Ancient Russia IX-XIII centuries. Teaching aid

Ancient Russia IX-XIII centuries Teaching aid.

Voronezh: VSPU, 2008 - 237 p.

The textbook contains materials for seminars on the course of the history of Ancient Russia.

The manual contains documents, questions and assignments for them, literature on topics reflecting the socio-economic, political and cultural development of Russia in the 9th-13th centuries.

Designed for 1st year students of the Faculty of History of the VSPU, students in the direction 540400. Social and economic education. Profile 540401. "History".

Format: pdf/zip

The size: 1.55 Mb

/ Download file

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface 3
Theme I. Introduction 4
Theme II. Eastern Slavs on the eve of the formation of the Old Russian state 4-19
Sources 6-19
1. Ancient sources about the Wends 6-7
2. Byzantine sources about Antes and Slavs 8-12
3. Eastern authors about the Slavs X - XI in 12 - 18
4. The Tale of Bygone Years about the Eastern Slavs 18-19
Topic III. Formation of the Old Russian state 20 - 49
Sources 22-49
1. European and Byzantine sources 22 - 31
2. Arabic sources 31 - 43
3. From Five Vesti of Bygone Years 43-49
Topic IV. Domestic and foreign policy of the first Russian princes 50-88
Sources 52-88
1. The Tale of Bygone Years 52-69
2. Byzantine sources 69-74
3. Treaties of Russia with Byzantium 74-87
Topic V. The first strife in Russia. Board of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich 88 - 109
Sources 89 -109
1. The Tale of Bygone Years 89 -106
2. Church charter of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich 106 - 109
Theme VI. The era of Yaroslav the Wise 110-132
Sources 111-132
1. The Tale of Bygone Years 111-128
2. Russian Truth 128-132
Theme VII. Russian Church in the XI - XII centuries 133 -143
Sources 134 - 143
1. The Tale of Bygone Years 134-138
2. Charter of Prince Yaroslav 138 -143
Theme VIII. Russia at the crossroads 144 - 203
Sources 146 - 203
1. The Tale of Bygone Years 146 -188
2. Russkaya Pravda 188-203
Topic IX. Political collapse of Russia 204 - 226
Sources 205-226
1. Ipatiev Chronicle 205-211
2. Princely statutes and statutory letters 211-226
Application 227
Explanatory Dictionary 228 - 232
References 233-235
Contents 236 - 237

Higher education

THE HISTORY OF HOMELAND

Under the editorship of prof. V. N. Sheveleva

Higher education

THE HISTORY OF HOMELAND

Textbook for university students

Fifth edition, revised and enlarged

ROSTOV-ON-DON

Phoenix

UDC 94(47X075.8)

LBC 63.3(2)i73

KTK 031 and 90

Managing editor Professor V. Ya. Shevelev

Team of authors: T.F. Ermolenko - chapters 8-10, 12 (with co-authors), 16, 18; A.V. Korenevsky - chapter 3 (co-author); A.V. Lubsky - chapters 1-6; G.A. Matveev - chapters 11, 12 (co-authored), 14; G.N. Serdyukov - chapter 6 (co-author); I.M. Uznarodov - chapters 7 (co-authored) 13 (co-authored); V.V. Chernous - chapter 5 (co-authored); V.N. Shevelev - introduction, chapters 7, 13 (co-authored), 15, 17, 19-23. And 90 History of the Fatherland: tutorial for university students / otv. ed. prof. V.N. Shevelev. - Ed. 5th, revised. and additional - Rostov n / D: Phoenix, 2008. - 604, e. - (Higher education).

ISBN 978-5-222-14112-0

The textbook outlines the history of Russia from ancient times to the present day. It is written in accordance with the new educational standards, taking into account the latest materials and facts accumulated by historical science.

Designed for students of higher educational institutions and colleges, applicants entering the history departments.

UDC 94 (47) (075.8) LBC 63.3 (2) 73

ISBN 978-5-222-14112-0

О Design, LLC "Phoenix", 2008

Introduction

History is always of great public interest. The ancients said: "History is the teacher of life." Indeed, people, turning to historical memory and their past, seek to find an answer to the most pressing questions of our time. It is on the examples of history that they are brought up in respect for eternal human values: goodness, justice, freedom, equality.

In the public thought of modern Russia there is a sharp political and ideological debate about the events that took place in the past. The situation is aggravated by the fact that in recent years public interest in historical knowledge has been declining. Many scientists believe that at present historical science is in a protracted crisis, which is caused by the completion of Soviet era and historiography. The dogmas of historical materialism, which previously served as criteria for comprehending the truth, are now being criticized and revised. The situation in historical science is characterized by the fact that the vacuum formed as a result of the collapse of the former official ideology is being filled with a wide variety of ideas.

Meanwhile, the need for an objective view of the history of the Fatherland is increasingly felt. After all, it is in history that society seeks the social guidelines it needs, spiritual values, and traditions. The crisis situation in which we all find ourselves forces us to look for the roots of many problems, mistakes and difficulties in the past. And the more we engage in such a search, the further into the depths of decades the canvas of historical events takes us.

The original meaning of the word "history" goes back to the ancient Greek term meaning "investigation", "recognition", "establishment". History was identified with the establishment of authenticity, the truth of events and facts. In Roman historiography, this word began to mean not a way of recognizing, but a story about the events of the past. Soon, history began to be called in general any story about any case, incident,

real or fictional. At present, we use the word "history" in two senses: firstly, to refer to the story of the past, and secondly, when it comes to the science that studies the past.

The subject of history can be social, political, economic, demographic history, history of the city, family, private life. Historians who take materialistic positions believe that history as a science studies the patterns of development of society, which ultimately depend on the method of production of material goods. This approach gives priority to the economy, society. Historians adhering to liberal positions are convinced that the subject of the study of history is man in the self-realization of natural rights granted by nature. The famous French historian Mark Blok defined history as "the science of people in time".

The most important functions of historical science are such social functions as cognitive, recommendatory and educational. The cognitive function lies in the concrete study of the historical experience of the development of Russia, the theoretical generalization historical facts, processes and events. The recommendatory function is that history, by identifying trends and patterns in the development of society, helps to develop a scientifically based course of domestic and foreign policy, to direct the activities of politicians. Finally, the educational function plays an important role in shaping scientific outlook, knowledge of the laws of development of society, education on the examples of history.

Whatever subject historians study, they all use scientific categories in their research: historical movement (historical time, space), historical fact, theory of study (methodological interpretation). Historical movement includes interrelated scientific categories historical time and historical space. Historical time only moves forward. Each segment of the movement in historical time is woven from thousands of material and spiritual connections, it is unique and has no equal. History does not exist outside the concept of historical time. Events following one after another form a time series.

The concept of historical time has repeatedly changed. This was reflected in the periodizations of the historical process. Until the end of the XVIII century. historians distinguished eras according to the reign of sovereigns. French historians in the 18th century began to highlight the era of savagery, barbarism and civilization. At the end of the XIX century. materialist historians divided the history of society into formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, communist.

Under the historical space understand the totality of natural-geographical, economic, political, socio-cultural processes occurring in a particular area. Under the influence of natural and geographical factors, the life of peoples, occupations, psychology are formed, the features of the socio-political and cultural life. Since ancient times, there has been a division of peoples into Western and Eastern. This does not mean belonging to the West (Europe) or East (Asia) in the geographical sense, but a common historical destiny, public life these peoples. The concept of "historical space" is often used without regard to a specific territory.

A historical fact is a real event of the past. The entire past of mankind is woven from historical facts, there are many of them. Fact - the Northern War with Sweden during the reign of Peter I, a fact - a single event from the personal life of one person. We get specific historical facts from historical sources. The entire past of mankind consists of facts, but in order to obtain a historical picture, these facts must be arranged in a logical chain and explained.

Historical sources include everything that reflects the historical process and allows you to study the past. The classification of historical sources is one of the foundations of an auxiliary historical discipline - source studies. Sources are usually divided into seven groups: written, material, oral, ethnographic, linguistic, photographic and film documents, sound documents.

Theories of historical process or learning (methodological interpretation) are determined by the subject of history. Theory - a logical diagram explaining the historical

facts. By themselves, historical facts as "fragments of reality" do not explain anything. Only a historian gives an interpretation to a fact, which often depends on his ideological and theoretical views.

What distinguishes one theory of the historical process from another? The difference between them lies in the subject of study and the system of views on the historical process. Each schema-theory chooses from a multitude of historical facts only those that fit into its logic. Based on the subject of historical research, each theory singles out its own periodization, defines its own conceptual apparatus, and creates its own historiography. Various theories reveal only their patterns or alternatives - variants of the historical process and offer their own vision of the past.

According to the subjects of study, three theories of the historical process or the study of history are distinguished: religious-historical, world-historical and local-historical. In the religious-historical theory, the subject of study is the movement of a person towards God, the connection of a person with the Higher Mind, the Creator - God. The essence of all religions is to understand the short duration of the existence of the material - the human body and the eternity of the soul. From the point of view of Christianity, the meaning of history lies in the consistent movement of a person towards God, during which a free human personality is formed, overcoming its dependence on nature and coming to the knowledge of the ultimate truth given to man in Revelation. The liberation of man from primitive passions, his transformation into a conscious follower of God is the main content of the story.

In the world-historical theory, the subject of study is the global progress of mankind, which makes it possible to receive increasing material benefits. All nations go through the same stages of progress. Some go through the progressive path of development earlier, others later. Within the framework of the world-historical theory of study, there are various directions. The materialistic (formational) direction, studying the progress of mankind, gives priority to the development of society, public relations associated with forms of ownership. History is presented as a natural change of socio-economic formations, at the junctions

which are undergoing revolutionary change. The pinnacle of the development of society is the communist formation. The change of formations is based on the contradiction between the level of development of productive forces and production relations. The driving force behind the development of society is the class struggle between the haves who own private property (the exploiters) and the have-nots (the exploited), which ultimately leads to the destruction of private property and the construction of a classless society.

The liberal direction, studying the progress of mankind, gives priority to the development of the individual, ensuring his individual freedoms. Personality serves as the starting point for the liberal study of history. Liberals believe that in history there is always an alternative development. And the choice itself, the vector of progress depends on strong personality- hero,

The technological direction, studying the progress of mankind, gives priority to technological development and the accompanying changes in society. Mankind is "doomed" to technical development, going from isolation "from the animal world" to the exploration of outer space. Milestones in this development are fundamental discoveries: the emergence of agriculture and animal husbandry, the development of iron metallurgy, the creation of horse harness, the invention of a mechanical loom, a steam engine, etc., as well as the corresponding political, economic and social systems. Fundamental discoveries determine the progress of mankind and do not depend on the ideological coloring of one or another political regime. The technological direction divides the history of mankind into periods: traditional (agrarian), industrial, post-industrial (information).

Finally, in the local-historical theory, the subject of study are local civilizations. Each of them is original, merged with nature and goes through the stages of birth, formation, flourishing, decline and death in its development. Previously, history was studied within the framework of a unified theory of modernization, the essence of which was the transition from traditional to modern societies as a general pattern of world development. Subsequently, under the influence of structural anthropology, which turned directly to man, attention was drawn to the significant differences in histories. selected countries

and peoples forming special types of civilizations. Postmodernism generally denies any general patterns and the unity of the historical process. There are crises, splits, lack of continuity between separate cycles of history.

An objective criterion for historical processes is their evaluation by final (or intermediate) results, which are determined from the point of view of their compliance with the fundamental, national-state interests of the country and society.

Objective knowledge national history provided by scientific methodology (a system of methods and means of cognition). The methodology of the history of the Fatherland can be defined as a system of principles and methods of historical knowledge. Until recently, the most common were the positivist and Marxist orientations in historical knowledge. The first appealed to positive, i.e., positive, constructive knowledge based on experience, the second to materialistic dialectics. Both demanded to approach the study of historical events from the standpoint of systemic (structural, functional) analysis, relying on a system of concrete historical facts. Today, both are being criticized from the standpoint of post-structuralism, hermeneutics, and structural linguistics. This applies primarily to specific ways of working with historical sources.

The central question that confronts the historian is: is it possible to extract true facts from the sources and build a historical concept on their basis? Classical source study is based on the fact that yes, only you need to follow certain procedures and rules. Postmodernists say no, because the source is mediated by the language (discourse) in which it is presented, which does not make it possible to distinguish true from false. Modern language in general - an instrument of power, an instrument of suppression and subjugation of human thought. Therefore, the meaning of the work of the historian is only to clarify the interaction of the text, the language of the source and the context, that is, in what possible connection of historical events it is, while searching for original linguistic entities. On this basis, at best, understanding and plausibility in the presentation of historical events can be achieved.

Undoubtedly, attention to the language of the source is necessary. Moreover, the historian must be able to listen and understand the "language" spoken by the "epoch", as modern hermeneutics insists. But still, it must be remembered that certain historical realities stand behind this “language”. Truth is always a relative concept and objectivity in science is just more knowledge about the subject, and the requirements for historical explanation today must be quite strict: if any fact does not fit into it, then it must be rejected. This is a criterion for separating a true theory from a false one, which is especially important to emphasize, since today one has to deal with a great many different kinds of new versions about certain events in the history of the 20th century.

In the study of history, the principle of retrospective knowledge through a consistent deepening into the past is important. Another prerequisite is the principle of historicism, that is, the presentation of history as an immanently connected natural process. Each subsequent stage of history is the result of the previous one. Today, this principle is under especially intense attack, but without it, scientific history is impossible. Historicism is complemented by hermeneutics, i.e., it implies the ability to get used to the era, to look at events as if from the inside through the eyes of people of bygone generations. Without this, it is impossible to understand history.

For a truly scientific history, a historical-comparative analysis is extremely necessary: ​​historical parallels and analogies. The problem of alternativeness in history is connected with the historical-comparative approach. Many historians believe that it is useful to consider alternatives in order to understand the essence of what happened, but only those that really existed in reality, behind which stood real social forces, interests, actors. History is multivariate, but only at this particular moment in time. Only one option is always realized, there is no possibility to either alter or correct events. The analysis of alternatives helps to understand why it happened this way and not otherwise. The opportunity to choose is only today, but you can make the right choice based on the lessons of history. It all depends on how you understand and use these lessons.

Three stages are usually distinguished in the formation and development of Russian historical science. The first one covers the time from the birth of historical science to the Soviet period. In Russia, historiography as a science developed in the 18th century. It was then that the first scientific concepts of Russian history were formed - Normanism and anti-Normanism. V. Tatishchev proposed new methods of source analysis. The first fundamental work "The History of the Russian State" by N.M. Karamzin appears. In the 30s. 19th century historical views are beginning to more and more clearly echo the currents of social thought. In the second half of the XIX century. the works of S.M. Solovieva, V.O. Klyuchevsky, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky and other classics of Russian historiography.

The Soviet period in the development of historiography is distinguished by the dominance of the Marxist-Leninist approach. historical process begins to be considered from the point of view of the class struggle and the progressive change of formations. Historical science is developing under the conditions of Stalinist totalitarianism and the most severe censorship. In the second half of the 50s. under the conditions of de-Stalinization, a certain liberalization of historical science took place. However, then conservative tendencies again intensified, especially in party history science.

The third period in the development of Russian historiography began after the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the one hand, the time has come for the long-awaited freedom of creativity, on the other hand, historical science found itself in a crisis. The sharp reduction in funding for science and education has brought historical science to the brink of death. In addition, there was a tendency to accuse historians of all mortal sins, and to compare historiography with "pseudo-science". In general, Russian historiography is now going through a difficult and painful stage of formation in new social and worldview conditions.

This textbook is written on the basis of a chronological-problem approach, which provides for the study of the history of the Fatherland by periods (themes), and within them - by problems. In preparing this edition, author's lectures and special courses based on the latest educational literature were used.

SECTION I

Ancient Russia in the IX-XIII centuries.

Similar information.

1. Formation of the Old Russian state. .

The formation of the Kievan state is a long, complex process of unification of various tribes of the Eastern Slavs. The first written evidence about the Eastern Slavs dates back to the turn of the 1st millennium AD. Slavs are reported by Greek, Roman, Arabic, Syrian historians. The Slavs then represented a single ethnic community. They lived to the east of the Germans: from the Elbe and the Oder to the Donets, the Oka and the Upper Volga; from the Baltic coast to the middle and lower reaches of the Danube and the Black Sea. Their resettlement in the VI-VIII centuries. It went in three directions: south to the Balkan Peninsula, east and north along the East European Plain, and west to the middle Danube and the interfluve of the Oder and Elbe. The result was the division of the Slavs into three branches: southern, eastern and western.

In the VI century. there is an isolation from a single Slavic community of a branch of Eastern Slavism, on the basis of which the Old Russian nationality is formed. The Eastern Slavs lived in tribal unions, of which there were about a dozen and a half. Each union included separate tribes, of which there were 100-200 on the Russian plain. Each individual tribe, in turn, was divided into many genera.

Each tribal union had its own territory. The largest tribe was the Polyans, who lived along the middle reaches of the Dnieper (near Kyiv, the future capital of the ancient Russian state). (*) The land of the glades was called "Rus" or "Ros" after the name of one of the tribes that lived along the Ros River. According to academician Rybakov B.A., as well as some other scientists, this name was then transferred to the entire territory of the Eastern Slavs. There are also other opinions. (*) The chronicle connects the name of the city of Kyiv with the name of Prince Kyi, who reigned in the 6th century. together with his brothers Shchek, Khoriv and sister Lybid in the middle Dnieper region. The city founded by the brothers was named after Kiya.

To the west of the glades lived Drevlyans, Buzhans, Volhynians, Dulebs. To the north of the glades - northerners. Along the river Moscow and Oka - Vyatichi, in the upper reaches of the Volga, Dnieper and Western Dvina - Krivichi and Polochan. The Ilmen Slavs lived around Lake Ilmen. Streets, Croats and Tivertsy lived along the Dniester. On the river Sozha - rodimichi. Between Pripyat and Berezina - Dregovichi.

The neighbors of the Eastern Slavs in the west were the Baltic peoples: the Western Slavs (Poles, Slovaks, Czechs); Pechenegs and Khazars in the south, Volga Bulgaria and numerous Finno-Ugric tribes in the east.

The main occupation of the Eastern Slavs was agriculture. It defined them sedentary life. They grew rye, wheat, barley, millet, turnips, cabbage, beets, carrots, radishes, cucumbers. Potatoes were brought from America later in the 18th century. The southern regions overtook the northern ones in their development. In the north, in the area of ​​taiga forests, the dominant system of agriculture was slash-and-burn. In the first year, the trees were cut down, they dried up. In the second year they were burned and grain was sown in the ashes. For two or three years, the plot gave a good harvest, then the land was depleted and had to go to another plot. The main tools of labor were an ax, a hoe, a knotted harrow, a spade, a sickle, flails, teka stone grain and hand millstones. * The meadows got their name, according to the historian N.M. Karamzin, from "their clean fields." (Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State.- T.I.- M.: 1989.- P.48.). Some scientists believe that Prince Rurik was from the Rus tribe, but most modern scientists deny the existence of such a tribe. Most historians agree that this word is of Scandinavian origin, "Rus" was called princely combatants.

In the southern regions, the leading system of agriculture was "fallow". There were many fertile lands and a plot of land was sown for 2-3 years. With the depletion of the land, they moved to another site. Ralo was used as the main tool of labor, and later - a wooden plow with an iron plowshare.

The Slavs were also engaged in cattle breeding, bred pigs, cows, small cattle. Oxen was used as working livestock in the south, and horses were used in the forest zone. Of the other occupations of the Eastern Slavs, fishing, hunting, beekeeping (gathering honey) should be mentioned. The low level of productive forces required huge labor costs from the Slavs. Only a large team could do such a job. Therefore, the Slavs lived in villages (*) as tribal communities (clans), they were called "world", "rope" (**). Clans had common property. At the head of the clans were elders, elected by the whole clan. At the people's assembly (veche), all the most important affairs of the tribe were decided. At the head of the tribe, uniting several clans, was the prince. The tribe had its own militia, from which the princely military squad was replenished. The prince and military leaders were also selected from the best people. The development of intertribal ties, the organization of joint military campaigns, the subordination of weaker tribes by strong tribes led to the unification of tribes, to the formation of tribal unions, which were also headed by princes.

During the VI-IX centuries. productive forces grew, tribal ties changed, trade developed. There is a further development of arable farming, from which handicrafts stand out. Tribal communities disintegrate, paired families stand out from them, which become a separate production unit. Several families unite in a neighboring community. Each such community owned a certain territory. Her possessions were divided into public and private. The house, household land, livestock, inventory were the personal property of the family. AT common use there were land, meadows, forests, reservoirs, lands. Arable land and mowing were to be divided between families.

The appearance of personal property led to the seizure of large tracts of land by the former tribal nobility: princes, elders, military leaders into hereditary property (feud), to the emergence of the rich * "Village" - from the word "turf" - the top layer of soil. ** "Verv" - a rope with which they measured a piece of land of people. They used tribal governments, squads to strengthen their power over ordinary community members. Gradually, the process of formation of a class feudal society went on. The peasants were called smerds. Most of them paid tribute directly to the prince. Gradually, an increasing number of smerds fell into dependence on the boyars, vigilantes. A category of peasants personally dependent on the feudal lords was formed: a serf - a slave who does not have his own household and works at the feudal lord's court, a ryadovich - a peasant who has concluded an agreement (row) with the feudal lord and fulfills certain obligations under it, a purchase - a peasant who took a loan (kupu) from the feudal lord and for this he worked for a feudal lord. The main feudal duties were formed - dues, corvée. (*) Peasant farms and farms of feudal lords were natural in nature. They tried to provide themselves with everything they needed. They have not entered the market yet. However, with the growth of productive forces, the improvement of tools, there appeared surplus products that could be exchanged for handicraft goods. Cities began to take shape as centers of trade and crafts. They were also strongholds of defense against external enemies.

The city, as a rule, arose on a hill, at the confluence of rivers. The central part of the city was called the Kremlin, Krom or Detinets. It was protected by a rampart on which a fortress wall was erected. There were courts of princes, major feudal lords, temples, monasteries. The Kremlin had the shape of a triangle. From two sides it was protected by rivers - a natural water barrier. On the third side, they dug a moat filled with water. Bargaining was located behind the moat. The settlements of artisans adjoined the Kremlin. The handicraft part of the city was called a settlement, and separate handicraft areas inhabited by people of the same specialty were called settlements.

In most cases, cities were built on trade routes. One of the most important trade routes was the route from the "Varangians to the Greeks": through the Western Dvina and the Volkhov with its tributaries, through the portage system, ships were dragged to the Dnieper, reached the Black Sea and further along the sea coast - to Byzantium. This path was fully developed in the 9th century. * “Obrok” - payment to the feudal lord in money or products. "Corvee" - working out duties for the feudal lord Another of the oldest trade routes was the Volga route, connecting Russia with the countries of the East. Communication with Western Europe was maintained by land roads. By the time the Old Russian state was formed, several large cities already existed: Kyiv, Novgorod, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Smolensk, Murom, and others. In total, in Russia in the 9th century. There were 25 major cities. The tribal reigns of the Eastern Slavs united into a single state in the 9th century. By the time the Old Russian state was formed, three large Slavic tribal unions had united: Kuyava - the land around Kyiv, Slavia - the area of ​​\u200b\u200bLake Ilmen with the center of Novgorod, Artania - the region is not exactly defined by historians, they are called the Baltic, Carpathians, North-Eastern Russia.

Chronicler early XII century, the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nestor connects the formation of the Old Russian state with the calling to Novgorod of the Varangian princes, three brothers: Rurik, Sineus, Truvor (*). According to this legend, the northern tribes, the Ilmenian Slavs paid tribute to the Varangians, and the southern Slavs, the Polans and their neighbors were dependent on the Khazars. In 859 the Novgorodians expelled the Varangians across the sea. But they could not stop the internecine war between themselves. The Novgorodians who gathered at the Council decided to send for the Varangian princes: "Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no dress (order) in it. Yes, go reign and rule over us" (*), it is said in the annals. So power over Novgorod and the surrounding lands passed into the hands of the Varangian princes: Rurik settled in Novgorod, Sineus - on Beloozero, Truvor - in Izborsk. There are other historical versions. So in the Novgorod chronicle of the late XV century. appeared a new version the appearance of the Varangians, according to which Rurik and his retinue were called to serve in Novgorod on the advice of the posadnik Gostomysl. After the death of the childless Gostomysl, Rurik seized power in the city.

4.1. Old Russian state (IX-XII centuries)

Prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian state. "Norman Theory"

Political organization

community development

Economic Relations in Old Russian Society

Christianization of Russia

Prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian state. "Norman Theory". One of the largest states of the European Middle Ages became in the IX-XII centuries. Kievan Rus. With all the debatability of the issue of defining the state, it seems to us that the state should be understood as a mechanism of political power: 1) in a certain territory; 2) with a certain system of governing bodies; 3) with the necessary action of laws and 4) the formation of enforcement agencies (team - functions: external - protection from external intrusions and internal (police) - suppression of resistance within the state).

The emergence of the state is a natural stage in the development of society. It is influenced by many factors that are in complex interaction with each other. We should probably talk not about single, but about a group of factors affecting specific areas of the life of human society: social, economic, political, spiritual.

Unlike other countries, both eastern and western, the process of formation of Russian statehood had its own specific features.

Spatial and geopolitical situation - The Russian state occupied a middle position between Europe and Asia and did not have pronounced, natural geographical boundaries within a large flat area.

In the course of its formation, Russia acquired the features of both eastern and western state formations.

The need for constant protection from external enemies of a large territory forced peoples with different types of development, religion, culture, language to rally, create a strong state power and have a people's militia.

In the 7th-10th centuries Slavic tribes unite in unions and unions of unions (super unions). According to B. A. Rybakov, the emergence of tribal unions is the final stage in the development of a tribal political organization and, at the same time, a preparatory stage for feudal statehood. I. A. Froyanov also saw in the political organization of superunions a concentration of germs of statehood.

The question of the origin of statehood in Russia was covered in various periods of history, taking into account political and dynastic factors.

In the XVIII century. German scientists in the Russian service G. Bayer, G. Miller developed the Norman theory, according to which the state in Russia was created by the Normans (Varangians). M. Lomonosov spoke out against this concept, initiating a controversy between Normanists and anti-Normanists. Some leading Russian historians - N. Karamzin, M. Pogodin, V. Klyuchevsky - generally accepted the concept of the Normanists. Many Russian scientists of the XVIII-XIX centuries. stood on the positions of anti-Normanism.

In the Soviet period of history, when the social-class approach to the study of the problem was absolutized, the version of the calling of the Varangians was generally rejected, respectively, their role in the formation of the ancient Russian state. In foreign literature, the Normanist view of the formation of the state among the Eastern Slavs prevails. Among modern domestic historians, the opinion prevails that the state among the Eastern Slavs finally took shape in connection with the emergence of land ownership, the emergence of feudal relations and classes at the turn of the 8th-10th centuries. However, this does not reject the influence of the subjective factor - the personality of Rurik himself in the formation of the state.

Closest to the historical truth in the coverage of the initial period of the development of Russia, apparently, was one of the early historians, the monk-chronicler Nestor. In The Tale of Bygone Years, there are two concepts of the origin of the state among the Eastern Slavs:

Varangian, Novgorod;

Slavic, Kievan in origin.

Nestor presents the beginning of the formation of Kievan Rus as a creation in the VI century. powerful union of Slavic tribes in the middle Dnieper. In his story about the pre-Varangian period, information is given about three brothers - Kyi, Shchek and Khoriv, ​​originally from the Slavs. The elder brother Kyi, the chronicler notes, was not a carrier across the Dnieper, as some people think, but was a prince and went on a campaign even to Constantinople. Kiy was the ancestor of the Slavic dynasty of princes, and Kyiv was the administrative center of the polyan tribal association.

Further, the chronicler Nestor claims that the tribes of the Ilmen Slavs, Krivichi and Chud, who were at war with each other, invited the Varangian prince to restore order. Prince Rurik (?-879) allegedly arrived with the brothers Sineus and Truvor. He himself ruled in Novgorod, and his brothers - in Beloozero and Izborsk. Quite controversial is the "argument" of the Normanists that the Varangian king Rurik was invited with the brothers Sineus and Truvor, the fact of whose existence history does not report anything else. Meanwhile, the phrase "Rurik came with relatives and squad" in the Old Swedish language sounds like this: "Rurik came with sine hus (his family) and true thief (faithful squad)." The Varangians laid the foundation for the grand ducal dynasty of Rurikovich. With the death of Rurik, under his young son Igor, King (Prince) Oleg (? -912), nicknamed the Prophet, becomes the guardian. After a campaign against Kyiv and the murder of Askold and Dir, he manages to unite the Novgorod and Kiev lands in 882 into the Old Russian state - Kievan Rus from the capital

tsey in Kyiv, by definition of the prince - "the mother of Russian cities." From here, Oleg conquered other Slavic and non-Slavic tribes, made campaigns against Byzantium. The chronicler emphasized the exceptional role of Oleg in creating a strong state, who brought the Slavic tribes out of subordination to the Khazars and established normal diplomatic and trade relations with Byzantium through treaties.

The initial instability of the state association, the desire of the tribes to maintain their isolation sometimes had tragic consequences. So, Prince Igor (? -945), when collecting traditional tribute (polyudye) from subject lands, having demanded a significant excess of its size, was killed. Princess Olga (945-957), Igor's widow, having cruelly avenged her husband, nevertheless fixed the size of the Tribute by setting "lessons", and determined the places (graveyards) and the timing of its collection (moreover, 2/3 tributes were left on the ground, and "/ 3 went to the center - thus, the beginning of the formation of the tax system was laid. Under Olga, external campaigns were reduced, which made it possible to spend significant funds on internal problems in the state. Olga was the first of the representatives of the Russian princely house to be baptized (according to the Orthodox rite). Olga's son and Igor Svyatoslav (942-972) combined state activity with military leadership.During his reign, he annexed the lands of the Vyatichi, defeated the Volga Bulgaria, conquered the Mordovian tribes, defeated the Khazar Khaganate, conducted successful operations in the North Caucasus and the Azov coast, etc. to Byzantium, Svyatoslav's detachment was defeated by the Pechenegs, and Svyatoslav himself was killed.

The unifier of all the lands of the Eastern Slavs in the Kievan Rus was the son of Svyatoslav - Vladimir (960-1015), nicknamed the Red Sun by the people, subjugating all the Eastern Slavs to Kiev and creating a line of defense against the raids of numerous nomads with the help of fortress cities.

At present, hardly any serious scholar denies the significance of the Varangian element in the final unification of the Slavic and non-Slavic tribes in the 9th century. Disagreements take place on the question of what was their role in this and whether the Slavs had state formations before the Varangians. These questions are decided depending on the idea of ​​what a state is.

Representatives of the state school in Russian historical science, for example, understanding the “political unity of people's life” by the state, believed that tribal relations dominated in Kievan Rus, which were then replaced by patrimonial (territorial) ones. The state in Russia, in their opinion, arose only in the 16th century. (S. Solovyov) or even in the XVII century. (K. Kavelin).

However, if we do not reduce the concept of the state only to political institutions of power, but consider it as a certain territory, then we must admit that the Russian land as a whole, subject to the Kievan princes, took shape in the second half of the 9th-beginning of the 10th century, i.e. during the Varangian period. The main form of political unification of the tribes was military democracy, which included, along with princely power, such institutions as

like a veche, a council of elders, a people's militia. As you grow external danger and the decomposition of the tribal way of life, there was a concentration of power in the hands of tribal leaders - princes, united in larger "unions of unions". There is an assumption according to which three state centers originally arose:

Kuyaba around Kyiv;

Slavia around Novgorod;

Artania around presumably Ryazan.

On this territory, the formation of a single territorial community began - the Russian land, which, in its political structure, was a federation of Slavic tribes.

In general, the emergence of statehood in Russia was caused primarily by internal reasons, the same type for the entire European civilization. But if in Western and Southern Europe the emergence of new "barbarian" states proceeded at an accelerated pace, relying on the traditions of late antiquity, then in Russia the pace of political unification of the Slavic tribes was slow. In addition, the constant raids of nomadic tribes, the organization, in turn, of campaigns against Byzantium, the need to regulate internal social relations - all this contributed to the strengthening of princely power, which, under the conditions of the federal structure of Kievan Rus, increasingly acquired the character of an early feudal monarchy.

Thus, although the state of the Eastern Slavs finally took shape in the "Varangian period", the Varangians themselves appeared in Russia after the economic and political prerequisites for unification had already fully developed in the Russian lands. The annalistic news about the calling of the Varangians, apparently, contains much more real facts than is sometimes thought, and therefore, perhaps, all this should not be reduced to a legend. However, the invitation of the Varangians does not mean that they were the creators of the Russian state. This is probably about inviting the Varangians primarily as mercenaries (V. Klyuchevsky). Therefore, their role in the process of state formation was rather modest, despite the fact that one of their leaders managed to establish a ruling dynasty.

The problem of the Varangians (Normans) is a pan-European problem. Varangian "waves" from Scandinavia went in two directions: one - along the Dnieper, the other - along the western outskirts of Europe - and met in Constantinople. Viking campaigns to the West were of an important nature. No one in the West invited the Normans, they came on their own, and even more so, being a backward people, the Varangians, of course, did not bring statehood to any people of the West. Having conquered a number of state formations in Western Europe, the Normans gradually dissolved among the local population. The same process took place in the Slavic territory (S. A. Kislitsyn). The Varangians appeared with a very specific goal - to take control of the most important trade route, which also opened up favorable opportunities for Constantinople. Therefore, relations between the Varangians, on the one hand, Slavs and Finns, on the other, were not as peaceful as about this

narrates Nestor. Rather, the struggle of the Slavic and Finnish tribes with the Varangian invasion was full of drama. But this cannot be called a conquest either, since the Varangians did not have the necessary forces to conquer the vast territories of the Slavs.

It is also impossible to recognize the Varangians as the creators of statehood for the Slavs for other reasons. Where are any noticeable traces of the influence of the Varangians on the socio-economic and political institutions Slavs? To their language and culture? On the contrary, in Russia there was only Slavic, not Swedish. and treaties of the 10th century. with Byzantium, the embassy of the Kiev prince, which included, by the way, the Varangians of the Russian service, issued only in two languages ​​- Russian and Greek, without traces of Swedish terminology. At the same time, in the Scandinavian sagas, service to Russian princes is defined as a sure path to acquiring glory and power, and Russia itself is defined as a country of untold riches.

Political organization. The history of Kievan Rus, the chronological framework of which most historians define as the 9th-beginning of the 12th centuries, can be conditionally divided into three periods:

IX-mid X century. - initial, the time of the first Kiev princes;

second half of the X-first half of the XI century. - the time of Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise, the heyday of Kievan Rus;

the second half of the XI-beginning of the XII century, the transition to territorial and political fragmentation.

The East Slavic state was formed at the turn of the 9th-10th centuries, when the Kiev princes gradually subdued the East Slavic unions of tribal principalities. The leading role in this process was played by the military service nobility - the retinue of the Kievan princes.

Some of the unions of tribal principalities were subdued by the Kievan princes in two stages:

unions of tribal principalities paid tribute, while maintaining internal autonomy. In the 2nd half of the X century. tribute was levied in fixed amounts, in kind or in cash;

at the second stage, the unions of tribal principalities were directly subordinated. The local reign was liquidated, and a representative of the Kiev dynasty was appointed as a governor.

The lands of the Drevlyans, Dregovichi, Radimichi and Krivichi were subordinated in the 9th-10th centuries. (Drevlyans - by the middle of the 10th century). The Vyatichi fought for their independence the longest (they were subordinate to the second half of the 10th century).

The elimination of the "autonomy" of all East Slavic unions of tribal principalities meant the completion of the formation by the end of the 10th century. territorial structure of the state of Russia.

Territories within the framework of a single early feudal state, ruled by princes - vassals of the Kiev ruler, received the name volost. In general, in the X century. the state was called "Rus", "Russian land".

The structure of the state was finally formalized under Prince Vladimir (980-1015). He put his sons to reign in the 9 largest centers of Russia.

the unification of all East Slavic (and part of the Finnish) tribes under the rule of the Grand Duke of Kiev;

the acquisition of overseas markets for Russian trade and the protection of trade routes that led to these markets;

protection of the borders of the Russian land from the attack of the steppe nomads.

The ancient Russian state in the form of government is an early feudal monarchy. In addition to the monarchical element, which is undoubtedly the basis, the political organization of the Russian principalities of the Kievan period also had a combination of aristocratic and democratic rule.

The monarchical element was the prince. The head of state was the Grand Duke of Kyiv, who, however, in Ancient Russia was not an autocratic ruler (but rather was "first among equals"). His brothers, sons and warriors carried out: 1) government of the country, 2) court, 3) collection of tribute and duties.

The main function of the prince was military, the first duty was the defense of the city from external enemies. Among other functions - judicial. He appointed local judges to deal with cases among his charges. In important cases, he judged himself as the supreme judge.

The aristocratic element was represented by the Council (Boyar Duma), which included senior warriors - the local nobility, representatives of cities, and sometimes the clergy. At the Council, as an advisory body under the prince, the most important state issues were resolved (the full composition of the council was convened if necessary): the election of the prince, the declaration of war and peace, the conclusion of treaties, the issuance of laws, the consideration of a number of judicial and financial cases, etc. The Boyar Duma symbolized rights and autonomy vassals and had the right to veto.

The younger squad, which included boyar children and youths, yard servants, as a rule, was not included in the Prince's Council. But when resolving the most important tactical issues, the prince usually consulted with the squad as a whole. It is widely believed (G. V. Vernadsky) that the boyars were completely free in their service to the prince. The boyar could always leave his court or enter the service of another prince. However, since the boyars became landowners, they could only do so by sacrificing their rights to the land. Sometimes it happened that a boyar, who was the owner of land in one principality, served the prince of another. Nevertheless, usually the growth of land holdings forced the boyars to more often combine their interests with the principality where they lived.

With the participation of princes, noble boyars and representatives of cities, feudal congresses also met, at which issues affecting the interests of all principalities were considered. A management apparatus was formed that was in charge of legal proceedings, the collection of duties and tariffs. From among the combatants, the prince appointed posadniks - governors to manage the city, region; voivode-leaders (voivode: big, great, city, local, military,

the oldest, etc.) of various military units; thousand - senior officials (in the so-called decimal system of the military-administrative division of society, dating back to the pre-state period); collectors of land taxes - tributaries, court officials - virniki, porches, collectors of trade duties - collectors. The rulers of the princely patrimonial economy - tiuns - also stood out from the squad (later they became special government officials and were included in the state administration system).

Democratic control is found in the city assembly, known as the veche. It was not a body of representatives, but a meeting of all grown men. Unanimity was essential for any decision to be made. In practice, it happened that this requirement led to armed clashes between groups arguing at the veche. The losing side was forced to agree with the decision of the winners. The veche in the capital of the principality influenced the veche of smaller cities. In the XI-XII centuries. Veche fell under the influence of social leaders, losing the functions of management and self-government (A.P. Novoseltsev).

An important feature of Kievan Rus, which developed as a result of constant danger, especially from the steppe nomads, was the general armament of the people, organized according to the decimal system (hundreds, thousands). It was the numerous people's militia that often decided the outcome of battles, and it was not subordinate to the prince, but to the veche. But as a democratic institution, it was already in the 11th century. began to gradually lose its dominant role, retaining its strength for several centuries only in Novgorod, Kyiv, Pskov and other cities, continuing to exert a noticeable influence on the course of the socio-political life of the Russian land.

Community development. Russian political institutions of the Kiev period were based on a free society. There were no insurmountable barriers between different social groups of free people, there were no hereditary castes or classes, and it was still easy to leave one group and end up in another. The existence of social classes in Russia at that time can only be spoken of with reservations (G. V. Vernadsky).

The main social groups of this period:

the upper classes - princes, boyars and other owners of large landed estates, rich merchants in cities;

middle class - merchants and craftsmen (in cities), owners of medium and small estates (in rural areas);

the lower classes are the poorest artisans and peasants who settled in state lands. In addition to free people, in Kievan Rus there were also semi-free and slaves.

At the top of the social ladder were the princes, headed by the Grand Duke of Kiev. From the middle of the XI century. appanage principalities appear in Russia - "fatherlands" of individual princes. These are, for example, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Smolensk and other principalities. "Fathers" were the property of the entire princely family. They were inherited in accordance with the "queue".

In addition to princely boyars - governors, governors of regions, there was also a tribal aristocracy - "deliberate child": children of former local princes, tribal and tribal elders, relatives of the first two groups. They also went on overseas campaigns with the Kiev princes, but were closely connected with a certain territory on which their fortified settlements with rich lands stood from time immemorial (T. V. Chernikova).

In general, the boyars were a group of heterogeneous origins. It was based on the descendants of the old clan aristocracy of the Ants. Some of the boyars, especially in Novgorod, came from merchant families. With the growth of princely power in Kiev, the princely environment became an important factor in the formation of the boyar class. The squad included Normans and Slavs, as well as knights and adventurers of other nationalities, such as Ossetians, Circassians, Magyars and Turks - those who craved military glory and wealth under the banner of the Kievan prince.

In the IX-X centuries. merchants were closely connected with princely power, since the princes who collected tribute themselves organized trading expeditions to sell this tribute in Constantinople or somewhere in the East.

Later, "private" merchants also appeared. A significant part of them were small traders (like the later peddlers). Wealthy merchants carried out large operations inside and outside Russia. Less wealthy merchants founded their own guilds or united in family companies.

Craftsmen of each specialty usually settled and traded on the same street, forming their own association or "street" guild. In other words, artisans organized themselves into professional groups of one type or another, which later became known as artels.

With the growth of the church, a new social group appeared, the so-called church people. This group included not only the clergy and their families, but also members of various charitable institutions supported by the church, as well as freed slaves. The Russian clergy was divided into two groups: the "black clergy" (that is, monks) and the "white clergy" (priests and deacons). According to Byzantine rules, only monks were ordained bishops in the Russian Church. Contrary to the practice of the Roman Church, Russian priests were usually chosen from those who wished.

The free population of Russia was usually called "people". The bulk of it was made up of peasants. In rural areas, the traditional large family-community (zadruga) was gradually replaced by smaller families and individual land owners. Even if several neighbors owned the land in common, each developed his site individually. In addition to the communal landowners, there was also a group of peasants who sat on state lands, known as smerds. These were still free people who were under the special protection and special jurisdiction of the prince. For the use of the allotment, they paid quitrent in kind and performed work: transport, construction or repair of houses, roads, bridges, etc. They had to pay a state tax (the so-called tribute), which was not

neither city dwellers nor middle-class landowners paid. If the smerd did not have a son, the land was returned to the prince.

Purchases belonged to the dependent category of the peasantry - people who took a kupa (in debt). If it was possible to return the kupa, while paying cuts (interest), the person became free again, if not, a slave. In the patrimony they worked on the master's plow or in the master's house under the supervision of the ryadoviches. Ryadovichi - people who entered the service under the "row" (contract).

The most disenfranchised members of society were serfs and servants. Slavery in Kievan Rus was of two kinds - temporary and permanent. The latter, known as "full slavery", was hereditary. The main mass of temporary slaves were prisoners of war. In the end, prisoners of war were released for a ransom. If someone was not able to pay for it, then he remained at the disposal of the one who captured him, and what he earned was counted towards the ransom. When the entire amount was collected, the prisoner of war was released. Full slaves were considered the property of their master and could be bought and sold. Some of them were used in the family craft, the rest worked in the field. There have been cases where artisan slaves have reached a certain level of skill and gradually become able to pay for their freedom. On the other hand, if a free man lost his property as a result of a raid by steppe nomads or for another reason and found himself in a desperate situation, he could give himself into slavery (by this act, of course, he excluded himself from the ranks of citizens). He had another choice: to borrow money to work for his creditor and pay him. This made him "semi-free", temporarily tied to his creditor. If he succeeded in fulfilling his obligations, his civil rights were restored; if he broke the agreement and tried to hide from his master, he became the latter's slave.

Economic relations in ancient Russian society. The main economic occupations of the Slavs were agriculture, animal husbandry, hunting, fishing, and crafts.

Agriculture played the main role in the economy of Kievan Rus. Farming was the main occupation for 90% of the population. Gradually, the slash-and-burn system of agriculture is replaced by a two- and three-field system, which leads to the seizure of communal lands by rich and noble people.

The new level of development of the productive forces, the transition to plow agriculture, with the formation of relations of personal and land dependence, gave the new production relations a feudal character.

It should be noted that the term "feudalism" is largely arbitrary, since the feud (Late Latin feodum) is only one of the forms of medieval property in the Western European region.

Nevertheless, feudalism should be understood as an agrarian (pre-industrial) society of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the New Age, which is characterized by:

combination of major land ownership with the small peasant economy subordinated to it;

2) ownership of land - the privilege of people performing military or public service;

land becomes the main means of extracting wealth;

3) natural character of the economy;

4) corporate (estate) organization of both the ruling stratum and direct producers (peasants, artisans);

5) the dominance of religion in the spiritual sphere, i.e. in culture, ideology, worldview of people.

The process of development of feudalism in all the early medieval states of Europe was of the same type (including in Russia).

Firstly, at the initial stage of the development of feudal relations, direct producers were subordinate to state power. The latter relied on the service nobility of the ruler (king, prince), coinciding mainly with the state apparatus. The main form of dependence of the peasants was state taxes: land tax (tribute), judicial taxes (virals, sales), etc.

Secondly, the folding of individual large landed property (the so-called seigneurial, or patrimonial) is gradually taking place.

In modern historical science, there are two main concepts that interpret the issues of the political, social and economic structure of the ancient Russian state in different ways.

According to the concept of the pre-feudal nature of the social system of Kievan Rus, the socio-economic basis of ancient Russian society was communal land ownership and free communal peasants (I. Ya. Froyanov). There was also private land ownership - the estates of princes, boyars, churches. Slaves and semi-free people worked for them.

Most historians attribute Kievan Rus to the early feudal states, agreeing with the concept of B. D. Grekov.

According to this concept, large-scale feudal ownership of land took shape in Russia in the 10th-12th centuries. in the form of princely, boyar estates and church possessions. The feudal patrimony (patrimony, that is, paternal possession) becomes a form of landed property, not only alienable (with the right to buy and sell), but also inherited. The peasants living on it not only paid tribute to the state, but also became land dependent on the feudal lord (boyar), paying him rent in kind for using the land or working off corvee. However, a significant number of residents were still independent peasants-communes, who paid tribute in favor of the state to the Grand Duke.

The features of the socio-economic system of Kievan Rus were reflected in the Russkaya Pravda, a genuine code of ancient Russian feudal law. This document was valid until the 15th century. and consisted of separate norms, namely:

"Ancient Truth" or "Truth of Yaroslav";

"Law Russian";

Additions to Yaroslav's Pravda (regulations on collectors of court fines, etc.);

“Pravda Yaroslavichi” (“Pravda of the Russian Land”, approved by the sons of Yaroslav the Wise);

The charter of Vladimir Monomakh, which included the "Charter on cuts" (percentage), "Charter on purchases", etc.;

"Spread Truth".

The main trend in the evolution of Russkaya Pravda was the gradual expansion of legal norms from the princely law to the environment of the squad, from the definition of fines for various crimes against the person, a colorful description of the city, to attempts to codify the norms of the early feudal law that had developed by that time.

The degree of lack of freedom was determined by the economic situation of the peasant: smerdy, ryadovichi, purchases - landowners, who for one reason or another became partially dependent on the feudal lords, worked out a significant part of the time on patrimonial lands.

In Pravda Yaroslavichi, the device of the patrimony as a form of land ownership and organization of production was reflected. Its center was the mansions of the prince or boyar, the houses of his confidants, the stables, the barnyard. The fiefdom was ruled by an ognischanin - the prince's butler. The princely entrance was engaged in the collection of taxes. The work of the peasants was led by ratai (arable) and village elders. The patrimonial economy had an exclusively natural character: everything necessary for life was produced inside the patrimony and consumed by its inhabitants.

The natural conditions of Russia contributed to the development of cattle breeding. Many articles of Russkaya Pravda protect the rights of the owner of livestock, punishing the taty (thief) with vira. True, social inequality is also observed here: the prince's horse is protected by a greater fine than the horse of a smerd.

From the 9th to the 11th century there was a process of separation of handicraft from agriculture. Although the bulk of household items were made in peasant houses and the economy remained natural, craft workshops already operated in the cities, working mainly to order, and sometimes changing or selling their products on the market.

In Kievan Rus, more than 60 types of crafts were developed (carpentry, pottery, linen, leather, blacksmithing, weapons, jewelry, etc.). The art of metallurgy also reached a relatively high level. Construction was also well developed. In Northern Russia, houses were made of wood, which was in abundance. In the X and XI centuries. the mastery of masonry passed to Russia from Byzantium.

The growth of wealth among the upper classes was expressed in a craving for a certain sophistication of life and a desire for luxury. Lush outfits came into fashion. New needs were partially satisfied by the import of goods, but at the same time the domestic craft was improved. Woolen clothing was also produced in Kievan Rus, it was used for the most part in winter. In Northern Russia, during a long and harsh winter, fur clothing was needed. This stimulated both the hunting of fur animals and the manufacture of fur products.

Kievan Rus was famous for its cities. At first they were fortresses, political centers. Overgrown with new settlements, they became the basis of handicraft production and trade. In the X-XI centuries. a new generation of political and trade and craft centers is being created: Ladoga, Suzdal, Yaroslavl, Murom, etc.

V. O. Klyuchevsky called Ancient Russia “commercial, policeman”. By this he emphasized the importance of cities and trade in the life of Russian society in the 9th-12th centuries. Evidence of the importance of trade during this period was the increased role of markets in the life of each city. Trade was no less important than political life and government, all official announcements were made in trading places. All sorts of goods were sold and bought there, and a local fair was convened once a week.

It is interesting that the internal trade in Russia, especially in the 9th-10th centuries, was predominantly of an "exchange" character. Then, along with the exchange, the monetary form appears. Initially, cattle (leather money) and furs (marten fur) acted as money. Russkaya Pravda also mentions metallic money. The hryvnia kun (an ingot of silver of an oblong shape) served as the main counting metal unit. Having existed on the ancient Russian market until the 14th century, this monetary unit was replaced by the ruble. The minting of their own coins in Russia began in the 10th-11th centuries, along with it, foreign coins also circulated.

Of particular importance in the economic life of Kievan Rus acquired external economic relations. Russian merchants were well known abroad, they were provided with significant benefits and privileges. Among the five most important main trade routes - Constantinople-Byzantine, Trans-Caspian-Baghdad, Bulgarian, Reginsburg and Novgorod-Scandinavian - the first two were of the greatest importance at the beginning.

In Russia, merchants and usurers conducted large credit operations. Many mutual settlements, until the hryvnia accumulated, were recorded. This is evidenced by ancient birch bark letters found in Novgorod. Most of them are notes like: “So-and-so owes me...” Moreover, they were usually written by townspeople. And this is at a time when french king Henry I couldn't even write his own name!

Christianization of Russia. Conversion to Christianity is one of the most important milestones in the history of the Russian people. Traditionally, in domestic historiography, the significance of the adoption of Christianity was reduced to the development of writing and culture, while in foreign literature this fact was recognized as decisive and paramount for the formation of Kievan statehood. Modern historians consider this event in line with the synthesis of civilizational and class approaches and emphasize the special role of Orthodoxy in the formation of the East Slavic civilization (G. N. Serdyukov).

In ancient Russian society, for a long time there were customs and rituals associated with the cult of nature and the dead, but gradually they gave way to a more organized cult with its inherent internal hierarchy of various deities. Each union of tribes had its own "chief god".

But the process of creating an ancient Russian unified state objectively required the establishment of a certain religious and ideological community and the transformation of Kyiv into the religious center of the Slavs. In 980, Prince Vladimir made an attempt to officially switch to monotheism based on the cult of Perun, but due to the resistance of the allied tribes who worshiped other gods, the reform failed. After that, the prince turned to world religions: Christian, Mohammedan and Jewish. After listening to the representatives of these cults, the prince, as the chronicler Nestor wrote, made a choice in favor of Christianity, given that this gave access to both Byzantium and Rome. During the period under review, the Christian, Mohammedan and Jewish confessions fought for influence in the Slavic lands. Choosing Christianity, the Kyiv prince took into account that the Roman Church demanded the subordination of secular rulers, while the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople recognized:

a certain dependence of the church on the state;

allowed the use various languages in worship, and not just Latin.

The geographical proximity of Byzantium and the adoption of Christianity by the Bulgarian tribes related to the Rus was also taken into account. In addition, the presence of many holidays and the splendor of worship in Orthodoxy attracted Vladimir's attention.

The process of adoption of Christianity had an interesting history. The first reliable information about the penetration of Christianity into Russia dates back to the 9th century. Christians were among the combatants of Prince Igor, Princess Olga was a Christian. In Kyiv there was a Christian community and the church of St. Elijah. In 987, the Byzantine emperor Basil II begged Vladimir to help him put down the uprising of Vardas Fokas and Vardas Skleros in Asia Minor. The prince provided assistance on the condition that the emperor's sister Anna would be given to him as his wife. This condition was accepted in exchange for a promise to convert to Christianity. By the way, the close family relations of the ruling dynasties, in turn, excluded the vassal dependence of the young Russian state on the Byzantine center of Christianity.

In 988, Prince Vladimir converted to the Christian faith, and it acquires the status state religion on the territory of Kievan Rus. The spread of Christianity proceeded both by persuasion and by coercion, encountering resistance from converts to the new religion. Some people tore their hair and cried, watching how the combatants threw the wooden Perun with a silver head and a golden mustache into the Dnieper and pushed him with poles so that he would not dare to land on the shore, to the Dnieper rapids. Grand Duke's uncle Dobrynya baptized Novgorod with a sword and fire. The stone idol was drowned in Volkhov. True, until the 20th century. travelers threw a coin to the “drowned man” so that this, now underwater, ruler would not harm them (T. V. Chernikova). And in baptized Russia until the XIV century. bonfires were secretly burning in the wilds of the forest, and pagan priests - sorcerers - performed sacred rites around them. Over the following centuries, in rural areas there was dual faith - a kind of combination of previous ideas about the world of super-

natural, pagan mounds, violent holidays of native antiquity with elements of the Christian worldview.

A metropolitan appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople was placed at the head of the Russian Orthodox Church; separate regions of Russia were headed by bishops, to whom priests in cities and villages were subordinate.

The entire population of the country was obliged to pay a tax in favor of the church - "tithe" (the term comes from the size of the tax, which at first amounted to a tenth of the population's income). Subsequently, the size of this tax has changed, but its name has remained the same. The metropolitan chair, bishops, monasteries (the first of them was the Kiev Caves, founded in the first half of the 11th century, got its name from the caves - the caves in which the monks originally settled) soon turned into the largest landowners who had a huge impact on the course of the historical development of the country . In pre-Mongol times, there were up to 80 monasteries in Russia. In the hands of the church was the court, which was in charge of cases of anti-religious crimes, violations of moral and family norms.

Significance of adopting Christianity:

the adoption of Christianity strengthened state power and the territorial unity of Kievan Rus. "God's servant" - the sovereign was, according to Byzantine traditions, both a fair judge in domestic affairs, and a valiant defender of the state's borders;

there was a change in the status of Russia in the system of international relations. Russia has become a civilizational entity adhering to generally recognized norms and rules of conduct;

Kievan Rus entered the Byzantine ecumene and began to assimilate the ancient Judeo-Christian culture. This led to the flourishing of the Kievan state and the spread of a new culture, which was manifested in the construction of churches and the acquisition of writing. Important role played by the presence of educated Bulgarians who fled to Kyiv after the conquest of their country by Byzantium. Introducing the Cyrillic alphabet into practice, they also passed on their knowledge. Old Church Slavonic became the language of worship and religious literature. On the basis of the synthesis of this language and the East Slavic language environment, the Old Russian literary language was formed, in which Russkaya Pravda, chronicles, and The Tale of Igor's Campaign were written. Doctors and teachers appeared among the monks. Schools began to open at monasteries;

the adoption of Christianity led to a softening of morals: robbery and murder began to be viewed as the greatest sins, and before they were considered a sign of valor. Christian morality limited (as a rule, only in words) the greed of the rich, forced them to see commoners and even slaves as people;

Christianity in Russia was adopted in the eastern, Byzantine version, later called Orthodoxy, that is, the true faith. Russian Orthodoxy oriented a person towards spiritual transformation and had a huge impact on the formation of the mentality (public consciousness) of ancient Russian society. Unlike Catholicism, it is more

was an artistic, cultural, aesthetic value system than a political one. The Orthodox Church was characterized by the freedom of its inner life, its aloofness from secular power;

6) the Orthodox worldview spread - the desire to understand the meaning of life not in worldly wealth, but in inner spiritual unity. The traditional compassion of the Russian people received its affirmation in Christianity, in its attention to the poor, the sick and the poor, in the demand to help a person in trouble.

In general, the choice of Byzantine Orthodoxy by Ancient Russia as the state religion determined the features of the development of Russian civilization. Gradually, political, economic and cultural traditions similar to the Byzantine ones took shape in the country:

the predominance in church functions of teaching a person, and not explaining the world;

the desire to embody the divine ideal in worldly life.

However, Russia was not a passive object of application of the Byzantine

culture. Acquiring the Byzantine heritage, she herself provided strong influence on the political organization of society.

4.2. Russian lands and principalities in the XI-first half of the XIII century.

Reasons for fragmentation

Formation of new state centers

The value of the period of fragmentation in Russian history

Reasons for fragmentation. According to the generally accepted point of view, from the middle of the XI-beginning of the XII century. The ancient Russian state entered into new stage of its history - an era of political and feudal fragmentation.

Kievan Rus was a vast but unstable state entity. The tribes included in its composition, for a long time retained their isolation. Separate lands under the dominance of subsistence farming could not form a single economic space. In addition, in the XI-XII centuries. new factors are emerging that contribute to the fragmentation of this unstable state.

The main force of the disunity process was the boyars. Based on his power, the local princes managed to establish their power in every land. However, later inevitable contradictions arose between the strengthened boyars and local princes, the struggle for influence and power.

The growth of the population and, accordingly, the military potential of various regions of Russia became the basis for the formation of a number of sovereign principalities. There were civil strife among the princes.

The gradual growth of cities, trade and the economic development of individual lands led to the loss of Kiev's historical role in connection with the displacement

trade routes and the emergence of new centers of crafts and trade, increasingly independent of the capital of the Russian state.

There was a complication of the social structure of society, the birth of the nobility.

Finally, the absence of a serious external threat to the entire East Slavic community contributed to the collapse of the unified state. Later, this threat appeared from the Mongols, but the process of separating the principalities had already gone too far by that time.

In reality, these processes manifested themselves in the middle of the second half of the 11th century. Prince Yaroslav the Wise shortly before his death (1054) divided the lands among his five sons. But he did it in such a way that the possessions of his sons mutually divided each other; it was almost impossible to manage them independently. Yaroslav tried to solve two problems at once in this way:

on the one hand, he sought to avoid bloody strife between the heirs, which usually began after the death of the prince of Kiev: each of the sons received lands that were supposed to ensure his existence as a sovereign prince;

on the other hand, Yaroslav hoped that his children would jointly defend the all-Russian interests related primarily to the defense of the borders. The Grand Duke was not going to divide united Russia into independent, independent states; he only hoped that now it, as a whole, would be controlled not by one person, but by the entire princely family.

It is not quite clear how exactly the subordination of various lands to Kiev was ensured, how these lands were distributed among the princes. Described by historians of the XIX century. the principle of gradual (alternate) transfer of princes from one throne to another was rather an ideal scheme than a practically functioning mechanism (A. Golovatenko).

S. M. Solovyov, analyzing the political structure of Russia after Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054), came to the conclusion that the lands subject to the Grand Duke were not divided into separate possessions, but were considered as a common property of the entire Yaroslavich family. The princes received for temporary management any part of this common property - the better, the "older" this or that prince was considered. Seniority, according to Yaroslav's plan, was to be determined as follows: all his brothers followed the ruling Kiev Grand Duke; after their death, their eldest sons inherited their father's places in a string of princes, gradually moving from less prestigious thrones to more significant ones. At the same time, only those princes whose fathers had time to visit the capital's reign could claim the title of Grand Duke. If some prince died before it was his turn to take the throne in Kyiv, then his descendants were deprived of the right to this throne and reigned somewhere in the province.

Such a system of "ladder ascent" - the "next order" of inheritance (V. O. Klyuchevsky), was very far from perfect and gave rise to constant strife between the brothers and children of the princes (the eldest son of the Grand Duke could take his father's throne only after the death of all his uncles) .

Disputes about seniority between uncles and nephews were a frequent occurrence in Russia (already Moscow) and in a later period, until in the 15th century. there was no established procedure for the transfer of power from father to son.

At every opportunity, the Yaroslavichi strove to break the order - of course, for the benefit of themselves or their closest relatives, allies. The "ladder scheme" proved unviable; the intricate order of succession was the reason for frequent strife, and the dissatisfaction of the princes, who were excluded from the line for power, led to the fact that they turned to the Hungarians, Poles, Polovtsy for help.

Thus, since the 1950s 11th century there was a process of determining the boundaries of future independent lands. Kyiv became the first among the principalities-states. Soon other lands caught up with him and even outstripped him in their development. A dozen and a half independent principalities and lands were formed, the borders of which were formed within the framework of the Kievan state as the boundaries of destinies, volosts, where local dynasties ruled.

As a result of crushing, the principalities stood out as independent, the names of which were given by the capital cities: Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Murmansk, Ryazan, Rostov-Suzdal, Smolensk, Galicia, Vladimir-Volyn, Polotsk, Turov-Pinsk, Tmutarakan, Novgorod and Pskov lands. In each of the lands, its own dynasty ruled - one of the branches of the Rurikovich. Political fragmentation, which replaced the early feudal monarchy, became a new form of state-political organization.

In 1097, on the initiative of the grandson of Yaroslav Pereyaslavl Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, a congress of princes gathered in the city of Lyubech. It established a new principle of organizing power in Russia - "everyone keeps his fatherland." Thus, the Russian land ceased to be the total possession of a whole family. The possessions of each branch of this kind - the fatherland - became her hereditary property. This decision consolidated feudal fragmentation. Only later, when Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125) became the Grand Duke of Kiev, as well as under his son Mstislav (1126-1132), the state unity of Russia was temporarily restored. Russia maintained relative political unity.

The beginning of the period of fragmentation (both political and feudal) should be considered from 1132. However, Russia was ready for disintegration a long time ago (it is no coincidence that V. O. Klyuchevsky defines the beginning of the “specific period”, that is, the period of independence of the Russian principalities, not 1132, and since 1054, when, according to the will of Yaroslav the Wise, Russia was divided between his children). Since 1132, the princes ceased to reckon with the Grand Duke of Kiev as the head of all Russia (T.V. Chernikova).

Some modern historians do not use the term "feudal fragmentation" to characterize the processes that took place in the Russian lands at the end of the 11th-beginning of the 12th centuries. They see the main reason for the fragmentation of Russia in the formation of city-states. The superunion led by Kiev broke up into a number of city-states, which, in turn, became

centers of land-volosts that arose on the territory of former tribal unions. According to these views, Russia from the beginning of the XII century. entered the period of existence of autonomous community unions, which took the form of city-states (I. Ya. Froyanov).

Formation of new state centers. The largest state centers into which Kievan Rus disintegrated, not inferior in terms of territory to large European states, were Vladimir-Suzdaliasay, Galicia-Volyn and Novgorod lands.

In the north-east of Russia, a large and independent Vladi Mir-Suzdal (or Rostov-Suzdal, as it was called at first) principality was formed.

The main factors that influenced the formation of a rich and powerful principality:

remoteness from the steppe nomads in the south;

landscape obstacles for easy penetration of the Varangians from the north;

possession of the upper reaches of the water arteries (Volga, Oka), through which wealthy Novgorod merchant caravans passed; good opportunities for economic development;

significant emigration from the south (population influx);

developed since the 11th century. a network of cities (Rostov, Suzdal, Murom, Ryazan, Yaroslavl, etc.);

very energetic and ambitious princes who headed the principality.

There was a direct relationship between the geographical features of North-Eastern Russia and the formation of a strong princely power. This region was colonized (developed) at the initiative of the princes. The lands were regarded as the property of the prince, and the population, including the boyars, as his servants. Vassal-druzhina relations, characteristic of the period of Kievan Rus, were replaced by princely-subordinate ones. As a result, in Northeast Russia developed a patrimonial system of power.

The names of Vladimir Monomakh and his son Yuri Dolgoruky (1125-1157) are connected with the formation and development of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality. He captured Kyiv and became the Grand Duke of Kiev; actively influenced the policy of Novgorod the Great. Ryazan and Murom fell under the influence of the Rostov-Suzdal princes. Yuri led the extensive construction of fortified cities on the borders of his principality (Rostov, Suzdal, Ryazan, Yaroslavl, etc.). Under 1147, the annals first mentioned Moscow, built on the site of the former estate of the boyar Kuchka, confiscated by Yuri Dolgoruky. Here, on April 4, 1147, Yuriy negotiated with the Chernigov prince Svyatoslav, who brought Yuriy the skin of a pardus (leopard) as a gift.

The share of the son and successor of Yuri - Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157-1174), nicknamed so for a significant reliance on the church, fell to the unification of Russian lands and the transfer of the center of all Russian political life from the rich boyar Rostov, first to a small town, and then built up with

seasoned speed Vladimir-on-Klyazma. Impregnable white-stone gates were built, the majestic Assumption Cathedral was erected. In the suburban residence of Bogolyubovo on a dark July night in 1174, Andrei was killed as a result of a conspiracy of the boyars, headed by the Kuchkovichi boyars, the former owners of Moscow.

The policy of uniting all Russian lands under the rule of one prince was continued by Andrey's half-brother, Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176-1212), nicknamed so for his large family. Under him, there was a significant strengthening of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, which became the strongest in Russia and one of the largest feudal states in Europe, the core of the future Muscovy. The author of The Tale of Igor's Campaign, emphasizing the power of Vsevolod, wrote that his soldiers could scoop out the Don with their helmets, and splash the Volga with oars.

Vsevolod influenced the politics of Novgorod, received a rich inheritance in the Kiev region, almost completely controlled the Ryazan principality, etc. Having completed the fight against the boyars, he finally established a monarchy in the principality. By this time, the nobility was increasingly becoming the backbone of princely power. It was made up of servicemen, military men, courtyards, servants who depended on the prince and received from him land for temporary use (estate), cash-in-kind payment or the right to collect princely income.

The economic rise of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality continued for some time under the sons of Vsevolod. However, at the beginning of the XIII century. there is its disintegration into destinies: Vladimir, Yaroslavl, Uglich, Pereyaslav, Yuryevsky, Murom. Principalities of North-Eastern Russia in the XIV-XV centuries. became the basis for the formation of the Moscow state.

As a result of the unification of the Galician and Volyn principalities in the south-west of the Russian land, the Galicia-Volyn principality arose.

Features and development conditions:

fertile lands for agriculture and vast forests for fishing activities;

significant deposits of rock salt, which was exported to neighboring countries;

convenient geographical position (neighborhood with Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic), which allowed for active foreign trade;

located in relative safety from the nomads of the land of the principality;

the presence of an influential local boyars, which fought for power not only among themselves, but also with the princes.

The Galician principality was significantly strengthened during the reign of Yaroslav Osmomysl (1153-1187). His successor, Prince of Volyn Roman Mstislavovich, in 1199 managed to unite the Volyn and Galician principalities. At the beginning of the 13th century, after the death of Roman Mstislavovich in 1205, an internecine war broke out in the principality with the participation of Hungarians and Poles. The son of Roman, Daniil of Galicia (1221-1264), broke the boyar resistance and in 1240, having occupied Kiev, he managed to unite the southwestern and Kiev lands. However, in that

In the same year, the Galicia-Volyn principality was ravaged by the Mongol-Tatars, and 100 years later these lands became part of Lithuania (Volyn) and Poland (Galych).

The largest center in the north-west of Russia was the Novgorod Boyar Republic. Novgorod land developed in a special way:

was far from the nomads and did not experience the horror of their raids;

wealth consisted in the presence of a huge land fund that fell into the hands of the local boyars, who grew out of the local tribal nobility;

Novgorod did not have enough of its own bread, but fishing activities - hunting, fishing, salt making, iron production, beekeeping - received significant development and gave considerable income to the boyars;

the rise of Novgorod was facilitated by an exceptionally favorable geographical position: the city was at the crossroads of trade routes connecting Western Europe with Russia, and through it with the East and Byzantium;

both in Novgorod and later in Pskov land (originally part of Novgorod), a socio-political system was formed - the boyar republic;

a favorable factor in the fate of Novgorod: he did not undergo a strong Mongol-Tatar plunder, although he paid tribute. In the struggle for the independence of Novgorod, Alexander Nevsky (1220-1263) became especially famous, who not only repulsed the onslaught of German-Swedish aggression (Battle of the Neva, Battle of the Ice), but also pursued a flexible policy, making concessions to the Golden Horde and organizing resistance to the offensive of Catholicism in the west;

The Novgorod Republic was close to the European type of development, similar to the city-republics of the Hanseatic League, as well as the city-republics of Italy (Venice, Genoa, Florence).

As a rule, Novgorod was ruled by that of the princes who held the throne of Kyiv. This allowed the eldest among the Rurik princes to control the great path "from the Varangians to the Greeks" and dominate Russia.

Using the dissatisfaction of the Novgorodians (the uprising of 1136), the boyars, which had significant economic power, managed to finally defeat the prince in the struggle for power. Novgorod became a boyar republic. The actual power belonged to the boyars, the higher clergy and eminent merchants.

All the highest executive bodies - posadniks (heads of government), thousands (heads of the city militia and judges for commercial affairs), bishop (head of the church, manager of the treasury, controlled the foreign policy of Veliky Novgorod), etc. - were replenished from the boyar nobility. However, senior officials were elected. So, for example, in the second half of the XII century. Novgorodians, like no one else in the Russian lands, began to choose their own spiritual shepherd - Vladyka (Archbishop of Novgorod).

On this land, earlier than in Europe, reformist tendencies appeared in relation to the church, anticipating the European reformation, and even atheistic moods (G. B. Polyak, A. N. Markova).

The position of the prince was peculiar. He did not have full state power, did not inherit Novgorod land, but was invited only to perform representative and military functions (professional warrior, head of the squad).

Any attempt by a prince to intervene in internal affairs inevitably ended in his expulsion (for over 200 years there were 58 princes).

The rights of the highest authority belonged to the people's assembly - the veche, which had broad powers:

consideration of the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy;

the invitation of the prince and the conclusion of an agreement with him;

the election of an important trade policy for Novgorod, the election of a posadnik, a judge for commercial affairs, etc.

Along with the city-wide veche, there were “Konchansky” (the city was divided into five districts - the ends, and the entire Novgorod land into five regions - Pyatin) and “Ulichansky” (uniting street residents) veche gatherings. The actual owners of the veche were 300 "golden belts" - the largest boyars of Novgorod. By the 15th century they actually usurped the rights of the people's council.

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

there was a process of land fragmentation. With the exception of Veliky Novgorod, all the principalities were divided into internal destinies, the number of which grew from century to century. If by 1132 there were about 15 isolated territories, then at the beginning of the 13th century. There were already 50 independent principalities and destinies, and at the end of the 13th century. - 250.

On the one hand, the resistance of specific princes and boyars restrained the despotic aspirations of many senior princes who wanted to subordinate the life of entire principalities to their personal ambitious plans, to see slaves in their subjects, to execute and pardon not according to the custom or norms of Russkaya Pravda, but according to their own whim (T V. Chernikov).

But, on the other hand, often the specific princes, supported by the specific boyars, became the instigators of civil strife, tried to take over the senior table. The local aristocracy prepared conspiracies, revolted;

there were endless internecine wars. Contradictions between senior and junior princes within one principality, between princes of independent principalities, were often resolved through war. According to the calculations of S. M. Solovyov, from 1055 to 1228 in Russia there were 80 years of peace for 93 years in which strife occurred.

It was not the battles that were terrible, but their consequences. The victors burned and plundered villages and towns, and most importantly, captured numerous captives, turned captives into slaves, and resettled them on their lands. So, the grandson of Monomakh, Izyaslav of Kyiv, in 1149 took 7 thousand people from the Rostov land of his uncle Yuri Dolgoruky;

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

Western Europe experienced this relatively painlessly due to the absence of strong external aggression. For Russia, on the eve of the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the fall in defense capability turned out to be fatal.

4.3. The struggle of Russia for independence in the XIII century.

Mongol-Tatar invasion

Reflection of the aggression of the Swedish and German knights

For Russia, located between Europe and Asia, it has always been extremely important in which direction it will turn its face - to the East or to the West. Kievan Rus for some time maintained a neutral position between them, but the new political situation of the 13th century, the invasion of the Mongols and the crusade of European knights against Russia, which called into question the continued existence of the Russian people and their culture, forced them to make a definite choice. The fate of the country for many centuries depended on this choice.

Mongol-Tatar invasion. Mongolian tribes in the XII-XIII centuries. occupied the territory of modern Mongolia and Buryatia. At the beginning of the XIII century. they united under the rule of one of the khans - Temujin, who received the name Genghis Khan - "great khan", "sent by God" (1206-1227). In 1206, at the kurultai (congress of tribes), he was elected leader of the Mongol tribes.

The Mongols led a nomadic life, had a cavalry army with excellent organization and iron discipline, with a single command. Well armed with bows and sharp sabers, wearing helmets and leather armor, moving easily on fast horses, they were almost invulnerable to arrows. Even the highest Chinese military equipment for that time was used.

1211 - the beginning of the conquests of the Mongols, their direction - Northern China, the shores of the Caspian Sea, Armenia, the Caucasus, the Black Sea steppe, Siberia, Khorezm, Northern Iran and other lands. The tribes began to move towards the Russian lands.

Already in the first major clash in the Azov steppes on the river. Kalke (1223), the combined Russian forces and the Polovtsians could not resist the Mongols, clearly organized and welded into a single whole, where every ten was bound by mutual responsibility (everyone was punished for the fault of one). In addition, serious disagreements emerged between the Russian princes; absent-

there was support from the powerful princes of Kyiv and Vladimir. For the first time, Russia suffered a hard lesson - nine-tenths of the combined forces perished.

There is a point of view according to which in 1223 the Mongols did not go to Russia, but there was only a reconnaissance raid of the Mongols from Transcaucasia, moreover, directed exclusively against the Polovtsy (M. M. Shumilov, S. P. Ryabikin).

In 1235, a decision was made at the kurultai to invade Russian lands. The disunited Russian principalities, which once constituted Kievan Rus, were subjected in 1236-1240. defeat and ruin by the troops of Batu Khan - the grandson of Genghis Khan. Ryazan, Vladimir, Suzdal, Galich, Tver and other cities were taken.

In December 1240, the Galicia-Volyn principality was devastated. Of the 74 cities of Ancient Russia known to archaeologists, Batu ruined 49, and 15 of them turned into villages, and 14 disappeared altogether.

An interesting question is who nevertheless attacked Russia: the Mongols, Tatars or Mongol-Tatars? According to Russian chronicles - Tatars. This is not surprising, since the word itself, presumably, was borrowed from the Chinese, for whom all Mongolian tribes were "Tatars", that is, barbarians. Actually, they called the Tatars "white Tatars", while the Mongolian tribes to the north of them were called "black Tatars", emphasizing their savagery. Genghis Khan was referred to by the Chinese as "Black Tatars". At the beginning of the XIII century. in retaliation for the poisoning of his father, Genghis Khan ordered the destruction of the Tatars. Tatars as a military and political force ceased to exist. However, the Chinese continued to call the Mongol tribes Tatars, although the Mongols did not call themselves Tatars. Thus, the army of Batu Khan consisted of Mongol warriors, and modern Tatars have nothing to do with the Central Asian Tatars (V. JI. Egorov).

After the rout Southern Russia the conquerors moved to Europe, won victories in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and reached the borders of Germany and Italy. But, having lost significant forces on Russian soil, Batu returned to the Volga region, where he formed the powerful Golden Horde (1242).

So, the invasion of Russia took place in the period from 1236 to 1240. It is generally accepted that with the capture of Kyiv in 1240, the Mongol-Tatar yoke was established in Russia. After the invasion, the conquerors left the territory of Russia, periodically making punitive raids - more than 15 in a quarter of a century. During the first decade, the conquerors did not take tribute, engaging in robbery, but then they moved on to the long-term practice of collecting systematic tribute. Relations between Russia and the Golden Horde, called the "Tatar-Mongol yoke", had their own specific features:

the factor of remoteness of the oppressors from the vanquished;

the withdrawal of a fairly moderate tribute per capita;

the conclusion by the Russian princes of periodic alliances with the Golden Horde khans to protect the territories of their principalities;

the participation of Russian detachments in military campaigns organized by the Mongols.

The Tatar-Mongol yoke is the political, economic and cultural dependence of Russia on the Golden Horde. The term "yoke" in the meaning of oppression was first used in 1275 by Metropolitan Kirill.

The problem of the role of the Mongols in Russian history has been discussed by many historians over the past two centuries, but no agreement has been reached. Of the historians of the older generation, N. M. Karamzin, N. I. Kostomarov and F. I. Leontovich attached great importance to the Mongol influence on Russia. Karamzin was the author of the phrase: "Moscow owes its greatness to the khans"; he also noted the suppression of political freedoms and the tightening of morals, which he considered the result of Mongol oppression. Kostomarov emphasized the role of khan's labels in strengthening the power of the Moscow Grand Duke within his state. Leontovich conducted a special study of the Oirat (Kalmyk) codes of laws in order to demonstrate the influence of Mongolian law on Russian law.

On the contrary, S. M. Solovyov denied the importance of the Mongol influence on internal development Russia, except for its destructive aspects - raids and wars. Although briefly mentioning the dependence of the Russian princes on the khan's labels and tax collection, Soloviev opined that "we have no reason to recognize any significant influence (of the Mongols) on the (Russian) internal administration, since we do not see any traces of it."

V. O. Klyuchevsky made general remarks about the importance of the policy of the khans in the unification of Russia. Among historians of Russian law and the state, Solovyov's ideas were followed by M. A. Dyakonov, although he expressed his views more cautiously. V. M. Vladimirsky-Budanov allowed only a slight influence of Mongolian law on Russian. On the other hand, V. I. Sergeevich followed Kostomarov’s argument, as did (to a certain extent) P. N. Milyukov.

In modern historical science, there are two points of view on the Mongol yoke. The traditional one views it as a disaster for the Russian lands. Another - interprets the invasion of Batu as an ordinary raid of nomads.

According to the traditional point of view, the yoke is a fairly flexible system of rule, which changed depending on the political situation (first it was a bloody conquest and constant military raids, then economic oppression). The yoke included a number of measures:

in 1257-1259 a census of the Russian population was carried out by the Mongols to calculate tribute (household taxation, the so-called Horde output);

in the 50-60s. 13th century a military-political Basque organization took shape. Governors - Baskaks - with military detachments were appointed to the Russian lands. Their functions: keeping the population in obedience, control over the payment of tribute. The Basque system existed until the beginning of the 14th century. After a wave of uprisings in Russian cities (Rostov, Yaroslavl, Vladimir) in the second half of the XIII-beginning of the XIV century. the collection of tribute was transferred into the hands of the Russian princes.

Issuing yarlyks (letters) to the Russian princes for the great reign of Vladimir, the Horde used their rivalry for the grand prince's table

and kindled hostility between them. The princes in this struggle often resorted to the help of the Horde. In Russia, a hostage system was introduced. Almost every year, one of the Russian princes or their relatives was in the Horde.

Supporters of the traditional point of view assess the impact of the yoke on various aspects of the life of Russia extremely negatively:

there was a mass movement of the population, and with it the agricultural culture, to the west and north-west, to less convenient territories with a less favorable climate;

the political and social role of cities has sharply decreased;

the power of the princes over the population increased;

there was also a certain reorientation of the policy of the Russian princes to the East.

Another view sees the Mongol invasion not as a conquest, but as a "great cavalry raid":

only those cities that stood in the way of the army were destroyed;

the Mongols did not leave garrisons;

no permanent power was established;

with the end of the campaign, Batu went to the Volga.

Subsequently, the Grand Duke of Vladimir Alexander Nevsky (1252-1263) entered into a mutually beneficial alliance with Batu: Alexander found an ally in order to resist German aggression, and Batu - to emerge victorious in the fight against the great Khan Guyuk (Alexander Nevsky provided Batu with an army consisting of from Russians and Alans). The union existed as long as it was beneficial and necessary for both sides (L. N. Gumilyov).

N. M. Karamzin, who condemned the violence of the Horde over Russia, at the same time mistakenly believed that the khans did help her: they prevented the strengthening of specific fragmentation, led the Russian lands to autocracy. Such judgments, according to A. N. Sakharov, were not uncommon even before, and can sometimes be heard in our times. The fallacy of such views is obvious. Khans not only did not contribute to the unity of the Russian people, on the contrary, they kindled discord and discord. The old technique - "divide and conquer" - has been used by rulers everywhere and from time immemorial, and the Horde rulers were, of course, no exception.

Clarifying the concepts of "Mongol-Tatar invasion" and "Mongol-Tatar yoke" ("Horde yoke"), it is necessary to keep in mind the following:

firstly, "Batu's finding" had such a strong impact on the Russian lands, the fate of their inhabitants, that it would be more correct to speak of the pre-Mongolian and Horde eras of national history;

secondly, the ongoing struggle of the Russian people against the invaders allowed Russia, without being directly part of the Golden Horde, to maintain its statehood.

In general, the consequences of the Mongol-Tatar invasion had manifestations in all spheres of society - socio-economic, political and cultural:

cities, which at that time in Europe grew rich and were freed from the power of feudal lords, suffered particular damage from the Mongol-Tatar invasion. In Russian cities, stone construction ceased for a whole century, and the size of the urban population decreased;

a number of craft specialties disappeared, especially in jewelry: the production of cloisonne enamel, glass beads, granulation, filigree;

destroyed the stronghold of urban democracy - veche;

trade relations with Western Europe were broken, Russian trade turned its face to the East;

slowed down the development of agriculture. Uncertainty about the future and the increased demand for furs contributed to the increasing role of hunting to the detriment of agriculture;

there was a conservation of servility, which disappeared in Europe. Slaves-serfs remained main force in the private households of princes and boyars until the beginning of the 16th century;

the state of agriculture and forms of ownership was stagnant. In Western Europe, private property is playing an increasingly important role. It is protected by legislation and guaranteed by power. In Russia, state power is preserved and becomes traditional - property, limiting the sphere of development of private property (IN Ionov);

during the period of the yoke in Russia, the traditions of oriental despotism developed in the existing feudal relations. Vassal-druzhina relations were replaced by subjects. Giving the princes labels for reigning, the Golden Horde khans turned them not into vassals, but into subjects of “servants”. The princes, in turn, sought to extend this type of relationship to the local nobility, nobles, combatants. The success of this policy was facilitated by the fact that during the invasion, most of the Rurikovichs, senior warriors - bearers of the traditions of Kiev vassalage (GN Serdyukov) died;

in the Horde, Russian princes mastered new forms of political communication unknown in Russia (“beat with a brow”, that is, with their forehead). The concept of absolute, despotic power, with which the Russians were still only theoretically familiar, on the example of Byzantium, entered the political culture of Russia on the example of the power of the Horde Khan;

under the influence of specifically Asian legal norms and methods of punishment, the Russians eroded the traditional, tribal idea of ​​the punishing power of society (“blood feud”) and the limited princely right to punish people (preferences for “vira”, fine). The punishing force was not society, but the state in the face of tax. It was at this time that Russia learned the “Chinese executions”: a whip (“trade execution”), cutting off parts of the face (nose, ears), torture during interrogation and investigation. This was a completely new attitude to man in comparison with the 10th century, the time of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich;

under the yoke, the idea of ​​the need for a balance of rights and obligations disappeared. Duties in relation to the Mongols-Tatars were performed regardless of whether it gave any rights. This is a root

Zom was at odds with the class morality of the West, where duties were the result of certain rights granted to a person. In Russia, the value of power has become higher than the value of law. Power subordinated to itself the concepts of law, property, honor, dignity;

at the same time, there is a restriction of the rights of women, characteristic of the eastern patriarchal society. If the medieval cult of a woman flourished in the West, the knightly custom of worshiping the Beautiful Lady, then in Russia girls were locked in high towers, protected from communication with men, married women had to dress in a certain way (be sure to wear a headscarf), were limited in property rights, in everyday life ;

the intermediate position of Ancient Russia between the West and the East is gradually being replaced by an orientation to the East. Through the mediation of the Mongol-Tatars, the Russians assimilate the values ​​of the political culture of China and the Arab world. If the ruling classes of the West in the X-XIII centuries. as a result of the crusades, they got acquainted with the culture of the East as winners, then Russia, having a sad experience of defeat, experienced a strong influence of the East in a crisis of traditional values;

the Horde yoke had powerful impact on the culture of the Russian people, contributed to the mixing of part of the Mongols and the population of North-Eastern Russia, stimulated linguistic borrowing. But, while recognizing this influence, it is important to keep in mind that it did not become decisive and dominant. The Great Russian ethnos, its language and culture as a whole have retained their qualitative characteristics;

Russians, in the conditions of the Horde yoke and the hostile attitude of the Catholic countries of the West, developed a national Orthodox tradition. The church remained the only nationwide public institution. Therefore, the unity of the nation was based on the awareness of belonging to a single faith, the idea of ​​the Russian people being chosen by God;

dependence on the Mongol-Tatars, extensive trade and political ties with the Golden Horde and other eastern courts led to marriages of Russian princes with Tatar "princesses", the desire to imitate the customs of the khan's court. All this gave rise to the borrowing of oriental customs that spread from the top of society to the bottom;

The yoke preserved the stage of feudal fragmentation for two centuries, and the transition to the centralization of the Russian state took place with a significant delay compared to Western European countries. The struggle for state independence, the restoration of Russian statehood, the strengthening of national identity and social consolidation developed on the basis of a non-political confrontation with the Horde.

Thus, due to the difference in the pace and direction of social development in the life of Russia and Western Europe who had in the X-XII centuries. similar forms, to the XIV-XV centuries. there are qualitative differences.

The choice of the East as an object of interaction for Russia turned out to be quite stable. It manifested itself not only in adaptation to oriental forms states, societies, cultures in the XIII-XV centuries, but also in the direction

expansion of the centralized Russian state in the XVI-XVII centuries. Even in the 18th century, when the main thing was the interaction between Russia and Europe, the Europeans noted Russia's tendency to give Eastern "answers" to the "questions" of the West, which was reflected in the strengthening of autocracy and serfdom (I. N. Ionov).

Reflection of the aggression of the Swedish and German feudal lords. The coast from the Vistula to the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea was inhabited by Slavic, Baltic (Lithuanian and Latvian) and Finno-Ugric (Ests, Karelians, etc.) tribes. At the end of the XII-beginning of the XIII century. the peoples of the Baltic states are completing the process of disintegration of the primitive communal system and the formation of an early class society and statehood. The Russian lands (Novgorod and Polotsk) exerted a significant influence on their western neighbors, who did not yet have a developed state of their own and church institutions (the peoples of the Baltic were pagans).

The attack on Russian lands was part of the predatory doctrine of the German chivalry “Drang nach Ostem (onslaught to the East). In the XII century. they began to seize the lands belonging to the Slavs beyond the Oder and in the Baltic Pomerania. At the same time, an offensive was carried out on the lands of the Baltic peoples. The Crusaders' invasion of the Baltic lands and Northwestern Russia was sanctioned by the Pope and the German Emperor Frederick II. German, Danish, Norwegian knights and troops from other European countries also took part in the crusade. During this period of time, the creation of knightly orders takes place. In 1200, the crusaders, led by the monk Albert, captured the mouth of the Western Dvina and founded Riga (1201). In 1202, the Order of the Sword was created on the conquered lands (the knights of this order wore cloaks with the image of a cross, shaped like a sword).

In 1212, the sword-bearers came close to the borders of the Pskov and Novgorod lands. Mstislav Udaloy, who reigned in Novgorod, successfully fought with them. During the reign of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich in Novgorod, the Novgorodians defeated the knights near Yuryev (Tartu), although the city remained with the crusaders who conquered it (1224).

Knights arrived in 1226 to conquer Lithuanian and South Russian lands Teutonic Order, founded in 1198 in Syria during the Crusades. Knights - members of the order wore white cloaks with a black cross on the left shoulder. In 1234, the Swordsmen were defeated by the Novgorod-Suzdal troops, and two years later, by the Lithuanians and Semigallians. This forced the crusaders to join forces. In 1237, the swordsmen united with the Teutons, forming a branch of the Teutonic Order - the Livonian Order, named after the territory inhabited by the Liv tribe, which was captured by the crusaders.

The offensive of the knights especially intensified due to the weakening of Russia by the Mongol conquerors. The largest battles of this period with the crusaders are the Battle of the Neva (1240), the struggle for Pskov (1241-1242), the Battle of the Ice (1242).

Neva battle. In July 1240, the Swedish feudal lords tried to take advantage of the plight of Russia. Swedish navy with 55 ships

entered the mouth of the Neva River. The Swedes wanted to capture the city of Staraya Ladoga, and then Novgorod. Prince Alexander Yaroslavovich, who was 20 years old at that time, came out to defend the Russian land.

"The Life of Alexander Nevsky" tells about the exploits of six Russian soldiers and the prince himself, committed by them in the Battle of the Neva. A combatant named Gavrila Oleksich, pursuing the Swedes, drove along the gangplank to the ship. He and his horse were thrown into the river, but he remained intact and "fought with the commander himself in the midst of their army." Novgorodian Sbyslav Yakunovich "fought with one ax, having no fear in his soul", and laid down many enemies. Other Russian soldiers also fought fearlessly. Alexander Yaroslavovich himself “put a seal” on the face of the Swedish leader with a spear.

Alexander Yaroslavovich was nicknamed Nevsky by the Russian people for the victory on the Neva. The significance of this victory is that it stopped the Swedish aggression to the east for a long time, retained Russia's access to the Baltic coast. (Peter I, emphasizing the right of Russia to the Baltic coast, founded the Alexander Nevsky Monastery in the new capital on the site of the battle.)

Fight for Pskov. The danger of a foreign invasion of the North of Russia remained. In the summer of the same 1240, the Livonian Order, as well as Danish and German knights, attacked Russia and captured the city of Izborsk. Soon, due to the betrayal of the posadnik Tverdila and part of the boyars, Pskov was taken (1241). Strife and strife led to the fact that Novgorod did not help its neighbors. And the struggle between the boyars and the prince in Novgorod itself ended with the expulsion of Alexander Nevsky from the city. Under these conditions, individual detachments of the crusaders found themselves 30 km from the walls of Novgorod. At the request of the veche, Alexander Nevsky returned to Novgorod.

In the winter of 1242, Alexander, together with his brother Andrei and his squad, liberates Izborsk, Pskov and other captured cities. Then the Russian troops moved to the lands of the Order.

Battle on the Ice. Having received the news that the main forces of the Order were coming at him, Alexander Nevsky blocked the way for the knights, placing his troops on the ice of Lake Peipsi. The Russian prince showed himself as an outstanding commander.

Alexander deployed troops under the cover of a steep bank on the ice of the lake, eliminating the possibility of enemy reconnaissance and depriving the enemy of freedom of maneuver. Taking into account the construction of the knights as a “pig” (in the form of a trapezoid with a sharp wedge in front, which was heavily armed cavalry), Alexander Nevsky arranged his regiments in the form of a triangle, with a tip resting on the shore. Before the battle, part of the Russian soldiers were equipped with special hooks to pull the knights off their horses.

On April 5, 1242, a battle took place on the ice of Lake Peipsi, which was called the Battle of the Ice. The knight's wedge broke through the center of the Russian position and hit the shore. The flank strikes of the Russian regiments decided the outcome of the battle: like pincers, they crushed the knightly "pig". The knights, unable to withstand the blow, fled in panic. The Novgorodians drove them for seven versts across the ice, which by spring had become weak in many places and fell under heavily armed warriors whose armor weighed up to 70 kg. According to the Novgorod

chronicles, "400 Germans died and 50 captured" in the battle (German chronicles estimate the death toll at 25 knights). The captured knights were led in disgrace through the streets of Veliky Novgorod.

The significance of this victory is that:

the power of the Livonian Order was weakened;

the growth of the liberation struggle in the Baltic began (which continued with varying success. Relying on the help of the Roman Catholic Church, the knights at the end of the 13th century captured a significant part of the Baltic lands).

In general, the peace with the order in 1242 did not save from hostilities with the crusaders and the Swedes in the future, however, plans to conquer Northern Russia and convert it to Catholicism were no longer feasible. This was the main result of the Battle of the Neva in 1240 and the Battle of the Ice in 1242.

The chronicler preserved for us the words of Alexander Nevsky: “And whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword. On that stood and will stand the Russian land! Under Alexander Nevsky, the gradual displacement of the Basques and their replacement by the prince as an intermediary with the Golden Horde began. Alexander Nevsky tried to strengthen the role of the prince and limit the influence of the boyars. He died in Gorodets (Nizhny Novgorod region), returning from the Golden Horde; most likely poisoned. By order of Peter 1, his remains were transported to St. Petersburg, and on May 21, 1725, the Order of Alexander Nevsky was established. The Soviet military order of Alexander Nevsky was established on July 29, 1942. Attention to the personality, state activity, military exploits testifies to the enormous moral and spiritual strength of this person. The Russian Orthodox Church also paid tribute to Alexander Nevsky, ranking him among the host of orthodox princes (canonized).

One of the most powerful in its time was Kievan Rus. A huge medieval power arose in the 19th century as a result of the unification of the East Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes. During its heyday, Kievan Rus (in the 9th-12th centuries) occupied an impressive territory and had a strong army. By the middle of the XII century, the once powerful state, due to feudal fragmentation, split into separate ones. Thus, Kievan Rus became an easy prey for the Golden Horde, which put an end to the medieval state. The main events that took place in Kievan Rus in the 9th-12th centuries will be described in the article.

Russian Khaganate

According to many historians, in the first half of the 9th century, on the territory of the future Old Russian state, there was a state formation of the Rus. Little information has been preserved about the exact location of the Russian Khaganate. According to the historian Smirnov, the state formation was located in the region between the upper Volga and the Oka.

The ruler of the Russian Khaganate bore the title of Khagan. In the Middle Ages, this title was of great importance. The kagan ruled not only over nomadic peoples, but also commanded over other rulers of different peoples. Thus, the head of the Russian Khaganate acted as the emperor of the steppes.

By the middle of the 9th century, as a result of specific foreign policy circumstances, the Russian Khaganate was transformed into the Russian Grand Duchy, which was weakly dependent on Khazaria. During the reign of Askold and Dir, they managed to completely get rid of oppression.

Rurik's reign

In the second half of the 9th century, the East Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes, due to fierce enmity, called on the Varangians overseas to reign in their lands. The first Russian prince was Rurik, who began to rule in Novgorod from 862. The new state of Rurik lasted until 882, when Kievan Rus was formed.

The history of Rurik's reign is full of contradictions and inaccuracies. Some historians are of the opinion that he and his squad are of Scandinavian origin. Their opponents are supporters of the West Slavic version of the development of Russia. In any case, the name of the term "Rus" in the 10th and 11th centuries was used in relation to the Scandinavians. After the Scandinavian Varangian came to power, the title "Kagan" gave way to "Grand Duke".

In the annals, scant information about the reign of Rurik has been preserved. Therefore, it is rather problematic to praise his desire to expand and strengthen state borders, as well as to strengthen cities. Rurik was also remembered for the fact that he was able to successfully suppress the rebellion in Novgorod, thereby strengthening his authority. In any case, the reign of the founder of the dynasty of the future princes of Kievan Rus made it possible to centralize power in the Old Russian state.

Reign of Oleg

After Rurik, power in Kievan Rus was to pass into the hands of his son Igor. However, due to the young age of the legitimate heir, Oleg became the ruler of the Old Russian state in 879. The new one turned out to be very belligerent and enterprising. Already from the first years of his tenure, he sought to take control of the waterway to Greece. To realize this grandiose goal, Oleg in 882, thanks to his cunning plan, dealt with the princes Askold and Dir, capturing Kyiv. Thus, the strategic task of conquering the Slavic tribes who lived along the Dnieper was solved. Immediately after entering the captured city, Oleg announced that Kiev was destined to become the mother of Russian cities.

The first ruler of Kievan Rus really liked the advantageous location locality. The gentle banks of the Dnieper River were impregnable for the invaders. In addition, Oleg carried out large-scale work to strengthen the defense structures of Kyiv. In 883-885, a number of military campaigns took place with a positive result, as a result of which the territory of Kievan Rus was significantly expanded.

Domestic and foreign policy of Kievan Rus during the reign of Oleg the Prophet

hallmark domestic policy The reign of Oleg the Prophet was to strengthen the treasury of the state by collecting tribute. In many ways, the budget of Kievan Rus was filled thanks to extortions from the conquered tribes.

The period of Oleg's reign was marked by a successful foreign policy. In 907, a successful campaign against Byzantium took place. A key role in the victory over the Greeks was played by the trick of the Kievan prince. The threat of destruction loomed over impregnable Constantinople, after the ships of Kievan Rus were put on wheels and continued to move by land. Thus, the frightened rulers of Byzantium were forced to offer Oleg a huge tribute, and to provide Russian merchants with generous benefits. After 5 years, a peace treaty was signed between Kievan Rus and the Greeks. After a successful campaign against Byzantium, legends began to form about Oleg. The Kiev prince began to be credited with supernatural abilities and a penchant for magic. Also, a grandiose victory in the domestic arena allowed Oleg to get the nickname Prophetic. The Kyiv prince died in 912.

Prince Igor

After the death of Oleg in 912, her rightful heir, Igor, the son of Rurik, became the full ruler of Kievan Rus. The new prince was by nature distinguished by modesty and respect for his elders. That is why Igor was in no hurry to throw Oleg off the throne.

The reign of Prince Igor was remembered for numerous military campaigns. Already after accession to the throne, he had to suppress the rebellion of the Drevlyans, who wanted to stop obeying Kiev. A successful victory over the enemy made it possible to take additional tribute from the rebels for the needs of the state.

The confrontation with the Pechenegs was carried out with varying success. In 941, Igor continued the foreign policy of his predecessors by declaring war on Byzantium. The reason for the war was the desire of the Greeks to free themselves from their obligations after the death of Oleg. The first military campaign ended in defeat, as Byzantium carefully prepared. In 943 a new peace treaty was signed between the two states because the Greeks decided to avoid a fight.

Igor died in November 945, when he was collecting tribute from the Drevlyans. The prince's mistake was that he let his squad go to Kyiv, and he himself, with a small army, decided to profit additionally from his subjects. The indignant Drevlyans brutally dealt with Igor.

The reign of Volodymyr the Great

In 980, Vladimir, the son of Svyatoslav, became the new ruler. Before taking the throne, he had to emerge victorious from fraternal strife. However, Vladimir managed, after escaping "overseas", to gather the Varangian squad and avenge the death of his brother Yaropolk. The reign of the new prince of Kievan Rus turned out to be outstanding. Vladimir was also revered by his people.

The most important merit of the son of Svyatoslav is the famous Baptism of Russia, which took place in 988. In addition to numerous successes in the domestic arena, the prince became famous for his military campaigns. In 996, several fortress cities were built to protect the lands from enemies, one of which was Belgorod.

Baptism of Russia (988)

Until 988, paganism flourished on the territory of the Old Russian state. However, Vladimir the Great decided to choose Christianity as the state religion, although representatives from the Pope, Islam and Judaism came to him.

The Baptism of Russia in 988 nevertheless took place. Christianity was accepted by Vladimir the Great, close boyars and warriors, as well as ordinary people. For those who resisted to move away from paganism, all sorts of oppression threatened. Thus, since 988, the Russian Church originates.

The reign of Yaroslav the Wise

One of the most famous princes of Kievan Rus was Yaroslav, who not by chance received the nickname the Wise. After the death of Vladimir the Great, turmoil seized the Old Russian state. Blinded by the thirst for power, Svyatopolk sat on the throne, killing 3 of his brothers. Subsequently, Yaroslav gathered a huge army of Slavs and Varangians, after which in 1016 he went to Kyiv. In 1019, he managed to defeat Svyatopolk and ascend the throne of Kievan Rus.

The reign of Yaroslav the Wise turned out to be one of the most successful in the history of the Old Russian state. In 1036, he managed to finally unite the numerous lands of Kievan Rus, after the death of his brother Mstislav. Yaroslav's wife was the daughter of the Swedish king. Around Kyiv, by order of the prince, several cities and a stone wall were erected. The main city gates of the capital of the Old Russian state were called Golden.

Yaroslav the Wise died in 1054, when he was 76 years old. The reign of the Kiev prince, 35 years long, is a golden time in the history of the Old Russian state.

Domestic and foreign policy of Kievan Rus during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise

The priority of Yaroslav's foreign policy was to increase the authority of Kievan Rus in the international arena. The prince managed to achieve a number of important military victories over the Poles and Lithuanians. In 1036, the Pechenegs were completely defeated. On the site of the fateful battle, the Church of St. Sophia appeared. During the reign of Yaroslav, a military conflict with Byzantium took place for the last time. The result of the confrontation was the signing of a peace treaty. Vsevolod, son of Yaroslav, married the Greek princess Anna.

In the domestic arena, the literacy of the population of Kievan Rus increased significantly. In many cities of the state, schools appeared in which boys studied church work. Various Greek books were translated into Old Church Slavonic. During the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, the first collection of laws was published. "Russkaya Pravda" became the main asset of numerous reforms of the Kiev prince.

The beginning of the collapse of Kievan Rus

What are the reasons for the collapse of Kievan Rus? Like many early medieval powers, its collapse turned out to be completely natural. There was an objective and progressive process associated with an increase in boyar land ownership. In the principalities of Kievan Rus, a nobility appeared, in whose interests it was more profitable to rely on a local prince than to support a single ruler in Kyiv. According to many historians, at first, territorial fragmentation was not the reason for the collapse of Kievan Rus.

In 1097, at the initiative of Vladimir Monomakh, in order to end the strife, the process of creating regional dynasties was launched. By the middle of the XII century, the Old Russian state was divided into 13 principalities, which differed from each other in the occupied area, military power and cohesion.

Decline of Kyiv

In the XII century, there was a significant decline in Kyiv, which turned from a metropolis into an ordinary principality. Largely because of the Crusades there was a transformation of international trade communications. Therefore, economic factors significantly undermined the power of the city. In 1169, as a result of princely strife, Kyiv was first taken by storm and plundered.

The final blow to Kievan Rus was dealt Mongol invasion. The scattered principality did not represent a formidable force for numerous nomads. In 1240 Kiev suffered a crushing defeat.

Population of Kievan Rus

There is no information about the exact number of inhabitants of the Old Russian state. According to the historian, the total population of Kievan Rus in the 9th - 12th centuries was approximately 7.5 million people. About 1 million people lived in cities.

The lion's share of the inhabitants of Kievan Rus in the 9th-12th centuries were free peasants. Over time, more and more people became smerds. Although they had freedom, they were obliged to obey the prince. The free population of Kievan Rus, due to debts, captivity and other reasons, could become servants who were slaves without rights.