Think about why the rulers of the eastern states were proclaimed. Why Russian sovereigns called themselves tsars and not kings. Questions and tasks

To answer a question correctly, you need to formulate it correctly. Or more correctly it would sound like this: why are there Slavic and Scandinavian names among Russian princes?

Double names of princes - ancestral and baptismal
The fact is that after Russia adopted Christianity, all princes, as a rule, bore two names - Slavic and the name given to them at baptism of Greek, Latin or Jewish origin. So, ruler Olga was baptized under the name Elena, Vladimir - Vasily, Yaroslav - George. At the same time, certain combinations of pagan and Christian names became traditional. Thus, Vladimir Monomakh was also given the baptismal name Vasily. The princes known to us named Yaroslav are usually Georges (Yuries). In chronicles they most often appear under their traditional Slavic names, although from time to time they are called by a double name (for example, Svyatopolk-Mikhail).

But already in the 12th century, individual princes were called only by their baptismal name. It is quite possible that they did not have a Slavic name at all. These are Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrey Bogolyubsky, Konstantin Rostovsky, Alexander Nevsky and some others. Although at this time most of the princes are still called by names that were not yet in the calendar at that time: Svyatoslav, Vsevolod, Mstislav, Rostislav, Igor, Oleg, etc. There were also Ruriks, one of whom captured and plundered Kyiv at the beginning of the 13th century. Moreover, if over the centuries many princely names, thanks to church canonization, entered the calendar and became Christian, then Rurik has not yet become one.

The “washing out” of pagan names took place especially intensively during the Horde rule. Some princes during this period still bore the names Igor and Oleg (one of the latter was the Ryazan prince of the late 14th century), but names associated with Christianity began to undoubtedly predominate. It is interesting in this regard that in the dynasty of the Moscow Grand Dukes of Rurikovich, starting with Alexander Nevsky - the father of the first Moscow prince Daniel - none of those who occupied the throne bore a Slavic name. And the last Rurikovich, who is known by his pagan name, was Rodoslav, the brother of the Ryazan Grand Duke Fedor, who died in 1407.

Two Vladimirs could take the Moscow throne
However, it would be wrong to assume that Russian grand dukes and tsars began to somehow disdain Slavic names. There were simply very few of them in the calendar. One of the first to appear there, for obvious reasons, was the name Vladimir. It is believed that this happened no later than the 13th century. Twice it turned out that people with this name could, under different circumstances, take the Moscow throne.

The first was the cousin of Dmitry Donskoy - the Serpukhov appanage prince Vladimir Andreevich Brave, the leader of the army on the Kulikovo field and, as some historians believe, the main hero of that battle. After the death of Donskoy, Vladimir Andreevich was the cousin of the new Grand Duke Vasily I. Because of seniority in the family, civil strife almost broke out.

The cousin of Tsar Ivan IV, the appanage prince of Staritsky, was also Vladimir Andreevich. During the Tsar's serious illness in 1553, many boyars and other persons in the Tsar's immediate circle did not want to swear allegiance to the young Tsarevich Ivan. They openly said that they were ready to serve only Vladimir Andreevich. If the tsar’s illness had ended tragically, then it is very likely that Vladimir Andreevich would have taken the Russian throne.

The only exception is Boris Godunov
There was one exception among the kings. This is Boris Godunov. We, however, do not know the exact origin of this name, but in the Orthodox name book this name is marked as Slavic. At the end of the 11th century, the names of the holy princes Boris and Gleb, the sons of Vladimir, who became victims of the fratricide of Svyatopolk the Accursed, appeared in the calendar. There is, apparently, a pattern in the fact that the only tsar with a Russian name was baptized in honor of one of them.

Probably, the naming of names was subject to some kind of mathematical pattern. There were very few Slavic names in the calendar; they appeared there late; the kings, with one exception, bore Greek, Latin, and Hebrew names. Well, if this seems strange to someone, let him try to remember how many of his personal acquaintances in our time have names of Slavic and Russian origin.

In the East Frankish Kingdom, the Carolingian dynasty ended in 911. In 919, the nobility elected the Saxon Duke Henry as the new king. This year is considered the date of birth of the German Kingdom.

Henry I took power under difficult conditions: the Normans attacked from the north, and the nomadic Hungarians attacked from the south. In the 9th century they invaded Central Europe and settled on the plain along the middle Danube. From here, the Hungarians struck fear throughout Europe, ruining it with their raids.

To defeat the Hungarians, a strong cavalry army was required, and Henry I managed to create one. The king ordered that several peasant households equip and arm one horseman, who would be ready to go on a campaign at any moment.

Now possessing a strong army, the son of Henry I, Otto I, in 955 inflicted a crushing defeat on the Hungarians on the Lech River. From that time on, the Hungarians stopped their predatory raids. Soon they switched to a sedentary lifestyle and adopted Christianity. In 1000, their prince was proclaimed king. This is how a state arose in Hungary.

Having defeated the Hungarians and strengthened his power, Otto became the most powerful monarch in Western Europe. Following the example of Charlemagne, he decided to once again restore the empire in the West. At the head of a strong army, Otto made a campaign in Italy, in 962 in Rome the pope crowned him with the imperial crown.

Following Charlemagne, Otto I considered his empire a continuation of the Roman one, and it was also called Roman (later - Holy Roman). The emperors wanted to unite the entire Christian world under their rule. A magnificent court ceremony1 was developed, and impressive signs of imperial power (crown, scepter, orb) were created.

The new empire then included Germany and northern Italy. But the power of the emperors in Italy was fragile. To restore it, each new emperor made a military campaign against Rome.

Crown of the Holy Roman Empire. X-XI centuries

To achieve their goals, emperors needed the help of the church. They granted riches and privileges to bishops and abbots, and in exchange they counted on their support. Taking advantage of the weakening power of the popes, the emperors appropriated the right to appoint their own people to church positions. At the end of the 10th century, they even appointed and removed popes. But later, in the 11th century, the popes entered into a struggle with the emperors for control of the church.

Emperor Otgon III. Miniature of the turn of the X-XI centuries.

Annals of the Saint-Bertin Monastery on the situation in the West Frankish kingdom in the middle of the 9th century

Almost all the Aquitans fell away from Charles and sent ambassadors and hostages to Louis, king of Germany, as a sign of surrendering ambassadors and hostages to his rule. Meanwhile, young Louis, son of Louis, king of Germany, whom the Aquitans had begged from his father, crossed the Loire and was received by those by whom he was called. The king entered Aquitaine during Lent. And there he remained even after the Easter holiday, his people were only engaged in robberies, arson, taking people captive and did not spare even the churches and altars of God in their greed and arrogance. The Danes, who were stationed on the Loire, approached the burg of Blois and burned it. From here they intended to go to Orleans, planning the same for him. But since Bishops Agius of Orleans and Burchard of Chartres had prepared ships and soldiers against them, they abandoned that intention and retreated to the lower Loire.

Why was it so easy to drive away the king and replace him with another? Who summoned and deposed kings? Think about why the church organized a rebuff to the external enemy.

1. What were the structure of society and occupations of the ancient Scandinavians? How were they related to their sea voyages and raids?
2. Compare the society of the Scandinavians of the Viking Age with the society of the Germans during the Great Migration.
3. Trace the directions of the Norman attacks on the map. Which countries suffered most from their raids?
4. Where and how did the Norman states arise?
5. What is feudal fragmentation?
6. Compare the power of the king and the power of large feudal lords in France during the period of feudal fragmentation.
7. Suggest why the Scandinavians who moved to the north of France adopted the local language, morals, and customs, and not vice versa.
8. What is similar in the military reforms of Charles Martel in the Frankish state, Henry I in Germany, Alfred the Great in England? What were the general reasons for these reforms? Present your answer in table form.
9. Name the outstanding rulers of Western Europe in the 9th-10th centuries. What goals did they have? What methods did they use? What were the results of the activities of these sovereigns? Present your answer in the form of a table.
10. Do you agree with the statement that in the early Middle Ages, kings themselves created their opponents?

1. Indicate the differences between the state and tribal organization of public life. List the characteristics of a state.

In a tribe, just like in a state, there is power, but it is based on authority. In a state, in addition to authority, the government also has a coercive apparatus, as a rule, including armed forces separated from the rest of society.

The characteristics of a state that distinguish it from pre-state societies include the following:

Division of society into the governed and the managers;

The presence of a management apparatus, designed in the form of special institutions;

The presence of an apparatus of coercion of the governed;

The presence of armed forces, formalized as a special institution;

Availability of judicial institutions;

Replacement of customs and traditions with laws.

2. In what regions of the world did the first state formations develop? How did climatic and natural conditions influence the formation of ancient states? Give examples.

The first states arose in the subtropics in the valleys of large rivers. These rivers once surrounded plains with a lot of game, so many tribes roamed there. Then the climate became increasingly arid, which drove people to the river itself, where the entire population of previously vast territories ended up. The threat of famine forced people to switch to agriculture and cattle breeding. But at the same time, the river valleys were not ideal for agriculture: a significant part of them remained swampy. To drain swamps, people developed irrigation systems. Gradually they began to be used in reverse for irrigating agricultural fields. Irrigation required the organization of labor of a large number of people and accurate calculations and knowledge. It was thanks to this that the first states based specifically on irrigation agriculture appeared. To understand the veracity of this theory, it is enough to remember where the most ancient civilizations arose: in the interfluves of the Tigris and Euphrates (Mesopotamian civilization), the Indus and the now dry Saraswati (the so-called Harappan civilization), the Yangtze and Yellow River (Ancient Chinese civilization), in the Nile Valley (Ancient Egyptian civilization ).

3. Why was an extreme form of social inequality (slavery) inherent in all ancient states? What was the situation of slaves in Ancient Egypt? Identify the sources of slavery.

All ancient civilizations had similar farming conditions (irrigated agriculture), therefore the same phenomenon became widespread in all of them - patriarchal slavery. In all of these civilizations, including Ancient Egypt, slaves were considered part of a large family group (patriarchal household) and often performed the same jobs as free family members. Prisoners of war, or debtors who failed to pay on time (or the children of such debtors) became such slaves.

5. Think about why the rulers of eastern states were proclaimed living gods. What place did priests occupy in the social hierarchy? Why was the construction of pyramids and other funeral rites given great importance in Ancient Egypt?

When a person took up farming, he encountered new problems unknown to himself. Previously, only a long series of unsuccessful hunts could lead to famine, but a farmer's harvest can be destroyed by one brief event, such as a flood. The attitude towards many natural phenomena has changed. The hunter could simply move away from many of them to more favorable places, but the farmer was tied to his field, so many things really became a disaster. Based on all this, ideas have developed about omnipotent, formidable deities who must be prayed for mercy, who must be served in order to earn this mercy.

New religious systems gave new answers to the main question of human existence - the existence of his soul after earthly life. Ancient Egyptian ideas required such structures as pyramids, mortuary temples, etc. for these purposes.

The priests, on the one hand, were intermediaries between people and these terrible all-powerful gods, they helped to earn mercy. But at the same time, the priests also accumulated practical knowledge; it was they who organized irrigation work that required precise calculations.

The well-being of ancient civilizations rested on high yields, which were obtained thanks to irrigation agriculture. In order for irrigation systems to work harmoniously, a unified leadership was required, a strong authority, which ideally no one should contradict. That is why the ruler was considered one of those terrible gods - so that he had absolute power, which no one dared to contradict.

6. Tell us about the cultural achievements of Ancient Egypt.

The ancient Egyptians are known primarily for their architecture, especially associated with the cult of the dead. The great pyramids, rock-cut tombs, and mortuary temples still amaze the imagination, even though they have not reached us in their original form.

Also, their writing systems (hieroglyphic and hieratic), medicine, etc. played a big role in the history of mankind.

1) Find 6 errors in the text

Byzantium emerged as an independent state in 295 as a result of the division of the Roman Empire into Eastern and Western. The inhabitants of Byzantium called their state the Greek Empire, and called themselves Greeks.

The territory of the empire covered countries of ancient agricultural culture, among them Egypt, Gaul, Syria, and Palestine.

Byzantium was famous for its numerous rich cities: Constantinople, Alexandria, Soissons, Santioch. The capital of the Byzantine Empire was Rome.

Answer: 1. The division of the Roman Empire occurred in 395.

1. The Empire was called "Roman".
2. They called themselves Romans.
3. Gaul was never part of Byzantium.
4. Soissons did not belong to Byzantium.
5. The capital of the empire has always been Constantinople.

2) One of Justinian's contemporaries, the famous Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea, in his works created a contradictory image of the emperor: on the one hand, he showed him as a cruel tyrant, and on the other, as a wise politician and reformer. What actions of Justinian allowed him to characterize the emperor this way? How did Justinian himself understand the goals of his reign? What is your opinion of Justinian?

Answer: He was suspicious, insidious, vengeful, greedy, indiscriminate in the ways of obtaining funds, cruel to his opponents and enemies, with strong-willed decisions he interfered in the lives of people close to him, and did not hesitate to execute his loved ones. Beneath the outward politeness hid a merciless tyrant. With all these qualities, he had tireless perseverance and hard work, was well educated and energetic. He issued a set of laws, which other states subsequently took as a basis when drawing up their laws. He reformed the administrative and tax system, legislation, developed foreign trade, considering it a source of wealth for the empire, annexed many provinces lost to the Western Roman Empire, reformed the army, rebuilt Constantinople and created a masterpiece of architecture - the Church of St. Sophia.

Personally, my opinion is ambiguous. Firstly, all his achievements became possible thanks to his environment. Secondly, after the reign of Justinian, the Byzantine economy was greatly weakened by numerous wars and exorbitant expenses, and people fled to the barbarians due to huge taxes. On the other hand, he restored all the destroyed cities and built fortresses.

3) Think about why in Byzantium itself the rulers were called Roman (Roman) emperors, and in the West they were called the rulers of Constantinople.

Answer: The Roman Emperor Constantine I moved the capital, calling it “New Rome”, but in the west the city was called Constantinople - after the name of the emperor, therefore in the west the rulers of Byzantium were called Constantinople.

Byzantium wanted to restore the Roman Empire and therefore called themselves that, but since they did not rule in Rome, they could not do this.

My son and I are going through the history of the Ancient World. The textbook is interesting (Ukolova V.I., Marinovich L.P. History of the Ancient World).

It is interesting, among other things, because at the end of each paragraph there are two groups of questions and tasks. You can calmly answer the first group if you have read the paragraph.

But to answer the second, the knowledge from the paragraph is no longer enough. That is, they are not in it at all. You must either look for knowledge somewhere else, for example on the Internet, or complete entire works, so-called creative tasks. With the involvement, presumably, of dads, moms and other relatives. It would be nice if among them there was at least a candidate of historical sciences.

Of course, many of these questions are presented to the whole class for discussion. In principle, from the knowledge contained in the paragraph, it is possible to derive answers to “unparalleled” questions. But you have to think very logically about this. There is a chance that the collective mind of the class, with the help of the teacher’s guiding and guiding thoughts, will be able to answer these questions. So in this sense, questions are good and correct - they awaken creative thought and develop logical-historical thinking.

But we were particularly unlucky: the child got sick and sits at home, and homework comes over the Internet (in progress! or in our time - you get sick and get high). They need to be done - so we do them.

The task came to answer the second group of questions on paragraph 9: Mesopotamia: the birth of civilization.

The first question is simple: Why did ancient city-states arose on the banks of rivers?

The textbook only says that ancient city-states arose on the banks of rivers. And that's all. But we easily figured it out - there are a lot of people in the city, they just need to drink water, wash themselves in the mornings and evenings, grow crops for food, and it is also convenient to use the river as a route for trade.

Question two: Discuss in class: why, with the emergence of the state, traditions and customs could no longer ensure order in society and rulers began to make laws?

At this point dad was already scratching his head, since the collective brain of the class with the guiding and guiding thought of the teacher was not at hand. I even had to look on the Internet in order to somehow organize what first came to mind - society has become more complex than a tribe in the forest, private property has appeared, the number of disputes has increased and a new management system is needed - a state that is more convenient to govern with the help of laws, even if carved in stone by Comrade Hammurabi. In general, they painted it in half with sin.

Question three: Think about why the rulers of Sumer relied not on the clan nobility, but on officials.

This was complete rubbish - I can’t even imagine how the teacher’s mind would cope with such a question. It’s good that at one time your humble servant, through the famous book by Mikhail Voslensky “Nomenklatura”, became acquainted with the hypothesis of the historian Karl Wittfogel about “hydraulic” societies. In short, to carry out complex irrigation work, as well as the construction of pyramids, palaces and temples, the mobilization of all forces of society is required, which is easier to do through the state and its appointed officials.

True, Wittfogel did not answer the question of why such work, for example, in Holland and Italy, did not lead to the emergence of “hydraulic” societies. Well, we didn’t go to such heights. We will do this if we suddenly need to write a candidate's dissertation.

In the meantime, they simply wrote it down - they say that the rulers of Sumer needed to carry out major construction work, and this is easier to do through officials, and not through the willful and impudent clan nobility.

When I was at school, we had a classic ancient history textbook with a picture of the triumphal arch at Palmyra. Recently, this arch was blown up by new vandals from ISIS (banned in Russia - damn, it turns out that if you are a media outlet, you must write for every mention of ISIS that it, or it, or he is banned in Russia. Otherwise there will be troubles under the media law. It's good that I'm not a media person yet). Pichalka, in short. In the meantime, as a CDPV, I’m exhibiting an arch from the ancient city of Myra in Anatolia, which, by the way, was taken with my own hands.