Feudal fragmentation of Rus'. Feudal fragmentation in Rus'

Feudal fragmentation: definition, causes, consequences, characteristic features, chronological framework.

Causes:

1) Decline of the 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'. there was... a significant increase in the country's productive forces.

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

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 local princes

2. boyars turn into feudal landowners, for whom income received from estates becomes the main means of subsistence

3. weakening of defense capability

Characteristics:

1) state fragmentation Ancient Rus'

2) appanage principalities

3) the formation of Russian feudalism

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

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. K XIV 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 such a 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.

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':

1097 Lyubechsky Congress of Princes.

1132 Death of Mstislav I the Great and political collapse Kievan Rus.

1169 The capture of Kyiv by Andrei Bogolyubsky and the plunder of the city by his troops, which testified to the socio-political and ethnocultural isolation of individual lands of Kievan Rus.

1212 Death of Vsevolod “Big Nest” - the last autocrat of Kievan Rus.

1240 The defeat of Kyiv by the Mongol-Tatars.

1252 Presentation of the label for the great reign to Alexander Nevsky.

1328 Presentation of the label for the great reign to Moscow Prince Ivan Kalita.

1389 Battle of Kulikovo.

1471 Ivan III's campaign against Novgorod the Great.

1478 Inclusion of Novgorod into the Moscow state.

1485 Incorporation of the Tver Principality into the Moscow State.

1510 Inclusion of the Pskov land into the Moscow state.

1521 Incorporation of the Ryazan Principality into the Moscow State.

Causes of feudal fragmentation.

Formation of feudal land ownership: the old tribal nobility, once pushed into the shadow of the capital's military service nobility, turned into zemstvo boyars and, together with other categories of feudal lords, formed a corporation of land owners (boyar land ownership emerged). Gradually, tables turned into hereditary tables in princely families (princely land ownership). “Settling” on the ground, the ability to do without the help of Kyiv led to the desire to “settle” on the ground.

Development Agriculture: 40 types of rural agricultural and fishing equipment. Steam (two- and three-field) crop rotation system. The practice of fertilizing the land with manure. The peasant population often moves to "free" (free lands). The bulk of the peasants are personally free and farm on the lands of the princes.

The direct violence of the feudal lords played a decisive role in the enslavement of the peasants. Along with this, economic enslavement was also used: mainly food rent, and to a lesser extent, labor.

Development of crafts and cities. In the middle of the 13th century, according to chronicles, there were over 300 cities in Kievan Rus, in which there were almost 60 craft specialties. The degree of specialization in the field of metal processing technology was especially high. In Kievan Rus, the formation of the internal market is taking place, but priority still remains with the external market. “Detintsi” are trade and craft settlements made up of runaway slaves. The bulk of the urban population are lesser people, bonded "hiremen" and declassed "poor people", servants who lived in the yards of feudal lords. Urban feudal nobility also live in cities and a trade and craft elite is formed. XII - XIII centuries in Rus' this is the era of the heyday of veche meetings.

The main reason for feudal fragmentation is the change in the nature of the relationship between the Grand Duke and his warriors as a result of the latter settling on the ground. In the first century and a half of the existence of Kievan Rus, the squad was completely supported by the prince. The prince, as well as his state apparatus, collected tribute and other exactions. As the warriors received land and received from the prince the right to collect taxes and duties themselves, they came to the conclusion that income from military spoils was less reliable than fees from peasants and townspeople. In the 11th century, the process of the squad’s “settling” to the ground intensified. And from the first half XII century in Kievan Rus, the predominant form of property became the patrimony, the owner of which could dispose of it at his own discretion. And although ownership of the estate imposed on the feudal lord the obligation to perform military service, his economic dependence on the Grand Duke weakened significantly. The incomes of the former feudal warriors no longer depended on the mercy of the prince. They provided for their own existence. With the weakening of economic dependence on the Grand Duke, political dependence also weakens.

A significant role in the process of feudal fragmentation in Rus' was played by the developing institution of feudal immunity, which provided for a certain level of sovereignty of the feudal lord within the boundaries of his estate. In this territory, the feudal lord had the rights of the head of state. The Grand Duke and his authorities did not have the right to act in this territory. The feudal lord himself collected taxes, duties, and administered justice. As a result, a state apparatus, squads, courts, prisons, etc. are formed in independent principalities-patrimonial lands, appanage princes begin to manage communal lands, transferring them in their own name to the power of boyars and monasteries.

In this way, local princely dynasties are formed, and local feudal lords make up the court and squad of this dynasty. The introduction of the institution of heredity to the land and the people inhabiting it played a huge role in this process. Under the influence of all these processes, the nature of relations between local principalities and Kiev changed. Service dependence is replaced by relations of political partners, sometimes in the form of equal allies, sometimes suzerain and vassal.

All these economic and political processes in political terms meant the fragmentation of power, the collapse of the former centralized statehood of Kievan Rus. This collapse, as was the case in Western Europe, was accompanied by internecine wars. Three most influential states were formed on the territory of Kievan Rus: the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality (North-Eastern Rus'), the Galician-Volyn Principality (South-Western Rus') and the Novgorod Land (North-Western Rus'). Both within these principalities and between them , for a long time there were fierce clashes, destructive wars that weakened the power of Rus' and led to the destruction of cities and villages.

The main dividing force was the boyars. Relying on his power, local princes were able to establish their power in each land. However, subsequently, contradictions and a struggle for power arose between the growing boyars and the local princes. Causes of feudal fragmentation

Internal political. A single Russian state no longer existed under the sons of Yaroslav the Wise, and unity was supported rather by family ties and common interests in defense from the steppe nomads. The movement of princes through cities along the “Yaroslav Row” created instability. The decision of the Lyubech Congress eliminated this established rule, finally fragmenting the state. Yaroslav's descendants were more interested not in the struggle for seniority, but in increasing their own possessions at the expense of their neighbors.

Foreign policy. Polovtsian raids on Rus' largely contributed to the consolidation of Russian princes to repel external danger. The weakening of the onslaught from the south broke the alliance of the Russian princes, who themselves more than once brought Polovtsian troops to Rus' in civil strife.

Economic. Marxist historiography brought economic reasons to the fore. The period of feudal fragmentation was considered as a natural stage in the development of feudalism. Domination subsistence farming did not contribute to the establishment of strong economic ties between regions and led to isolation.

The emergence of a feudal fiefdom with the exploitation of the dependent population required strong power locally, and not in the center. The growth of cities, colonization and the development of new lands led to the emergence of new large centers of Rus', loosely connected with Kiev.

Feudal fragmentation: historiography of the problem.

Chronologically, the historical tradition considers the beginning of the period of fragmentation to be 1132 - the death of Mstislav the Great - “and the whole Russian land was torn apart” into separate principalities, as the chronicler wrote.

The great Russian historian S. M. Solovyov dated the beginning of the period of fragmentation to 1169 - 1174, when the Suzdal prince Andrei Bogolyubsky captured Kyiv, but did not remain in it, but, on the contrary, gave it to his troops for plunder as a foreign enemy city, which indicated, according to according to the historian, about the isolation of Russian lands.

Until this time, the grand ducal power did not experience serious problems from local separatism, since the most important political and socio-economic levers of control were assigned to it: the army, the vicegerency system, tax policy, the priority of the grand ducal power in foreign policy.

Both the causes and the nature of feudal fragmentation in historiography were revealed differently at different times.

The dominance of a closed natural economy is the lack of interest among direct producers in the development of market commodity-money relations. It was believed that the natural isolation of individual lands made it possible to more fully use the local potential.

The development of feudal estates in Kievan Rus, which played an organizing role in the development of agricultural production due to higher opportunities than peasant farms for running a diversified economy.

The isolation of these reasons from the complex cause-and-effect complex was associated with the tradition of Soviet historiography to unify Russian history with history Western Europe.

Kievan Rus emerged as a result of the decline in passionary tension in the system of the ancient Russian ethnos. He saw the manifestations of this decline in the weakening of public and intrastate ties, due to the victory of narrow selfish interests and consumer psychology, when the state organization was perceived by ordinary people as a burden, and not as a guarantee of survival, stability and protection. During the XI and early XII centuries. military clashes between Rus' and its neighbors did not outgrow the framework of military conflicts. Relative safety has become familiar to the Russian people. For the thinking part of ancient Russian society, fragmentation was a negative phenomenon (for example, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” 1185). The negative consequences of fragmentation were not long in coming. At the end of the 12th century, the onslaught of the Polovtsians intensified. The Polovtsians, together with internal strife, led the country to decline. The population of southern Rus' began its resettlement to the North-East of Rus' (colonization of the Vladimir-Suzdal land). Against the background of the decline of Kyiv, the relative rise of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus', Smolensk and Novgorod the Great was evident. However, this rise at that time could not yet lead to the creation of an all-Russian center capable of uniting Rus' and fulfilling strategic tasks. In the second half of the 13th century, Rus' faced its most difficult test, when the Mongols attacked from the east, and Germans, Lithuanians, Swedes, Danes, Poles and Hungarians from the west. The Russian principalities, weakened by infighting, were unable to unite to repel and resist the enemy.

General characteristics of the period of fragmentation

With the establishment of feudal fragmentation in Rus', the appanage order finally triumphed. (Appanage - princely possession.) “The princes ruled the free population of their principalities as sovereigns and owned their territories as private owners, with all the rights of disposal arising from such property” (V.O. Klyuchevsky). With the cessation of the movement of princes among principalities in order of seniority, all-Russian interests are replaced by private interests: increasing one’s principality at the expense of its neighbors, dividing it among one’s sons at the will of the father.

With the change in the position of the prince, the position of the rest of the population also changes. Service with the prince has always been voluntary for a free person. Now the boyars and boyar children have the opportunity to choose which prince to serve, which was recorded in the so-called right of departure. While maintaining their land holdings, they had to pay tribute to the prince in whose principality their estates were located.

Positive:

Growth of cities, crafts and trade;

Cultural and economic development of individual lands.

Negative:

Weak central authority;

Independence of local princes and boyars;

Disintegration of the state into separate principalities and lands;

Vulnerability to external enemies.

Since the 15th century, a new form of service has appeared - local. An estate is land, the holder of which had to perform compulsory service in favor of the prince and did not enjoy the right of departure. Such possession is called conditional, since the owner of the estate was not its owner in full. He owned it only while his service lasted. The prince could transfer the estate to another, take it away completely, or retain ownership under the condition of the service of the landowner's sons...

All land of the principality was divided into state land ("black"), palace land (belonging personally to the prince), boyar land (patrimony) and church land. Principality lands

The land was inhabited by free community members who, like the boyars, had the right to transfer from one landowner to another. This right was not used only by personally dependent people - arable slaves, purchasers, servants.

Political history of Kievan Rus during the period of feudal fragmentation

Thanks to the generally recognized authority of Monomakh, after his death in 1125, the Kiev throne was occupied by his eldest son, Mstislav (1125-1132), although he was not the eldest among the remaining princes. He was born around 1075 and for a long time was a prince in Novgorod, waged wars with the miracle and defended the Suzdal land from princes Oleg and Yaroslav Svyatoslavich. Having become the Grand Duke, Mstislav continued the policy of his father: he kept the appanage princes in strict obedience and did not allow them to start internecine wars. In 1128, Mstislav took possession of the Principality of Polotsk and gave it to his son Izyaslav. The Polotsk princes were forced to go into exile in Byzantium. In 1132 Mstislav fought with Lithuania and died in the same year.

Mstislav was succeeded by his brother Yaropolk (1132-1139). Under Vladimir Monomakh and his eldest son, Mstislav, unity Old Russian state was restored. However, under Yaropolk Vladimirovich, discord began again between the heirs of Monomakh. The sons of Oleg Svyatoslavich also joined the fight for Kyiv. The Polotsk princes also took advantage of the strife and again occupied Polotsk.

After the death of Yaropolk, Oleg Svyatoslavich's eldest son, Vsevolod, expelled Vladimir Monomakh's son Vyacheslav from Kyiv and became the Grand Duke (1139 - 1146). Vsevolod wanted to be succeeded by his brother Igor. But the people of Kiev did not like the Olegovichs and called Izyaslav Mstislavich (1146-1154) as prince, and killed Igor. By occupying Kyiv, Izyaslav violated the right of seniority of his uncle Yuri Dolgoruky, the son of Vladimir Monomakh. A war began between them, in which other Russian princes, as well as Hungarians and Polovtsians, took part. The war went on with varying degrees of success. Yuri expelled Izyaslav from Kyiv twice, but in 1151 he was defeated by him and took the Kiev throne only in 1154, after the death of Izyaslav. Yuri Dolgoruky (1154-1157) was youngest son Vladimir Monomakh from his second wife. Born around 1090. Since childhood, he lived constantly in his father’s places - Rostov the Great, Suzdal, Vladimir. Monomakh gave him this inheritance with the intention - let the youngest son strengthen Rus' here and gain his wealth. Yuri lived up to his father's hopes.

Mongol-Tatar yoke.

The system of rule of Mongol-Tatar feudal lords over Russian lands in the 13th-15th centuries, which had the goal of regular exploitation of the conquered country through various extortions and predatory raids. M.-t. And. was established as a result of the Mongol conquests in the 13th century (See Mongol conquests in the 13th century).

The Russian principalities did not directly become part of the Mongol feudal empire and retained the local princely administration, the activities of which were controlled by the Baskaks and other representatives of the Mongol-Tatar khans. The Russian princes were tributaries of the Mongol-Tatar khans and received from them labels for ownership of their principalities. There was no permanent Mongol-Tatar army on the territory of Rus'. M.-t. And. was supported by punitive campaigns and repressions against rebellious princes. Until the beginning of the 60s. 13th century Rus' was under the rule of the great Mongol khans, and then the khans of the Golden Horde.

M.-t. And. was formally established in 1243, when the father of Alexander Nevsky, Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, received from the Mongol-Tatars a label for the Grand Duchy of Vladimir and was recognized by them as “the oldest prince in the Russian language.” Regular exploitation of Russian lands through the collection of tribute began after the census of 1257-59, carried out by Mongol “numerals” under the leadership of Kitat, a relative of the Great Khan. The units of taxation were: in cities - the yard, in rural areas - the farm (“village”, “plow”, “plough”). Only the clergy, which the conquerors tried to use to strengthen their power, were exempt from tribute. There are 14 known types of “Horde burdens”, of which the main ones were: “exit”, or “tsar’s tribute”, a tax directly for the Mongol khan; trade fees (“myt”, “tamka”); carriage duties (“pits”, “carts”); maintenance of the khan's ambassadors (“food”); various “gifts” and “honors” to the khan, his relatives and associates, etc. Every year, a huge amount of silver left the Russian lands in the form of tribute. “Moscow exit” was 5-7 thousand rubles. silver, “Novgorod exit” - 1.5 thousand. Large “requests” for military and other needs were periodically collected. In addition, the Russian princes were obliged, by order of the khan, to send soldiers to participate in campaigns and in round-up hunts (“lovitva”). The “Horde hardships” depleted the Russian economy and interfered with the development of commodity-money relations. Gradual weakening of M.-t. And. was the result of the heroic struggle of the Russian people and other peoples of Eastern Europe against the conquerors.

In the late 50s - early 60s. 13th century tribute from the Russian principalities was collected by Muslim merchants - “besermen”, who bought this right from the great Mongol Khan. Most of the tribute went to Mongolia, to the Great Khan. As a result of the popular uprisings of 1262 in Russian cities, the “besermen” were expelled. The responsibility for collecting tribute passed to the local princes. To maintain M.-t. And. The khans of the Golden Horde repeatedly launched invasions of Russian lands. Only in the 70-90s. 13th century they organized 14 trips. However, Rus''s struggle for independence continued. In 1285 Grand Duke Dmitry, the son of Alexander Nevsky, defeated and expelled the punitive army of the “Horde prince”. At the end of the 13th - 1st quarter of the 14th centuries. repeated “veche” performances in Russian cities (in Rostov - 1289 and 1320, in Tver - 1293 and 1327) led to the elimination of the Baska system. With the strengthening of the Moscow Principality of M.-t. And. gradually weakens. Moscow Prince Ivan I Danilovich Kalita (reigned 1325-40) achieved the right to collect “exit” from all Russian principalities. From the middle of the 14th century. The orders of the khans of the Golden Horde, not backed up by real military force, were no longer carried out by the Russian princes. The Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy (1359-89) did not obey the khan's labels issued to his rivals and seized the Grand Duchy of Vladimir by force. In 1378 he defeated the punitive Mongol-Tatar army on the river. Vozhe (in the Ryazan land), and in 1380 he won a victory in the Battle of Kulikovo 1380 (See Battle of Kulikovo 1380) over the ruler of the Golden Horde Mamai (See Mamai). However, after Tokhtamysh’s campaign and the capture of Moscow in 1382, Rus' was forced to again recognize the power of the Mongol-Tatar khans and pay tribute, but already the Moscow prince Vasily I Dmitrievich (1389-1425) received a great reign without a khan’s label, as “his fatherland.” With him M.-t. And. was nominal in nature. Tribute was paid irregularly, and the Russian princes pursued a largely independent policy. The attempt of the head of the Golden Horde Edigei (See Edigei) (1408) to completely restore power over Russia ended in failure: he failed to take Moscow. The strife that began in the Golden Horde called into question the further preservation of M.-t. And.

In the years feudal war In Rus' in the mid-15th century, which weakened the military forces of the Russian principalities, the Mongol-Tatar feudal lords organized a series of devastating invasions (1439, 1445, 1448, 1450, 1451, 1455, 1459), but were no longer able to restore their rule over Russia. The political unification of the Russian lands around Moscow created the conditions for the liquidation of M.-t. And. The Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III Vasilyevich (1462-1505) in 1476 refused to pay tribute. In 1480, after the unsuccessful campaign of the Khan of the Great Horde Akhmat and the so-called. “Standing on the Ugra 1480” M.-t. And. was finally overthrown.

M.-t. And. had negative, deeply regressive consequences for the economic, political and cultural development of Russian lands, and was a brake on the growth of the productive forces of Rus', which were at a higher socio-economic level compared to the productive forces of the Mongol-Tatars. It artificially preserved for a long time the purely feudal natural character of the economy. Politically, the consequences of M.-t. And. manifested itself in a violation of the process of state consolidation of the Russian Federation. lands, in the artificial maintenance of feudal fragmentation. M.-t. And. led to increased feudal exploitation of the Russian people, who found themselves under double oppression - their own and the Mongol-Tatar feudal lords. M.-t. and., which lasted about 240 years, was one of the main reasons for Rus'’s lag behind some Western European countries.

Horde rule separated Rus' from Western Europe for a long time. In addition, the formation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on its western borders strengthened the external isolation of the Russian principalities. Approval in the 15th century. Catholicism in Lithuania and much earlier in Poland made them conductors of Western influence on Russian civilization. Some of the Russian principalities became part of the Lithuanian state, where the Russian language was widespread, and the Orthodox Church was not persecuted for a long time. Galicia was included in Poland, which expanded its possessions at the expense of the southwestern Russian lands. Under these conditions, the ancient Russian population is divided into three branches: Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians. The Russian nationality takes shape in the central, eastern and northern regions of Rus'. The Belarusian and Ukrainian nationalities are formed on the territory of the Principality of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland.

In general, the foreign yoke depleted the people's strength, the development of the East Slavic peoples slowed down sharply, and there was a significant lag in the economy, public relations and cultural level from Western European civilization.

Chronology of the invasion of the Golden Horde:

Southern Siberia

1215 North China's conquest of Korea

1221 conquest of Central Asia

1223 Battle of Kalka

Volga Bulgaria repelled the blow

Ryazan (the story of the ruin of Ryazan by Batu)

1241 conquest of Rus'.

Vladimir-on-Klyazma (north-eastern Rus' lost its capital, a symbol of political independence)

Kozelsk (“evil city”) Torzhok

Vladimir-not-Volyn

1236 conquest of Volga Bulgaria

1237-1238 the Ryazan and Vladimir principalities were defeated (about 20 cities)

1239-1240 Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Kiev, Galicia-Volyn principalities fell

1241 trips to Europe.

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. Among the reasons for feudal fragmentation in Rus', historians note such phenomena as:

• 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 Principality of Kiev was in fact the strongest, 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 had been making joint campaigns for a long time and successfully defending 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 Lyubech Congress in 1097 it was adopted new system succession to the throne. 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.

One of the most dramatic periods in the history of Rus' is the period of feudal fragmentation, otherwise called “appanage”. It was characterized by dependence on the Tatar-Mongols and the disintegration of Rus' into separate principalities. The centuries of the period of feudal fragmentation in Rus' are the XII-XV centuries inclusive. It lasted about 350 years. By the middle of the 12th century, there were about 15 principalities and lands in the state. IN XII-XIII centuries there were already 50 of them, and in the XIV - as many as 250. Each of them was ruled by a separate Rurik clan.

Vladimir Monomakh managed to slow down this process somewhat, and then his son, Mstislav the Great, who continued his father’s policy of preserving what had been achieved. However, after Mstislav passed away, internecine wars began. Next we will talk briefly about Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation.

Reasons for fragmentation

By the period of feudal fragmentation in Rus', the years of which are indicated above, researchers understand the time when several hundred separate states were formed and operated in the territory where Kievan Rus previously existed.

Such fragmentation was a natural result of the development of society (economic and political) in previous period- the period of the early feudal monarchy. Let's talk about the most significant reasons for this phenomenon in the life of the Old Russian state.

Among economic reasons the onset of the period of feudal fragmentation of Ancient Rus' are:

1. Success in cultivating the land.
2. The development of crafts (there were more than 60 specialties) and trade, the growth of cities as centers of concentration of these types of activities and as territorial centers.
3. The dominance of the natural farming system.

Political reasons include:

1. The desire to transfer the wealth, the “fatherland”, into the hands of his son, to make him an heir.
2. The desire of the military elite, turning into boyars-landowners, that is, feudal lords, to expand their holdings and gain independence.
3. Formation of immunities by transferring the Kyiv princes to vassals such rights as the right to court and collect taxes.
4. Transformation of tribute into If tribute was paid to the prince for military protection, then rent is paid to the owner for the use of the land.
5. The final formation of the squad into the apparatus of power.
6. The growth of the power of some feudal lords who did not want to obey Kyiv.
7. The decline of the Principality of Kyiv due to the raids of Polovtsian nomads.

Features of the period

One of important features Kievan Rus during the period of feudal fragmentation was the following. All large states of Western Europe experienced similar periods, but there the economy was mainly the driving force of the process. Whereas in Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation the main thing was the political component. For getting material benefit local princes and boyars needed to gain political independence, strengthen themselves in the territory of their own inheritance, and acquire sovereignty. The main force in the disunity process was the boyars.

At the first stage of feudal fragmentation, it contributed to the development of agriculture throughout the Russian land, the flourishing of crafts, the rapid development of trade, and the growth of urban formations. But due to the fact that in the vast expanse of the East European Plain lived a large number of tribes that had both Slavic and non-Slavic origin, which were at different stages of development, this contributed to the decentralization government structure.

Specific separatism

The appanage princes, as well as the local nobility - the boyars - over time began to destroy the foundation under the state building with their separatist actions. Although their desire to become more independent from the Grand Duke is understandable, because the center developed at the expense of other regions of the state, often actually ignoring their urgent needs. However, the negative side of this desire for independence was an unprecedented manifestation of selfishness on both sides, which ultimately led to anarchic sentiments. No one wanted to sacrifice their interests - neither Prince of Kyiv, nor appanage princes.

Often such interests were confrontational in nature, and the means of resolving conflicts were direct clashes, conspiracies, intrigues, intrigues, brutal wars, and fratricide. This inevitably led to further civil strife, disputes over lands, trade benefits, princely titles, inheritances, cities, tribute - in a word, for levers of influence and domination - power and economic.

Decline of central government

In order to keep the state organism from disintegrating, strong power was needed. However, due to stated reasons, The Kiev prince was no longer able to fully manage the local policies of the princes from the center. More and more of them left his power. In the 30s of the 12th century, the center controlled only the territory adjacent to the capital.

The appanage princes, feeling the weakness of the central government, no longer wanted to share their income with it, and the local boyars most actively supported them in this. In addition, local boyars needed independent local princes, which also helped the formation of their own separate state structures and the withering away of central power as an institution.

Weakening in the face of invaders

However, over time, the incessant strife observed between the princes caused the depletion of the forces of the Russian lands, weakening their defense capability in the face of an external enemy.

Constant hostility and disunity led to the fact that many ceased to exist during the period of feudal fragmentation. But the most important thing is that this became the cause of unprecedented popular suffering caused by the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

Three centers

Among the new states that emerged after Kievan Rus during the period of feudal fragmentation, there were three largest, these are two principalities - Vladimir-Suzdal, Galicia-Volyn and the Novgorod Republic. They became the political successors of Kyiv. That is, they had the role of becoming centers of gravity for common Russian life.

In each of these lands, during the period of feudal fragmentation of Rus', its own original political tradition was formed, each with its own political destiny. Each of the lands in the future had the opportunity to turn into the center of the unification of all other lands. However, the situation became incredibly complicated in 1237-1240, which marked the beginning of the Mongol-Tatar yoke.

The suffering of the people

Despite the fact that the struggle against the yoke began from the very moment of its establishment, it had dire consequences for Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation. In 1262, in many Russian cities there were uprisings against the Bessermen - tax farmers of the Horde tribute. As a result, they were expelled, and tribute began to be collected and transported to Golden Horde by the princes themselves. However, despite constant acts of resistance, massacres and captivity of Russian people continued.

Enormous damage was caused to cities, crafts, and culture; stone construction was stopped for more than a century. In addition, the Horde khans created a whole system of robbing the country they conquered in the form of collecting regular tribute. In total, they collected 14 types of “burdens” and “tributes” that depleted the Russian economy, preventing it from recovering from devastation. The constant leakage of silver, which was the main monetary metal in Rus', was an obstacle to the development of market relations.

The power of the Horde khans over the Russian lands also led to increased feudal oppression. The people came under double exploitation - both from the local and from the Mongol-Tatar feudal lords. In order to prevent the country from uniting, the khans pursued a policy of inciting feudal strife.

State of Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation

From the above it is clear that feudal fragmentation contributed to the conquest of Rus' by the Tatar-Mongols, and this conquest, in turn, contributed to the conservation of the feudal nature of the economy for a long period, the strengthening of the isolation of Russian lands, and the weakening of the western and southern principalities. As a result, they became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, an early feudal state that arose in the 13th century. Over time, the pattern of entry looked like this:

• At the end of the 13th century. - Turovo-Pinsk and
• In the middle of the 14th century. - Volynskoe.
• In the 2nd half of the 14th century. - Chernigovskoe and Kyiv.
• At the beginning of the 15th century. - Smolensk.

As a result, Russian statehood (which was under the suzerainty of the Golden Horde) was preserved only in the Vladimir-Suzdal land, and also in Murom, Ryazan and Novgorod.

It was the North-East of Rus', starting approximately from the 2nd half of the 14th century, that became the core of the formation of the Russian state. This marked the beginning of a departure from the old political structure, characterized by the presence of independent principalities of Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation. As already mentioned, they were ruled by various representatives of the Rurik family, and they included vassal, smaller principalities.

Law of Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation

After the seizure of Russian lands by the Mongol-Tatars, Rus' became one of components Golden Horde. The prevailing system of domination over Russia (political and economic) is considered as the Golden Horde yoke. All sovereign rights were seized by the supreme ruler - the Khan of the Golden Horde, whom the Russians called the Tsar.

The princes, as before, ruled over the local population. The previous order of inheritance was preserved, but only if there was consent of the Horde. The princes began to go there to receive a label for reign. The power of the princes was built into the system according to which the Mongol empire was governed, which presupposed strictly fixed subordination.

At the same time, the appanage princes were subordinate to the senior princes, who, in turn, were subordinate to the Grand Duke (although this was only a formality). And the latter quite realistically depended on the Horde khan, being considered his “ulusnik”.

This system contributed to the strengthening of the authoritarian traditions inherent in North-Eastern Rus'. Being absolutely powerless in the face of the khan, the princes could completely control their subjects. The veche as an institution of power lost its significance, since the only source of power was now the khan's label. The warriors and boyars gradually turned into servants who were entirely dependent on the mercy of the prince.

Shortcut to reign

In 1243, Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, who ruled in Vladimir, received a special letter from Batu. She testified to his permission to rule in Rus' on behalf of the khan. This permission took the form of the so-called label for the great reign. This event had a very significant impact on the subsequent history of Rus'. great importance. The fact that the prince was for the first time given the right to become a representative of the interests of the Golden Horde in the Russian lands meant the recognition of complete dependence on the Mongol-Tatars, as well as the inclusion of Rus' in the Mongol empire.

When Yaroslav Vsevolodovich left Batu's headquarters, he was forced to leave his son Svyatoslav there as a hostage. This practice was widespread in the great Mongol Empire. In relations between Rus' and the Golden Horde, it will become the norm for a long time.

Cultural aspect

The culture of Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation has its own distinctive features. This is explained by the duality of its origins. The first of them was pagan worldview Eastern Slavs, which was multicomponent in its composition. After all, it was formed with the participation of such ethnic groups as Baltic, Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Norman, Iranian.

The second source is Eastern Christian patristics, which is a set of theological ideas, doctrines and works of church writing.

Russia's adoption of Christianity as an official ideology contributed to the displacement of the pagan vision of the world to the periphery of consciousness. At the same time, domestic thought absorbed and creatively processed the attitudes, theoretical positions and concepts of Eastern Christianity. She did this through the assimilation of Byzantine and South Slavic cultures.

As you know, Byzantium, the custodian of the ancient heritage, was the most developed of the countries of the early Middle Ages. From her, Russia received a large number of concepts, names and images that were fundamental for the entire European culture that emerged from Hellenic civilization.

However, they were not perceived in their pure form and not completely, but only partially and through the prism of Christianity. This was explained by the fact that ownership Greek was not the lot of many, and the translations that existed at that time concerned, first of all, the body of literature about the holy fathers.

Sources of ancient thought

As for the works of ancient philosophers, they were known for the most part in fragments, from retellings and collections, sometimes only by name. One of these was the Byzantine collection “Bees,” which included sayings of a philosophical and religious nature. Researchers attribute its appearance to the 11th-12th centuries, and they consider Anthony Melissa, a Greek Christian monk and spiritual writer, as the author of the original Greek edition. In Rus', this book was published in the 13th century.

This was one of the main sources giving an idea of ​​the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and the political thought of Antiquity in Ancient Rus'. Among the excerpts contained in "The Bee" are lines from Holy Scripture, written by such authors as:

• John the Theologian.
• Basil the Great.
• John Chrysostom.

• Aristotle.
• Anaxagoras.
• Pythagoras.
• Democritus
• Socrates.
• Plutarch.
• Sophocles
• Euripides.

• Alexander the Great.
• Philip, his father.
• Agesilaus and Leonidas, kings of Sparta.
• Alcibiades, statesman Athens.
• Darius, Artaxerxes, Cyrus, Croesus, kings of the East.

One of the exceptions is the essay ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus "Enchidrion", which was detailed and was provided with comments by Maximus the Confessor. It was translated in the Balkans and published under the title “Sotnitsy”, under which it was introduced into use by monks as an ascetic instruction.

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

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

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

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

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

In 1097, on the initiative of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, son of Vsevolod Yaroslavovich, a congress of princes took place in Lyubech. To stop civil strife, it was decided to install new order organization of power in Rus'. In accordance with the new principle, each principality became the hereditary property of the local princely family.

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

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

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

The largest state entities were:

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

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

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

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

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

Feudal fragmentation was characteristic of the history of many states of the Middle Ages. The uniqueness and grave consequences for the Old Russian state lay in its duration - about 3.5 centuries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The largest state entities were:

• Principality of Kiev (despite the loss of all-Russian status, the struggle for its possession continued until the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars);
• Vladimir-Suzdal Principality (in the 12th-13th centuries, economic growth began, the cities of Vladimir, Dmitrov Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Gorodets, Kostroma, Tver, Nizhny Novgorod arose);
• Chernigov and Smolensk principalities (the most important trade routes to the upper reaches of the Volga and Dnieper);
• Galicia-Volyn principality (located between the Bug and Dniester rivers, the center of arable land-owning culture);
• Polotsk-Minsk land (had an advantageous location at the crossroads of trade routes).

Feudal fragmentation was characteristic of the history of many states of the Middle Ages. The uniqueness and grave consequences for the Old Russian state lay in its duration - about 3.5 centuries.