Stages of Russian history table. Test: Stages of study and periodization of Russian history

The periodization of Russian history contains such time periods of the country's development that differ from each other in political, economic, social, cultural and other fundamental criteria.

Initial periodization. Dozens of periodizations of Russian history are known. Let's take for example those proposed by the patriarchs of Russian history: N.M. Karamzin (main work “History of the Russian State”), S.M. Soloviev (main work “History of Russia since ancient times”), V.O. Klyuchevsky (main work “Course of Russian History”).

N.M. Karamzin identifies three periods in the history of Russia (Table 1):

Table 1

As we can see, N.M. based his periodization. Karamzin laid down the concept: “The history of the people belongs to the king.”

CM. Soloviev identified four periods in Russian history (Table 2):

table 2

Periodization S.M. Solovyov reflects, first of all, the history of the state.

IN. Klyuchevsky also identified four periods in the history of Russia (Table 3):

Table 3

The basis for the periodization of the historical development of Russia V.O. Klyuchevsky put more emphasis on economic development, focusing considerable attention on the factor of colonization.

Meanwhile, we believe that the periodization of N.M. Karamzina, S.M. Solovyova, V.O. Klyuchevsky were acceptable for their time (the level of scientific development of historiography and source studies), today it is enough to know them, and not to use them as the basis for teaching a university history course - too much time has passed since then.

The time of obvious active searches for the periodization of history was the end of the 19th and 20th centuries. At the same time, the greatest controversy has always been caused by the first period of development of the Russian state.

In textbooks pre-revolutionary (D.I. Ilovaisky and others) and post-revolutionary (M.V. Nechkina and A.V. Fadeev, B.A. Rybakov, etc.), including modern times (late 90s. XX century - A.N. Sakharov and V.I. Buganov, Sh.M. Munchaev and V.M. Ustinov, etc.), it is easy to notice that, for example, the concepts of Kievan Rus and Novgorod are used either occasionally or not. at all. It must be assumed that the textbooks reflect different concepts of the origin of Rus'. There are many of them, but in modern conditions the most common are the Norman, Kiev and theories of the heterogeneous origin of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples (at the same time, we do not accept the “theories” of Fomenko, Koder, Kondyba and Zolin with their “exotic” concepts of the history of Rus', far from scientific justification and openly Russophobic-falsified). Textbooks most often discuss the Norman, or “Kievan” version of the origin of Rus'.

According to the “Kyiv” concept, Kyiv and only Kyiv is the beginning of Russian statehood. At the same time, Novgorod is not assigned any role; Vladimir and Moscow are considered a continuation of the development of Kievan Rus.

The Norman theory to a certain extent confirms the Novgorod beginning of Rus', but at the same time it seems to infringe on the pride of the Russians: after all, according to the chronicle, the Varangians began to reign in the Novgorod land - the brothers Rurik (in Novgorod), Sineus (in Beloozero) and Truvor (in Izborsk). 1

And if these lands are considered the fundamental basis of the Russian state, then such an assumption seems to strengthen the Norman theory. Based on this, apparently, the emphasis was placed on “Kievan Rus” as the only beginning of the Russian state.

I would like to give some thoughts regarding the Norman roots of Russian statehood. Of the three princes mentioned in the chronicle (PVL), only Rurik was proven to be a real person. As for Sineus and Truvor, their appearance on the historical stage, according to A.M. Kuznetsova, nothing more than a “curiosity of historiography.” Academician B.A. Rybakov in his work “Early Centuries of Russian History” writes: “Historians have long paid attention to the anecdotal nature of Rurik’s “brothers”..., “brothers” turned out to be a Russian translation of Swedish words. It is said about Rurik that he came “with his family” (“Sineuse” - “his relatives” - Sineus) and his faithful squad (“Truwar” - “faithful squad” - Truvor) ... In other words, the chronicle included a retelling of some Scandinavian legend about the activities of Rurik (the author of the chronicle, a Novgorodian, who did not know Swedish well, mistook the mention in the oral care (presentation - I.P.) of the king’s traditional entourage for the names of his brothers). The reliability of the legend as a whole... is not great.” 2

Regarding the beginning of Russian statehood, we will make the following assumption. Many detachments (teams) of the Varangians (Normans, Scandinavians) rushed (for various reasons, in our opinion, the main one was material and economic) to the West, South and East for plunder, seizure of lands, with the aim of settling on them, etc. One of these detachments, led by the military leader Rurik, who was looking for land for plunder, ended up in the Novgorod land, and for a short time captured Novgorod, becoming its ruler (according to another version, the Ilmen Slavs called him to reign together with the “brothers” Sineus and Truvor in Novgorod; the fact of inviting the Varangians to reign in the Russian land has not been established). Meanwhile, the Varangians were soon expelled from Novgorod. N.M. Karamzin writes: “The Slavic boyars (led by the elder, Prince Gostomysl - I.P.), dissatisfied with the power of the conquerors, which destroyed their own..., armed (the Novgorodians - I.P.) against the Normans, and drove them out...". 3 Consequently, in Novgorod there was a princely power headed by Prince Gostomysl (the first half of the 9th century). Moreover, in the “Life of St. Stephen of Sourozh,” who was for a long time an archbishop in the Byzantine colony in Crimea in the city of Sourozh (present-day Sudak) and died in 787, talks about the Novgorod prince Bravlin: “The warlike and strong prince of Russian Novgorod... Bravlin... with a large army he devastated the places from Korsun to Kerch, approached Surozh with great force... broke the iron gates, entered the city...". 4 And thus, “Life...” testifies that Novgorod already existed in the 8th century. and Bravlin reigned in it. Since the reign of Bravlin (second half of the 8th century) and Gostomysl (first half of the 9th century) already presupposes statehood, we consider the second half of the 8th century to be the beginning of Rus' as a state formation. (Novgorod), and not the end of the 9th century. (connected with the “calling” of the Varangians to reign in Kyiv.) It can be assumed that on this basis A.T. Stepanishchev considers Novgorod the first capital of the Old Russian state and therefore the “Norman theory” of the origin of the Russian state is untenable from his point of view. Taking into account the arguments of A.T. Stepanishchev about Novgorod - the first capital of the Old Russian state - the periodization of the last two centuries of the first millennium and the first three centuries of the second millennium could have the following specific form, coinciding with the time of the transfer of the capital of the Russian lands: Novgorod period - until 882 G.; Kyiv period - until 1157; Vladimir-Suzdal period - until 1326 ; Moscow period - after 1326 5

To a certain extent, one could agree with the reasoning of A.T. Stepanishchev. But still, I would like to clarify the situation regarding the “first capital” and the beginning of Russian statehood. According to the research of academician B.A. Rybakov “... who in Kyiv began first than the principality...”, he refers to the 6th century. (the reign of the Byzantine emperor Justinian (527-565), which is also dated by Byzantine coins). In all likelihood, it was at this time that several forest-steppe Slavic tribes merged into one large union. The union of the Middle Dnieper Slavic tribes was called Rus (primacy in the new union, one might think, originally belonged to the Rus, but Polyansky Kyiv became the capital). At the turn of the VIII-IX centuries. The Dnieper Union is growing into a super-union, uniting several unions of Slavic tribes. Such an association was already a real state or was becoming one. This is yet another evidence of the inconsistency of the “Norman theory” of the origin of the Russian state.

In our opinion, Novgorod statehood took shape already at the beginning of the 8th century, in the form of an early feudal republic, administratively divided into pyatinas, headed by elected governing bodies - posadnik, tysyatsky and veche - which carried out direct democracy (rule of people) and survived until the end of the 15th century. - beginning of the 16th centuries Kiev statehood began to take shape in the 9th century, in the form of an early feudal monarchy, administratively and territorially divided into volosts and appanages, with the Grand Duke and a feudal assembly of nobility at the head. It can be assumed that two centers with different types (republic and monarchy) of Russian statehood were formed. The interaction of these two centers, as well as international interaction with other states (Novgorod with the Hanseatic League, Scandinavian countries, etc.; Kyiv with Byzantium, Western European countries, etc.) formed the Old Russian state (the specifics of Novgorod statehood remained until the 15th and even the 18th centuries). 6

After 1917, the Norman theory became unacceptable for Soviet historiography and source research for political, ideological and patriotic reasons. Therefore, along with the Norman theory, Novgorod was also pushed aside as part of it. At the same time, the concept of “Kievan Rus” was not particularly advertised, and the development of the theory and heterogeneity of the origin of Russia and Ukraine was hampered.

Another relevant point in developing a periodization of Russian history is the abolition of serfdom as a main milestone in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Many authors argue that the Manifesto of February 19, 1861 gave practically nothing to Russia and the situation of the peasants worsened even more, etc., although they mark this act as a turning point in the movement towards capitalism. There are also supporters of another concept, who propose that the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905-1907 be considered the beginning of the development of capitalism in Russia. and the subsequent Stolypin agrarian reform. Moreover, parliamentarism as a sign of bourgeoisism arose precisely in these years. There is something to think about here, since Stolypin’s agrarian reform also gave Russia little, it even caused protests from the peasantry, which even led to clashes with the police.

Along with the uncertainty of certain provisions of the periodization of Russian history until October 1917, there are difficulties in assessing the time from 1917 to 1991, etc. Based on an analysis of the concepts of many modern historians, we can propose the use of the following periodization in a university course on the history of Russia (Table 4):

Table 4

It should be noted that this periodization of Russian history is not indisputable, but it absorbs the diversity of points of view of different authors and specialists. In educational work, one should also consider the re-odization given in the textbooks that students use.

« Who can live well in Rus'? "(N. Nekrasov, production: "Who can live well in Rus'?")

« Rus', where are you going? ? (N.V. Gogol, production “Dead Souls”)

- « Who is guilty? "(A.I. Herzen, production: “Who is to blame?”)

- « What to do? "(I. G. Chernyshevsky, production "What to do")

« Who to be? » (V.V. Mayakovsky, production “Who to be?”)

Periodization of Russian history

Traditionally, Russian history is counted from 862, when the Varangians from Scandinavia came to Rus' and became princes of the Russian lands. Russian civilization is relatively young.

The history of Russia can be divided into 5 cycles:

9th-13th centuries

The period of prosperity was reached under Yaroslav the Wise in the 12th century, when Kievan Rus became one of the leaders of medieval society. The cycle ended as a result of the feudal fragmentation of the state and the Tatar-Mongol invasion.

14th century – beginning of the 17th century.

The center of the country was moved to Moscow, and a Moscow State. The cycle reached its peak under Ivan III and ended in national catastrophe during the Time of Troubles.

Early 17th century - early 20th century

The third cycle began with the accession of the Romanov dynasty and reached its peak during the reign of Peter I and Catherine II. Russian empire became one of the world powers. However, then conservative tendencies prevailed, and there was a delay in the transition to an industrial society (almost a century compared to Europe). The completion of this cycle is a series of national catastrophes: defeat in the war with Japan, in the First World War, the collapse of the Russian Empire and civil war.

20 20 century – 1991

The Russian Bolsheviks, with difficulty and using violent methods, reassembled most of the disintegrated empire under the rule of a single center. Local civilization is being revived again, but for the first time not under the flag of Orthodoxy, but of socialism. Soviet Union became a superpower. This cycle ended with economic and geopolitical weakening, internal national problems and then the collapse of the USSR.

Many people think that in the 20th century. The natural course of Russian history was interrupted by a catastrophe. Tens of millions of people died at the hands of their fellow citizens and with their consent. There was a sharp degradation of morals and culture. This situation is sometimes compared to the death of classical ancient culture.

Since 1991

Having abandoned socialist ideology and overcome the economic crisis of the 90s, Russian Federation looking for a way to a better future.

(According to the book by Kononenko, B.I.: Culture. Civilization. Russia.)

Features of Russian history

Several times in the thousand-year history of Russia, radical socio-political and economic transformations took place (the era of the reign of Peter I, socialism, reforms of the 90s of the 20th century).
Several times the country reached a dead end (Time of Troubles, socialism). The population often experienced disasters. Wars and famines recurred.

However, against the tragic background of Russian history, a high culture arose, stages of upsurges in spirituality were observed, and global successes in science were achieved.

East-West

Russian history alternates between eastern and western phases. Russians see their country as largely Asian, which needs to be civilized along the European path.
Western historians see in Russia more of a type of Eastern society (people rule, not the law; power is concentrated in the hands of one person; there is no understanding of the individual as an absolute value).
However, Russian civilization can generally be considered hybrid: it includes elements of Europeanism and Asianism.

Eastern Slavs and Kievan Rus

East Slavs

In the 6th-8th centuries. during the final stage Great Migration various tribes of the Eastern Slavs (for example, Vyatichi, Drevlyans, Krivichi, etc.) settled over a vast area from the Middle Dnieper in the south to Lake Ladoga in the north, from the Western Bug in the west to the Volga in the east.
Although the conditions for the effective development of agriculture in these areas were unsuitable due to the harsh climate (the fertile southern steppe regions were occupied by nomadic tribes - Cumans, Pechenegs, Turks, Khazars, etc.), the Eastern Slavs were mainly engaged in agriculture, as well as hunting and fishing and cattle breeding. They traded honey, wax, and furs.
At the head of the East Slavic communities were the prince and his squads. Their residences were fortified settlements - cities.

The religion of the Eastern Slavs was paganism - they revered natural gods (Perun is the main god, the god of thunder and lightning, Radegast is the sun god).

Rus' and Kievan Rus

The north-south water trade route passed along the Dnieper and Volkhov rivers "from the Varangians to the Greeks". This route was chosen by the Varangians, a northern tribe of Scandinavians (Vikings) for trade with Byzantium. Large cities arose on it - Novgorod And Kyiv.

In 862, the Varangians created the earliest union of East Slavic lands in Novgorod - Rus, later called Kievan Rus.
The Varangians left traces in the Russian language - for example, the name Vladimir = Waldemar, Olga = Helga. The word “Rus” possibly comes from the Finnish “Ruotsi”, which, according to one hypothesis, was the name of the tribes of the Eastern Slavs.

The first ruler of Rus' was the Varangian prince (Hrörekr, Roderick) who came to Novgorod. The founder of the first dynasty of Russian rulers - the Rurikovichs. Under Rurik's heir, prince Oleg, Kyiv was annexed to his lands, which became the capital of the principality.

In 988 under the prince Vladimir Orthodox Christianity, borrowed from Byzantium, was adopted. A sculpture of the pagan god Perun in Kyiv was thrown into the Dnieper River.
After baptism, Slavic writing, created in the 9th century, penetrated into Rus'. Cyril and Methodius.

Kievan Rus developed intensive trade and cultural ties with Byzantium. Byzantine civilization left many traces in Russian society.

Kievan Rus reaches its peak in the half of the 11th century. at Yaroslav the Wise. At this time, it was part of the advanced European states, and its rich diplomatic and trade ties with Europe were strengthened. Yaroslav's sons married European princesses, his daughters married European kings.
Under Yaroslav, the first set of laws of Ancient Rus' was adopted - Russian Truth .
In 1125, with the end of the reign Vladimir Monomakh, Kievan Rus broke up into separate principalities.

The first written monument testifying to the early history of Russia is the chronicle The Tale of Bygone Years , created by monks in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra.

At the initial stage of the development of Rus', the geographical location at the crossroads of Eurasian trade and migration routes played an important role. The history of that time is an almost continuous struggle between sedentary (mostly Slavic) and nomadic (mostly Asian) peoples. Kievan Rus blocked the way to the west for hordes of nomads. A myth arises about Russia as the “shield of Europe.”

Period of feudal fragmentation

After the collapse of Kievan Rus, a system of separate, virtually independent principalities was formed. They developed around the large cities of Kievan Rus. The most significant: Novgorod, Vladimir-Suzdal, Smolensk, Chernigov, Later Tverskoye.

Novgorod land

Novgorod was the most developed, largest shopping center. He had his own money, laws, army, government system (“boyar republic”). The most valuable architectural monuments arose here.
The famous prince was from Novgorod Alexander Nevskiy, who twice defended the land from enemies - from the Swedes (battle on the Neva River, 1240) and the Teutonic knights (Battle of the Ice on Lake Peipsi, 1242).

Mongol-Tatar yoke

At the beginning of the 13th century. a large army of new nomads led by Genghis Khan approached the southeastern borders of Rus'.
In 1237, a union of Mongol tribes was founded in the lower reaches of the Volga River. Golden Horde. From here the Mongols invaded Russian lands, took Ryazan, Vladimir, Moscow, and ravaged Kyiv. From Rus', Mongol troops began a campaign in Central Europe.
For 240 years, the Russian lands were practically a protectorate of the Mongol Empire and paid it an annual tribute.
In 1380, the Moscow prince Dmitry Donskoy defeated the Tatars in Battle of Kulikovo Field and marked the beginning of liberation.

Consequences of the invasion

Many cities were destroyed, crafts were forgotten, and construction was stopped. The invasion caused a deep decline in culture and a long lag between Russia and Western Europe.

An uninvited guest is worse than a Tatar. (Russian folk proverb)

Moscow State

The Moscow princes took advantage of Moscow's advantageous position in the center of the Russian principalities and, with the help of the Golden Horde, eliminated their rivals (princes of the cities of Vladimir, Ryazan and Tver). Moscow began to claim the role of a center in the process of “gathering Russian lands.”
In the middle of the 15th century. The Horde split into the Crimean, Astrakhan, Kazan and Siberian khanates.

Ivan III

In 1462, Ivan III, “Grand Duke of Moscow and All Rus',” ascended the throne. The era of his reign is associated with the centralization of the country and calm on its eastern borders. Ivan III annexed the appanage principalities: he suppressed separatism in Novgorod, conquered Yaroslavl, Tver, Pskov, Ryazan. During the reign of the heirs of Ivan III, the borders of the Moscow state continued to expand.

Ideological platform of the Moscow state

• ancient origin of the power of rulers from the Rurik dynasty
• the power of the sovereign is from God himself, the ruler is a fighter for the true faith
• Moscow – “the third Rome” (Moscow is the spiritual center of world Christianity)

After overcoming the consequences of the Mongol-Tatar invasion, a huge rise of culture. Stone Kremlin cathedrals grew, and valuable monuments of painting (icons and frescoes by Andrei Rublev) and literature (chronicles, hagiographies) arose.

Under Ivan III the first central government bodies(“orders” and institutions that decide matters of state affairs - for example, the Ambassadorial Prikaz, the predecessor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
Was written Code of Law , a new set of laws.
A merchant class was formed (for example, the famous old Stroganov family), crafts and construction developed. However, in the economic field, the life of people (the population numbered about 6.5 million) in the Moscow state developed unevenly - booms were replaced by stagnation, there were frequent crop failures and plague epidemics.

Ivan IV the Terrible

In 1533, three-year-old Ivan IV (later nicknamed the Terrible) ascended the Moscow throne. Throughout his childhood and youth, when he could not actually rule, there was a struggle between boyar groups at court.
In 1547, 16-year-old Ivan, as the first Russian Grand Duke, was officially crowned king.

Personality of Ivan the Terrible

Ivan IV grew up in an atmosphere of conspiracies and murders, without a mother, which greatly influenced his psyche. After his beloved wife died, he lost the last signs of humanity. The king, in a fit of anger, even killed his son.

Public Administration Reforms

The young tsar and his boyar assistants carried out a number of reforms.
Created the first Russian parliament - Zemsky Sobor. A system of orders from central bodies governing different areas of the state has developed.
The population paid cash and in-kind taxes.

Trade development

In Ivan the Terrible's Russia, industry and trade relations with other countries, mainly Persia and England, developed. English and Dutch merchants and entrepreneurs often arrived in Russia at that time.

Foreign policy and wars

A semi-regular army emerges, and the Tsar fights the enemies of Russia with military means. He manages to conquer the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates (their lands turn into almost deserted spaces); later the Siberian Khanate was also defeated. Lands along the entire Volga River were annexed to Russia, and the occupied territories were colonized. For the first time, Russia turned into a multinational state (non-Slavic and non-Orthodox peoples lived in the newly annexed territories).

At the end of the 50s. 16th century started Livonian Wars(Livonia - today's Latvia and Estonia), which actually ended in the defeat of Russia.

Repression

The monarch's individual power gradually strengthened and his suspicion deepened; the policy of repression affected all segments of the population.
The king divided the state in two: into the so-called. "oprichnina", to which those he trusted were included (the territory of the “oprichnina” occupied a third of the country). Here the boyars, who became the executors of the policy of tsarist terror, ruled in their own way, not constraining themselves by any laws. It was forbidden to talk about the “oprichnina” in the presence of foreigners. The rest of Russia was called "Zemshchina".
Many thousands of people died during the terror. The most terrible evil was the defeat and depopulation of Novgorod.

Consequences of the reign of Ivan IV

Moscow Rus', led by the first Tsar, expanded significantly, turned into a multinational state and began to be called Russia. A strictly centralized monarchy was created.

Time of Troubles

(vague = strange, unclear; turmoil - excitement, rebellion)
The Time of Troubles or Time of Troubles is the name of a stage in the history of Russia when dynasties changed in difficult and unclear conditions.
After the death of Ivan IV the Terrible in 1584, his mentally retarded son became the heir to the throne. Feodor I, who entrusted the conduct of state affairs to his brother-in-law, the guardsman Boris Godunov. Second son of Ivan the Terrible, Dmitriy, died unexpectedly at the age of eight; Godunov was unofficially accused of his murder. After the death of Tsar Feodor, the Zemsky Sobor elected Godunov as tsar. The Rurik dynasty came to an end.

Reign of Boris Godunov

The reign of Boris Godunov was plagued by failures - terrible harvest failures and famines, epidemics, invasions, uprisings, in which the people saw signs of God's wrath.
At the end of the 16th century. measures were taken to establish serfdom in Russia.

Impostors

In an atmosphere of general discontent and chaos, impostors appear who act as the heirs of Ivan IV.
In Poland (at that time the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), one young man declared himself the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry. Boris Godunov was killed as a result of a conspiracy, and after the capture of Moscow by the Poles in 1605, an impostor was elevated to the throne in Russia. He entered the history of Russia under the name False Dmitry I. The Russians learned that this was not the real Russian Tsar, as various legends say, for example, by the fact that he did not sleep after dinner, as was customary in Russia, and did not go to the bathhouse. The conspirators soon got rid of the new king.

Then the royal throne passed from hand to hand, and for some time it was again at the disposal of the Poles.
Only in 1613, with the help of the popular patriotic movement (led by Novgorodians Minin and Pozharsky), the Russian throne was liberated from the power of foreigners. The Zemsky Sobor elected to reign Mikhail Romanov. The reign of the Romanov royal dynasty begins.

Board of Mikhail Romanov

The first decades of Romanov power were associated with the tightening of serfdom. The culmination of the peasant resistance was uprising of the Don Cossack Stepan Razin (1667–1671).
Cossacks are former serfs who ran away from their owners, free people living on the outskirts of Russian territory.

Speaking about the educational and methodological literature of pre-revolutionary Russia, it should be noted that the authors of the textbooks were such major Russian historians as Solovyov, Klyuchevsky, I.I. Bellarminov, M.M. Bogoslovsky, S.F. Platonov and others. But the most widespread were the textbooks of D. I. Ilovaisky, which went through dozens of editions. Even before 1917, a somewhat ironic attitude had developed towards Ilovaisky. The term “Ilovaischina” was widely used and his name became a household name during his lifetime. Even in pre-revolutionary reference publications he was characterized as a tendentious, conservative and extremely nationalistic author. But Ilovaisky received a special historical education at Moscow University, studied with Granovsky and Solovyov, and was himself a historian-researcher. He is known for his works on the history of the Ryazan principality, his major work “History of Russia”, etc. More attention was paid to him in recent post-Soviet years.

Time from the 1st century. BC. to the 9th century AD Ilovaisky attributed it to the prehistory of Rus', then he went on to the Kiev period (X - XII centuries), Vladimir - XII - XIII, Moscow-Lithuanian - XIV-XV centuries, Moscow-Tsarist - XVI - late XVII centuries. (it included the Troubles, which he dated 1603 - 1613), i.e. before the reign of Peter I. In his “Brief Essays on Russian History,” which was published in its 15th edition in 1875, Ilovaisky calls the 9th century the beginning of Russian history. Next he has sections “Development of the appanage system” covering 1113 - 1212, “Mongol Yoke” from 1224 to 1340, etc. Ilovaisky composed the last sections of the textbook according to reigns, trying to show the characteristic features of the reign of Paul I, Alexander I and Nicholas I. Ilovaisky was almost not interested in the problems of methodology, and he practically did not take into account the developments in this area of ​​such prominent Russian methodologists as N. I. Kareev, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, M. M. Khvostov, L. P. Karsavin and others, whose works could no longer be dispensed with in the periodization of not only universal, but also domestic history.

Textbooks and teaching aids in Russia at that time were of an official or official nature. But there was also literature of a different kind, which was usually published either illegally or outside the country. Rare exceptions include, for example, the famous “Historical Letters” of P. L. Lavrov, published legally and having gone through several editions by 1917. The prominent revolutionary populist S. M. Stepnyak-Kravchinsky in 1885 published abroad in English his book “Russia under the Rule of the Tsars,” later translated into Russian. Its first part, entitled “Development of Autocracy,” which consists of 9 problematic chapters, deserves special attention. It pays special attention to the history of the community, the beginning of the veche, the Novgorod Republic and the Zaporozhye Sich. In the 11th and 12th centuries, according to Stepnyak-Kravchinsky, an ultra-democratic system prevailed in Rus', which within 300 or 400 years turned into despotism, and in the 13th and 14th centuries. The greatest development of the Moscow autocracy is observed.

“Stories from Russian History” - a book by the famous populist and later Socialist-Revolutionary L. E. Shishko, like the book by Stepnyak-Kravchinsky, was popular in nature, but was even more aimed at studying the life of the common people. At the same time, Shishko combines a problem-chronological approach with a presentation of historical material on reigns, although the mood of the book was clearly anti-monarchical. Literature of this kind had limited circulation in Russia itself at that time, but it attracts attention today not only for its oppositional orientation, but also because it seemed to anticipate the publications that were published after 1917.

Soviet historical literature was by no means a complete negation of previous works on history. By the way, many prominent Soviet historians - V.P. Volgin, N.M. Druzhinin, N.M. Lukin, S.D. Skazkin, M.N. Tikhomirov and others - received a special historical education even before the October Revolution of 1917 Long before the October Revolution, Marxist historical literature began to appear in Russia, as well as Bolshevik publications that emerged from it. Before the revolution, the works of M. N. Pokrovsky, M. S. Olminsky, Yu. M. Steklov and other prominent Bolsheviks were published. Back in 1907, the future famous Soviet antiquist A.I. Tyumenev published his book “The Theory of Historical Materialism”. G. V. Plekhanov paid considerable attention to history. It is noteworthy that Beltov’s (Plekhanov’s) book on the materialist approach to history was published legally in St. Petersburg back in 1895. Referring to Marx and Engels, he wrote that “the criterion of the ideal is economic reality.” Being a supporter of the formational approach to history, Plekhanov paid considerable attention to its periodization. It is interesting that, turning to the “History of German National Literature” by G. Kluge, he rejected his proposed division of this history into periods, stating: “To us it seems completely eclectic, i.e. built not on the basis of one principle, which is a necessary condition for any scientific classification and division, but on the basis of several, incommensurable principles.” V.I. Lenin also repeatedly addressed the problems of history. He divided the history of Russia during the era of feudalism into three main stages - Ancient Rus', the Middle Ages, or the era of the Muscovite kingdom, and the so-called New period of Russian history from about the 17th century. Lenin considered the transformations of Peter I as an important stage in the development of Russian society, and repeatedly turned to the peasant reform of 1861 and to the problem of the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Russia. Lenin's periodization of the Russian liberation movement, which he also divided into three periods, the theory of imperialism, etc., became widespread.

The works of Plekhanov and especially Lenin had a profound influence on Soviet historical literature. Without taking into account their works, the key to its understanding is lost, but, turning to Soviet publications on the periodization of history, it should be noted that within the framework of a single Marxist methodology with its formational approach, different approaches were preserved. M. N. Pokrovsky built his “Russian History in the Most Concise Essay,” the first two parts of which were published in 1920, on the basis of previous, pre-revolutionary studies. But now he paid more attention to the analysis of the capitalist development of the country, with an emphasis on the problem of merchant capital and the history of the revolutionary movement. One should also keep in mind the fact that Pokrovsky's views gradually changed. For the periodization of Russian feudalism, his article, specifically devoted to the problems of Russian feudalism, deserves special attention.

We can talk about serious attempts to unify historical science in the USSR only from the 1930s. This was connected with well-known party documents, which contained guidelines for the periodization of history, 9 and with preparations for a major war, and with serious internal changes in the country. Particular attention was paid to the teaching of civil history in schools and universities. In this regard, in 1934-1935. the magazine “History in Secondary School” was published, and in 1936 - the magazine “History in School”, the successor of which in 1946 was the magazine “Teaching History in School”, which is still published. Considerable attention was paid to the preparation of textbooks and teaching aids on civil history and the history of the CPSU (b), where installations were carried out in accordance with the spirit of the times. In 1937, a “Short Course in the History of the USSR” for primary schools was published, prepared by a team of authors under the leadership of a prominent agricultural historian, participant in the December armed uprising of 1905 in Moscow, A. V. Shestakov. The famous “Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)” also made its contribution to the unification of historical knowledge.

However, despite all attempts to create solid official schemes, complete unification in the field of periodization of history could not be achieved. In 1949, the largest discussion took place on the problems of periodization of Russian history. It began with articles by K. V. Bazilevich and N. M. Druzhinin, devoted to the periodization of the history of the USSR during the period of feudalism and capitalism and published in the pages of the journal “Questions of History”. In total, the journal received 30 articles on periodization problems from different cities of the country, of which 21 were published. A special scientific session was held at the Academy of Social Sciences under the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. These problems were also discussed at scientific meetings at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences, at the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences and its Leningrad branch. The discussion resonated in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, and a number of articles were translated into foreign languages. There was nothing like this in the USSR either before or later.

K. V. Bazilevich proposed his periodization of the feudal period of Russian history “based on the development of productive forces and production relations.” He attempted to date the initial stage of the feudal period, identified a number of internal stages in it, noting, for example, the system of feudal semi-states, drew attention to the feudal war of the times of Vasily the Dark, identified the 1480s as a turning point internally, emphasizing their important role in the formation of a Russian centralized state. Bazilevich dated the next period in the history of Russia, the era of feudalism, to the end of the 15th - end of the 17th centuries, characterizing it as the time of the origin and development of commodity-money relations (money rent). From the end of the 17th century, in his opinion, a “new period” began in the history of Russia. Bazilevich characterized the events of the 18th century in somewhat less detail.

The discussion was very lively, but in March 1950 Bazilevich died and was unable to summarize its results and answer his opponents. The final article on the periodization of the feudal period of Russian history was published by V. T. Pashuto and L. V. Cherepnin, who did not agree with either Bazilevich’s scheme or I. I. Smirnov’s scheme. They hurled, in particular, a number of reproaches at Bazilevich, emphasizing that he actually built his periodization based on the development of rent relations. At the same time, Pashuto and Cherepnin proposed their own periodization of the history of Russia during the era of feudalism, dividing it into 3 periods: early feudal (IX - early XII centuries), the period of developed feudalism (XII - early XVII centuries) and the period of late feudalism (early 17th century - 1861). They also divided the second period into 2 sections, the first of which consisted of six, and the second of three stages. The third period is also divided into 2 sections, but the authors of the article limited themselves to its characteristics without highlighting any stages.

N. M. Druzhinin spoke at this discussion with his presentation and final articles. In his opinion, the process of maturation of the capitalist structure (1760 - 1861) should be divided into three intermediate periods: from the 1760s. before 1789, from 1790 to 1825 and from 1826 to 1861. Druzhinin based his division on changes in the socio-economic nature and features of the class struggle directed against the decaying feudal system. He applied the same approaches to the era that came after 1861, which he also divided into 3 periods: from 1861 to 1882, from 1883 to 1900. and from 1901 to 191745. Druzhinin considered the most important phenomenon of the first post-reform period to be the replacement of forced labor with free labor in industry and agriculture. In the second period, in his opinion, the factory finally defeated manufacture, and in agriculture the capitalist system of wage labor began to prevail over feudal “works”. The third period is the period of military-feudal imperialism. The author also drew attention to the possibility of a more detailed division of the history of Russian capitalism, demonstrating it with relevant specific examples.

In the final article, Druzhinin, taking into account all the opinions expressed, responded to his opponents and clarified his own positions. He dwelled on the important problems of “fragmentation” and “connection” of historical periods and emphasized that “the greatest debates revolved around the question of when to date the beginning of the capitalist structure, i.e. that period when feudal relations of production became an “insurmountable” obstacle, a fetter for the development of productive forces and production relations of the new society? On the question of the date of the emergence of the capitalist system, indeed, a huge range of opinions emerged: some called the 17th century, others - the beginning of the 19th century, others, leaning towards the 18th century, were also not absolutely unanimous, highlighting the middle of the century, the 60s ., last third or end of the 18th century. This was connected with another heated debate in Soviet historical science, which began back in 1947 - 1948, about the early or later genesis of capitalism in Russia. Subsequently, the first point of view was supported by A. A. Preobrazhensky, E. I. Indova, Yu. A. Tikhonov, and the second by I. D. Kovalchenko and L. V. Milov, and each of these directions had a fairly wide circle of its supporters and opponents.

Druzhinin also gave a number of explanations in favor of his periodization, emphasizing: “The discussion showed that the complex problem of periodization of the history of the USSR can only be resolved through the joint efforts of specialists studying various social formations.” As a matter of fact, no one spoke against the formational approach during the discussion; it permeated the final editorial article of the journal “Questions of History.” This article summarized the general results of the discussion: certain achievements of the exchange of views were noted, for example, a discussion of the principles of periodization, the desire to determine larger and more detailed periods of each formation, statements about the genesis of feudalism and capitalism, and identification of the characteristics of Russian feudalism and capitalism. It was also noted that the IX-X centuries. AD in the history of the Slavic peoples were not the beginning of the pre-feudal period, the origins of which can be dated back to the 7th-8th, and perhaps even to the 6th-7th centuries. The separation of domestic history from world history was also noted, called a major flaw in the discussion. Remarkable unanimity was expressed only in the sense that 1800 cannot serve as a milestone between the two stages of the emergence of capitalist relations. At the same time, it was emphasized that only on some of the major issues of the country’s history “during the discussion, more or less general points of view emerged.” The discussion was about the need to revise the then existing periodization, which developed during the years of criticism of the views of the “Pokrovsky school”, which did not meet the needs of research work and teaching history in secondary and higher schools. The discussion also convincingly showed that the generally accepted or widely accepted periodization of history can only be the result of a scientific compromise, a kind of social contract.

This discussion contributed to the approval of the periodization implemented in the preparation of multi-volume books on world history and the history of the USSR, the “Soviet Historical Encyclopedia”, “Essays on the History of Historical Science in the USSR”. A general periodization of the world-historical process was worked out, according to which the transition from the slave system to the feudal system took place in the 5th century, after the fall of the Roman Empire, and the beginning of new history was dated to the mid-17th century, the time after the English Revolution. Finally, modern history (a concept that came into use in the 20th century), in accordance with Soviet periodization, began with the October Revolution of 1917. But even after the approval of this scheme, the development of problems of periodization and closely related issues of historical methodology did not stop. As the civilizational approach was applied to the periodization of world and domestic history, researchers and methodologists began to feel more and more difficulties. The clarity and certainty that was observed with the formational approach did not work out, and the most searching historians began to feel the need for truly scientific foundations for the study of the historical process. This led to two related discussions. The first of them concerned the problems of methodology, the second - the periodization of world history. In both cases, a special role was played by the magazine “New and Contemporary History”, where in 1994 an article was published by I. N. Ionov, a sincere and convinced “civilizationist” who came to civilizational approaches not at all at the behest of fashion. By the way, he became the author of a textbook for high school, where he tried to apply a civilizational approach to the history of Russia. Ionov's article gave rise to a debate in the field of historical methodology. Academician I.D. Kovalchenko took part in it, emphasizing that “the civilizational approach, integrating other approaches and methods of historical research, opens up wide opportunities for their deepening.” At the same time, he advocated the use of other approaches - historical-situational and historical-retrospective. Kovalchenko called for a synthesis of various theories, approaches and research methods and specific scientific concepts. Academician-lawyer V.N. Kudryavtsev and a number of other researchers took part in this discussion. The journal Voprosy istorii actually joined the discussion at that time. Philosophers organized round tables on this topic, publishing relevant materials and emphasizing that the formational approach retains its position in historical science. They came to similar conclusions during a round table at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences at the end of 1995, the results of which were also published in the press. V. G. Fedotova stated there that “stage characteristics expressing the degree of development of society or its location at a certain stage of human development are still preserved and recognized in the world.” Thus, she took the formational approach under her protection, but noted the need to supplement it with a civilizational approach, emphasizing: “The principle of the unity of the staged and civilizational should become the methodological basis of world history.” Other participants in the round table (V.F. Mamonov, K.A. Zuev, I.A. Zhelenina) generally agreed with the opinions of Fedotova and Kovalchenko, who noted the crisis of historical science and difficulties with the use of the formational approach.

If we take into account that, along with the works of the participants in this discussion, special works on the formational approach continued to be published, then we can state the emergence of an original situation when social science as a science followed one path, and educational and methodological literature, as a rule, followed another. This was confirmed by another discussion devoted to the problems of periodization. Central to it was the article by B. D. Kozenko and G. M. Sadova, where its authors categorically opposed both calls to abandon periodization in general and the thesis “how many researchers - so many periodizations.” Turning to the periodization of New and Contemporary history, they came to the conclusion that the three periods of formational history almost completely coincide with the three periods of development of world civilization. The beginning of the first of them - the period of formation of capitalism and bourgeois civilization - dates back to 1640 - 1649, and the end - 1789 - 1815. They place the second period between 1815 and 1914, calling it the period of victory and establishment of capitalism and the beginning of the transition from the stage of industrial capitalism of free competition to imperialism. Finally, they begin the third period from 1914 to 1923, calling it the period of the formation and flourishing of modern capitalism and its coexistence with socialism, the period of crisis of world civilization.

The article by Kozenko and Sadova generally aroused the approval of specialists in general history, although during its discussion a rather significant range of opinions emerged. Noteworthy, for example, are the speeches of Pskov historians who devoted a special “round table” to this problem, where, in particular, it was proposed to consider the end of the First World War as the beginning of modern history, i.e. 1918 In general, the discussion in the journal “New and Contemporary History” (1993 - 1997) revealed 2 approaches to the time of the beginning of Modern history. Some attributed this chronological line to 1917, others to 1918. This difference of only 1 year reflected different methodological approaches and the fundamental nature of the discussion.

Traditionally, the date of the beginning of Russian statehood is considered to be 862, to which the Tale of Bygone Years refers to the calling of the Varangians-Rus (there are different versions about the origin of this people) to Novgorod the Great by tribal unions of the eastern Baltic and upper Volga region: the East Slavic Slovenes and Krivichi and the Finno-Ugric Chuds , measure and weigh. In 882, the Rurik dynasty captured Kyiv and also took possession of the lands of the Polyans, Drevlyans, Severians, Radimichi, Ulichs and Tiverts, which together made up the main territory of the Old Russian state.

Old Russian state

Also Rus', Russian land. In Western Europe - “Russia” and Rusiya (Russia, Ruscia, Rusca, Rutigia). Since the 11th century, the name “prince of Russians” has been used. And at the beginning of the 12th century (in papal charters) the name “Russia” appears. In Byzantium - Ρως, “Ros”, Title "Russia"(Greek Ρωσα) first used in the middle. 10th century by Constantine Porphyrogenitus.

During the period of maximum expansion of the borders, the Old Russian state also included the lands of the Dregovichi, Vyatichi, Volynians, White Croats, Yatvingians, Muroms, Meshcheras, possessions at the mouth of the Dnieper (Oleshye), on the lower Don (Sarkel) and on the banks of the Kerch Strait (Tmutarakan Principality) . Gradually, the tribal nobility was ousted by the Rurikovichs, who already at the beginning of the 11th century reigned throughout the territory of Rus'. During the 11th-12th centuries, tribal names gradually ceased to be mentioned (with the exception of tribal names in the territories of the eastern Baltic and the middle Volga basin dependent on the Russian princes). At the same time, starting from the end of the 10th century, each generation of Rurikovich carried out divisions of Rus' among themselves, but the consequences of the first two partitions (972 and 1015) were gradually overcome through a fierce struggle for power, as well as the suppression of individual lines of Rurikovich (1036). Section 1054, after which the so-called The “triumvirate of the Yaroslavichs,” despite the long-term concentration of power in the hands of the younger Yaroslavich Vsevolod (1078–1093), was never completely overcome. After a struggle for power after his death, complicated by the intervention of the Polovtsians, in 1097 at the Lyubech Congress of Princes the principle “everyone holds his own fatherland” was established.

After the allied actions of the princes moved the fight against the Polovtsians from the southern Russian borders deep into the steppes, the new Kyiv prince Vladimir Monomakh and his eldest son Mstislav, after a series of internal wars, managed to achieve recognition of their power by part of the Russian princes, others were deprived of their possessions. At the same time, the Rurikovichs began to enter into intra-dynastic marriages.

Russian principalities

In the 1130s, the principalities began to gradually emerge from the power of the Kyiv princes, although the prince who owned Kiev was still considered the eldest in Rus'. With the beginning of the fragmentation of Russian lands, the names “Rus” and “Russian Land” were in most cases applied to the Principality of Kyiv.

With the collapse of the Old Russian state, the Principality of Volyn, the Principality of Galicia, the Principality of Kiev proper, the Principality of Murom-Ryazan, the Novgorod Land, the Principality of Pereyaslavl, the Principality of Polotsk, the Principality of Rostov-Suzdal, the Principality of Turov-Pinsk, and the Principality of Chernigov were formed. In each of them the process of formation of appanages began.

On March 12, 1169, the troops of ten Russian princes, acting on the initiative of Andrei Bogolyubsky, for the first time in the practice of inter-princely strife, plundered Kyiv, after which Andrei gave Kyiv to his younger brother without leaving Vladimir, thereby, in the words of V.O. Klyuchevsky, “torn off seniority from places." Andrei himself, and subsequently his younger brother Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176-1212), sought (temporary) recognition of their seniority by the majority of Russian princes.

By the beginning of the 13th century, unifying tendencies had also emerged. The Pereyaslavl principality became the property of the Vladimir princes, and the united Galician-Volyn principality arose under the rule of the senior branch of the descendants of Vladimir Monomakh. In 1201, Roman Mstislavich Galitsky, being invited by the Kyiv boyars to reign, also gave the city to his younger cousin. In the chronicle of 1205, Roman is called “the autocrat of all Rus'.” By the 13th century, in addition to those of Kyiv, Ryazan, Vladimir, Galician and Chernigov also began to be titled as grand dukes.

After the Mongol invasion, the institution of “sacraments in the Russian land” disappeared, when the Kyiv lands were considered as the common property of the Rurik family, and the name “Rus” was assigned to all East Slavic lands.

The strengthening of the positions of the Vladimir Grand Dukes after the Mongol invasion was facilitated by the fact that they did not participate in the large-scale South Russian civil strife before it, that the principality until the turn of the XIV-XV centuries did not have common borders with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which was expanding into Russian lands, and also that that the Grand Dukes of Vladimir Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, and then his son Alexander Nevsky were recognized in the Golden Horde as the oldest in Rus'. In fact, all the great princes were directly subordinate to the khans, first of the Mongol Empire, and from 1266 - of the Golden Horde, independently collected tribute in their possessions and forwarded it to the khan. From the middle of the 13th century, the title of Grand Dukes of Chernigov was almost constantly held by the Bryansk princes. Mikhail Yaroslavich Tverskoy (1305-1318) was the first of the great princes of Vladimir to be called “Prince of All Rus'”.

Since 1254, the Galician princes bore the title of “kings of Rus'”. In the 1320s, the Galician-Volyn principality entered a period of decline (which some researchers associate with the new onslaught of the Golden Horde) and in 1392 ceased to exist, its lands were divided between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (full name - Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Russia, Zhemoitsk and others) and the Kingdom of Poland. A little earlier, the main part of the southern Russian lands was annexed by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Bryansk 1356, Kyiv 1362).

In the 14th century, the great principalities of Tver and Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod were also formed in the northeast of Rus', and the Smolensk princes also began to be titled great. Since 1363, the label for the great reign of Vladimir, which meant seniority within North-Eastern Rus' and Novgorod, was issued only to Moscow princes, who from that time began to be titled great. In 1383, Khan Tokhtamysh recognized the Grand Duchy of Vladimir as the hereditary possession of the Moscow princes, while simultaneously authorizing the independence of the Grand Duchy of Tver. The Grand Duchy of Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod was annexed to Moscow in 1392. In 1405, Lithuania captured Smolensk. Finally, all Russian lands were divided between the great principalities of Moscow and Lithuania by the end of the 15th century.

Russian state

Since the 15th century, the terms “Russia” and “Russian” appear in Russian sources and spread more and more until they are finally established in the Russian language. The period from the end of the 15th to the beginning of the 18th century in modern Russian historiography is designated as the “Russian state”.

Grand Duchy of Moscow

In 1478, the Novgorod land was annexed to Moscow, and in 1480 the Mongol-Tatar yoke was thrown off. In 1487, after a successful campaign against the Kazan Khanate, the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III proclaimed himself “Prince of Bulgaria,” which was one of the reasons for the beginning of the transition of appanage princes from the eastern outskirts of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to Moscow service along with the lands. As a result of five Russian-Lithuanian wars, Lithuania lost the Verkhovsky principalities, Smolensk and Bryansk. Other important territorial acquisitions were the Tver (1485) and Ryazan great principalities (1521). In addition to independence from the Golden Horde and territorial integrity, the Grand Duchy of Moscow in the last period of its existence as a grand duchy was also distinguished by a general set of laws (Code of 1497), the liquidation of appanages and the introduction of a local system.

Russian kingdom

From January 16, 1547, after Grand Duke Ivan IV Vasilyevich assumed the title of Tsar. Also Rus, Russia, Russia, Russian Tsardom, Russian Tsardom, Muscovite Tsardom. In the middle of the 16th century, the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates were annexed, which further substantiated the royal title of the Moscow monarch.

In 1569, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania accepted the Union of Lublin with Poland, which united the two states into a confederation, while transferring the southern Russian lands to Poland and generally returning to the borders of the mid-13th century.

In 1613, the Metropolitan’s title used the term “Rusia”, and Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich’s title used “Russia”. “Muscovy” is the name of the Russian state in foreign sources of the 16th–17th centuries. The term “Russia” was finally consolidated by Peter the Great (1689-1725). On the coins of Peter I, before accepting the title of emperor, it was written “Tsar Peter Alekseevich, Ruler of All Russia” and “Moscow ruble” on the back. (“The Lord of All Russia” was abbreviated as “V.R.P.”, but sometimes it was written in full). On May 19, 1712, the capital was moved to St. Petersburg.

Russian empire

After Tsar Peter Alekseevich accepted the title of emperor.

August 18 (31), 1914 In connection with the war with Germany, the name of the capital was changed from German to Russian - Petrograd.

Russian Republic

After a special legal meeting. In fact - after the abdication of Mikhail Alexandrovich, brother of Nicholas II from March 3, 1917

Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic- this name was first mentioned on January 21 (February 3), 1918 in the Decree on the cancellation of state loans, the decree was signed by the Chairman of the Central Executive Committee Ya. Sverdlov. This name of the state was introduced after the transformation of the Russian Republic into a “federation of Soviet national republics” at the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets on January 10-18 (23-31), 1918 in the Tauride Palace in Petrograd.

Before the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets, the name Russian Republic was used.

Proclamation of the Federation:

• January 3 (16), 1918 - the text of the Declaration was written.
• January 5 (18), 1918 - announced by Sverdlov at the All-Russian Constituent Assembly (dissolved on January 6 (19).
• January 12 (25), 1918 - the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies adopted the Declaration.
• January 18 (31), 1918 - at the united III Congress of Soviets (after the merger of the III Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies with the III Congress of Soviets of Peasants' Deputies) in the re-adopted Declaration.
• January 28 (15), 1918 - in the Resolution of the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets “On the federal institutions of the Russian Republic”.
• On March 6 - 8, 1918, at the VII Congress of the RCP (b), the decision was once again made to transform the country into a federation.
• July 10, 1918 - in the Constitution at a meeting of the V All-Russian Congress of Soviets.

Variability of the name of the Republic In the period between the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets and the adoption of the first Constitution (at the V Congress), in which the name of the state was finally fixed, variants of the still unsettled name of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic were found in documents:

The words were swapped:

• Russian Federative Socialist Soviet Republic,
• Russian Socialist Soviet Federative Republic,
• Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic;

Incomplete name with different word order (4 words):

• Russian Federative Soviet Republic,
• Russian Soviet Federative Republic,
• Russian Socialist Federative Republic,
• Russian Socialist Soviet Republic,
• Russian Soviet Socialist Republic;

Incomplete name with different word order (3 words):

• Russian Soviet Republic,
• Soviet Russian Republic
• Russian Federative Republic
• Russian Federation of Soviets

Other names:

• Russian Republic,
• Soviet Republic,
• Republic of Soviets.

Note: The new government did not immediately spread across the territory of the former Russian Empire (republic).

Note: Already, being part of the USSR, on December 5, 1936, the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic was renamed into the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, i.e. two words have been swapped.

In everyday life and semi-officially, the abbreviated form was often used for the RSFSR - Russian Federation, but this name was not officially enshrined in the constitution until 1992 (it is worth noting that since 1990 this name was supposed to be approved as the official name of the country)

Formed by the unification of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the Trans-SFSR.

On December 5, 1936 (according to the new constitution) in the name of the RSFSR, the order of the words “socialist” and “Soviet” was brought into line with the order of these words in the name of the USSR.

Russian Federation

Russian Federation— On December 25, 1991, by Law No. 2094-I, the state of the RSFSR was renamed the Russian Federation (the modern name is enshrined in the constitution along with the name Russia). On April 21, 1992, appropriate amendments were made to the then-current Constitution (Basic Law) of the RSFSR of 1978.

Also, before the adoption of the new constitution in 1993, a new coat of arms was in development. De facto, on the territory of the Russian Federation in the first half of the 1990s, forms and seals of institutions with the old coat of arms and the name of the state of the RSFSR were still used, although they were supposed to be replaced during 1992.

Use of the name "Russian Federation" before the collapse of the USSR

• 1918 - in paragraph e) of Article 49 of the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918 (as a variant of the name).
• 1966 - in the title of the book “Chistyakov O.I., Formation of the Russian Federation (1917-1922), M., 1966.”
• 1978 - in the preamble to the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1978.

In modern Russia, some documents are still in force in which the old name “RSFSR” remains:

• Law of the RSFSR of December 15, 1978 (as amended on June 25, 2002) “On the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments”
• Law of the RSFSR of 07/08/1981 (as amended on 05/07/2009) “On the judicial system of the RSFSR”
• Declaration of the SND of the RSFSR dated 06/12/1990 N 22-1 “On the state sovereignty of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic”
• Law of the RSFSR dated October 24, 1990 N 263-1 “On the effect of acts of bodies of the USSR on the territory of the RSFSR”
• Law of the RSFSR of October 31, 1990 N 293-1 “On ensuring the economic basis of the sovereignty of the RSFSR”
• Law of the RSFSR dated March 22, 1991 N 948-1 (as amended on July 26, 2006) “On competition and restrictions on monopolistic activities in commodity markets”
• Law of the RSFSR dated April 26, 1991 N 1107-1 (as amended on July 1, 1993) “On the rehabilitation of repressed peoples”
• Law of the RSFSR dated June 26, 1991 N 1488-1 (as amended on December 30, 2008) “On investment activities in the RSFSR”
• Law of the RSFSR dated June 26, 1991 N 1490-1 (as amended on February 2, 2006) “On priority provision of the agro-industrial complex with material and technical resources”
• Decree of the President of the RSFSR dated November 15, 1991 N 211 (as amended on June 26, 1992) “On increasing wages of employees of budgetary organizations and institutions”
• Decree of the President of the RSFSR dated November 21, 1991 N 228 “On the organization of the Russian Academy of Sciences”
• Decree of the President of the RSFSR dated November 25, 1991 N 232 (as amended on October 21, 2002) “On the commercialization of the activities of trading enterprises in the RSFSR”
• Decree of the President of the RSFSR dated November 28, 1991 N 240 (as amended on October 21, 2002) “On the commercialization of the activities of public service enterprises in the RSFSR”
• Decree of the President of the RSFSR dated December 3, 1991 N 255 “On priority measures to organize the work of industry in the RSFSR”
• Decree of the President of the RSFSR dated December 3, 1991 N 256 “On measures to stabilize the work of the industrial complex of the RSFSR in the conditions of economic reform”
• Decree of the President of the RSFSR dated December 3, 1991 N 297 (as amended on February 28, 1995) “On measures to liberalize prices”
• Decree of the President of the RSFSR dated December 12, 1991 N 269 (as amended on October 21, 2002) “On the single economic space of the RSFSR”
• Law of the RSFSR dated December 25, 1991 N 2094-1 “On changing the name of the state of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic”
• Decree of the Government of the RSFSR dated December 24, 1991 N 62 (as amended on November 13, 2010) “On approval of lists of federal roads in the RSFSR”

Main periods of Russian history February 13th, 2015

The history of any country can be divided into periods with significantly different quality of the state. There are six such major periods in the history of Russia.
1. Ancient Rus',IX - XIIIcenturies



The period of Ancient Rus' is often called the period of Kievan Rus. However, this is not entirely true. Kyiv was the political center of Rus' only until the last thirdXXIIV. In 1169 the great reign was transferred to Vladimir. In turn, in 1325 the residence of the metropolitan was moved to Moscow and Moscow became the political center. Accordingly, in the history of Ancient Rus' we can distinguish: the period of Kievan Rus - fromIX century to 1169, the period of Vladimir Rus' - from 1169 to 1325 and the period of Moscow Rus' from 1325 - to the mid-16th century.

2. Tatar-Mongol yoke,XIII - XVcenturies


This period is characterized by the collapse and subsequent reassembly of the Russian state. Historically, there were several competing assembly centers, of which the main- Grand Duchy of Moscow,Grand Duchy of Tver and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Moscow won.

3. Moscow kingdom,XVI - XVIcenturies


The end of the period of Muscovite Rus' can be considered 1547, when IvanIV- Ivan the Terrible was crowned king. From this date the period of the Muscovite kingdom began. The adoption of royal regalia marked a fundamental change in the political system of Rus' - from the system of great and appanage principalities to autocracy.

4. Russian Empire,XVIII- StartXXcenturies

The next major stage in the history of Russia was the period of the Russian Empire. It began in 1721 after the victory in the Northern War, when Peter I took the title of emperor. Ended - as a result of the February bourgeois revolution1917and the abdication of the last Emperor Nicholas II from the throne.

5. USSR, beginning - endXXV.

From 1917 to 1991, the period of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics lasted when, in my opinion, historical Russia reached its greatest prosperity and power. Usually, the beginning of the Soviet period is considered to be the Great October Socialist Revolution, i.e. October 1917 However, from a formal point of view, the formation of the USSR took place on December 30, 1922, whenRSFSR , Ukrainian SSR , Byelorussian SSR AndTranscaucasian SFSR united into a single state. The end of the Soviet period is December 8, 1991, when the degenerates Yeltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich, as heads of the RSFSR, the Republic of Belarus and Ukraine, signed the Belovezhskaya Agreements on the collapse of the USSR and the formation of the CIS.

6. Since 1991, the period of the Russian Federation began, in which we now live.

It is clear that this structuring is rough. It is also clear that within each period it is possible and necessary to distinguish sub-periods, and within sub-periods sub-sub-periods, etc. That is, the given structuring has the property of self-similarity, when a part is similar to the whole. It is quite possible that it also has a fractal dimension)).