Feudal fragmentation in Rus': prerequisites, causes, essence and historical consequences. Feudal fragmentation in Rus': causes, essence, consequences. Formation of new government centers
Feudal fragmentation in Rus' existed from the beginning of the XII to the end of the XY centuries. (350 years).
Economic reasons:
1. Successes in agriculture.
2. The growth of cities as centers of craft and trade, as centers of individual territories. Craft development. More than 60 craft specialties.
3. Subsistence farming dominated.
Political reasons:
1. The desire to pass on wealth to the son. “Otchina” is the father’s legacy.
2. As a result of the process of “settlement of the squad on the land,” the military elite turns into landowning boyars (feudal lords) and strives to expand feudal land tenure and independence.
3. Immunities are formed. The Kiev prince transfers a number of rights to the vassals: the right of court, the right to collect taxes.
4. Tribute turns into a fief. rent. Tribute - to the prince for protection, rent - to the owner of the land.
5. Feudal lords create local squads, their own apparatus of power.
6. The power of individual feudal lords is growing and they do not want to submit to Kyiv.
7. To ser. XII century The trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” -> “Amber Road” loses its significance.
8. The Principality of Kiev itself fell into decline due to the raids of the nomadic Polovtsians.
The process of disintegration of the country was slightly slowed down by V. Monomakh (1113-1125). He was the grandson of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Monomakh. V. Monomakh became a prince at the age of 60. His son Mstislav the Great (1125-1132) managed to continue his father’s policies and maintain what he had achieved. But immediately after his death the division of Rus' begins. At the beginning of the feud. fragmentation, there were 15 large and small principalities, and in the beginning. XIX century It was already the peak of the feud. fragmentation - » 250 principalities. There were 3 centers: the Vladimir-Suzdal kingdom, the Galicia-Volyn kingdom and the Novgorod feud. republic.
Feudal fragmentation in Rus': causes, essence, stages and consequences.
Positive: along with Kiev, new centers of craft and trade appeared, increasingly independent from the capital of the Russian state, old cities developed, large and strong principalities were formed, strong princely dynasties were created in large Russian principalities, a tradition of transferring power from father to son was formed, rapid growth took place cities, the peasant economy was steadily developing, new arable land and forest land were being developed. Wonderful cultural monuments were created there. The Russian Orthodox Church was gaining strength there.
Negative (which, unfortunately, are more noticeable than positive): the state became vulnerable, since not all of the resulting principalities were on good terms with each other, and there was no unity that later saved the country more than once; constant bloody civil strife weakened the military and the economic power of the country, Kyiv - the former capital of the Old Russian state - lost the power glorified in legends and epics and itself became the cause of strife, many princes sought to occupy the grand-ducal table in Kyiv.
The power in the city often changed - some princes were expelled, others died in battles, others left, unable to resist the new contenders. What about the reasons... Formal: the Polovtsian danger significantly reduced the attractiveness of the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” The centers through which trade relations between Europe and the East were carried out, thanks to the Crusades, gradually moved to Southern Europe and the Mediterranean, and control over this trade was established by the rapidly growing northern Italian cities and the pressure of the steppe nomads.
Genuine: political prerequisites: endless inter-princely feuds and long-term fierce internecine struggle among the Rurikovichs, the strengthening of local princes, the boyars turn into feudal landowners, for whom the income received from the estates becomes the main means of subsistence. And further: the decline of the Principality of Kyiv (loss of its central position, the movement of world trade routes away from Kyiv) was associated with the loss of the importance of the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks”; Ancient Rus' is losing its role as a participant and mediator in trade relations between the Byzantine, Western European and Eastern worlds.
Vladimir-Suzdal and Galician-Volyn principalities. Novgorod boyar republic. A. Nevsky.
On the way to feudal fragmentation . From the 11th century Kievan Rus, just like Western Europe, begins to experience a period of feudal fragmentation. The disintegration of Rus' into appanage principalities began during the life of Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054) and intensified after his death. This process is somewhat suspended under the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise - Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh (1113-1125). By the power of his authority, he maintained the unity of Rus'. On his initiative, a congress of Russian princes took place in 1097 in the city of Lyubech. Two important decisions were made there. First, stop the princely strife. Secondly, adhere to the principle “Let each one keep his homeland.”
Thus, the fragmentation of Russian lands was actually legitimized. In this situation, Kyiv was losing its former leadership significance, but at the same time remained a capital city. The Kiev state, one of the most powerful, richest and most brilliant in its culture in all of medieval Europe, was rapidly heading towards destruction due to internal feudal strife, weakened by the constant struggle with the steppe. The princes strengthened their personal feudal power, sacrificing the unity of their Fatherland. The Kyiv state was in decline.
After the death of Vladimir Monomakh, Rus' existed for some time as a single state. Monomakh's son, Mstislav the Great (1125-1132), inherited the title of Grand Duke of Kyiv from his father. Mstislav Vladimirovich had the same strong character as his father. His short reign was marked by great military victories. Under his command, the Polovtsian hordes were defeated on the southern borders of the state. His campaigns against the Chuds and the Lithuanian tribes living on the northwestern borders of Rus' ended in victory. He established order by force throughout the vast Russian land and enjoyed unquestioned authority among all the appanage princes. Mstislav the Great died in 1132, and Rus' finally disintegrated into separate appanages or principalities, each with its own table.
Time from the beginning of the 12th century. until the end of the fifteenth century. called a period feudal fragmentation or specific period . Based on Kievan Rus by the middle of the 12th century. About 15 lands and principalities were formed by the beginning of the 13th century. - 50, in the XIV century. - 250. Each of the principalities was ruled by its own Rurik dynasty.
Causes of feudal fragmentation
Modern researchers understand feudal fragmentation as the period of the 12th - 15th centuries. in the history of our country, when from several dozen to several hundred large states were formed and functioned on the territory of Kievan Rus. Feudal fragmentation was a natural result of the previous political and economic development of society, the so-called period of the early feudal monarchy. There are four most significant reasons for the feudal fragmentation of the Old Russian state.
The main reason was political. The vast expanses of the East European Plain, numerous tribes, both Slavic and non-Slavic origin, at different stages of development - all this contributed to the decentralization of the state. Over time, the appanage princes, as well as the local feudal nobility represented by the boyars, began to undermine the foundation under the state building with their independent separatist actions. Only strong power concentrated in the hands of one person, the prince, could keep the state organism from collapse.
And the Grand Duke of Kiev could no longer completely control the policy of local princes from the center; more and more princes left his power, and in the 30s. XII century he controlled only the territory around Kyiv. The appanage princes, sensing the weakness of the center, now did not want to share their income with the center, and the local boyars actively supported them in this. In addition, the local boyars needed strong and independent princes locally, which also contributed to the creation of their own state structure and the withering away of the institution of central power. Thus, acting in selfish interests, the local nobility neglected the unity and power of Rus'. The next reason for feudal fragmentation was social.
By the beginning of the 12th century. The social structure of ancient Russian society became more complex: large boyars, clergy, merchants, artisans, and urban lower classes appeared. These were new, actively developing layers of the population. In addition, it was born nobility, who served the prince in exchange for a land grant. His social activity was very high. In each center, behind the appanage princes stood an impressive force in the person of the boyars with their vassals, the rich elite of cities, church hierarchs. The increasingly complex social structure of society also contributed to the isolation of the lands.
Economic reasons also played a significant role in the collapse of the state. Within the framework of a single state, over three centuries, independent economic regions emerged, new cities grew, and large patrimonial estates of the boyars, monasteries and churches arose. Subsistence nature of the economy provided the rulers of each region with the opportunity to separate from the center and exist as an independent land or principality. This was largely due to the rapid enrichment of a certain part of the population that controlled the land.
Her desire to improve her well-being also led to feudal fragmentation. In the 12th century. The foreign policy situation also contributed to feudal fragmentation. Rus' during this period did not have serious opponents, since the Grand Dukes of Kyiv did a lot to ensure the security of their borders. A little less than a century will pass, and Rus' will face a formidable enemy in the person of the Mongol-Tatars, but the process of the collapse of Rus' by this time will have gone too far, and there will be no one to organize the resistance of the Russian lands.
It is necessary to note an important feature of the period of feudal fragmentation in Rus'. All major Western European states experienced a period of feudal fragmentation, but in Western Europe the engine of fragmentation was the economy. In Rus', during the process of feudal fragmentation, the political component was dominant. In order to receive material benefits, the local nobility - the princes and boyars - needed to gain political independence and strengthen their inheritance, to achieve sovereignty. The main force The process of separation in Rus' became the boyars.
At first, feudal fragmentation contributed to the rise of agriculture in all Russian lands, the flourishing of crafts, the growth of cities, and the rapid development of trade. But over time, constant strife between the princes began to deplete the strength of the Russian lands and weaken their defense capability in the face of external danger. Disunity and constant hostility with each other led to the disappearance of many principalities, but most importantly, they became the cause of extraordinary hardships for the people during the Mongol-Tatar invasion.
Of the states that formed on the territory Ancient Rus', the largest and most significant were the Galicia-Volyn, Vladimir-Suzdal principalities and the Novgorod boyar republic. It was they who became the political heirs of Kievan Rus, i.e. were centers of gravity for all Russian life. Each of these lands developed its own original political tradition and had its own political destiny. Each of these lands in the future had the opportunity to become the center of the unification of all Russian lands.
Cultural development of medieval Rus' (X - XVI centuries).
Old Russian wisdom as the initial stage of the development of Russian thought has a number of distinctive features as an integral cultural and historical phenomenon. On the one hand, it adopted some elements of the East Slavic pagan worldview, multi-component in its composition, since the Old Russian people were formed with the participation of Finno-Ugric, Baltic, Turkic, Norman, and Iranian ethnic groups. Using written, archaeological, and ethnographic sources, specialists (B.A. Rybakov, N.N. Veletskaya, M.V. Popovich) are trying to reconstruct the pre-Christian picture of the world and model of existence.
On the other hand, after the adoption of Christianity as the official ideology and the displacement of the pagan type of worldview to the periphery of consciousness, domestic thought intensively absorbed and creatively processed through Byzantine and South Slavic mediation the theoretical positions, attitudes and concepts of developed Eastern Christian patristics.
Batu's invasion of Rus'. Liberation struggle of the population of ancient Russian principalities. Consequences of the “Batu pogrom”.
The fight against the Horde yoke began from the moment it was established. It took place in the form of spontaneous popular uprisings, which could not overthrow the yoke, but contributed to its weakening. In 1262, in many Russian cities there were protests against the tax farmers of the Horde tribute - the Besermens. The Besermen were expelled, and the princes themselves began to collect tribute and take it to the Horde. And in the first quarter of the 14th century, after repeated uprisings in Rostov (1289, 1320) and Tver (1327), the Baskaks also left the Russian principalities. The liberation struggle of the masses was bringing its first results. The Mongol-Tatar conquest had extremely dire consequences for Rus', the “Batu pogrom” was accompanied by mass murders of Russian people, many artisans were taken into captivity.
Cities that were experiencing a period of decline suffered especially. Many complex crafts disappeared, and stone construction ceased for more than a century. The conquest caused enormous damage to Russian culture. But the damage caused by the conquerors of Rus' was not limited to the “Batu Pogrom”. The entire second half of the 13th century. filled with Horde invasions. “Dudenev’s army” of 1293, in its destructive consequences, was reminiscent of Batu’s own campaign. And in just the second half of the 13th century. The Mongol-Tatars undertook large campaigns against North-Eastern Rus' 15 times.
But it was not just military attacks. The Horde khans created a whole system of robbing the conquered country through regular tribute. 14 types of various “tributes” and “burdens” depleted the Russian economy and prevented it from recovering from ruin. The leakage of silver, the main monetary metal of Rus', hampered the development of commodity-money relations. Mongol-Tatar conquest. The economic development of the country was delayed for a long time.
The cities, future centers of capitalist development, suffered the most from the conquest. Thus, the conquerors seemed to preserve for a long time the purely feudal nature of the economy. While Western European countries, having escaped the horrors of the Mongol-Tatar invasion, moved to a more advanced capitalist system, Rus' remained a feudal country.
As already mentioned, the impact on the economic sphere was expressed, firstly, in the direct devastation of territories during the Horde campaigns and raids, which were especially frequent in the second half of the 13th century. The heaviest blow was dealt to the cities. Secondly, the conquest led to the systematic siphoning of significant material resources in the form of the Horde “exit” and other extortions, which bled the country dry.
The consequence of the invasion of the 13th century. there was an increase in the isolation of the Russian lands, a weakening of the southern and western principalities. As a result, they were included in the structure that arose in the 13th century. early feudal state- Grand Duchy of Lithuania: Polotsk and Turov-Pinsk principalities - by the beginning of the 14th century, Volyn - in the middle of the 14th century, Kiev and Chernigov - in the 60s of the 14th century, Smolensk - at the beginning of the 15th century.
Russian statehood (under the suzerainty of the Horde) was preserved as a result only in North-Eastern Rus' (Vladimir-Suzdal land), in the Novgorod, Murom and Ryazan lands. It was North-Eastern Rus' from approximately the second half of the 14th century. became the core of the formation of the Russian state. At the same time, the fate of the western and southern lands was finally determined. Thus, in the XIV century. The old political structure, which was characterized by independent principalities-lands, governed by different branches of the princely family of Rurikovich, within which smaller vassal principalities existed, ceased to exist.
The disappearance of this political structure also marked the disappearance of the one that had emerged with the formation of the Kyiv state in the 9th - 10th centuries. Old Russian people - the ancestor of the three currently existing East Slavic peoples. In the territories of North-Eastern and North-Western Rus', the Russian (Great Russian) nationality begins to take shape, while in the lands that became part of Lithuania and Poland - the Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalities.
In addition to these “visible” consequences of conquest, significant structural changes can also be traced in the socio-economic and political spheres of ancient Russian society. In the pre-Mongol period, feudal relations in Rus' developed in general according to the pattern characteristic of all European countries: from the predominance state forms feudalism at an early stage to a gradual strengthening of patrimonial forms, albeit more slowly than in Western Europe. After the invasion, this process slows down, and state forms of exploitation are conserved. This was largely due to the need to find funds to pay the “exit”. A. I. Herzen wrote: “It was during this unfortunate time that Russia allowed Europe to overtake itself.”
The Mongol-Tatar conquest led to increased feudal oppression. The masses fell under double oppression - their own and the Mongol-Tatar feudal lords. The political consequences of the invasion were very severe. The khans' policy boiled down to inciting feudal strife in order to prevent the country from uniting.
The system of Horde rule in Rus': features and chronological framework. The influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on the development of Russian lands.
Never before in its history did Ancient Rus' experience such a shock as in 1237-40. Neither the raids of the Polovtsians, nor the attacks of the "Poles" and the Hungarians could be compared with what the ancient Russian lands experienced during the years of Batu's invasion.
The main blow fell on the cities - the craft, trade, administrative and cultural centers of the lands. According to archaeologists, out of 74 cities, 49 were destroyed, and almost a third of them were not restored. City life in Rus' fell into decline. Craft and trade suffered enormous damage. Many types of crafts disappeared, and there was a general coarsening and simplification of technical techniques. Stone construction ceased for almost a century.
The destruction of cities is a blow to the culture of Ancient Rus'. Priceless book and art treasures disappeared in the fires, and architectural monuments were destroyed.
The invasion complicated demographic situation(some researchers even talk about a demographic catastrophe). It took years for the population to recover. True, different categories of the population suffered differently. During the assault on the cities, many residents died. The number of feudal lords also decreased sharply. The warriors, boyars, and princes fell in an unequal confrontation. Of the twelve Ryazan princes, nine died, led by Prince Yuri Igorevich. As part of the so-called Old Moscow boyars - the faithful servants of Ivan Kalita and his successors - there are no boyar families mentioned in the sources of the pre-Mongol period. The rural population, who had the opportunity to hide in the forests, apparently suffered less.
After the invasion, Rus' became part of the Golden Horde. The system of political and economic domination of the Golden Horde rulers over the Russian lands is defined as the Horde yoke. Sovereign rights passed to the supreme ruler - the Khan of the Golden Horde, who in Rus' was called the Tsar. The princes, as before, ruled the subject population, the previous order of inheritance was preserved, but only with the consent of the ruler of the Golden Horde. The princes flocked to the Horde for labels to reign.
Princely power was integrated into the management system in the Mongol Empire, which presupposed strictly fixed subordination. The appanage princes were subordinate to their senior princes, the senior princes (albeit formally) to the Grand Duke, who, in turn, was considered the “ulusnik” of the Khan of the Golden Horde.
Potentially, such a system strengthened the authoritarian traditions of North-Eastern Rus'. The princes, absolutely powerless before the khan, disposed of their subjects. The veche was not recognized as an institution of power, because from now on the only source of all power was the khan's label. Boyars and warriors turned into servants, completely dependent on the prince's favors.
In 1243, the Vladimir prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich received a special letter from Batu, allowing him to rule in the Russian lands on behalf of the Horde khan - a label for the great reign. In terms of its significance for the further history of Rus', this event was no less important than the Mongol invasion itself. For the first time, the prince was granted the right to represent the interests of the Horde in Russian lands. Thus, the Russian princes recognized their complete dependence on the Horde, and Rus' was included in the Great Mongol Empire. Leaving Batu's headquarters, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich left his son Svyatoslav hostage. The practice of hostage-taking was widespread in the Mongol Empire. It will become the norm in relations between the Horde and Rus' for a long time.
Formation of nation states in Europe. Features of the centralization process on the territory of Russian lands.
Formation of the Russian State: Formation of the Russian State. Power and estates Contents 1. Introduction - 2 2. The mechanism of functioning of the estate system - 2 3. The local system - 4 4. Zemsky councils - 10 5. The Boyar Duma - 19 6. The role of the church in government - 29 7. The order system - 31 8. The beginnings of absolutism - 36 9. Conclusion - 37 10. Literature - 39 INTRODUCTION The main constantly operating factors of the Russian historical process are, first of all, the special spatial and geopolitical situation, the specific mechanism for the functioning of the class system and, the most important place of the state and its institutions in regulation social relations.
Period XV-XVII centuries. characterized by two interrelated development processes centralized state the formation of a single state territory through the unification of Russian lands, the strengthening of the political system and the real power of the monarch. New territories that were part of the state primarily became the object of economic development and peasant agriculture. The basis of prosperity remained agricultural labor, which created social wealth and provided the state with material and demographic resources for normal functioning.
The main trends in the development of state policy, as well as the contradictions between society and the state, were directly related to the issue of land ownership and the peasant class. MECHANISM OF FUNCTIONING OF THE CLASS SYSTEM The mechanism of functioning of the class system had greater specificity in Russia compared to the countries of Western Europe... .
Formation of a centralized state with a center in Moscow: reasons, stages, features. State activities of the first Moscow princes. Dmitry Donskoy and the historical significance of the Battle of Kulikovo.
In the second half of the 14th century. in northeastern Rus', the tendency towards land unification intensified. The center of unification became the Moscow principality, which was separated from the Vladimir-Suzdal principality in the 12th century. Causes.
The role of unifying factors was played by: the weakening and collapse of the Golden Horde, the development of economic ties and trade, the formation of new cities and the strengthening of the social stratum of the nobility. A system developed in the Moscow Principality local relations: the nobles received land from the Grand Duke for their service and for the duration of their service. This made them dependent on the prince and strengthened his power. Also the reason for the merger was struggle for national independence.
Features of the formation of the Russian centralized state:
When talking about “centralization,” two processes should be kept in mind: the unification of Russian lands around a new center - Moscow and the creation of a centralized state apparatus, new structure authorities in the Moscow state.
The state developed in the northeastern and northwestern lands of the former Kievan Rus; From the 13th century Moscow princes and the church begin to carry out widespread colonization of the Trans-Volga territories, new monasteries, fortresses and cities are formed, and the local population is conquered.
The formation of the state took place in a very short time, which was due to the presence of an external threat in the form of the Golden Horde; the internal structure of the state was fragile; the state could at any moment disintegrate into separate principalities;
the creation of the state took place on a feudal basis; Feudal society began to form in Russia: serfdom, class, etc.; in Western Europe, the formation of states took place on a capitalist basis, and bourgeois society began to form there.
Features of the process of state centralization And boiled down to the following: Byzantine and Eastern influence determined strong despotic tendencies in the structure and politics of power; the main support of autocratic power was not the union of cities with the nobility, but the local nobility; centralization was accompanied by the enslavement of the peasantry and increased class differentiation.
The formation of the Russian centralized state took place in several stages:
Stage 1. The Rise of Moscow(late XIII - early XIV centuries). By the end of the 13th century. the old cities of Rostov, Suzdal, Vladimir are losing their former significance. The new cities of Moscow and Tver are rising.
The rise of Tver began after the death of Alexander Nevsky (1263). During the last decades of the 13th century. Tver acts as a political center and organizer of the struggle against Lithuania and the Tatars and tried to subjugate the most important political centers: Novgorod, Kostroma, Pereyaslavl, Nizhny Novgorod. But this desire encountered strong resistance from other principalities, and above all from Moscow.
The beginning of the rise of Moscow is associated with the name of the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky - Daniil (1276 - 1303). Daniel inherited the small village of Moscow. In three years, the territory of Daniil’s possession tripled: Kolomna and Pereyaslavl joined Moscow. Moscow became a principality.
His son Yuri (1303 - 1325). entered into a struggle with the Tver prince for the Vladimir throne. A long and stubborn struggle for the title of Grand Duke began. Yuri's brother Ivan Danilovich, nicknamed Kalita, in 1327 in Tver, Ivan Kalita went to Tver with an army and suppressed the uprising. In gratitude, in 1327 the Tatars gave him a label for the Great Reign.
Stage 2. Moscow is the center of the fight against the Mongol-Tatars (second half of the 14th - first half of the 15th centuries). The strengthening of Moscow continued under the children of Ivan Kalita - Simeon Gordom (1340-1353) and Ivan II the Red (1353-1359). During the reign of Prince Dmitry Donskoy, the Battle of Kulikovo took place on September 8, 1380. The Tatar army of Khan Mamai was defeated.
Stage 3. Completion of the formation of the Russian centralized state (end of the 10th - beginning of the 16th centuries). The unification of Russian lands was completed under the great-grandson of Dmitry Donskoy, Ivan III (1462 - 1505) and Vasily III (1505 - 1533). Ivan III annexed the entire North-East of Rus' to Moscow: in 1463 - the Yaroslavl principality, in 1474 - the Rostov principality. After several campaigns in 1478, the independence of Novgorod was finally eliminated.
Under Ivan III, one of the most important events in Russian history took place - the Mongol-Tatar yoke was thrown off (in 1480 after standing on the Ugra River).
The activities of Ivan III “The Great” and Vasily III. Overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. Formation of national-state ideology and symbols of the national state.
In the current conditions of feudal fragmentation, the Novgorod, Pskov, Tver, Ryazan, and Nizhny Novgorod lands began to objectively gravitate toward reunification into a single state. At the same time, centrifugal tendencies, caused by the separatism of local princes, continued to persist. That is why the Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich (Donskoy) had to wage a stubborn struggle with the princes. Fighting the separatism of the princes, Dmitry Ivanovich subordinated the most powerful principalities (Tver and Ryazan) to the power of the Moscow prince. Thus, Moscow's leading role in the unification of Russian lands was finally consolidated.
The reign of Dmitry Donskoy left a deep mark on Russian history.
Among the important results of his activities are the following:
- securing for Moscow the status of the national capital, and for the Moscow princes - the great reign in Rus';
- preservation of the integrity of patrimonial possessions passed to Dmitry Ivanovich from his ancestors; strengthening the defense capability of Rus' as a result of the fight against foreign invaders, especially the Horde;
- the introduction of silver coinage earlier than in other feudal centers of Rus';
- economic support for the urban trade and craft population.
Thanks to the successful activities of Dmitry, the further strengthening of the Moscow Principality continues. Fear of foreign enslavement and the desire to preserve and maintain state order made firm power desirable, so that ultimately the feudal war contributed to the strengthening of the grand ducal power. The unification policy of the Grand Dukes was supported by the most diverse social strata of Russian society, since an important factor in the process of unification of the principalities was the nationwide struggle for national independence and the overthrow of the Horde yoke, for an independent and strong statehood capable of providing protection to the people.
Objectively, the process of political unification of Russian lands began in Rus' with the territorial growth and political strengthening of individual principalities. In the struggle that began between them for political dominance, an all-Russian political center emerged, leading the struggle for the unification of the scattered Russian lands into a single state and for the overthrow of the Golden Horde yoke. The winner in this struggle was the Principality of Moscow, whose capital - Moscow - during the reign of Dmitry Donskoy became the generally recognized political and national center of the emerging Russian state. The Orthodox Church also contributed to the unification of Russian lands.
She supported the flexible policy of a forced alliance with the Golden Horde of Alexander Nevsky, inspired Dmitry Donskoy to Mamayevo massacre; during the feudal war she openly opposed the outdated policy of appanage princes behind strengthening the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow. The alliance of the church with the Moscow princes was further strengthened during the period of elimination of feudal fragmentation.
At the end of XV - early XVI V. The more than two-century struggle of the Russian people for their state unity and national independence ended with the unification of the Russian lands around Moscow into a single state. The main territory of the Russian state, which emerged at the end of the 15th century, consisted of the Vladimir-Suzdal, Novgorod-Pskov, Smolensk and Murom-Ryazan lands, as well as part of the lands of the Chernigov principality. The territorial core of the formation of the Russian people and the Russian state was the Vladimir-Suzdal land.
The state united around Moscow represented a qualitatively new stage in the development of statehood. In 1462, Ivan III Vasilyevich ascended the Moscow throne. By this time he was 22 years old, and he was already a fully established person and ruler. His accession to the Moscow throne occurred according to the will of Vasily II. This did not require any approval from the Horde. This already spoke of the great independence of Rus' from the Horde. But there was still the payment of tribute. It was a strong thread connecting Rus' with the Horde. Most of the Russian lands have already become part of the Moscow state. But Novgorod, Tver, the Ryazan principality, and Pskov still remained independent. After the death of his father, Ivan III continued his work.
Firstly, he tried to protect Rus' from the constant onslaught of the Tatars. Already in the first years of his reign, Ivan III showed that Moscow would continue to fight for its freedom and independence from the Tatar khanates. Secondly, as with his father, Ivan III had to settle relations in his family. Any worsening of relations with the brothers threatened a new war. Therefore, Ivan III left them their inheritance. Third, Ivan III energetically continued the policy of subjugating independent Russian lands to Moscow. In January 1478, Ivan III solemnly entered “his fatherland” - Novgorod. The grand ducal governors took power in the city. The most stubborn opponents of Moscow were arrested and sent to prison. Ivan III spent a month in the once independent Novgorod Republic, establishing the Moscow order.
Liberation from the Horde yoke
In 1478, Ivan III stopped paying tribute to the Horde. Once again Rus' tried to free itself from this humiliating order. And now Ivan III, after the victory over Novgorod, again took a decisive step. The international situation also required this. After the fall of Constantinople, Rus' remained the largest Orthodox state in Europe at that time, and now all Orthodox people looked to Moscow as their hope and support. In addition, by this time, Ivan III, after the death of his first wife, the Tver princess, took as his wife the niece of the last Byzantine emperor.
Under these conditions, Ivan III broke off relations with the Horde. This meant war. The Horde decided to roughly punish Rus' and return it to the yoke of slavery. The ruler of the Great Horde, Khan Akhmat, led more than one hundred thousand warriors to Rus'. He agreed on allied actions with Lithuania. But Ivan III also took reciprocal diplomatic steps. He took advantage of the enmity between the Crimean Khanate and Akhmat and entered into allied relations with Crimea not only against the Horde, but also against Lithuania. On October 8, 1480, the Tatars attempted to cross the Ugra and attack the Russian camp. But everywhere the Russian regiments repulsed them: there was intense fire from cannons, arquebuses, and bows.
This was the first time the Russians used firearms in the field. The Horde army suffered heavy losses and retreated. At this time, Ivan III hastily left for Moscow in connection with the rebellion of his brothers, who reproached him for being too autocratic. Some Moscow politicians persuaded Ivan III to make peace with Akhmat. Ivan hesitated: the risk was great. But then ordinary Muscovites spoke out, calling on the prince to return to the army. High church leaders also showed inflexibility in the fight against the Horde. Ivan III quickly settled relations with his brothers, promising to increase their inheritance, and soon their troops appeared on the Ugra. The Grand Duke also arrived there. The choice was made: the struggle is not life, but to death.
It was starting to get cold. And the two armies stood opposite each other on opposite banks of the river. December came, Ufa was covered with ice. Akhmat tried to start negotiations with Ivan III and return Rus' to its former dependence. But Ivan III, without giving up negotiations, played for time, strengthened the army, and waited for greater cold weather. And then Akhmat could not stand it and gave the order to retreat. Soon the Tatars' retreat turned into a flight. Ivan III’s ally, the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey, struck a blow at the Lithuanian possessions.
The so-called situation on the Ugra had great value in the history of Russia. After this confrontation, Rus' was finally freed from the last traces of Horde oppression. The Grand Duchy of Moscow became a completely independent, sovereign state.
Strengthening the centralized state under Ivan IV "the Terrible". Reforms of the “Elected Rada”. The formation of an estate-representative monarchy. Eastern foreign policy of Ivan IV.
By the end of the 1540s, under the young ruler Ivan IV a circle of figures was formed to whom he entrusted the conduct of affairs in the state. Later, Andrei Kurbsky called the new government “The Chosen Rada.” Its most famous members were Aleksey Fedorovich Adashev, confessor Sylvester, Viskovaty Ivan Mikhailovich - head of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, and several other noble princes.
Reforms of the Chosen Rada
The first steps towards reforms were meetings of nobles and governors. In 1549, the February Meeting took place, which became the first Zemsky Sobor. The main political strategy of the Elected Rada was the centralization of the Russian state according to the civilizational model of the West. A change in strategy required a set of reforms. The reforms of the Chosen Rada had an anti-boyar orientation. It relied on landowners, nobles, and townspeople, and therefore expressed exclusively their interests. The elected council, whose reforms took place in 1549-1560, implemented transformations in all spheres of society. The changes affected the administrative, church, legal, financial, tax and other systems.
Reforms of the Elected Rada in the legal and administrative systems
Following the decision of the Council of Reconciliation in 1549, a new set of laws was being prepared. The revised Code of Laws was established in 1550. The relationship between feudal lords and peasants has not changed; the same norms and laws have been preserved. At the same time, the power of local feeders was somewhat limited, and the process of forming orders was accelerated. Orders are the first functional governing bodies that were in charge of individual areas of government affairs (otherwise they were called chambers, courtyards, etc.). The most famous were the Petition, Streletsky, Posolsky and other orders. At the same time, local government was centralized. Viceroyal administrations were replaced by an elected administration. These and other innovations strengthened the position of the nobles in society and united the provincial nobility into service towns.
Army reform
In the mid-50s of the 16th century, the “Code of Service” was adopted. Was installed strict order performing service. All landowners, regardless of the size of their holdings, became service people. The government of Alexei Adashev organized the Streltsy army and formed a detachment of Streltsy to guard the Tsar. As a result of military reforms, tens of thousands of soldiers now have weapons, equipment and food.
Church reforms of the Elected Rada
In 1551, Stoglav was adopted, in which one hundred chapter-articles were published on the answers of Ivan the Terrible about the structure of the church. Stoglav strengthened general discipline in the church and regulated life. The Tsar intended to confiscate the land from the church, but these intentions were not approved by the Elected Rada. The Church tried in every possible way to strengthen its authority, which was steadily declining in the eyes of the people.
Reforms of the Elected Council in the financial system
No administrative reforms could be carried out without restructuring the tax system. In 1550, a census of the entire population was carried out. Household taxation was replaced by land taxation. In the central territory, a tax unit called the “big plow” was introduced, its value varied depending on the position of the landowners. The payment of taxes by the population became increasingly centralized. The “feeding income” was replaced by a nationwide “feeding tax”.
In general, the reforms of the Chosen Rada under Ivan the Terrible were controversial. They were of a compromise nature. The reforms helped strengthen power and improve the position of the nobility. Their implementation was interrupted due to the resignation of the Elected Rada in 1560.
Strengthening the centralized state under Ivan IV "the Terrible". Oprichnina: essence, its goals and methods of achieving them, consequences. History of the country after the oprichnina. Livonian War.
The childhood of Ivan IV passed during the period of “boyar rule” of conspiracies at the top, city uprisings, which undermined state power and weakened the state in the face of external threats. The future king was distinguished by his intelligence, education, iron grip, and at the same time, moral depravity and nervous temperament.
In 1547, he was solemnly crowned king and officially accepted the title of Tsar. Surrounded by Ivan IV, a select group formed - a “government circle” of advisers - nobleman Adashev, Prince Kurbsky, Metropolitan Macarius, priest Sylvester, Queen Anastasia, who developed the main reforms.
The policy of Ivan IV took place in two stages:
1st - reforms of the 50s strengthened autocratic power, limited by estate-representative institutions in the center and locally (Zemsky Sobor, orders):
2nd - reform of the 60s, which contributed to the strengthening of absolute monarchical power.
The new Code of Laws was expanded and systematized. The transition of peasants on St. George's Day was confirmed, but the “elderly” (payment to the feudal lord upon transition) was increased. The legal status of peasants was approaching the status of kholop (slave). Punishments have become stricter. For the first time, punishments were introduced for boyars and bribe-taking clerks, the rights of volost governors were limited, and sectoral central government bodies were created - orders (ambassador, yam, robber, etc.). The adoption of the Code of Law marked the beginning of a number of reforms:
1556, “Code of Service” - completes the formation of the Russian army. The mounted militia of the nobles formed the basis of the army; to resolve important state issues, the highest state body arises - the Zemsky Sobor, in which the boyars, clergy, nobles, and merchants participated; instead of governors, zemstvo elders appear, chosen from wealthy townspeople and peasants; Church reform was carried out - services, church rituals were unified, measures were taken to strengthen the authority of the church, and the canonization of saints was carried out to unite the Russian people.
The reforms of the first period strengthened state power and increased the authority and role of the king. However, Ivan IV sought immediate results, while the Elected Rada carried out reforms gradually, counting on a long period. Rapid movement towards centralization was possible only with the help of terror. The elected Rada was against this. The fall of the Chosen Rada became the prologue to the oprichnina.
In December 1564, the tsar and his family left Moscow, taking all church relics, and went to Alexandrovskaya Sloboda. Rumors spread throughout Moscow that the tsar abandoned the people because of the betrayal of the boyars. The condition for the return of the tsar was the convening of a state council of boyars and clergy, where he proposed the conditions under which he would take back power. The tsar demanded the sovereign's allotment in the center of the country (oprichna - part of the entire Russian land), which began to be called oprichnina, and all other lands - zemshchina. Boyars and nobles who were not registered in the oprichnina were deprived of their possessions and moved to the zemshchina. A sovereign army was created - the guardsmen, who were supposed to “sniff out” enemies and “sweep out” them.
All this turned into mass terror and led to:
1) to the mass exodus of peasants to the south of the country, there was no one to sow and plow.
2) to the decline of trade;
3) to the loss of the successfully started Livonian War;
4) to the weakening of the southern borders. In 1574, the Crimean Khan Girey made a campaign against Moscow, set it on fire and demanded that the tsar give up Kazan and Astrakhan.
All these consequences forced Ivan the Terrible to abandon the oprichnina, but the terror did not stop.
The activities of Ivan the Terrible, on the one hand, contributed to the strengthening of the Russian state and autocracy, and on the other hand, led to the ruin of the people and contributed to such a phenomenon as the Troubles.
18 “Time of Troubles”: the causes and essence of the socio-political crisis in Russia. B. Godunov. The struggle for power and social movements during the Time of Troubles.
Events at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries. received the name " Time of Troubles" The causes of the unrest were the aggravation of social class, financial and international relations at the end of the reign of Ivan IV and his successors. The huge costs of the Battle of Levon and the destruction led to economic crisis. 50% of the land was not cultivated, and prices increased 4 times. In order to enslave the peasants, “Reserved Summers” were introduced - years when the transition from feudal lord to feudal lord was prohibited. In 1597, a decree was passed on a five-year search for fugitive peasants. On March 18, 1584, Ivan the Terrible died while playing chess. His eldest son Ivan was killed by his father in a fit of anger (1581), his youngest son Dmitry was only two years old.
Together with his mother, Ivan IV's seventh wife Maria Naga, he lived in Uglich, which was given to him as an inheritance. The middle son of Ivan the Terrible, twenty-seven-year-old Fyodor Ivanovich (1584-1598), took the throne, gentle by nature, but incapable of governing the state. The personality of Fyodor Ivanovich, who grew up in an atmosphere of medieval cruelty, attracted the attention of many writers and artists. “Am I a king or not a king,” is the sacramental phrase put into his mouth by A.K. Tolstoy, successfully characterizes Fyodor Ivanovich. Realizing that the throne was passing to Blessed Fedor, Ivan IV created a kind of regency council under his son.
In 1598, after the death of the childless Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the Zemsky Sobor elected Boris Godunov as Tsar. All segments of the population opposed the tsar; this was taken advantage of by the Moscow monk Grigory Otrepiev, who fled to Poland under the guise of the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry. In 1604, he and a Polish detachment set out on a campaign against Moscow, Russia. Boris Godunov suddenly dies and in May 1605 the False Dmitry I is proclaimed tsar, but he did not fulfill his promise to the Poles. The Poles plundered Russian lands and in May 1606 an anti-Polish uprising broke out in Moscow. The false Dmitry I was killed, and Vasily Shuisky was proclaimed king.).
He gave an obligation, formalized in the form of a kissing cross (kissed the cross), to preserve the privileges of the boyars, not to take away their estates and not to judge the boyars without the participation of the Boyar Duma. The nobility now tried to resolve the deep internal and external contradictions that had created with the help of the boyar king. One of Shuisky's most important affairs was the appointment of a patriarch. Patriarch Ignatius the Greek was stripped of his rank for supporting False Dmitry I. Vasily Shuisky managed to gain a foothold in Moscow, but the outskirts of the country continued to seethe. Political conflict, generated by the struggle for power and the crown, grew into a social one. The people, having finally lost faith in improving their situation, again opposed the authorities.
In the spring of 1608, False Dmitry II emerged from Poland. In 1610, Shuisky was overthrown, power was seized by the boyars (“Seven Boyars”), who surrendered Moscow to the Poles and invited the Polish prince Vladislav to the throne. Only by relying on the people could it be possible to win and preserve the independence of the Russian state. In 1610, Patriarch Hermogenes called for a fight against the invaders, for which he was arrested. At the beginning of 1611, the first militia was created in the Ryazan land, which was led by the nobleman P. Lyapunov. The militia moved to Moscow, where an uprising broke out in the spring of 1611. The interventionists, on the advice of the traitorous boyars, set fire to the city. Troops fought on the approaches to the Kremlin. Here, in the Sretenka area, Prince D.M. was seriously wounded. Pozharsky, who led the forward detachments.
The first militia disintegrated. By this time, the Swedes had captured Novgorod, and the Poles, after a months-long siege, had captured Smolensk. The Polish king Sigismund III announced that he himself would become the Russian Tsar, and Russia would join the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the fall of 1611, the townsman Nizhny Novgorod Kozma Minin appealed to the Russian people to create a second militia. With the help of the population of other Russian cities, the material base for the liberation struggle was created: the people raised significant funds to wage war against the interventionists. The militia was headed by K. Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky. In the spring of 1612, the militia moved to Yaroslavl. Here the provisional government of Russia “Council of All the Earth” was created.
In the summer of 1612, from the Arbat Gate, the troops of K. Minin and D.M. Pozharsky approached Moscow and united with the remnants of the first militia. Almost simultaneously, Hetman Khodasevich approached the capital along the Mozhaisk road, moving to help the Poles holed up in the Kremlin. In the battle near the walls of Moscow, Khodasevich’s army was driven back. On October 22, 1612, on the day of the discovery of the icon of the Kazan Mother of God, who accompanied the militia, Kitay-Gorod was taken. Four days later, the Polish garrison in the Kremlin surrendered. In memory of the liberation of Moscow from the interventionists on Red Square, funded by D.M. Pozharsky, a temple was erected in honor of the icon of Our Lady of Kazan. The victory was won as a result of the heroic efforts of the Russian people.
Polish-Swedish intervention in Russia at the beginning. XVII century I and II Militia. K. Minin and D. Pozharsky.
Early 17th century was marked by a general political crisis, and social contradictions intensified. All layers of society were dissatisfied with the rule of Boris Godunov. Taking advantage of the weakening of statehood, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden attempted to seize Russian lands and include it in the sphere of influence of the Catholic Church.
In 1601, a man appeared who pretended to be Tsarevich Dmitry, who had miraculously escaped. He turned out to be a runaway monk, defrocked deacon of the Chudov Monastery, Grigory Otrepiev. The pretext for the start of the intervention was the appearance of False Dmitry in 1601-1602. in the Polish possessions in Ukraine, where he declared his claims to the royal throne in Rus'. In Poland, False Dmitry turned for help to the Polish gentry and King Sigismund III. To get closer to the Polish elite, False Dmitry converted to Catholicism and promised, if successful, to make this religion the state religion in Rus', and also to give Western Russian lands to Poland.
In October 1604, False Dmitry invaded Russia. The army, joined by runaway peasants, Cossacks, and servicemen, quickly advanced towards Moscow. In April 1605, Boris Godunov died, and his warriors went over to the side of the pretender. Fedor, Godunov's 16-year-old son, was unable to retain power. Moscow went over to the side of False Dmitry. The young tsar and his mother were killed, and on June 20 a new “autocrat” entered the capital.
False Dmitry I turned out to be an active and energetic ruler, but he did not live up to the hopes of those forces that brought him to the throne, namely: he did not give the outskirts of Russia to the Poles and did not convert the Russians to Catholicism. He aroused dissatisfaction among Moscow subjects by non-compliance with ancient customs and rituals, and there were rumors about his Catholicism. In May 1606, an uprising broke out in Moscow, False Dmitry I was overthrown and killed. Boyar Vasily Shuisky was “shouted out” as tsar on Red Square. In 1607, a new impostor appeared in the city of Starodub, posing as Tsarevich Dmitry.
He gathered an army from representatives of the oppressed lower classes, Cossacks, service people and detachments of Polish adventurers. False Dmitry II approached Moscow and camped in Tushino (hence the nickname “ Tushino thief"). A large number of Moscow boyars and princes went over to his side.
In the spring of 1609, M.V. Skopin-Shuisky (the Tsar’s nephew), having gathered detachments of people’s militia from Smolensk, the Volga region, and the Moscow region, lifted the 16,000-strong siege of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. The army of False Dmitry II was defeated, he himself fled to Kaluga, where he was killed.
In February 1609, Shuisky concluded an agreement with Sweden. This gave the Polish king, who was at war with Sweden, a reason to declare war on Russia. The Polish army moved towards Moscow under the command of Hetman Zholkiewski, near the village of Klushino it defeated Shuisky's troops, the Tsar finally lost the trust of his subjects and in July 1610 was overthrown from the throne. The Moscow boyars invited the son of Sigismund III, Vladislav, to the throne, and surrendered Moscow to Polish troops.
The “great devastation” of the Russian land caused a widespread upsurge of the patriotic movement in the country. In the winter of 1611, the first people's militia was formed in Ryazan, led by Prokopiy Lyapunov. In March, the militia approached Moscow and began a siege of the capital. However, the split between the nobles and peasants with the Cossacks did not make it possible to achieve victory. In the fall of 1611, in Nizhny Novgorod, the zemstvo elder Kuzma Minin organized a second militia. Prince D.M. Pozharsky is invited to lead the zemstvo army. At the end of August 1612, the army of Minin and Pozharsky approached Moscow and began its siege; On October 27, 1612, the Poles surrendered. Thanks to the heroism of the Russian people, Moscow was liberated, and the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Romanov as Russian Tsar.
In 1617, the Peace of Stolbov was concluded between Russia and Sweden. Russia returned Novgorod, but lost the coast of the Gulf of Finland. In 1618, the Deulin truce was concluded with Poland, which received Smolensk, Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversk lands. Despite the dire consequences of the Swedish-Polish intervention, Russia retained the most important thing - its statehood.
Socio-economic development of Russia in the 17th century. Folding of the domestic market. Development of feudal relations. Economic activities of the first Romanovs.
The most important result of the development of agriculture in the first half of the 17th century. consisted of eliminating the consequences of the Troubles, during which huge expanses of uncultivated land appeared, which had managed to be overgrown with forest. In some counties, arable land has decreased tenfold. The restoration process took three decades - from the 20s to the 50s. XVII century
The main trend in the socio-economic development of Russia in the 17th century. consisted in the further strengthening of the feudal-serf system. Among the nobility, the direct connection between service and its land reward was gradually lost: estates remained with the family even if its representatives stopped serving.
The rights to dispose of estates were expanded (barter, transfer as a dowry). The estate is losing the features of conditional ownership and is approaching a fiefdom. In the 17th century there is a further growth of feudal land ownership. The new Romanov dynasty, strengthening its position, made extensive use of the distribution of land to the nobles.
Vigorous government measures to prevent the flight of peasants were essential for strengthening feudal land ownership. Due to mass exodus and population losses during the Livonian War and the oprichnina central areas countries began to become deserted.
Many landowners went bankrupt, which was unprofitable for the state, since noble militia still remained the basis of the army. Due to the flight of peasants, the flow of taxes into the treasury also decreased, since privately owned peasants were the main payers of taxes. All this led to the strengthening of the enslavement policy: the period for searching peasants was increased (in 1637 - up to 9 years, 1641 - up to 10-15 years). Even under V. Shuisky, peasant escapes were transferred from the category of civil offenses to the category of state crimes, therefore, the investigation was now carried out not by the owner of the peasants himself, but by the administrative and police authorities.
The legal formalization of the system of serfdom was completed by the Council Code of 1649: the search for runaway peasants became indefinite, the heredity of serfdom was established, and the inhabitants of the towns were assigned to the tax towns communities.
New phenomena in the Russian economy in the 17th century:
Deepening specialization in agriculture(The Middle Volga region, black earth lands in the Orel and Vologda region produced commercial grain; the Upper Volga region was a region of commercial cattle breeding; in the cities located around Moscow, garden crops were grown; in the Vladimir region, cattle breeding developed) and crafts (Tula-Serpukhov-Moscow became centers of metallurgy district, Ustyuzhno-Zheleznopolskaya region - between Novgorod and Vologda; Tver, Kaluga, Nizhny Novgorod region specialize in the production of textile products; Novgorod-Pskov region, Moscow, Yaroslavl are the centers of production of textile products;
Transformation of crafts into small-scale production (production of products for sale);
Growth of cities (in the second half of the 16th century - 170 cities, in the middle of the 17th century - 254 cities; the largest city was Moscow, which had about 200 thousand inhabitants);
Development of commodity-money relations; the spread of cash rent in infertile lands; the emergence of fairs of all-Russian significance (Makaryevskaya near Nizhny Novgorod, Irbitskaya in the Urals);
The emergence of the first manufactories. The first manufactories - Pushkarsky Dvor, Mint - appeared in the 16th century. In the 17th century There were about 30 manufactories in Russia. Metallurgical factories were built in the Urals and in the Tula region, leather factories were built in Yaroslavl and Kazan. The state provided the owners of manufactories with land, timber, and money. Manufactories founded with the support of the state later received the name “possession” (from the Latin “possession” - possession);
Market formation work force. Since there were no free workers in the country, the state began to assign peasants to manufactories. The assigned peasants had to work off their taxes at the enterprise at certain rates;
The beginning of the formation of the all-Russian market, strengthening of internal economic ties;
Development of foreign trade, strengthening the trade role of Arkhangelsk and Astrakhan. Thus, in the 17th century. The feudal-serf system remained dominant in all spheres of the economy. At the same time, small-scale production and trade grew significantly, manufacturing spread as a form of organization of production, an all-Russian market began to form, and significant capital began to accumulate in the sphere of trade.
The political system of Russia in the 17th century. Domestic and foreign policy activities of the first Romanovs.
The first Romanovs include Mikhail Fedorovich (reigned 1613-1645) and Alexei Mikhailovich (reigned 1645-1676). To this time they also add the reign of Princess Sophia as regent of her younger brothers Ivan and Peter.
To the main events of the first time Romanovs include:
1. Stabilization of the internal life of the country, the establishment of relative order, the formalization of the legal status of the nobility, the Boyar Duma, Zemsky Councils and, accordingly, the strengthening of the autocracy;
2. Church reform, which split society into those who accepted and those who did not accept new interpretation church services;
3. Formation of larger military-administrative units - discharges in the border regions of the country;
4. In foreign policy, this was the century of Ukraine’s entry into Russia;
5. In culture and everyday life - the spread of education, the increase in the production of printed books, mainly religious content and textbooks.
In the first years of his reign, Mikhail, due to his youth, sickness and spiritual gentleness, could not do without the help and guidance of his elders. This help was provided to him by relatives on his mother’s side - the boyars Saltykovs, until his father, a monk, Filaret, returned from exile to Moscow. Most historians agree that Michael performed the formal function of the king, and his parents were the actual rulers.
However, the most important factor in his governance were the Zemsky Sobors, which provided significant moral support to the young tsar. Arriving from Kostroma to Moscow after his election, Mikhail did not dissolve the elected zemstvo people, but kept them with him. The elected officials changed from time to time, but the cathedral operated continuously in Moscow for 10 years and helped the Tsar in all important and difficult matters. The staff of the Zemsky Sobor was important for their awareness, knowledge of affairs in the country and its regions, and gave advice on various sectors of the economy.
Throughout the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, the main feature of the Zemsky Sobors was a significant increase in the representation of the lower classes. Unlike the time of Ivan the Terrible and Boris Godunov, representatives of the nobles and townspeople played in the Zemsky Sobors under Mikhail Fedorovich. After the death of Patriarch Filaret (the Tsar's father), some nobles proposed transforming the Zemsky Sobor into a permanent parliament. But this did not suit the autocratic government and over time the Zemsky Sobors met less frequently at first, and then their activities were stopped altogether.
One of the last to be convened was the Zemsky Sobor in 1653 and accepted the population of Left Bank Ukraine and Kyiv into Russian citizenship. Since then, power began to rely not on the representation of the population, but on the bureaucracy and the army. But the most recent council convened was in 1683, the main issue at which should
Disintegration of Rus' into appanage principalities
1. Causes and consequences of feudal fragmentation in Rus';
2. Features of the feudal development of southern Russian lands during the period of fragmentation;
3. Features of the development of North-Western Rus' during the period of fragmentation.
4. Features of the development of North-Eastern Rus' in the 13th century.
fragmentation in Rus';
In Rus', feudal fragmentation began with 1132 ᴦ. (death of the son of Vladimir Monomakh, Mstislav the Great). The situation of the Russian lands during the period of fragmentation became more complicated in 1237-1240. in connection with the Mongol invasion and the establishment of the yoke of the Golden Horde.
Soviet historians developed an understanding of feudal fragmentation as a stage in the political development of feudal society. They showed that the transition to fragmentation was associated with the patterns of socio-economic and political development during the early Middle Ages, and the very onset of fragmentation is evidence of the entry of feudalism into its developed stage. Soviet historians proved that this phenomenon is progressive and natural; they pointed out that from the time of the collapse of Kievan Rus to the Batu invasion, the economy and culture of all Russian lands flourished. But it was emphasized that fragmentation was accompanied by civil strife, weakened the ability to resist external enemies and did not exclude the establishment of despotic power locally.
The same views are shared by representatives of modern historical science Russia.
Feudal fragmentation is a stage in the political development of medieval society, when a single state of the early stage of the Middle Ages is fragmented into a number of independent states (in Russia - principalities and lands). At the same time, the grand-ducal power remains, but has only a nominal significance. Local princes were completely independent and often fought with the great princes.
Reasons for feudal fragmentation:
I) economic- growth of productive forces in crafts and agriculture locally. At the end XI-XII century two-field and three-field systems began to spread everywhere. The number of cities grew (in the 10th century - 60, by the beginning XIII V. - 230). IN at the same time, the growth of productive forces took place under conditions of the dominance of a subsistence economy and the absence of economic ties between Russian lands;
2) social - determined by the development of feudal relations on the ground. In the IX-X centuries. There were quite noticeable differences in the level of development of society between Kiev and its outskirts. But at the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th centuries. the outskirts no longer lagged behind Kyiv in terms of social development. The stratification of society began everywhere.
Under such conditions, the local nobility began to strive to have an apparatus of power capable of coping with social clashes;
3) political - determined by the interest of the local nobility in securing their own princely dynasties to their feudal centers. Already in the Kiev period, a tradition began to take shape according to which certain dynasties began to be established in individual feudal centers. Thus, Chernigov, Tmutarakan and Ryazan began to be listed as the descendants of Svyatoslav Yaroslavich; Pereyaslavl on the Dnieper, Rostov and Suzdal - for the descendants of Vsevolod and Vladimir Monomakh, etc.;
4) ideological - associated with the spread of traditions of suzerainty - vassalage and the idea of independence of each prince in his own estate.
Consequences of fragmentation:
1) after the death of the son of Vladimir Monomakh, Mstislav the Great, Rus' in 1132 ᴦ. broke up into about 20 principalities and lands of varying sizes. Subsequently, crushing continued. Along with the rise of economy and culture in this process There were also negative consequences: civil strife and weakening of the country's defense. This was sensitive for Russia, which was located on the border with the “steppe”;
2) the Polovtsian onslaught intensified. The Russian population was forced to leave Belaya Vezha on the Don, Tmutarakan, and leave lands in the Lower Dnieper region;
3) a defense system gradually began to take shape, in which each prince was responsible for his own section of the Russian border. For this reason, the defeat of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich of Novgorod-Seversky and his brother Bui-Tur Vsevolod of Kursk in I 185 ᴦ., described in the Tale of Igor’s Campaign, had dire consequences for Rus', creating a gap in the Russian defense into which the Polovtsians of the khans Bonyak and Konchaka. With great difficulty we managed to push them back into the steppe. The author of "The Lay..." called on the princes to unite military forces for the defense of Russia. On the eve of the Mongol invasion, this call was very relevant, but the princes as a whole were unable to overcome local interests and rise to an understanding of all-Russian tasks.
Causes and consequences of feudalism - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Causes and Consequences of Feudal" 2017, 2018.
The first division of lands took place under Vladimir Svyatoslavich; from his reign, princely feuds began to flare up, the peak of which occurred in 1015-1024, when only three of Vladimir’s twelve sons remained alive. The division of lands between princes and strife only accompanied the development of Rus', but did not determine one or another political form of state organization. They did not create a new phenomenon in political life Rus'. The economic basis and main cause of feudal fragmentation is often considered to be subsistence farming, the consequence of which was the lack of economic ties. Subsistence farming is the sum of economically independent, closed economic units in which a product goes from its production to consumption. The reference to natural farming is only a correct statement of the fact that took place. However, its dominance, which is characteristic of feudalism, does not yet explain the reasons for the collapse of Rus', since subsistence farming dominated both in united Rus' and in the 14th-15th centuries, when the formation of a single state on the basis of political centralization was underway in the Russian lands.
The essence of feudal fragmentation lies in the fact that it was a new form of state-political organization of society. It was this form that corresponded to the complex of relatively small feudal worlds not connected with each other and the state-political separatism of local boyar unions.
Feudal fragmentation is a progressive phenomenon in the development of feudal relations. The collapse of early feudal empires into independent principalities-kingdoms was an inevitable stage in the development feudal society, did this concern Rus' in Eastern Europe, France in Western Europe or the Golden Horde in the East. Feudal fragmentation was progressive because it was a consequence of the development of feudal relations, the deepening of the social division of labor, which resulted in the rise of agriculture, the flourishing of crafts, and the growth of cities. For the development of feudalism, a different scale and structure of the state was needed, adapted to the needs and aspirations of the feudal lords, especially the boyars.
The first reason for feudal fragmentation was the growth of boyar estates and the number of smerds dependent on them. The 12th and early 13th centuries were characterized by the further development of boyar land ownership in various principalities of Rus'. The boyars expanded their possessions by seizing the lands of free community members, enslaving them, and buying lands. In an effort to obtain a larger surplus product, they increased the natural rent and labor that the dependent stinkers performed. The increase in surplus product received by the boyars due to this made them economically powerful and independent. In various lands of Rus', economically powerful boyar corporations began to take shape, striving to become sovereign masters of the lands where their estates were located. They wanted to administer justice to their peasants themselves and receive fines from them. Many boyars had feudal immunity (the right of non-interference in the affairs of the estate), “Russkaya Pravda” determined the rights of the boyars. However, the Grand Duke (and such is the nature of princely power) sought to retain full power in his hands. He interfered in the affairs of the boyar estates, sought to retain the right to judge the peasants and receive vir from them in all the lands of Rus'. The Grand Duke, considered the supreme owner of all the lands of Rus', and their supreme ruler, continued to consider all the princes and boyars as his service people, and therefore forced them to participate in the numerous campaigns he organized. These campaigns often did not coincide with the interests of the boyars and tore them away from their estates. The boyars began to feel burdened by serving the Grand Duke and tried to evade it, which led to numerous conflicts. The contradictions between the local boyars and the Grand Duke of Kyiv led to the former’s increased desire for political independence. The boyars were also driven to this by the need for their own, close princely power, which could quickly implement the norms of the “Russian Truth”, since the power of the grand ducal virniks, governors, and warriors could not provide quick real assistance to the boyars of lands remote from Kyiv. The strong power of the local prince was also necessary for the boyars in connection with the growing resistance of the townspeople, the Smerds, to the seizure of their lands, enslavement, and increased extortions.
The increase in clashes between the smerds and townspeople and the boyars became the second reason for feudal fragmentation. The need for local princely power and the creation of a state apparatus forced local boyars to invite the prince and his retinue to their lands. But when inviting the prince, the boyars were inclined to see in him only a police and military force that did not interfere in boyar affairs. The princes and squad also benefited from such an invitation. The prince received a permanent reign, his land patrimony, and stopped rushing from one princely table to another. The squad, which was also tired of following from table to table with the prince, was also pleased. Princes and warriors had the opportunity to receive a stable rent-tax. At the same time, the prince, having settled in one land or another, as a rule was not satisfied with the role that the boyars assigned to him, but sought to concentrate all power in his hands, limiting the rights and privileges of the boyars. This inevitably led to a struggle between the prince and the boyars. The third reason for feudal fragmentation was the growth and strengthening of cities as new political and cultural centers. During the period of feudal fragmentation, the number of cities in Russian lands reached 224. Their economic and political role as centers of a particular land increased. It was on the cities that the local boyars and the prince relied in the fight against the great Prince of Kyiv. The increasing role of the boyars and local princes led to the revival of city veche meetings. The veche, a unique form of feudal democracy, was a political body. In fact, it was in the hands of the boyars, which excluded real decisive participation in the government of ordinary townspeople. The boyars, controlling the veche, tried to use the political activity of the townspeople to their advantage. Very often the veche was used as an instrument of pressure not only on the great, but also on the local prince, forcing him to act in the interests of the local nobility. Thus, cities, as local political and economic centers that gravitated towards their lands, were a stronghold for the decentralization aspirations of local princes and nobility. The reasons for feudal fragmentation should also include the decline Kyiv land from constant Polovtsian raids and the decline of the power of the Grand Duke, whose land patrimony decreased in the 12th century.
Rus' broke up into 14 principalities, and a republican form of government was established in Novgorod. In each principality, the princes, together with the boyars, “thought about the land system and the rath.” Princes declared wars, made peace and various alliances. The Grand Duke was the first (senior) among equal princes.
Princely congresses have been preserved, where issues of all-Russian politics were discussed. The princes were bound by a system of vassal relations. It should be noted that for all the progressiveness of feudal fragmentation, it had one significant negative aspect. Constant strife between the princes, which either subsided or flared up with renewed vigor, exhausted the strength of the Russian lands and weakened their defense capability in the face of external danger. The collapse of Rus', however, did not lead to the collapse of the ancient Russian nationality, a historically established linguistic, territorial, economic and cultural community. In the Russian lands, a single concept of Rus', the Russian land, continued to exist. “Oh, Russian land, you were already behind the hill proclaiming the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” During the period of feudal fragmentation, three centers emerged in the Russian lands: the Vladimir-Suzdal, Galician-Volyn principalities and the Novgorod feudal republic.
Russian lands and principalities at the beginning of the 12th - first half of the 13th centuries. Political fragmentation. Tatar-Mongol invasion
Ftp file transfer program.
Moves copies of files from one Internet node to another in accordance with the protocol FTP(File Transfer Protocol). It does not matter where these nodes are located and how they are connected to each other. Computers that have files for public use are called FTP servers. There are more than 10 Terabytes of free files and programs on the Internet.
6. Telnet remote access program.
Allows you to log into another computer system running on the Internet using the protocol TELNET. This program consists of two components: a client program, which runs on the client computer, and a server program, which runs on the server computer.
Functions client programs:
· establishing a connection with the server;
· receiving input data from the subscriber, converting it to a standard format and sending it to the server;
· Receiving query results from the server in a standard format and reformatting them into a form convenient for the client.
Functions server programs:
· waiting for a request in a standard form;
· servicing this request;
· sending results to the client program.
Telnet is a simple and therefore universal means of connecting to the Internet.
On the Internet, the same network node can simultaneously operate using several protocols. Therefore, large network nodes now have a full set of servers, and they can be accessed using almost any of the existing protocols.
1. Feudal fragmentation in Rus': prerequisites, causes, essence and historical consequences.
2. Features of the political, socio-economic development of Russian principalities and lands in the XII-XIII centuries. Vladimir-Suzdal Principality.
3. Features of the development of the Galicia-Volyn principality.
4. Novgorod Boyar Republic.
5. Kiev, Chernigov and Smolensk principalities, Polotsk-Minsk land .
6. The Tatar-Mongol invasion and the struggle of Rus' against the aggression of German and Swedish feudal lords in the 13th century .
Time from the beginning of the XII to the end of the XV centuries. traditionally called the specific period. Indeed, on the basis of Kievan Rus, 15 principalities and lands were formed by the middle of the 12th century, about 50 principalities by the beginning of the 13th century, and approximately 250 in the 14th century.
Domestic science traditionally defines the beginning of the period of feudal fragmentation as the middle of the 12th century. - after the reign of Vladimir Monomakh and Mstislav. But in reality, the first manifestations of fragmentation appear much earlier after the death of Yaroslav the Wise, when the princes began a protracted struggle for the Kiev and other significant thrones. The struggle between the descendants of Yaroslav led to the emergence of a system of separate principalities, only nominally dependent on Kyiv. Subsequently, V. Monomakh managed to restore the relative unity of Rus', and the princes, actually independent, formally recognized the supremacy of the Kyiv prince. But with the death of Vladimir and Mstislav, who continued his policy, Rus' finally broke up into separate principalities, entering an era of feudal fragmentation.
What were the reasons behind this phenomenon?
Firstly during the 11th century. In Rus', a system of succession to the throne gradually developed. The eldest prince in the family, who usually was not the son of the deceased Kyiv prince, occupied the Kiev throne, the next in seniority passed to his principality, whose principality was occupied by even younger ones, etc. This system was imperfect and often failed because... princes often sought to secure possessions for their direct descendants, rather than transfer them to a brother, uncle or nephew. Gradually, the princely possessions were separated from Kyiv by the right of direct inheritance, and the transition to the Kiev reign was carried out not by the right of the eldest in the family, but by the right of strength and authority. The assignment of territories to certain branches of the Rurik family was the first and most important reason for feudal fragmentation.
The second reason- growth of boyar estates, the number of smerds dependent on them. The development of boyar land ownership in various principalities of Rus' occurred due to the seizure of the lands of free community members and their enslavement. In an effort to obtain a larger surplus product, the boyars increased the natural dues and labor that were performed by the dependent smerds. This made the patrimonial owners economically powerful and independent. Powerful farms began to emerge, the owners of which sought to become sovereign masters. They themselves wanted to administer justice in their domains, receive fines from the peasants, and resolutely opposed the interference of the Grand Duke in the affairs of the boyar estates.
The boyars sought to evade participation in numerous campaigns on the side of the Grand Duke, to evade serving him. This led to an increase in conflicts between the local boyars and the Grand Duke of Kyiv, and to an increased desire of the boyars for political independence. The boyars were driven to this by the need for their local, close princely power, which would be able to implement the legal norms of “Russian Truth”. The Grand Duke could no longer quickly ensure the real implementation of boyar rights with the help of his warriors.
Hence, a different scale of the state was needed, a different structure of the feudal organism, more adapted to the needs of the main, then progressive class of feudal lords.
It was necessary to reduce the scale of unification, bring state power closer to the local feudal lords, and establish several more centers near Kiev.
The third reason feudal fragmentation resulted in an increase in clashes between smerds and townspeople and the boyars. The latter needed such a force that was capable of breaking the resistance of the townspeople and smerds by seizing their lands, enslavement, and increasing extortions. Therefore, local boyars were forced to invite the prince and his retinue to their lands. But, inviting him to their place, the boyars were inclined to see in him only a police and military force that did not interfere in boyar affairs. The princes and squad also benefited from such an invitation. The prince received a permanent reign, his land patrimony. The princes and squad had the opportunity to receive a stable rent-tax.
Establishing a foothold in the capital cities, the princes founded their local dynasties: the Olgovichi in Chernigov, the Izyaslavichs in Volyn, the Bryachislavichs in Polotsk, the Rostislavichs in Smolensk, the Yuryevichis in the Vladimir-Suzdal land, etc. Each of the new principalities fully satisfied the needs of the feudal lords - from of any capital of the 11th century, one could ride to the borders of this principality in three days. Under these conditions, the norms of “Russian Truth” could be confirmed by the sword of the ruler quite in a timely manner.
Having firmly settled in one land or another, the prince had a different attitude towards the norms of exploitation and feudal exactions, caring:
firstly, about not irritating the boyars who helped them settle here;
secondly, about passing on your reign to your children in good economic condition. At the same time, a prince who managed to settle firmly in a particular land, as a rule, was not satisfied with the role assigned to him by the boyars, but sought to concentrate all power in his hands, limiting the rights and privileges of the boyars. This inevitably led to a struggle between the prince and the boyars.
The fourth reason feudal fragmentation was the growth and strengthening of cities as new political, economic and cultural centers. Their number in the Russian lands reached 224. It was on the cities that the local boyars and the prince relied in the fight against the great prince of Kyiv. Thus, the cities were a stronghold for the decentralization aspirations of local princes and nobility.
The cities were the focus of a variety of crafts: the suburbs surrounded its aristocratic part - the Kremlin - in a wide ring; in the cities everything that was needed for the economy or war was produced, everything that decorated everyday life or served as an export item. They were the main (and sometimes the only) place of trade in the area and the center of supplies and wealth.
In cities and in their immediate vicinity, another element of the feudal Middle Ages developed - the church. Its position during the period of feudal fragmentation of Kievan Rus acquired considerable importance. Depending on their sympathies or antipathies towards the princes, the church hierarchs could stimulate the process of collapse of the unified ancient Russian state.
Fifth reason feudal fragmentation should be called the absence in the middle of the 12th century of a serious external threat to the entire East Slavic community. Later, this threat appeared from the Mongols, but by that time the process of separation of the principalities had gone too far to stop.
Noteworthy is the fact that earlier than others, due to the geographical, or rather geopolitical situation, those lands that were never threatened by external forces, in in this case Polovtsian danger. Such were the Novgorod land and Polotsk. Each of them had their own trade routes to Western Europe: this increased their independence. Following Novgorod and Polotsk, Galich, Volyn and Chernigov became isolated. Galich was helped in this by his distance from the main theater of war with the Cumans and his proximity to Hungary and Poland, from where support could come. The separation of Chernigov was favored by its connections with Tmutarakan and the Caucasus. When the Polovtsians appeared in the steppes, the Chernigov princes, who were more closely connected with the steppe world than others, established friendly relations with them, became related and widely enjoyed the support of the Polovtsians.
Thus a new one gradually took shape political map Rus' with many centers. 14 principalities arose, and a republican form of government was established in Novgorod. In each principality, the princes ruled together with the boyars. Princes declared wars, made peace and various alliances. As for the Grand Duke, he was the first (senior) among equal princes.
Historical consequences
1. Feudal fragmentation did not indicate a crisis of power, but the rise of individual centers capable of existing independently. This was a time of development of cities, trade and crafts, culture and art of individual Russian lands. Ultimately this prepared the creation single center- the centralized Russian state in the 14th - 15th centuries.
2. The constant movements of princes in search of a richer and more honorable throne ceased. The rulers ceased to perceive the cities and lands under their control as temporary sources of human and material resources in the political struggle.
The princes, who were now passing on their possessions by inheritance, were more concerned about the well-being of cities and estates. Under these conditions, the strife that was so frequent at the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th centuries, although it did not stop altogether, took on a different character.
Government began to take on more distinct outlines, gained the opportunity to respond in a timely manner to crisis situations (enemy raids, rebellions, etc.). Power has become more effective than in those days when the management of some lands was reduced to periodic “feeding” of princes and warriors or to polyud.
Negative consequences
First of all, in the disunity of the Russian lands, their mutual weakening during constant strife between the princes. This exhausted the strength of the Russian princes and undermined their defense capability in the face of external danger. As a result, being weakened by internal strife, the Russian principalities were unable to resist individually Tatar invasion and easily became victims of aggression.
However, the collapse of Kievan Rus did not lead to the collapse of the Old Russian people, a historically established linguistic, territorial, economic and cultural community. The absence of cultural disunity, a common religious consciousness and the unity of church organizations slowed down the processes of isolation and created the preconditions for the possible future reunification of the Russian principalities.
Multiple factors in the historical development of Rus', including princely feuds, economic changes, and a new method of land ownership, led to the beginning of feudal fragmentation. This long period left an indelible mark on the future development of the entire state and society. But some facts cannot be denied positive influence fragmentation of territories. The independent and uneven development of the old urban centers led to many cultural and foreign policy achievements.
Formal | Genuine |
External | Domestic |
The Polovtsian danger significantly reduced the attractiveness of the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” The centers through which European trade relations with the East were carried out, thanks to the Crusades, gradually moved to Southern Europe and the Mediterranean, and control over this trade was established by the rapidly growing northern Italian cities. | political prerequisites: endless inter-princely strife and long-term fierce internecine struggle among the Rurikovichs. |
pressure of steppe nomads. | strengthening of local princes. |
Low level of development of subsistence, subsistence farming. Land is the main value. |
Causes:
1) Decline of the Kyiv principality (loss of central position, relocation of world trade routes away from Kyiv).
Was associated with the loss of importance of the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks”
Ancient Rus' is losing its role as a participant and mediator in trade relations between the Byzantine, Western European and Eastern worlds
2) land is the main value.
Land is the main means of payment for service.
3) One of the reasons for the beginning of feudal fragmentation in Rus' was the significant growth of the country's productive forces.
4) The most important sign of feudal fragmentation in the 12th-13th centuries. was a subsistence economy.
5) Strengthening local princes.
6) Boyars turn into feudal landowners, for whom the income received from estates becomes. main means of subsistence.
7) Weakening of defense capabilities.
8) The weakening of Kyiv and the movement of centers to the outskirts was caused by the pressure of the steppe nomads.
Consequences:
- strengthening of local princes.
- The boyars turn into feudal landowners, for whom the income received from estates becomes the main means of subsistence.
- weakening of defense capabilities.
Zuev: strengthening ties with Northern Russia.
Characteristics:
2nd half of the XII - XIV centuries. - period
- state fragmentation of Ancient Rus'
- appanage principalities
- formation of Russian feudalism
The legal formalization of the principle of feudal fragmentation was recorded: by the Lubech princely congress of 1097 “let each one keep his fatherland”
Along with Kiev, new centers of craft and trade appeared, increasingly independent of the capital of the Russian state. | The state became vulnerable, since not all of the resulting principalities were on good terms with each other, and there was no unity that later saved our country more than once. |
Old cities developed. | Constant bloody civil strife weakened the military and economic power of the country. |
Large and strong principalities were formed. | Kyiv, the former capital of the Old Russian state, lost the power glorified in legends and epics and itself became the cause of strife. |
In the large Russian principalities, strong princely dynasties were created, a tradition of transferring power from father to son was formed, cities were rapidly growing, peasant farming was steadily developing, and new arable land and forest lands were being developed. Wonderful cultural monuments were created there. The Russian Orthodox Church was gaining strength there. | Many princes sought to occupy the grand-ducal table in Kyiv. The power in the city often changed - some princes were expelled, others died in battles, others left, unable to resist the new contenders. |
The significance of the era of fragmentation
The period of feudal fragmentation is a natural stage in the development of any medieval society. In Rus', it coincided with the activation of nomadic tribes neighboring Russia and the Mongol-Tatar invasion. The internecine struggle of dozens of princes for the great reign and the factor of dependence on the Horde slowed down the process of unification of the Russian lands. Also, unlike similar processes in France, England or Spain, two centers of land unification were formed in Rus': in the northeast and in the northwest. Accordingly, already in the 15th century, two great principalities laid claim to the heritage of Kievan Rus: Moscow and Lithuania.
The combination of external and internal factors led to the fact that the era of feudal fragmentation in Rus' lasted longer than in France, Hungary or England. On the other hand, after the weakening of the Horde yoke, the consolidation of the principalities accelerated. Under Ivan III the Great, fragmentation was virtually eliminated, and another hundred years later the remnants of the appanage system in the centralized Russian state disappeared.
