The natural process of economic and political gain. Feudal fragmentation: definition, chronological framework

Feudal fragmentation: definition, chronological framework.

Feudal fragmentation is a natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal possessions. 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 from each other, independent state entitiesformally having in common supreme ruler (in Russia, the period of the XII - XV centuries).

Already in the word "fragmentation" the political processes of this period are recorded. By the middle of the 12th century, about 15 principalities had developed. By the beginning of the XIII century - about 50. K XIV century - about 250.

How to evaluate this process? But are there any problems here? The single 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 was formed not long ago when reading scientific and journalistic literature, and even some scientific works. True, these writings also spoke about the regularity of the fragmentation of the Russian lands, the growth of cities, the development of trade and crafts. All this is true, however, the smoke of the conflagrations, in which Russian cities disappeared during the years of Batu's invasion, and today obscure the eyes of many. But can the significance of one event be measured by the tragic consequences of another? "If not for the invasion, Russia would have resisted."

But the Mongol-Tatars also conquered huge empires, such as China. The fight with the myriad men of Batu was a much more difficult enterprise than the victorious campaign against Constantinople, the defeat of Khazaria, or the successful military actions of the Russian princes in the Polovtsian steppes. For example, the forces of only one of the Russian lands - Novgorod - were enough to defeat the German, Swedish and Danish invaders by Alexander Nevsky. In the face of the Mongol-Tatars, there was a clash with a qualitatively different enemy. So if you put the question in the subjunctive mood, you can ask another way: could the Russian early feudal state have resisted the Tatars? Who dares to answer it in the affirmative? And the most important thing. The success of the invasion can in no way be attributed to fragmentation.

There is no direct causal relationship between them. Fragmentation is the result of progressive internal development Ancient Rus... The invasion is an external influence tragic in its consequences. Therefore, it makes no sense to say: "Fragmentation is bad because the Mongols conquered Russia".

It is also wrong to exaggerate the role of feudal strife. IN working together N. I. Pavlenko, V. B. Kobrin 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 throne of the grand prince, or certain rich reigns and cities, were sometimes more bloody than during the period of feudal fragmentation. the old Russian state, and its transformation into a kind of federation of principalities headed by the Grand Duke of Kiev, although his power was weakening all the time and was rather nominal ... principality, expansion of its borders at the expense of neighbors. "

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

The main dates of the period of feudal fragmentation in Russia: Date Event

1097 Lyubesky Congress of Princes.

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

1169 The capture of Kiev by Andrey Bogolyubsky and the plundering of the city by his troops, which testified to the socio-political and ethnocultural isolation of certain lands of Kievan Rus.

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

1240 The defeat of Kiev 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 to Novgorod the Great.

1478 Inclusion of Novgorod into the Moscow state.

1485 Inclusion of the Tver principality into the Moscow state.

1510 Inclusion of the Pskov land into the Moscow state.

1521 Inclusion of the Ryazan principality into the Moscow state.

Causes of feudal fragmentation

Formation of feudal land tenure: the old tribal nobility, once pushed aside by the capital's military-service nobility, turned into zemstvo boyars and formed, together with other categories of feudal lords, a corporation of landowners (boyar land tenure was formed). Gradually tables are transformed into hereditary in princely families (princely land ownership). "Settling" on the ground, the ability to do without the help of Kiev led to the desire to "settle" in the field.

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, they farm on the lands of princes. A decisive role in the enslavement of the peasants was played by the direct violence of the feudal lords. Along with this, economic enslavement was also used: mainly grocery rent, to a lesser extent - labor.

Crafts and cities development. In the middle of the XIII century, according to the chronicles in Kievan Rus, there were more than 300 cities, in which there were almost 60 craft specialties. The degree of specialization in metal processing technology was especially high. An internal market is being formed in Kievan Rus, but the priority still remains with the external market. "Detintsy" are trade and craft settlements of fugitive slaves. The bulk of the urban population is lesser people, enslaving "hirelings" and declassed "poor people", servants who lived in the courtyards of feudal lords. The urban feudal nobility also lives in the cities, and the trade and craft elite is formed. XII - XIII centuries in Russia - this is the era of flourishing of veche meetings.

The main reason for the feudal fragmentation is the change in the nature of relations between the Grand Duke and his vigilantes as a result of their settling on the ground. In the first century and a half of the existence of Kievan Rus, the squad was fully supported by the prince. The prince, as well as his state apparatus, collected tribute and other extortions. As the vigilantes received land and received from the prince the right to collect taxes and duties themselves, they came to the conclusion that the income from the plunder of war is less reliable than the fees from the peasants and townspeople. In the XI century, the process of "settling" of the squad to the ground intensified. And from the first half of the XII century in Kievan Rus' fiefdom became the predominant form of property, the owner of which could dispose of it at his own discretion. And although the ownership of the patrimony imposed on the feudal lord the obligation to bear military service, his economic dependence on the Grand Duke has significantly weakened. The incomes of the former feudal warriors did not depend more on the prince's mercy. They provided 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 Russia was played by the developing institution of feudal immunity, which provides for a certain level of sovereignty of the feudal lord within the boundaries of his patrimony. On this territory, the feudal lord had the rights of the head of state. The Grand Duke and his authorities had no right to operate in this territory. The feudal lord himself collected taxes, duties, administered the court. As a result, a state apparatus, squads, courts, prisons, etc. are formed in independent principalities-estates, and appanage princes begin to dispose of communal lands, transfer them on their behalf to the power of boyars and monasteries. Thus, local princely dynasties are formed, and local feudal lords make up the court and squad of this dynasty. Of great importance in this process was the introduction of the institution of heredity on the land and the people inhabiting it. Under the influence of all these processes, the nature of relations between local principalities and Kiev also changed. Service dependence is replaced by relations of political partners, sometimes in the form of equal allies, sometimes a suzerain and a 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 decay, as it was 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 Russia), the Galicia-Volyn principality (South-Western Russia) and the Novgorod land (North-Western Russia). Both within these principalities and between them , for a long time there were fierce clashes, destructive wars, which weakened the power of Russia, led to the destruction of cities and villages.

The main separating force was the boyars. Relying on his power, local princes managed to establish their power in every land. However, subsequently, between the struggling boyars and the local princes, contradictions and a struggle for power arose. Causes of feudal fragmentation

Internal political. A single Russian state did not exist already under the sons of Yaroslav the Wise, and unity was rather supported by family ties and common interests in defense against steppe nomads... The movement of the princes through the cities along the "Yaroslav's Row" created instability. The decision of the Lyubech congress eliminated this established rule, finally splitting the state. Yaroslav's descendants were more interested not in the struggle for seniority, but in increasing their own possessions at the expense of neighbors. Foreign policy. Polovtsian raids to Russia contributed in many respects to the consolidation of the Russian princes to reflect the 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 Russia in civil strife. Economic. Marxist historiography has brought economic reasons to the fore. The period of feudal fragmentation was viewed as a natural stage in the development of feudalism. The domination of the natural economy did not contribute to the establishment of strong economic ties between the regions and led to isolation. Emergence feudal estates the exploitation of the dependent population demanded a strong local authority, not in the center. The growth of cities, colonization and the development of new lands led to the emergence of new major centers Rus, weakly connected with Kiev.

Feudal fragmentation: historiography of the problem.

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

The great Russian historian S.M. Soloviev dated the beginning of the period of fragmentation 1169 - 1174, when suzdal prince Andrei Bogolyubsky captured Kiev, but did not stay in it, but, on the contrary, gave it to his troops to plunder as a foreign enemy city, which testified, according to the historian, of the isolation of the Russian lands.

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

Both the reasons and the nature of feudal fragmentation in historiography at different times were revealed in different ways.

Within the framework of the formational-class approach in historiography, fragmentation was defined as feudal. The historical school of MN Pokrovsky considered feudal fragmentation as a natural stage in the progressive development of the productive forces. According to the formational scheme, feudalism is the isolation of economic and political structures. At the same time, fragmentation is interpreted as a form of state organization, and the main reasons for fragmentation are reduced to economic, the so-called "basic" ones:

The domination of a closed subsistence economy - the direct producers' lack of interest in the development of market commodity-money relations... It was believed that the natural isolation of individual lands made it possible to make fuller use of the local potential.

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

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

With the development of Soviet historical science, the study of many phenomena inevitably deepened. national history, including fragmentation, which, however, did not interfere with the vitality of stereotypes. The ambivalence in assessments was also related to fragmentation. Historian Leontyev in 1975 assessed this phenomenon: "Feudal fragmentation was a new, higher stage in the development of feudal society and the state. At the same time, the loss of state unity in Russia, accompanied by civil strife, weakened its strength in the face of the growing threat of external aggression."

References to the dialectical approach are not able to obscure the fact that the threat of external aggression called into question the very existence of Russia, regardless of the level of development of society and feudal relations. A higher level of development of society meant, first of all, the increased opportunities for the realization of local economic potentials. In practice, this implementation was often restrained by many unfavorable factors: political instability, cutting off many regions from resources, etc.

With an objective approach to the study of this problem, it would be logical to abandon the traditional unification of the processes of fragmentation in Russia with Western European feudalism. The development of ancient Russian land relations was largely influenced by such factors as the presence of communal land use and a huge fund of free lands.

Historians Dumin and Tugarinov directly admit that according to written sources of the Kiev time (XI - first half of the XIII century), the process of feudalization of land tenure is poorly traced. Of course, the tendencies of feudalization of ancient Russian society cannot be completely denied. In this case, we are talking about the fact that the mechanism of interaction between the base and the superstructure should not be simplified. The political, cultural and socio-psychological aspects of the problem require great attention. The unsettled order of the princely succession to the throne, strife within the prince ruling dynasty, the separatism of the local land nobility reflected the destabilization of the political situation in the country. The collision and struggle of centripetal and centrifugal factors determined the course both before and after the fragmentation of Kievan Rus.

The overwhelming majority of pre-Soviet historians talked not about the feudal, but about the state fragmentation of the ancient Russian state.

Pre-October historiography showed that in the XIII - XIV centuries. Russian peasants were free tenants of private land, and the rent was a kind of rent. The landowning class was heterogeneous and the boundaries between its various categories were constantly blurring. The structure of the social hierarchy was formed, which in itself did not yet imply the fragmentation of the state. According to the estimates of N.M. Karamzin and S.M. Soloviev, this period was a kind of turmoil. Representatives of the state school did not use the concept of "feudal fragmentation" in relation to Kievan Rus.

V.O. Klyuchevsky spoke not about fragmentation, but about the specific system, calling this period "specific centuries". His terminology implied, first of all, state decentralization due to the implementation of the principle of hereditary division of power within the princely family of Rurikovich. V.O. Klyuchevsky used the concept of "feudalism" exclusively in relation to Western Europe. The period of fragmentation according to Klyuchevsky was a time of difficult trials for Russia, but it had its historical significance as a transitional period from Kievan Rus to Moscow Rus. V.O. Klyuchevsky believes that in the specific period, despite the fragmentation, integrating tendencies persisted in Russia. Despite the crisis of the central government, there was a process of ethnic consolidation of the population of North-Eastern Russia. The "common terrestrial feeling" of Russians was reinforced by the unity of language, traditions, and mentality. The Orthodox Church was also a force that binds the Old Russian ethnos together. The unity of Kievan Rus was also visible in the system of relations within the princely house of Rurikovich. The princes "wandered" over more prestigious destinies, while in the West the feudal lords were firmly growing into their fiefs.

L. N. Gumilev made an original explanation of the fragmentation of Kievan Rus. In his opinion, it was the result of a decline in passionate tension in the system of the Old Russian ethnos. He saw the manifestations of this decline in the weakening of social and domestic ties, as a result of the victory of narrowly selfish interests and consumer psychology, when the public organization was perceived by the inhabitants as a burden, and not as a guarantee of survival, stability and protection. During the XI and early XII centuries. military clashes between Russia and its neighbors did not outgrow the framework of military conflicts. Relative security has become familiar to the Russian people. For the thinking part of Old Russian society, fragmentation was a negative phenomenon (for example, "The Lay of Igor's Host" in 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 Cumans, together with internal strife, led the country to decline. The population of southern Russia began its migration to the North-East of Russia (colonization of the Vladimir-Suzdal land). Against the background of the decline of Kiev, the relative rise of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus, Smolensk and Novgorod the Great was manifested. However, this rise at that time could not yet lead to the creation of an all-Russian center capable of uniting Russia and performing strategic tasks. In the second half of the XIII century, Russia faced a difficult test, when the Mongols fell from the east, and the Germans, Lithuanians, Swedes, Danes, Poles and Hungarians from the west. The Russian principalities weakened by strife were unable to unite to repel and resist the enemy.

General characteristics of the fragmentation period

With the establishment of feudal fragmentation in Russia, the appanage order finally triumphed. (The lot is a 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 movements of princes in the princes in the order of seniority, general Russian interests are replaced by private interests: increasing their principality at the expense of neighbors, dividing it among their sons at the will of their father.

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

Service people

Military servants with the right to leave Servants without the right to leave

Feudal fragmentation as a natural stage in the historical development of human society is characterized by the following factors:

Positive:

The growth of cities, crafts and trade;

Cultural and economic development of individual lands.

Negative:

Weak central authority;

The independence of local princes and boyars;

The disintegration of the state into separate principalities and lands;

Vulnerability to external enemies.

From the 15th century, new form services are local. Manor - land, the holder of which had to carry out compulsory service in favor of the prince and did not enjoy the right of departure. Such ownership is called conditional, since the owner of the estate was not its owner in full. He owned it only as long as his service lasted. The prince could transfer the estate to another, take it away completely, keep the property under the condition of serving the landowner's sons ..

The entire land of the principality was divided into state ("black"), palace (owned personally by the prince), boyar (estates) and church. Principality lands

State lands Palace lands Private boyar lands Church 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 enjoyed only by personally dependent people - plow slaves, purchases, 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, his eldest son, Mstislav (1125-1132), took the Kiev table, 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 Chud 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 Polotsk principality and gave it to his son Izyaslav. The Polotsk princes were forced to go to Byzantium in exile. In 1132, Mstislav fought with Lithuania and died the same year.

Mstislav was succeeded by his brother Yaropolk (1132-1139). Under Vladimir Monomakh and his eldest son, Mstislav, the unity of the 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 struggle for Kiev. The Polotsk princes also used strife and again occupied Polotsk.

After the death of Yaropolk, the eldest son of Oleg Svyatoslavich, Vsevolod, expelled the son of Vladimir Monomakh Vyacheslav from Kiev and became the Grand Duke (1139 - 1146). His brother Igor wanted to inherit Vsevolod. But the people of Kiev did not like the Olegovichs and summoned Izyaslav Mstislavich (1146-1154) as prince, and Igor was killed. By occupying Kiev, Izyaslav violated the seniority right of his uncle Yuri Dolgoruky, the son of Vladimir Monomakh. A war broke out between them, in which other Russian princes took part, as well as the Hungarians and Cumans. The war went on with varying degrees of success. Yuri drove Izyaslav out of Kiev twice, but in 1151 he was defeated by him and took the Kiev table only in 1154, after the death of Izyaslav. Yuri Dolgoruky (1154-1157) was the youngest son of Vladimir Monomakh from his second wife. Born around 1090. From childhood he lived without a break in his father's places - Rostov the Great, Suzdal, Vladimir. Monomakh gave him this inheritance with intent - even if the younger son strengthens Russia here and makes his wealth. Yuri met his father's hopes.

"Prince Yuri" Long Hands ", - says D. I. Eremin, - year after year, in any way he expanded his lands ... He kind of lay down on them from Murom to Torzhok, from Vologda to the Moskva River and raked everything, he raked up neighboring and no-man's lands, destroying the weakest, making friends and bargaining with those who were stronger. Secret thoughts and strong hands of the prince stretched far: to Kiev, to Ryazan, beyond Unzha, Sukhon, Vetluga. They stretched to the rich Zavolochye, and to the Mordovians, and to the Bulgars beyond the Volga, and to the peaceful peoples of the Mari, and to the Novgorod riches. It was not for nothing that he was nicknamed Dolgoruky ... In a number of obscure places, just in case, he set up and fortified cities, calling them the names of his children. He built large houses and churches in those cities. He was called a “town planner.” And he erected a church near the mouth of the Nerl, Yuryev, Mozhaisk, Konyatin and Kostroma, Pereyaslavl and Dimitrov, and after them - Moscow grew up by His diligence ...

The very fact that Moscow was founded by Yuri Dolgoruky does not raise any doubts, if only because in the years when Moscow was first mentioned, no one, except Prince Yuri, could own that land. However, historians write about individual details of this event in different ways. Since we are talking about our capital, we will cite the most interesting statements from three different sources. Sergei Mikhailovich Soloviev in his "History of Russia from Ancient Times" reports: "... the first time Moscow is mentioned in 1147, on the occasion of Dolgoruky's meeting with Svyatoslav Seversky. Moscow lies on the river of the same name, which flows between the Volga, Oka and The Upper Dnieper.The Moskva River flows into the Oka, like the Klyazma, with the difference, however, that the Klyazma flows into the Oka where it belonged to the Finnish northeast, while Moscow flows into the very place where the Oka, Turning to the east, she transferred to Moscow the obligation to serve as a connection for the northern and southern Russian regions ... The Moskva River region was the original region of the Moscow principality, and in the first activity of the Moscow princes, we notice the desire to gain control over the entire course of the river. were in the wrong hands, therefore, the region of the Moscow principality was locked from two ends: the upper reaches of the river was in the power of the princes of Mozhaisk and Smolensk, the mouth - in the power of the princes of Ryazan - here theirs was the city of Kolomna. Hence it is clear why the first conquests of Moscow were Mozhaisk and Kolomna ... ".

In the "Course of Russian history" Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky we read: "It is curious that this town (Moscow) appears for the first time in the chronicle story with the meaning of the border point between the northern Suzdal and southern Chernigov-Seversky regions. Here in 1147 Yuri Dolgoruky invited his ally to a date Prince of Novgorod-Seversky Svyatoslav Olgovich, sending to say to him: "Come to me, brother, in Moscow" ... From the story of the same chronicle it is clear that Moscow bore another, earlier name - Kutskov. This name she received from the local patron , a boyar and, according to legend, a thousand Suzdal Stepan Kutsk or Kuchka, who owned the neighboring villages and villages ... ".

The greatest attention of historians was attracted by those legends about the beginning of Moscow, according to which Moscow before Yuri Dolgoruky belonged to "no one boyar, rich in existence, we name Kuchko Stefan Ivanov." What made the researchers single out this very legend from other legends about the beginning of Moscow? The fact is that the chronicles, telling about the murder in 1174 of the son of Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky, claim that Yakim Kuchkovich and Peter, Kuchkov's son-in-law, were at the head of the boyars' conspiracy against Andrei. In another place, the chronicler calls Moscow Kuchkov. For the Russian people in the XII century. and two or three centuries later Kuchka was a very real person. If written sources do not mention Kuchka himself, then they know his children and his son-in-law, his field and even his possession - Kuchkovo, that is, Moscow. All these facts, taken together, establish a connection between folk tales and reality.

The most recent and most complete message about the founding of Moscow is read in the History of Moscow: "... the legend that existed in the first half of the 17th century could have seemed more likely to contemporaries. In this legend, recorded in the Tale of the Beginning of Moscow" , the following is told: Once Prince Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky, returning from Kiev to Vladimir, stopped in a place where there were villages that belonged to the boyar Kuchka Ivanovich. The arrogant boyar did not show proper honor to the prince, for which he was executed. son Andrey, and took his sons to his court. In place of the villages that belonged to Kuchka, which he loved, Yuri Dolgoruky ordered to "make a small drevyan grad. And the nickname (by his) title is Moscow City by the name of the river flowing under it "". The novel, clothed in a romantic form, attracted the attention of readers.

It is known that in the XII century. Moscow had a second name - Kuchkovo, and the area near modern Chistye Prudy and Sretensky Gates in the 15th century. was called Kuchkov field. The boyar Kuchka himself is a person not known to ancient sources, but his son-in-law Peter and the children (Kuchkovichi) really conspired in 1174 and killed Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky. Finally, according to the chronicle, it was Prince Yuri Dolgoruky who built the Kremlin in Moscow (the word "Kremlin", according to Academician MN Tikhomirov, meant fortification). Legend of the 17th century was, therefore, based on some reliable facts. But can it be considered that Moscow was created on the site of the "red villages" of the semi-mythical Kuchka and that Yuri Dolgoruky was its creator?

Already at the turn of the XI-XII centuries. there was a settlement on the territory of the future Kremlin. Perhaps it was the castle of a local feudal lord, built where the Vyatichi had previously settled. The settlement occupied the southwest corner modern Kremlin (to the Grand Kremlin Palace) and was originally surrounded by a low rampart. A palisade was built on the rampart, and a moat was dug in front of the outer edge of the rampart. So, even before Moscow was mentioned in the written sources known to us, in its place there was a settlement close to the urban type.

In the middle of the XII century. the energetic and far-sighted Suzdal prince Yuri Dolgoruky founded a number of fortress cities to protect the western borders of his principality. In 1156, he, according to the chronicle, "laid Moscow on the mouth of the Neglinna, above the Yauza River", that is, it was about the construction of new wooden city fortifications.

Directing his gaze most of all to Kiev, Dolgoruky simultaneously made claims to Novgorod and, because of this, had a number of clashes with Novgorodians (1134-1135). Yuri Dolgoruky was married three times. In particular, his second marriage dates back to 1107. At that time, a strong Polovtsian kingdom, Desht-i-Kipchak, arose in the steppe between Russia and the Surozh Sea. The Grand Duke Monomakh himself chose a bride for his son - the daughter of the Polovtsian Khan Aepa. Polovchanka gave birth to a daughter to Yuri and three sons - Andrei, Rostislav and Gleb. She herself died while hunting as a result of an attack by a wild boar. IN last year In his life, Monomakh married Yuri for the third time, to the daughter of the Byzantine emperor. It was beneficial for the Suzdal inheritance in all respects to become related to the imperial house of Byzantium. There sat the patriarch of the Orthodox Church, there was a center for science and culture, as well as trade. Considering all this, the far-sighted Monomakh sent his son to Constantinople for a bride. Yuri arrived with Princess Elena, first to Kiev, then to Suzdal. He lived with his third wife for over 20 years. Compared to the Polovtsian woman, Elena was calmer, but also more cunning - her thoughts all the time rushed from the Russian forests to Constantinople. It was not for nothing that Yuri's son Andrei, who was more imperious in character, sent his stepmother Elena to Byzantium as soon as he became the Grand Duke.

Yuri Dolgoruky occupied the Kiev table for only three years. He died at the age of 66. It is possible that he was poisoned as a result of a conspiracy of the boyars. After the death of Yuri Dolgoruky, Kiev more than once passed from the hands of one prince to the hands of another. Finally, in 1169, he was seized by an assault and plundered by Dolgoruky's son Andrei Bogolyubsky. Since that time, Kiev lost the primacy in the Russian land to Vladimir-on-Klyazma.

After 1169, it is no longer necessary to talk about the history of Kievan Rus as a single state. From that time on, we can talk about the history of individual Russian lands.

Feudal fragmentation: definition, chronological framework.

Feudal fragmentation is a natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal possessions. 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 from each other, independent state formations that formally had a common supreme ruler (in Russia, the period of the XII-XV centuries).

There is no direct causal relationship between them. Fragmentation is the result of the progressive internal development of Ancient Russia. The invasion is an external influence, tragic in its consequences. Therefore, it makes no sense to say: "Fragmentation is bad because the Mongols conquered Russia".

It is also wrong to exaggerate the role of feudal strife. In the joint work of N. I. Pavlenko, V. B. Kobrin and V. A. Fedorov "History of the USSR from ancient times to 1861" write: "You cannot imagine feudal fragmentation as a kind of feudal anarchy. Moreover, the princely strife in a single state, when it came to the struggle for power, for the throne of the Grand Duke, or those or other rich reigns and cities, were sometimes more bloody than during the period of feudal fragmentation.There was not a disintegration of the ancient Russian state, but its transformation into a kind of federation of principalities headed by the great Prince of Kiev, although his power was constantly weakening and was rather nominal ... The purpose of strife in 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 his own principality, the expansion of its borders at the expense of neighbors. "

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

The main dates of the period of feudal fragmentation in Russia: Date Event

1097 Lyubesky Congress of Princes.

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

1169 The capture of Kiev by Andrey Bogolyubsky and the plundering of the city by his troops, which testified to the socio-political and ethnocultural isolation of certain lands of Kievan Rus.

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

1240 The defeat of Kiev 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 to Novgorod the Great.

1478 Inclusion of Novgorod into the Moscow state.

1485 Inclusion of the Tver principality into the Moscow state.

1510 Inclusion of the Pskov land into the Moscow state.

1521 Inclusion of the Ryazan principality into the Moscow state.

Causes of feudal fragmentation

Development of agriculture: 40 types of agricultural agricultural and fishing tools. 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, they farm on the lands of the princes. A decisive role in the enslavement of the peasants was played by the direct violence of the feudal lords. Along with this, economic enslavement was also used: mainly grocery rent, to a lesser extent - labor.

The main reason for the feudal fragmentation is the change in the nature of relations between the Grand Duke and his vigilantes as a result of their settling on the ground. In the first century and a half of the existence of Kievan Rus, the squad was fully supported by the prince. The prince, as well as his state apparatus, collected tribute and other extortions. As the vigilantes received land and received from the prince the right to collect taxes and duties themselves, they came to the conclusion that the income from the military-robbery is less reliable than the fees from the peasants and townspeople. In the XI century, the process of "settling" of the squad on the ground intensified. And from the first half of the XII century in Kievan Rus' fiefdom became the predominant form of property, the owner of which could dispose of it at his own discretion. And although the ownership of the patrimony imposed on the feudal lord the obligation to carry out military service, his economic dependence on the Grand Duke was significantly weakened. The incomes of the former feudal warriors did not depend more on the prince's mercy. They provided for themselves their own existence. With the weakening of economic dependence on the Grand Duke, political dependence also weakens.

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 disintegration, 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 Russia), the Galicia-Volyn principality (South-Western Russia) and the Novgorod land (North-Western Russia). Both within these principalities and between them For a long time, fierce clashes, destructive wars took place, which weakened the power of Russia, led to the destruction of cities and villages.

Internal political. A single Russian state did not exist already under the sons of Yaroslav the Wise, and the unity was rather supported by family ties and common interests in defense against the steppe nomads. The movement of the princes through the cities along the "Yaroslav's Row" created instability. The decision of the Lyubech congress eliminated this established rule, finally splitting the state. Yaroslav's descendants were more interested not in the struggle for seniority, but in increasing their own possessions at the expense of neighbors. Foreign policy. The Polovtsian raids on Russia contributed in many respects to the consolidation of the Russian princes to reflect the 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 Russia in civil strife. Economic. Marxist historiography has brought economic reasons to the fore. The period of feudal fragmentation was viewed as a natural stage in the development of feudalism. The domination of the natural economy 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 local authority, not in the center. The growth of cities, colonization and the development of new lands led to the emergence of new large centers of Russia, weakly connected with Kiev.

Feudal fragmentation - a natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal possessions. 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 from each other, independent state formations that formally had a common supreme ruler (in Russia, the period of the XII-XV centuries).

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

- This is a natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal possessions in Russia in the middle of the XII-XIII centuries. (See the scheme "Specific Rus"). On the basis of Kievan Rus by the middle of the XII century. formed about 15 lands and principalities, by the beginning of the XIII century. - 50, in the XIV century. - 250. Further development Russian lands took place within the framework of new state formations, the largest of which were: the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, Galicia-Volyn (see in the anthology article "Features of the development of the Galicia-Volyn principality during the period of political fragmentation") and the Novgorod boyar republic, which were politically independent , had their own troops, coins, judicial institutions, etc. meant not the disintegration of Russia, but its transformation into a kind of federation of principalities and lands. The Kiev prince remained the head only in name. Relations between princes were governed by agreements and customs. The goal of feudal strife in the period of fragmentation was different than in a single state: not the seizure of power in the entire country, but the strengthening of their principality, its expansion at the expense of its neighbors. During the period of fragmentation, a clear system of feudal hierarchy was formed. At the top level were the appanage princes - the descendants and vassals of the grand princes, who, within their domains, had the rights of independent sovereigns. Serving princes obeyed them - the descendants of princes who did not have their own estates, owned land on the terms of serving the specific prince. Boyars - owners of estates, members of advisory councils at appanage princes, received during this period the right to independent actions in their possessions, were free to choose one or another prince. Needing an obedient and reliable support in the fight against the arbitrariness of the boyars, the princes began to rely on people who in the 12th century began to be called the nobility or "children of the boyars." These were vigilantes, servants, ryadovichs, tiuns who performed economic and administrative-judicial functions in the principality and received princely "favor" for their service - princely lands for temporary use on the terms of an estate. From the point of view of general historical development, the political fragmentation of Rus is a natural stage on the path of the future centralization of the country and the future economic and political take-off. This is evidenced by the violent growth of cities and patrimonial economies, and the entry of these practically independent states into the foreign policy arena: Novgorod and Smolensk maintained contacts with the Baltic states and German cities, Galich with Poland, Hungary, Rome. In each of these principalities, the development of the culture of architecture and chronicle continued. Preconditions for political fragmentation in Russia: (See the scheme "Udelnaya Rus"). 1.Social: a) Complicated social structure Russian society, its strata in certain lands and cities became more defined: the large boyars, clergy, merchants, artisans, the lower classes of the city, including slaves. Dependence on rural landowners developed. All this new Russia no longer needed the old early medieval centralization. For the new structure of the economy, a different scale of the state was needed than before. Huge Russia, with its very superficial political cohesion, necessary primarily for defense against an external enemy, for organizing long-range campaigns of conquest, no longer met the needs major cities with their ramified feudal hierarchy, developed trade and artisan strata, the needs of patrimonials striving to have power close to their interests - not in Kiev, and not even in the form of a Kiev governor, but their own close, here, on the spot, which could fully and vigorously defend their interests. b) The transition to arable farming contributed to the sedentary lifestyle of the rural population and increased the desire of the warriors to own land. Therefore, the transformation of vigilantes into landowners began (on the basis of a princely grant). The squad has become less mobile. The druzhinniki were now interested in staying permanently near their estates and strived for political independence. In this regard, in the 12-13 centuries. the system of immunities became widespread - a system that frees the boyars-landowners from princely administration and courts and gave them the right to independent actions in their possessions. That is, the main reason for the fragmentation was the natural process of the emergence of private land ownership and the settling of the squad on the land. 2. Economic: Gradually, individual estates become stronger and begin to produce all products only for their own consumption, and not for the market (subsistence farming). The exchange of goods between individual economic units practically ceases. Those. the folding of the subsistence farming system contributes to the isolation of individual economic units. 3. Political: The main role in the disintegration of the state was played by the local boyars; local princes did not want to share their income with the Grand Duke of Kiev, and in this they were actively supported by the local boyars, who needed a strong princely power on the ground. 4. Foreign policy: The weakening of Byzantium due to the attacks of the Normans and the Seljuks reduced trade on the "way from the Varangians to the Greeks." The crusaders' campaigns opened a more direct route of communication between Asia and Europe across the eastern Mediterranean coast. Trade routes moved to central Europe. Russia lost its status as a world trade intermediary and a factor that united the Slavic tribes. This completed the disintegration of a single state and contributed to the movement of the political center from the southwest to the northeast to the Vladimir-Suzdal land. Kiev finds itself outside the main trade routes. Most actively begin to trade: Novgorod with Europe and German cities; Galicia (it is safer here) - with north Italian cities; Kiev turns into an outpost of the fight against the Polovtsy. The population goes to safer places: the northeast (the Vladimir-Suzdal principality and the southwest (the Galicia-Volyn principality). The consequences of political fragmentation. 1.In the conditions of the formation of new economic regions and the formation of new political formations, the peasant economy was developing steadily, new arable lands were mastered, the expansion and quantitative multiplication of estates took place, which for their time became the most progressive form of farming, although this was due to the labor of the dependent peasant population. 2. Within the framework of the principalities-states, the Russian Church was gaining strength, which had a strong influence on culture. 3. The political disintegration of Russia has never been complete: a) The power of the great Kiev princes, albeit sometimes ghostly, existed. The principality of Kiev, although formally, cemented the whole of Russia b) The all-Russian church retained its influence. The Kiev metropolitans directed the entire church organization. The church opposed civil strife, and the oath on the cross was one of the forms of peace agreements between warring princes. c) The constant external danger for the Russian lands from the Polovtsy was also a counterbalance to the final disintegration; accordingly, the Kiev prince acted as the defender of Russia. 4. However, fragmentation contributed to the decline of the military power of the Russian lands. This was most painful in the 13th century, during the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

Watch value Political fragmentation in other dictionaries

Fragmentation - and (colloquial). Fragmentation, fragmentation, many others. no, well. (book). Distract. noun to shredded. Disunity of the small-peasant economy under capitalism.
Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

Political J. Ustar. - 1. Female. to noun: political (1 *).
Efremova's explanatory dictionary

The fragmentation of J. - 1. Distract. noun by value adj .: fragmented.
Efremova's explanatory dictionary

Autarky Political - (from the Greek autarkia - self-satisfaction) - a set of measures and means used by state and political-non-state actors aimed at isolating ........
Political Dictionary

Political agitation - - encouraging an individual or large groups of people to political action with the help of appeals, slogans, appeals. It relies on the emotional states of people, ........
Political Dictionary

Adaptation Political - - adaptation of the political system, political structures to the requirements environment, expressed in changing functions, setting new goals and developing ........
Political Dictionary

Activity Political - is a concept that reveals a set of actions, the release of the energy of individuals and social groupsaimed at changing their political status and environment. A. p .........
Political Dictionary

Action Political - - an action aimed at achieving a political goal (for example, a meeting, demonstration).
Political Dictionary

Anomy Political - - negative attitude of individuals to political norms and values; the state of political apathy and helplessness of members of society.
Political Dictionary

Anthropology Political - - section political science, studying the mechanisms and institutions of power and social control mainly in pre-industrial societies. Synonyms: potestarno-political ........
Political Dictionary

Apathy Political - (gr. Aratheia insensibility) - a state of indifference, lack of interest in political life, indifference (see Absenteeism).
Political Dictionary

Struggle Political - - the state of opposition of the interests of political subjects in order to achieve certain political results. The types of political struggle are diverse .........
Political Dictionary

Power Political - - - the central concept of emerging political science as a branch of knowledge, academic discipline. It fixes a set of mechanisms and means, ways of determining influence ........
Political Dictionary

Will Political - - a set of internal properties and states of a political subject, expressing the ability to consistently implement the set goals in the sphere of political power.
Political Dictionary

Geography Political - - a branch of science that studies the relationship of political processes with territorial, economic-geographical, physical-climatic and other natural factors.
Political Dictionary

Globalistics Political - - is the direction of modern global studies. T.p., which arose in the early 90s, studies the political aspects of global problems, the political reasons for the emergence ........
Political Dictionary

Destabilization Political - - a process, and as a result of which the stability of the political system is destroyed.
Political Dictionary

Activity Political - - the action of the subjects of politics to achieve political goals, characterized by the integral unity of its constituent elements (goals, object, subject, means).
Political Dictionary

Political Activity as a Structural Element of Politics - - social activity of subjects of politics in the implementation of their political statuses and interests.
Political Dictionary

Diagnostics Political - (from the Greek diagnostikos - the ability to recognize) - the doctrine of political science methods and principles of cognition of political phenomena and processes leading to the "diagnosis", ........
Political Dictionary

Discrimination Socio-political - (from Lat. Discriminatio - distinction) - a line of ideology, politics and practice aimed at violating the socio-political status and the corresponding role of members ........
Political Dictionary

Discrimination Political - - restriction or deprivation of the rights of a certain category of citizens on political, racial, religious, social grounds.
Political Dictionary

Political life - is one of the forms of public life, a set of political actions that establish political ties between people and aimed at conquering or retaining power.
Political Dictionary

Ideology Political - - a set of predominantly systematic representations of the top or other group of citizens, expressing and designed to protect their interests and goals, with the help of political ........
Political Dictionary

Institutionalization Political - - the process of formation, consolidation and recognition by the main political factors of political norms, procedures, values \u200b\u200band standards of political behavior, as well as ........
Political Dictionary

Integration Political - (from Lat. Integratio - restoration, replenishment of the whole) - unification, merger of political forces within the framework of state or interstate structures, political ........
Political Dictionary

Intrigue Political - most clearly the mechanisms of I.p. are manifested in such a variety as a political conspiracy. As a rule I. p. is the fruit of a focused effort, a game of political ........
Political Dictionary

Information Political - - 1) information about the activities of political parties, institutions, organizations, political leaders; 2) information used in the development and adoption of political decisions; ........
Political Dictionary

Campaign Political - - a set of interrelated, complementary political actions aimed at achieving a specific result. The most common are ........
Political Dictionary

Catastrophe Political - - the state of political life, consisting in the disintegration, termination of the functioning of political structures.
Political Dictionary