SOME DATES OF IMPORTANT EVENTS

...from the history of Kievan Rus

g. – Oleg’s murder of the Kyiv princes Dir and Askold and
conquest in Kyiv.

g. – Oleg’s conquest of the Drevlyan tribe. Reconquest from
Khazar Kaganate of the Northern, Polyan, and Radimichi tribes.

907 – Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople. Their collection of tribute from Byzantium.

911 – Signing of the first treaty between Kievan Rus and the Byzantine Empire.

915 - Arrival of the Pechenegs to Rus'. Peace of Prince Igor with the Pechenegs.

920 - His campaign against the Pechenegs.

944 – Treaty of Prince Igor with Byzantium on peace, alliance, trade. The murder of the prince by the Drevlyans after the repeated collection of tribute to them.

945 – 946 – Streamlining the collection of tribute by Princess Olga after her punishment of the Drevlyans.

955 – Princess Olga’s trip to Constantinople and her secret baptism.

955 – Defeat of the Khazar Kaganate by Prince Svyatoslav. Conquest of the Yasov and Kasog tribes in the North Caucasus, the conquest of the Taman Peninsula and the founding of the Tmutarakan principality.

958 – Conquest of 80 cities of Danube Bulgaria by Svyatoslav, defeat of the Pechenegs near Kiev.

980 – Pagan reform of Prince Vladimir.

981 – War between Prince Vladimir and the Polish king for the cities of Cherven, Przemysl, etc.

988 – Prince Vladimir’s campaign against the Greek colony of Chersonesus (Korsun) after the Byzantine Emperor Vasily II violated the military alliance with Kievan Rus. Signing of a peace treaty with Byzantium, baptism of Vladimir.

988 – 990 - Baptism of Rus'.

1016 – Svyatopolk captures Kyiv with the help of the Poles. Flight of Yaroslav to Novgorod.

1018 – 1019 – War of Yaroslav with Svyatopolk. The latter's flight to the Pechenegs.

1023–1026 – The war between Yaroslav and his brother Mstislav of Tmutarakan. Division of the Principality of Kyiv between the brothers along the Dnieper.

1034 – Defeat of the Pechenegs who besieged Kyiv by Yaroslav the Wise.

1046 - Yaroslav concluded peace with Byzantium after the unsuccessful Byzantine campaign in 1043 by his son Vladimir.

1051 – Appointment of Priest Hilarion as Metropolitan of Kyiv by Yaroslav without the consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

1068 – Polovtsian invasion of Rus'. Defeat of the Russian princes in the battle with the Polovtsians.

1097 – Lyubech congress of Russian princes, their agreement on the ownership of “fatherland”, without an attempt on other people’s possessions.

1103 – Dolob congress of princes on the issue of a campaign against the Polovtsians. The defeat of the Polovtsy by princes Svyatopolk II and Vladimir Monomakh.

Around 1113 - Compilation of the “Tale of Bygone Years” by the monk of the Kyiv-Pechersk Monastery Nestor.

1136 - Expulsion of Prince Vsevolod Mstislavovich by the Novgorodians, refusal to submit to the Grand Duke of Kyiv and the establishment of a feudal boyar republic in Novgorod.

1147 – First mention of Moscow in the chronicle.

…from the history of European countries

843 – Verdun division of the Frankish empire.

868 – Danish capture of northeast England and creation of the “area of ​​Danish law.”

889–898 – Conquest of the Danube Lowland by the Hungarian-Magyars and the founding of the Hungarian Kingdom.

911 – Vikings establish the Norman Kingdom in northern France.

962 - Coronation by the Pope of the German king Otto I with the imperial crown. Foundation of the German Holy Roman Empire.

966 – Baptism of the first Polish king Mecheslav (Mieszko) and his squad in the Western image.

1117 – 1035 – The northern state of Canute of Denmark, uniting Sweden, Norway, England, Denmark and Scotland.

1054 Division of the Christian Church into Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

1066 – Conquest of England by William of Normandy.

1077 – The visit of the German Emperor Henry IV to Canossa, the residence of Pope Gregory.

1086 – The first census in England is carried out.

1090 – 1099 – First Crusade.

1130 Formation of the Norman Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

1147 – 1149 – Second Crusade.

X - XI centuries - Completion of the formation of feudal relations in European countries, the beginning of the second division of labor.

TABLES, CHARTS, STATISTICS

9th century – a period of mass exodus of inhabitants of the Scandinavian Peninsula

“The name of the Varangians... was used to name the Normans who left Scandinavia for other countries. Such immigrants began to appear in the 9th century, among the Slavic tribes on the Volkhov and Dnieper, on the Black Sea and in Greece. They traded or were hired into Russian or Byzantine military service, or simply looked for loot and robbed where they could... in that era, in general, the eviction of Normans from the Scandinavian countries to central and even southern Europe was very large: they attacked England, France, Spain, even Italy."

Great Kyiv princes and the years of their reign

879 – 912 - Oleg.

912 – 945 - Igor.

945 – 957 - Olga.

957 – 972 - Svyatoslav.

972 – 980 - Yaropolk.

980 – 1015 - Vladimir the Saint.

1019 – 1054 - Yaroslav the Wise.

1054 – 1078 – Izyaslav I.

1078 – 1093 – Vsevolod I.

1093–1113 – Svyatopolk II

1113 – 1125 - Vladimir Monomakh.

1125 – 1132 – Mstislav I.

1132 – 1139 – Yaropolk II Vladimirovich.

1139 – 1146 – Vsevolod II.

1146 – 1154 – Izyaslav II..

1154 – 1157 - Yury Dolgoruky.

1157 – 1174 - Andrey Bogolyubsky.

Some Slavic pre-Christian names

The first mentions of large cities of Kievan Rus

The time of the arrival of the Slavs on the Central Russian Plain

“The eastern branch of the Slavs came to the Dnieper probably back in the 7th century, gradually settling, reaching Lake Ilmen and the upper Oka.”

Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. Part I. – M., 1994. – P. 59.

The number of East Slavic tribes and their settlement

“Historians count 15 such tribes. Each tribe was a collection of clans and then occupied a relatively small isolated area. According to the Tale of Bygone Years, the map of the settlement of the Eastern Slavs in the 8th – 9th centuries looked like this: the Slovenes (Ilmen Slavs) lived on the shores of Lake Ilmen and Volkhov; Krivichi with Polotsk residents - in the upper reaches of the Western Dvina, Volga, Dnieper; Dregovichi - between Pripyat and Berezina; Vyatichi - on the Oka and Moscow rivers; Radimichi - on Sezha and Desna; northerners - on the Desna, Seym, Sula and Northern Donets; Drevlyans - in Pripyat and the Middle Dnieper region; glade - along the middle reaches of the Dnieper; Bhutanese, Volynians, Dulebs - in Volyn, along the Bug; Tivertsy, Ulich - in the very south, near the Black Sea and the Danube.”

Zaichkin I.A., Pochkaev I.N. Russian history: popular essays (IX - mid-XV centuries). – M., 1992. P. 10

Organization of public administration in Kievan Rus

“Kievan Rus was an early feudal monarchy. The head of the state was the Grand Duke. He had with him a Council (Duma) of the most noble princes and respected elders of the warriors (boyars), who acted as governors, as well as a management apparatus that was in charge of collecting taxes, court cases and the collection of fines. In this apparatus, the duties of officials were performed by junior warriors - swordsmen (bailiffs), virniks (fines collectors), etc. In the lands and cities subject to the Grand Duke, the functions of administration were carried out by princely governors - townspeople and their assistants - thousanders, who led the people's militia ("thousand") during military operations. The mayors were appointed by the prince, and the mayors were elected from noble boyars at the assembly.”

Zaichkin I.A., Pochkaev I.N.

Decree. S. – P. 26.

Organization of the armed forces

“The princely squad was not numerous: even among the senior princes it amounted to 700–800 people... The princely squad constituted the strongest core and the main core of the army. In the event of upcoming extensive military operations, the people's militia, made up of the free urban population, was called to arms, and in cases of emergency, rural residents - “smerdas” - were also called up for military service.

Pushkarev S.G. Review of Russian history. – M., 1991. – P. 48.

Attempt to create by Prince Vladimir
state religion based on paganism

“Vladimir was the first of the Kyiv princes to look at religion through the eyes of a statesman. Back in 980, having just taken the throne of Kiev, he carried out the first pagan reform, a kind of classification of pagan cults. Next to his towers, on a hill, the prince ordered wooden idols of six gods to be placed: Perun..., Khors, Dazhd-God, Stribog, Semargl and Mokosha. On his part, this was an attempt to transform the state religion with the cult of Perun at its head. However, this first religious reform did not satisfy Prince Vladimir.”

Zaichkin M.A., Pochkaev I.N. Decree. cit.. – pp. 46 – 47.

The time of the spread of Christianity in Rus' after its baptism in 988

“Christianity was established basically in about 100 years. Sweden and Norway, who were baptized almost simultaneously with Russia, took 250 and 150 years, respectively.”

Bushuev S.V., Mironov G.E. History of Russian Goverment. Historical and bibliographical essays. – M., 1991. – P. 92.

Population of Kievan Rus and European countries in the 10th century

Number of craft specialties in Rus'

“In the era of Kievan Rus there was a real flourishing of handicraft production. In the 9th – 12th centuries, artisans of 40–60 different specialties were known in Rus'.”

Chuntlov V.T., Krivtsova N.S., Chuntlov A.V., Tyushev V.A. Economic history of the USSR. – M., 1987. P. 17

Evidence of Kyiv at the end of the 11th – beginning of the 12th century

“The Poles who visited the capital of Rus' left an interesting description of Kyiv... In the large city, which was the capital of this state, there were more than 400 churches, 8 trading floors and an unusual crowd of people...”

History of the USSR from ancient times to the present day. Series I. – M., 1966. – P 518.

“Among cities, the first place was occupied by Kyiv, the mother of Russian cities, with a population of 100 thousand inhabitants during its heyday.”

Chuntlov V.T. and others. Decree. Op. – P.18.

Growth in the number of Russian cities in the 10th–13th centuries

“A comparison of archaeological data and information from written sources has made it possible to determine that at the end of the 10th – beginning of the 11th century there were 20–25 urban-type settlements in Rus', in the 11th – first half of the 12th century there were about 70, and by the middle of the 13th century there were about 150 feudal cities.”

Educational publication “History of the Fatherland” / Ed. Prof. – E.P. Ivanova - Pskov, 1994. -P.22.

Comparative population of European countries
at the turn of the 10th – 11th centuries

“In the 60s of the 10th century, Byzantium was the most powerful power. Its population was 20 - 24 million brave inhabitants, organized on the basis of centuries-old tradition and controlled from one center - the Constantinople Synclite. ...For comparison...for the year 1000: France - 9 million, Italy - 5 million, Sicily - 2 million, Kievan Rus - 5.36 million (in 970 there was less than half of this); Poland, Lithuania, Estonia – 1.6 million; Steppe, from the Don to the Carpathians – 0.48 million; England - in 1086 - 1.7 million."

Gumilev L.N. Ancient Rus' and the Great Steppe. – M., 1989. P.229–230

The number of military campaigns of Russian princes against Byzantium

Klyuchevsky V.O. Works in 9 T. T.1. Russian history course. Part 1. – M., 1987. – P. 176.

Dates of the Byzantine campaigns along V.O. Klyuchevsky:

“860 - the campaign of Prince Askold

907 – campaign of Prince Oleg

941 and 944 – campaigns of Prince Igor

971 – campaign of Prince Svyatoslav

1043 - the campaign of Prince Yaroslav."

Right there. – P. 176.

Dynastic marriages of Kyiv princes

“One of the indicators of the diplomatic achievements of the Old Russian state was the dynastic marriages that connected the Kiev grand-ducal house with many courts in Europe. Under Yaroslav the Wise, Russian princesses became French, Hungarian, Norwegian and Danish queens, and Yaroslav's sons - Izyaslav, Svyatoslav, Vsevolod - were married to princesses from German, Polish lands, and Byzantium. Vladimir Monomakh enjoyed European fame... He was the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise and the Swedish princess, the son of a Byzantine princess, the brother-in-law of the German emperor, the nephew of the Hungarian and Danish queens - the daughters of Yaroslav the Wise, the stepson of the Polovtsian princess.”

Bushuev S.V., Mironov G.E.

History of the Russian state. Historical and bibliographical essays. –P.63.

Chronicles of the formation of the Old Russian people
from East Slavic tribes

“... the glades were last mentioned in the chronicle in 944, the Drevlyans in 990, the Slovenians in 1018, the Krivichi in 1127, the Dregovichi in 1183, the Vyatichi, who lived longest without princes, in 1197.”

Zaichkin I.A. Pochkaev I.N. Decree. Op. – P. 12.

HISTORICAL SOURCES AND DOCUMENTS

Russian truth
Brief edition

(Text according to the Academic List

Translation by B.B.Kafengauz)

Pravda Roskaya (Russian Law)

If a husband kills his husband, then a brother takes revenge for the murder of his brother, a son for his father, or a nephew on his brother’s side, or a nephew on his sister’s side; if no one takes revenge, then 40 hryvnia will be exacted for the person killed. If the person killed is a Rusyn, Gridin, a merchant, a sneaker, a swordsman, or an outcast, or a Slovenian, then pay 40 hryvnia for him.

If a person comes to court, beaten until bloody or bruised, then there is no need to look for a witness, but if there are no signs of beatings on him, then he must bring a witness. If he can't bring him, then it's over. If the victim cannot avenge himself, then let him take 3 hryvnia from the culprit and, on top of that, the doctor’s payment.

If someone hits someone with a stick, pole, hand, bowl, horn or sword, then he pays 12 hryvnia; If the victim does not overtake him and does not take revenge, then the culprit pays a fine, and that’s the end of the matter.

If he hits with a sword without taking it out of its sheath, or with the hilt of a sword, he pays a fine of 12 hryvnia.

But if someone hits someone on the hand, and the hand falls off or withers, then pay 40 hryvnia.

If he hits the arm or leg with a sword and cuts off the arm, or it begins to wither, or the leg remains intact, but begins to limp, then let his children take revenge or 40 hryvnia will be exacted from the culprit.

If anyone cuts off a finger, he pays a fine of 3 hryvnia.

And whoever pulls out a mustache or beard pays 12 hryvnia.

If someone draws a sword but does not strike, he pays a hryvnia.

If a husband pushes his husband away from him or towards himself, he must pay 3 hryvnia if he brings two witnesses to the trial. In this case, Varangian 1 or Kolbyag 2 does not bring witnesses, but takes the oath himself.

If a servant has fled and hides with a Varangian or a kolbyag and he does not return him within three days, then the master, having identified him on the third day, can take away the servant, and a 3 hryvnia fine will be collected from the hider.

If anyone rides someone else’s horse without asking, let him pay 3 hryvnia.

If someone steals someone else's horse, weapon or clothing and the owner recognizes the missing item in his world, then he takes what is his, and the thief pays a 3 hryvnia fine.

If someone recognizes someone’s missing item, then you cannot take it away, and do not say “this is mine,” but tell him this: “go to the vault, show where you got it.” If he does not go, let him represent the guarantor that he will appear at the meeting 3 no later than 5 days.

If there is a claim against someone for the payment of a loan, then he should go to trial with 12 witnesses. And if it turns out that the debtor maliciously did not give his money, as it should have been according to the condition, then a 3 hryvnia fine will be collected from him.

If the master recognizes his missing servant and wants to take him away, then lead him to the one from whom he was bought, and let him lead him to the previous seller, and when they reach the third, then tell him: “Give me your servant, and you look for your money in front of a witness.”

If a slave hits a free husband and runs away to his master’s mansion and he does not give him up, then the master can keep him, but must pay 12 hryvnia for him, and then let the victim beat the slave where he finds him.

And if someone breaks a spear, shield, or damages clothing and the owner wants to keep it, then he receives an additional payment in money for the damage, but if the owner refuses the broken thing, then let him be paid how much he gave when buying it.

If a fireman 5 is killed intentionally, but without selfish intentions, then 80 hryvnia will be collected from the killer, and people are not obliged to help the killer pay it; for the murder of the prince's entrance also pay 80 hryvnia.

And if a fireman is killed as a robber, deliberately and for the purpose of robbery, and people are not looking for the killer, then the viru 6 is paid by the rope 7 where the murdered person was found.

If they kill a fireman near a cage 8, near a horse, or near a herd, or while stealing a cow, then they will kill the fireman like a dog; the same law when killing a tiun 9.

And for the murder of a princely thiun, 80 hryvnia is exacted from the murderer.

And for the senior groom of the herd also 80 hryvnia, Izyalav decided when the Dorogobuzhites killed his groom.

For a princely village headman 10 or a field supervisor pay 12 hryvnia.

And for a princely rank and file 11 5 hryvnia.

And for a killed scum 12 or a serf 5 hryvnia.

If a slave-nurse or wet-nurse is killed, then pay 12 hryvnia.

And for a princely horse with a spot, 3 hryvnias are charged, and for a stinking horse, 2 hryvnias; for a mare you pay 60 kunas, for an ox 40 kunas, for a cow 40 kunas, for a three-year-old cattle 15 kunas, for a one-year-old cattle half a hryvnia, for a calf 5 grivnas, for a lamb and ram nogata.

And if they take away someone else’s slave or slave, then pay a fine of 12 hryvnia.

If the husband comes bleeding or bruised, then he does not need to look for a witness.

And if a horse or an ox is stolen or there is a theft from a cage, then the thief pays a hryvnia and is cut 30 if he was alone; if there were 10 thieves, then each of them pays 3 hryvnia and 30 rez.

If they burn the prince's palace or steal bees, then pay 3 hryvnia.

For unauthorized torture of a stinker, without a princely command, you must pay a fine of 3 hryvnia. For torturing a fireman, tiun or swordsman 13 pay 12 hryvnia.

And if they plow up a field boundary or cut down a boundary post, then pay a fine of 12 hryvnia.

And whoever steals a rook must pay the owner 30 rez for the rook and a 60 rez fine for the prince.

And for a pigeon and chicken 9 kunas. And for a duck, goose, crane or swan, pay 30 cuts to the owner and 60 cuts to the prince.

And if they steal someone else’s dog, hawk or falcon, then pay a fine of 3 hryvnia.

If they kill a thief in their yard or at a cage, or at a stable, then they will not be held accountable for this as murder, but if the thief was kept until dawn, then bring him to the princely court for trial. But if a thief is killed, and people saw him tied up, then he must be paid for.

If hay is stolen, then pay 9 kunas, for firewood also 9 kunas.

If a sheep, goat or pig is stolen, and there were 10 thieves, then at least they stole one sheep, let each one pay a 60-rez fine. And whoever brought the thief receives 10 cuts.

With a fine of 3 hryvnia, on top of that, the swordsman must pay 15 kunas, for tithes - 15 kunas, and the prince - 3 hryvnias. With a fine of 12 hryvnia, the one who brought the culprit receives 70 kuna from him, and pays 2 hryvnia in tithes, and 10 hryvnia to the prince.

And here are the regulations for collecting vir: virnik 14, take 7 buckets of malt for a week, in addition, a lamb or half a carcass of meat, or 2 nogata in money, and on Wednesday, chopped and three cheeses, on Friday the same amount; bread and millet as much as they can eat, and on modest days give 2 chickens per day. Let him set up 4 horses and give them as much food as they can eat. And take 16 hryvnia, 10 rez and 12 ropes (small monetary units) for virnik, and a hryvnia when entering the district. During fasting, give him fish or 7 slices. All this will amount to 15 kunas a week, and they will give as much bread as they can eat until the virniks collect the virns. This is Yaroslav’s charter.

And this is the pay for the bridge workers 15: when they build a bridge, then let them take a nogata at the end of their work and from each bridge abutment a nogata, the same amount when repairing a dilapidated bridge, at least with several boards, 3, 4 or 5.

“Russian Truth”, part I, publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1940, pp. 397–400;

“Russian Truth”, part II, publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1947, pp. 15–238.

The population of Kievan Rus was one of the largest in Europe. Its main cities - Kyiv and Novgorod - were home to several tens of thousands of people. These are not small towns by modern standards, but, given the one-story buildings, the area of ​​these cities was not small. The urban population played a vital role in the political life of the country - all free men participated in the assembly.

Political life in the state affected the rural population much less, but the peasants, who remained free, had elected self-government longer than the townspeople.

Historians distinguish the population groups of Kievan Rus according to the “Russian Truth”.

According to this law, the main population of Rus' were free peasants, called "people".

Over time, more and more people became stinkers- another group of the population of Rus', which included peasants dependent on the prince. Smerd, like an ordinary person, as a result of captivity, debts, etc. could become a servant (later name - serf).

Serfs They were essentially slaves and were completely powerless.

In the 12th century there appeared procurement- incomplete slaves who could redeem themselves from slavery. It is believed that there were still not so many slave slaves in Rus', but it is likely that the slave trade flourished in relations with Byzantium. "Russkaya Pravda" also highlights rank and file And outcasts. The former were somewhere at the level of serfs, and the latter were in a state of uncertainty (slaves who received freedom, people expelled from the community, etc.).

A significant group of the population of Rus' were artisans. By the 12th century there were more than 60 specialties. Rus' exported not only raw materials, but also fabrics, weapons and other handicrafts.

Merchants were also city dwellers. In those days, long-distance and international trade meant good military training. Initially, warriors were also good warriors. However, with the development of the state apparatus, they gradually changed their qualifications, becoming officials. However, combat training was needed by the vigilantes, despite the bureaucratic work. They stood out from the squad boyars- the closest to the prince and rich warriors. By the end of the existence of Kievan Rus, the boyars became largely independent vassals; the structure of their possessions as a whole repeated the state structure (their own land, their own squad, their own slaves, etc.).

Categories of the population and their position

Prince of Kyiv- the ruling elite of society.

Druzhina- the administrative apparatus and the main military force of the Old Russian state. Their most important responsibility was to ensure the collection of tribute from the population.

Older(boyars) - The prince’s closest associates and advisers, with them the prince first of all “thought” about all matters, resolved the most important issues. The prince also appointed boyars as posadniks (representing the power of the Kyiv prince, belonging to the “senior” warriors of the prince, who concentrated in his hands both military-administrative and judicial power, and administered justice). They were in charge of individual branches of the princely economy.

Junior(youths) - Ordinary warriors who were the military support of the mayor’s power.

Clergy— The clergy lived in monasteries, the monks refused worldly pleasures, lived very poorly, in labor and prayer.

Dependent Peasants- Slave position. Servants - slaves-prisoners of war, serfs were recruited from the local environment.

Serfs(servants) - These were people who became dependent on the landowner for debts and worked until the debt was repaid. Purchases occupied an intermediate position between slaves and free people. The purchase had the right to buy out by repaying the loan.

Purchases— Out of necessity, they entered into contracts with the feudal lords and performed various works according to this series. They often acted as minor administrative agents for their masters.

Ryadovichi— Conquered tribes who paid tribute.

Smerda- Prisoners imprisoned on the ground who bore duties in favor of the prince.

I was going to write about the “misfit” in 1237. I started collecting material. First of all, I was interested in: strategy, tactics, balance of forces. I started searching online, but didn’t find anything relevant on this topic. I had to roll up my sleeves myself. I am not posting this with the intention of starting a polemic with the “Eurasians” or anything like that. It’s simple: in case it’s useful to someone else. Moreover, a competition has been announced here. To begin with, let’s look at what they write on the Internet, here are quotes: “One of the main reasons for the defeat of Rus' was the feudal fragmentation that existed at that time. The Russian principalities were defeated one by one by the enemy. An important circumstance was that the invaders who had previously conquered Northern China and Central Asia , used destructive military equipment in the fight against Russia, including battering machines that pierced the walls of Russian fortresses, as well as stone throwers, gunpowder and vessels with hot liquids." “The main reason for the defeat was the state fragmentation of Rus', the lack of unity of the principalities in the fight against the conquerors, which weakened the overall military potential. A large role in the outcome of the struggle was played by the fact that the conquerors used the achievements of military technology in China and Central Asia.” We will assume that everything is clear with the quotes. If you set priorities correctly, then I would put feudal fragmentation in last place, and the reasons for the defeat would look like this: 1) numerical superiority of the Mongol-Tatars, 2) their superiority in strategy, 3) superiority in tactics, as in field battles , and during the siege of cities. In the latter case, there is also technical superiority. This is more than enough for defeat, both with feudal fragmentation and without it. 4) feudal fragmentation took place, but this factor was not decisive. Now, I’ll try it in expanded form. The biggest problem is that it is unknown how many warriors Rus' could field. Some researchers give figures from 100 thousand to half a million. For me, these figures are very exaggerated, and I will now try to substantiate my point of view. I believe that it is necessary to establish a certain limit on the number of troops that cannot be crossed. The logic is simple: the population of the Earth in the 1st century AD. e. ranged from 250 to 350 million; in the year 1000 400 million; in 1500 500 million; in 1800 980 million; in 1900 1.6 billion; in 2011, 7 billion. From here it is obvious that Ivan the Terrible could not have a ten-million-strong army, like, for example, Nicholas II, because in his time the entire population of Russia was smaller than the army of 1917. If we follow the logic further, then the armed forces of Rus' in the 13th century should be smaller than in the 16th century, and we will make the latter the upper limit. Official information about the total number of Russian troops in the 16th century has not been preserved in the sources. But there are “lists”, lists of the Rank Order for individual military companies. In the summer of 1572, the fate of Rus' was once again being decided, whether it should be free or again become a Tatar ulus. Therefore, Ivan Vasilyevich assembled the largest possible army at that time; according to the surviving lists, there were 20,034 nobles and boyar children in service, the number of their military servants is unknown. Another turning point in history, the invasion of the impostor with the Poles. The discharge order formed an army in 1604, numbering 25,336 warriors. The number of nobles and children, boyars in this army is 13,137 people, their people are 12,199, respectively. This shows that there are slightly fewer military servants than landowners. This means that in 1572 in the army of M.I. Vorotynsky, in the battle near the village of Molodi, there were up to 40 thousand local cavalry, but no more. A.V. Chernov estimates the total number of noble militia at 50 thousand people. Regarding the total number of local troops, there are indications in the special work of S. M. Seredonin on the armed forces of the Russian state. The author came to the conclusion that the total number of nobles and boyar children at the end of the 16th century did not exceed 25 thousand people, which, together with their people, gives 50 thousand cavalry. Let this be the upper limit. Rus' in 1237 could not have more than 50 thousand mounted warriors. To calculate the size of the army in 1237, you need to know the population. An upper limit will also be required here. I will also spend it through the 16th century. The population of Russia in the 16th century according to Vernadsky was 4-5 million, according to Russell 6.5 million, according to Kashtanov 2-3 million people. What to choose? You can get your bearings by the size of the army. According to the Service Code of 1555/1556. one mounted warrior was deployed from 100 quarters of arable land. The allotment of a peasant family is 10-20 quarters, the average is 15 quarters, 100:15 = 6.66 families cultivate 100 quarters. A peasant family of the 16th century, on average 5 people, multiply and get 33.3 people per horse warrior. It follows that the local cavalry made up 3% of the peasant population. Let's take 5 million. Vernadsky, subtract 20% - this is the urban population and black-growing peasants, we get 4 million, 3% of 4 million will be 120,000. Let's do the same with 2 million, we get 48,000, the latter is closer to 50,000, and the milestone is 120,000 The Russian army crossed over only in the middle of the 17th century. This means that S. M. Kashtanov is closer to the truth than other researchers and the population of Russia under Ivan the Terrible was 2-3 million people. The size of the Russian army in 1237 is most often estimated at 100-120 thousand, which, in my opinion, simply cannot be. In 1630, there were 92,555 people serving in the Russian army. This is the entire army, including cavalry, artillery, rifle and soldier regiments. According to the "Estimate of all service people" of 1651. the total number of the Russian army is 129,314 people. So, the population of Rus' in the 16th century was 2-3 million people, add to this the 1.5 million Russians living on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and we get the upper limit of the population of 3.5 - 4.5 million people. According to Academician Tikhomirov, 4-5 million people lived in Rus' in the 13th century. Human. History books put the population at 5 million, but I have doubts about these numbers because they are higher than the limit just established. In general, population size is a thing that each historian determines in his own way, here is an example: the population of France in 1340. according to Russell 19 million, and according to Belokh 14 million, as we see the difference is 5 million, just the population of Rus' according to Tikhomirov. I don’t agree with Mikhail Nikolaevich Tikhomirov, but I’m also not going to underestimate the figure too much. The population fell greatly as a result of the Mongol-Tatar invasion, a demographic hole was formed. Then in the 14th century, from the Black Death epidemic there was a new catastrophic decline, plus punitive expeditions of the Mongol-Tatars. Then, the devastating raids of the Crimean and Kazan Tatars. There were no conditions in Rus' for population growth. Therefore, 3 million people seems to me to be an appropriate figure. So, we found out that the local cavalry made up 3% of the peasant population. But this is for Russia in the 16th century. I don’t know what Ivan Vasilyevich and the Boyar Duma thought, but it seems that 100 quarters of them is the bare minimum. From such possessions, probably, only a Russian could serve. In medieval France, knights made up 1% of the rural population and this is easy to verify. Take 14th century France. In 1340, the population of France is 14 million, we take away 12% of the urban population, 12,320,000 remain, 1% = 123,200, this is the number of the noble class, but the entire class does not fight, it includes old people, women and children, so divide by 4 = 30,800. If we go by the battles of the Hundred Years' War, then with the total mobilization of the entire noble class, France could gather 22 - 25 thousand heavy cavalry, perhaps up to 30 thousand. So, everything is correct. Now, let's move on to Rus'. From 3 million, we subtract 8% of the urban population, 2,760,000 remain, 1% = 27,600, divide by 4, we get 6,900 cavalry people, all of Rus' could have collected in 1237. But for Rus', it is also necessary to count the infantry, since the city regiments took an active part in field battles. Townspeople, in the 13th century, made up 8% of the total population. From 3 million, it will be 240,000, divided by 4 = 60,000. We counted this, everyone theoretically fit for military service, in all cities and towns of Rus', without exception, from Novgorod to Pereyaslav, and from Galich to Ustyug. Now, let’s think, was it really possible, in the 13th century, to gather all the men capable of fighting in one place and take them out into the field? CONCLUSION: If Rus' had united all its forces in 1237, it would have fielded 40-50 thousand infantry and 6-7 thousand cavalry against the Mongol-Tatars. Not too impressive, right? Let's look at France: in the Battle of Courtrai (1302), the French army consisted of 7.5 thousand cavalry and 3 - 5 thousand infantry. At Crecy (1346), 10 thousand cavalry, 40 thousand infantry, at Agincourt (1415), according to various sources, from 5 - 6 to 10 thousand people, mainly dismounted knights and crossbowmen. We must always remember that Rus' in the 13th century was the same feudal state as all European ones. Rus' had no advantage over Western Europe either in population size, or in the level of socio-economic development, or in the method of recruiting troops. Consequently, the forces of the Russian principalities could not exceed the average number of European armies. Now, let's move on to the Mongols. L.N. Gumilyov underestimated the number of Mongol-Tatar troops that attacked Rus' to 30 thousand. Well, with Gumilyov, everything is clear, he wanted to confirm his theory, so he sought to show what “cool” warriors the passionate Mongols were, and how worthless the sub-passionate, decayed Russians were. I.B. Grekov and F.F. Shakhmagonov, wrote about Batu’s army, 30-40 thousand. D.V. Chernyshevsky, determined the number at 55 - 65 thousand. V.V. Kargalov conducted his research and came to the conclusion that Batu’s army numbered 120 - 140 thousand. Since 1229, the 30 thousand-strong corps of Subedei and Kukdai operated on the western borders of the Mongol Empire, who achieved very modest successes during the seven years of war. Their attacks were repelled not only by Bulgaria, but also by the Bashkirs. What can we say about all of Rus', if only the Vladimir-Suzdal principality was stronger than Bulgaria. No matter how “cool” the Mongols were, 30 thousand is clearly not enough to fight from the Volga to the Adriatic. The 14th century Iranian historian Rashid ad-Din, using Mongol documents that have not reached us, compiled a description of the Mongol army. He listed all the units, indicating their numbers, and wrote that the Mongol army consists of 129 thousand warriors. But he was probably wrong. If you add up the units he listed, you get 135 thousand. No one argues with the figure of 129 thousand, not even Gumilev, he simply writes that the Mongols fought the main war with South China, and sent only 30 thousand to the Western campaign. And also, Gumilyov and his followers consider only Mongolian troops, not agreeing that the Kara-Kitai, Jurchens, Khorezmians and Turks of Eastern Turkestan and the Great Steppe took part in the campaign. The Vatican archive contains a letter from the Hungarian monk Julian, the papal legate, about the Mongol-Tatars; it ends with the words: “I am not writing to you anything about the number of their entire army.” There are several lists of this message and in list F, a postscript was added in a different handwriting: “the Mongol army consists of 240 thousand slaves not of their law and 135 thousand of the most selected warriors of their law in the ranks.” It must be assumed that this information was obtained by other secret agents of the Vatican. Adding up the units of Rashid ad-Din gives 135 thousand and in the list F 135 thousand, which means we can also believe the second part of the report about 240 thousand Turks. And the fact that the Western Campaign was not important for the Mongols is not true. The campaign to the “last sea” was the fulfillment of the sacred will of Genghis Khan, and this event, in the eyes of the Mongols, was much more important than the Chinese war. Therefore, the Great Khan Ogedei issued a decree that each ulus should provide its troops for the campaign. Historian V.B. Koshcheev conducted a thorough analysis of the sources, counted the troops of each ulus, the troops of each of the khans who took part in the Western Campaign and came to the conclusion that 50 - 60 thousand Mughals and 80 - 90 thousand non-Mongol troops took part in the Western Campaign, which gives a total of 130 - 150 thousand. Conclusion: if there were no feudal fragmentation in Rus', and it was a single state, then it would have brought out against 130 - 150 thousand mounted Mongols and Turks, 40-50 thousand infantry and 6-7 thousand cavalry. It's not hard to guess what's next. The Mongols would have used their usual tactics: attack and feint retreat, in order to separate the cavalry from the infantry, lure them away, and then, taking advantage of their numerical superiority, encircle and destroy. After which, they would simply block the infantry. Infantry can fight against cavalry, but only defensively. Sooner or later, hunger and thirst will force you to make a breakthrough. And during a breakthrough and retreat, the cavalry always destroys the infantry; there are many such examples in history. And it’s not just a matter of overwhelming numerical superiority. Genghis Khan created a magnificent military machine. The strategy and tactics of the Mongols were far ahead of both European and Russian. So there was no chance to survive. Rus' was doomed, but it fought! For every frontier, for every city! Everything was the same as in 1941 - soldiers were breaking out of one environment only to die in another. It is not the fault of our ancestors that “strength breaks straw.” The losses of the Mongols should not be underestimated. If they lost 4 thousand near small Kozelsk, then what did the battles for larger cities, such as Kyiv, Ryazan, Vladimir cost them? But there were also field battles, especially many Mongols died in the battle of Kolomna. Even Genghis Khan’s son Kulkan was killed in this battle, although the law categorically prohibited the Genghisids from taking personal part in the battles. This means that at some point, the Russians broke through to the Mongol headquarters itself. And on the Sit River, the encircled warriors sold their lives dearly. V. B. Koshcheev estimates the losses of the Mongol-Tatars in the campaign of 1237-1238 at 50 thousand, including sanitary losses. The phenomenally long defense of Kyiv is explained by the fact that the Mongol-Tatars had “only” fivefold! Numerical superiority. Then, as during the siege of Ryazan, there were 10-12 warriors for each inhabitant, including infants. The Mongol-Tatars ravaged Rus', but it cost them dearly and their forces were no longer enough for Europe. So A.S. Pushkin was right when he said: “Russia had a high destiny... Its vast plains absorbed the power of the Mongols and stopped their invasion at the very edge of Europe; the barbarians did not dare to leave enslaved Rus' in their rear and returned to steppes of their east. The emerging enlightenment was saved by torn and dying Russia..."

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

Russian Kaganate

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

The ruler of the Russian Kaganate bore the title of Kagan. In the Middle Ages this title was very important. The Kagan ruled not only over nomadic peoples, but also commanded over other rulers of different nations. Thus, the head of the Russian Kaganate acted as the emperor of the steppes.

By the middle of the 9th century, as a result of specific foreign policy circumstances, the transformation of the Russian Kaganate into the Russian Great Reign took place, which was weakly dependent on Khazaria. During the reign of Askold and Dir, it was possible to completely get rid of oppression.

Rurik's reign

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

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

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

Reign of Oleg

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

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

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

A distinctive feature of the internal policy of the reign of Oleg the Prophet was the strengthening of the state treasury through the collection of tribute. In many ways, the budget of Kievan Rus was filled thanks to extortions from conquered tribes.

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

Prince Igor

After Oleg's death in 912, its legal heir, Igor, the son of Rurik, became the full-fledged ruler of Kievan Rus. The new prince was naturally distinguished by modesty and respect for his elders. That is why Igor was in no hurry to throw Oleg off the throne.

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

The confrontation with the Pechenegs was carried out with varying success. In 941, Igor continued the foreign policy of his predecessors, declaring war on Byzantium. The cause of the war was the desire of the Greeks to free themselves from their obligations after the death of Oleg. The first military campaign ended in defeat, since Byzantium had carefully prepared. In 944, a new peace treaty was signed between the two states because the Greeks decided to avoid battle.

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

The reign of Vladimir the Great

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

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

Baptism of Rus' (988)

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

The Baptism of Rus' in 988 still took place. Vladimir the Great, his close boyars and warriors, as well as ordinary people accepted Christianity. Those who resisted leaving paganism were threatened with all kinds of oppression. Thus, the Russian Church began in 988.

Reign of Yaroslav the Wise

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

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

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

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

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

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

The beginning of the collapse of Kievan Rus

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

In 1097, on the initiative of Vladimir Monomakh, in order to stop strife, the process of creating regional dynasties was launched. By the middle of the 12th century, the Old Russian state was divided into 13 principalities, which differed in area, military power and cohesion.

Decline of Kyiv

In the 12th century, there was a significant decline in Kyiv, which turned from a metropolis into an ordinary principality. Largely due to the Crusades, international trade communications were transformed. Therefore, economic factors significantly undermined the power of the city. In 1169, Kyiv was first stormed and plundered as a result of princely strife.

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

Population of Kievan Rus

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

The lion's share of the inhabitants of Kievan Rus in the 9th-12th centuries were free peasants. Over time, more and more people became stinkers. Although they had freedom, they were obliged to obey the prince. The free population of Kievan Rus, due to debts, captivity and other reasons, could become servants who were powerless slaves.

As far as I know, due to my modest knowledge of history, there is no clear figure for the population of “Kievan Rus” (KR) in science. This, of course, is not surprising. Another question is, what are its evaluation parameters?

If I’m not mistaken, Vernadsky estimated the population of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the end of the 15th century at 3.5-4 million people, and for Muscovy at 4-5 million people. History textbooks often write that the population of Rus' in the 10th century was 5 million people, and “scientists” of the pagan-Rodnoverie persuasion write about supposedly 12 million people. I came across interesting calculations by the Pole Lovmiansky, who tried to calculate biomass in Eastern Europe in the 10th century.

In his opinion, for a family of 6 people under a two-field system it was necessary to have 22 hectares of land (wow). Accordingly, his population of ancient Kiev-Russians was around 4.5 million people. There also seem to be estimates based on territory and average population density. For Rus' of the X-XI centuries, the parameter is about 3 people per 1 sq. km. That is, in total this gives the same 4 - 5 million people.

However, it seems to me that one must proceed extremely carefully from the approximate population density. For it is obvious that the difference between the population density in, say, the Middle Dnieper region and, for example, in the Volga region in the same XII century was noticeable. And the vast spaces in the north or northeast most likely had a very scanty population density.

I’ll try to estimate the population of Rus' based on another parameter: the ratio of the urban (that is, non-agricultural) and rural population. It is clear that some of the townspeople still carried on some kind of agriculture, and therefore it is impossible to simply write them off indiscriminately. Therefore, I will make an amendment, and to a greater extent for residents of small towns.

In traditional agrarian societies, the number of people not directly employed in agriculture ranges from 8 to 14% of the total population. Primitive agriculture with a low additional product “about people” is not able to feed a relatively larger number. The place of residence of such non-productive population, accordingly, is mainly cities.

What was their population size? Let's take classical data. According to Tikhomirov, up to 30 thousand people lived in Novgorod in the first half of the 13th century. About the same number - about 20-30 thousand could live in such large cities as Smolensk, Chernigov, Vladimir-Suzdal, Polotsk, Galich, Vladimir-Volynsky, Ryazan, etc. In total, we have about 10-12 first-rank cities with a total population of up to 250-300 thousand people. Plus, don’t forget Kyiv, which could have a population of up to 40-50 thousand people. In general, I won’t be much mistaken if I assume that up to 350 thousand people lived in the large cities of Rus'.

In total, there were about two (?) hundred cities in Rus', but the population of the majority was scanty - 1-2 thousand people. In total, we get another 350-450 thousand people of the urban population, of which, however, at least half were still engaged in agriculture. In total, our non-productive population will be about 550-600 thousand people (residents of large cities + half of the residents of small and medium-sized ones). Let's assume that this is about 8-10% of the total population of Rus'.

It turns out that the total population of Kievan Rus in the first third of the 13th century should be about 5.5-6.5 million people. In principle, this is not even a little.

Who has any opinions?