Feudal fragmentation in Rus': prerequisites, causes, essence and historical consequences. Question one

Disintegration of Rus' into appanage principalities

1. Causes and effects feudal fragmentation in Rus';

2. Features of the feudal development of southern Russian lands during the period of fragmentation;

3. Features of the development of North-Western Rus' during the period of fragmentation.

4. Features of the development of North-Eastern Rus' in the 13th century.

fragmentation in Rus';

In Rus', feudal fragmentation began with 1132 ᴦ. (death of the son of Vladimir Monomakh, Mstislav the Great). The situation of the Russian lands during the period of fragmentation became more complicated in 1237-1240. in connection with the Mongol invasion and the establishment of the yoke of the Golden Horde.

Soviet historians developed an understanding of feudal fragmentation as a stage of political development of feudal society. They showed that the transition to fragmentation was associated with the patterns of socio-economic and political development during the early Middle Ages, and the very onset of fragmentation is evidence of the entry of feudalism into its developed stage. Soviet historians proved that this phenomenon is progressive and natural; they pointed out that since the collapse Kievan Rus Before Batu’s invasion, the economy and culture of all Russian lands flourished. But it was emphasized that fragmentation was accompanied by civil strife, weakened the ability to resist external enemies and did not exclude the establishment of despotic power locally.

Representatives of modern historical science in Russia adhere to the same views.

Feudal fragmentation - stage c political development medieval society, when a single state early stage The Middle Ages was divided into a number of independent states (in Russia - principalities and lands). At the same time, the grand-ducal power remains, but has only a nominal significance. Local princes were completely independent and often fought with the great princes.

Reasons for feudal fragmentation:

I) economic- height productive forces in crafts and agriculture in places. At the end XI-XII century two-field and three-field systems began to spread everywhere. The number of cities grew (in the 10th century - 60, by the beginning XIII V. - 230). IN at the same time, the growth of productive forces occurred under conditions of the dominance of a subsistence economy, the absence of economic ties between Russian lands;

2) social - determined by the development of feudal relations on the ground. In the IX-X centuries. There were quite noticeable differences in the level of development of society between Kiev and its outskirts. But at the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th centuries. the outskirts were no longer behind Kyiv in terms of level social development. The stratification of society began everywhere.

Under such conditions, the local nobility began to strive to have an apparatus of power capable of coping with social clashes;

3) political - determined by the interest of the local nobility in securing their own princely dynasties to their feudal centers. Already in Kyiv period A tradition began to take shape according to which certain dynasties began to be established in individual feudal centers. Thus, Chernigov, Tmutarakan and Ryazan began to be listed as the descendants of Svyatoslav Yaroslavich; Pereyaslavl on the Dnieper, Rostov and Suzdal - for the descendants of Vsevolod and Vladimir Monomakh, etc.;

4) ideological - associated with the spread of traditions of suzerainty - vassalage and the idea of ​​​​independence of each prince in his own estate.

Consequences of fragmentation:

1) after the death of the son of Vladimir Monomakh, Mstislav the Great, Rus' in 1132 ᴦ. broke up into about 20 principalities and lands of varying sizes. Subsequently, crushing continued. Along with the rise of economy and culture in this process There were also negative consequences: civil strife and weakening of the country's defense. This was sensitive for Russia, which was located on the border with the “steppe”;

2) the Polovtsian onslaught intensified. The Russian population was forced to leave Belaya Vezha on the Don, Tmutarakan, and leave lands in the Lower Dnieper region;

3) a defense system gradually began to take shape, in which each prince was responsible for his own section of the Russian border. For this reason, the defeat of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich of Novgorod-Seversky and his brother Bui-Tur Vsevolod of Kursk in I 185 ᴦ., described in the Tale of Igor’s Campaign, had dire consequences for Rus', creating a gap in the Russian defense into which the Polovtsians of the khans Bonyak and Konchaka. With great difficulty we managed to push them back into the steppe. The author of "The Lay..." called on the princes to unite military forces for the defense of Russia. On the eve of the Mongol invasion, this call was very relevant, but the princes as a whole were unable to overcome local interests and rise to an understanding of all-Russian tasks.

Causes and consequences of feudalism - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Causes and Consequences of Feudal" 2017, 2018.

Multiple factors in the historical development of Rus', including princely civil strife, economic changes, new way land ownership led to the beginning of feudal fragmentation. This long period left an indelible mark on the future development of the entire state and society. But it is impossible to deny some facts of the positive impact of the fragmentation of territories. The independent and uneven development of the old urban centers led to many cultural and foreign policy achievements.

Causes:

1) Decline Principality of Kyiv(loss of central position, relocation of world trade routes away from Kyiv).

Was associated with the loss of importance of the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks”

Ancient Rus' is losing its role as a participant and mediator in trade relations between the Byzantine, Western European and Eastern worlds

2) land is the main value.

Land is the main means of payment for service.

3) One of the reasons for the beginning of feudal fragmentation in Rus' was the significant growth of the country's productive forces.

4) The most important sign of feudal fragmentation in the 12th-13th centuries. was a subsistence economy.

5) Strengthening local princes.

6) Boyars turn into feudal landowners, for whom the income received from estates becomes. main means of subsistence.

7) Weakening of defense capabilities.

8) The weakening of Kyiv and the movement of centers to the outskirts was caused by the pressure of the steppe nomads.

Consequences:

1. strengthening of local princes.
2. The boyars turn into feudal landowners, for whom the income received from estates becomes the main means of subsistence.
3. weakening of defense capabilities.

Zuev: strengthening ties with Northern Russia.

Characteristics:

2nd half of the XII - XIV centuries. - period

1. state fragmentation of Ancient Rus'
2. appanage principalities
3. formation of Russian feudalism

The legal formalization of the principle of feudal fragmentation was recorded: by the Lubech princely congress of 1097 “let each one keep his fatherland”

The significance of the era of fragmentation

The period of feudal fragmentation is a natural stage in the development of any medieval society. In Rus', it coincided with the activation of nomadic tribes neighboring Russia and the Mongol-Tatar invasion. The internecine struggle of dozens of princes for the great reign and the factor of dependence on the Horde slowed down the process of unification of the Russian lands. Also, unlike similar processes in France, England or Spain, two centers of land unification were formed in Rus': in the northeast and in the northwest. Accordingly, already in the 15th century, two great principalities laid claim to the heritage of Kievan Rus: Moscow and Lithuania.

The combination of external and internal factors led to the fact that the era of feudal fragmentation in Rus' lasted longer than in France, Hungary or England. On the other hand, after the weakening of the Horde yoke, the consolidation of the principalities accelerated. Under Ivan III the Great, fragmentation was virtually eliminated, and another hundred years later the remnants of the appanage system in the centralized Russian state disappeared.

The period of feudal fragmentation of Kievan Rus, which began in the 30s of the 12th century, lasted until the very end of the 15th century. However, many of its signs became quite clearly visible already in the second half of the 11th century.

Reasons for feudal fragmentation in Rus':

the development of the strengthening of Russian cities, which occurred on a par with the development of Kyiv;

the estates of the princes were completely independent thanks to subsistence farming;

the large number of children of most Russian princes;

traditions of succession to the throne.

During the period of feudal fragmentation, Rus' consisted of many separate principalities. And, if initially the Kiev principality was actually the strongest, then over time its leadership became formal due to economic weakening.

Despite the will left by Yaroslav the Wise, his sons Izyaslav, Vyacheslav, Igor, Vsevolod and Svyatoslav, who for a long time carried out joint campaigns and successfully defended their lands, began a long and bloody struggle for power. Svyatoslav in 1073 expels the eldest of the brothers, Izyaslav, from Kyiv. And after his death in 1076, the struggle for power flared up with renewed vigor.

The system of inheritance adopted during that period did not contribute to the creation of a peaceful situation. After the death of the prince, the rights to the throne passed to the eldest in the family. And the prince’s brother became the eldest, which, of course, did not suit the sons. Vladimir Monomakh tried to correct the situation. At the Lubech Congress in 1097, a new system of succession to the throne was adopted. Now power over the principality became the privilege of local princes. But this is precisely what led to the isolation of individual lands and the strengthening of the political fragmentation of Rus' in subsequent centuries. The situation gradually escalated, the strife became more and more brutal. Many appanage princes, seeking help in the struggle for power, brought nomads to their lands. And, if initially Kievan Rus split into 14 principalities: Kiev, Rostov-Suzdal, Murom, Chernigov, Galician, Smolensk, Pereyaslavl, Tmutarakan, Turovo-Pinsk, Vladimir-Volyn, Polotsk, Ryazan, the lands of Pskov and Novgorod, then already in 13 century there were about 50 principalities!

The consequences of fragmentation in Rus' and the ongoing princely strife soon made themselves felt. Small principalities did not pose a serious threat to the nomads who appeared on the borders. The Russian princes, preoccupied with the problems of seizing and retaining power, were unable to come to an agreement and repel the Tatar-Mongol hordes. But, on the other hand, modern historians consider the period of fragmentation to be a natural part of the history of each state.

Question No. 7. Russian principalities during the period of feudal fragmentation

In the 11th century The unified Old Russian state collapsed into 13-14 principalities. The most prominent were: Vladimir-Suzdal, Galicia-Volyn and Novgorod principalities.

The most politically active principalities were the Galicia-Volyn, Vladimir-Suzdal and Novgorod principalities

Vladimir-Suzdal Principality. Vsevolod dealt with his brother’s murderers and established an autocratic form of government in the principality, which determined the political development of all northwestern Rus'. In North-Eastern Rus', later than in other Russian lands, feudal relations began to strengthen. By the time of the collapse of the Kyiv state, a local strong, united boyars had not yet formed here. Huge land holdings were seized by the princes who organized their economy. This determined the comparative strength of the princely power. However, later the Vladimir-Suzdal principality also divided into a number of appanages and independent principalities. (in the 12th-13th centuries, economic growth began, the cities of Vladimir, Dmitrov, Pereslavl-Zalessky, Gorodets, Kostroma, Tver, Nizhny Novgorod arose.)

Galicia-Volyn Principality. Features of the political system G-V book. explained by the uniqueness of its historical development. The first feudal lords were landowners who emerged from decaying rural communities. In this regard, the princely economy was relatively small here. In G-V book. there were the same authorities as in Kiev state, that is, prince, council under the prince, veche. The significance of the evening was small. Seriously influenced officials, who were in charge of the branches of palace administration (court servants, printers, etc.). G-V book. Har-Xia has a great influence of the nobility in political life. The boyars independently controlled their lands. The principality was divided into voivodeships headed by voivodes appointed from local boyars. Some positions in the palace administration, as well as the posts of governors, were often inherited in boyar families. The most famous of the local princes was Yaroslav Osmomysl (1152-1187). The largest and most significant cities were Vladimir Volynsky, Galich, Przemysl, Kholm, Kamenets.

Novgorod Principality. Soc.-econ. and political development. Compared to other Slavic lands, the conditions for agriculture here were unfavorable. But there is a lot of fur and salt. The Novgorod land was on the route “From the Varangians to the Greeks.” And it was trade that determined the social differentiation of the population. Novgorod played a significant role in the political history of Ancient Rus'. Oleg, Vladimir, Yaroslav began their ascension to the Kiev throne from Novgorod, recruiting Varangians into their squad.

The social elite of Novgorod society consisted, first of all, of the landowner boyars. Novgorod imported fabrics, metal products, raw materials for handicraft production, and exported furs and handicrafts. Political power was concentrated in the hands of 300-400 families (usually boyars), who were the subjects of political law, i.e. participants of local government bodies - Veche. The veche chose the head local government Posadnik and Tysyatsky Tysyatsky was responsible for collecting taxes. Administratively, the city was divided into districts - ends. Initially there were 3 of them, each with its own Veche, which elected the Konchak headman. The ends were divided into streets, where there was also a Veche (artisans and boyars). The prince never played a decisive political role in Novgorod.

Russian lands and principalities at the beginning of the 12th - first half of the 13th centuries. Political fragmentation. Tatar-Mongol invasion

Ftp file transfer program.

Moves copies of files from one Internet node to another in accordance with the protocol FTP(File Transfer Protocol). It does not matter where these nodes are located and how they are connected to each other. Computers that have files for public use are called FTP servers. There are more than 10 Terabytes of free files and programs on the Internet.

6. Telnet remote access program.

Allows you to log into another computer system running on the Internet using the protocol TELNET. This program consists of two components: a client program, which runs on the client computer, and a server program, which runs on the server computer.

Functions client programs:

· establishing a connection with the server;

· receiving input data from the subscriber, converting it to a standard format and sending it to the server;

· Receiving query results from the server in a standard format and reformatting them into a form convenient for the client.

Functions server programs:

· waiting for a request in standard form;

· servicing this request;

· sending results to the client program.

Telnet is a simple and therefore universal means of connecting to the Internet.

On the Internet, the same network node can simultaneously operate using several protocols. That's why large nodes networks now have a full set of servers, and they can be accessed using almost any of the existing protocols.

1. Feudal fragmentation in Rus': prerequisites, causes, essence and historical consequences.

2. Features of the political, socio-economic development of Russian principalities and lands in the XII-XIII centuries. Vladimir-Suzdal Principality.

3. Features of the development of the Galicia-Volyn principality.

4. Novgorod Boyar Republic.

5. Kiev, Chernigov and Smolensk principalities, Polotsk-Minsk land .

6. The Tatar-Mongol invasion and the struggle of Rus' against the aggression of German and Swedish feudal lords in the 13th century .

Time from the beginning of the XII to the end of the XV centuries. traditionally called the specific period. Indeed, on the basis of Kievan Rus, 15 principalities and lands were formed by the middle of the 12th century, about 50 principalities by the beginning of the 13th century, and approximately 250 in the 14th century.

Domestic science traditionally defines the beginning of the period of feudal fragmentation in the middle of the 12th century. - after the reign of Vladimir Monomakh and Mstislav. But in reality, the first manifestations of fragmentation appear much earlier after the death of Yaroslav the Wise, when the princes began a protracted struggle for the Kiev and other significant thrones. The struggle between the descendants of Yaroslav led to the emergence of a system of separate principalities, only nominally dependent on Kyiv. Subsequently, V. Monomakh managed to restore the relative unity of Rus', and the princes, virtually independent, formally recognized the primacy Prince of Kyiv. But with the death of Vladimir and Mstislav, who continued his policy, Rus' finally broke up into separate principalities, entering an era of feudal fragmentation.

What were the reasons behind this phenomenon?

Firstly during the 11th century. In Rus', a system of succession to the throne gradually developed. The eldest prince in the family, who usually was not the son of the deceased Kyiv prince, occupied the Kiev throne, the next in seniority passed to his principality, whose principality was occupied by even younger ones, etc. This system was imperfect and often failed because... princes often sought to secure possessions for their direct descendants, rather than transfer them to a brother, uncle or nephew. Gradually, the princely possessions were separated from Kyiv by the right of direct inheritance, and the transition to the Kiev reign was carried out not by the right of the eldest in the family, but by the right of strength and authority. The assignment of territories to certain branches of the Rurikovich family was the first and the main reason feudal fragmentation.

The second reason- growth of boyar estates, the number of smerds dependent on them. The development of boyar land ownership in various principalities of Rus' occurred due to the seizure of the lands of free community members and their enslavement. In an effort to obtain a larger surplus product, the boyars increased the natural dues and labor that were performed by the dependent smerds. This made the patrimonial owners economically powerful and independent. Powerful farms began to emerge, the owners of which sought to become sovereign masters. They themselves wanted to administer justice in their domains, receive fines from the peasants, and resolutely opposed the interference of the Grand Duke in the affairs of the boyar estates.

The boyars sought to evade participation in numerous campaigns on the side of the Grand Duke, to evade serving him. This led to an increase in conflicts between the local boyars and the Grand Duke of Kyiv, and to an increased desire of the boyars for political independence. The boyars were driven to this by the need for their local, close princely power, which would be able to implement the legal norms of “Russian Truth”. The real implementation of boyar rights with the help of their warriors Grand Duke I could no longer provide it quickly.

Hence, a different scale of the state was needed, a different structure of the feudal organism, more adapted to the needs of the main, then progressive class of feudal lords.

It was necessary to reduce the scale of unification, bring state power closer to the local feudal lords, and establish several more centers near Kiev.

The third reason feudal fragmentation resulted in an increase in clashes between smerds and townspeople and the boyars. The latter needed such a force that was capable of breaking the resistance of the townspeople and smerds by seizing their lands, enslavement, and increasing extortions. Therefore, local boyars were forced to invite the prince and his retinue to their lands. But, inviting him to their place, the boyars were inclined to see in him only a police and military force that did not interfere in boyar affairs. The princes and squad also benefited from such an invitation. The prince received a permanent reign, his land patrimony. The princes and squad had the opportunity to receive a stable rent-tax.

Establishing a foothold in the capital cities, the princes founded their local dynasties: the Olgovichi in Chernigov, the Izyaslavichs in Volyn, the Bryachislavichs in Polotsk, the Rostislavichs in Smolensk, the Yuryevichis in the Vladimir-Suzdal land, etc. Each of the new principalities fully satisfied the needs of the feudal lords - from of any capital of the 11th century, one could ride to the borders of this principality in three days. Under these conditions, the norms of “Russian Truth” could be confirmed by the sword of the ruler quite in a timely manner.

Having firmly settled in one land or another, the prince had a different attitude towards the norms of exploitation and feudal exactions, caring:

firstly, about not irritating the boyars who helped them settle here;

secondly, about passing on your reign to your children in good economic condition. At the same time, a prince who managed to settle firmly in a particular land, as a rule, was not satisfied with the role assigned to him by the boyars, but sought to concentrate all power in his hands, limiting the rights and privileges of the boyars. This inevitably led to a struggle between the prince and the boyars.

The fourth reason feudal fragmentation was the growth and strengthening of cities as new political, economic and cultural centers. Their number in the Russian lands reached 224. It was on the cities that the local boyars and the prince relied in the fight against the great prince of Kyiv. Thus, the cities were a stronghold for the decentralization aspirations of local princes and nobility.

The cities were the focus of a variety of crafts: the suburbs surrounded its aristocratic part - the Kremlin - in a wide ring; in the cities everything was produced that was needed for the economy or war, everything that decorated everyday life or served as an export item. They were the main (and sometimes the only) place of trade in the area and the center of supplies and wealth.

In cities and in their immediate vicinity, another element of the feudal Middle Ages developed - the church. Its position during the period of feudal fragmentation of Kievan Rus acquired considerable importance. Depending on their sympathies or antipathies towards the princes, the church hierarchs could stimulate the process of collapse of the unified ancient Russian state.

Fifth reason feudal fragmentation should be called the absence in the middle of the 12th century of a serious external threat to the entire East Slavic community. Later, this threat appeared from the Mongols, but by that time the process of separation of the principalities had gone too far to stop.

Noteworthy is the fact that earlier than others, due to the geographical, or rather geopolitical, position, those lands that were never threatened by an external, in this case Polovtsian, danger separated from Kiev. Such were the Novgorod land and Polotsk. Each of them had their own trade routes in Western Europe: this increased their independence. Following Novgorod and Polotsk, Galich, Volyn and Chernigov became isolated. Galich was helped in this by his distance from the main theater of war with the Cumans and his proximity to Hungary and Poland, from where support could come. The separation of Chernigov was favored by its connections with Tmutarakan and the Caucasus. When the Polovtsians appeared in the steppes, the Chernigov princes, who were more closely connected with the steppe world than others, established friendly relations with them, became related and widely enjoyed the support of the Polovtsians.

Thus a new one gradually took shape political map Rus' with many centers. 14 principalities arose, and a republican form of government was established in Novgorod. In each principality, the princes ruled together with the boyars. Princes declared wars, made peace and various alliances. As for the Grand Duke, he was the first (senior) among equal princes.

Historical consequences

1. Feudal fragmentation did not indicate a crisis of power, but the rise of individual centers capable of existing independently. This was a time of development of cities, trade and crafts, culture and art of individual Russian lands. Ultimately, this paved the way for the creation of a single center - a centralized Russian state in the XIV - XV centuries.

2. The constant movements of princes in search of a richer and more honorable throne ceased. The rulers stopped perceiving the cities and lands under their control as temporary sources of human and material resources in political struggle.

The princes, who were now passing on their possessions by inheritance, were more concerned about the well-being of cities and estates. Under these conditions, the strife that was so frequent at the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th centuries, although it did not stop altogether, took on a different character.

Government began to take on more distinct outlines, gained the opportunity to respond in a timely manner to crisis situations (enemy raids, rebellions, etc.). Power has become more effective than in those days when the management of some lands was reduced to the periodic “feeding” of princes and warriors or to polyud.

Negative consequences

First of all, in the disunity of the Russian lands, their mutual weakening during constant strife between the princes. This exhausted the strength of the Russian princes and undermined their defense capability in the face of external danger. As a result, being weakened by internal strife, the Russian principalities could not individually resist the Tatar invasion and easily became victims of aggression.

However, the collapse of Kievan Rus did not lead to the collapse Old Russian people, historically established linguistic, territorial, economic and cultural community. The absence of cultural disunity, a common religious consciousness and the unity of church organizations slowed down the processes of isolation and created the preconditions for the possible future reunification of the Russian principalities.

Feudal fragmentation- a natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal estates. Feudal fragmentation is most often understood as the political and economic decentralization of the state, the creation on the territory of one state of practically independent state entities that formally had a common supreme ruler (in Rus', the period of the 12th - 15th centuries).

Already in the word “fragmentation” the political processes of this period are recorded. By the middle of the 12th century, approximately 15 principalities had emerged. By the beginning of the 13th century - about 50. By the 14th century - approximately 250.

How to evaluate this process? But are there any problems here? The unified state disintegrated and was relatively easily conquered by the Mongol-Tatars. And before that there were bloody strife between the princes, from which the common people, peasants and artisans suffered.

Indeed, approximately this stereotype emerged recently when reading scientific and journalistic literature, and even some scientific works. True, these works also spoke about the pattern of fragmentation of Russian lands, the growth of cities, the development of trade and crafts. All this is true, however, the smoke of the fires in which Russian cities disappeared during the years of Batu’s invasion still obscures the eyes of many today. But can the significance of one event be measured by the tragic consequences of another? "If not for the invasion, Rus' would have survived."

But the Mongol-Tatars also conquered huge empires, such as China. The battle with the countless armies of Batu was a much more complex undertaking than the victorious campaign against Constantinople, the defeat of Khazaria, or the successful military operations of the Russian princes in the Polovtsian steppes. For example, the forces of only one of the Russian lands - Novgorod - turned out to be enough to defeat the German, Swedish and Danish invaders by Alexander Nevsky. In the person of the Mongol-Tatars, there was a clash with a qualitatively different enemy. So, if we pose the question in the subjunctive mood, we can ask another way: could the Russian early feudal state have been able to resist the Tatars? Who dares to answer in the affirmative? And the most important thing. The success of the invasion cannot in any way be attributed to fragmentation.

There is no direct cause-and-effect relationship between them. Fragmentation is the result of the progressive internal development of Ancient Rus'. An invasion is an external influence with tragic consequences. Therefore, to say: “Fragmentation is bad because the Mongols conquered Rus'” does not make sense.

It is also wrong to exaggerate the role of feudal strife. IN working together N. I. Pavlenko, V. B. Kobrina and V. A. Fedorova “History of the USSR from ancient times to 1861” write: “You cannot imagine feudal fragmentation as a kind of feudal anarchy. Moreover, princely strife in a single state, when it was about the struggle for power, for the grand princely throne or for certain rich principalities and cities, which were sometimes more bloody than during the period of feudal fragmentation. There was not a collapse of the ancient Russian state, but its transformation into a kind of federation of principalities led by the Grand Duke of Kyiv, although his power was weakening all the time and was rather nominal... The purpose of the strife during the period of fragmentation was already different than in a single state: not the seizure of power in the entire country, but the strengthening of one’s own principality, the expansion of its borders at the expense of its neighbors.”

Thus, fragmentation differs from the times of state unity not by the presence of strife, but by the fundamentally different goals of the warring parties.

Main dates of the period of feudal fragmentation in Rus':