2.1.The period of feudal fragmentation in Western Europe and Rus': essence and causes

2.2. Mongol-Tatars and Rus'

The period of feudal fragmentation is a natural stage in the progressive development of feudalism. The division of the early feudal grandiose empires (Kievan Rus or the Carolingian Empire in Central Europe) into a number of factually (and sometimes legally) sovereign states was an inevitable stage in the development of feudal society.

Back in the 4th century. (395) The Roman Empire broke up into two independent parts - Western and Eastern. The capital of the Eastern part was Constantinople, founded by Emperor Constantine on the site of the former Greek colony of Byzantium. Byzantium was able to withstand the storms of the so-called “great migration of peoples” and survived after the fall of Rome (in 1410 the Visigoths took Rome after a long siege) as the “Roman Empire.” In the VI century. Byzantium occupied vast territories of the European continent (even Italy was briefly conquered). Throughout the Middle Ages, Byzantium maintained a strong centralized state.

The Mongolian state arose thanks to the military and diplomatic activities of Temujin, in the future Genghis Khan, aimed at uniting the Mongolian tribes. The latter included the Mongols themselves, to which Temujin belonged, Merkits, Keraits, Oirat, Naimans, and Tatars. The largest and most warlike of the Mongol tribes was the Tatar tribe. The Tanguts, Jurhens, and Chinese, who bordered the Mongols, often transferred the name “Tatars” to all Mongolian tribes of the 11th-12th centuries.

The future Genghis Khan was born, according to some sources, in 1162, according to others - in 1155. He received the name Temujin at birth because his father, grandson Yesugei-Bagatur, who was at enmity with the Tatars, had taken the Tatar leader prisoner the day before

In his struggle for power over other tribes, Temujin achieved significant success. Around 1180 he was elected khan of the Mongol tribal union itself. The decisive factor was the real power that Temujin gained thanks to his abilities. Representatives of the Mongolian steppe aristocracy, having elected Temujin khan, gave him the title Chiigis Khan.

In 1185 Temujin, in alliance with the head of the Kereit tribe, Van Khan, defeated the Merkit union of tribes. This victory strengthened his position.

In the spring of 1202, Genghis Khan completely defeated the Tatars. All captured Tatar men were killed, and the women and children were distributed among different tribes. The khan himself took two Tatar women as his wives.

Sooner or later, the logic of the struggle should have led Chiigis Khan to a clash with the Kereit Van Khan, from which he ultimately emerged victorious. Having crushed Tayan Khan's last strong rival, the head of the Naiman tribal union, in 1204, Genghis Khan became the only powerful leader in the Mongolian steppes.

In 1206, at a congress (kurultai) of the Mongolian nobility in the upper reaches of the Onon River, Chinggis Khan was again proclaimed khan, but this time of a unified Mongolian state.

The Mongolian state was built on a military model. The entire territory and population were divided into three parts: center, right and left wing. Each part, in turn, was divided into “thousands” (10 thousand people), “thousands”, “hundreds”, “tens”, headed by temniks, thousanders, centurions, tens. At the head of these military-administrative formations were associates Genghis Khan - his noyons and nukers.

Each military-administrative unit, starting from the lowest level, had to not only field a set number of soldiers with horses, equipment, and provisions, but also bear various feudal duties.

Having created a strong power, the structure of which contributed to the rapid deployment of military forces, Genghis Khan began to implement plans to conquer neighboring states.

The news that reached the north-east of Rus' about the defeat and capture of the largest states of Asia by the Mongol-Tatars, the devastation of vast territories with flourishing cities and populous villages, served as a terrible warning.

It is quite acceptable to assume that Vladimir and the Vladimir-Suzdal principality were one of the most informed regions of Europe. The proximity and constant connection with the Volga made it possible to obtain reliable and varied information about the East, Asia, and the Tatars.

Apparently, in Rus' they also knew about the Mongol campaign of 1219-1224. to Central Asia, about its enormous destructive consequences for the agricultural regions and urban life of Central Asia. They knew what the civilian population expected in the event of an invasion by nomadic conquerors.

It should be noted that under Genghis Khan, organized robbery and division of military spoils, devastation of entire regions and extermination of civilians were used. A whole system of mass organized terror emerged, which was carried out from above (and not from below, by ordinary soldiers, as before, during the invasions of nomads), aimed at destroying elements of the population capable of resistance and intimidating civilians.

During the siege of the city, residents received mercy only on condition of immediate surrender, although this rule was sometimes not observed if it seemed disadvantageous to the Mongols. If a city surrendered only after long resistance, its inhabitants were driven out into the field, where they were left for five to ten days or more under the supervision of Mongol warriors. After robbing the city and dividing the spoils, they were taken for the townspeople. The military were killed, their families were enslaved. Girls and young women also became slaves and were divided between the nobility and warriors. According to a contemporary, the Arab historian Ibn al-Asir, after the capture of Bukhara, the inhabitants were driven out into the field and then were divided by order of Genghis Khan among the soldiers. According to Ibn al-Athir, the Tatars raped the women they inherited right there in front of the townspeople, who “looked and cried,” unable to do anything.

Artisans and skilled craftsmen were distributed as slaves among the Mongol princes and nobility, but their fate was somewhat better, since they were often not separated from their families. Healthy male youth climbed into the “crowd”, i.e. it was used for heavy siege work and convoy service, and during battles the “people of the crowd” were in front of the troops, serving as a target for shots from their own compatriots. The remaining residents were allowed to return to their ruined homes.

If a city was taken only by storm after stubborn resistance, or if an uprising began in an already conquered city, the Mongols carried out a general massacre. The surviving residents, who had previously been driven out into the field, were distributed among the soldiers, who were to kill those still alive. Sometimes, along with the cities, their rural districts were cut out. After the massacre, the captured scribes were forced to count the number of those killed.

After the defeat on the Kalka River in 1223, Rus' began to closely monitor the actions of the Mongol-Tatars. Let us pay attention to the fact that the chronicle of the Vladimir principality contains records of the victory of the Mongols over the Saxons and Eastern Cumans in 1229, and of the wintering of the Mongol-Tatars near the borders of Volga Bulgaria in 1232. Under 1236, the chronicle contains a message about the conquest of Volga Bulgaria by the Mongols . The chronicler describes the defeat of the capital of Bulgaria - the Great City. This message from the Vladimir chronicler carried a frank warning about the impending catastrophe. A year later it broke out.

Let us note that in 1235, at the kurultai, a decision was made on an all-Mongol campaign to the West. As the Persian author Juvaini (died in 1283) reports, at the kurultai of 1235 “a decision was made to take possession of the countries of the Bulgars, Ases and Rus, which were located in the neighborhood of the Batu camp, but were not yet completely conquered and were proud of their numbers.”

Having defeated the Volga Bulgaria in 1236 and launched a broad offensive against the Polovtsians in the Caspian steppes and North Caucasus in 1237, by the fall of 1237 the Mongol-Tatars concentrated their forces near the borders of North-Eastern Rus'. The Ryazan principality was the first to experience the power of the Mongol-Tatar army. Having taken Ryazan in December 1237, Batu headed across the ice of the Oka to Kolomna. Near Kolomna, the Vladimir-Suzdal regiments, led by the son of the Grand Duke of Vladimir Vsevolod, were waiting for the Mongol-Tatars. The battle of Kolomna, which took place in January 1238, was distinguished by its tenacity and bitterness. It is known that Prince Kulkan (the only prince who died during the western campaign of the Mongols) was mortally wounded in the battle. This gives reason to conclude that the battle was extremely intense (like all Genghisids, the youngest son of Genghis Khan Kulkan, in accordance with the Mongol rules of war, was located in the rear of the troops). Despite the fact that, according to the chronicler, the Vladimir-Suzdal and Ryazan warriors were “fighting hard” near Kolomna, it was not possible to stop the Mongol-Tatars. Having defeated Moscow in January 1238, the Mongols approached Vladimir in early February. Due to significant losses suffered by the Vladimir-Suzdal army near Kolomna, Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich went north to gather forces, leaving his sons Vsevolod and Mstislav in Vladimir. Despite the fact that the city had quite powerful fortifications, the defenders of Vladimir, with all their heroism and courage, were able to resist the Mongols, who used siege and battering weapons, only for several days, until February 8. And then followed the horrific defeat of the capital of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir. On March 4, 1238, the Mongol commander Burundai took Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich, who was camped on the City River, by surprise. Together with Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich, many Russian waves died. Mongol troops captured Tver and appeared within the Novgorod land. Not reaching 100 versts to Novgorod, the Mongol-Tatars turned south and, having conducted a “round-up” through the Russian lands (including the outskirts of the Smolensk and Chernigov principalities), returned to the steppe.

After spending the summer of 1238 in the Don steppes, Batu again invaded the Ryazan land in the fall. In 1239, the main attack of the Mongol-Tatars fell on the southern Russian lands. In the spring of 1239, the Pereyaslavl principality was defeated; in the fall, it was the turn of Chernigov, which was besieged on October 18, 1239. The city defended itself to the last opportunity. Many of its defenders died on the walls. At the end of 1240, Kyiv fell. In 1241 Batu invaded the Galicia-Volyn principality.

Reporting on the Mongol invasion, the chronicler noted that countless numbers of Tatars appeared, “like pruses, eating grass.” The question of the number of Batu’s troops has attracted the attention of historians for about 200 years. Starting with N.M. Karamzin, most pre-revolutionary researchers (D.I. Ilovaisky and others) arbitrarily estimated the size of the Mongol army at 300 thousand people or, uncritically using the data of chroniclers, wrote about an army of 400, 500, and even 600 thousand.

Such figures are, of course, a clear exaggeration, for this is significantly more than there were men in Mongolia in the 13th century.

Historian V.V. Kargalov, as a result of studying the problem, came to the conclusion that the size of Batu’s army was 120-140 thousand people. However, this figure should also be considered overestimated.

After all, every Mongol warrior needed to have at least three horses: a riding one, a pack horse and a fighting one, which was not loaded so that it would retain strength for the decisive moment of the battle. Providing food for half a million horses concentrated in one place is an extremely difficult task. The horses died and were used as food for the soldiers. It is no coincidence that the Mongols demanded fresh horses from all cities that entered into negotiations with them.

The famous researcher N. Veselovsky estimated the number of Mongol troops at 30 thousand people. L.N. adhered to the same assessment. Gumilev. A similar position (the size of Batu’s army is 30-40 thousand people) is characteristic of historians

According to the most recent calculations, which can be considered quite convincing, the number of actual Mongol troops at Batu’s disposal was 50-60 thousand people.

The widespread belief that every Mongol was a warrior cannot be considered reliable. How was the Mongol army recruited? A certain number of tents provided one or two warriors and supplied them with everything necessary for the campaign.

It is suggested that in addition to the Mongol troops themselves, 50-60 thousand people, Batu’s army included auxiliary corps from conquered peoples. However, in reality, Batu did not have such corps. This is what the Mongols usually did. Prisoners captured in battle and civilians were herded into an assault crowd, which was driven into battle in front of the Mongol units. Units of allies and vassals were also used. Behind this “assault crowd”, doomed to death in the vanguard battle, Mongol barrage detachments were placed.

By the way, approaching the real number of Mongol troops helps to understand the nature of military operations in 1237-1238. Having suffered significant losses in battles with the Ryazan and Vladimir people, the Mongols then with difficulty took the small cities of Torzhok and Kozelsk and were forced to abandon the campaign against the populous (about 30 thousand inhabitants) Novgorod.

When determining the real size of Batu's army, the following must be taken into account. The military equipment of the Mongol-Tatars was superior to that of Europe. They did not wear heavy armor, but robes with several layers of felt protected them from arrows better than iron. The arrow range of the English archers, the best in Europe, was 450 m, and for the Mongols - up to 700 m. This advantage was achieved due to the complex design of their bow, and the fact that the Mongol archers trained certain muscle groups from childhood. Mongolian boys, from the age of six, mounted a horse and picked up a weapon, growing up, became a kind of perfect military machines.

As a rule, Russian cities withstood no more than one or two weeks of siege, since the Mongols carried out continuous exhausting attacks, changing detachments. For example, Ryazan was subjected to a similar continuous assault from December 16 to 21, 1237, after which the city was plundered and burned, and the inhabitants were killed.

What military forces did Rus' have? Russian and Soviet historians since the time of S.M. Solovyov, following the chronicler’s report, believed that Vladimir-Suzdal Rus', together with Novgorod and Ryazan, could field 50 thousand people and Southern Rus' the same number. There are reasons to doubt the reality of such figures.

It would be unjustified to reduce the essence of the problem to consideration of this specific figure. It can be assumed that all the Russian principalities could potentially field together an army of similar size. But the whole point is that the Russian princes were unable to unite efforts even in the hour of terrible danger.

Unsuccessfully, the Ryazan prince Yuri Igorevich turned to Vladimir and Chernigov for help. Why didn’t the Grand Duke of Vladimir and the supreme overlord of the Ryazan princes Yuri Vsevolodovich send help? It is difficult to even imagine that Yuri Vsevolodovich wanted the defeat of the vassals, which deprived him of a buffer between the steppe and the borders of his own principality. The defeat of Volga Bulgaria, the death of the population, of which the Grand Duke was aware, left no doubt that a life-and-death struggle was ahead.

Of course, the explanation can be sought in the fact that help did not have time to reach. However, this is what the chronicler writes: “Prince Yurya himself did not go, not listening to the prayers of the princes of Ryazan, but he himself wanted to fight.” That is, essentially the same situation arose as in the Battle of Kalka in 1223. Each prince wanted to fight alone, without allies.

Is it just a matter of a simple desire for individual action? It seems that we are faced with a manifestation of one of the features of social psychology characteristic of chivalry during the period of feudal fragmentation, when every knight, every commander, every feudal army pursued the goal of their own personal participation in the battle, often completely disregarding the general actions, which predetermined the unfavorable outcome of the battle . This was the case in the West, and this was also the case in Rus'.

The strife continued. The chronicler, next to the story of the defeat of Pereyaslavl and Chernigov by the Mongols, calmly tells about the campaign of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, during which he took the city of Kamenets, in which the family of his rival Mikhail Vsevolodovich Chernigovsky was located, and captured many prisoners.

Discord over the Kyiv table did not stop. Occupying the reign of Kiev, Mikhail Vsevolodovich, not hoping to protect the city, fled to Hungary. The vacant Kiev throne was hurried to take the Smolensk prince Rostislav Mstislavich, but he was soon expelled by Daniil of Galitsky, who had not prepared the city for defense. Having left Kyiv, Daniil left the thousand for himself

According to the Mongolian rules of war, those cities that submitted voluntarily were called “gobalyk” - good city. Such cities received a moderate contribution of horses for the cavalry and food supplies. But it is quite natural that the Russian people, in the face of ruthless conquerors, tried with all their might to defend their native land and discarded the thought of capitulation. Evidence of this, for example, is the long defense of Kyiv (according to the Pskov Third Chronicle, for 10 weeks and four days, from September 5 to November 19! 1240). Excavations of other cities of the Kyiv land (Vyshgorod, Belgorod, etc.) also indicate the heroic defense of these centers. Archaeologists have discovered thick layers of fires, hundreds of human skeletons were found under burnt houses, fortress walls, in streets and squares.

Yes, you can cite facts of open cooperation with the Tatars. Thus, the small princes of the Bolokhov land (Upper Bug region), who supported the Galician boyars in the fight against Daniil Romanovich, quickly came to an agreement with the Mongol-Tatars. The latter freed them from recruitment into their army on the condition that they would be supplied with wheat and millet.

The Mongol army needed replenishment, so the Mongols offered those captured to buy freedom at the cost of joining their army. The chronicle of Matthew of Paris contains a letter from two monks, in which it was reported that in the Mongol army there were “many Cumans and pseudo-Christians” (i.e. Orthodox). The first recruitment among Russians was made in 1238-1241. Note that in this case we are again talking, apparently, about an “assault crowd.”

This happened in real life, but the emphasis should be placed differently.

The consequences of the Mongol invasion were extremely severe. In the cultural deposits of cities that suffered the blow of the Mongol-Tatars, layers of continuous fires and hundreds of skeletons with traces of wounds were discovered. There was no one to collect and bury the bodies of the dead. When Daniil Romanovich returned to Vladimir-Volynsky, a terrible sight met his eyes. In the deserted city, as N.I. noted. Kostomarov, the churches were filled with piles of corpses. Residents sought refuge in church buildings and died there.

The Italian monk Plano Carpini, who visited Rus' in 1246, wrote that “as we rode through their land, we found countless heads and bones of dead people lying on the field.” In Kyiv, according to Plano Carpini, only 200 houses remain.

The border of agriculture moved to the north, the southern fertile lands were called “Wild Field”. Russian people who were driven into the Horde, partly remained there as servants and slaves, and partly were sold to other countries. In the slave trade of the Golden Horde with Egypt, Syria, France, and Italy, the main commodity was women. On the Western European market, the most significant amount (15 times the normal price) was paid for a seventeen-year-old Russian girl.

Despite the dire consequences of the Mongol-Tatar campaign on Russian lands, life went on. The Mongols did not leave garrisons anywhere, and after the departure of the Mongol army, the inhabitants returned to their devastated homes and cities. Such large centers as Novgorod, Pskov, Polotsk, and Smolensk survived. Often the population fled into the forest when the Tatars approached. Forests, ravines, rivers, and swamps protected both villages and people from the Tatar cavalry. Ukrainian archaeologist

What did Charles Martel's military reform change in Frankish society?

Why did Charlemagne's empire collapse? What is feudal fragmentation? 1.

“There is no war without fires and blood.” In

During the times of feudal fragmentation (IX-XI centuries), the possession of any large feudal lord became, as it were, a state within a state.

The feudal lord collected taxes from the subject population, judged them, and could declare war on other feudal lords and make peace with them.

Feast at a noble lord. Medieval miniature

Peasants are harvesting.

Medieval miniature

2 - E. V. Agibalova

The battle of the Franks led by Roland with the locals in the Pyrenees Mountains. Miniature from the 14th century.

The gentlemen almost constantly fought among themselves: such wars were called internecine. During civil strife they were burned

Death of Roland. Stained glass window of the cathedral. XIII century On the right, the mortally wounded Roland blows his horn, calling for help. On the left - he unsuccessfully tries to break the sword on the rock

villages, cattle were stolen, crops were trampled. Those who suffered the most from this

peasants. 2.

Lords and vassals.

Each large feudal lord distributed part of the land with peasants to small feudal lords as a reward for their service, and they swore an oath of allegiance to him. He was considered a lord in relation to these feudal lords

(senior), and the feudal lords, who seemed to “hold” the lands from him, became his vassals (subordinates).

Vassals were obliged to

the order of the lord to go on a campaign and bring with him a detachment of warriors, to participate in the lord’s battle, to help him with advice, to ransom the lord from captivity. The lord defended “my vassals from attacks by other feudal lords and rebel peasants, rewarded them for their service, and was obliged to take care of their orphaned children.

It happened that vassals opposed their lords, did not carry out their orders, or moved to another lord. And then only force could force them to obey. 3.

Feudal staircase. The king was considered the head of all feudal lords and the first lord of the country: he was the highest judge in disputes between them and during the war he led the army. The king was the lord of the highest nobility (aristocracy) - dukes and nobles.

Excerpt from "The Song of Roland"

In the 11th century, the French epic “The Song of Roland” was written down. It tells about the heroic death of Count Roland’s detachment during the retreat of Charlemagne from Spain and about the revenge of the Frankish king for the death of his nephew:

The count felt that death had overtaken him,

Cold sweat streams down your forehead.

The Count says: “Mother of God, help me,

It's time for us, Durendal6, to say goodbye to you,

I won't need you anymore.

You and I have beaten many enemies,

With you we conquered large lands.

There Charles the greybeard now rules...

He turned his face to Spain,

So that King Charles can see

When he and his army are here again,

That the count died, but won the battle.

What qualities of a vassal were valued in the early Middle Ages?

fov. There were usually hundreds of villages in their domains, and they commanded large detachments of warriors. Below were barons and viscounts - vassals of dukes and counts. Usually they owned two to three dozen villages and could field a detachment of warriors. Barons were lords of knights, who sometimes no longer had their own vassals, but only dependent peasants. Thus, the same feudal lord was the lord of a smaller feudal lord and the vassal of a larger one. In Germany and France there was a rule: “The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal.”

Feudal staircase

king! dukes and counts barons Historians call this organization of feudal lords the feudal ladder. Despite frequent conflicts between feudal lords, which even the kings themselves could not always cope with, vassal relations united the lords into a single class in importance and place in society (albeit consisting of different strata and groups). This was a class of noble (from a good family) people who dominated over the commoners.

When a war with another state began, the king called on dukes and counts to go on a campaign, and they turned to the barons, who brought detachments of knights with them. This is how a feudal army was created, which is usually called knightly (from the German “ritter” - horseman, mounted warrior).

L. The weakness of royal power in France. The power of the last kings of the Carolingian dynasty in France weakened significantly. Contemporaries gave the kings humiliating nicknames: Karl the Fat, Karl the Simple, Louis the Stutterer, Louis the Lazy.

At the end of the 10th century, the large feudal lords of France elected the rich and powerful Count of Paris - Hugo Capet (the nickname was given by the name of his favorite headdress - the hood) as king. From then until the end of the 18th century, the royal throne remained in the hands of the Capetian dynasty or its side branches - the Valois and Bourbons.

The French kingdom then consisted of 14 large fiefs. Many feudal lords had larger lands than the king himself. The dukes and counts considered the king only the first among equals and did not always obey his orders.

The king owned a domain (domain) in the northeast of the country with the cities of Paris on the Seine River and Orleans on the Loire River. In other lands, the castles of rebellious vassals rose. As a contemporary put it, the inhabitants of these “hornets’ nests”

“They devoured the country with their robbery.”

Lacking power over the entire country, the king did not issue general laws and could not collect taxes from its population.

Therefore, the king had neither a permanent strong army nor paid officials. His military forces consisted of detachments of vassals who received fiefs in his possession, and he ruled with the help of his courtiers7.

Otto I. Image from a chronicle of the 12th century. 5.

Formation of the Holy Roman Empire. In Germany, the power of the king was at first stronger than in France. A unified state was necessary for protection from external enemies.

Attacks by the Hungarians (Magyars) were very frequent. These tribes of nomadic pastoralists moved at the end of the 9th century from the foothills of the Southern Urals to Europe and occupied the plain between the Danube and Tissa rivers. From there, the Hungarian light cavalry raided the countries of Western Europe. She broke through the Rhine and reached Paris. But Germany suffered especially: the Hungarians ravaged and captured many of its inhabitants.

In 955, German and Czech troops led by the German king Otto I utterly defeated the Hungarians in a battle in southern Germany. Soon the Hungarian invasions ceased. At the beginning of the 11th century, the Kingdom of Hungary was formed, where King Stephen introduced Christianity.

In 962, taking advantage of the fragmentation of Italy, Otto I marched on Rome, and the pope proclaimed him emperor. In addition to Germany, part of Italy fell under the rule of Otto I. Thus the Roman Empire was restored once again. Later, this political entity began to be called the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation.

This became possible because Germany and Italy at that time also did not

2* Dust by united states. Like France, they consisted of many separate independent duchies, counties, baronies, principalities, etc., each of which had its own main city, its own sovereign, its own flag and coat of arms. Feudal fragmentation in these countries existed throughout the Middle Ages.

Crown and holder; Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire

The Emperor wanted to be considered the voice of all the rulers of Europe. But real power was limited. Even the German dukes gradually achieved independence from him. The population of Italy did not stop fighting the invaders. Each new German king, in order to be crowned with the imperial crown, had to march beyond the Alps and reconquer Italy.

1. Prove that every major feudal lord had the same power in his possessions as the ruler of the state. Why was this possible? 2. What was the weakness of royal power in France in the 9th-11th centuries? 3. When was the Holy Roman Empire formed? 4. Explain why the German emperors sought to be crowned in Rome. 5. Calculate how many years there was no empire in Europe (how much time elapsed between the collapse of the empire of Charlemagne and the proclamation of Emperor Otto I).

S1.If the king, during feudal fragmentation, was considered only “first among equals,” then why was royal power maintained at all? 2. Can one knight be a vassal of several lords? Justify your answer 3.

The laws of Germany of the 11th century say that the lord cannot take away the fief from you without guilt, but only if the vassal violated his duties: abandoned the lord in battle, attacked the lord or killed his brother. What role did this law play in the organization of medieval society? 4. Were peasants included in the feudal ladder? Why? 5. Pair with one-click. The dialogue between the lord and his vassal is dreary as they sort out a controversial situation about the breaking of a vassal oath. What arguments will both sides bring to prove that they are right? How will the dispute end?

End of work -

This topic belongs to the section:

Textbook on history (primitive, antiquity, middle ages)

Institution of secondary vocational.. education of the Republic of Bashkortostan.. Bashkir Medical College..

If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:

What will we do with the received material:

If this material was useful to you, you can save it to your page on social networks:

All topics in this section:

From primitiveness to civilization
According to generally accepted estimates, the era of primitiveness began no later than 2.5 million years ago, while the first civilizations appeared no earlier than the 4th millennium BC. Thus, more than 99% of human history

Ancient East and the Ancient World
Ancient Egypt Stages of the history of Ancient Egypt 2nd half. IV millennium BC There were more than 40 states in the Nile Valley

Ancient Egypt
The largest state of the Ancient East in northeast Africa, the territory of which extended broadly along the Nile valley and its rapids to the delta.

Demanded
Creation of irrigation systems Organization of collective work of a large number of people

Society structure
A king (pharaoh) is a ruler who had supreme military, judicial and priestly power. Worshiped as the god Ra.RA

Eastern despotism
With the emergence of so-called chiefdoms during the Neolithic Revolution, which united a number of communities under the authority of a leader, a major step was taken in the movement towards the state. Leader, authority

Social structure
Despite all the regional characteristics, the social structure of Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Chinese, Indian, and Persian societies is generally the same. Social hierarchy may be

The emergence of ancient civilization
Parthenon Temple in Athens. V century BC Ancient civilization was formed in the Mediterranean. Initially, states arose in Greece and Italy (Crete, Mick

Hellenism: State and Society
The constant struggle for primacy between the two most important city states - democratic Athens and aristocratic Sparta - ultimately weakened Greece and made it possible for it to be subjugated to the north.

Roman world of the Mediterranean
The landowning aristocracy reigned supreme in the policies of Italy. One of them - Rome, which, according to legend, arose in 753 BC. - was destined to become the master of the Mediterranean. Per

Civilization of the East. Ancient civilization
Centralized monarchy Polis - city-states Ruler - supreme owner Communal and private ownership of all land. Private ownership of land Nasele

Appropriating and producing farms
Appropriating economy Producing economy Neolithic revolution VIII-VII millennium BC

Eastern Roman Empire
(Byzantium) 395 – Formation of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) with its capital Constantinople (Balkan Peninsula, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Palestine and other lands).

Public administration
Tax departments; military; Department of State Post and External Relations; department that protected the interests of the imperial family.

The emergence of Islam
In the 7th century The third world religion (after Buddhism and Christianity)—Islam—was born in Arabia. This word means “surrender to Allah”, “submission”.

Conquest policy
In a short period the following were conquered: Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Iran, North Africa, the Army, part of Georgia, Spain, part of Central Asia. The capital of the caliphate is Mecca, Damascus, Baghdad. Important

Paths of development of feudalism
Feudalism established itself in most of Europe through the interaction of late Roman society with barbarian society - a synthesis path. Rapid development of the feud

Frankish Merovingian State
The creator is the leader of the Salic Frankish tribe Clovis from the Merovei family. 486 - victory over the Romans at the Battle of Soissons; subordination to Sev

Central administration under the Merovingians
King Mayordom – First Councilor of the Kingdom of the Palace

Charlemagne and his empire
During the reign of Charlemagne (768 - 814), the Frankish state became one of the largest states in Europe. Charles's army made more than 50 campaigns in neighboring countries.

Carolingian Renaissance - the time of Charlemagne
· 800 – the Pope proclaimed Charlemagne emperor. For the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire (476), the power of the emperor in the West was restored. Karl began to claim

France in the 11th – 14th centuries
The struggle of the kings of France to “gather” the lands of the 11th century. – France was divided into a number of large feudal possessions: duchies – Normandy, Burgundy, Brittany, Aquitaine

England in the XI-XII centuries
The Norman Conquest of England After the conquest of Britain by the Angles and Saxons, 7 kingdoms were formed there, warring among themselves. In the 9th century. they united into the kingdom of England

Features of warring armies
The English army is based on infantrymen recruited from free peasants and archers. The knightly cavalry received salaries from the royal treasury. Advantages: o High

War of the Scarlet and White Roses
(1455-1485) Reason: Rivalry between two groups of feudal lords - the old aristocracy and the new nobility, connected by economic interests with the bourgeoisie. TO

Absolute monarchy
In the XV - XVI centuries. Absolute monarchies are emerging in Western European countries. Absolutism is a form of government in a feudal state, when the monarch owns

Main features of an absolute monarchy
1. Creation of an extensive bureaucratic apparatus. 2. Creation of a professional army - the support of absolutism. 3. Strengthening punitive authorities. 4. Activities according to class

Feudal society in the Middle Ages
Concentration of the absolute majority of the population in villages (agrarian society) The largest class were peasants. City

Glossary of terms
Absolutism – unlimited monarchy; a form of government in which the executive, legislative and judicial powers are vested in one person - the monarch. Antique

Major events in world history
Foreign countries IV millennium BC I millennium BC – mid-5th century AD 527-565 Con. V – VIII centuries VII-X centuries 800-84

The period of feudal fragmentation is a natural stage in the progressive development of feudalism. The division of the early feudal grandiose empires (Kievan Rus or the Carolingian Empire in Central Europe) into a number of virtually sovereign states was an inevitable stage in the development of feudal society.

Back in the 4th century. (395) The Roman Empire broke up into two independent parts - Western and Eastern. The capital of the Eastern part was Constantinople, founded by Emperor Constantine on the site of the former Greek colony of Byzantium. Byzantium was able to withstand the storms of the so-called “great migration of peoples” and survived after the fall of Rome (in 1410 the Visigoths took Rome after a long siege) as the “Roman Empire.” In the VI century. Byzantium occupied vast territories of the European continent (even Italy was briefly conquered). Throughout the Middle Ages, Byzantium maintained a strong centralized state.

The overthrow of Romulus Augustine (1476) is generally considered to be the end of the Western Roman Empire. On its ruins, numerous “barbarian” states arose: the Ostrogothic (and then Lombard) in the Apennines, the Visigothic kingdom on the Iberian Peninsula, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Britain, the Frankish state on the Rhine, etc.

The Frankish leader Clovis and his successors expanded the borders of the state, pushed back the Visigoths and soon became hegemons in Western Europe. The position of the empire strengthened even more under the Carolingians (VIII-IX centuries). However, behind the external centralization of Charlemagne's empire, its internal weakness and fragility was hidden. Created by conquest, it was very diverse in its ethnic composition: it included Saxons, Frisians, Alamans, Thuringians, Lombards, Bavarians, Celts and many other peoples. Each of the lands of the empire had little connection with the others and, without constant military and administrative coercion, did not want to submit to the power of the conquerors.

This form of empire - outwardly centralized, but internally an amorphous and fragile political unification, gravitating towards universalism - was characteristic of many of the largest early feudal states in Europe.

The collapse of the empire of Charlemagne (after the death of his son Louis the Pious) in the 40s of the 9th century. and the formation of France, Germany and Italy on its basis meant the beginning of a new era in the development of Western Europe.

X-XII centuries are a period of feudal fragmentation in Western Europe. There is an avalanche-like process of fragmentation of states: The feudal state in Western Europe in the X-XII centuries. exists in the form of small political entities - principalities, duchies, counties, etc., which had significant political power over their subjects, sometimes completely independent, sometimes only nominally united under the authority of a weak king.

Many cities of Northern and Central Italy - Venice, Genoa, Siena, Bologna, Ravenna, Lucca, etc. - in the 9th-12th centuries. became city-states. Many cities in Northern France (Amiens, Soussan, Laon, etc.) and Flanders also became self-governing commune states. They elected the council, its head - the mayor, had their own court and militia, their own finances and taxes. Often the city-communes themselves acted as a collective lord in relation to the peasants living in the territory surrounding the city.

In Germany, a similar position was occupied in the 12th-13th centuries. the largest of the so-called imperial cities. Formally they were subordinate to the emperor, but in reality they were independent city republics (Lübeck, Nuremberg, Frankfurt am Main, etc.). They were governed by city councils, had the right to independently declare war, conclude peace and alliances, mint coins, etc.

A distinctive feature of the development of Germany during the period of feudal fragmentation was the predominance of the territorial principle over the tribal principle in its political organization. In place of the old tribal duchies, about 100 principalities appeared, over 80 of which were spiritual. Territorial princes took the place of tribal dukes in the feudal hierarchy, forming the class of imperial princes - direct lenients of the crown. Many German imperial princes in the 12th century. found themselves in vassal dependence on foreign sovereigns (sometimes even from several states).

In general, the period of feudal fragmentation was a period of economic growth in Europe. In the X-XII centuries. The feudal system in Western Europe took on a pan-European character and was experiencing a time of takeoff: the growth of cities, commodity production, and the deepened division of labor turned commodity-money relations into the most important factor in social life. Clearing for arable land was accompanied by deforestation and reclamation work (Lombardy, Holland).

The secondary landscape has increased; The area of ​​marshes has decreased. Mining and metallurgical production experienced a qualitative leap: in Germany, Spain, Sweden, and England, mining and metallurgical industries grew into independent, special industries. Construction is also on the rise. In the 12th century. The first water supply system with sewerage elements is being built in Troyes. Production of mirrors begins (Venice). New mechanisms are being created in weaving, mining, construction, metallurgy and other crafts. Thus, in Flanders in 1131 the first modern type of loom appeared, etc. There was an increase in foreign and domestic trade.

On the other hand, the increase in the needs of the feudal lords in connection with the development of the market not only led to an increase in the exploitation of the peasantry, but also increased the desire of the feudal lords to seize other people's lands and wealth. This gave rise to many wars, conflicts, and clashes. Many feudal lords and states found themselves drawn into them (due to the complexity and interweaving of vassal ties). State borders were constantly changing. More powerful sovereigns sought to subjugate others, making claims to world dominion, and tried to create a universalist (comprehensive) state under their hegemony. The main bearers of universalist tendencies were the Roman popes, Byzantine and German emperors.

Only in the XIII-XV centuries. In the countries of Western Europe, the process of centralization of the state begins, which gradually takes the form of an estate monarchy. Here, relatively strong royal power is combined with the presence of class-representative assemblies. The process of centralization took place most rapidly in the following Western European states: England, France, Castile, and Aragon.

In Rus', the period of feudal fragmentation began in the 30s of the 12th century. (in 1132, the Grand Duke of Kiev Mstislav, the son of Vladimir Monomakh, died; under 1132, the chronicler wrote: “And the whole Russian land was angry...”). In place of a single state, sovereign principalities began to live an independent life, equal in scale to Western European kingdoms. Novgorod and Polotsk became isolated earlier than others; followed by Galich, Volyn and Chernigov, etc. The period of feudal fragmentation in Rus' continued until the end of the 15th century.

Within this more than three-century period of time, there was a clear and difficult boundary - the Tatar invasion of 1237-1241, after which the foreign yoke sharply disrupted the natural course of the Russian historical process and greatly slowed it down.

Feudal fragmentation became a new form of statehood in the conditions of rapid growth of productive forces and was largely due to this development. Tools were improved (scientists count more than 40 types of them made of metal alone); Arable farming became established. Cities became a major economic force (there were about 300 of them in Rus' at that time). The connections with the market of individual feudal estates and peasant communities were very weak. They sought to satisfy their needs as much as possible using internal resources. Under the dominance of subsistence farming, it was possible for each region to separate from the center and exist as independent lands.

In the last years of the existence of Kievan Rus, the local boyars of many thousands received the Extensive Russian Truth, which determined the norms of feudal law. But the book on parchment, stored in the grand ducal archive in Kyiv, did not contribute to the real implementation of boyar rights. Even the strength of the grand ducal virniks, swordsmen, and governors could not really help the distant provincial boyars of the outskirts of Kievan Rus. Zemsky boyars of the 12th century. they needed their own, close, local government, which would be able to quickly implement the legal norms of the Truth, help in clashes with the peasants, and quickly overcome their resistance.

Feudal fragmentation was (as paradoxical as it may seem at first glance!) the result not so much of differentiation as of historical integration. Feudalism grew in breadth and was strengthened locally (under the dominance of subsistence farming); feudal relations were formalized (vassal relations, immunity, right of inheritance, etc.).

The optimal scale and geographical boundaries for feudal integration of that time were developed by life itself, even on the eve of the formation of Kievan Rus - “tribal unions”: Polyans, Drevlyans, Krivichi, Vyatichi, etc. - Kievan Rus collapsed in the 30s. XII century into one and a half dozen independent principalities, more or less similar to one and a half dozen ancient tribal unions. The capitals of many principalities were at one time centers of tribal unions (Kyiv near the Polyans, Smolensk among the Krivichi, etc.). Tribal unions were a stable community that took shape over centuries; their geographical limits were determined by natural boundaries. During the existence of Kievan Rus, cities that competed with Kyiv developed here; the clan and tribal nobility turned into boyars.

The order of occupation of the throne that existed in Kievan Rus, depending on seniority in the princely family, gave rise to a situation of instability and uncertainty. The transfer of the prince by seniority from one city to another was accompanied by the movement of the entire domain apparatus. To resolve personal disputes, the princes invited foreigners (Poles, Cumans, etc.). The temporary stay of the prince and his boyars in one or another land gave rise to increased, “hasty” exploitation of peasants and artisans. New forms of political organization of the state were needed, taking into account the existing balance of economic and political forces.

Feudal fragmentation became such a new form of state-political organization. In the centers of each of the principalities, their own local dynasties formed: Olgovichi - in Chernigov, Izyaslavich - in Volyn, Yuryevich - in the Vladimir-Suzdal land, etc. Each of the new principalities fully satisfied the needs of the feudal lords: from any capital of the 12th century. it was possible to ride to the border of this principality in three days. Under these conditions, the norms of Russian Truth could be confirmed by the sword of the ruler in a timely manner. The calculation was also made on the prince's interest - to transfer his reign to his children in good economic condition, to help the boyars, who helped to settle here.

Each of the principalities kept its own chronicle; the princes issued their statutory charters. In general, the initial phase of feudal fragmentation (before the factor of conquest intervened in normal development) was characterized by the rapid growth of cities and the vibrant flowering of culture in the 12th - early 13th centuries. in all its manifestations. The new political form promoted progressive development and created conditions for the expression of local creative forces (each principality developed its own architectural style, its own artistic and literary trends).

Let us also pay attention to the negative aspects of the era of feudal fragmentation:

A clear weakening of the overall military potential, facilitating foreign conquest. However, a caveat is needed here too. Authors of the book “History of the Russian State. Historical and bibliographical essays” pose the question: “Would the Russian early feudal state be able to resist the Tatars? Who will dare to answer in the affirmative? The forces of only one of the Russian lands - Novgorod - a little later turned out to be enough to defeat the German, Swedish and Danish invaders by Alexander Nevsky. In the person of the Mongol-Tatars, there was a clash with a qualitatively different enemy.

Internecine wars. But even in a single state (when it came to the struggle for power, for the grand ducal throne, etc.), princely strife was sometimes more bloody than during the period of feudal fragmentation. The goal of strife in the era of fragmentation was already different than in a single state: not the seizure of power in the entire country, but the strengthening of one’s principality, the expansion of its borders at the expense of its neighbors.

Increasing fragmentation of princely possessions: in the middle of the 12th century. there were 15 principalities; at the beginning of the 13th century. (on the eve of Batu’s invasion) - about 50, and in the 14th century. (when the unification process of the Russian lands had already begun), the number of great and appanage principalities reached approximately 250. The reason for such fragmentation was the division of the princes' possessions between their sons: as a result, the principalities became smaller, weakened, and the results of this spontaneous process gave rise to ironic sayings among contemporaries (“In the Rostov land - a prince in every village”; “In the Rostov land, seven princes have one warrior,” etc.). Tatar-Mongol invasion 1237-1241. found Rus' a flourishing, rich and cultural country, but already affected by the “rust” of feudal appanage fragmentation.

In each of the separated principalities-lands at the initial stage of feudal fragmentation, similar processes took place:

The growth of the nobility (“youths”, “children”, etc.), palace servants;

Strengthening the positions of the old boyars;

The growth of cities - a complex social organism of the Middle Ages. The unification of artisans and merchants in cities into “brotherhoods”, “communities”, corporations close to the craft guilds and merchant guilds of the cities of Western Europe;

Development of the church as an organization (dioceses in the 12th century coincided territorially with the borders of the principalities);

Increasing contradictions between the princes (the title “Grand Duke” was borne by the princes of all Russian lands) and the local boyars, the struggle between them for influence and power.

In each principality, due to the peculiarities of its historical development, its own balance of forces developed; its own special combination of the elements listed above appeared on the surface.

Thus, the history of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' is characterized by the victory of the grand ducal power over the landed aristocracy by the end of the 12th century. The princes here were able to suppress the separatism of the boyars, and power was established in the form of a monarchy.

In Novgorod (and later in Pskov), the boyars were able to subjugate the princes and established boyar feudal republics.

In the Galicia-Volyn land, there was extremely intense rivalry between the princes and local boyars, and there was a kind of “balance of power.” The boyar opposition (moreover, constantly relying either on Hungary or on Poland) failed to transform the land into a boyar republic, but significantly weakened the grand ducal power.

A special situation has developed in Kyiv. On the one hand, he became first among equals. Soon, some Russian lands caught up and even ahead of him in their development. On the other hand, Kyiv remained an “apple of discord” (they joked that there was not a single prince in Rus' who did not want to “sit” in Kyiv). Kyiv was “conquered,” for example, by Yuri Dolgoruky, the Vladimir-Suzdal prince; in 1154 he achieved the Kyiv throne and sat on it until 1157. His son Andrei Bogolyubsky also sent regiments to Kyiv, etc. Under such conditions, the Kiev boyars introduced a curious system of “duumvirate” (co-government), which lasted throughout the second half of the 12th century.

The meaning of this original measure was as follows: at the same time, representatives of two warring branches were invited to the Kyiv land (an agreement was concluded with them - a “row”); Thus, relative balance was established and strife was partially eliminated. One of the princes lived in Kyiv, the other in Belgorod (or Vyshgorod). They went on military campaigns together and conducted diplomatic correspondence in concert. So, the duumvirs-co-rulers were Izyaslav Mstislavich and his uncle, Vyacheslav Vladimirovich; Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich and Rurik Mstislavich.

History [Crib] Fortunatov Vladimir Valentinovich

10. Feudalism and feudal fragmentation in Europe

Europe did not suffer from the Mongol-Tatar invasion. The Mongol armies reached the Adriatic Sea. Although they completely defeated the Polish-German army at the Battle of Legnica in 1241, vast Russian lands remained in the Mongols’ rear, in which the powerful Prince Alexander Nevsky gathered forces to fight the invaders.

In the X–XI centuries. after the collapse of the empire Charlemagne in Western Europe it is approved feudal fragmentation. Kings retained real power only within their domains. Formally, the king's vassals were obliged to perform military service, pay him a monetary contribution upon entering into inheritance, and also obey the decisions of the king as the supreme arbiter in inter-feudal disputes. In fact, the fulfillment of all these obligations already in the 9th–10th centuries. depended almost entirely on the will of the powerful feudal lords The strengthening of their power led to feudal civil strife.

In France, the Capetian dynasty (987–1328) was weak and could not resist the feudal lords, who lived freely and did not particularly take the king into account. The feudal lords waged endless wars among themselves. Serfs suffered under the burden of many duties. The Valois dynasty (1328–1589) managed to complete the process of gathering French lands and French people under its leadership.

The social system that developed in the Middle Ages (V–XV centuries) in many Western and Eastern countries is usually called feudalism. The land plot, which belonged to the landowner together with the peasant farmers who worked on the land, had different names in many countries. Feud in Western Europe, it is a hereditary land ownership granted by a lord to a vassal on the condition of performing service or paying customary fees. The fief was also called beneficiary(“good deed”). The owners of feuds, landowners in the era of feudalism constituted the first estate - class of feudal lords. Peasants and small producers were not the owners of the cultivated land.

For the use of the allotment, the peasant was obliged to cultivate the land of the feudal lord under enslaving conditions, to pay rent - labor, food or cash, that is, quitrent (chinsh). Happened comment, establishing relationships of dependence of the weak on the strong. The peasant's personal dependence often approached slavery. But the peasant had some immunity. On the land given to him to keep, the peasant led independent a small farm, owning a house, livestock and, most importantly, tools with which he cultivated the plot at his disposal, as well as plowing the feudal lord in the case of working rent. A feudal lord in Western Europe could not kill a serf, but had the right of the first wedding night in relation to the female part of the serfs. The economic autonomy of the peasant inevitably gave rise to non-economic coercion, characteristic of the feudal economic system, since peasants were forced to perform duties. Addiction serfs from feudal lords was determined by law. Feudal law sometimes called fist, since it was based on direct violence. The feudal economy was predominantly natural, since most of the products produced were consumed within the farm itself. The feudal lords, having different incomes (war trophies, money from the king, from the sale of part of the products), ordered weapons, clothing, jewelry, etc. from artisans.

Along with secular feudal lords (dukes, counts, barons, etc.) among the second estate - clergy - there were also many feudal landowners. Solid land was managed by the Pope, bishops, abbots of monasteries, etc.