Feudal fragmentation in Rus' existed from the beginning of the XII to the end of the XY centuries. (350 years).
Economic reasons:
1. Successes in agriculture.
2. The growth of cities as centers of craft and trade, as centers of individual territories. Craft development. More than 60 craft specialties.
3. Subsistence farming dominated.
Political reasons:
1. The desire to pass on wealth to the son. “Otchina” is the father’s legacy.
2. As a result of the process of “settlement of the squad on the land,” the military elite turns into landowners-boyars (feudal lords) and strives to expand feudal land tenure and to independence.
3. Immunities are formed. The Kiev prince transfers a number of rights to the vassals: the right of court, the right to collect taxes.
4. Tribute turns into a fief. rent. Tribute - to the prince for protection, rent - to the owner of the land.
5. Feudal lords create local squads, their own apparatus of power.
6. The power of individual feudal lords is growing and they do not want to submit to Kyiv.
7. To ser. XII century The trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” -> “Amber Road” loses its significance.
8. The Principality of Kiev itself fell into decline due to the raids of the nomadic Polovtsians.
The process of disintegration of the country was slightly slowed down by V. Monomakh (1113-1125). He was the grandson Byzantine Emperor Constantine Monomakh. V. Monomakh became a prince at the age of 60. His son Mstislav the Great (1125-1132) managed to continue his father’s policies and maintain what he had achieved. But immediately after his death the division of Rus' begins. At the beginning of the feud. fragmentation, there were 15 large and small principalities, and in the beginning. XIX century It was already the peak of the feud. fragmentation - » 250 principalities. There were 3 centers: the Vladimir-Suzdal kingdom, the Galicia-Volyn kingdom and the Novgorod feud. republic.
Feudal fragmentation in Rus': causes, essence, stages and consequences.
Positive: along with Kiev, new centers of craft and trade appeared, increasingly independent from the capital of the Russian state, old cities developed, large and strong principalities were formed, strong princely dynasties, a tradition of transferring power from father to son was taking shape, cities were rapidly growing, peasant farming was steadily developing, and new arable land and forest lands were being developed. Wonderful cultural monuments were created there. The Russian Orthodox Church was gaining strength there.
Negative (which, unfortunately, are more noticeable than positive): the state became vulnerable, since not all of the resulting principalities were in good relations among themselves, and there was no unity that later saved the country more than once, constant bloody civil strife weakened the military and economic power of the country, Kyiv - the former capital of the Old Russian state - lost the power glorified in legends and epics and itself became the cause of strife, many princes sought occupy the grand-ducal table in Kyiv.
The power in the city often changed - some princes were expelled, others died in battles, others left, unable to resist the new contenders. What about the reasons... Formal: the Polovtsian danger significantly reduced the attractiveness of the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” The centers through which trade relations between Europe and the East were carried out, thanks to the Crusades, are gradually moving to Southern Europe and the Mediterranean, and control over this trade is established by the rapidly growing northern Italian cities, the pressure of the steppe nomads.
Genuine: political prerequisites: endless inter-princely feuds and long-term fierce internecine struggle among the Rurikovichs, the strengthening of local princes, the boyars turn into feudal landowners, for whom the income received from the estates becomes the main means of subsistence. And one more thing: the decline of the Principality of Kyiv (loss of its central position, the movement of world trade routes away from Kyiv) was associated with the loss of the importance of the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks”, Ancient Rus' is losing its role as a participant and mediator in trade relations between the Byzantine, Western European and Eastern worlds.
Vladimir-Suzdal and Galician-Volyn principalities. Novgorod boyar republic. A. Nevsky.
On the way to feudal fragmentation . From the 11th century Kievan Rus, just like Western Europe, begins to experience a period of feudal fragmentation. The disintegration of Rus' into appanage principalities began during the life of Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054) and intensified after his death. This process is somewhat suspended under the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise - Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh (1113-1125). By the power of his authority, he maintained the unity of Rus'. On his initiative, a congress of Russian princes took place in 1097 in the city of Lyubech. Two important decisions were made there. First, stop the princely strife. Secondly, adhere to the principle “Let each one keep his homeland.”
Thus, the fragmentation of Russian lands was actually legitimized. In this situation, Kyiv was losing its former leadership significance, but at the same time remained a capital city. The Kiev state, one of the most powerful, richest and most brilliant in its culture in the entire medieval Europe, was rapidly heading towards death due to internal feudal strife, weakened by the constant struggle with the steppe. The princes strengthened their personal feudal power, sacrificing the unity of his Fatherland. The Kyiv state was in decline.
After the death of Vladimir Monomakh, Rus' existed for some time as a single state. Monomakh's son, Mstislav the Great (1125-1132), inherited the title of Grand Duke of Kyiv from his father. Mstislav Vladimirovich had the same strong character, just like my father. His short reign was marked by great military victories. Under his command, the Polovtsian hordes were defeated on the southern borders of the state. His campaigns against the Chuds and the Lithuanian tribes living on the northwestern borders of Rus' ended in victory. He established order by force throughout the vast Russian land and enjoyed unquestioned authority among all the appanage princes. Mstislav the Great died in 1132, and Rus' finally disintegrated into separate appanages or principalities, each with its own table.
Time from the beginning of the 12th century. until the end of the fifteenth century. called a period feudal fragmentation or specific period. Based on Kievan Rus by the middle of the 12th century. About 15 lands and principalities were formed by the beginning of the 13th century. - 50, in the XIV century. - 250. Each of the principalities was ruled by its own Rurik dynasty.
Causes of feudal fragmentation
Modern researchers understand feudal fragmentation as the period of the 12th - 15th centuries. in the history of our country, when from several dozen to several hundred large states were formed and functioned on the territory of Kievan Rus. Feudal fragmentation was a natural result of the previous political and economic development of society, the so-called period of the early feudal monarchy. There are four most significant reasons feudal fragmentation of the Old Russian state.
The main reason was political. The vast expanses of the East European Plain, numerous tribes, both Slavic and non-Slavic origin, at different stages of development - all this contributed to the decentralization of the state. Over time, the appanage princes, as well as the local feudal nobility represented by the boyars, began to undermine the foundation under the state building with their independent separatist actions. Only strong power concentrated in the hands of one person, the prince, could keep the state organism from collapse.
And the Grand Duke of Kiev could no longer completely control the policy of local princes from the center; more and more princes left his power, and in the 30s. XII century he controlled only the territory around Kyiv. The appanage princes, sensing the weakness of the center, now did not want to share their income with the center, and the local boyars actively supported them in this. In addition, the local boyars needed strong and independent princes locally, which also contributed to the creation of their own government structure and the withering away of the institution of central government. Thus, acting in selfish interests, the local nobility neglected the unity and power of Rus'. The next reason for feudal fragmentation was social.
By the beginning of the 12th century. social structure has become more complex ancient Russian society: large boyars, clergy, merchants, artisans, and urban lower classes appeared. These were new, actively developing layers of the population. In addition, it was born nobility, who served the prince in exchange for a land grant. His social activity was very high. In each center, behind the appanage princes stood an impressive force in the person of the boyars with their vassals, the rich elite of cities, church hierarchs. The increasingly complex social structure of society also contributed to the isolation of the lands.
Economic reasons also played a significant role in the collapse of the state. Within the framework of a single state, over three centuries, independent economic regions emerged, new cities grew, and large patrimonial estates of the boyars, monasteries and churches arose. Subsistence nature of the economy provided the rulers of each region with the opportunity to separate from the center and exist as an independent land or principality. This was largely due to the rapid enrichment of a certain part of the population that controlled the land.
Her desire to improve her well-being also led to feudal fragmentation. In the 12th century. The foreign policy situation also contributed to feudal fragmentation. Rus' during this period did not have serious opponents, since the Grand Dukes of Kyiv did a lot to ensure the security of their borders. A little less than a century will pass, and Rus' will face a formidable enemy in the person of the Mongol-Tatars, but the process of the collapse of Rus' by this time will have gone too far, and there will be no one to organize the resistance of the Russian lands.
It is necessary to note an important feature of the period of feudal fragmentation in Rus'. All major Western European states experienced a period of feudal fragmentation, but in Western Europe the engine of fragmentation was the economy. In Rus', during the process of feudal fragmentation, the political component was dominant. In order to receive material benefits, the local nobility - the princes and boyars - needed to gain political independence and strengthen their inheritance, to achieve sovereignty. The main force in the process of separation in Rus' was the boyars.
At first, feudal fragmentation contributed to the rise of agriculture in all Russian lands, the flourishing of crafts, the growth of cities, and the rapid development of trade. But over time, constant strife between the princes began to deplete the strength of the Russian lands and weaken their defense capability in the face of external danger. Disunity and constant hostility with each other led to the disappearance of many principalities, but most importantly, they became the cause of extraordinary hardships for the people during the period of the Mongol-Tatar invasion.
Of the states that emerged on the territory of Ancient Rus', the largest and most significant were the Galicia-Volyn, Vladimir-Suzdal principalities and the Novgorod boyar republic. It was they who became the political heirs of Kievan Rus, i.e. were centers of gravity for all Russian life. Each of these lands developed its own original political tradition and had its own political destiny. Each of these lands in the future had the opportunity to become the center of the unification of all Russian lands.
Cultural development of medieval Rus' (X - XVI centuries).
Old Russian wisdom, as the initial stage of the development of Russian thought, has a number of distinctive features as an integral cultural and historical phenomenon. On the one hand, it adopted some elements of the East Slavic pagan worldview, multi-component in its composition, since the Old Russian people were formed with the participation of Finno-Ugric, Baltic, Turkic, Norman, and Iranian ethnic groups. Using written, archaeological, and ethnographic sources, specialists (B.A. Rybakov, N.N. Veletskaya, M.V. Popovich) are trying to reconstruct the pre-Christian picture of the world and model of existence.
On the other hand, after the adoption of Christianity as the official ideology and the displacement of the pagan type of worldview to the periphery of consciousness, domestic thought intensively absorbed and creatively processed through Byzantine and South Slavic mediation the theoretical positions, attitudes and concepts of developed Eastern Christian patristics.
Batu's invasion of Rus'. Liberation struggle of the population of ancient Russian principalities. Consequences of the “Batu pogrom”.
Fight against Horde yoke began from the moment of its establishment. It took place in the form of spontaneous popular performances, who could not overthrow the yoke, but contributed to its weakening. In 1262, in many Russian cities there were protests against the tax farmers of the Horde tribute - the Besermens. The Besermen were expelled, and the princes themselves began to collect tribute and take it to the Horde. And in the first quarter of the 14th century, after repeated uprisings in Rostov (1289, 1320) and Tver (1327), the Baskaks also left the Russian principalities. Liberation struggle of the masses brought its first results. The Mongol-Tatar conquest had an extremely severe consequences For Rus', the “Batu pogrom” was accompanied by mass murders of Russian people, many artisans were taken into captivity.
Cities that were experiencing a period of decline suffered especially. Many complex crafts disappeared, and stone construction ceased for more than a century. The conquest caused enormous damage to Russian culture. But the damage caused by the conquerors of Rus' was not limited to the “Batu Pogrom”. The entire second half of the 13th century. filled with Horde invasions. “Dudenev’s army” of 1293, in its destructive consequences, was reminiscent of Batu’s own campaign. And in just the second half of the 13th century. The Mongol-Tatars undertook large campaigns against North-Eastern Rus' 15 times.
But it was not just military attacks. The Horde khans created a whole system of robbing the conquered country through regular tribute. 14 types of various “tributes” and “burdens” depleted the Russian economy and prevented it from recovering from ruin. The leakage of silver, the main monetary metal of Rus', hindered the development of commodity-money relations. Mongol-Tatar conquest. The economic development of the country was delayed for a long time.
The cities, future centers of capitalist development, suffered the most from the conquest. Thus, the conquerors seemed to preserve the for a long time purely feudal nature of the economy. While Western European countries, having escaped the horrors of the Mongol-Tatar invasion, moved to a more advanced capitalist system; Rus' remained a feudal country.
As already mentioned, the impact on the economic sphere was expressed, firstly, in the direct devastation of territories during the Horde campaigns and raids, which were especially frequent in the second half of the 13th century. The heaviest blow was dealt to the cities. Secondly, the conquest led to the systematic siphoning of significant material resources in the form of the Horde “exit” and other extortions, which bled the country dry.
The consequence of the invasion of the 13th century. there was an increase in the isolation of Russian lands, weakening of the southern and western principalities. As a result, they were included in the structure that arose in the 13th century. early feudal state - the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: Polotsk and Turov-Pinsk principalities - by the beginning of the 14th century, Volyn - in the middle of the 14th century, Kiev and Chernigov - in the 60s of the 14th century, Smolensk - at the beginning of the 15th century.
Russian statehood (under the suzerainty of the Horde) was preserved as a result only in North-Eastern Rus' (Vladimir-Suzdal land), in the Novgorod, Murom and Ryazan lands. It was North-Eastern Rus' from approximately the second half of the 14th century. became the core of the formation of the Russian state. At the same time, the fate of the western and southern lands was finally determined. Thus, in the XIV century. the old one ceased to exist political structure, which was characterized by independent principalities-lands ruled by different branches of the princely family of Rurikovich, within which there were smaller vassal principalities.
The disappearance of this political structure also marked the disappearance of the one that had developed with the formation Kyiv State in the IX - X centuries. Old Russian people - the ancestor of the three currently existing East Slavic peoples. In the territories of North-Eastern and North-Western Rus', the Russian (Great Russian) nationality begins to take shape, while in the lands that became part of Lithuania and Poland - the Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalities.
In addition to these “visible” consequences of conquest in the socio-economic and political spheres Old Russian society can also be traced to significant structural changes. In the pre-Mongol period, feudal relations in Rus' developed in general according to a pattern characteristic of all European countries: from the predominance of state forms of feudalism at an early stage to the gradual strengthening of patrimonial forms, although slower than in Western Europe. After the invasion, this process slows down, and state forms of exploitation are conserved. This was largely due to the need to find funds to pay the “exit”. A. I. Herzen wrote: “It was during this unfortunate time that Russia allowed Europe to overtake itself.”
The Mongol-Tatar conquest led to the strengthening feudal oppression. The masses fell under double oppression - their own and the Mongol-Tatar feudal lords. The political consequences of the invasion were very severe. The khans' policy boiled down to inciting feudal strife in order to prevent the country from uniting.
The system of Horde rule in Rus': features and chronological framework. The influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on the development of Russian lands.
Never before in its history Ancient Rus' did not experience such a shock as in 1237-40. Neither the raids of the Polovtsians, nor the attacks of the "Poles" and the Hungarians could be compared with what the ancient Russian lands experienced during the years of Batu's invasion.
The main blow fell on the cities - craft and trade, administrative and cultural centers lands, According to archaeologists, out of 74 cities, 49 were destroyed, and almost a third of them were not restored. City life in Rus' fell into decline. Craft and trade suffered enormous damage. Many types of crafts disappeared, and there was a general coarsening and simplification of technical techniques. Stone construction ceased for almost a century.
The destruction of cities is a blow to the culture of Ancient Rus'. Priceless book and art treasures disappeared in the fires, and architectural monuments were destroyed.
The invasion complicated the demographic situation (some researchers even talk about a demographic catastrophe). It took years for the population to recover. True, different categories of the population suffered differently. During the assault on the cities, many residents died. The number of feudal lords also decreased sharply. The warriors, boyars, and princes fell in an unequal confrontation. Of the twelve Ryazan princes, nine died, led by Prince Yuri Igorevich. As part of the so-called Old Moscow boyars - the faithful servants of Ivan Kalita and his successors - there are no boyar families mentioned in the sources of the pre-Mongol period. The rural population, who had the opportunity to hide in the forests, apparently suffered less.
After the invasion, Rus' became part of the Golden Horde. The system of political and economic domination of the Golden Horde rulers over the Russian lands is defined as the Horde yoke. Sovereign rights passed to the supreme ruler - the Khan of the Golden Horde, who in Rus' was called the Tsar. The princes, as before, ruled the subject population; the previous order of inheritance was preserved, but only with the consent of the ruler of the Golden Horde. The princes flocked to the Horde for labels to reign.
Princely power was integrated into the management system in Mongol Empire, which assumed rigidly fixed subordination. The appanage princes were subordinate to their senior princes, the senior princes (albeit formally) to the Grand Duke, who, in turn, was considered the “ulusnik” of the Khan of the Golden Horde.
Potentially, such a system strengthened the authoritarian traditions of North-Eastern Rus'. The princes, absolutely powerless before the khan, disposed of their subjects. The veche was not recognized as an institution of power, because from now on the only source of all power was the khan's label. Boyars and warriors turned into servants, completely dependent on the prince's favors.
In 1243, the Vladimir prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich received a special letter from Batu, allowing him to rule in the Russian lands on behalf of the Horde khan - a label for the great reign. In terms of its significance for the further history of Rus', this event was no less important than the Mongol invasion itself. For the first time, the prince was granted the right to represent the interests of the Horde in Russian lands. Thus, the Russian princes recognized complete dependence on the Horde, and Rus' was included in the Great Mongol Empire. Leaving Batu's headquarters, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich left his son Svyatoslav hostage. The practice of hostage-taking was widespread in the Mongol Empire. It will become the norm in relations between the Horde and Rus' for a long time.
Formation of nation states in Europe. Features of the centralization process on the territory of Russian lands.
Formation of the Russian State: Formation of the Russian State. Power and estates Contents 1. Introduction - 2 2. The mechanism of functioning of the estate system - 2 3. The local system - 4 4. Zemsky councils - 10 5. The Boyar Duma - 19 6. The role of the church in government - 29 7. The order system - 31 8. The beginnings of absolutism - 36 9. Conclusion - 37 10. Literature - 39 INTRODUCTION The main constantly operating factors of Russian historical process are, first of all, a special spatial and geopolitical situation, a specific mechanism for the functioning of the class system and, most importantly, the place of the state and its institutions in the regulation of social relations.
Period XV-XVII centuries. characterized by two interrelated development processes centralized state formation of a single state territory through the unification of Russian lands, the strengthening of the political system and the real power of the monarch. New territories that were part of the state primarily became the object of economic development and peasant farming. The basis of prosperity remained agricultural labor, which created social wealth and provided the state with material and demographic resources for normal functioning.
The main trends in the development of state policy, as well as the contradictions between society and the state, were directly related to the issue of land ownership and the peasant class. MECHANISM OF FUNCTIONING OF THE CLASS SYSTEM The mechanism of functioning of the class system had greater specificity in Russia compared to the countries of Western Europe... .
Formation of a centralized state with a center in Moscow: reasons, stages, features. State activities of the first Moscow princes. Dmitry Donskoy and the historical significance of the Battle of Kulikovo.
In the second half of the 14th century. in northeastern Rus', the tendency towards the unification of lands intensified. The center of unification became the Moscow principality, which was separated from the Vladimir-Suzdal principality in the 12th century. Reasons.
The role of unifying factors was played by the weakening and collapse of the Golden Horde, the development of economic ties and trade, the formation of new cities and the strengthening of the social stratum of the nobility. A system developed in the Moscow Principality local relations: the nobles received land from the Grand Duke for their service and for the duration of their service. This made them dependent on the prince and strengthened his power. Also the reason for the merger was struggle for national independence.
Features of the formation of the Russian centralized state:
When talking about “centralization,” two processes should be kept in mind: the unification of Russian lands around a new center - Moscow and the creation of a centralized state apparatus, a new structure of power in the Moscow state.
The state developed in the northeastern and northwestern lands of the former Kievan Rus; From the 13th century Moscow princes and the church begin to carry out widespread colonization of the Trans-Volga territories, new monasteries, fortresses and cities are formed, and the local population is conquered.
The formation of the state took place in a very short time, which was due to the presence of an external threat in the form of the Golden Horde; the internal structure of the state was fragile; the state could at any moment disintegrate into separate principalities;
the creation of the state took place on a feudal basis; a feudal society began to form in Russia: serfdom, estates, etc.; in Western Europe, the formation of states took place on a capitalist basis, and bourgeois society began to form there.
Features of the process of state centralization And boiled down to the following: Byzantine and eastern influence caused strong despotic tendencies in the structure and politics of power; the main support of autocratic power was not the union of cities with the nobility, but the local nobility; centralization was accompanied by the enslavement of the peasantry and increased class differentiation.
The formation of the Russian centralized state took place in several stages:
Stage 1. The Rise of Moscow(late XIII - early XIV centuries). By the end of the 13th century. the old cities of Rostov, Suzdal, Vladimir are losing their former importance. The new cities of Moscow and Tver are rising.
The rise of Tver began after the death of Alexander Nevsky (1263). During the last decades of the 13th century. Tver acts as a political center and organizer of the struggle against Lithuania and the Tatars and tried to subjugate the most important political centers: Novgorod, Kostroma, Pereyaslavl, Nizhny Novgorod. But this desire encountered strong resistance from other principalities, and above all from Moscow.
The beginning of the rise of Moscow is associated with the name of the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky - Daniil (1276 - 1303). Daniel inherited the small village of Moscow. In three years, the territory of Daniil’s possession tripled: Kolomna and Pereyaslavl joined Moscow. Moscow became a principality.
His son Yuri (1303 - 1325). entered into a struggle with the Tver prince for the Vladimir throne. A long and stubborn struggle for the title of Grand Duke began. Yuri's brother Ivan Danilovich, nicknamed Kalita, in 1327 in Tver, Ivan Kalita went to Tver with an army and suppressed the uprising. In gratitude, in 1327 the Tatars gave him a label for the Great Reign.
Stage 2. Moscow is the center of the fight against the Mongol-Tatars (second half of the 14th - first half of the 15th centuries). The strengthening of Moscow continued under the children of Ivan Kalita - Simeon Gordom (1340-1353) and Ivan II the Red (1353-1359). During the reign of Prince Dmitry Donskoy, the Battle of Kulikovo took place on September 8, 1380. The Tatar army of Khan Mamai was defeated.
Stage 3. Completion of the formation of the Russian centralized state (end of the 10th - beginning of the 16th centuries). The unification of Russian lands was completed under the great-grandson of Dmitry Donskoy, Ivan III (1462 - 1505) and Vasily III (1505 - 1533). Ivan III annexed the entire North-East of Rus' to Moscow: in 1463 - the Yaroslavl principality, in 1474 - the Rostov principality. After several campaigns in 1478, the independence of Novgorod was finally eliminated.
Under Ivan III, one of the most important events in Russian history took place - the Mongol-Tatar yoke was thrown off (in 1480 after standing on the Ugra River).
The activities of Ivan III “The Great” and Vasily III. Overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. Formation of national-state ideology and symbols of the national state.
In the current conditions of feudal fragmentation, the Novgorod, Pskov, Tver, Ryazan, and Nizhny Novgorod lands began to objectively gravitate towards reunification into a single state. At the same time, centrifugal tendencies, caused by the separatism of local princes, continued to persist. That is why the Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich (Donskoy) had to wage a stubborn struggle with the princes. Fighting the separatism of the princes, Dmitry Ivanovich subordinated the most powerful principalities (Tver and Ryazan) to the power of the Moscow prince. Thus, Moscow's leading role in the unification of Russian lands was finally consolidated.
The reign of Dmitry Donskoy left deep trace in Russian history.
Among the important results of his activities are the following:
- securing Moscow’s status national capital, and for the Moscow princes - the great reign in Rus';
- preservation of the integrity of patrimonial possessions passed to Dmitry Ivanovich from his ancestors; strengthening the defense capability of Rus' as a result of the fight against foreign invaders, especially the Horde;
- the introduction of silver coinage earlier than in other feudal centers of Rus';
- economic support for the urban trade and craft population.
Thanks to the successful activities of Dmitry, the further strengthening of the Moscow Principality continues. Fear of foreign enslavement and the desire to preserve and maintain state order made firm power desirable, so that ultimately the feudal war contributed to the strengthening of the grand ducal power. The unification policy of the Grand Dukes was supported by the most diverse social strata of Russian society, since an important factor in the process of unification of the principalities was the nationwide struggle for national independence and the overthrow of the Horde yoke, for an independent and strong statehood capable of providing protection to the people.
Objectively, the process of political unification of Russian lands began in Rus' with the territorial growth and political strengthening of individual principalities. In the struggle that began between them for political dominance, an all-Russian political center emerged, leading the struggle for the unification of the scattered Russian lands into a single state and for the overthrow of the Golden Horde yoke. The winner in this struggle was the Principality of Moscow, whose capital - Moscow - during the reign of Dmitry Donskoy became the generally recognized political and national center of the emerging Russian state. The Orthodox Church also contributed to the unification of Russian lands.
She supported the flexible policy of a forced alliance with the Golden Horde of Alexander Nevsky, inspired Dmitry Donskoy to Mamayevo massacre; during the feudal war she openly opposed the outdated policy of appanage princes for strengthening the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow. The alliance of the church with the Moscow princes was further strengthened during the period of elimination of feudal fragmentation.
At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. More than two centuries of struggle of the Russian people for their state unity and national independence ended with the unification of the Russian lands around Moscow into a single state. The main territory of the Russian state, which emerged at the end of the 15th century, consisted of the Vladimir-Suzdal, Novgorod-Pskov, Smolensk and Murom-Ryazan lands, as well as part of the lands of the Chernigov principality. The territorial core of the formation of the Russian people and the Russian state was the Vladimir-Suzdal land.
The state united around Moscow represented a qualitatively new stage in the development of statehood. In 1462, Ivan III Vasilyevich ascended the Moscow throne. By this time he was 22 years old, and he was already a fully formed person and ruler. His accession to the Moscow throne occurred according to the will of Vasily II. This did not require any approval from the Horde. This already spoke of the great independence of Rus' from the Horde. But there was still the payment of tribute. It was a strong thread connecting Rus' with the Horde. Most of the Russian lands have already become part of the Moscow state. But Novgorod, Tver, the Ryazan principality, and Pskov still remained independent. After the death of his father, Ivan III continued his work.
Firstly, he tried to protect Rus' from the constant onslaught of the Tatars. Already in the first years of his reign, Ivan III showed that Moscow would continue to fight for its freedom and independence from the Tatar khanates. Secondly, as with my father, Ivan III I had to settle relationships in my family. Any worsening of relations with the brothers threatened a new war. Therefore, Ivan III left them their inheritance. Thirdly, Ivan III energetically continued the policy of subjugating independent Russian lands to Moscow. In January 1478, Ivan III solemnly entered “his fatherland” - Novgorod. The grand ducal governors took power in the city. The most stubborn opponents of Moscow were arrested and sent to prison. Ivan III spent a month in the once independent Novgorod Republic, establishing the Moscow order.
Liberation from the Horde yoke
In 1478, Ivan III stopped paying tribute to the Horde. Once again Rus' tried to free itself from this humiliating order. And now Ivan III, after the victory over Novgorod, again took a decisive step. The international situation also required this. After the fall of Constantinople, Rus' remained the largest Orthodox state in Europe at that time, and now all Orthodox people looked to Moscow as their hope and support. In addition, by this time, Ivan III, after the death of his first wife, the Tver princess, took as his wife the niece of the last Byzantine emperor.
Under these conditions, Ivan III broke off relations with the Horde. This meant war. The Horde decided to roughly punish Rus' and return it to the yoke of slavery. The ruler of the Great Horde, Khan Akhmat, led more than one hundred thousand warriors to Rus'. He agreed on allied actions with Lithuania. But Ivan III also took reciprocal diplomatic steps. He took advantage of the enmity between the Crimean Khanate and Akhmat and entered into allied relations with Crimea not only against the Horde, but also against Lithuania. On October 8, 1480, the Tatars attempted to cross the Ugra and attack the Russian camp. But everywhere the Russian regiments repulsed them: intense shooting was carried out from cannons, arquebuses, and bows.
This was the first time the Russians used firearms in the field. The Horde army suffered heavy losses and retreated. At this time, Ivan III hastily left for Moscow in connection with the rebellion of his brothers, who reproached him for being too autocratic. Some Moscow politicians persuaded Ivan III to make peace with Akhmat. Ivan hesitated: the risk was great. But then ordinary Muscovites spoke out, calling on the prince to return to the army. High church leaders also showed inflexibility in the fight against the Horde. Ivan III quickly settled relations with his brothers, promising to increase their inheritance, and soon their troops appeared on the Ugra. The Grand Duke also arrived there. The choice was made: the struggle is not life, but to death.
It was starting to get cold. And the two armies stood opposite each other on opposite banks of the river. December came, Ufa was covered with ice. Akhmat tried to start negotiations with Ivan III and return Rus' to its former dependence. But Ivan III, without giving up negotiations, played for time, strengthened the army, and waited for greater cold weather. And then Akhmat could not stand it and gave the order to retreat. Soon the Tatars' retreat turned into a flight. Ivan III’s ally, the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey, struck a blow at the Lithuanian possessions.
The so-called situation on the Ugra was of great importance in the history of Russia. After this confrontation, Rus' was finally freed from the last traces of Horde oppression. The Grand Duchy of Moscow became a completely independent, sovereign state.
Strengthening the centralized state under Ivan IV "the Terrible". Reforms of the “Elected Rada”. The formation of an estate-representative monarchy. Eastern foreign policy of Ivan IV.
By the end of the 1540s, under the young ruler Ivan IV a circle of figures was formed to whom he entrusted the conduct of affairs in the state. Later, Andrei Kurbsky called the new government “The Chosen Rada.” Its most famous members were Aleksey Fedorovich Adashev, confessor Sylvester, Viskovaty Ivan Mikhailovich - head of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, and several other noble princes.
Reforms of the Chosen Rada
The first steps towards reforms were meetings of nobles and governors. In 1549, the February Meeting took place, which became the first Zemsky Sobor. The main political strategy of the Elected Rada was the centralization of the Russian state according to the civilizational model of the West. A change in strategy required a set of reforms. The reforms of the Chosen Rada had an anti-boyar orientation. It relied on landowners, nobles, and townspeople, and therefore expressed exclusively their interests. The elected council, whose reforms took place in 1549-1560, implemented changes in all spheres of society. The changes affected the administrative, church, legal, financial, tax and other systems.
Reforms of the Elected Rada in the legal and administrative systems
By decision of the Council of Reconciliation in 1549, a new set of laws was being prepared. The revised Code of Laws was established in 1550. The relationship between feudal lords and peasants has not changed; the same norms and laws have been preserved. At the same time, the power of local feeders was somewhat limited, and the process of forming orders was accelerated. Orders are the first functional governing bodies that were in charge of individual areas of government affairs (otherwise they were called chambers, courtyards, etc.). The most famous were the Petition, Streletsky, Posolsky and other orders. At the same time, local government was centralized. Viceroyal administrations were replaced by an elected administration. These and other innovations strengthened the position of the nobles in society and united the provincial nobility into service towns.
Army reform
In the mid-50s of the 16th century, the “Code of Service” was adopted. A strict order of service was established. All landowners, regardless of the size of their holdings, became service people. The government of Alexey Adashev organized Streltsy army and formed a detachment of archers to guard the king. As a result of military reforms, tens of thousands of soldiers now have weapons, equipment and food.
Church reforms of the Elected Rada
In 1551, Stoglav was adopted, in which one hundred chapter-articles were published on the answers of Ivan the Terrible about the structure of the church. Stoglav strengthened general discipline in the church and regulated life. The Tsar intended to confiscate the land from the church, but these intentions were not approved by the Elected Rada. The Church tried in every possible way to strengthen its authority, which was steadily declining in the eyes of the people.
Reforms of the Elected Council in the financial system
No administrative reforms could be carried out without restructuring the tax system. In 1550, a census of the entire population was carried out. Household taxation was replaced by land taxation. In the central territory, a tax unit called the “big plow” was introduced, its value varied depending on the position of the landowners. The payment of taxes by the population became increasingly centralized. The “feeding income” was replaced by a nationwide “feeding tax”.
In general, the reforms of the Chosen Rada under Ivan the Terrible were controversial. They were of a compromise nature. The reforms helped strengthen power and improve the position of the nobility. Their implementation was interrupted due to the resignation of the Elected Rada in 1560.
Strengthening the centralized state under Ivan IV "the Terrible". Oprichnina: essence, its goals and methods of achieving them, consequences. History of the country after the oprichnina. Livonian War.
The childhood of Ivan IV passed during the period of “boyar rule” of conspiracies at the top, city uprisings, which undermined state power and weakened the state in the face of external threats. The future king was distinguished by his intelligence, education, iron grip, and at the same time, moral depravity and nervous temperament.
In 1547, he was solemnly crowned king and officially accepted the title of Tsar. Surrounded by Ivan IV, a select group formed - a “government circle” of advisers - nobleman Adashev, Prince Kurbsky, Metropolitan Macarius, priest Sylvester, Queen Anastasia, who developed the main reforms.
The policy of Ivan IV took place in two stages:
1st - reforms of the 50s strengthened autocratic power, limited by estate-representative institutions in the center and locally (Zemsky Sobor, orders):
2nd - reform of the 60s, which contributed to the strengthening of absolute monarchical power.
The new Code of Laws was expanded and systematized. The transition of peasants on St. George's Day was confirmed, but the “elderly” (payment to the feudal lord upon transition) was increased. The legal status of peasants was approaching the status of kholop (slave). Punishments have become stricter. For the first time, punishments were introduced for boyars and bribe-taking clerks, the rights of volost governors were limited, and sectoral central government bodies were created - orders (ambassador, yam, robber, etc.). The adoption of the Code of Law marked the beginning of a number of reforms:
1556, “Code of Service” - completes the formation of the Russian army. The mounted militia of the nobles formed the basis of the army; to resolve important state issues, the highest state body arises - the Zemsky Sobor, in which the boyars, clergy, nobles, and merchants participated; instead of governors, zemstvo elders appear, chosen from wealthy townspeople and peasants; Church reform was carried out - services, church rituals were unified, measures were taken to strengthen the authority of the church, and the canonization of saints was carried out to unite the Russian people.
The reforms of the first period strengthened state power and increased the authority and role of the king. However, Ivan IV sought immediate results, while the Elected Rada carried out reforms gradually, counting on a long period. Rapid movement towards centralization was possible only with the help of terror. The elected Rada was against this. The fall of the Chosen Rada became the prologue to the oprichnina.
In December 1564, the tsar and his family left Moscow, taking all church relics, and went to Alexandrovskaya Sloboda. Rumors spread throughout Moscow that the tsar abandoned the people because of the betrayal of the boyars. The condition for the return of the tsar was the convening of a state council of boyars and clergy, where he proposed the conditions under which he would take back power. The tsar demanded the sovereign's allotment in the center of the country (oprichna - part of the entire Russian land), which began to be called oprichnina, and all other lands - zemshchina. Boyars and nobles who were not registered in the oprichnina were deprived of their possessions and moved to the zemshchina. A sovereign army was created - the guardsmen, who were supposed to “sniff out” enemies and “sweep out” them.
All this turned into mass terror and led to:
1) to the mass exodus of peasants to the south of the country, there was no one to sow and plow.
2) to the decline of trade;
3) to the loss of the successfully started Livonian War;
4) to the weakening of the southern borders. In 1574, the Crimean Khan Girey made a campaign against Moscow, set it on fire and demanded that the tsar give up Kazan and Astrakhan.
All these consequences forced Ivan the Terrible to abandon the oprichnina, but the terror did not stop.
The activities of Ivan the Terrible, on the one hand, contributed to the strengthening of the Russian state and autocracy, and on the other hand, led to the ruin of the people and contributed to such a phenomenon as the Troubles.
18 “Time of Troubles”: the causes and essence of the socio-political crisis in Russia. B. Godunov. The struggle for power and social movements during the Time of Troubles.
Events at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries. received the name "Time of Troubles". The causes of the unrest were the aggravation of social class, financial and international relations at the end of the reign of Ivan IV and his successors. The huge costs of the Battle of Levon and the destruction led to an economic crisis. 50% of the land was not cultivated, and prices increased 4 times. In order to enslave the peasants, “Reserved Summers” were introduced - years when the transition from feudal lord to feudal lord was prohibited. In 1597, a decree was passed on a five-year search for fugitive peasants. On March 18, 1584, Ivan the Terrible died while playing chess. His eldest son Ivan was killed by his father in a fit of rage (1581), youngest son Dmitry was only two years old.
Together with his mother, Ivan IV's seventh wife Maria Naga, he lived in Uglich, which was given to him as an inheritance. The middle son of Ivan the Terrible, twenty-seven-year-old Fyodor Ivanovich (1584-1598), took the throne, gentle by nature, but incapable of governing the state. The personality of Fyodor Ivanovich, who grew up in an atmosphere of medieval cruelty, attracted the attention of many writers and artists. “Am I a king or not a king,” is the sacramental phrase put into his mouth by A.K. Tolstoy, successfully characterizes Fyodor Ivanovich. Realizing that the throne was passing to Blessed Feodor, Ivan IV created a kind of regency council under his son.
In 1598, after the death of the childless Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the Zemsky Sobor elected Boris Godunov as Tsar. All segments of the population opposed the tsar; this was taken advantage of by the Moscow monk Grigory Otrepiev, who fled to Poland under the guise of the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry. In 1604, he and a Polish detachment set out on a campaign against Moscow, Russia. Boris Godunov suddenly dies and in May 1605 the False Dmitry I is proclaimed tsar, but he did not fulfill his promise to the Poles. The Poles plundered Russian lands and in May 1606 an anti-Polish uprising broke out in Moscow. The false Dmitry I was killed, and Vasily Shuisky was proclaimed king.).
He gave an obligation, formalized in the form of a kissing cross (kissed the cross), to preserve the privileges of the boyars, not to take away their estates and not to judge the boyars without the participation of the Boyar Duma. The nobility now tried to resolve the deep internal and external contradictions that had created with the help of the boyar king. One of Shuisky's most important affairs was the appointment of a patriarch. Patriarch Ignatius the Greek was stripped of his rank for supporting False Dmitry I. Vasily Shuisky managed to gain a foothold in Moscow, but the outskirts of the country continued to seethe. The political conflict generated by the struggle for power and the crown grew into a social one. The people, having finally lost faith in improving their situation, again opposed the authorities.
In the spring of 1608, False Dmitry II emerged from Poland. In 1610, Shuisky was overthrown, power was seized by the boyars (“Seven Boyars”), who surrendered Moscow to the Poles and invited the Polish prince Vladislav to the throne. Only by relying on the people could it be possible to win and preserve the independence of the Russian state. In 1610, Patriarch Hermogenes called for a fight against the invaders, for which he was arrested. At the beginning of 1611, the first militia was created in the Ryazan land, which was led by the nobleman P. Lyapunov. The militia moved to Moscow, where an uprising broke out in the spring of 1611. The interventionists, on the advice of the traitorous boyars, set fire to the city. Troops fought on the approaches to the Kremlin. Here, in the Sretenka area, Prince D.M. was seriously wounded. Pozharsky, who led the forward detachments.
The first militia disintegrated. By this time, the Swedes had captured Novgorod, and the Poles, after a months-long siege, had captured Smolensk. The Polish king Sigismund III announced that he himself would become the Russian Tsar, and Russia would join the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the fall of 1611, the townsman of Nizhny Novgorod, Kozma Minin, appealed to the Russian people to create a second militia. With the help of the population of other Russian cities, the material base for the liberation struggle was created: the people raised significant funds to wage war against the interventionists. The militia was headed by K. Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky. In the spring of 1612, the militia moved to Yaroslavl. Here the provisional government of Russia “Council of All the Earth” was created.
In the summer of 1612, from the Arbat Gate, the troops of K. Minin and D.M. Pozharsky approached Moscow and united with the remnants of the first militia. Almost simultaneously, Hetman Khodasevich approached the capital along the Mozhaisk road, moving to the aid of the Poles holed up in the Kremlin. In the battle near the walls of Moscow, Khodasevich’s army was driven back. On October 22, 1612, on the day of the discovery of the icon of the Kazan Mother of God, who accompanied the militia, Kitay-Gorod was taken. Four days later, the Polish garrison in the Kremlin surrendered. In memory of the liberation of Moscow from the interventionists on Red Square, funded by D.M. Pozharsky, a temple was erected in honor of the icon of Our Lady of Kazan. The victory was won as a result of the heroic efforts of the Russian people.
Polish-Swedish intervention in Russia at the beginning. XVII century I and II Militia. K. Minin and D. Pozharsky.
Early 17th century was marked by a general political crisis, and social contradictions intensified. All layers of society were dissatisfied with the rule of Boris Godunov. Taking advantage of the weakening of statehood, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden attempted to seize Russian lands and include it in the sphere of influence of the Catholic Church.
In 1601, a man appeared who pretended to be Tsarevich Dmitry, who had miraculously escaped. He turned out to be a runaway monk, defrocked deacon of the Chudov Monastery, Grigory Otrepiev. The pretext for the start of the intervention was the appearance of False Dmitry in 1601-1602. in the Polish possessions in Ukraine, where he declared his claims to the royal throne in Rus'. In Poland, False Dmitry turned for help to the Polish gentry and King Sigismund III. To get closer to the Polish elite, False Dmitry converted to Catholicism and promised, if successful, to make this religion the state religion in Rus', and also to give Western Russian lands to Poland.
In October 1604, False Dmitry invaded Russia. The army, joined by runaway peasants, Cossacks, and servicemen, quickly advanced towards Moscow. In April 1605, Boris Godunov died, and his warriors went over to the side of the pretender. Fedor, Godunov's 16-year-old son, was unable to retain power. Moscow went over to the side of False Dmitry. The young tsar and his mother were killed, and on June 20 a new “autocrat” entered the capital.
False Dmitry I turned out to be an active and energetic ruler, but he did not live up to the hopes of those forces that brought him to the throne, namely: he did not give the outskirts of Russia to the Poles and did not convert the Russians to Catholicism. He aroused dissatisfaction among Moscow subjects by non-compliance with ancient customs and rituals, and there were rumors about his Catholicism. In May 1606, an uprising broke out in Moscow, False Dmitry I was overthrown and killed. Boyar Vasily Shuisky was “shouted out” as king on Red Square. In 1607, a new impostor appeared in the city of Starodub, posing as Tsarevich Dmitry.
He gathered an army from representatives of the oppressed lower classes, Cossacks, service people and detachments of Polish adventurers. False Dmitry II approached Moscow and camped in Tushino (hence the nickname “Tushino Thief”). A large number of Moscow boyars and princes went over to his side.
In the spring of 1609, M.V. Skopin-Shuisky (the Tsar’s nephew), having gathered detachments of people’s militia from Smolensk, the Volga region, and the Moscow region, lifted the 16,000-strong siege of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. The army of False Dmitry II was defeated, he himself fled to Kaluga, where he was killed.
In February 1609, Shuisky concluded an agreement with Sweden. This gave the Polish king, who was at war with Sweden, a reason to declare war on Russia. The Polish army moved towards Moscow under the command of Hetman Zholkiewski, near the village of Klushino it defeated Shuisky's troops, the Tsar finally lost the trust of his subjects and in July 1610 was overthrown from the throne. The Moscow boyars invited the son of Sigismund III, Vladislav, to the throne, and surrendered Moscow to Polish troops.
The “great devastation” of the Russian land caused a widespread upsurge of the patriotic movement in the country. In the winter of 1611, the first militia, which was headed by Prokopiy Lyapunov. In March, the militia approached Moscow and began a siege of the capital. However, the split between the nobles and peasants with the Cossacks did not make it possible to achieve victory. In the fall of 1611, in Nizhny Novgorod, the zemstvo elder Kuzma Minin organized a second militia. Prince D.M. Pozharsky is invited to lead the zemstvo army. At the end of August 1612, the army of Minin and Pozharsky approached Moscow and began its siege; On October 27, 1612, the Poles surrendered. Thanks to the heroism of the Russian people, Moscow was liberated, and the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Romanov as Russian Tsar.
In 1617, the Peace of Stolbov was concluded between Russia and Sweden. Russia returned Novgorod, but lost the coast of the Gulf of Finland. In 1618, the Deulin truce was concluded with Poland, which received Smolensk, Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversk lands. Despite the dire consequences of the Swedish-Polish intervention, Russia retained the most important thing - its statehood.
Socio-economic development of Russia in the 17th century. Folding of the domestic market. Development of feudal relations. Economic activities of the first Romanovs.
The most important result of the development of agriculture in the first half of the 17th century. consisted of eliminating the consequences of the Troubles, during which huge expanses of uncultivated land appeared, which had managed to be overgrown with forest. In some counties, arable land has decreased tenfold. The restoration process took three decades - from the 20s to the 50s. XVII century
The main trend in the socio-economic development of Russia in the 17th century. consisted in the further strengthening of the feudal-serf system. Among the nobility, the direct connection between service and its land compensation was gradually lost: estates remained with the family even if its representatives stopped serving.
The rights to dispose of estates were expanded (barter, transfer as a dowry). The estate is losing the features of conditional ownership and is approaching a fiefdom. In the 17th century there is a further growth of feudal land ownership. The new Romanov dynasty, strengthening its position, made extensive use of the distribution of land to the nobles.
Vigorous government measures to prevent the flight of peasants were essential for strengthening feudal land ownership. Due to mass exodus and population losses during the Livonian War and the oprichnina, the central regions of the country began to become deserted.
Many landowners went bankrupt, which was unprofitable for the state, since the noble militia still remained the basis of the army. Due to the flight of peasants, the flow of taxes into the treasury also decreased, since privately owned peasants were the main payers of taxes. All this led to the strengthening of the enslavement policy: the period for searching peasants was increased (in 1637 - up to 9 years, 1641 - up to 10-15 years). Even under V. Shuisky, peasant escapes were transferred from the category of civil offenses to the category of state crimes, therefore, the investigation was now carried out not by the owner of the peasants himself, but by the administrative and police authorities.
The legal formalization of the system of serfdom was completed by the Council Code of 1649: the search for runaway peasants became indefinite, the heredity of serfdom was established, and the inhabitants of the towns were assigned to the tax towns communities.
New phenomena in the Russian economy in the 17th century:
Deepening specialization in agriculture (the Middle Volga region, black earth lands in the Orel and Vologda region produced commercial grain; the Upper Volga region was a region of commercial cattle breeding; in the cities located around Moscow, garden crops were grown; cattle breeding developed in the Vladimir region) and crafts (metallurgy centers became Tula-Serpukhov-Moscow region, Ustyuzhno-Zheleznopolskaya region - between Novgorod and Vologda; Tver, Kaluga, Nizhny Novgorod region specialize in the production of textile products; Novgorod-Pskov region, Moscow, Yaroslavl, leather products; Kazan, Vologda);
Transformation of crafts into small-scale production (production of products for sale);
Growth of cities (in the second half of the 16th century - 170 cities, in the middle of the 17th century - 254 cities; the largest city was Moscow, which had about 200 thousand inhabitants);
Development of commodity-money relations; the spread of cash rent in infertile lands; the emergence of fairs of all-Russian significance (Makaryevskaya near Nizhny Novgorod, Irbitskaya in the Urals);
The emergence of the first manufactories. The first manufactories - Pushkarsky Dvor, Mint - appeared in the 16th century. In the 17th century There were about 30 manufactories in Russia. Metallurgical factories were built in the Urals and in the Tula region, leather factories were built in Yaroslavl and Kazan. The state provided the owners of manufactories with land, timber, and money. Manufactories founded with the support of the state later received the name “possession” (from the Latin “possession” - possession);
Formation of the labor market. Since there were no free workers in the country, the state began to assign peasants to manufactories. The assigned peasants had to work off their taxes at the enterprise at certain rates;
The beginning of the formation of the all-Russian market, strengthening of internal economic ties;
Development of foreign trade, strengthening the trade role of Arkhangelsk and Astrakhan. Thus, in the 17th century. The feudal-serf system remained dominant in all spheres of the economy. At the same time, small-scale production and trade grew significantly, manufacturing spread as a form of organization of production, an all-Russian market began to form, and significant capital began to accumulate in the sphere of trade.
The political system of Russia in the 17th century. Domestic and foreign policy activities of the first Romanovs.
The first Romanovs include Mikhail Fedorovich (reigned 1613-1645) and Alexei Mikhailovich (reigned 1645-1676). To this time they also add the reign of Princess Sophia as regent of her younger brothers Ivan and Peter.
To the main events of the first time Romanovs include:
1. Stabilization of the internal life of the country, the establishment of relative order, the formalization of the legal status of the nobility, the Boyar Duma, Zemsky Councils and, accordingly, the strengthening of the autocracy;
2. Church reform, which split society into those who accepted and those who did not accept the new interpretation of church services;
3. Formation of larger military-administrative units - discharges in the border regions of the country;
4. In foreign policy, this was the century of Ukraine’s entry into Russia;
5. In culture and everyday life - the spread of education, the increase in the production of printed books, mainly religious content and textbooks.
In the first years of his reign, Mikhail, due to his youth, sickness and spiritual gentleness, could not do without the help and guidance of his elders. This help was provided to him by relatives on his mother’s side - the boyars Saltykovs, until his father, a monk, Filaret, returned from exile to Moscow. Most historians agree that Michael performed the formal function of the king, and his parents were the actual rulers.
However, the most important factor in his governance were the Zemsky Sobors, which provided significant moral support to the young tsar. Arriving from Kostroma to Moscow after his election, Mikhail did not dissolve the elected zemstvo people, but kept them with him. The elected officials changed from time to time, but the cathedral operated continuously in Moscow for 10 years and helped the Tsar in all important and difficult matters. The staff of the Zemsky Sobor was important for their awareness, knowledge of affairs in the country and its regions, and gave advice on various sectors of the economy.
Throughout the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, the main feature of the Zemsky Sobors was a significant increase in the representation of the lower classes. Unlike the time of Ivan the Terrible and Boris Godunov, representatives of the nobles and townspeople played in the Zemsky Sobors under Mikhail Fedorovich. After the death of Patriarch Filaret (the Tsar's father), some nobles proposed transforming the Zemsky Sobor into a permanent parliament. But this did not suit the autocratic government and over time the Zemsky Sobors met less frequently at first, and then their activities were stopped altogether.
One of the last to be convened was the Zemsky Sobor in 1653 and accepted the population of Left Bank Ukraine and Kyiv into Russian citizenship. Since then, power began to rely not on the representation of the population, but on the bureaucracy and the army. But the most recent council convened was in 1683, the main issue at which should
The period of feudal fragmentation, which all European states experienced, began in Rus' in the second half of the 11th century. and ends at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century. formation of a centralized state. This period can be divided into the following stages:
1) 1054-1113 (from Yaroslav the Wise to Vladimir Monomakh) - a period of feudal strife, movements of princes from one principality to another;
2) beginning of the 12th century. - 1238 - establishment of the boundaries of the principalities;
3) 1238 - beginning of the 16th century. - Mongol-Tatar yoke and gathering of lands around Moscow.
Feudal fragmentation is considered a natural progressive stage in the development of feudalism. The main reason for feudal fragmentation was the strengthening of feudal land ownership under the dominance of subsistence farming. The decline in the role of Kyiv due to the movement of trade routes to Eastern Europe also played a role.
The political system of Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation can be characterized as a feudal federation of principalities. The basis of the ancient Russian federation was not a political agreement, but a genealogical moment - the fact of origin, kinship of the princes. The power of the Kyiv prince was nominal. Relations between princes were regulated by princely treaties, princely congresses and customary law.
The first princes of Kyiv established the political dependence of the regions on Kiev. This dependence was supported by the princely mayors and was expressed in tribute, which was paid to the Grand Duke of Kiev. After the death of Yaroslav the Wise, the mayors of the Prince of Kiev in major cities disappear, local princes stop paying tribute to Kyiv, limiting themselves from time to time to voluntary gifts. From that moment on, there was virtually no state unity on Russian soil.
The second period of feudal fragmentation was marked by an outflow of population from the Dnieper region in two directions: to the west and to the northeast and, accordingly, the strengthening of the Galicia-Volyn and Vladimir-Suzdal principalities. At this time, such an important political event as the separation of seniority from place occurs. Andrei Bogolyubsky, having become the Grand Duke of the entire Russian land, did not leave his inheritance. As a result, the Vladimir-Suzdal principality became XIII century the political center of Russian lands, dominating the rest of Russia, and the city of Vladimir was declared the new capital.
In North-Eastern Rus', a new order of princely ownership is being established, which, in contrast to the regular one, is called appanage. It is characterized by two features: princes become settled owners of their lands, and the order of princely inheritance changes - now the prince transfers the land by personal order. In its essence, each appanage principality was a monarchy. The basis of the sovereign power of the appanage prince was the right of private ownership of the appanage. The appanage order became a transitional political form - from national unity to political unity.
Feudal fragmentation in Rus' was one of the reasons for the establishment of the Tatar-Mongol yoke. The fragmented Russian state could not withstand the onslaught of such a powerful, well-organized, militarily prepared enemy.
The Mongol Empire was a highly developed state. According to the form of government, it was a monarchy; the head of the state was the khan, under whom an advisory body, the kurultai, was convened to resolve important issues. The legislation was characterized by extreme cruelty; death was provided for numerous offenses. The strict discipline established by the Mongols helped to win victories in battles. As you know, the entire Mongol army was divided into tens, hundreds, thousands and darkness (ten thousand). As a rule, relatives served in one ten. If a dozen wavered in battle and ran, the entire hundred they were part of was executed. The same was done with a thousand in case of flight of a hundred. Such a military organization, combined with cunning tactics, could not fail to bring success.
There are historians who deny the very existence of the yoke. So, L.N. Gumilyov, the author of the original concept of the relationship between Rus' and the Horde, argued that there was no yoke, but only a military alliance. After Batu's invasion, the Mongols did not leave garrisons in Russian cities. The tribute that the Russians paid to the Horde was not so much a tribute as a tax for the maintenance of troops called upon to repel aggression from the west on occasion. The Russian principalities that accepted the alliance with the Horde completely retained their ideological independence and political independence. Those principalities that neglected this union were captured partly by Lithuania, partly by Poland, where the Russians faced the fate of second-class citizens.
Special merit in establishing an alliance with the Mongols belongs, according to Gumilyov, to Alexander Nevsky, whose policies determined the principles of the structure of Russia for several centuries to come. The traditions of alliance with the peoples of Asia, founded by the prince, based on national and religious tolerance, until the 19th century. attracted peoples living in adjacent territories to Russia.
Most historians believe that the years of the Mongol yoke were marked by extremely heavy material sacrifices (according to some estimates, only a tenth of the population remained in Russia as a result of resistance to the establishment of the yoke) and a complete decline of Russian culture. At the same time, spiritually, the oppression of the Tatars was not so severe - they did not encroach on the historical traditions and way of life of Rus', were absolutely tolerant, and even provided patronage to the Orthodox Church. In the capital of the Horde, Sarai, there were five Orthodox churches.
Among all the negative consequences of the yoke, one positive can be highlighted - the desire to free ourselves from oppression became one of the factors in the unification of Russian lands.
According to a number of researchers, Rus' owes the centralization of government administration and the accumulation of power to one person to Tatar influence. The khans raised the rank of Grand Duke and gave the Grand Duke power and strength. Together with the Tatars in Rus', the institution of autocracy arose, the suppression of political freedoms, which entailed a change in the character of the Russian people.
With the establishment of the yoke, the former veche order was eliminated, and with it “the sense of individual significance, a person’s awareness of personal dignity and freedom went away. Subservience to superiors and humiliation of inferiors have become the norm of social life and, unfortunately, the qualities of the Russian person.” On this occasion N.M. Karamzin wrote: “Forgetting people’s pride, we learned the base tricks of slavery, replacing strength in the weak; deceiving the Tatars, they deceived each other more; paid off with money from the violence of the barbarians, became more selfish and insensitive to insults, to shame, subject to the insolence of foreign tyrants.”
Close contacts between Rus' and the Horde had another consequence for Russian statehood: a significant number of domestic statesmen were of Tatar origin. Klyuchevsky names the most famous names clans of Tatar blood: Arakcheevs, Akhmatovs, Godunovs, Dostoevskys, Karamzins, Mendeleevs, Turgenevs, Yusupovs. The Tatars gave Russia two kings: Boris and Fyodor Godunov, and five queens, including the mother of Peter I, Natalya Naryshkina.
During the period of feudal fragmentation in Rus', a fairly large number of sources of law were in force: from Russian Truth to princely treaties. But the most famous legal documents of this time are the Pskov and Novgorod judicial charters. To understand their legal uniqueness, it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of the state structure of the Pskov and Novgorod feudal republics. These features were determined by their remote location from the rest of the Russian lands, the impossibility of developed arable farming due to climatic conditions, and active participation in trade turnover, which was facilitated by proximity to the main river basins of the East European Plain. As a result, the basis of the local national economy was not arable farming, but crafts and trade. This predetermined the greater democracy of the political system. The Novgorodians, for example, introduced into their state system such important principles as the selectivity of the highest administration and a series, that is, an agreement, with the princes. The mayor, the thousand and even the bishop were elected at the assembly. The prince, whose necessity was dictated by external danger (remember the struggle of Alexander Nevsky with the Germans and Swedes), sealed the rights of the Novgorodians with a kiss of the cross. The prince was the highest government and judicial authority in Novgorod, led the administration and court, and sealed deals. But he exercised all these powers not at his own discretion, but in the presence and with the consent of the mayor.
The mayor was elected at the veche and actually limited the power of the prince. The competence of the mayors was very broad. They commanded the militia, took part in the court, and negotiated with neighboring states.
Along with the mayor, Tysyatsky played an important role, who V Novgorod, unlike other lands, regulated trade and was a judge in trade matters.
The veche, which in its essence was a city meeting, met at the sound of the veche bell and consisted of the free male population. The veche worked irregularly, but met frequently. The competence of the veche included the adoption of legislation, the election of officials, the establishment of taxes, the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace. The veche also had judicial power.
The draft decisions discussed at the meeting were prepared by the city elite - the council of gentlemen, which had greater importance in the political life of the city. In fact, power in the city belonged to the council, formed from the boyars and the highest ranks of the city administration: mayor, tysyatsky, old (resigned positions) mayors and tysyatsky, elders of the city ends. This body was headed by the bishop.
Since Novgorod was big city, it was divided into five districts called ends. At the head of the ends stood the elders, the ends were divided into hundreds with centurions at the head, and also into the streets.
Pskov, initially dependent on Novgorod, as its economic independence increased, began to strive for political independence and eventually achieved it. The political bodies of Pskov were almost no different from those of Novgorod, only there were no tysyatskys, instead of whom the second mayor was elected.
The Pskov and Novgorod judicial charters, which will be discussed below, are monuments of veche legislation. Both of them were compiled in the middle of the 15th century, but from Novgorod charter Only a fragment dedicated to the trial has reached us.
The Pskov Judgment Charter is much richer in content than the Russian Pravda. Civil law norms, including those devoted to property rights, occupy a significant place in it. The charter distinguishes between immovable (forest lands, lands and waters) and movable property, and determines the methods of establishing ownership. Many articles relate to collateral law, as well as to contracts. The letter speaks of the following agreements: donations, purchase and sale, barter, luggage, loan, lending, personal hiring, swindling and rental of premises. Thus, a real estate purchase and sale agreement and a loan agreement for an amount exceeding one ruble were concluded in writing. If a real estate purchase and sale agreement was concluded while drunk, then it, like the exchange agreement, was declared invalid.
The charter recognizes inheritance by law and by will. To the number possible heirs include: father, mother, son, brother, sister and other close relatives. In the absence of a will, the spouse inherited the deceased spouse's property unless he remarried.
The Pskov Judicial Charter also contains norms of criminal law. One of the main punishments for various crimes remains a fine - sale. Murder was punishable by sale in the amount of one ruble. Apparently, pulling out a beard was considered a more serious crime, punishable by a fine of two rubles. Punishments included the death penalty. It was used for qualified theft (theft in a temple, horse theft, theft for the third time), for perevet (high treason), and arson.
The highest judicial body, according to the Pskov Judicial Charter, was the prince, who judged together with the mayor. The trial was accusatory in nature, failure to appear in court entailed the loss of the case. Among the judicial evidence, in addition to those listed in the Russian Pravda, the charter also included written evidence (boards) and a judicial duel (field). In the event of a judicial duel, women, minors, old people and the sick could represent their representative in their place.
The plaintiff and defendant could be any person, regardless of gender and class. It was allowed to send an attorney - a relative or a stranger - to the trial in one's place. The court hearing began with the kissing of the cross. This was done both by the judges, who promised to judge truthfully and not to take bribes, and by the parties, who considered their cause to be just. The party that refused to kiss the cross automatically lost the case.
The charter admits all persons as witnesses, with the exception of complete serfs and residents of Pskov, relations with whom, obviously, during the period of drawing up the charter were tense.
The charter established various types of judicial deadlines. For judges, the period for consideration of a case was limited to a month, and for land cases - two months. For the parties, the period was set depending on their place of residence. The size of court fees was also determined. For example, in criminal cases the judge received from 2 to 4 hryvnia.
The trial was preceded by a preliminary examination of the case - a kind of investigation, which was carried out by an assistant judge - tiun. After the investigation was completed, he brought the case to the judge and brought in the litigants.
Another characteristic monument of law of this period is the Dvina charter. It was given by the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily Dmitrievich in 1397 to the Dvina region, which recognized the power of the Moscow prince. In terms of content, the Dvina Charter can be divided into four parts: 1) on the types of court for criminal offenses; 2) about the court procedure; 3) on jurisdiction; 4) about trade duties. The first type of court was the murder court, which belonged to the princely governor. The community was entrusted with the responsibility to find the murderer and hand him over to the governor, otherwise the community itself paid a viru of 10 rubles to the treasury. Killing a slave was not considered a crime. The second type of trial is cases of beatings, wounds, dishonor. In these cases, the offender paid the victim and the treasury from 15 to 30 squirrels. If the beatings were inflicted at a feast, the court belonged not to the princely governor, but to the community. The third type of court is about violation and damage to boundaries. For this it was necessary to levy a fine to the treasury. The fourth type of judgment is about theft. For the first theft, the thief was charged the value of the stolen item, for the second he was sold into slavery, for the third he was sentenced to hanging. For the first time, the branding of a thief is mentioned: “and the thief of every stain.” The order of the trial was as follows. The plaintiff appealed to the princely governor, and he summoned the defendant to court, sending two persons for him - a nobleman, his servant, and a subordinate, elected from the population. If the defendant could not appear immediately, he provided a guarantee that he would appear within a certain time, otherwise he was arrested and put in chains. If the defendant failed to appear within the prescribed period, he was found guilty without trial and the plaintiff was given a certificate of indemnity. In addition, the charter spoke about different types of court fees. Regarding jurisdiction, the charter determines that everyone must be tried in his own area, and criminals are tried in the place where they committed the crime. In conclusion, the Dvina Charter establishes trade duties for nonresident traders.
Lecture 3. The formation of the Russian centralized state and its legal system(XIV-XVI centuries)
The 14th century became a turning point in the fate of the Russian people and the Russian state. Moscow became the city around which the unification of Russian lands took place. The first mention dates back to 1147. Moscow, in less than a hundred and fifty years, grew into an appanage, and then into an independent great principality, so strong that it became equal to the other oldest great principalities of north-eastern Russia.
Historians have argued a lot about why Moscow was destined to become the capital of the new state. This was also explained by its beneficial geographical location, and the genealogical position of its princes, and support from the Orthodox Church.
One way or another, the Moscow princes managed to achieve important political successes, and above all, expand their territory. Klyuchevsky names five main ways to expand the territory of the Moscow Principality: buying up land , armed seizure, diplomatic seizure (with the help of the Horde), service contract with an appanage prince, resettlement beyond the Volga. As a result, by the middle of the 15th century. The Moscow principality was already the largest in Rus'.
The strengthening of the principality occurred as follows.
The Moscow principality began to stand out from the time when the son of Alexander Nevsky, Daniel (1276-1303), became the prince of Moscow. Daniel managed to capture Kolomna from the Ryazan princes and inherit the Pereyaslav principality. Daniel's son Yuri annexed Mozhaisk to the Moscow principality, after which he decided to fight the Tver prince Mikhail to receive a label for the great reign from the Golden Horde.
Grand Duke Mikhail was summoned following his denunciation to the khan's headquarters and executed. But the Tver princes, in turn, accused Yuri of concealing tribute that should go to the khan. He was summoned to the Khan's headquarters, where he was killed.
In the end, Yuri's brother, Ivan Daniilovich Kalita (1325-1340), received the label for the great reign. Ivan Kalita annexed a number of cities to the Moscow Principality: Uglich, Belozersk, Galich. IN complete dependence from Ivan Kalita was Rostov Principality. Moscow becomes the center of the struggle for national freedom, unity and state independence of Russia. During Kalita's reign, Moscow became the permanent residence of the head of the Russian Church - the Metropolitan and thereby became an ecclesiastical center.
Kalita's successors - Semyon (1340-1353) and Ivan II (1353-1359) continued to increase the territory of the Moscow Principality. Under Kalita's grandson, Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy (1359-1389), the Moscow principality fought against Tver princes, who entered into an alliance with Lithuania and relied on Golden Horde. As a result, Prince Mikhail of Tver made peace with Dmitry Ivanovich and recognized him as his “eldest brother.” The Principality of Moscow at this time was so strong that it made an attempt to free itself from Tatar yoke. An important milestone in this process was the Battle of Kulikovo, which took place in 1380. The formation of a centralized state - a progressive phenomenon, as it creates more favorable conditions for economic and cultural development, increasing defense capability. All states that survived the period of feudal fragmentation come to a centralized state if this is not prevented external reasons. Simultaneously with Russia, centralization processes took place in Western Europe: France, England, Spain, Sweden, as well as in the East: Korea and China. But, as usual, we have this process had its own characteristics: firstly, if in Europe centralization occurred at the stage of the decomposition of feudalism, simultaneously with the beginning of the formation of a single internal market, then in Russia centralization was accompanied by the strengthening and development of feudalism, the growth of serfdom throughout the country. As a result, the unification had insufficient economic prerequisites with clearly expressed political prerequisites. Secondly, the characteristics of Russia were determined by weaker urban development than in Europe. As a result, the leading social force of the unification became not the townspeople and merchants, as in the West, but the landowners: first the boyars, and then the nobility. The third feature was the special role of political power due to external danger.
A new period in Russian history - the period of Muscovite Rus' - begins, according to Klyuchevsky, from the middle of the 15th century, or more precisely, from 1462, when Ivan P1 ascended the throne. Feeling themselves in a new position, the Moscow government began to look for new forms for itself that would correspond to this situation. Ivan III married for the second time the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Sophia Paleologus. This marriage had the significance of a political demonstration - the heiress of the fallen Byzantine house transferred its sovereign rights to Moscow. After final fall yoke in 1480. Ivan III goes to international arena with the title of Sovereign of All Rus', which was formally recognized by Lithuania in the treaty of 1494. In relations with less significant foreign rulers, Ivan III calls himself tsar, which at that time meant a ruler who does not pay tribute to anyone. From the end of the 15th century. a Byzantine double-headed eagle appears on the seals of the Moscow prince, and in the chronicles of that time a new genealogy of Russian princes is recorded, going back to the Roman emperors. Later, under Ivan IV, the idea arose that “Moscow is the Third Rome.”
The son of Ivan III, Vasily III, continued the policy of annexing Russian lands to the Moscow state. In 1510 Pskov was annexed, in 1514 - Smolensk, in 1521 - Ryazan.
The unification of the country set the task of codifying legislation, because uniform legal norms should apply in a single state. This problem was solved by the adoption of the Code of Laws of 1497.
The content of the Code of Law of 1497 is aimed at eliminating the remnants of feudal fragmentation, creating a central and local government apparatus, developing norms of criminal and civil law, judicial system and legal proceedings. The class orientation of the Sudebnik is also obvious. In this regard, of particular interest is the article establishing St. George's Day - the only period of peasant transition allowed in the year.
The rules governing the court and process occupy a large place in the Code of Laws. Given the importance of this monument of law, these norms will be considered in some detail.
The Code of Law established the following types of judicial bodies: state, spiritual, patrimonial and landowner.
State judicial bodies were divided into central and local. The central state judicial authorities were the Grand Duke. The Boyar Duma, respectable boyars, officials in charge of individual branches of palace administration, and orders.
The central judicial bodies were the highest authority for the court of governors and volosts. Cases could move from a lower court to a higher court on a report from a lower court or on a complaint from a party.
The Grand Duke considered cases as a court of first instance in relation to the residents of his domain, particularly important cases or cases committed by persons who had the privilege of the prince's court, which usually included holders of tarhan letters and service people (starting with the rank of stolnik), as well as cases filed personally in the name of the Grand Duke.
In addition, the prince considered cases sent to him “according to a report” from a lower court for approval or cancellation of a decision made by the court, and also served as the highest court of appeal in cases decided by lower courts, carrying out the so-called “retrial.” Along with independent consideration of cases, the Grand Duke could entrust the analysis of the case to various judicial bodies or persons specially appointed by the prince - good boyars and other ranks in charge of individual branches of palace management.
The connecting link between the court of the Grand Duke and the rest of the judicial authorities was the Boyar Duma. The Boyar Duma consisted of “introduced boyars” - people introduced into the palace of the Grand Duke as permanent assistants in administration, former appanage princes elevated to the rank of Duma boyar, and okolnichy - persons who held the highest court positions.
The highest ranks of the Boyar Duma - boyars and okolnichy - were in charge of issues of court and administration. However, the nobility, trying to limit the rights of the boyars, ensured that legal proceedings were carried out in the presence of its representatives - clerks.
The Boyar Duma, as a court of first instance, judged its own own members, officials of orders and local judges, dealt with disputes about localism and claims of service people who did not enjoy the privilege of the grand ducal court.
The Boyar Duma was the highest authority in relation to the decisions of the local court. Cases withdrawn from independent consideration by the viceroyal court were transferred to it “on the basis of a report.” Cases were also transferred to the Boyar Duma from the order judges, usually in two cases: when there was no unanimity between the order judges when deciding the case or when there were no precise instructions
in law.
In the first case, the case could be considered by the Boyar Duma without appealing to the Grand Duke. In cases where explanations under the law were required, the report was sent to the prince or discussed by the Boyar Duma in the presence of the Grand Duke, who determined and approved the decision on the case.
Besides this. The Boyar Duma was, along with the Grand Duke, an appellate authority.
Most cases were dealt with by orders. The Grand Duke “ordered” this or that person to be in charge of some “business” or branch of management. He, as a specialist in a certain industry, was entrusted with the analysis of disputes and cases related to this industry. According to the interpretation of L.V. Tcherepnin, the question of appointing a judge to examine a particular case is decided each time, “ordered” by the Grand Duke.
The system of orders that was emerging at that time made it possible for the emergence of special court orders - Serf, Robber, Local, Judicial.
Locally, judicial power belonged to governors and volosts.
The governor was placed “in the place of the prince” to carry out administration and justice, usually in the territory of a city with a district.
In the volosts (that is, in parts of the county), the functions of administration and court were carried out by the volostels. Governors and volostels were appointed by the prince from among the boyars for a certain period of time, usually a year, and were supported by the population, which provided them with the so-called “food”. Hence they received the name “feeders.” In addition to governors and volostels, in Moscow and the Moscow volosts there were “sovereign tiuns”, who also enjoyed the right of court and administration and collected income from the governor’s and their own court in favor of the sovereign, and in other areas - boyar tiuns, transferring the income from the court to their boyar.
If not one, but two or more governors or volosts were sent to one locality, then they divided their feeding equally (Article 65).
The desire of the Sudebnik to centralize the judicial apparatus was especially pronounced when determining the rights of the viceroyal court.
The Code of Law of 1497 establishes two types of feedings : feeding without a boyar court and feeding with a boyar court. The governors and volostels, who held co-operation with the boyar court, had the right to make a final decision on a number of the most important cases (about slaves, thieves, robbers). Governors and volostels who held feeding without a boyar court, as well as sovereign and boyar tiuns did not have the right of final court in these cases and were obliged to “report” their decision for approval by a higher court (Article 43).
The highest authority for the feeder without a boyar court was the Boyar Duma, for the sovereign tiuns - the Grand Duke, for the boyar tiuns - the corresponding governor with the boyar court.
In addition to the confiscation of the most important cases from feeders without a boyar court. The code of justice also established control over the feeders with the boyar court on the part of the “good”, “best” people, that is, representatives of the most prosperous local population (Article 38). The spiritual courts were divided, in turn, into the courts of bishops, where the judge was the bishop or appointed they had governors, and monastery courts, where the judge was the abbot or the “clerks” appointed by him.
Just like the feeders, bishops and abbots received remuneration from the population under their jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of spiritual courts included the clergy, peasants at the disposal of church and monastic feudal lords, as well as people “who fed at the expense of the church” (Article 59).
The jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts also included the analysis of marriage and family matters, relations between parents and children, and inheritance cases.
The following were removed from the jurisdiction of the spiritual courts: firstly, the most important criminal cases - “murder” and “red-handed robbery”, even if committed by persons within the jurisdiction of the spiritual court, since the consideration of these cases was the exclusive competence of state bodies; secondly, cases committed by persons subject to different jurisdictions. For example, disputes between peasants and servants of spiritual and secular feudal lords or peasants and servants belonging to different feudal lords were resolved by the so-called “local » court.
The “local” or “magisterial” court consisted of representatives of both courts, which had jurisdiction over the disputants.
For example, representatives from the spiritual and secular courts participated in the analysis of disputes between peasants of spiritual and secular feudal lords.
The Code of Law of 1497 “knows” a whole staff of judicial workers , helping the court and the parties to bring the accused to court, to search for and bring them to court, to inform the parties about the place and time of the hearing, to obtain evidence and to obtain the confession of the accused.
These persons were called nedelschiki or eaters in Moscow and closers in the provinces.
For searching for the defendant and presenting him with an attached or urgent letter or appointing guarantors for him within the same city, the week worker received a reward called “walked” in the amount of 10 money (Article 29).
If a week worker had to travel to other cities to find the defendant, he received a “ride”, the size of which was determined by the distance and ranged from 10 altyns to 8 rubles (Article 30). Along with finding the defendant, the week worker helped the party in finding the “truth”, that is, he helped investigate the case on the spot and collect evidence. In this case, the wages of the week-worker were doubled (Article 29).
However, the weekly was given to the party only if the amount of the claim exceeded the cost of the “ride”. “And if there are fewer people involved in the attached lawsuit, the clerk will not sign those attached” (Article 28).
Thus, for minor claims, which were most often common among the poor or dependent population, the court did not assist in finding the defendant.
The non-worker had to carry out his functions not only at the request of the party, but also at the initiative of the court, when the court itself, through its officials, took measures to search for the criminal
It is possible that the weekmen were specially sent to catch “tats”, that is, dashing people, robbers, in the most troubled areas.
The weekly worker was also entrusted with the investigation of the case, the results of which he was obliged to report to the prince or judge.
Week workers were prohibited from accepting “promises from the court or from bail,” that is, bribes from parties for the proceedings of the trial or guarantee, to connive with the thieves they were sent to find, to release them, or to dispose of them in any other way (vv. 33-36).
The Code of Law’s requirement to “give justice to all complainants” is based on the desire ruling class to concentrate the analysis of all cases precisely in the bodies of the state court, which guards the interests of the ruling class, and to prevent the analysis of the case according to ancient customs or by transferring the case to an elected arbitration court. The provision “on giving a trial to every complainant” also indicates that, in contrast to Russian Pravda, which deprived some categories (slaves, partial purchasers) of the right to go to court. The Code of Law of 1497 recognizes everyone, including serfs, as subjects of law, that is, capable of seeking and answering in court.
In addition, the court’s interest in examining a large number of cases is also explained by the fact that court fees served to a certain extent to increase the prince’s income.
In order to protect the class interests of the feudal lords, the Code of Law prohibited judges from taking promises (bribes) and deciding cases based on the personal benefits of the judges: “And the court does not take revenge or befriend anyone,” because in the case of a “promise” taken or a special attitude towards a party, the judge violated the established rules laws, that is, the will of the state.
At the same time, going to court for the poor and dependent population was made very difficult by the establishment of a number of court fees, which were charged for going to court (Article 3), for searching for the defendant and ensuring his appearance in court, for conducting an investigation into the case by a weekly worker (Article 3). 29), for the court to set a deadline for the consideration of the case or to postpone the case to another date (Article 26), for the opportunity to seek the truth in the field (Article 6). The duty was also collected in cases where the parties “go to court before reaching the field, but without standing at the field, they make peace” (Article 4).
All types of letters issued by the court were paid with court fees - legal (Article 22), non-judicial (Article 25), vacation certificate (Article 17).
An additional fee was subject to the so-called “retrial”, that is, appealing a court decision (Article 64), or sending the case “on the basis of a report” to a higher authority (Article 24).
The higher the court level, the higher the court fees.
When applying to the court, fees were collected from the party that was most interested in the outcome of the case. If the party paying the fee won the case, it "looked for" it "at fault."
The Code of Law of 1497 contains many features similar to legal proceedings established back in the days of Russian Pravda and of an adversarial nature.
At the same time, the Code of Laws indicates the emergence of a new form of process. Strengthening class contradictions in the Moscow principality in the 15th century. leads to the fact that when accused of the most serious crimes, an investigative, or inquisitorial, form of process is used , which was then called detective or search.
This form of process (search), unlike the adversarial form, did not require the parties to participate in court and the presence of a complaint to initiate a case. With this form of process, the investigation of a particular case and the prosecution of the guilty or suspect could begin on the initiative of the court itself, which in this case was the plaintiff on behalf of the state.
Cases of murder, robbery, red-handed robbery by a “dashing,” that is, unreliable, person, or any “dashing matter” aimed at undermining the power of the state or the foundations of the feudal system were subject to investigation by the court using investigative procedures.
The procedure for investigating these cases also differed from the adversarial process.
If in the adversarial process the initiative of the trial itself was mainly in the hands of the parties, on whom the presentation of certain evidence to the court depended; it was possible to replace the parties with hirelings, abandonment of the claim and reconciliation of the parties, then in the investigative process the entire initiative was in the hands of the court, which accepted everything necessary, in his opinion, measures to investigate the case. The possibility of replacing the defendant with a hirer or terminating the case was excluded.
The investigative form of the process was established not only in cases the investigation of which was initiated by the state, but also in cases of especially dangerous crimes - robbery, robbery, murder, initiated at the initiative of the injured party, if these crimes were committed by “dashing” people or pose a danger to the state.
When considering these cases, a different system of evidence was used and the possibility of ending the case with reconciliation of the parties was excluded.
The adversarial process had its own characteristics. Anyone could be a party to the process - from minors to slaves inclusive. Moreover, the latter could act either on their own behalf or as hirelings for their master or the persons who hired them.
If a party was unable to personally participate in the process, he was given the right to nominate a hireling for himself (Article 52).
The parties and rumors (witnesses) could “cleanse themselves with an oath,” and for hirelings there was a mandatory “field”: “And kiss the plaintiff or hearsay, and beat the hireling...” (Article 52).
This explains the fact that the slaves of their masters often acted as hirelings.
It can be assumed that, along with replacing a party with a hireling, the participation in court of relatives of the parties was allowed - father for son, son for father, brother for brother, nephew for uncle, husband for wife. The party initiating the case was called: “seeker”, “complainant”, “petitioner”, the accused party was called “defendant”.
The case began based on the plaintiff’s complaint, the so-called “petition,” which outlined the subject of the dispute and, as a rule, was verbal.
Upon receipt of the petition, the court appointed a judge and issued to the bailiff, that is, the person whose duty was to bring the parties to court, a special “letter of attachment,” which indicated the price of the claim and its grounds. In addition to the “additional” letter, an “urgent” letter was given, which the weekly worker was obliged to hand over to the parties and either personally deliver the defendant to the court, or take him on bail (Articles 36, 37).
The guarantors ensured the defendant's appearance in court and, if he failed to appear in court, paid all court fees and fines. They were also responsible for the defendant’s failure to comply with the penalty imposed on him.
The parties were required to appear in court within the time specified in the urgent letter.
The deadline could be “unsubscribed,” that is, postponed, by first notifying about it and paying an additional fee (walking or riding) (Article 26).
The failure of the defendant to appear in court on time entailed his being found guilty without examining the case and the issuance of a so-called “court-free certificate” to the plaintiff on the eighth day after the appointed court date (Article 27).
The failure of the plaintiff to appear resulted in the termination of the case. There was no time limit for filing a complaint, with the exception of land disputes.
It was possible to file a claim for land only within a certain period: from three to six years.
A three-year limitation period, that is, the right to go to court only during this period, was established for claims of landowners against each other. “But a boyar will exact a punishment from a boyar, or a monastery from a monastery, or a boyar from a monastery, or a monastery from a boyar, otherwise judge for three years, but do not judge beyond three years” (v. 63). The statute of limitations for land disputes increased to six years if the claim affected the grand ducal lands. “But they will punish the boyar or the monasteries of the great prince of the land, otherwise judge for six years, and then not judge” (v. 63).
If a claim was filed, the statute of limitations was suspended, and until the dispute was resolved by the court, the lands were transferred under the supervision of a bailiff, who must ensure that these lands were not subject to seizures and raids.
These disputed lands were temporarily at the disposal of the Grand Duke and were often given to one side or another for cultivation until the case was resolved.
The process was adversarial in nature, in which both parties were considered plaintiffs.
The types of evidence were the following: 1) own confession; 2) testimony of witnesses; 3) “field”; 4) oath; 5) lot; 6) written evidence.
Own confession provided for the possibility of admitting or waiving all or part of the claim and could occur at any stage of the consideration of the case. If the claim was fully recognized, the trial was terminated (Articles 4, 5, 53). Witness testimony was called obedience. The Code of Law of 1497, unlike the Russian Pravda, does not divide witnesses into rumors - witnesses of good fame, and vidoks - direct eyewitnesses.
According to the Code of Laws, hearing was a witness to a fact, an eyewitness: “...and not seeing by hearing, not obeying...” (Article 67).
Anyone could be a rumor, including slaves. However, the testimony of witnesses was assessed depending on their social class.
The most frequently heard rumors, especially in land disputes, were old residents, also called “healers.” These were old people who could tell the judge: “I remember this, sir, for seventy or fifty years,” having a reputation for being “kind,” that is, trustworthy, people and knowing all the details of this land dispute. The hearings could also be the former owners of the disputed property, the drafters of written documents, clerks and officials - traveling men, “otvodchiki” (persons who participated in the allotment of land), as well as the judges themselves.
Unlike the parties, rumors could not replace themselves with a hireling: “... but there is no hireling for rumors” (v. 49).
The hearing's appearance in court was mandatory. In case of failure to appear, the claim and all damages and fees were transferred to the hearing officer.
If the hearing officer’s failure to appear occurred due to an incorrectly specified deadline by the bailiff, the hearing officer could recover his losses from the bailiff through the court. False testimony of the hearing, discovered after the trial, entailed the obligation to pay the hearing to the party the amount of the claim and all losses incurred by it.
Failure to confirm by hearsay the circumstances cited by the plaintiff deprived the plaintiff of the right to satisfy the claim.
Witnesses must be “good people,” that is, have a reputation for trustworthiness. This is clearly evidenced by the articles of the Code of Law regulating disputes under sales and purchase agreements. “And whoever buys something new at a trade is like a horse, and buys from someone without knowing him, and two or three good people know and are caught from him, and those good people will say by right that he bought before them in a trade, otherwise he is right who is caught and has no kissing” (v. 46).
“Field” meant a duel between the parties. “Field” could replace witness testimony.
A duel, or, in the terminology of the Sudebnik, a “field” , appointed only for personal claims that do not affect the interests of the state. Participation in the “field” was mandatory for both parties, either personally or through mercenaries. Refusal to "field" was considered as an admission of guilt. The battle was preceded by a cross kiss from both sides, even if it was not the side itself that was fighting, but a hireling.
The fight took place in the presence of well-wishers and friends of both sides.
To ensure order when resolving a dispute “in the field”, the duel had to take place in the presence of certain persons - solicitors and guarantors, who were allowed, unlike the “oprichnaya”, that is, outsiders, to stand at the “field”, but without weapons.
The observation of the duel was carried out by the okolnichy and the clerk (Article 68). The side defeated in the duel paid the claim, court and field duties, gave the okolnichy his armor and was “executed and sold” by the judge (Article 7). The same penalty followed if the party did not appear on the “field” or ran away from it.
However, the “field” as evidence that could not protect the interests of the state was allowed only in exceptional cases when it was not possible to examine the case with the help of other evidence.
The Code of Law provided for the possibility of replacing the “field” with an oath (Article 48). The oath, like the “field,” was used in the absence of other, more reliable types of evidence.
Initially it formed part of the “field”, but gradually began to be used as independent evidence. For the most part the oath was used in disputes between foreign traders when there were no witnesses to the agreement (provisions already known to Russian Pravda).
Depending on who took the oath - whether the plaintiff confirms his claim or the defendant, by taking the oath, clears himself of the claim - the oath was either confirmatory or clearing.
The question of who should take the oath - the plaintiff or the defendant - was decided by lot.
The lot is not mentioned in the Code of Laws as an independent proof.
Written evidence can be divided into two groups.
First group : contractual acts concluded by the parties - loan and service bonds, in-line, deeds of sale, mortgages, spiritual.
Second group : official acts issued on behalf of the state - letters of complaint, land survey acts, court decisions: “full”, “report”, “fugitive” and legal documents.
In cases of disputes over contractual acts, these documents had to be confirmed by witnesses, and in the absence of the latter, by the “field”.
Official acts also required confirmation, especially “right” and “fugitive” charters.
The court decision was entered into the “court list”. At the request of the party, she could be given a copy of this list, which included the protocol of the trial.
The investigative, or inquisitorial, process was subject to investigation of cases that were especially dangerous for the state.
The case began either by initiative; the state itself or by slander of someone on the part of “good” people.
The appearance of the defendant in court depended not on the agreement of the parties, but on the state, which delivered the defendant to the court through special “invitation” letters handed over by week workers.
During the inquisition process, court negotiation and competition between the parties was replaced by interrogation of the accused by the judge.
To find “dashing” people and their sympathizers, general searches were ordered. They were also used to determine the reputation of the defendant, which was given not by all the people who lived with him or knew him, but only by “kind” ones, that is, completely trustworthy.
Povalny was searched for detective purposes, that is, a survey of “good” people was carried out by special officials in the absence of the accused. In case of disagreement in testimony, the case was decided according to the testimony of the majority.
Investigation was obligatory evidence when accusing a person of red-handed robbery or when “framing” a person.
In addition to ordering a general search, interrogation and torture were used during the search. In addition to a general search, torture, and confrontation during the search, examinations and inspection of the crime scene were also used.
Inspections and examinations were carried out by week workers, kissers and other judicial officials in the presence of the “best” people. Wounds, injuries, beatings, corpses, etc. were examined. Inspections included grassed hayfields, damage to boundary signs, arson sites, etc.
Cases investigated in an inquisitorial manner could be terminated or suspended only at the discretion of the court. Sentences and decisions were not subject to appeal and were carried out by the judiciary themselves.
The number of acts subject to criminal punishment in the Code of Laws is greater than in previous legal monuments. This document knows state crimes, crimes in service, crimes against the judiciary. The concept of robbery appears, and qualified types of theft begin to differ.
The code of law provided for the following types of punishments: : death penalty, trade penalty (whip on the market square), monetary penalties. The death penalty was imposed on state criminals, persons who killed their master, thieves caught a second time, and, in addition, “led dashing people” who were not even convicted of a specific crime.
In addition to the laws on the procedure of legal proceedings discussed in detail. The Code of Law also contains some norms related to civil law. For example, three methods of transition from a free state to serfdom are established: self-sale into serfs, appointment as a rural tiun or housekeeper, and marriage to a slave. But a slave who escaped from Tatar captivity became free.
There are also articles on inheritance in the Code of Laws. Inheritance is permitted by law and by will. According to the law, the following order of inheritance was established: first sons, if there were none, then daughters and then other relatives in accordance with the degree of relationship.
Read also:
|
In feudal society, the role of non-economic coercion determined an important feature of feudalism: the combination of property with political power - military, financial, administrative, judicial. Features of feudal land ownership long time determined the hierarchical structure of feudal society.
The supreme owner of the land was the king, who distributed land to his subjects (vassals) for service, and they, in turn, allocated land plots to their vassals. The system of relationships was such that often the king could not interfere in matters between his own vassal and his subordinates. So, for example, in France there was a rule: “my vassal’s vassal is not my vassal.” The power of the feudal lord was unlimited. He had the right to judge, collect taxes, declare war on other feudal lords and make peace with them. Such broad powers of the feudal lord contributed to the weakening of royal power and the collapse European countries(feudal fragmentation). To harmonize the interests of the estates, representative bodies were created within the estates, between the estates and kings. The Spanish Cortes, the English Parliament, the German Reichstag, the Swedish Riksdag, and even the Russian Zemsky Sobor included representatives of the nobility, clergy and townspeople. Peasants were admitted in exceptional cases. This form of monarchy is called estate-representative.
In the 15th century in Western Europe, the overcoming of feudal fragmentation began, there was a gradual strengthening of feudal monarchies and the formation nation states. Political unification became a fact in England, France, the Kingdom of Spain, as well as in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Poland, the Czech Republic and the Muscovite state. Italy remained fragmented, where the process of unification was hindered by the popes.
The reasons for the transition from feudal fragmentation to centralized states were:
Replacement of natural economy by commodity-money economy;
Development of economic ties between different parts of the country;
Growth of cities and urban populations.
The kings were supported by artisans and merchants in centralizing the country. They were interested in the security of trade routes, the abolition of exactions on the borders of feudal domains, and the end of internecine wars. The kings were also supported by the majority of small feudal lords, who expected to find protection from the willfulness of their lords in a strong central government and sought to strengthen their rights to possessions.
Almost all centralized states were national - their population belonged to the same nationality. During the Middle Ages, the origin and formation of modern nations: French, Germans, English, Spanish, Italians, Czechs, Poles, Bulgarians, Russians, Serbs, etc. But there was also a huge multinational state in Europe - the Holy Roman Empire (Germany). In this empire, the unification of territories under a single centralized authority never happened. In Germany, a system of territorial principalities developed. The emperor had no real power over the country; there was no unified legislation, a central administrative apparatus, a unified system of state taxes, etc.
A new political structure was being formed in a centralized state. The country was ruled by a king. He relied on the royal council, which consisted of representatives of the nobility. The Royal Council usually dealt with financial (tax collection) and judicial matters. The state was divided into administrative territories, which were ruled not by local feudal lords, but by the king's servants.
Lesson 1.
Introduction to the course.
- Organization of the educational process.
- Technology of preparation for seminar classes.
- Distribution of topics for abstracts and presentations.
Lesson 2.
- The formation of European medieval civilization and the Slavs in the V-VII centuries.
- Prerequisites for statehood Eastern Slavs. Norman theory.
- Internal and foreign policy Kyiv princes in the 9th-12th centuries.
Lesson 3.
- Paganism of the Eastern Slavs and its features. Pagan reforms and their results.
- The adoption of Christianity in Rus': time, circumstances of baptism. Rus' and Byzantium.
- Old Russian culture X-XIII centuries.
Lesson 4.
- Russian lands during the period of feudal fragmentation. Features of large feudal centers.
- The influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on the prospects for the formation of a unified state.
- The main periods in the process of unifying the lands around Moscow. Moscow princes Ivan Kalita, Dmitry Donskoy, Ivan III.
Lesson 5.
From Rus' to Russia: the state in the 16th-17th centuries.
- The problem of centralization of control during the reign of Ivan IV. Reforms of the Elected Rada and oprichnina.
- Troubled times. Causes and chronograph of the Troubles. Establishment of a new royal dynasty.
- The evolution of the estate-representative monarchy to absolutism. Schism in the church.
Lesson 6.
Russia in the era of modern times.
- The transformative activities of Peter I. The main directions of reforms and their results.
- Priority directions of foreign policy under Peter I. The birth of an empire.
- The era of palace coups. The fate of Peter I's reforms.
Lesson 7.
The era of “enlightened” absolutism of Catherine II.
- European Enlightenment and Russia in the 18th century: ideology, atmosphere of the time.
- Reform intentions of Catherine II and real results.
- Results of foreign policy of the 18th century.
- Culture of the New Age.
Lesson 8.
Control half-semester lesson. Summing up intermediate results.
Lesson 9.
Russia in the Modern Age XIX history century.
- The problem of modernizing the political system. Liberal intentions of Alexander I. Project M.M. Speransky. Liberal reforms of Alexander II.
- The peasant question: from Alexander I to Alexander II. Reform of 1961.
- Development of the revolutionary tradition in Russia: from the Decembrists to populism.
Lesson 10.
Russia at the turn of the era (last third of the 19th century – beginning of the 20th century)
- Economic modernization at the end of the 19th century. – early 20th century Reforms S.Yu. Witte and P.A. Stolypin.
- Development of the political process at the turn of the century. The emergence of political parties in Russia.
- The bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905 and the formation of parliamentarism in Russia.
Lesson 11.
From February to October: the problem of choosing political development in 1917.
- First world war and the national crisis in Russia.
- The February Revolution of 1917 and the development of the political process until October.
- October revolution. The Bolsheviks' course towards socialist construction.
Lesson 12.
Soviet republic in the 20-30s.
- Economic policy of Soviet power. The policy of “war communism” and the NEP. Accelerated construction of a socialist economy during the first five-year plans.
- Political process in the 20-30s. The evolution of monopartyism into totalitarianism. Political repressions of the 30s.
- The world and the USSR on the eve of World War II.
Lesson 13.
Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 USSR in World War II.
Conference. Presentations on the topic. Reports.
Lesson 14.
USSR in the post-war period (1945-1991)
- Political development of the country: de-Stalinization, “thaw” of the 60s, “stagnation” of the 70s.
- Economic development USSR: a country in the era of scientific and technological revolution, problems of the command-administrative system and attempts to reform it in the 60s. Crisis of the 70s
- Social and cultural development of Soviet society in the post-war period: cinema, theater, literature. Soviet aesthetics.
Lesson 15.
From the Soviet Union to modern Russia.
- The collapse of the USSR: objective and subjective factors.
- The policy of “perestroika” M.S. Gorbachev and “market democracy” B.N. Yeltsin.
- Russia in the modern world.
Lesson 16.
Summing up.
Structure of the course “National History” and plans for seminars
Lecture 1.
Introduction to the course of national history. Historiography and sources. Methodology.
Lesson 1. Introduction to the course.
1. Organization of the educational process.
2. Technology of preparation for seminar classes.
3. Distribution of topics for abstracts and presentations.
Lecture 2.
World civilization and Ancient Rus' (V – XII centuries)
Lesson 2.
1. The formation of European medieval civilization and the Slavs in the V-VII centuries.
2. Prerequisites for statehood among the Eastern Slavs. Norman theory.
3. Domestic and foreign policy of the Kyiv princes in the 9th-12th centuries.
Lecture 3.
World religions and Kievan Rus. Baptism of Rus'.
Lesson 3.
1. Paganism of the Eastern Slavs and its features. Pagan reforms and their results.
2.Adoption of Christianity in Rus': time, circumstances of baptism. Rus' and Byzantium.
The influence of Christianity on the socio-economic and political development Rus'.
3.Old Russian culture X-XIII centuries.
Lecture 4.
From feudal fragmentation to a centralized state (XIII-XV centuries).
Lesson 4.
1.Russian lands during the period of feudal fragmentation. Features of large feudal centers.
2. The influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on the prospects for the formation of a single state.
3. The main periods in the process of unifying the lands around Moscow. Moscow princes Ivan Kalita, Dmitry Donskoy, Ivan III.
Home > Educational and methodological complexSection P. EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF CENTRALIZED
RUSSIAN STATE
Topic 3: Russian lands in the era of feudal fragmentation Problems of the formation of national states. From the 9th century In Europe, a long period of formation of royal power begins. Until the 11th century, the personal possessions of the kings were smaller than those of his vassals, and, consequently, his power was small. However, during this era there was a tendency for rapid growth of cities and urban populations. The central, royal power, by collecting taxes from cities, was able to significantly improve its financial position and be less dependent on its vassals. Soon, in England and France, kings also imposed taxes on knights, freeing them from compulsory military service. Thus, the monarch himself now hired an army and paid him a salary. But the army ceased to depend on the feudal lords and ensured the stability of royal power. Since the Norman conquest of England in 1066, there has been a strengthening of central power. However, the long and stubborn resistance of the feudal lords to centralized power led to the fact that in 1215 the monarch was forced to sign the Magna Carta, which limited his power to parliament. The processes of centralization in France developed a little more slowly. But from the XIII to the beginning of the XIV centuries. and here the formation of a strong centralized state takes place. Here Philip IV the Fair (1285 – 1314), relying on the urban lower classes, significantly limited the rights of the feudal lords and their political power. The state administration apparatus was composed of people subordinate to it. In 1302, he convened the Estates General, an advisory body formed by nobles, clergy and the third estate. The support of the population allowed the king to even capture the Pope and move his throne from Rome to Avignon. Thus, in the 14th century, strong centralized states with a monarchical form of government were formed in England and France. Religious institutions here were also made dependent on the will of the king. But, in achieving the unity of the state, the monarchs were forced to rely on the serving nobility and urban residents. Thus, the first institutions of popular representation were born. At the beginning of the 13th century, the Mongol state was formed in Central Asia. The Mongol tribes were decomposing primitive communal relations and the transition to the era “ military democracy" In 1206 in the upper reaches of the river. Onon, a congress of the Mongolian nobility (noyons) - kurultai (khural) took place, at which one of the leaders, Temujin (1162 - 1227), who received the name Genghis Khan - “great khan”, was elected leader of the Mongolian tribes. Having defeated his opponents, he reformed the army and began to rule the country through his relatives and local nobility. Like other peoples, going through the stage of state formation, the Mongols were distinguished by their strength and solidity. Hence the interest in expanding pastures and organizing predatory campaigns against neighboring agricultural peoples, who were at a much higher level of development, although they were experiencing a period of fragmentation. This greatly facilitated the implementation of the Mongol plans of conquest. The Mongols began their campaigns by conquering the lands of their neighbors - the Buryats, Evenks, Yakuts, Uighurs, and Yenisei Kyrgyz (by 1211). They then invaded China and took Beijing in 1215. Three years later, Korea was conquered. Having defeated China, the Mongols significantly strengthened their military potential. Flamethrowers, battering rams, stone-throwers and vehicles were adopted. In the summer of 1219, almost 200 thousand Mongol troops led by Genghis Khan began their conquest Central Asia. Having suppressed the stubborn resistance of the population, the invaders stormed Khojent, Merv, Bukhara, Urgench and other cities. Russian lands inXII– beginningXIIIcenturies After the death of Mstislav the Great in 1132, Rus' entered a new historical era - the era of the political collapse of a single state. The active process of feudal fragmentation was caused by economic, political and social factors. The main reasons for this process include the following: the old method of transferring power became anachronistic, regional centers grew economically and were capable of ensuring independent existence, after the Crusades trade routes in Europe changed, feudal land relations developed and new ones were formed. social classes and groups, there were constant raids of nomads on the steppe zone. On the basis of a single ancient Russian state, approximately 15 principalities and lands were formed by the middle of the 12th century, about 50 principalities by the beginning of the 13th century, approximately 250 in the 14th century. As a result of fragmentation, the largest and most powerful principalities emerged, the names of which were given to the capital cities: Kiev, Chernigov, Rostov-Suzdal, Smolensk, Galicia, Vladimir-Volynsk, Polotsk, Typovo-Pinsk, Novgorod. Each of the lands was ruled by its own dynasty - one of the branches of the Rurikovichs. The Principality of Kiev, although it lost its status as the capital of the state, remained one of the largest, strongest and most prestigious principalities. Here was the center of the Russian church - the metropolis. This principality had the best arable land and the people here lived more prosperously than in other places. And in previous periods, it developed and rebuilt, due to its capital status, much faster than provincial centers. At the same time, the principality was located on the border with the steppe and therefore the inhabitants of the Kiev region were constantly faced with raids by warlike nomads and were forced to resist them. Another strong principality in the 12th century. there was the Galicia-Volyn principality. It was located on the border with Hungary and Poland and this provided it with very convenient and advantageous positions in trade and diplomacy with Western European states. At the same time, it was protected from constant raids by steppe nomads by the Kyiv, Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversky principalities, which ensured its relatively calm and prosperous development. In 1199, Roman Mstislavovich united the principality and began to centralize power, suppressing local boyars and relying on urban people and small landowners. But quite often this principality became dependent on its western neighbors, or even directly captured by the Poles and Hungarians. Novgorod stood out among the cities. The peculiarity of “Mr. Veliky Novgorod” was that it was not a princely center, but was a trade and craft center. During the popular uprising of 1136, princely power was significantly limited and began to play a secondary role in the system of government. Supreme body the city veche (people's assembly) became here. In the Rostov-Suzdal principality (later Vladimir-Suzdal), protected from the attacks of steppe nomads by dense forests, life was calmer, more measured, more leisurely. During the reign of the sons of Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157 - 1174) and Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176 - 1212), a de facto monarchical form of government was established. The struggle of the Russian principalities with the Mongol conquerors and European aggression. After the conquest of Central Asia, the main forces of the Mongols returned home, and one detachment under the command of the military leaders Jebe and Subede invaded Transcaucasia, and then the Caucasus. Having reached the Black Sea steppes, the Mongol detachment encountered the Polovtsians of Khan Kotyan. The Polovtsians turned to the Russian princes for help. On May 31, 1223, the battle took place on the Kalka River, during which the Russian-Polovtsian troops were completely defeated, and the Kiev prince also died. However, the small Mongol reconnaissance force was unable to capture large hostile territories and soon returned to the Mongolian steppe. In 1235, the Mongol congress under the leadership of Ogedei decided to organize a new military campaign to the west and seize Russian lands. This campaign was led by the grandson of Genghis Khan - Batu Khan (1227 - 1255). In 1236, the Mongols defeated and captured Volga Bulgaria, and in 1237 they invaded Rus'. Having captured and plundered Ryazan, Kolomna, Vladimir, the Mongols destroyed the army of Grand Duke Yuri in the Battle of the City River on March 4, 1238. The following year, the Mongols defeated southern Rus', and in 1240 they took Kyiv. In 1241, having passed through Galician Rus', the Mongols devastated Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and the Balkan countries. Only the death of Khan Ogedei forced the Mongols to turn back to the steppe. At the same time, from the west, Danish, Norwegian, and German forces invaded the Baltic lands and Russian principalities from the beginning of the 13th century. knightly orders, having received the blessing of the Pope. In July 1240, the Swedish fleet began to ascend the Neva to fight Novgorod. The Novgorod prince Alexander Yaroslavich (1220 - 1263), with a swift rush of his squad and militia, suddenly attacked the Swedes and defeated them in the battle on the Neva River on July 15, 1240. On April 5, 1242, Alexander Yaroslavich (Nevsky) gave a victorious battle to the troops of the Livonian Order on the shore Lake Peipus, which received the name Ice battle. However, the Russian lands devastated by the Mongols were forced to recognize their vassal dependence on the Golden Horde (the state created by Batu in the occupied territories in 1243). Since then, the Russian princes were forced to receive from the hands of the khan a label (letter) for the Great Reign of Vladimir. Russian lands were obliged to pay tribute to the Mongols, and to control the territories, Baskaq governors were established, relying on their armed detachments. At the beginning of the 14th century, the main issue was the urgent need to unite the Russian lands. At this time, two principalities emerged as collectors: Moscow and Tver. In 1327, the Moscow prince Ivan Kalita (1325 - 1340) took advantage of the uprising of the people in Tver against the Mongol tribute collectors and suppressed it, using Mongol troops. The defeat of Tver led to the strengthening of Moscow. The prince managed to enlist the support of the church and achieve the transfer of the metropolitan department to Moscow. And the Mongol khans entrusted Ivan Kalita with collecting tribute in their favor from Russian lands. The grandson of Ivan Kalita - Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich (Donskoy, 1350 - 1389) - decided to openly oppose Horde rule. In 1378, in the battle on the river. The troops of Murza Begich, who carried out another raid on Russian lands, were defeated. This forced the Mongols to gather all the Horde troops to punish Moscow. The battle between the Russian army and the Mongol-Tatar army under the leadership of Temnik Mamai took place on September 8, 1380 on the Kulikovo field near the Don. The victory of the Russian squads did not lead to independence, because Khan Tokhtamysh, who seized power, was able to gather a new horde and attack Rus' in 1382. He managed to capture Moscow and restore the payment of tribute. However, Dmitry Donskoy remained the Grand Duke and the Horde could no longer remove him at their discretion. In addition, Dmitry officially united the Vladimir and Moscow principalities under his rule and thereby ended the struggle for supremacy in the Russian lands with the victory of Moscow. Moreover, Dmitry transferred power to his son without asking permission from the Horde, and the Horde was forced to take it for granted. After the death of Dmitry Donskoy's son Vasily I, a series of unrest and internecine struggles between the princes began (1425 - 1453). All these years, raids by Mongol troops on Russian lands continued. Feudal War revealed the victory of supporters of state centralization over opponents. Moscow Prince Vasily II refused to recognize the union of the Catholic and Orthodox churches under the leadership of the Pope and insisted on the election of his own, Russian metropolitan, without looking back at the Patriarch of Constantinople, thereby marking the beginning of autocephaly (independence) of the Russian Orthodox Church. Thus, in the XIII - XV centuries. Russian lands experienced a natural and characteristic stage of feudal fragmentation and the maturation of new centers of formation of future national states, which is natural for all European states. This process was delayed and changed in the Russian principalities by the Mongol conquest. The struggle for the great reign revealed a clear victory for Moscow. The Russian Church actively supported the struggle for the unity of the lands. The process of formation of the Russian state with its capital in Moscow became irreversible. Topic 4. Moscow state in XV- XVP centuries. Feudal War of the Second QuarterXVV. (1431 – 1453). At the beginning of the 15th century, a series of unrest and civil strife began in the Moscow principality, caused by the struggle for the grand-ducal table between the grandchildren of Dmitry Donskoy. The main events of the feudal war unfolded between the son of Vasily I, Vasily II (1425 - 1462) and his cousins - Vasily Kosy and Dmitry Shemyaka. However, the underlying cause of this clash was the choice of the path of development of the state: through strengthening state centralization or along the path of strengthening feudal separatism. The feudal war ended with the victory of the forces of centralization after the Moscow boyars and the church finally sided with Vasily Vasilyevich II the Dark. During the reign of Basil II, the Patriarchate of Constantinople signed a union (unification) with the Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope in July 1439. But in Rus' such a union was not recognized and in 1448, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, Bishop Jonah was elected Russian Metropolitan and, thus, the church became completely independent of Constantinople, i.e. autocephalous. Features of the formation of the Russian state. Completion of the process of unification of Russian lands around Moscow c. The centralized state falls during the reign of Ivan III (1462 - 1505) and Vasily III (1505 - 1533). Ivan III, relying on the power of Moscow, managed to practically complete the unification of north-eastern Rus'. In 1468, the Yaroslavl principality was finally annexed. In 1472, the annexation of Perm the Great began. Tver, surrounded by Moscow lands, passed to Moscow in 1485 after its boyars took the oath to Ivan III, who approached the city with a large army. In 1489, the Vyatka land, which was important in commercial terms, became part of the state. In 1503, many princes of the western Russian regions (Vyazemsky, Odoevsky, Vorotynsky, Chernigov, Novgorod-Seversky) moved from Lithuania to the Moscow prince. The Suzdal, Yaroslavl and Rostov princes retained in their hands a considerable part of their hereditary patrimonial wealth. But the liquidation of the sovereignty of the once independent principalities helped the Moscow authorities solve the most difficult task: creating a fund of state lands in the central districts of the state. Annexation of Novgorod. In Novgorod, the nobility broke the princely power and founded a boyar-veche “republic”. The princely domain was expropriated. The princes were forbidden to own lands within the Novgorod borders. The highest official of the veche "republic" was the archbishop. All affairs of Novgorod were managed by elected mayors and boyars, who made up the Council of Gentlemen. However, the most important decisions of the Council were approved by the veche (meeting of Novgorod residents). Novgorod was the oldest city of Rus' with a high level of economic and cultural development. However, with all its power, the “republic” could not spend significant funds on maintaining troops, and its military forces were far inferior to those of Moscow. In the middle of the 15th century. Moscow increased pressure on Novgorod, seeking its subordination to the grand ducal power. Lacking sufficient forces for defense, the Novgorodians tried to rely on outside help. Many believed that only Lithuanian help could save Novgorod from the fate of other Russian lands conquered by Moscow. The Pro-Lithuanian party was led by the influential Boretsky boyar family. Referring to “old times,” Ivan III demanded the complete subordination of the free city. Novgorod's diplomatic efforts did not lead to success. The rapid advance of Moscow troops prevented the Novgorodians from completing negotiations in Vilna. The treaty apparently was not approved by the king, and Lithuania avoided war with Moscow. As for the Horde, it invaded Rus' a year late. Not expecting serious resistance, Ivan III sent troops to Novgorod by different routes. With some delay, Novgorod managed to form a militia of 40 thousand warriors. Ordinary townspeople - most of the militia - had never participated in hostilities before and were armed somehow. The militia was led by mayors Vasily Kazimir and Dmitry Boretsky. In July 1471, the Novgorod army advanced to Sheloni in order to prevent the Pskov troops from joining the Moscow ones and, having waited for help from Lithuania, attacked the regiments of Ivan III. Decisive battle happened on the Sheloni River. The Novgorod militia, having a significant superiority in strength, fought reluctantly. The Novgorod army suffered a crushing defeat. The Novgorodians were subjected to a bloody massacre. The Muscovites killed 12 thousand Novgorodians, and took only 2 thousand people captive. The Novgorodians burned their settlements and began to prepare for a long siege. But Archbishop Theophilus insisted on peace negotiations with Moscow. Perspective long siege cities and the threat of war with Lithuania prompted Ivan III not to hesitate in concluding peace. An indemnity of 16 thousand rubles was imposed on Novgorod. The boyars led the Novgorodians to an oath of allegiance to Ivan III. The Moscow authorities did not dare to abolish the veche system in Novgorod. Subsequent events revealed the incompatibility of republican and monarchical orders. Novgorod was finally annexed to Moscow seven years later, in 1478. He was taken from the city to Moscow veche bell. Moscow's opponents were resettled in the center of the country. Overthrow of the Horde yoke. In 1480 it was finallyThe yoke of the Golden Horde was overthrown. This happened after the Moscow and Mongol armies stood on the Ugra River. At the head of the Horde troops was Akhmat Khan, who entered into an alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian king Casimir IV. Ivan III managed to attract to his side the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey, whose troops attacked the possessions of Casimir IV, disrupting his move against Moscow. After standing on the Ugra for several weeks, Akhmat Khan realized that it was hopeless to engage in battle; and with the establishment of frosts, he withdrew his troops back to the steppe. A few years before 1480, Rus' finally stopped paying tribute to the Golden Horde. In 1502, the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey inflicted a crushing defeat on the Great Horde, after which its existence ceased. VasilyIII. The 26-year-old son of Ivan III and Sophia Paleologus - the niece of the last Byzantine emperor - Vasily III continued his father's work. He began the fight for the abolition of the appanage system and behaved like an autocrat. Taking advantage of the attack of the Crimean Tatars on Lithuania, Vasily III annexed Pskov in 1510. 300 families of the wealthiest Pskovites were evicted from the city and replaced by the same number from Moscow cities. The veche system was abolished. Pskov began to be governed by Moscow governors. In 1514, Smolensk, captured from Lithuania, became part of the Moscow state. Finally, in 1521, the Ryazan land, which was already dependent on Moscow, became part of Russia. Thus, the process of unification of the northeastern and northwestern Rus' in one state. The largest power in Europe was formed, which from the end of the 15th century. began to be called Russia. Centralization of power. Fragmentation gradually gave way to centralization. Ivan III, after annexing Tver, received the honorary title “ By God's grace Sovereign of All Rus'." The princes in the annexed lands became boyars of the Moscow sovereign (“boyarization of princes”). These principalities were now called districts and were governed by governors from Moscow. The governors were also called boyars-feeders, since for the management of the districts they received food - part of the tax, the amount of which was determined by the previous payment for service in the troops. Localism is the right to occupy one or another position in the state, depending on the nobility and official position of the ancestors, their services to the Moscow Grand Duke. A centralized control apparatus began to take shape. Boyar Duma. It consisted of 5 - 12 boyars and no more than 12 okolnichi (boyars and okolnichi are the two highest ranks in the state). In addition to the Moscow boyars, from the middle of the 15th century, local princes from the annexed lands, who recognized the seniority of Moscow, also sat in the Duma. The Boyar Duma had advisory functions on the “affairs of the land.” The future order system grew out of two national departments: the Palace and the Treasury. The palace controlled the lands of the Grand Duke, the Treasury was in charge of finances, the state seal, and the archive. During the reign of Ivan III, a magnificent and solemn ceremony began to be established at the Moscow court. Ivan's Code of LawIII. In 1497, a new set of laws of the Russian state was adopted - the Code of Laws of Ivan III. The Code of Law reflected the strengthening role of the central government in the state structure and legal proceedings of the country. Article 57 limited the right of peasant transition from one feudal lord to another for a certain period for the entire country: a week before and a week after the autumn St. George's Day (November 26). For leaving, the peasant had to pay “elderly” - payment for the years lived in the old place. Limiting the peasant transition was the first step towards the establishment of serfdom in the country. However, until the end of the 16th century. peasants did not retain the right to transfer from one landowner to another. The formation of all large national states is inseparable from a long series of long wars and short respites. Russia is no exception in this regard. But the country had its own peculiarities in the formation of statehood. These were: - large length and openness of borders, huge number various enemies; - interfaith struggle, especially with the Catholic West; - the socio-economic and political processes of the formation of a centralized state took place simultaneously with the struggle for independence. Russian state inXVIV.Transformations of Ivan the Terrible. Territory and population. By the end of the 16th century. The territory of Russia has almost doubled compared to the middle of the century. It included the lands of the Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberian khanates, Bashkiria. The development of fertile lands on the southern outskirts of the country - the Wild Field - was underway. Attempts were made to reach the Baltic coast. Population of Russia at the end of the 16th century. numbered 9 million people. Its main part was concentrated in the north-west (Novgorod) and in the center of the country (Moscow). However, its density even in the most populated lands of Russia, according to historians, was only 1–5 people per 1 sq. km. In Europe, at the same time, population density reached 10 – 30 inhabitants per 1 sq. km. By the end of the reign of Ivan IV, the territory of the country increased more than 10 times compared to what his grandfather Ivan III inherited in the middle of the 15th century. It included rich and fertile lands, but they still needed to be developed. With the inclusion of the lands of the Volga region, the Urals, and Western Siberia, the multinational composition of the country's population further strengthened. Agriculture. The country's economy was of a traditional feudal nature, based on the dominance of subsistence farming. The boyar estate remained the dominant form of land tenure. The largest were the estates of the Grand Duke, Metropolitan and monasteries. Former local princes became vassals of the Sovereign of All Rus'. Their possessions turned into ordinary fiefdoms (“prejudication of princes”). Local land ownership expanded, especially from the second half of the 16th century. The state, in the conditions of a lack of funds to create a mercenary army, wanting to put the boyars-patrimonials and appanage princes under the control of the central government, took the path of creating a state local system. For example, in the center of the country, in the Tula region, 80% of possessions at the end of the 16th century. were estates. The distribution of land led to the fact that in the second half of the 16th century. The black-growing peasantry in the center of the country and in the north-west (peasants who lived in communities, paid taxes and carried out duties in favor of the state) decreased significantly. A significant number of black-sown peasants remained only on the outskirts (north of the country, Karelia, Volga region and Siberia). Domestic policy and Ivan's reformsIV. Years of boyar rule. After the death of Vasily III in 1533, his three-year-old son Ivan IV ascended the grand-ducal throne. In fact, the state was ruled by his mother Elena Glinskaya. Both during the reign of Elena and after her death in 1538, the struggle for power between the boyar groups of the Belskys, Shuiskys, and Glinskys did not stop.
Educational and methodological complex for the discipline “History of economic doctrines” Extract from state higher education
Educational and methodological complexfeatures of economic views in traditional societies(attitude to property, labor, wealth, money, loan interest), systematization of economic knowledge, first theoretical systems(mercantilism, physiocrats, classical
Educational and methodological complex for the discipline of computer circuitry (title)
Educational and methodological complexThe educational and methodological complex is compiled in accordance with the State educational standard higher professional education in accordance with State requirements for the minimum content and level of training
Educational and methodological complex in the discipline “History of Kazakhstan” for non-historical specialties Kostanay, 2010
Educational and methodological complexThe educational and methodological complex of the discipline was compiled by Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Kuzembayuly A., Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Abil E.
Educational and methodological complex for the discipline “History of Russia”
Educational and methodological complexStandard period for mastering the main educational program bachelor's training in the direction 050400.62 SOCIO-ECONOMIC EDUCATION for full-time study - 4 years.
Educational and methodological complex for the discipline “history of the Russian literary language” (title)
Educational and methodological complexState Standards of Higher Professional Education requirements for the mandatory minimum content of the main educational program in the direction of training a certified specialist for specialty 032900 - “Russian language and literature”.
Educational and methodological complex for the discipline “history of state and law of foreign countries”
Educational and methodological complexObjectively analyze and evaluate forms of organization and the evolution of the state and legal structure of foreign countries at various stages of their development;
