail and Vsevolod. In the end, in 1176, Vsevolod became prince, nicknamed the Big Nest, as he had 8 sons and 8 grandchildren. Under him, the Vladimir-Suzdal principality reached its greatest prosperity. He was the first among the princes of the Northeast to accept the title of Grand Duke. Vsevolod severely punished the rebellious boyars. Ryazan was captured under him. Vsevolod interfered in the affairs of Novgorod, he was feared in Kyiv. After the death of the prince, his sons divided the principality into parts and waged strife. Only in the XIV century. North-Eastern Rus' will become the center of the unification of Russian lands.
Novgorod the Great. Veliky Novgorod occupied special place among the Russian principalities. Like Kyiv, Novgorod was the center of Slavic lands in North-West Rus'. The Novgorod land was located between lakes Ilmen and Chudskoye, along the banks of the Volkhov, Lovat, and Velikaya rivers. It was divided into fives, and they, in turn, into hundreds and graveyards. Novgorod, like the Rostov-Suzdal principality, pursued an active policy of conquest, as a result of which the lands of the Karelians, Vods, Zavolodsk Chud (Finno-Ugric tribes), Sami and Nenets were annexed to the Novgorod land; they paid tribute to Novgorod. Novgorod was formed from three settlements of different tribes; in relation to them, it was a “new city” with its own Kremlin. The Volkhov River divided Novgorod into two sides - Sofia and Torgovaya. The city included five districts (ends), which were divided into streets. Merchants and artisans created their own professional associations (ulich hundreds and fraternities).
Natural conditions Novgorod was unsuitable for agriculture, so it developed as a trade and craft center. The basis economic activity Novgorod consisted of crafts, cattle breeding, fishing, fur and salt trades, and iron ore mining. Blacksmiths, weavers, potters, jewelers, gunsmiths, carpenters produced very High Quality. Craftsmen mainly worked to order, but weavers, tanners, and representatives of some other specialties were already producing their products for the market, both domestic and foreign. Geographical position Novgorod was extremely favorable for trade. Novgorod merchants traded with Germany, Sweden, Central Asia, and Transcaucasia, exporting furs, wax, honey, flax, walrus ivory, and leather. Cloth, wine, non-ferrous and precious metals were brought from the West. There were “German” and “Gothic” courtyards in the city. Not only merchants, but also boyars, priests, and monks participated in trade. The interests of the boyars, merchants, and churches were intertwined, and the city elite - the aristocracy - played a large role in political life. A special political system developed here - feudal democracy. The highest authority in Novgorod was the veche - the people's assembly. It gathered in the square near the market the most notable people of the city - the boyars, about 400 people - that was the number of boyar estates in Novgorod. Feudal-dependent, enslaved people were often present at it. They did not have the right to vote, but reacted violently when discussing certain issues. The veche elected a mayor from among the boyars, he was in charge of all the affairs of the feudal republic, administered justice, and controlled the activities of the prince. A thousand was elected, who collected taxes (from every thousand of the population), headed civil uprising and judged trade affairs. At the veche, the Novgorod archbishop (lord) was also elected, who not only headed the church, but was also in charge of the treasury and foreign relations. Ordinary Novgorod residents resolved their issues at the veche of the streets, and elders were also elected here. The veche system of Novgorod is a form of feudal democracy. In fact, power belonged to the boyars and the elite of the merchant class. All managerial positions - townspeople, thousand - were occupied only by representatives of the aristocratic nobility. Historically, Novgorod did not have its own princely dynasty. In the 11th century here the eldest son of the Grand Duke of Kyiv usually sat as a prince-governor. But as political separatism developed, Novgorod became increasingly independent from Kyiv. In 1136, the grandson of Monomakh, Vsevolod, reigned in Novgorod, with whom the Novgorodians were dissatisfied. An uprising occurred, the prince was arrested, a number of charges were brought against him and he was expelled from the city. From that moment on, the Novgorodians themselves invited the prince, concluding an agreement with him. The prince did not have the right to transfer power by inheritance, could not interfere in civil affairs, did not have the right to own lands and live in the city itself. He protected the city from enemies, tribute was received in his name, and he played the role of an arbitrator. If the prince was not liked, he was expelled. After the events of 1136, Novgorod finally became a boyar aristocratic republic, where large boyars, merchants, and the archbishop determined the policy of the city.
So, to summarize, it should be emphasized that feudal fragmentation in Rus' in the XII-XIV centuries. was a natural phenomenon associated with the peculiarities of the formation of the feudal system. Despite the progressiveness of this process, feudal fragmentation had a significant negative point: constant strife between the princes depleted the strength of the Russian lands, weakened them in the face of external danger, in particular the approaching Mongol-Tatar invasion. Although some of the princes made attempts to maintain a unified state, the process of disintegration during this period was irreversible.
Political fragmentation of Rus'. Causes, features and consequences. Development of Russian lands and principalities in conditions of fragmentation.
Since the 30s of the 12th century. In Rus', the process of feudal fragmentation begins, which was a natural stage in the development of feudalism. The great princes - Monomakh, his son Mstislav - managed to temporarily slow down the inevitable process of fragmentation of Kievan Rus, but then it resumed with renewed vigor: And the Lyubech Congress of Princes in 1097 established: “... let everyone keep his fatherland.”
The following reasons for feudal fragmentation in Rus' can be named:
· firstly, the features of the formation of feudalism in Rus'. The princes endowed their heirs not with a complex of vast estates, but with a rent-tax. Guarantees were needed that the heir would eventually be the head of the principality. At the same time, the increase in princely families and the relatively small growth of the total surplus product intensified the struggle between the princes for the best principalities and territories from which more taxes could be received. Therefore, princely feuds are, first of all, a struggle for the redistribution of taxes, which made it possible to seize the most profitable principalities and gain a foothold in the rank of head of a sovereign principality;
· secondly, subsistence farming and the lack of economic ties contributed to the creation of relatively small feudal worlds and separatism of local boyar unions;
· thirdly, the development of boyar land ownership: the expansion of boyar estates by seizing the lands of community members, the purchase of land, etc. - led to increased economic power and independence of the boyars and, ultimately, to an aggravation of contradictions between the boyars and the Grand Duke of Kyiv. The boyars were interested in such princely power that could provide them with military and legal protection, in particular in connection with the growing resistance of the townspeople, the smerds, to contribute to the seizure of their lands and increased exploitation. Local boyars began to invite the prince and his retinue, but at first assigned them only police functions. Subsequently, the princes, as a rule, sought to gain full power. And this, in turn, led to an intensification of the struggle between the boyars and local princes;
· fourthly, the growth and strengthening of cities as new political and cultural centers;
· fifthly, in the 12th century. trade routes began to bypass Kyiv; European merchants, as well as Novgorodians, were increasingly attracted to Germany, Italy, the Middle East, the “path from the Varangians to the Greeks” gradually lost its significance;
· sixthly, the fight against nomads weakened the Principality of Kiev and slowed down its progress; in Novgorod and Suzdal it was much calmer.
So, in the middle of the 12th century. Kievan Rus broke up into 15 large and small principalities, and at the beginning of the 13th century. their number increased to 50.
Consequences of feudal fragmentation:
The disintegration of Rus' into separate principalities played not only a negative role (weakening before the Mongol-Tatar invasion), but also a positive role: it contributed to the rapid growth of cities and estates in individual principalities, the development of trade with the Baltic states, with the Germans, the development of local culture - architectural structures were built, chronicles were created, etc. Rus' did not completely collapse. 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;
The composition of Rus', the largest were the principalities:
· Kyiv (Kyiv);
· Chernigovskoe (Chernigov), Severskoe (Novgorod-Seversky);
· Galicia-Volynskoye (Galich and Vladimir-Volynsky);
· Vladimir-Suzdal (Vladimir-on-Klyazma);
· Novgorod land (Veliky Novgorod).
But three main political centers were identified: in the southwest - the Galician-Volyn principality; in the northeast - the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality and the Novgorod Land.
For many centuries, North-Eastern Rus' was a wild outskirts, which the Eastern Slavs settled relatively late. Only in the 8th century. The Vyatichi tribe appeared here. Fertile soils, rich forests, many rivers and lakes created favorable conditions for the development of agriculture, cattle breeding and crafts. Trade routes to the south, east and west passed here, which led to the development of trade. It was also important that the northeastern lands were well protected by forests and rivers from the raids of nomads. Large urban centers have developed here - Rostov, Suzdal, Yaroslavl, Murom, Ryazan. Under Vladimir Monomakh, the cities of Vladimir and Pereyaslavl were built. In 1125, the youngest son of Monomakh, Yuri (1125-1157), became the prince of Suzdal, who received the nickname Dolgoruky for his thirst for power and for his military activity. Under Prince Yuri, the Rostov-Suzdal principality separated from Kyiv and became a vast independent state. He constantly fought with the Volga Bulgaria, fought with Novgorod for influence on the border lands and twice seized the Kiev throne. Moscow was mentioned for the first time when, after one of his victories over his rivals, Yuri invited his ally, Prince Svyatoslav of Chernigov, to celebrate this event in Moscow. On April 4, 1147, the allies met in Moscow, where a feast was held. This date is generally considered to be the year of the founding of Moscow, although archaeologists believe that a settlement on the site of Moscow arose in the 11th century. Moscow was built by Dolgoruky on the site of the estate of the boyar Kuchka. In 1157, Yuri died in Kyiv (poisoned) and power in the Rostov-Suzdal land passed to Yuri's son Andrei, nicknamed Bogolyubsky. Andrei Bogolyubsky continued his father’s policy aimed at expanding the Rostov-Suzdal principality: he fought with Novgorod and Volga Bulgaria. At the same time, he strove to elevate his principality over other Russian lands, went to Kyiv, took it, subjected it to terrible destruction, but did not stay in Kyiv. Andrei Bogolyubsky pursued a tough policy towards the boyars in his principality. Attacking their rights and privileges, he brutally dealt with the disobedient, expelled them from the principality, and deprived them of their estates. In an effort to further separate from the boyars and rely on the townspeople, he moved the capital from Rostov to the young commercial and industrial city of Vladimir. It was near Vladimir in the town of Bogolyubovo that he set up his residence, for which he received the nickname Bogolyubsky. A serious conflict was brewing between Andrei Bogolyubsky and the boyars. A conspiracy arose against the prince, in which Andrei's servants were involved - the Ossetian Anbal, the housekeeper Efrem Mozevich. On June 29, 1174, the conspirators broke into the prince's house and hacked the prince to death. After Andrei's death, strife began. The Rostov and Suzdal boyars tried to give the throne to their proteges, but the residents of Vladimir offered the sons of Yuri - Mikhail and Vsevolod. In the end, in 1176, Vsevolod became prince, nicknamed the Big Nest, as he had 8 sons and 8 grandchildren. Under him, the Vladimir-Suzdal principality reached its greatest prosperity. He was the first among the princes of the Northeast to accept the title of Grand Duke. Vsevolod severely punished the rebellious boyars. Ryazan was captured under him. Vsevolod interfered in the affairs of Novgorod, he was feared in Kyiv. After the death of the prince, his sons divided the principality into parts and waged strife. Only in the XIV century. North-Eastern Rus' will become the center of the unification of Russian lands.
Novgorod the Great. Veliky Novgorod occupied a special place among the Russian principalities. Like Kyiv, Novgorod was the center of Slavic lands in North-West Rus'. The Novgorod land was located between lakes Ilmen and Chudskoye, along the banks of the Volkhov, Lovat, and Velikaya rivers. It was divided into fives, and they, in turn, into hundreds and graveyards. Novgorod, like the Rostov-Suzdal principality, pursued an active policy of conquest, as a result of which the lands of the Karelians, Vods, Zavolodsk Chud (Finno-Ugric tribes), Sami and Nenets were annexed to the Novgorod land; they paid tribute to Novgorod. Novgorod was formed from three settlements of different tribes; in relation to them, it was a “new city” with its own Kremlin. The Volkhov River divided Novgorod into two sides - Sofia and Torgovaya. The city included five districts (ends), which were divided into streets. Merchants and artisans created their own professional associations (ulich hundreds and fraternities).
The natural conditions of Novgorod were unsuitable for agriculture, so it developed as a trade and craft center. The basis of Novgorod's economic activity was crafts, cattle breeding, fishing, fur and salt trades, and iron ore mining. Blacksmiths, weavers, potters, jewelers, gunsmiths, and carpenters produced products of very high quality. Craftsmen mainly worked to order, but weavers, tanners, and representatives of some other specialties were already producing their products for the market, both domestic and foreign. The geographical position of Novgorod was extremely favorable for trade. Novgorod merchants traded with Germany, Sweden, Central Asia, and Transcaucasia, exporting furs, wax, honey, flax, walrus ivory, and leather. Cloth, wine, non-ferrous and precious metals were brought from the West. There were “German” and “Gothic” courtyards in the city. Not only merchants, but also boyars, priests, and monks participated in trade. The interests of the boyars, merchants, and churches were intertwined, and the city elite - the aristocracy - played a large role in political life. A special political system developed here - feudal democracy. The highest authority in Novgorod was the veche - the people's assembly. It gathered in the square near the market the most notable people of the city - the boyars, about 400 people - that was the number of boyar estates in Novgorod. Feudal-dependent, enslaved people were often present at it. They did not have the right to vote, but reacted violently when discussing certain issues. The veche elected a mayor from among the boyars, he was in charge of all the affairs of the feudal republic, administered justice, and controlled the activities of the prince. A thousand was elected, who collected taxes (from every thousand of the population), headed the people's militia and administered court in trade matters. At the veche, the Novgorod archbishop (lord) was also elected, who not only headed the church, but was also in charge of the treasury and foreign relations. Ordinary Novgorod residents resolved their issues at the veche of the streets, and elders were also elected here. The veche system of Novgorod is a form of feudal democracy. In fact, power belonged to the boyars and the elite of the merchant class. All managerial positions - townspeople, thousand - were occupied only by representatives of the aristocratic nobility. Historically, Novgorod did not have its own princely dynasty. In the 11th century here the eldest son of the Grand Duke of Kyiv usually sat as a prince-governor. But as political separatism developed, Novgorod became increasingly independent from Kyiv. In 1136, the grandson of Monomakh, Vsevolod, reigned in Novgorod, with whom the Novgorodians were dissatisfied. An uprising occurred, the prince was arrested, a number of charges were brought against him and he was expelled from the city. From that moment on, the Novgorodians themselves invited the prince, concluding an agreement with him. The prince did not have the right to transfer power by inheritance, could not interfere in civil affairs, did not have the right to own lands and live in the city itself. He protected the city from enemies, tribute was received in his name, and he played the role of an arbitrator. If the prince was not liked, he was expelled. After the events of 1136, Novgorod finally became a boyar aristocratic republic, where large boyars, merchants, and the archbishop determined the policy of the city.
So, to summarize, it should be emphasized that feudal fragmentation in Rus' in the XII-XIV centuries. was a natural phenomenon associated with the peculiarities of the formation of the feudal system. Despite the progressiveness of this process, feudal fragmentation had a significant negative aspect: constant strife between the princes depleted the strength of the Russian lands, weakened them in the face of external danger, in particular in the face of the approaching Mongol-Tatar invasion. Although some of the princes made attempts to maintain a unified state, the process of disintegration during this period was irreversible.
period of fragmentation.
In 1125, after the death of Monomakh, his eldest son Mstislav established himself on the Kiev throne. Under him, the Polotsk Vseslavichs were expelled from their possessions. Due to internal strife, the Chernigov Svyatoslavichs weakened. None of the princes dared to confront Mstislav. After his death in 1132, the eldest of the Monomakhovichs, Yaropolk, who had previously been the prince of Pereyaslavl, ascended the Kiev throne. At first glance, as Academician Sakharov writes, it seemed that everything was going as usual, that the powerful Kiev state was simply experiencing another change of prince. But, starting from 1132, events in Rus' began to take on such a character that it became clear: the country had entered a new historical stage, which had been preparing gradually over the previous decades.
Outwardly, this was expressed in the fact that another inter-princely unrest broke out in Rus'. Its main characters were again the Monomakhovichs and Olgovichs. At the beginning there was a quarrel between the sons and grandsons of Monomakh. The attempt of the great Kyiv prince Yaropolk to give Pereyaslavl to his nephew Vsevolod Mstislavich, as he promised Mstislav before his death, met resistance from Yuri Vladimirovich of Rostov and Andrei Vladimirovich, who ruled in Volyn. The sons of Monomakh, not without reason, suspected that the childless Yaropolk intended to prepare the transfer of the Kyiv throne to the son of Mstislav the Great. Their rebuff led to the fact that Pereyaslavl was given to Yuri Dolgoruky.
The discord among the Monomakhovichs was exploited by Vsevolod Olgovich of Chernigov, who, with the support of the Polovtsians and the neutrality of the Rostov and Volyn princes, attacked Kyiv. For three days Vsevolod stood under the city; The Polovtsians carried out the destruction of the Dnieper lands at this time. But the Chernigov prince failed to take the city, and he went home.
The offensive of the Chernigov prince rallied the sons of Monomakh - Yaropolk, Yuri and Andrey. Now they begin to unitely oppose Vsevolod Olgovich, but he enters into an alliance with the grandchildren of Monomakh, the sons of Mstislav, whom their uncles actively began to push into the shadows.
In the mid-30s of the 12th century, this enmity resulted in a series of wars, in which Polovtsian troops traditionally acted on the side of the Chernigov prince.
Yaropolk died in 1139. After his death, the throne in Kyiv was taken by the eldest of Monomakh's surviving children, Vyacheslav, but a few days later he was expelled from the city by Vsevolod Olgovich. Finally, the Chernigov princes exercised their right of seniority and occupied Kyiv. Neither Yuri nor Andrei Vladimirovich had good reasons to interfere in the struggle: both of them were only the youngest in a large family of great-grandchildren of Yaroslav the Wise.
The reign of the Chernigov prince did not put an end to civil strife, but only made it more persistent and large-scale. From now on, the sons and grandsons of Monomakh and the most active of them, Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky, became the constant enemies of the Kyiv prince.
After the death of Vsevolod Olgovich in 1146, the Kiev throne briefly passed to his brother Igor. But soon another uprising of “lesser” people broke out and the frightened Kiev elite sent walkers, as once in 1113, to Pereyaslavl, where Monomakh’s grandson Izyaslav Mstislavich reigned. He and his army approached Kyiv. So the Monomakh dynasty regained the Kyiv throne. This was done bypassing the elders in the family.
During almost ten years of internecine struggle, Kyiv changed hands several times. It was ruled either by the Chernigov princes or by the children and grandchildren of Monomakh. The Rostov-Suzdal prince Yuri Dolgoruky played an active role in this feud. But the Kyiv elite did not favor Yuri.
During this fierce struggle for Kyiv, the pretending princes, occupying the Kiev throne, nevertheless retained their former possessions. So Yuri Dolgoruky, having become the great prince of Kyiv, continued to live in his beloved northeast; the Olgovichi also relied on Chernigov, remaining, first of all, the princes of Chernigov, and then the princes of Kyiv.
What is the meaning of this new situation in which the capital of Rus' found itself in the 12th century? According to many historians, the social structure of Russian society became more complex, its layers in individual lands and cities became more defined: large boyars, clergy, merchants, artisans. The dependence of rural residents on landowners developed. All this new Rus' no longer needed the previous centralization. The huge Kievan Rus, with its very superficial political cohesion, necessary, first of all, for defense against an external enemy, for organizing long-distance campaigns of conquest, now no longer corresponded to the needs of large cities with their branched hierarchy, developed trade and craft layers, and the needs of patrimonial owners striving to have a power close to their interests - and not in Kyiv, and not even in the person of the Kyiv governor, but its own, close, here on the spot, which could fully and decisively defend their interests. The nobility arose, whose life was based on service in exchange for a land grant. This system further strengthened the position of local princes. They also often relied in the fight against the willfulness of the boyars on the increased political activity of the townspeople. The urban strata began to turn into a certain counterweight in the relations between the princes and the boyars. All this determined a shift in historical emphasis from the center to the periphery, from Kyiv to the centers of individual principalities.
Kiev’s loss of its historical role, according to A.N. Sakharov, was to a certain extent connected with the movement of the main trade routes in Europe and Western Asia. The defense of the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” by the Kyiv princes lost its meaning, because in Europe the trade route from the Baltic Sea to Venice (the “amber route”) came into first place. In Northern Europe, German cities were gaining strength, towards which Novgorod and other cities of the Russian north-west increasingly began to focus.
Centuries of intense struggle with the nomads - the Pechenegs, Polovtsians, and Turks - could not pass without a trace for Kyiv and the Russian land. This struggle exhausted the people's strength, slowing down the overall progress of the region, and doomed it to fall behind. Advantage was given to those areas of the country that, although located in less favorable conditions(Novgorod land, Rostov-Suzdal Rus'), did not experience such debilitating pressure from the nomads as the Middle Dnieper region. All taken together determined the weakening of Kyiv, the power of the great princes and determined the beginning of the political collapse of Rus'.
The fierce struggle of the princes with each other, the endless civil strife were only an external expression of the deep processes of development of the Russian lands. If earlier civil strife was a reflection of tendencies either of tribal separatism, or were associated with crises of power after the death of the great princes, now these wars were a consequence of new circumstances of Russian life. They defended the right of princes to decide the fate of their possessions. And behind the princes stood grown, formed social worlds.
As Sakharov figuratively said, Kievan Rus nursed and raised other Russian principalities, and now they, like independent chicks, have scattered around the world. During the 12th century, Rus' politically became like a patchwork quilt.
So, the chronological beginning of the period of fragmentation historical tradition considers the year 1132, when, after the death of Mstislav, the son of Monomakh, “the Russian land was torn apart” (as the chronicle puts it) into separate principalities. Prior to this, the grand ducal power did not experience an excessive threat from local separatism. Since the most important political and economic levers were assigned to it: the army, tax policy, the priority of the princely treasury in foreign trade.
The process of regulating intrastate relations did not take place without friction between the central government and local government. At the same time, social practice was not suppressed by power structures; the centralism of management coexisted well with local characteristics and traditions. And yet, in the second third of the 12th century, disintegration tendencies prevailed - Rus' fell into a zone of fragmentation.
From the point of view of general historical development, the political fragmentation of Rus' is only a natural stage on the path to the future centralization of the country and future economic and political takeoff on a new civilizational basis. This is evidenced by the rapid growth of cities and patrimonial economies in individual principalities, and the entry of these practically independent states into the foreign policy arena: Novgorod and Smolensk later concluded their own agreements with the Baltic lands and with German cities; Galich actively conducted diplomatic relations with Poland, Hungary and even with Papal Rome. In each of these principality-states, culture continued to develop. The famous “Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was born precisely at the time of this political collapse of the once united Rus'.
Within the framework of the principalities-states, the Russian Church was gaining strength. During these years, many remarkable philosophical and theological creations emerged from the circles of the clergy. And most importantly, in the conditions of the formation of new economic regions and the formation of new political entities, the peasant economy was steadily developing, new arable lands were being developed, and estates were expanding and quantitatively multiplying. Which for their time became the most progressive form of running a large complex economy, although this happened due to the forced labor of the dependent peasant population, either given by the prince to the patrimonial owner along with the lands, or who ended up in poverty with a rich landowner. But such are the paradoxes of history, where progress is sometimes based on suffering and where future prosperity passes through the great difficulties of the country.
Moreover, the political collapse of Rus' was never complete. Centripetal forces remained, which constantly opposed centrifugal forces. First of all, it was the power of the great Kyiv princes. It may be transparent at times, but it existed, and even Yuri Dolgoruky, remaining in the far northeast, called himself the Great Prince of Kyiv. And later: among other Russian principalities there was the Principality of Kiev, which, albeit formally, cemented all of Rus'. It is not without reason that for the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” the power and authority of the Kyiv prince stood on a high political and moral pedestal.
The all-Russian church retained its influence. The Kyiv metropolitans were the leaders of the entire church organization. The Church stood for the unity of Rus'. She condemned the internecine wars of the princes. An oath on the cross in the presence of church leaders was one of the forms of peace agreements between the warring parties.
A counterbalance to the forces of disintegration and separatism was the constantly existing external danger to the Russian lands from the Polovtsians. On the one hand, the rival princely clans attracted the Polovtsians as allies, and they ravaged the Russian lands, on the other hand, the idea of uniting forces in the fight against an external enemy constantly lived in the general Russian consciousness, the ideal of a prince - a guardian for the Russian land, which was Vladimir I and Vladimir Monomakh. It is not for nothing that in Russian epics the images of these two princes merged into one ideal image of the defender of the Russian land from evil enemies.
Among the dozen and a half principalities that were formed in the 12th century on the territory of Rus', the largest were: Kiev, Chernigov, Novgorod, Galicia-Volyn, Vladimir-Suzdal, Polotsk, Smolensk. The Principality of Kiev, although it had lost its significance as the political center of the Russian lands, was located here greatest number large private estates and arable lands. In the 30s - 40s of the 12th century, Kyiv irrevocably lost control over the Rostov-Suzdal land, where the power-hungry Yuri Dolgoruky ruled, over Novgorod and Smolensk, whose boyars themselves began to select princes for themselves.
For the Kyiv land, big European politics, long campaigns in the heart of Europe, the Balkans, Byzantium and the East are a thing of the past. Now foreign policy The Kyiv princes were limited to two directions. The same exhausting struggle with the Polovtsians continues. The Vladimir-Suzdal principality, which is maturing every year, is becoming a new strong enemy. If the Polovtsian danger to the Kyiv princes managed to restrain, relying on the help of other principalities, which themselves suffered from Polovtsian raids, it was more difficult to cope with the northeastern neighbor. After the death of Yuri Dolgoruky, the Vladimir-Suzdal throne passed to his son Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky, who in 1169 with other princes approached Kyiv. For the first time in its history, Kyiv was taken “on the shield,” and not by external enemies, but by the Russians themselves. As the chronicler said, at that time in Kyiv there was “groaning and melancholy among all the people; inconsolable sadness and incessant tears.” Unlike Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky paid main attention to internal affairs his principality. He severely suppressed opposition movements of the local boyars and sought to strengthen the princely power. Andrei's policies displeased the local boyars, and he was killed by the conspirators. The murder of the prince and the strife between his younger brothers over the princely “table” interrupted the process of centralization in the Vladimir-Suzdal land. Stability Principality of Kiev, according to Sakharov, was achieved under Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, who shared power in the principality with his co-ruler Rurik Rostislavich of Smolensk. After the death of Svyatoslav, Rurik, until the beginning of the 13th century, shared power with the pretender to the throne Roman Mstislavich, the great-great-grandson of Monomakh. But Roman captured Rurik and tonsured his family as monks. He continued the policy of centralizing power and suppressed boyar separatism. The boyars fought against the centralization of power, entered into an agreement with Hungary and Poland, and undermined the political and military power of the principality.
Researchers have revealed both the causes and the very nature of this phenomenon in different ways at different times. The school of M.N. Pokrovsky considered feudal fragmentation as a natural stage in the progressive development of productive forces. According to the formational scheme, feudalism is the isolation of economic and political structures. Fragmentation is interpreted as new form government organization. It was believed that the natural isolation of individual lands made it possible to more fully use the local economic potential.
Historians S.V. Dumin, A.A. Turilov directly admit that the unsettled order of princely succession, strife within the ruling dynasty, separatism and ambitions of the local land nobility reflected destabilization political situation in the country. Moreover, this destabilization was not an abstract trend, but expressed itself through the concrete activities of specific people.
According to N.M. Karamzin and S.M. Solovyov, this period was a kind of turmoil, a “dark, silent” time, as well as “poor in deeds of glory and rich in insignificant feuds.” V.O. Klyuchevsky spoke not about fragmentation, but about the “specific system”; he called this period “specific centuries”. Klyuchevsky's terminology implied, first of all, state decentralization due to the implementation of the principle of hereditary division of land and power within the princely family. Thus, the joint clan order of ownership of the entire Russian land in order of seniority, which existed between the Yaroslavichs in Kievan Rus, gave way to the Suzdal north in the descendants Vsevolod III separate hereditary ownership of parts of the land on the right of full personal property that belonged to each prince-owner. The new order was established in northern Rus' simultaneously with its Russian colonization, which was the main reason for this change. The northern princes, leading this colonization, settling and arranging their possessions, got used to looking at them as the work of their own hands, that is, as their personal property. The action of this order was accompanied by consequences that were very important for the subsequent political fate of northern Rus':
1. By dividing the princely estates between the heirs, northern Rus' was gradually fragmented into many small fiefs, approaching in size the estates of simple private landowners;
2. The reduction of appanages was accompanied by the impoverishment of appanage princes and the decline of their governmental authority;
3. The appanage order introduced mutual alienation among the princes, weakening their sense of solidarity, community of interests, weaning them from acting together, making them incapable of friendly political alliances;
4. By alienating the princes from each other and confining them to small hereditary estates, the appanage order lowered the level of their civic feeling and zemstvo consciousness, obscuring the thought of the unity of the Russian land, of the common people's good.
According to the great Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky, “the concept of separate hereditary ownership is ... the content of the appanage order.” The Russian land as an indivisible whole, located in the common possession of princes - relatives, from the turn of the 10th-12th centuries ceased to be a strictly political reality. However, it continues to exist as a single ethnic and religious territory, governed from Kyiv.
On the ruins of Kievan Rus, quite large independent state entities. Despite all their differences, they all share some common features. The main political institutions are characterized by three forces: the princes, the squad, and the city council. In addition, there is a “service organization” in the background. It serves the first two forces and gradually gains more and more political influence.
All these government entities can be divided into three types:
· early feudal monarchy;
feudal republic
· despotic monarchy.
They differ in which of the listed political bodies play a decisive role in them.
An example of the first type of state is the Kiev and Galicia-Volyn principalities. The princes continue to fight for the Kyiv throne. Possession of it gives the right to be called the Grand Duke, formally standing above all other - appanage - princes. Here the strong Kiev government, based on the squad, the voice of the prince is the decisive force.
Your type state power developed in the North-West of Rus'. Here the princely power as an independent political force ceased to exist as a result of the events of 1136, when the Novgorodians put the ruling prince under arrest, from that time Novgorod prince was elected at the assembly, and its functions were limited to military issues. All power in the periods between veche gatherings was concentrated in the hands of Novgorod mayors and bishops. This type government structure can be defined as a feudal republic.
A completely different type of power is emerging in the North-East of Rus'. This region, whose settlement by the Slavs ended only in the 11th-12th centuries, obviously did not have deep veche traditions. Social base, on which the prince relied when carrying out his reforms, became “merciful people,” that is, people dependent on the mercy of the prince.
We are talking about a “service organization”, the courtyard “slaves” of the prince. The service of the “alms-mongers” to the prince was absolutely dependent on the master; the “alms-monk” was the property of the prince, although he could occupy high positions and have large estates. Strengthens new system state power - a despotic monarchy based on the direct subordination of slave subjects to their master - the prince.
The trend towards strengthening princely power, according to many historians, met stubborn resistance from the boyars. The first news of clashes between princes and local boyars appeared in chronicles from the 60s of the 12th century. In the fight against the boyars, the princes relied on the princely domain. The prince's immediate military support was his “court” - the squad. The character of the squad during the period of fragmentation in Rus' changes. Instead of senior warriors - boyars, who settled on the land and turned into vassals of the prince, military servants, “youths” and “children”, who received land holdings for their service, were recruited into the squad. A new class of feudal lords grew - the service feudal lords. A prototype of the future local nobility. The final outcome of the struggle between the princes and the boyars was determined by the real balance of power in each principality. In the Novgorod land, the boyars turned out to be so powerful that they completely subjugated the princes, turning Veliky Novgorod into a kind of “boyar republic”. In fact, the old Kiev boyars also held power in their hands, expelling unwanted princes and inviting others. The struggle between the princely power and the boyars in the Galicia-Volyn land was persistent and long-lasting. The struggle between the princely power and the boyars was the main content of the realistic life of the Russian feudal principalities in the second half of the 12th and first half of the 13th centuries.
According to the concept of L.N. Gumilyov, the fragmentation of the Kyiv state was the result of a decline in passionary energy in the system of the ancient Russian ethnos. He saw the manifestations of this decline in the weakening of public and intrastate ties due to the victory of narrow selfish interests and consumer psychology, when the state organization was perceived by ordinary people as a burden, and not a guarantor of stability and protection. Consumerism inflamed selfish passions, spread indifference to government problems, and made it difficult to sense the future. Relative safety became familiar and introduced elements of carefreeness. Generations who grew up in such conditions lost attention to the idea of the state as a guarantor of the survival of the people - an idea that was well understood by their ancestors, who created the state in an environment of continuous wars with nomads. People lost their vigilance, their attention switched to internal political squabbles.
According to A.N. Sakharov, political reasons were not the basis for the collapse of Rus'. Within the framework of a single state, over three centuries, independent economic regions emerged, new cities grew, large patrimonial farms, monastery estates and churches arose and developed. In each of these centers, behind the backs of the local princes stood the grown and united feudal clans - the boyars with their vassals, the rich elite of the cities, the church hierarchies.
V.V. Artemov believes that as economic development individual lands, their inhabitants gradually ceased to feel the need for central power. The population of the lands grew, and material conditions were created to support their own troops. Therefore, it seemed unnecessary to send a significant part of what was produced locally to Kyiv as a tribute. Therefore, the importance of Kyiv in the 12th century decreased. A significant reason was that since 1132 there were no longer authoritative princes on the Kiev throne capable of keeping all of Rus' under their rule. The power of the princes weakened as a result of the fragmentation of the principalities. According to N.M. Karamzin, an example of a structure with a weak power of the prince is the Novgorod Republic. Republic means a political system in which power belongs to a group of the most noble people. How can you explain the reasons for this feature in Novgorod? Novgorod was the largest center of trade, on the one hand, but due to low soil fertility, agriculture was not developed as, for example, in the southern regions. Therefore, the owners of the lands - the patrimonial boyars - did not have economic power and political weight. Main role artisans, merchants, traders played. This was reflected in the specifics of the Novgorod structure: an aristocratic republic with severely limited power of the prince, who was invited.
According to O.A. Platonov, the first and main reason the decline of Kievan Rus was that in a single land, in a single society there was no single political power - a numerous princely family owned Russia; when clan and family accounts were confused due to seniority or because of some grievances, the princes often started strife and dragged the population into an internecine war; People suffered from these strife, and the development of national life suffered. Of the 170 years (1055-1224), 30 years were spent in strife. The second misfortune of Kievan Rus was the strengthening, from the middle of the 12th century, of its steppe enemies. The Polovtsians appeared in the southern steppes, and over the course of two centuries they devastated the Russian land forty times with significant raids, and there were countless small raids. Trade with the south began to freeze thanks to the same Polovtsians; they robbed merchants on the lower Dnieper and Dniester, and trade caravans were out of danger only under strong military cover. In 1170, the southern Russian princes, at the initiative of Mstislav Izyaslavich, had a congress at which the means of fighting the Polovtsians were discussed, and it was said that the Polovtsians “are already taking away from us both the Greek route (to Constantinople) and the Salt (Crimean or Czech) route. , and Zalozny (on the lower Danube)." This was a great disaster for the country. Because of the Polovtsian threat, our ancestors did not notice that their trade was falling for another reason, precisely because crusades a new trade route between Europe and Asia was created, past Kyiv, through the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean Sea.
TO XIII century the life of Kievan Rus became poorer and lost its last security; than further. It became all the more difficult to live in the south, which is why entire cities and volosts are beginning to empty, especially since the princes, as before quarreling over seniority, now began to quarrel over people, over “fullness.” They began to make raids on neighboring principalities and took the people away in droves; the population could not live in peace, because their own princes tore them away from the land, from the economy.
These circumstances - strife among the princes, lack of external security, decline in trade and flight of the population to the northern and northwestern regions of the country - were the main reasons for the decline of southern Russian public life.
Against the background of the decline of Kyiv, the relative political rise of the Vladimir-Suzdal and Smolensk principalities, as well as the Novgorod land, is evident. However, this rise at that time could not yet lead to the creation of an all-Russian center capable of uniting Rus' and fulfilling the most important foreign strategic tasks.
In the second third of the 12th century, Rus' faced difficult trials when the Mongols attacked it from the east, and German, Danish, Swedish knights, Lithuanian, Polish and Hungarian feudal lords attacked it from the west. The Russian princes, overwhelmed by infighting, were unable to unite to repel aggression. The collapse of the state organization weakened the ability to resist.
Thus, to beginning of XIII century Rus' lived for more than a century in conditions of fragmentation. Up to one and a half dozen principalities emerged. Most of them were monarchies headed by the Grand Duke; subordinate to him, within the boundaries of his land, were principalities and the owners of smaller appanages - appanage princes. All of them passed on power by inheritance. Only in Novgorod the Great, and then in Pskov, republican order was established. By the beginning of the 13th century, the lands of Rus' extended to the Urals. In the first third of the 13th century, political leaders, the most powerful states are the principalities: Galicia-Volyn and Vladimir-Suzdal. They indicated clear aspirations for political unification lands of Rus', to centralization. But this was prevented by the Tatar-Mongol invasion.
Our historiography is sympathetic to Kievan Rus. This Rus' has not developed a strong political order capable of withstanding external attacks; however, researchers of various directions generally tend to paint the life of Kievan Rus with bright colors. Where is the reason for this attitude? There were many troubles in the old Kyiv life. But in the princes of that time there was such a lively, or rather genealogical, feeling, so much daring, the desire to “love to gain glory for themselves, and love to lay down their lives for the Russian land.”
Further development of the Russian lands could have followed any of the outlined paths, but the invasion of Mongol troops in the second half of the 13th century significantly changed the political situation in the country.
