The process of economic strengthening and political isolation. Summary: Feudal fragmentation definition, chronological framework. See the meaning of Political Fragmentation in other dictionaries

Feudal fragmentation: definition, chronological framework.

Feudal fragmentation is 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 from each other, independent state formations, who formally had a common supreme ruler (in Russia, the period of the XII - XV centuries).

Already in the word "fragmentation" the political processes of this period are fixed. By the middle of the XII century, there were approximately 15 principalities. To beginning of XII I century - about 50. By the XIV century - about 250.

How to evaluate this process? But is there a problem here? The unified state broke up and was relatively easily conquered by the Mongols-Tatars. And before that, there were bloody strife between princes, from which ordinary people, peasants and artisans suffered.

Indeed, approximately such a stereotype was formed until recently when reading scientific and journalistic literature, and even some scientific works. True, these works also spoke of the pattern of fragmentation of Russian lands, the growth of cities, the development of trade and handicrafts. All this is true, however, the smoke of the conflagrations in which Russian cities disappeared during the years of the Batu invasion, and today many people obscure their eyes. But can the significance of one event be measured by the tragic consequences of another? "If not for the invasion, Russia would have survived."

But after all, the Mongol-Tatars also conquered huge empires, such as, for example, China. The battle with the countless armies of Batu was a much more difficult 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 face of the Mongol-Tatars, there was a collision with a qualitatively different enemy. So if we put the question in the subjunctive mood, we can ask in another way: could the Russian early feudal state resist the Tatars? Who dares to answer it in the affirmative? And the most important thing. The success of the invasion cannot be attributed to fragmentation.

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

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” they write: “You cannot imagine feudal fragmentation as some kind of feudal anarchy. Moreover, princely strife in single state When it came to the struggle for power, for the Grand Duke's throne, or for certain rich principalities and cities, they were sometimes more bloody than during the period of feudal fragmentation. There was no collapse ancient Russian state, but turning it 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 ... The goal of strife during the period of fragmentation was already different than in a single state: not to seize power throughout the country, but to strengthen one principality, expanding its borders at the expense of neighbors.

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

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

1097 Lubeck congress of princes.

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

1169 The capture of Kyiv by Andrei Bogolyubsky and the sack of the city by his troops, which testified to the socio-political and ethno-cultural isolation of certain lands of Kievan Rus.

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

1240 Defeat of Kyiv by the Mongol-Tatars.

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

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

1389 Battle of Kulikovo.

1471 Ivan III's campaign against Novgorod the Great.

1478 Inclusion of Novgorod into the Muscovy.

1485 Inclusion of the Tver Principality into the Muscovite State.

1510 Inclusion of the Pskov land into the Muscovy.

1521 Inclusion of the Ryazan Principality into the Muscovite State.

Causes of feudal fragmentation

The formation of feudal landownership: the old tribal nobility, once pushed into the shadow of the capital's military service nobility, turned into zemstvo boyars and formed a corporation of landowners together with other categories of feudal lords (boyar landownership was formed). Gradually, the tables turn into hereditary in princely families (princely land tenure). "Settling" on the ground, the ability to do without the help of Kyiv led to the desire for "development" on the ground.

Development of agriculture: 40 types of rural agricultural and fishing equipment. Steam (two- and three-field) crop rotation system. The practice of fertilizing the earth 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. The 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 food rent, and to a lesser extent, working off.

Development of crafts and cities. In the middle of the XIII century, according to the chronicles in Kievan Rus, there were over 300 cities, in which there were almost 60 handicraft specialties. The degree of specialization in the field of metal processing technology was especially high. In Kievan Rus, the formation of an internal market is taking place, but the priority still remains with the external market. "Detintsy" - trade and craft settlements from runaway serfs. The bulk of the urban population - smaller people, bonded "hiremen" and declassed "wretched people", the servants who lived in the courtyards of the feudal lords. The urban feudal nobility also lives in the cities and a trade and craft elite is formed. XII - XIII centuries. in Russia - this is the heyday of veche meetings.

The main reason for feudal fragmentation is the change in the nature of relations between the Grand Duke and his combatants 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 requisitions. As the combatants received land and received from the prince the right to collect taxes and duties themselves, they came to the conclusion that the income from military robbery was less reliable than fees from peasants and townspeople. In the XI century, the process of "settlement" of the squad on the ground intensified. And from the first half of the XII century in Kievan Rus, the votchina became the predominant form of ownership, the owner of which could dispose of it at his own discretion. And although the possession of a patrimony imposed on the feudal lord the obligation to bear military service, his economic dependence on the Grand Duke significantly weakened. The incomes of the former combatants-feudal lords depended more on the mercy of the prince. They made 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 fiefdom. 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 court. As a result, a state apparatus, a squad, courts, prisons, etc., are formed in independent principalities-patrimonies, and specific princes begin to dispose of communal lands, transfer them on their own behalf to 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 earth and the people inhabiting it. Under the influence of all these processes, the nature of relations between the local principalities and Kiev also changed. Service dependence is being 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 disintegration, as it was in Western Europe, was accompanied by internecine wars. Three most influential states were formed on the territory of Kievan Rus: Vladimir- Suzdal Principality(North-Eastern Russia), the Principality of Galicia-Volyn (South-Western Russia) and Novgorod land (North-Western Russia). Both within these principalities and between them, fierce clashes and destructive wars took place for a long time, which weakened the power of Russia, led to the destruction of cities and villages.

The boyars were the main divisive force. Based on his power, the local princes managed to establish their power in every land. However, later between the strong boyars and the local princes, contradictions and a struggle for power arose. Causes of feudal fragmentation

Domestic political. A single Russian state did not already exist under the sons of Yaroslav the Wise, and unity was supported rather by family ties and common interests in defense against the steppe nomads. The movement of the princes through the cities along the "Row of Yaroslav" created instability. The decision of the Lyubech Congress eliminated this established rule, finally fragmenting the state. The descendants of Yaroslav were more interested not in the struggle for seniority, but in increasing their own possessions at the expense of their neighbors. Foreign policy. The Polovtsian raids on Russia contributed in many respects to the consolidation of the Russian princes to repel external danger. The weakening of the onslaught from the south broke the alliance of the Russian princes, who, in civil strife, themselves more than once brought Polovtsian troops to Russia. Economic. Marxist historiography brought economic causes to the fore. The period of feudal fragmentation was seen as a natural stage in the development of feudalism. The dominance of natural economy did not contribute to the establishment of strong economic ties between the regions and led to isolation. Appearance feudal fiefdom with the exploitation of the dependent population demanded strong power in the field, and not in the center. The growth of cities, the colonization and development of new lands led to the emergence of new large centers of Russia, loosely connected with Kiev.

Feudal fragmentation: the historiography of the problem.

Chronologically, the historical tradition considers the beginning of the period of fragmentation to be the year 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 Andrey Bogolyubsky captured Kyiv, but did not stay in it, but, on the contrary, gave it to his troops for plunder as a foreign enemy city, which testified, according to according to the historian, about the isolation of Russian lands.

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

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

Within the framework of the formation-class approach in historiography, fragmentation was defined as feudal. The historical school of M. N. Pokrovsky considered feudal fragmentation as a natural stage in the progressive development of productive forces. According to the formation 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, so-called "basic" ones:

The dominance of a closed subsistence 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 better use the local potential.

The selection of these causes from the complex cause-and-effect complex was connected with the tradition of Soviet historiography to unify Russian history with the history of Western Europe.

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

References to the dialectical approach cannot 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, increased opportunities for realizing local economic potentials. In practice, such implementation was often held back by many unfavorable factors: political instability, cut-off of 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 land.

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

The vast majority of pre-Soviet historians spoke 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 privately owned lands, and quitrent was a kind of rent. The class of landowners was heterogeneous and, the boundaries between its various categories were constantly blurred. There was a structure of social hierarchy, which in itself did not yet imply the fragmentation of the state. According to N. M. Karamzin and S. M. Solovyov, this period was a kind of turmoil. The concept of "feudal fragmentation" representatives public school in relation to Kievan Rus did not use.

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 princely family Rurikovich. The concept of "feudalism" V. O. Klyuchevsky used only in relation to Western Europe. The period of fragmentation according to Klyuchevsky was a time of severe trials for Russia, but it had its own historical meaning as transition period from Kievan Rus to Muscovite Rus. V. O. Klyuchevsky believes that in the specific period, despite the fragmentation, integrating trends 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 “general earthly feeling” of Russians was reinforced by the unity of language, traditions, and mentality. The Orthodox Church was also a force that held the ancient Russian ethnos together. The unity of Kievan Rus was also seen in the system of relations within the princely house of Rurikovich. The princes "wandered" around more prestigious destinies, while in the West the feudal lords firmly grew into their fiefs.

L. N. Gumilyov came up with an original explanation of the fragmentation of Kievan Rus. In his opinion, it was the result of a decline in passionary tension in the system of the Old Russian ethnos. He saw manifestations of this decline in the weakening of public and domestic ties, due to the victory of selfish interests and consumer psychology, when state organization was perceived by the townsfolk as a burden, and not as a guarantee of survival, stability and protection. During the XI and at the beginning of the XII centuries. Russia's military clashes with its neighbors did not outgrow the scope of military conflicts. Relative security 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 XII century, the onslaught of the Polovtsy intensified. The Polovtsy, 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 Kyiv, 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 fulfilling strategic tasks. In the second half of the 13th century, Russia faced a severe test, when the Mongols attacked from the east, and Germans, Lithuanians, Swedes, Danes, Poles and Hungarians from the west. The Russian principalities, weakened by strife, failed to unite to repulse and resist the enemy.

general characteristics period of fragmentation

With the establishment of feudal fragmentation in Russia, specific order finally triumphed. (Destiny - 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 neighbors, dividing it among his sons at the behest of his father.

With the change in the position of the prince, the position of the rest of the population also changes. The service of the prince for a free person has always been a voluntary matter. Now the boyars and boyar children get the opportunity to choose which prince to serve, which was recorded in the so-called right of departure. Keeping your 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 of departure Servants without the right of departure

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

Positive:

Growth of cities, crafts and trade;

Cultural and economic development of individual lands.

Negative:

Weak central authority;

Independence of local princes and boyars;

The collapse of the state into separate principalities and lands;

Vulnerability to external enemies.

From the 15th century there appears new form services - local. Estate - land, the owner of which had to perform compulsory service in favor of the prince and did not use the right to leave. Such possession is called conditional, since the owner of the estate was not its owner in full. He owned it only as long as it was in service. The prince could transfer the estate to another, take it away completely, retain possession under the condition of service of the sons of the landowner ...

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

State lands Palace lands Private boyar lands Church lands

Free community members lived on the land, who, like the boyars, had the right to transfer from one landowner to another. This right was not used only by personally dependent people - plowed serfs, purchases, servants.

Political history of Kievan Rus in the period of feudal fragmentation

Thanks to the generally recognized authority of Monomakh, after his death in 1125, the Kyiv throne was taken 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, fought wars with the Chud and defended the Suzdal land from the princes Oleg and Yaroslav Svyatoslavich. Having become the Grand Duke, Mstislav continued the policy of his father: he kept the specific 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 princes of Polotsk were forced to go into exile in Byzantium. In 1132 Mstislav fought against 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, strife began again between the heirs of Monomakh. The sons of Oleg Svyatoslavich also joined the fight for Kyiv. The princes of Polotsk also took advantage of the strife and occupied Polotsk again.

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

“Prince Yuri “Long Hands,” narrates D. I. Eremin, “year after year, in any way, expanded his lands ... He seemed to lay down on them from Murom to Torzhok, from Vologda to the Moscow River, and raked everything, raked under themselves 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 Kyiv, to Ryazan, beyond Unzha, Sukhon, Vetluga. They were drawn to the rich Zavolochye, and to the Mordovians, and to the Bulgars across the Volga, and to the peaceful peoples of the Mari, and to the riches of Novgorod. No wonder he was nicknamed Dolgoruky... In a number of unknown places, just in case, he set up and fortified cities, naming them after his children. In those cities he built large houses and churches. They called him the "city builder". And he built a church near the mouth of the Nerl, Yuryev, Mozhaisk, Konyatin and Kostroma, Pereyaslavl and Dimitrov grew up through his efforts, and after them - Moscow ... ".

The very fact of the founding of Moscow by Yuri Dolgoruky does not raise any doubts, if only because in those years when Moscow was first mentioned, no one except Prince Yuri could own that land. However, historians write differently about the individual details of this event. Since we are talking about our capital, here are the most interesting statements from three different sources. Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov in his “History of Russia from Ancient Times” reports: “... for 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, the Oka and the Upper Dnieper The Moscow River flows into the Oka, just like the Klyazma, with the difference, however, that the Klyazma flows into the Oka where it belonged to the Finnish northeast, while the Moscow flows exactly at the place where the Oka, turning to east, transferred to Moscow the obligation to serve as a connection for the northern and southern Russian regions ... The region of the Moscow River was the original region of the Moscow principality, and in the first activity of the Moscow princes, we notice the desire to get the entire course of the river into their power. , therefore, the region of the Moscow principality was closed at both ends: the upper reaches of the river were in the power of the princes of Mozhai and Smolensk, the mouth was in the power of the princes of Ryazan - here they was the city of Kolomna. From this it is clear why the first conquests of Moscow were Mozhaisk and Kolomna ... ".

In the “Course of Russian History” by Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky we read: “It is curious that this town (Moscow) appears for the first time in an annalistic story with the meaning of a border point between the northern Suzdal and southern Chernigov-Seversky regions. Here in 1147, Yuri Dolgoruky invited his ally Prince Svyatoslav Olgovich of Novgorod-Seversky to a meeting, sending him to say: “Come to me, brother, to Moscow” ... From the story of the same chronicle, it is clear that Moscow also had a different, earlier name - Kutskov. She received this name from the local patrimony, the boyar and, according to legend, the Suzdal thousandth Stepan Kutsk or Kuchka, who owned the surrounding villages and villages ... ".

Most Attention historians were attracted by those legends about the beginning of Moscow, according to which Moscow before Yuri Dolgoruky belonged to "a certain boyar, a rich being, named Kuchko Stefan Ivanov." What made researchers single out this particular 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 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 latest in time and most complete in content message about the founding of Moscow can be read in the History of Moscow: "... the legend that existed in the first half of the 17th century could seem more likely to contemporaries. following. Once upon a time, Prince Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky, returning from Kyiv to Vladimir, stopped in a place where there were villages belonging to the boyar Kuchka Ivanovich. The swaggering boyar did not show due honor to the prince, for which he was executed by him. Yuri Dolgoruky married his son Andrei to Kuchka's daughter , and took his sons to his court. In the place of the villages he loved, which belonged to Kuchka, Yuri Dolgoruky ordered "to make a small city of drevyan. And nicknamed (it) the title of Moscow City by the name of the river flowing under it "". The "Tale", 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. called the 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 plotted 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 M.N. Tikhomirov, meant strengthening). Legend of the 17th century had, therefore, at its basis some reliable facts. But can we assume 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 southwestern corner of the modern Kremlin (up to the Grand Kremlin Palace) and was originally surrounded by a low rampart. A palisade was built on the rampart, and a ditch was dug in front of the outer edge of the rampart. So, even before the written sources known to us mentioned Moscow, 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 at the mouth of the Neglinna, above the Yauza River”, that is, it was about the construction of new wooden city fortifications.

Directing his eyes most of all to Kiev, Dolgoruky simultaneously made claims to Novgorod and because of this had a number of clashes with the 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 of Desht-i-Kipchak grew up in the steppe between Russia and the Surozh Sea. Grand Duke Monomakh himself chose a bride for his son - the daughter of the Polovtsian Khan Aepa. Polovchanka gave birth to Yuri a daughter and three sons - Andrei, Rostislav and Gleb. She herself died on a hunt as a result of an attack by a wild boar. In the last year of his life, Monomakh married Yuri for the third time, to the daughter of the Byzantine emperor. In all respects, it was beneficial for the Suzdal inheritance to intermarry with the imperial house of Byzantium. The patriarch of the Orthodox Church sat there, there was a center of science and culture, as well as trade. Considering all this, the far-sighted Monomakh sent his son to Tsargrad for a bride. Yuri arrived with Princess Elena, first to Kyiv, then to Suzdal. He lived with his third wife for over 20 years. Compared to the Polovtsy, Elena was calmer, but also more cunning - her thoughts all the time rushed from the Russian forests to Tsargrad. No wonder the son of Yuri Andrei, more powerful in character, sent his stepmother Elena to Byzantium as soon as he became the Grand Duke.

Yuri Dolgoruky occupied the Kyiv 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, Kyiv more than once passed from the hands of one prince to the hands of another. Finally, in 1169, it was taken by storm and plundered by Dolgoruky's son Andrei Bogolyubsky. From that time on, Kyiv lost the championship 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. Since that time, 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 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 from each other, independent state entities that formally had a common supreme ruler (in Russia, the period of the 12th - 15th centuries).

Already in the word "fragmentation" the political processes of this period are fixed. By the middle of the XII century, there were approximately 15 principalities. By the beginning of the XIII century - about 50. By the XIV century - about 250.

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 that is tragic in its consequences. Therefore, to say: "Fragmentation is bad because the Mongols conquered Russia" - it makes no sense.

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" they write: "You cannot imagine feudal fragmentation as some kind of feudal anarchy. Moreover, princely strife in a single state, when it came to the struggle for power, for the throne of the grand duke or these or those rich principalities and cities, were sometimes more bloody than in the period of feudal fragmentation.It was not the collapse of the ancient Russian state, but its transformation into a kind of federation of principalities headed by prince of Kiev, although his power was weakening all the time and was rather nominal ... The goal of strife during the period of fragmentation was already different than in a single state: not to seize power throughout the country, but to strengthen its own principality, expanding its borders at the expense of neighbors.

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

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

1097 Lubeck congress of princes.

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

1169 The capture of Kyiv by Andrei Bogolyubsky and the sack of the city by his troops, which testified to the socio-political and ethno-cultural isolation of certain lands of Kievan Rus.

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

1240 Defeat of Kyiv by the Mongol-Tatars.

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

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

1389 Battle of Kulikovo.

1471 Ivan III's campaign against Novgorod the Great.

1478 Inclusion of Novgorod into the Muscovy.

1485 Inclusion of the Tver Principality into the Muscovite State.

1510 Inclusion of the Pskov land into the Muscovy.

1521 Inclusion of the Ryazan Principality into the Muscovite State.

Causes of feudal fragmentation

Development of crafts and cities. In the middle of the XIII century, according to the chronicles in Kievan Rus, there were over 300 cities, in which there were almost 60 handicraft specialties. The degree of specialization in the field of metal processing technology was especially high. In Kievan Rus, the formation of an internal market is taking place, but the priority still remains with the external market. "Detintsy" - trade and craft settlements from runaway serfs. The bulk of the urban population - smaller people, bonded "hiremen" and declassed "wretched people", servants who lived in the courtyards of the feudal lords. The urban feudal nobility also lives in the cities and a trade and craft elite is formed. XII - XIII centuries. in Russia - this is the heyday of veche meetings.

The main reason for feudal fragmentation is the change in the nature of relations between the Grand Duke and his combatants 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 requisitions. As the combatants received land and received from the prince the right to collect taxes and duties themselves, they came to the conclusion that the income from military robbery was less reliable than fees from peasants and townspeople. In the XI century, the process of "settlement" of the squad on the ground intensified. And from the first half of the XII century in Kievan Rus, the votchina became the predominant form of ownership, the owner of which could dispose of it at his own discretion. And although the possession of a fiefdom imposed on the feudal lord the obligation to perform military service, his economic dependence on the Grand Duke was significantly weakened. The incomes of the former combatants-feudal lords depended more on the mercy of the prince. They made 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 it was in Western Europe, was accompanied by internecine wars. On the territory of Kievan Rus, three most influential states were formed: Vladimir-Suzdal principality (North-Eastern Russia), Galicia-Volyn principality (South-Western Russia) and Novgorod land (North-Western Russia). Both within these principalities and between them , for a long time there were fierce clashes, destructive wars that weakened the power of Russia, led to the destruction of cities and villages.

Domestic political. A single Russian state did not already exist under the sons of Yaroslav the Wise, and unity was supported rather by family ties and common interests in defense against the steppe nomads. The movement of the princes through the cities along the "Row of Yaroslav" created instability. The decision of the Lyubech Congress eliminated this established rule, finally fragmenting the state. The descendants of Yaroslav were more interested not in the struggle for seniority, but in increasing their own possessions at the expense of their neighbors. Foreign policy. The Polovtsian raids on Russia contributed in many respects to the consolidation of the Russian princes to repel external danger. The weakening of the onslaught from the south broke the alliance of the Russian princes, who, in civil strife, themselves more than once brought Polovtsian troops to Russia. Economic. Marxist historiography brought economic causes to the fore. The period of feudal fragmentation was seen as a natural stage in the development of feudalism. The dominance of natural economy did not contribute to the establishment of strong economic ties between the regions and led to isolation. The emergence of a feudal fiefdom with the exploitation of a dependent population required strong power in the localities, and not in the center. The growth of cities, the colonization and development of new lands led to the emergence of new large centers of Russia, loosely connected with Kiev.

- 82.50 Kb

Political fragmentation

- This is a natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal estates in Russia in the middle of the 12th-13th centuries. (See the scheme "Specific Russia"). On the basis of Kievan Rus by the middle of the 12th century. there were about 15 lands and principalities, by the beginning of the 13th century. - 50, in the fourteenth century. - 250.

The further development of the 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 reader the article “Peculiarities 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.

Political fragmentation did not mean the collapse of Russia, but its transformation into a kind of federation of principalities and lands. The Kyiv prince remained the head only nominally. Relations between the princes were regulated by agreements and customs. The goal of feudal strife during the period of fragmentation was different than in a single state: not to seize power throughout the country, but to strengthen their principality, expanding it at the expense of neighbors.

During the period of fragmentation, a clear system of feudal hierarchy was formed.

On the upper step were the specific princes - the descendants and vassals of the great princes, who, within the limits of their possessions, had the rights of independent sovereigns.

They were subordinated to the serving princes - the descendants of the princes, who did not have their own destinies, owned the land on the terms of serving the specific prince.

The boyars - the owners of estates, members of the advisory councils under the specific 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 combatants, servants, ryadovichi, tiuns, who performed economic and administrative-judicial functions in the principality and received princely "mercy" for their service - princely lands for temporary use on the terms of the estate.

From the point of view of general historical development, the political fragmentation of Russia is a natural stage on the path of the country's future centralization and future economic and political take-off. This is evidenced by the rampant growth of cities and patrimonial economy, 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, and Rome. In each of these principalities, the development of the culture of architecture and chronicle writing continued.

Prerequisites for political fragmentation in Russia: (See the diagram "Specific Russia").

1.Social:

a) The social structure of Russian society became more complex, its layers in individual lands and cities became more defined: large boyars, clergy, merchants, artisans, the lower classes of the city, including serfs. Developed dependence on the landowners of rural residents. All this new Russia no longer needed the former early medieval centralization. For the new structure of the economy, other than before, the scale of the state was needed. Huge Russia, with its very superficial political cohesion, necessary primarily for defense against an external enemy, for organizing long-range campaigns of conquest, now no longer corresponded to the needs of large cities with their branched feudal hierarchy, developed trade and craft strata, the needs of patrimonials striving to have power, close to their interests - and not in Kyiv, and not even in the form of the Kiev governor, but their own, here, on the spot, which could fully and resolutely defend their interests.

b) The transition to arable farming contributed to the settled way of life of the rural population and increased the desire of the combatants to own land. Therefore, the transformation of combatants into landowners began (on the basis of a princely award). The squad became less mobile. The warriors were now interested in a permanent stay near their estates and strove for political independence.

In this regard, in the 12-13 centuries. the system of immunities became widespread - a system that freed the boyars-landowners from princely administration and court and gave them the right to independent actions in their possessions.

I.e main reason fragmentation became a natural process of the emergence of private land ownership and the settlement of the squad on the ground.

2. Economic:

Gradually, individual estates become stronger and begin to produce all products only for their own consumption, and not for the market (natural economy ) . Commodity exchange between individual economic units practically ceases. Those. the formation of a system of subsistence farming contributes to the isolation of individual economic units.

3. Political:

The main role in the collapse of the state was played by the local boyars; local princes did not want to share their income with the Grand Prince of Kiev, and in this they were actively supported by the local boyars, who needed a strong local princely power.

4. Foreign policy:

The weakening of Byzantium due to the attacks of the Normans and Seljuks reduced trade on the "route from the Varangians to the Greeks." Crusader campaigns opened a more direct route of communication between Asia and Europe through the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. Trade routes moved to central Europe. Russia lost the status of a world trade intermediary and a factor that united the Slavic tribes. This completed the collapse of the unified state and contributed to the movement of the political center from the southwest to the northeast to the Vladimir-Suzdal land.

Kyiv is away from the main trade routes. Most actively begin to trade: Novgorod with Europe and German cities; Galicia (it's safer here) - with northern Italian cities; Kyiv turns into an outpost of the fight against the Polovtsians. The population goes to safer places: northeast (Vladimir-Suzdal principality and southwest (Galicia-Volyn principality)

Consequences of political fragmentation.

1. In the conditions of the formation of new economic regions and the formation of new political formations, the steady development of the peasant economy took place, new arable lands were developed, there was an expansion and quantitative multiplication of estates, which for their time became the most progressive form of farming, although this happened due to the labor of a 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 collapse of Russia has never been complete:

a) The power of the great Kiev princes, albeit sometimes illusory, but existed. The Kiev principality, although formally, cemented all of Russia

b) The all-Russian church retained its influence. The Kiev metropolitans led 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) A counterbalance to the final disintegration was the constantly existing external danger to the Russian lands from the side of the Polovtsians, respectively, the Kyiv 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.

Feudal fragmentation: definition, chronological framework.
Feudal fragmentation is 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 from each other, independent state entities that formally had a common supreme ruler (in Russia, the period of the 12th - 15th centuries).
Already in the word "fragmentation" the political processes of this period are fixed. By the middle of the XII century, there were approximately 15 principalities. By the beginning of the XIII century - about 50. By the XIV century - about 250.
How to evaluate this process? But is there a problem here? The unified state broke up and was relatively easily conquered by the Mongols-Tatars. And before that, there were bloody strife between princes, from which ordinary people, peasants and artisans suffered.
Indeed, approximately such a stereotype was formed until recently when reading scientific and journalistic literature, and even some scientific works. True, these works also spoke of the pattern of fragmentation of Russian lands, the growth of cities, the development of trade and handicrafts. All this is true, however, the smoke of the conflagrations in which Russian cities disappeared during the years of the Batu invasion, and today many people obscure their eyes. But can the significance of one event be measured by the tragic consequences of another? "If not for the invasion, Russia would have survived."
But after all, the Mongol-Tatars also conquered huge empires, such as, for example, China. The battle with the countless armies of Batu was a much more difficult 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 face of the Mongol-Tatars, there was a collision with a qualitatively different enemy. So if we put the question in the subjunctive mood, we can ask in another way: could the Russian early feudal state resist the Tatars? Who dares to answer it in the affirmative? And the most important thing. The success of the invasion cannot be attributed to fragmentation.
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 that is tragic in its consequences. Therefore, to say: "Fragmentation is bad because the Mongols conquered Russia" - it makes no sense.
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" they write: "You cannot imagine feudal fragmentation as some kind of feudal anarchy. Moreover, princely strife in a single state, when it came to the struggle for power, for the throne of the grand duke or these or those rich principalities and cities, were sometimes more bloody than in the period of feudal fragmentation.It was not the collapse of the ancient Russian state, but its transformation into a kind of federation of principalities headed by prince of Kiev, although his power was weakening all the time and was rather nominal ... The goal of strife during the period of fragmentation was already different than in a single state: not to seize power throughout the country, but to strengthen its own principality, expanding its borders at the expense of neighbors.
Thus, fragmentation differs from the times of state unity not by the presence of strife, but by fundamentally different goals of the warring parties.

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

1097 Lubeck congress of princes.

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

1169 The capture of Kyiv by Andrei Bogolyubsky and the sack of the city by his troops, which testified to the socio-political and ethno-cultural isolation of certain lands of Kievan Rus.

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

1240 Defeat of Kyiv by the Mongol-Tatars.

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

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

1389 Battle of Kulikovo.

1471 Ivan III's campaign against Novgorod the Great.

1478 Inclusion of Novgorod into the Muscovy.

1485 Inclusion of the Tver Principality into the Muscovite State.

1510 Inclusion of the Pskov land into the Muscovy.

1521 Inclusion of the Ryazan Principality into the Muscovite State.
Causes of feudal fragmentation
The formation of feudal landownership: the old tribal nobility, once pushed into the shadow of the capital's military service nobility, turned into zemstvo boyars and formed a corporation of landowners together with other categories of feudal lords (boyar landownership was formed). Gradually, the tables turn into hereditary in princely families (princely land tenure). "Settling" on the ground, the ability to do without the help of Kyiv led to the desire to "arrangement" on the ground.
Development of agriculture: 40 types of rural agricultural and fishing equipment. Steam (two- and three-field) crop rotation system. The practice of fertilizing the earth 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. The 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 food rent, and to a lesser extent, working off.
Development of crafts and cities. In the middle of the XIII century, according to the chronicles in Kievan Rus, there were over 300 cities, in which there were almost 60 handicraft specialties. The degree of specialization in the field of metal processing technology was especially high. In Kievan Rus, the formation of an internal market is taking place, but the priority still remains with the external market. "Detintsy" - trade and craft settlements from runaway serfs. The bulk of the urban population - smaller people, bonded "hiremen" and declassed "wretched people", servants who lived in the courtyards of the feudal lords. The urban feudal nobility also lives in the cities and a trade and craft elite is formed. XII - XIII centuries. in Russia - this is the heyday of veche meetings.
The main reason for feudal fragmentation is the change in the nature of relations between the Grand Duke and his combatants 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 requisitions. As the combatants received land and received from the prince the right to collect taxes and duties themselves, they came to the conclusion that the income from military robbery was less reliable than fees from peasants and townspeople. In the XI century, the process of "settlement" of the squad on the ground intensified. And from the first half of the XII century in Kievan Rus, the votchina became the predominant form of ownership, the owner of which could dispose of it at his own discretion. And although the possession of a fiefdom imposed on the feudal lord the obligation to perform military service, his economic dependence on the Grand Duke was significantly weakened. The incomes of the former combatants-feudal lords depended more on the mercy of the prince. They made 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 fiefdom. 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 court. As a result, a state apparatus, a squad, courts, prisons, etc., are formed in independent principalities-patrimonies, and specific princes begin to dispose of communal lands, transfer them on their own behalf to 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 earth and the people inhabiting it. Under the influence of all these processes, the nature of relations between the local principalities and Kiev also changed. Service dependence is being 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 disintegration, as it was in Western Europe, was accompanied by internecine wars. On the territory of Kievan Rus, three most influential states were formed: Vladimir-Suzdal principality (North-Eastern Russia), Galicia-Volyn principality (South-Western Russia) and Novgorod land (North-Western Russia). Both within these principalities and between them , for a long time there were fierce clashes, destructive wars that weakened the power of Russia, led to the destruction of cities and villages.
The boyars were the main divisive force. Based on his power, the local princes managed to establish their power in every land. However, later between the strong boyars and the local princes, contradictions and a struggle for power arose. Causes of feudal fragmentation

Domestic political. A single Russian state did not already exist under the sons of Yaroslav the Wise, and unity was supported rather by family ties and common interests in defense against the steppe nomads. The movement of the princes through the cities along the "Row of Yaroslav" created instability. The decision of the Lyubech Congress eliminated this established rule, finally fragmenting the state. The descendants of Yaroslav were more interested not in the struggle for seniority, but in increasing their own possessions at the expense of their neighbors. Foreign policy. The Polovtsian raids on Russia contributed in many respects to the consolidation of the Russian princes to repel external danger. The weakening of the onslaught from the south broke the alliance of the Russian princes, who, in civil strife, themselves more than once brought Polovtsian troops to Russia. Economic. Marxist historiography brought economic causes to the fore. The period of feudal fragmentation was seen as a natural stage in the development of feudalism. The dominance of natural economy did not contribute to the establishment of strong economic ties between the regions and led to isolation. The emergence of a feudal fiefdom with the exploitation of a dependent population required strong power in the localities, and not in the center. The growth of cities, the colonization and development of new lands led to the emergence of new large centers of Russia, loosely connected with Kiev.

Feudal fragmentation: the historiography of the problem.
Chronologically, the historical tradition considers the beginning of the period of fragmentation to be the year 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 Andrey Bogolyubsky captured Kyiv, but did not stay in it, but, on the contrary, gave it to his troops for plunder as a foreign enemy city, which testified, according to according to the historian, about the isolation of 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 control were assigned to it: the army, the governorship system, tax policy, and the priority of the grand ducal power in foreign policy.
Both the causes and the nature of feudal fragmentation were revealed in different ways in historiography at different times.

The development of a feudal patrimony in Kievan Rus, which played an organizing role in the development of agricultural production due to higher opportunities than peasant farms to conduct a diversified economy.
The selection of these causes from the complex cause-and-effect complex was connected 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 in Russian history, including fragmentation, inevitably deepened, which, however, did not interfere with the vitality of stereotypes. The duality in the assessments also concerned fragmentation. The historian Leontiev in 1975 assessed this phenomenon as follows: "Feudal fragmentation was a new, higher stage in the development of feudal society and the state. At the same time, the loss of the state unity of Russia, accompanied by civil strife, weakened its strength in the face of the growing threat of external aggression."
References to the dialectical approach cannot 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, increased opportunities for realizing local economic potentials. In practice, such implementation was often held back by many unfavorable factors: political instability, cut-off of 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 land.
Historians Dumin and Tugarinov openly admit that according to the written sources of the Kiev time (XI - the first half of the XIII century), the process of feudalization of land ownership is poorly traced. Of course, one cannot completely deny the tendencies of the feudalization of ancient Russian society. 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, the strife within the princely ruling dynasty, the separatism of the local landed nobility reflected the destabilization of the political situation in the country. The clash and struggle of centripetal and centrifugal factors determined the course both before and after the fragmentation of Kievan Rus.
The vast majority of pre-Soviet historians spoke 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 privately owned lands, and quitrent was a kind of rent. The class of landowners was heterogeneous and, the boundaries between its various categories were constantly blurred. There was a structure of social hierarchy, which in itself did not yet imply the fragmentation of the state. According to N. M. Karamzin and S. M. Solovyov, this period was a kind of turmoil. The 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. The concept of "feudalism" V. O. Klyuchevsky used only in relation to Western Europe. The period of fragmentation according to Klyuchevsky was a time of severe trials for Russia, but it had its historical significance as a transitional period from Kievan Rus to Muscovite Rus. V. O. Klyuchevsky believes that in the specific period, despite the fragmentation, integrating trends 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 "general earthly feeling" of Russians was reinforced by the unity of language, traditions, and mentality. The Orthodox Church was also a force that held the ancient Russian ethnos together. The unity of Kievan Rus was also seen in the system of relations within the princely house of Rurikovich. The princes "wandered" around the more prestigious destinies, while in the West the feudal lords firmly grew into their fiefs.
L. N. Gumilyov came up with an original explanation of the fragmentation of Kievan Rus. In his opinion, it was the result of a decline in passionary tension in the system of the Old Russian ethnos. He saw manifestations of this decline in the weakening of public and intrastate ties, due to the victory of selfish interests and consumer psychology, when the state organization was perceived by the inhabitants as a burden, and not as a guarantee of survival, stability and protection. During the XI and at the beginning of the XII centuries. Russia's military clashes with its neighbors did not outgrow the scope of military conflicts. Relative security 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" in 1185). The negative consequences of fragmentation were not long in coming. At the end of the XII century, the onslaught of the Polovtsy intensified. The Polovtsy, 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 Kyiv, 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 fulfilling strategic tasks. In the second half of the 13th century, Russia faced a severe test, when the Mongols attacked from the east, and Germans, Lithuanians, Swedes, Danes, Poles and Hungarians from the west. The Russian principalities, weakened by strife, failed to unite to repulse and resist the enemy.
General characteristics of the fragmentation period
With the establishment of feudal fragmentation in Russia, specific order finally triumphed. (Destiny - 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 neighbors, dividing it among his sons at the behest of his father.
With the change in the position of the prince, the position of the rest of the population also changes. The service of the prince for a free person has always been a voluntary matter. Now the boyars and boyar children get the opportunity to choose which prince to serve, which was recorded in the so-called right of departure. While retaining 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 of departure Servants without the right of departure
Feudal fragmentation as a natural stage in the historical development of human society is characterized by the following factors:

Positive:
Growth of cities, crafts and trade;

Cultural and economic development of individual lands.

Negative:
Weak central government;

Independence of local princes and boyars;

The collapse of the state into separate principalities and lands;

Vulnerability to external enemies.
Since the 15th century, a new form of service has appeared - local. Estate - land, the owner of which had to perform compulsory service in favor of the prince and did not use the right to leave. Such possession is called conditional, since the owner of the estate was not its owner in full. He owned it only as long as it was in service. The prince could transfer the estate to another, take it away completely, retain possession under the condition of service of the sons of the landowner ..
All the land of the principality was divided into state ("black"), palace (belonging personally to the prince), boyars (estates) and church. Principality lands

State lands Palace lands Private boyar lands Church lands
Free community members lived on the land, who, like the boyars, had the right to transfer from one landowner to another. This right was not used only by personally dependent people - plowed serfs, purchases, servants.
Political history of Kievan Rus in the period of feudal fragmentation
Thanks to the generally recognized authority of Monomakh, after his death in 1125, the Kyiv throne was taken 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, fought wars with the Chud and defended the Suzdal land from the princes Oleg and Yaroslav Svyatoslavich. Having become the Grand Duke, Mstislav continued the policy of his father: he kept the specific 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 princes of Polotsk were forced to go into exile in Byzantium. In 1132 Mstislav fought against 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, strife began again between the heirs of Monomakh. The sons of Oleg Svyatoslavich also joined the fight for Kyiv. The princes of Polotsk also took advantage of the strife and occupied Polotsk again.
After the death of Yaropolk, the eldest son of Oleg Svyatoslavich, Vsevolod, expelled Vyacheslav, the son of Vladimir Monomakh, from Kyiv and became the Grand Duke (1139 - 1146). Vsevolod wanted to succeed his brother Igor. But the people of Kiev did not like the Olegovichs and called Izyaslav Mstislavich (1146-1154) as prince, and Igor was killed. Having occupied Kyiv, Izyaslav violated the right of seniority of his uncle Yuri Dolgoruky, the son of Vladimir Monomakh. A war broke out between them, in which other Russian princes, as well as Hungarians and Polovtsy, took part. The war went on with varying success. Yuri expelled Izyaslav from Kyiv twice, but in 1151 he was defeated by him and took the Kyiv throne only in 1154, after the death of Izyaslav. Yuri Dolgoruky (1154-1157) was the youngest son of Vladimir Monomakh by his second wife. Born around 1090. Since childhood, he lived without a break in his father's places - Rostov the Great, Suzdal, Vladimir. Monomakh gave him this inheritance with intent - even the youngest son strengthens Russia here and makes his wealth. Yuri justified the hopes of his father.

Description of work

Political fragmentation is a natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal estates in Russia in the middle of the 12th-13th centuries. (See the scheme "Specific Russia"). On the basis of Kievan Rus by the middle of the 12th century. there were about 15 lands and principalities, by the beginning of the 13th century. - 50, in the fourteenth century. - 250.
The further development of the 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 reader the article “Peculiarities 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.
Political fragmentation did not mean the collapse of Russia, but its transformation into a kind of federation of principalities and lands. The Kyiv prince remained the head only nominally. Relations between the princes were regulated by agreements and customs. The goal of feudal strife during the period of fragmentation was different than in a single state: not to seize power throughout the country, but to strengthen their principality, expanding it at the expense of neighbors.

"Next" order of succession to the throne. Dying, Yaroslav the Wise divided the territory of the state between his five sons and a nephew from the deceased eldest son Vladimir. He bequeathed to the heirs to live in peace and love and obey his elder brother Izyaslav in everything. This procedure for the transfer of the throne to the eldest in the family, i.e. from brother to brother, and after the death of the last of the reigning brothers to his eldest nephew, he received the name "next" or "ladder" (from the word "ladder"). The throne of Kyiv, therefore, was to be occupied by the eldest prince in the Rurik family.

The complexity of dynastic accounts, on the one hand, the growth of the power of each individual principality, on the other, personal ambitions, on the third, inevitably led to princely strife.

Lubech Congress. With the death in 1093 of the last of the Yaroslavichs, Vsevolod, in accordance with the ladder order of succession to the throne, power over Kiev passed to the oldest in the family Svyatopolk II Izyaslavich (1093-1113). new prince failed to cope with strife, to resist the Polovtsy. Moreover, he was a self-serving man, very unscrupulous in the means of strengthening power. So, under him, speculation in bread and salt was widely conducted, uncontrolled usury flourished.

The most popular in Russia at that time was Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh. On his initiative, in 1097, the Lubech Congress of Princes took place. It was decided to stop the strife and proclaimed the principle "Everyone keeps his fatherland." However, the strife continued even after the Lyubech Congress.

An external factor, namely the need for an otior that appeared by the middle of the 11th century. in the southern Russian steppes to the nomadic Polovtsy, still kept Kievan Rus from disintegrating into separate principalities for some time. The fight was not easy. Historians count about 50 Polovtsian invasions from the middle of the 11th century to the beginning of the 13th century.

Vladimir Monomakh. After the death of Svyatopolk II in 1113, an uprising broke out in Kyiv. The people smashed the courts of princely rulers, big feudal lords and moneylenders. The uprising raged for four days. The Kievan boyars summoned Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125) to the grand-ducal throne.

Vladimir Monomakh was forced to make certain concessions by issuing the so-called "Charter of Vladimir Monomakh", which has become another part of the "Russian Truth". The charter streamlined the collection of interest by usurers, improved the legal status of the merchants, and regulated the transition to servitude. Monomakh gave a great place in this legislation to legal status purchases, which suggests that purchasing became a very common institution and the enslavement of smerds proceeded at a more decisive pace.

Vladimir Monomakh managed to keep the entire Russian land under his rule, despite the fact that signs of fragmentation intensified, which was facilitated by a lull in the fight against the Polovtsy. Under Monomakh, the international prestige of Russia was strengthened. The prince himself was the grandson of the Byzantine emperor Constantine Monomakh. His wife was an English princess. It is no coincidence that Ivan III, Grand Duke Moscow, who liked to "stir up the chroniclers," often referred to the reign of Vladimir Monomakh. The appearance in Russia of the crown of Russian tsars, the cap of Monomakh, and the succession of the power of Russian tsars from the emperors of Constantinople were associated with his name. Under Vladimir Monomakh, the initial Russian chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years" was compiled. He entered our history as a major politician, military leader and writer.

Son of Vladimir Monomakh Mstislav I the Great(1125-1132) managed to keep the unity of the Russian lands for some time. After the death of Mstislav Kievan Rus finally broke up into a dozen principalities-states. A period has come that has received in history the name of the period of fragmentation or specific period.

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 from each other, independent state entities that formally had a common supreme ruler (in Russia, the period of the 12th - 15th centuries).
1. Formation of local princely dynasties. The development of the family possession of the Rurikovich into the family of separate branches of the clan led to the settling of princes in separate territories (future destinies). The prince was thinking more and more not about getting a more prestigious and profitable table, but about securing his own possession.
2. Strengthening the local boyars. There is a folding of the boyar regional groupings, caused, in turn, both by the success of agriculture (the spread of arable farming, the emergence of three-fields increased the production of surplus product, the boyar estates turned into an important source of income), and the growth in the number of squads and their passion for wealth. The boyars and the local prince were united by a desire for independence, a desire to get out of the custody of the Kiev prince, to stop paying polyudia from their territories to him.
3. Development of crafts and trade led to the growth and strengthening of cities, which turn into centers of individual territories. Urban population began to be weighed down by the need to pay tribute and protect the interests of the Kiev prince who was far away from him. At the same time, protection from the raids of nomads and neighbors, necessary for the free community members of the city and village, was already provided by local princely squads.
4. The position and role of Kyiv itself has changed. With the loss of significance of the trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks in the 11th century, the economic basis of unity weakened, the receipt of trade duties was reduced, which undermined the economic power of the Kiev prince.
5. Spiritual background separation was the development of an authoritarian ideal, strengthening the power of local princes.

As a result of fragmentation, the principalities stood out as independent, the names of which were given by the capital cities: Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Murom, Ryazan, Rostov-Suzdal, Smolensk, Galicia, Vladimir-Volyn, Polotsk, Turovo-Pinsk, Tmutarakan; Novgorod and Pskov lands. Each of the lands was ruled by its own dynasty, one of the branches of the Rurikovich.

VLADIMIR-SUZDAL LAND.

The Rostov-Suzdal land came out of the power of Kyiv in the 30s of the XII century, when the son of Monomakh reigned in it Yuri Vladimirovich (1125-1157), nicknamed Dolgoruky. He is the first of Suzdal princes began to seek predominance in Russia. Under him, the influence of the Rostov-Suzdal land extended to Novgorod, Murom and Ryazan, and, in addition, a strong alliance was established with the Galician land. Wanting to unite power in Russia in his hands, Yuri sought to gain a foothold in Kyiv. Suzdal troops captured this capital city. However, after the death of Yuri, the Kiev citizens hastened to break their dependence on the Suzdal princes, plundering the courtyards of Yuri, his supporters and merchants throughout the Kiev land.

Rostov-Suzdal Rus in the middle of the XII century. experienced significant economic growth. An agricultural culture developed here. New cities were built and grew - Vladimir-on-Klyazma, Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Yuryev-Polsky, Zvenigorod, Dmitrov, etc. Moscow was founded (it was first mentioned in the annals under 1147).

Yuri's successor, Prince Andrei Yurievich Bogolyubsky (1157-1174), relying on the nobles and supported by the townspeople of Rostov, Suzdal and residents of other cities, resolutely fought against the recalcitrant boyars. He made Vladimir his capital, where there was a strong trade and craft settlement, appropriated the title of Grand Duke of all Russia and sought to extend his power to Kyiv and Novgorod. Continuing to compete with the Volyn princes, Andrey Bogolyubsky organized a campaign against Kyiv in 1169, captured it and took out many riches to his land, transferring ancient capital in control of one of his proteges. This completed the decline of Kyiv. But the unifying policy of Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky was unexpectedly interrupted. He was killed, as already mentioned above, by conspirators from among the boyars and wealthy combatants. his successor Vsevolod Yurievich Big Nest (1177-1212) crushed the resistance of the feudal nobility and executed a number of boyars. He pursued a more balanced policy than Andrei, which made it possible to significantly strengthen the Vladimir principality and the power of the prince himself. He expanded his possessions, strengthened the squad, subordinated Novgorod and Ryazan to his influence, undertook a new campaign against Volga Bulgaria. As a result, the power of the Grand Duke was strengthened in North-Eastern Russia, the primacy of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality among other Russian lands was established.

But centrifugal processes developed, and after the death of Vsevolod civil strife began again, weakening the principality. As a result of the struggle of the Vsevolodovichs, his son Yuri (1218-1238) came to power, who became the last ruler of the independent Vladimir-Suzdal principality and died in the tragic year of the Mongol invasion.

NOVGOROD REPUBLIC.

The possessions of Novgorod stretched from the Gulf of Finland to the Urals and from the Arctic Ocean to the upper reaches of the Volga. Poor soils and a cold climate led to the fact that Novgorodians periodically experienced a lack of bread. This economically and politically tied Novgorod to the Vladimir land, from where, basically, grain was supplied. At the same time convenient geographical position turned Novgorod into the largest trading center, supplying European countries with furs, honey, leather, products of the marine industry. Trade was organized by the merchants, but they received the products themselves from the boyar fishing villages.

The boyars also controlled a highly developed handicraft industry. In addition, Novgorod did not have its own princely dynasty. This strengthened the position of the boyars.

In the city, even in the era of domination of Kyiv, activity did not fade National Assembly- vecha. After the expulsion in 1136 of Prince Vsevolod Mstislavovich, the Novgorodians achieved complete independence, and the veche actually became the highest authority.

The Novgorod veche, formally remaining a democratic body, in its essence expressed the interests of the city's upper classes and was the basis of the aristocratic system of government.

In fact, the Novgorod land remained a monarchy with a weak princely power. Despite the established veche and oligarchic institutions of power, Novgorodians, even after the expulsion of Vsevolod, continued to invite princes (most often from Suzdal). The prince was not only supreme commander and highest court. An agreement was concluded with him - a series that limited the range of powers of the prince to official functions - military, police, arbitration. He had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of city government, to acquire landed property in the Novgorod volosts, change officials, carry out reprisals without trial, and in case of violation of the agreement, he was expelled from Novgorod.

Veche chose a posadnik, who came from the most noble boyars and served as head executive power. In addition, a thousand man was elected, who was in charge of tax collection, led the Novgorod militia, and also controlled trade. Veche also elected the bishop - the head of the Novgorod church. He was a bishop (later an archbishop), who had some secular powers: judicial, financial, foreign policy. Presiding at the meetings of the Council of Masters and blessing the opening of veche meetings, he thus, as it were, performed the functions of the head of state.

GALICIA-VOLYNIA LAND.

The Galicia-Volyn principality, located on the western and southwestern borders of Russia, in the interfluve of the Southern Bug and the Dniester, had exceptionally favorable conditions for the development of agriculture, crafts and trade.

Here, large private landownership and a powerful boyar stratum arose early enough, striving for independence both from Kyiv and from their own princes.

The Galician land, whose ancient center was Przemysl, became isolated by the beginning of the 12th century. into a separate principality under the rule of the great-grandchildren of Yaroslav the Wise.

The principality of Galich reached its highest power under Yaroslav VladimirovichOsmomysl (1151-1187). In 1159 he succeeded in capturing Kiev. But even he, in a collision with the local all-powerful boyars, was forced to make a number of concessions, and after his death a long turmoil began in Galicia, complicated by the intervention of Hungary and Poland.

In 1199 Volyn prince, great-grandson of Mstislav the Great Roman Mstislavovich, captured Galich, thereby creating a powerful Galicia-Volyn principality. Relying on the townspeople and small landowners, he brutally cracked down on the boyars dissatisfied with his policy.

The eldest son of Roman Mstislavich Daniel (1221-1264) was only four years old when his father died. Daniel had to endure a long struggle for the throne with both the Hungarian, Polish, and Russian princes. Only in 1238 Daniil Romanovich asserted his authority over the Galypka-Volyn land. In 1240, having occupied Kyiv, Daniel managed to unite South-Western Russia and Kiev land. However, in the same year, the Galicia-Volyn principality was ravaged by the Mongol Tatars. After the death of Daniel Romanovich in 1264, the principality was divided between the brothers, and in the fourteenth century. his lands became part of Poland, Lithuania and Hungary.

Feudal fragmentation is 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 from each other, independent state entities that formally had a common supreme ruler (in Russia, the period of the 12th - 15th centuries).

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

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

the date	Event
1097	Lubech Congress of Princes.
1132	The death of Mstislav I the Great and the political collapse of Kievan Rus.
1169	The capture of Kyiv by Andrei Bogolyubsky and the plunder of the city by his troops, which testified to 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 the Mongol-Tatars of Kyiv.
1252	Presentation of the label for the great reign of Alexander Nevsky.
1328	Presentation of the label for the great reign of the Moscow prince Ivan Kalita.
1389	Kulikovo battle.
1471	Ivan III's campaign against Novgorod the Great.
1478	The inclusion of Novgorod in the Muscovy.
1485	The inclusion of the Tver principality in the Moscow state.
1510	The inclusion of the Pskov land in the Moscow state.
1521	Inclusion of the Ryazan Principality into the Muscovite State.

General characteristics of the fragmentation period

With the establishment of feudal fragmentation in Russia, specific order finally triumphed. (Destiny - 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 neighbors, dividing it among his sons at the behest of his father.

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

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

Since the 15th century, a new form of service has appeared - local. Estate - land, the owner of which had to perform compulsory service in favor of the prince and did not use the right to leave. Such possession is called conditional, since the owner of the estate was not its owner in full. He owned it only as long as it was in service. The prince could transfer the estate to another, take away completely, retain possession under the condition of service of the sons of the landowner.

All the land of the principality was divided into state ("black"), palace (belonging personally to the prince), boyars (estates) and church.