Page 1
The main events of this period, which determined the change in the geopolitical status of Russia, were Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople in 907, the conclusion of treaties with Byzantium, the campaigns of Igor and Svyatoslav against Byzantium, Svyatoslav against Khazaria, and the defeat of the Pechenegs by Yaroslav the Wise.
From a strong regional state formed by the 10th-11th centuries, Rus' turned into a cluster of weak appanage principalities.
Let us briefly describe this period. Firstly, the most positive is the period of the reign of Yaroslav the Wise; secondly, the most destructive; thirdly, the final one for this large cycle, ending with the new enslavement of the country, now by the Golden Horde.
1035-1113 can rightfully be designated as a period of active development of the Russian land.
In 1035, Yaroslav the Wise united the Old Russian state. The most important events and phenomena of this period were the compilation of “Russian Truth” and the gradual spread of literacy. Construction of the Church of St. Sophia began in Novgorod (1037). The southern and western borders of the country have been strengthened. Dynastic ties have been established with many European countries. In the middle of the cycle there was a wave of popular uprisings in Kyiv, Novgorod, Rostov-Suzdal, Chernigov lands (1068-1072). The congress of Russian princes in Lyubech (1097) was dedicated to the development of the Russian land. The need to establish law and order gave rise to active lawmaking - in 1113, the Charter of Prince Vladimir supplemented the provisions of the “Russian Truth”, and the compilation of the Tale of Bygone Years began.
The distinctive features of this period are the active formation of the institutional basis of a single state, the assimilation of all ethnic parts of the Russian state. External conditions are relatively favorable.
(1114-1190) is marked by a long-term increase in entropy. The peculiarity of this cycle is an almost complete focus on internal issues, an increase in centrifugal tendencies, and constant problems with succession to the throne. Under Yuri Dolgoruky (1125-1157), the authority of Moscow increases, Novgorod separates from Kyiv (1136). In 1185, Prince Igor Novgorod-Seversky’s unsuccessful campaign against the Polovtsians took place, described in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” According to a multifactorial assessment, this event caused the greatest damage to the country in such positions as “Management”, “Territory”, “Foreign Policy”
Under the pressure of unfavorable conditions, legal and economic humiliation of the lower classes, princely strife and Polovtsian attacks, from the middle of the 12th century. signs of desolation of Kievan Rus and the Dnieper region become noticeable. The river strip along the Middle Dnieper with its tributaries, which has long been so well populated, has been empty since that time, its population disappears somewhere.
The most expressive indication of this is one episode from the history of princely strife. In 1157 Monomakhovich, Grand Duke Yuri Dolgoruky, who was imprisoned in Kyiv, died; His place on the grand-ducal table was taken by the eldest of the Chernigov princes, Izyaslav Davidovich. This Izyaslav, in order of seniority, had to cede the Chernigov table with the region to his younger relative, his cousin Svyatoslav Olgovich, who reigned in Novgorod Seversky. But Izyaslav did not give the entire Chernigov region to Svyatoslav, but only the senior city of Chernigov with seven other cities. In 1159 Izyaslav prepared to go on a campaign against his enemies, the princes of Galicia Yaroslav and Volyn Mstislav, and called Svyatoslav to his aid, but Svyatoslav refused. Then the elder brother sent him this threat: “Look, brother! When, God willing, I manage in Galich, then don’t blame me for crawling from Chernigov back to Novgorod Seversky.” Svyatoslav responded to this threat with such significant words: “Lord, you see my humility, how much I sacrificed my own, not wanting to shed Christian blood, destroy my fatherland; I took the city of Chernigov with seven other cities, and even then they were empty - hounds and Polovtsians live in them.” This means that in these cities there remained princely courtiers and peaceful Polovtsians who crossed over to Rus'. To our surprise, among these seven desolate cities of the Chernigov land we meet one of the oldest and richest cities in the Dnieper region - Lyubech.
Soviet Russia during the NEP years (1921-1929)
Transition from war to peace. International position of the RSFSR in the early 20s. Economic and socio-political crisis in the country at the end of 1920 - beginning of 1921. Tenth Congress of the RCP (b). Introduction of a new economic policy, its goals and essence. NEP measures in agriculture, industry, trade and finance. The inconsistency of the new e...
Reasons and beginning of the trip to Russia
The Napoleonic empire covered the whole of Europe, only Great Britain remained rebellious, and in the east, beyond the Neman River, stretched the great and vast Russia. There could not be two continental powers in Europe, and Napoleon's star shone only thanks to his military genius. We highlight several reasons for Napoleon's eastern campaign. Save...
The fruits of detente and its end
Some warming of relations with Western countries made it possible to significantly expand trade with them. Between 1971 and 1976, the volume of trade with the United States increased 8 thousand times. Relations with Western European countries also developed rapidly. These trade ties were very important for the USSR, as they provided access to advanced industrial technologies. Cro...
The Old Russian state was the largest power in medieval Europe. Rus' developed and occupied a “middle” geopolitical position in the system of neighboring civilizations: between Catholic Europe, the Arab Muslim East, the Eastern Christian Byzantine Empire, the Jewish Khazar Khaganate, and pagan nomads.
History of statehood and public administration in Rus' IX - XIII centuries. was reflected in the oldest all-Russian chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years,” chronicles of individual principalities, charters and other princely acts, works of socio-political thought of Ancient Rus', hagiographic literature, and epic epics. Certain aspects of public administration and the stages of its development in Rus' are covered in Byzantine and European chronicles and Eastern narrative sources.
In pre-revolutionary historiography, the Old Russian state was studied in line with or under the influence of the “state school”, which considered Kievan Rus as a unique society and state that developed in a different way than Europe (the exception was N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky and a small circle of his followers who argued development of feudalism in Kievan Rus). Soviet historiography was limited to a dogmatized variation of the theory of socio-economic formations. M.N. Pokrovsky initially developed the idea of merchant capitalism in relation to this era. Since the late 30s. after the work of B.D. Grekov, the idea of the Old Russian state as an early feudal monarchy was established in official historiography. At the same time, S.V. Yushkov was more inclined to the term “pre-feudal state”; the Belarusian school of historians (A.P. Pyankov, V.I. Goremykina), following S.V. Bakhrushin, defended the slaveholding nature of social relations. AND I. Froyanov and his school (St. Petersburg) substantiate the theory of the patriarchal character of Ancient Rus'. From this point of view, Kievan Rus is not a state, but a giant super-union of tribes, within which city-states are formed. In our opinion, all these concepts are built on the basis of analogies with the European historical process and artificially adjust the facts to the theory of socio-economic formations. In our opinion, it is advisable to consider the formation of public administration in Rus' in the context of a civilizational (cultural-historical) approach, taking into account geoethnocultural genesis, spiritual processes and geopolitical factors that determined the development of ancient Russian statehood in the context of a change in the prevailing types of social development.
In the 13th century Rus' found itself “between two fires” - between a threat from the West (Crusaders) and from the East (Mongols). At the end of the 12th - first half of the 13th century. Northwestern Rus' faced danger from the west in the form of German crusading knights, as well as Danish and Swedish feudal lords who laid claim to the Baltic lands.
In the summer of 1240, Swedish ships under the command of Birger entered the mouth of the Neva, where they were defeated by the forces of the small squad of the Novgorod prince Alexander Yaroslavich. This victory stopped the advance of the Swedes for a long time, and also helped strengthen the authority of the young prince, who after the victory over the Swedes began to be called Nevsky. In 1240, the crusading knights occupied the Pskov fortress of Izborsk, and then fortified themselves in Pskov itself. A year later, the Germans invaded Novgorod. In response to this, in 1241 Alexander Nevsky captured the Koporye fortress, and in the winter of 1242 he liberated Pskov from the crusaders. Then the princely Vladimir-Suzdal squad and the Novgorod militia moved to Lake Peipus, where on April 5, 1242, a decisive battle took place, which went down in history as the Battle of the Ice. The battle ended in complete defeat for the crusaders. These Russian victories in the Baltics were of great moral significance, since the cities of southern and northeastern Rus' lay in ruins after Batu's invasion.
At the beginning of the 13th century, the Mongol state was formed in central Asia. The Mongol-Tatars had a well-organized army that maintained family ties. At the beginning of the 13th century. they captured China, Korea, invaded Central Asia, Iran and Transcaucasia. In 1223, the Mongol-Tatars on the Kalka River defeated the allied forces of the Polovtsian and Russian princes. In 1236, the Mongol-Tatars captured Volga Bulgaria, and in 1207 they subjugated the nomadic peoples of the steppe. In the fall of 1237, Khan Batu, having gathered 120-140 people. Moved to Rus'. After stubborn battles, they captured Ryazan, Kolomna, and Vladimir. Then the Mongol-Tatars moved to the north-west of Rus', where they were saved from defeat, although they paid tribute. In the spring of 1239, Batu defeated Southern Rus', and in the fall - the Principality of Chernigov. In 1240 Kyiv was taken, and in 1241 the Garets-Volyn principality. On the territory of Rus', the Mongol-Tatar yoke lasted for more than 200 years (1240-1480).
By the end of the XIII - beginning of the XIV century. A new political system has emerged in Rus', the formation of which was facilitated by the following factors:
Separation of the northeastern lands, at the head of the feudal hierarchy of which were the Grand Dukes of Vladimir;
Drawing of the Western and southwestern principalities (Galicia-Volyn land), independent of Vladimir but subordinate to the Golden Horde, into the orbit of the political influence of the young and growing Grand Duchy of Lithuania;
The weakening of the political power of the Golden Horde, within which from the middle of the 14th century. civil strife began.
The Horde yoke contributed to a change in the nature of the political development of the ancient Russian principalities. The oldest and most developed cities of the Volga-Oka interfluve - Rostov, Suzdal, Vladimir - fell into decline, losing their political supremacy to the outlying ones: Tver, Nizhny Novgorod, Moscow. The natural process of development of the northeastern principalities was artificially interrupted; it took other forms. Princely unions and demands for voluntary unity under the rule of one grand duke, which did not bring real results in the fight against the Mongol yoke, were replaced by a monarchy based on the enormous personal property of the autocrat, the service of feudal subjects to him alone, and the subordination of the ordinary rural and urban population.
a turning point in our history. The deepest and most durable foundations of the state order were shaken, sovereigns were quickly replaced or fought with each other; for some time the country remained completely without a sovereign, society disintegrated into classes hostile to each other."
In its most expanded form, the concept of the causes and essence of the Troubles, which was based on a social crisis, and not a struggle within the ruling class, was formulated by S.F. Platonov.
In Soviet historiography, the term "Troubles" was discarded. This period began to be defined as the peasant war led by I. Bolotnikov and foreign intervention in Russia.
At present, the term has actually been returned to modern historiography, which has not yet brought anything fundamentally new to the scientific study of the problem. The crisis of Russian statehood at the turn of the 16th and 16th centuries. in domestic historiography it is considered as a component of the systemic crisis that has engulfed Russia as a result of a complex interaction of socio-economic and political reasons.
Such a short period of Russian history contained a huge number of dramatic events, which would have been enough for another state for several eras: a fierce political struggle and leapfrog of rulers on the Moscow throne; impostors sitting on the throne (False Dmitry I) or claiming it (False Dmitry 11, or Tushinsky thief, etc.) foreign pretenders to the Russian throne.
The struggle for the background unfolds against the backdrop of strong social cataclysms - uprisings of peasants, Cossacks, foreigners (with the participation in some cases of the nobility). In 1609, the Troubles were aggravated by the intervention of Swedes and Poles in Russian affairs. An open intervention began, which led to the rise of the liberation movement, which took shape in the people's militia. In the fall of 1612, the people's militia led by K. Minin and D. Pozharsky defeated the Poles and expelled them from Moscow. Crop failures, famines, and epidemics that accompanied the period of Troubles also played a significant role in its aggravation. At the beginning of the reign of the first of the Romanovs, Mikhail Fedorovich (1613-1645), the Moscow state presented a bleak picture. Gangs of robbers were rampant throughout the country. The system of government that had developed before the Time of Troubles was disrupted. Part of the country's territory remained in the hands of foreigners - Swedes and Poles. Cities became depopulated, crafts and trade fell into decline. The unplowed fields were overgrown with weeds, and the peasants, leaving their homes, went to look for safer places. The population that remained in their former places became extremely impoverished, went bankrupt, and were unable to pay taxes and bear government duties. In international affairs, the voice of Moscow is not listened to, its prestige is extremely low, and it is relegated to the margins of European politics.
It took several decades to overcome the tragic consequences of the Time of Troubles and lead the country out of the crisis.
Economic recovery and changes in it took place against the backdrop of severe social upheaval, which did not stop even after the end of the Time of Troubles. Copper, plague, salt riots, other city uprisings, performances by Streltsy, a powerful movement led by Stepan Razin, speeches related to church reform and the schism that accompanied the “rebellious” 17th century literally throughout its entire length: the last date in the history of the Moscow state - Streltsy riot of 1698
In order to eliminate social tension and streamline government administration, the government of the second king of the Romanov dynasty. Alexei Mikhailovich (1629-1676) undertakes a legislative reform: in 1649 the “Conciliar Code” was promulgated (+ 8). It specified goals and at the same time entailed a number of unintended consequences. The Code consolidated the status, responsibilities and privileges of the main classes and reflected such a social trend as the increasing social weight and role of the middle service strata. At the same time, according to the Code, the peasants were finally attached to the land, and the townspeople - to the towns. This was preceded by an increase from 5 to 15 years during the first decade of the 17th century. the duration of the “period years,” i.e., the period for searching for runaway peasants (the first decree on “period years” was issued in 1597). The promotion of the middle service strata to the fore caused discontent among the boyars, the clergy, as well as broad strata of the common people. This led to increased social tension, which often resulted in the above-mentioned open protests by the lower classes of society.
Another consequence of the dissatisfaction of social strata with the “Code” was the gradual cessation of the activities of Zemsky Sobors, for which the beginning of the reign of the Romanovs, especially 1613-1619, was a period of prosperity. Then the Zemsky Sobor turned into almost a permanent body, its composition expanded, its functions also increased, its prerogatives increased. However, after 1649, the Zemsky Sobors gradually lost the appearance acquired immediately after the Time of Troubles, met less and less often, and after 1653 they were convened sporadically.
The initial historical characteristics of Russian culture reflect Russia's border position between two continents and civilizational types - Europe and Asia, West and East. Long-term disputes that took place in Russia throughout almost the entire 19th century and continue to this day have given rise to various hypotheses. Western-oriented thinkers preferred to see in Russia a steady tendency to join the West and overcome “Eastern backwardness.” Thinkers of the Slavophile type, on the contrary, defended the originality of Russia, its fundamental difference from the West, as well as from the East, seeing in it a communal Orthodox beginning. Later, a Eurasian line emerged in the understanding of Russian culture, which affirmed its spatial, historical and spiritual fusion with the Asian area.
However, these ideological disputes reflected the irreducibility of Russian culture to one of the options or to a combination and synthesis of both. Such attempts invariably failed. Formulations often found in scientific works about the “paradoxical nature” of Russian culture indicate that its understanding requires overcoming unambiguous, linear schemes and turning to a multidimensional concept. This approach is possible precisely on the basis of the application of civilizational analysis, since Russian culture cannot be reduced to an ethnic or national substrate, although, undoubtedly, it carries the characteristics of both of these levels. Here and below, civilization is understood as a level, stage of social development, material and spiritual culture; a state of society that embodies the most rational way of reproducing life and the most humane forms of human existence.
Contradictions of Russian culture
Russia's intermediate position between the West and the East, interaction with both principles and opposition to them led to deep contradictions in Russian culture, its duality and internal splits. This situation has constantly manifested itself throughout Russian history in the cultural split between the ruling class and the masses, in changes in domestic policy from attempts at reform to conservatism, and in foreign policy from close alliance with Western countries to opposition to them.
In Russian culture one can find many opposing characteristics that are characteristic of any culture and create diversity in national and spiritual life:
individualism - collectivism;
humility is rebellion;
natural spontaneity - monastic asceticism;
softness - cruelty;
selflessness - selfishness;
elitism - nationality.
But, along with these characteristics, persistent contradictions constantly appear and renew in Russian culture:
between beginning and high religiosity;
between the cult of materialism and commitment to lofty spiritual ideals;
between inclusive statehood and anarchic freemen;
between national conceit, combined with great power, and messianic universalism;
between the “Russification” of Orthodoxy as a stronghold of Christian Russia and the desire to transform Orthodoxy into a universal religion;
between the search for social freedom and submission to state despotism and class hierarchy;
between the acceptance of inert earthly existence, acquisitiveness and boundless freedom, the search for God's truth;
between “Westernism” as a passion for models of progress, personal freedom, rational organization of life and “Easternism” as an interest in an orderly and stable, but complex and varied life, different from Russian reality.
For a more complete understanding of the origins of these contradictions, let us turn to a consideration of the main factors that determined and determine the development of Russian culture. Among these factors, geopolitical and natural (landscape, climatic, biosphere) play an important role. It is no coincidence that the great Russian historian V. Klyuchevsky begins his “Course of Russian History” with an analysis of Russian nature and its influence on the history of the people: it is here that the beginnings of the national mentality and national character of Russians are laid.
In general, all the historical factors under the influence of which Russian (Russian) culture took shape and developed could be combined into several groups.
Natural and anthropological factors and the development of national culture
All outstanding Russian scientists (S.M. Solovyov, V.O. Klyuchevsky and others) recognized the significant role in the history of Russia of the features of its nature, which significantly influenced the formation of a unique anthropological type of man and his culture. The harsh climate of the Russian plain, open to the northern winds, forests, steppes and rivers, endless fields - all this formed the foundations of Russian culture:
people's worldview,
character of settlement,
connections with other lands,
type of economic activity,
nature of agriculture,
attitude towards work,
organization of social life,
folklore fantasy images,
folk philosophy.
From the very beginning of its history, the image of a Russian person is associated with agriculture, with hard, intense, constant work. It is not for nothing that the images of farmers are captured in ancient Russian epics: Svyatogor, the hero Mikula Selyaninovich.
In other words, all natural phenomena, considered in their systematicity as socio- and cultural factors, formed the foundation for the formation of the future Russian civilization and culture.
Forest as a natural factor in the formation of culture
The forest was the setting for centuries of Slavic life: until the second half of the 18th century, the life of the largest part of the Slavic population lived in the forest belt of our plain.
The forest provided man with many economic services.
He supplied him with building materials and fuel, as well as material for household equipment, home furnishings and utensils. Les gave the man linden bark for making his traditional shoes - bast shoes. Residents of forest areas “smoked” resin, “drove” tar and were engaged in many different kinds of handicrafts.
But two industries played a particularly important role in the economy of the inhabitants of forest areas: hunting or trapping and forest beekeeping. Large animals and animals provided hunters and their families with meat and warm clothing, and valuable skins of small fur-bearing animals served as a source of income for them, a kind of " currency", playing the role of an instrument of exchange (the word "kun" was used to mean money until the 14th century).
Forest beekeeping and beekeeping were also important trades among the Slavs; When sugar production was unknown, honey was used to make sweet foods and a favorite drink. Wax was required in huge quantities to make church candles.
Finally, the forest provided the Slavs with services of a religious and moral nature: in the difficult times of the Tatar yoke, in the era of political oppression from outside and moral decline within society, pious people, who sought to get away from worldly temptations, vanity and sins, went into the forest “desert” and built themselves there cells and hermitages and lived for many years in solitude and silence; subsequently they were joined by other people, who then created centers and strongholds of the Slavic colonization of primeval forest spaces.
Let us give some typical examples from the research of V. Klyuchevsky. “The forest served as the most reliable refuge from external enemies, replacing mountains and castles for Russian people”; "the forest gave a special character to the northern Russian desert habitation, making it a unique form of forest colonization. Despite all such services, the forest has always been difficult for the Russian people. This can explain the unfriendly or careless attitude of the Russian people towards the forest: he never loved his forest And the ancient Russian man populated the forest with all kinds of fears." The forest threatened the Russian man and his livestock with a bear and a wolf; robbers nested in the forests; conquering more and more territories for arable farming from the forest was achieved with great difficulty and a lot of time. Russian folklore, following East Slavic mythology, populated the forest with sinister creatures, unfriendly to people and the “Russian spirit” - Baba Yaga, goblin and other representatives of “evil spirits”.
The steppe as one of the elements of Russian nature
The steppe is no less important for the Russian mentality. "...The wide, expansive steppe, as the song calls it, with its vastness, which has no end, fostered in the ancient Russian southerner a sense of breadth and distance, an idea of a spacious horizon, a horizon, as they said in the old days. But the steppe also contained important historical inconveniences: along with gifts, it brought almost more disasters to its peaceful neighbor, it was an eternal threat and a constant source of dangers, invasions and devastation. More than once or twice, the Asian hordes subjected the Slavic lands to devastating invasions and forced the Slavs to exhaust their strength in continuous hardships. struggle. This “struggle with the steppe nomad... lasted from the 8th century until almost the end of the 17th century. - the most difficult historical memory of the Russian people" (Klyuchevsky). In a word, as Klyuchevsky emphasizes, "the forest and especially the steppe had an ambiguous effect on the Russian people." On the one hand, the steppe symbolizes will, revelry, breadth, not limited by any bonds or prohibitions; with the other, the steppe, is a dangerous space inhabited by predatory nomads and revelers-thieves, unpredictable in their behavior, bringing ruin and destruction of any socio-cultural stability.
Slavic rivers and the formation of culture
The historical significance of Slavic rivers was great and beneficial. They not only fed the Slav with their abundant fish stocks, but they put at his disposal a dense and convenient network of summer and winter communication routes. In summer, the rivers were covered with a multitude of river vessels, ranging from small fishing boats to large warships and merchant ships, carrying several dozen warriors or carrying heavy merchant cargo. And in winter, sleigh trains with all kinds of cargo pulled along the strong and smooth ice road of the deeply frozen northern rivers. Slavic colonization took place along the rivers; cities, villages, small hamlets, fishing and hunting huts were built along the banks of the rivers. The mutual proximity of river basins contributed to communication and rapprochement between the populations of different regions. From time immemorial the Slav loved his river, “lived with it in perfect harmony” (Klyuchevsky) and sang of his rivers in his songs. River routes, in particular the famous route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” served as the political, economic and cultural core around which the “Russian land” was formed.
The love of the Russian people for the river, as V. Klyuchevsky characterizes it, made it possible to overcome such “ambiguity” of the forest and steppe. “On the river he came to life and lived with her in perfect harmony”: she is a neighbor and nurse, a water and ice road." The river is even a kind of teacher of a sense of order and public spirit among the people. She herself loves order and regularity. Russian River The river taught its coastal inhabitants to live together and be sociable. The river instilled a spirit of enterprise, a habit of joint, cooperative action, forced them to think and be resourceful, brought together scattered parts of the population, taught them to feel like a member of society, communicate with strangers, observe their morals and interests, and exchange goods. and experience, to know the way around." Klyuchevsky noted the diversity of the “historical service of the Russian river.”
Cultural significance of the lowland landscape
Compared to the Slavic rivers, the endless plain, characterized by desertion and monotony, had the opposite effect on Russian people. “Everything is distinguished by softness, elusiveness of outlines, insensitivity of transitions, modesty, even shyness of tones and colors, everything leaves an indefinite, calmly unclear impression,” this is how V. Klyuchevsky defined the cultural significance of the Central Russian landscape. The landscape imprinted in the soul could not help but be reflected in public moods, in the very makeup of the national character: “Housing is not visible in vast spaces, no sound is heard all around - and the observer is overcome by an eerie feeling of imperturbable peace, uninterrupted sleep and desolation, loneliness, conducive to the pointless dull reflection without a clear, distinct thought."
However, the flatness of the Russian landscape represented far from a simple cultural-semantic complex:
there is spiritual gentleness and modesty here;
semantic uncertainty and timidity;
imperturbable calm and painful despondency;
lack of clear thought and predisposition to spiritual sleep;
asceticism of desert living and pointlessness of creativity.
All these properties of Russian spirituality have far-reaching consequences in the history of Russian culture.
Russian scientists about the role of natural factors
Russian nature, according to Klyuchevsky’s characterization, “despite its apparent simplicity and monotony, is distinguished by a lack of stability: it is relatively easy to throw it out of balance.” Russian people, while maintaining a “wandering” attitude towards their place of residence and towards the surrounding nature, showed obvious “imprudence” in relation to the environment - as a result, phenomena that were “wholly or partly products of culture” became “as if geographical features of our country, its constant physical disasters: these are ravines and flying sands." A similar - careless or careless - attitude towards nature (towards forests and minerals, to environmental ecology and radiation) became a characteristic feature of national environmental management in Russia (until the 20th century) and was imprinted not only in the mentality of Russian culture, contradictory and dramatic, but also in the type of Russian civilization.
N. Berdyaev, following V. Klyuchevsky, wrote that “the landscape of the Russian soul corresponds to the landscape of the Russian land, the same boundlessness, formlessness, aspiration to infinity, breadth.” “...In the soul of the Russian people,” noted Berdyaev, “there remains a strong natural element associated with the immensity of the Russian land, with the boundlessness of the Russian plain.”
Thus, the cult of nature (the natural calendar with its pronounced cyclicity, circulation; the stable significance of agricultural holidays and corresponding ritual forms; veneration of the Earth as the universal Mother, etc.) played an important role in the formation and development of Russian culture, determining in many ways its a value system that included the Sacredness of Mother Earth, hard work, natural-empirical knowledge and skills, love for the Fatherland and much more. These values, shared not only by peasants, but also by other layers of society, historically developing and changing, existed until the early 30s of the 20th century, when, as a result of the “great turning point,” they began to be replaced by industrial ones. In Russia now (as well as throughout the world) there is a return to the land, to the roots, to what was highly characteristic of Russian culture.
The geopolitical factor had a great influence on the formation of national culture - the middle position of Russia between the civilizations of the West and the East, which served as the basis for its marginalization, that is, the emergence of such border cultural regions and layers that, on the one hand, did not adjoin any of the known cultures, but on the other hand, they represented a favorable environment for diverse cultural development.
Russia is an entire continent, occupying vast areas of Eastern Europe and Asia. While bearing similarities with the culture of the West and the cultures of the East, Russian culture at the same time differs from them. According to N. Berdyaev, Russia combines the West and the East as two streams of world history, and this connection turns it not into some kind of integral option, but into an arena of collision and confrontation between Eastern and Western elements.
Another thinker of the Silver Age, G. Plekhanov, imagined the clash of East and West in Russian culture differently. In Russia, he believed, “two processes are taking place, parallel to one another, but directed in different directions,” these are:
on the one hand, the Europeanization of the highest cultural layer, a very thin one,
on the other, the deepening of the “Asian mode of production” and the strengthening of “Oriental despotism.”
That is why, in his opinion, there is a deep “gap between the people and a more or less enlightened society.” Thus, Russian East-West contrasts, even tears apart two worlds.
The multifaceted cultural ties of Ancient Rus' with foreign countries already at the origins of its statehood developed in different ways and varied in depth and degree of intensity. In the emergence of ancient Russian culture, the decisive role was undoubtedly played by our own pagan culture, Byzantium and Scandinavia.
Normanists and anti-Normanists about the origins of Russian statehood
If the role of both paganism and Byzantium in the development of culture in Rus' and the formation of its statehood has been thoroughly studied by science, then Scandinavia still has a lot of unclear and debatable things left. Here is the presence in Rus' in the 9th-10th centuries. Scandinavian Varangian warriors, and the chronicle narrative about the Varangian origin of the ancient Russian ruling dynasty of the Rurikovichs. They gave rise to a long-term (since the 18th century) debate between Normanists and anti-Normanists.
Geography is destiny.
Napoleon Bonaparte,
(French Emperor).
In the second half of the 12th century, along with the fragmentation into a dozen appanage principalities and independent states, the geopolitics of Rus' underwent significant adjustments. It became smaller in scale compared to the geopolitics of Ancient Rus' in the 10th-11th centuries. , with its grandiose foreign policy actions and campaigns of princes Oleg, Svyatoslav, Vladimir. Instead, the crushing and fragmentation of the geopolitical interests of individual Russian principalities begins, focusing on internal problems (A.N. Sakharov).
Russian geopolitics in the pre-Mongol period
Geopolitics is also closely related to geoeconomics. Compared to Western Europe, which was experiencing rapid growth at that time, the rate of growth of productive forces in Rus' began to slow down due to changes in international trade routes. Previously, Russian cities mainly developed as trade and intermediary centers, and not as centers of large-scale handicraft production. Constantinople was such a center for Rus'. But the decline in economic life in Constantinople, along with the sharp intensification of Mediterranean trade, which ended up in the hands of Italian merchants from Genoa and Venice, in turn, influenced the decline in trade and intermediary activity, and therefore the economic life of southern Russian cities and, first of all, Kyiv . The famous Russian trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” became peripheral when the “sun of Russian trade” and its cultural center - the city of Constantinople, suffered in 1204 an unprecedented defeat and robbery by the crusading army of the Latins..php?id=37&cat=7
Despite many advanced positions in culture, education and craft production, Rus' in comparison with Western Europe at the beginning of the 13th century, especially its southern Russian principalities, no longer looked like such an advanced state compared to the 11th century. Nevertheless, about the economic lag of Rus' from Western Europe until the Mongol invasion and even until the 14th century. it was too early to say. The only thing that was noticeable was that the Russian principalities had lost their former growth dynamics. But in the development of feudalism and urban self-government, pre-Mongol Rus' was already definitely lagging behind Western Europe. However, at that time this was not a determining parameter of development.
But the main thing is that in the second half of the 12th century. It became gradually obvious that it was not Southern Rus' led by Kiev, but North-East Rus' with its central Vladimir-Suzdal principality that served as a tuning fork for all-Russian dynamics and development. This was facilitated by the great power policy of princes Andrei Yuryevich (Bogolyubsky) (1111-1174) and Vsevolod Yuryevich (Big Nest) (1154-1212). Only in the South-West of Rus', in the Galicia-Volyn principality, thanks to the efforts of princes Roman Mstislavovich (about 1150-1205) and Daniil Galitsky (1201-1264), a second center is formed, with a pro-European vector of development, completely opposite to the Eurasian north-eastern one.
Even then, stronger principalities and lands, such as the Vladimir-Suzdal, Galician-Volyn principalities, and the Novgorod feudal republic, sometimes carried out large-scale actions, competing for trade routes and lands, not only with other Russian principalities, but also with foreign states. The Vladimir-Suzdal principality, where the power of the princes was very strong, focuses its efforts on mastering the approaches to the Volga trade route, competing here with the Muslim Volga Bulgaria. Due to the successful campaigns of Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky, the Bulgars even had to move their capital from the former city of Bulgar to the depths of their territory - the city of Bilyar (Great City) (A.N. Sakharov).
In addition, the Vladimir-Suzdal princes are also attacking Novgorod, trying to subjugate the rich feudal-trading republic. The Novgorod boyar republic is persistent in its desire to conquer the shores of the Eastern Baltic, the Gulf of Finland, and Finnish lands. Here the interests of Novgorod collide with the interests of Lithuania, Sweden and the Livonian Knightly Order. Throughout the 13th century, Novgorod constantly maneuvered between the strong German Order and strengthened Lithuania, sometimes resorting to the Vladimir-Suzdal princes for help.
United Galician-Volyn Rus' from the second half of the 12th century. becomes a full participant in European politics, competing with Poland, Hungary, or even Germany. Both Galician-Volyn Rus and the Kiev and Chernigov principalities all the time intensely, either compete and fight, or enter into allied relations with the Turkic-speaking hordes of the Polovtsians, who call themselves Kypchaks or Kipchaks. The Kipchaks dominated the steppe both west and east of the Volga, including the Black Sea steppes, and the steppe itself then received the name Desht-i-Kipchak, which meant Polovtsian land. It should be noted that the Polovtsians did not have a single state - individual nomadic hordes were ruled by khans. The Polovtsians themselves were pagans, and therefore in Rus' they were called “filthy.”
Like all nomads, the Polovtsy needed the products of crafts and agriculture: therefore, they often raided the Russian principalities. Only under Vladimir Monomakh and his son Mstislav the Great, Rus' was not only able to fight off the Polovtsian raids, but also go on the offensive against their nomadic lands. With the collapse into small principalities, the pressure of the Polovtsians again intensified on Rus'. The war with them went on with varying degrees of success. The Russian princes had other allies in the steppe - Torks and Berendeys (black hoods). The princes specifically allowed them to settle on the borders of the Russian land in order to protect Rus' from the attacks of other nomads. For example, the same Polovtsians.
In 1183, the combined forces of 9 Russian princes defeated 10 Polovtsian khans. In 1185, Prince Igor Svyatoslavovich suffered a terrible defeat from the Polovtsians, which is reflected in the famous “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” And yet, the princes often became related to the Polovtsians, marrying their daughters to the khans, or they themselves married Polovtsian princesses (for example, Andrei Bogolyubsky was the son of a Polovtsian princess).
It is no coincidence that in 1223 the Polovtsy turned to the Russian princes for help. Literally with a plea for help against a hitherto unknown cruel enemy - the Mongols, who by this time had conquered Northern China, Central Asia, Iran, and Transcaucasia. But in a two-day battle on the Kalka River, the Russian-Polovtsian army was defeated by the Mongols. The Russian princes, who acted in battle anarchically and fragmentedly, received a harsh lesson, which, as subsequent events showed, did not serve them well.
Mongolian "noose" of Rus'
In world history, the emergence of the vast Mongol Empire is the most ambitious victory of nomads over sedentary and urbanized peoples. The Mongols, in turn, greatly influenced the fate of many peoples of the East and Rus', and in the most unfavorable way.
The all-Mongol campaign against Eastern Europe began in 1236, when a huge Mongol army first defeated the Volga Bulgaria, the Polovtsians, the Mordovian tribes, and the Burtases, and finally, in December 1237, attacked the Ryazan principality. Never before had the Russians encountered such a terrible and powerful enemy as the Mongol military machine turned out to be, which was superbly organized in a military way and just as barbarically merciless. The Mongols knew how to take any fortresses and cities, defeat everyone without exception: the most powerful armies of that world - China, Khorezm, Turks, Arabs, Russians, Western crusaders.
Winter-spring 1237-38. Batu Khan's first campaign against Rus' took place. The Ryazan and Vladimir-Suzdal principalities were subjected to an unprecedented and merciless defeat. The cities of Ryazan, Kolomna, Moscow, Suzdal, Vladimir, Torzhok, Kozelsk were burned and plundered, the fate of other cities was slightly better, but not enviable. In conditions of obvious inequality of forces, all attempts of princes and cities to provide armed resistance to the Mongols were heroic, but hopeless. All military squads of the princes of Ryazan and Vladimir died along with their princes (for example, Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich with his squad at the Sit River in 1238).
In 1239, the second campaign of the Mongols took place, directed against the Murom, Pereyaslav and Chernigov principalities. The result was the same. The heroic defense of cities ended after their capture by nomads with their defeat. In 1240, the third offensive of the all-Mongol army began, this time against Southern Rus'. Kyiv, Galich and Vladimir-Volynsky were captured by assault. An impressively huge army of steppes, with battering guns, according to the chroniclers, approached Kyiv. The defense of Kyiv, like the defense of many other cities, was fierce, but as always it all ended in a terrible pogrom and the killing of residents. Archaeological excavations show a huge number of skeletons in unimaginable poses, with severed limbs, clutched to each other. Then the Mongols split up, part of the army with the princes from Karakorum returned back to Mongolia, the other part, led by Batu Khan himself, continued the campaign to the West and also victoriously.
Having defeated the Polish-German army at Legnica, the Hungarians and Croats gathered under the leadership of King Bela IV, having captured Zagreb, Batu's troops reached the Adriatic Sea. However, in the spring of 1242, Batu received news from Mongolia about the death of the great Khan Ogedei (December 11, 1241) and decided to retreat back to the steppes through Serbia and Bulgaria. The West breathed a sigh of relief.
In the lower reaches of the Volga, in the nomadic steppes, Batu founded his headquarters, Sarai-Batu. It became the capital of a new huge state later called the Golden Horde. The Mongols who came with Batu were relatively quickly assimilated by the local Turkic-speaking population (Bulgars, Kipchaks, etc.), merging into a single ethnic group called “Tatars.” Initially, the Golden Horde (until the 60s of the 13th century) was part of the colossal Mongol empire, stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Black and Mediterranean Seas, with its center in Karakorum. And although the Russian lands and principalities were not included in the Golden Horde, they fell into strict dependence on it, which Russian chroniclers called the “yoke.”
Only with the permission of the Khan of the Golden Horde did Russian princes have the right to occupy their thrones. They were obliged to come to the khan's capital and receive special letters for this - khan's labels. The Horde imposed a heavy tribute on the Russian lands - the “Horde exit”, which the entire adult population had to pay. For this purpose, people were enumerated, and special Horde detachments of Baskaks, located in the Russian principalities, monitored the collection of this tribute and took them to the Horde.
In addition, Rus' was obliged to pay other taxes introduced by the Horde - plow taxes (from each plow in the village), yam money. Russian cities must supply artisans to the Horde, and during wars between the Horde and its neighbors, provide military squads at the disposal of the khans (a kind of “blood” tax). Only Orthodox clergy and church lands were exempt from tribute, due to the Mongols' religious tolerance of all religions.
The general weakening of Rus' led to the activation of its opponents (in the southwest - Hungary and Poland, in the northwest - the Livonian Order, Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania). Against the backdrop of the intensifying Western onslaught and the establishment of the power of the Horde khans over Russia, the last large-scale geopolitical actions of an all-Russian scale, aimed at achieving favorable strategic positions of Rus', were the foreign policy activities of princes Alexander Nevsky and Daniil Galitsky in the 50-60s. XIII century At the same time, the southern Russian prince Daniil Galitsky was drawn to the West, while Alexander Nevsky (the founder of the future independent Russia) was repelled by the West and chose the Eurasian vector. The passing away of these great statesmen of Rus' (in the early 60s of the 13th century), who strived for its unification, buried hopes for a long time for the creation of a single all-Russian state.
The final result of the Mongol invasion was an even greater localization of the foreign policy guidelines of the Russian principalities. Rus' in the second half of the 13th century. is gradually losing one foreign policy position after another, becoming, especially in the west and southwest, a victim of its stronger neighbors (Lithuania, Poland). Thus, the previously strong principalities of Galicia-Volyn, Kiev, Chernigov, and Smolensk gradually dissolved into another statehood. For the Russian people, these principalities were in many ways a conscious choice. Choose the lesser of two evils (Horde and Lithuanian). Having gone under the rule of Lithuania, the southern and western Russian lands got rid of their strict dependence on the Horde (“yoke”), with its constant punitive raids and the destruction of cities and villages.
The fate of North-Eastern Rus' was different. It was largely determined by the policies of the princes Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and especially his son Alexander Nevsky, who considered Catholic aggression more dangerous for Rus'. At the same time, the Western aggressors (Lithuania, Order, Sweden) turned out to be much weaker than the Mongols. The Western onslaught, thanks to the military leadership of Alexander Nevsky, was repulsed, after which a wall of alienation arose between North-Eastern Russia and the European West.
The khans, in turn, did their best to interfere with the centralization of Rus', pitted the princes against each other, and encouraged strife between them. With the onset of the khan's power over the Russian principalities, the emerging process of centralization was artificially interrupted. Specific fragmentation increased even more, which harmed the socio-economic development of Rus'. The Mongolian destruction, specific fragmentation, along with the unfavorable for Rus' shift of international routes to the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Horde Volga (city of Saray), as a result led to a sharp decrease in business activity and cultural dynamics in Rus' itself. Rus' seemed to have closed in on itself, ceased to be a lively crossroads of intercivilizational communication and became an increasingly peripheral region of Eurasia.
