Russian principalities in the 12th century. Russian lands and principalities in the 12th - first half of the 13th century

The time from the beginning of the 12th to the end of the 15th century is traditionally called specific. Indeed, on the basis of Kievan Rus, approximately 15 principalities and lands emerged by the middle of the 12th century, about 50 principalities by the beginning of the 13th century, and approximately 250 in the 14th century.

Reasons for fragmentation. The division of Russian land between the sons of Yaroslav the Wise and the subsequent inter-princely strife are often put forward as the reasons for feudal fragmentation. This is unlikely to be true, since the first division of lands took place under Vladimir Svyatoslavich; from his reign, princely feuds began to flare up, the peak of which occurred in the years 1015-1024, when only three of Vladimir’s twelve sons remained alive. Divisions of land between princes and strife only accompanied the development of Rus', but did not determine one or another political form state organization. They did not create a new phenomenon in the political life of Rus'. Economic basis and main reason feudal fragmentation is often considered subsistence farming, the consequence of which was the lack of economic ties. Subsistence farming is the sum of economically independent, closed economic units in which a product goes from its production to consumption. The reference to natural farming is only a correct statement of the fact that took place. However, its dominance, which is characteristic of feudalism, does not yet explain the reasons for the collapse of Rus', since subsistence farming dominated both in united Rus' and in the 14th-15th centuries, when the process of formation was underway in the Russian lands single state based on political centralization.

The essence of feudal fragmentation lies in the fact that it was a new form of state-political organization of society. It was this form that corresponded to the complex of relatively small feudal worlds, not connected with each other, and the state-political separatism of local boyar unions.

Feudal fragmentation is a progressive phenomenon in the development of feudal relations. The collapse of early feudal empires into independent principalities-kingdoms was an inevitable stage in the development of feudal society, whether this concerned Rus' in Eastern Europe, France in Western Europe or the Golden Horde in the East. Feudal fragmentation was progressive because it was a consequence of the development of feudal relations, the deepening of the social division of labor, which resulted in the rise of agriculture, the flourishing of crafts, and the growth of cities. For the development of feudalism, a different scale and structure of the state was needed, adapted to the needs and aspirations of the feudal lords, especially the boyars.

The first reason for feudal fragmentation was the growth of boyar estates and the number of smerds dependent on them. The 12th - early 13th centuries were characterized by the further development of boyar land ownership in various principalities of Rus'. The boyars increased their holdings by seizing the lands of free community members, enslaving them, and buying lands. In an effort to obtain a larger surplus product, they increased the natural rent and labor that the dependent smerds performed. The increase in surplus product received by the boyars due to this made them economically powerful and independent. In various lands of Rus', economically powerful boyar corporations began to take shape, striving to become sovereign masters of the lands where their estates were located. They wanted to administer justice to their peasants themselves, to receive fines from them - vira. Many boyars had feudal immunity (the right of non-interference in the affairs of the estate), "Russian Truth" determined the rights of the boyars. However, the Grand Duke (and such is the nature of princely power) sought to retain full power in his hands. He interfered in the affairs of the boyar estates, sought to retain the right to judge the peasants and receive vir from them in all the lands of Rus'. The Grand Duke, considered the supreme owner of all the lands of Rus' and their supreme ruler, continued to consider all princes and boyars as his own service people, and therefore forced them to participate in the numerous campaigns he organized. These campaigns often did not coincide with the interests of the boyars and tore them away from their estates. The boyars began to feel burdened by serving the Grand Duke and tried to evade it, which led to numerous conflicts. Contradictions between the local boyars and the Grand Duke of Kyiv led to an intensification of the former’s desire for political independence. The boyars were also driven to this by the need for their own, close princely power, which could quickly implement the norms of the “Russian Truth”, since the power of the grand ducal virniks, governors, and warriors could not quickly real help boyars of lands remote from Kyiv. The strong power of the local prince was also necessary for the boyars in connection with the growing resistance of the townspeople, the Smerds, to the seizure of their lands, enslavement, and increased extortions.

The increase in clashes between the smerds and townspeople and the boyars became the second reason for feudal fragmentation. The need for princely power locally, the creation state apparatus forced local boyars to invite the prince and his retinue to their lands. But when inviting the prince, the boyars were inclined to see in him only a police and military force that did not interfere in boyar affairs. The princes and squad also benefited from such an invitation. The prince received a permanent reign, his land patrimony, and stopped rushing from one princely table to another. The squad, which was also tired of following from table to table with the prince, was also pleased. Princes and warriors had the opportunity to receive a stable rent - a tax. At the same time, the prince, having settled in one land or another, as a rule, was not satisfied with the role assigned to him by the boyars, but sought to concentrate all power in his hands, limiting the rights and privileges of the boyars. This inevitably led to a struggle between the prince and the boyars.

The third reason for feudal fragmentation was the growth and strengthening of cities as new political and cultural centers. During the period of feudal fragmentation, the number of cities in Russian lands reached 224. Their economic and political role as centers of a particular land increased. It was on the cities that the local boyars and the prince relied in the fight against the great Prince of Kyiv. The increasing role of the boyars and local princes led to the revival of urban veche meetings. The veche, a unique form of feudal democracy, was a political body. In fact, it was in the hands of the boyars, which excluded real decisive participation in the government of ordinary townspeople. The boyars, controlling the veche, tried to use the political activity of the townspeople to their advantage. Very often, the veche was used as an instrument of pressure not only on the great, but also on the local prince, forcing him to act in the interests of the local nobility. Thus, cities, as local political and economic centers that gravitated towards their lands, were a stronghold for the decentralization aspirations of local princes and nobility.

The reasons for feudal fragmentation also include the decline of the Kyiv land from constant Polovtsian raids and the decline of the power of the Grand Duke, whose land patrimony decreased in the 12th century.

Rus' broke up into 15 principalities, and a republican form of government was established in Novgorod. In each principality, the princes, together with the boyars, “thought about the land structure and armies.” Princes declared wars, made peace and various alliances. The Grand Duke was the first (senior) among equal princes. Princely congresses have been preserved, where issues of all-Russian politics were discussed. The princes were bound by a system of vassal relations.

It should be noted that for all the progressiveness of feudal fragmentation, it had one significant negative point. The constant strife between the princes, which either subsided or flared up with renewed vigor, exhausted the strength of the Russian lands and weakened their defense capability in the face of external danger.

The collapse of Rus' did not, however, lead to the collapse of the Old Russian people, a historically established linguistic, territorial, economic and cultural community. In the Russian lands, a single concept of Rus', the Russian land, continued to exist. "Oh, Russian land, you are already over the hill!" - proclaimed the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”

During the period of feudal fragmentation, three centers emerged in the Russian lands: the Vladimir-Suzdal, Galician-Volyn principalities and the Novgorod feudal republic.

Vladimir-Suzdal Principality. The Rostov-Suzdal principality went to the youngest son of Yaroslav the Wise, Vsevolod of Pereyaslavl, and was assigned to his descendants as a family possession. In the XII - first half of the XIII century, the Rostov-Suzdal land experienced economic growth. Fertile lands, huge forests, numerous rivers and lakes created the opportunity for the development of agriculture. Deposits available for extraction iron ores contributed to the development craft production. The most important trade routes to the south, east and west ran in the Rostov-Suzdal land, which determined the strong development trade. The northeastern lands of Rus' were well protected by forests and rivers from Polovtsian raids, which attracted residents of the southern lands, who suffered from frequent attacks by nomads. Population growth in the Rostov-Suzdal principality was of great importance for its economic development. The number of cities grew. Before Batu’s invasion, cities such as Vladimir, Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Kostroma, Tver, Nizhny Novgorod and others arose. In the chronicle of 1147, Moscow is mentioned for the first time, a small town built by Yuri Dolgoruky on the site of the estate of the boyar Kuchka. Cities in the Rostov-Suzdal land were created both inside and on the borders, as fortresses, centers of administrative power. Overgrown with trade and craft settlements, they also turned into centers for the development of crafts and trade. IN XI-XII centuries A large principality, boyar and church land ownership emerged. The feudal lords seized the lands of rural neighboring communities and enslaved the Smerds.

The Rostov-Suzdal land was separated from Kyiv in the 30s of the 12th century under the son of Vladimir Monomakh, Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruk, who ruled from 1125 to 1157. Prince Yuri received the nickname Dolgoruky for his military and political activity. He was always at the center of all the strife and strife of the Russian princes. Yuri Dolgoruky began the fight against Novgorod and Volga Bulgaria, trying to expand the lands of his principality. Under the influence of growth Suzdal prince Ryazan and Murom hit. For many years, Yuri Dolgoruky waged a grueling and completely unnecessary struggle for his principality for the Kiev grand-ducal throne. Although the power of the Grand Duke was irrevocably a thing of the past, the reign in Kyiv emphasized the seniority of the prince. For the generation of princes Yuri Dolgoruky, this was still important in political struggle. Subsequent generations of Russian princes, who called their principalities “great” and themselves “great princes,” no longer experienced such attraction to the title of the Great Prince of Kyiv.

After the death of Yuri Dolgoruky, his son Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky, who ruled until 1174, became the prince of the Rostov-Suzdal principality. He, like his father, continued the fight against Novgorod and Volga Bulgaria and sought to expand the borders of his principality. It was Andrei Bogolyubsky who began the struggle for the hegemony of the Rostov-Suzdal princes in the Russian lands. He, claiming the title of Grand Duke of all the lands of Rus', captured Kyiv in 1169 and carried out a complete defeat there, surpassing the Polovtsians in this. But, having seized the title of Grand Duke of Kyiv, Andrei Bogolyubsky, unlike his father, did not remain to reign in Kyiv, but returned to his principality. The attempts of the ambitious and power-hungry prince to subjugate Novgorod, the princes of all Russian lands, and unite them around the Rostov-Suzdal principality failed. It was in these actions of Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky that the idea of ​​​​unifying the lands was manifested, i.e. establishing state unity. But not all princes realized it. Andrei Bogolyubsky pursued a policy of power in his principality. Strengthening his power, he attacked the rights and privileges of the boyars. A fierce struggle developed between them and the prince. Andrei Bogolyubsky dealt with the rebellious boyars, expelled them from the principality, and deprived them of their estates. In the fight against the boyars, he relied on the trade and craft population of the cities, on service people - vigilantes. In an effort to further separate himself from the boyars and rely on the townspeople, Andrei moved the capital from boyar Rostov to the young trade and craft city of Vladimir, and the principality began to be called Vladimir-Suzdal. The prince set up his residence in Bogolyubovo near Vladimir, for which he received the nickname Bogolyubsky. The powerful prince failed to break the boyars. A boyar conspiracy developed, as a result of which Andrei Bogolyubsky was killed in his residence in 1174.

After this, boyar strife raged in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. In 1176, the princely throne was occupied by Andrei's brother Vsevolod the Big Nest, who ruled until 1212. He received this nickname for his large family. Under Vsevolod, the Vladimir-Suzdal principality reached its greatest power and prosperity. The prince continued his brother's policies. He spoke with the Ryazan princes by force of arms, political methods resolved the issue with the South Russian princes and Novgorod. The name of Vsevolod was known in all Russian lands. The author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” wrote about the power of the Vladimir prince, noting that Vsevolod’s numerous regiments could splash the Volga with oars and scoop up the Don with their helmets. After the death of Vsevolod the Big Nest, strife began between his sons over the most profitable reign for the princes and their warriors to receive taxes in the Vladimir-Suzdal land. In the second quarter of the 12th century, there were 7 principalities on its territory. All of them eventually united politically under the leadership of the Vladimir prince.

Galicia-Volyn Principality. The Galician-Volyn principality, with its fertile soils, mild climate, steppe space interspersed with rivers and forests, was the center of highly developed agriculture and cattle breeding. The fishing industry was actively developing in this land. A consequence of the further deepening of the social division of labor was the development of crafts, which led to the growth of cities. The largest cities of the Galicia-Volyn principality were Vladimir-Volynsky, Przemysl, Terebovl, Galich, Berestye, Kholm. Numerous trade routes passed through the Galich and Volyn lands. Waterway from Baltic Sea to Chernoe passed along the Vistula - Western Bug - Dniester rivers, overland trade routes led to the countries Southeast Europe. There was a land trade route with the countries of the East along the Danube. In the Galicia-Volyn land, large princely and boyar land ownership developed early.

Until the middle of the 12th century, the Galician land was divided into small principalities. In 1141, Prince Vladimir Volodarevich of Przemysl united them, moving the capital to Galich. Of the highest power Principality of Galicia reached under Vladimir's son Yaroslav Osmomysl (1151-1187), who received this nickname for his high education and knowledge of the eight foreign languages. Yaroslav Osmomysl had unquestioned authority both in domestic and international affairs.

After the death of Osmomysl, the Galician land became the arena of a long internecine struggle between the princes and the local boyars. Its duration and complexity is explained by the relative weakness of the Galician princes, whose land ownership lagged behind that of the boyars in size. The huge estates of the Galician boyars and numerous servant-vassals allowed them to fight against the princes they disliked, since the latter, having a smaller estate, could not, due to a lack of land, increase the number of service people, their supporters, on whom they relied in the fight against the boyars.

The situation was different in the Volyn land, which in the middle of the 12th century became the family domain of the descendants of Izyaslav Mstislavich. A powerful princely fiefdom developed here early on. Increasing the number of service people through land distributions, the Volyn princes began to fight against the boyars for the unification of the Galician and Volyn lands and strengthening their power. In 1189, the Volyn prince Roman Mstislavich united the Galician and Volyn lands. In 1203 he occupied Kyiv.

Under the rule of Roman Mstislavich, Southern and Southwestern Rus' united. The period of his reign was marked by the strengthening of the positions of the Galicia-Volyn principality within the Russian lands and on international arena. In 1205, Roman Mstislavich died in Poland. The Galician boyars began a long and ruinous internecine war. feudal war, which lasted about 30 years. The boyars entered into an agreement with the Hungarian and Polish feudal lords, who seized the Galician land and part of Volyn. The national liberation struggle of the boyars against the Polish and Hungarian invaders began. This struggle served as the basis for the consolidation of forces in Southwestern Rus'. Prince Daniil Romanovich, relying on the townspeople and his service people, managed to strengthen his power in Volyn, and in 1238 take Galich and reunite the Galician and Volyn lands. In 1240 he took Kyiv and united Southern and Southwestern Rus' again. The economic and cultural rise of the Galicia-Volyn principality during the reign of Daniil Romanovich was interrupted by the invasion of Batu.

Novgorod feudal republic. IN Novgorod land, unlike other Russian lands, a boyar republic was established. It was one of the most developed Russian lands. Its main territory was located between Lake Ilmen and Lake Peipsi, along the banks of the Volkhov, Lovat, Velikaya, and Msta rivers. The territory of the Novgorod land was divided into Pyatina, which in turn were administratively divided into hundreds and graveyards. On the borders of the Novgorod land, military strongholds were Pskov, Ladoga, Staraya Rusa, Torzhok, Velikiye Luki, Yuryev. Important trade routes passed through these cities. The largest of these cities was Pskov, which by the end of the 12th century became virtually an independent republic. Since the 15th century, residents of the Novgorod and Rostov-Suzdal lands began active colonization of the lands of Karelia, along the Dvina River, around Lake Onega and Northern Pomerania. As a result of colonization, the Karelians, Vods, and Zavolochskaya Chud (Finno-Ugric tribes) became part of the Novgorod land. The Sami (now the people of Karelia) and the Nenets paid tribute to Novgorod, mainly in furs.

Novgorod was the largest commercial and industrial center. The city was located at the center of trade routes that connected the Baltic Sea with the Black and Caspian Seas. Active trade was conducted with Volga Bulgaria and eastern countries. Novgorod, in which archaeologists found the remains of a German trading court, was major center trade with the Baltic states, Scandinavia, North German cities, which concluded a trade and political union Hansa.

Craft production in Novgorod was characterized by wide specialization. In general, artisans worked to order, but blacksmiths, weavers, tanners and representatives of a number of other specialties already at this time began to work for the market, both internal and external. The Volkhov River divided Novgorod into two sides - Sofia and Torgovaya. The city was divided into five ends - districts. The ends were divided into streets. Craftsmen and merchants created their own hundreds and fraternities of Ulichansky professions. The most significant influence on the life of Novgorod was the Ivan Sto merchant association, whose merchants traded in honey and wax. Despite the large percentage of the trade and craft population, the basis of the economy of the Novgorod land was agriculture. True, climatic conditions did not make it possible to obtain high yields.

In the Novgorod land, boyar land ownership developed early. All fertile lands were actually redistributed among the boyars, which prevented the creation of a large princely estate. Its formation was also not helped by the position of the princes sent as prince-deputies. This weakened the prince’s position in the fight against the Novgorod boyars, who actually turned the prince into a military-police force.

The Novgorod land separated from Kyiv after the uprising of 1136. The rebellious townspeople expelled Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich for “neglecting” the city’s interests. A republican system was established in Novgorod. Supreme body power in Novgorod became a meeting of free citizens - owners of courtyards and estates in the city - the veche. It gathered either on Sophia Square or on the Yaroslavl courtyard of the Trade Side. The meeting was public. It was very often attended by the mass of the urban population - feudal-dependent, enslaved people who did not have the right to vote. They reacted violently to debates on certain issues. This reaction put pressure on the meeting, sometimes quite strong. The veche discussed issues of domestic and foreign policy, invited the prince, and concluded an agreement with him. At the meeting, the mayor, thousand, and archbishop were elected. The mayor administered the administration and court, and controlled the activities of the prince. Tysyatsky led the people's militia and held court in trade matters. In order to make the Novgorod bishopric their ally, the boyars in 1156 achieved the election of an archbishop, who not only headed the church in Novgorod, but was also in charge of the republic’s treasury and its external relations.

The five ends were self-governing, territorial-administrative and political units. At the ends, Konchan veche gathered, where Konchan elders were elected. The lower level of the Novgorod organization and management were associations of “ulichans”, residents of each street, headed by elected elders who were elected at the street veche. The veche system of Novgorod was a form of feudal “democracy”, where the democratic principles of popular representation, openness and election of officials created the illusion of democracy. The actual power in the republic was in the hands of the boyars and the elite of the merchant class. Throughout its history, the positions of mayors, thousand and Konchan elders were held only by representatives of the elite nobility, called the “300 golden belts”. The “lesser” or “black” people of Novgorod were subjected to arbitrary exactions from the “better” people, i.e. boyars and the elite of the privileged merchants. The response to this was frequent uprisings of ordinary Novgorodians. The largest of them was the uprising of 1207 against the mayor Dmitry Miroshkinich and his relatives.

Novgorod waged a constant struggle for its independence against neighboring principalities, primarily against Vladimir-Suzdal, who sought to subjugate the rich and free city. Novgorod was an outpost for the defense of Russian lands from the aggression of German and Swedish crusading feudal lords.

Thus, the following picture emerges in Rus' before beginning of XIII century (before the Tatar-Mongol invasion). All feudal Rus' we must imagine as one and a half dozen independent principalities. They all lived their own lives, independent of each other, representing microscopic states, little connected to each other and to a certain extent free from state control. But it's wrong to count feudal fragmentation a time of decline and regression or identifying it with the princely strife that began in the 10th century. For young Russian feudalism, a single Kievan Rus She was like a nanny who raised and protected from all sorts of troubles and misfortunes a whole family of Russian principalities. As part of it, they survived the two-century onslaught of the Pechenegs, the invasion of Varangian troops, the turmoil of princely strife, and several wars with the Polovtsian khans. By the end of the 12th century, the Russian principalities had grown so much that they were able to begin independent life. And this process was natural for all European countries. The trouble with Rus' was that the processes of unification of Russian lands that had begun were disrupted Tatar-Mongol invasion, which Rus' spent more than 150 years fighting.

After the death of the Kyiv prince Yaroslav the Wise in 1054, the process of disintegration of the previously unified state began in Rus'. Similar events occurred in Western Europe. It was general trend feudal Middle Ages. Gradually, Rus' divided into several de facto independent principalities with common traditions, culture and the Rurik dynasty. The most important year for the country was 1132, when Mstislav the Great died. It is this date that historians consider the beginning of the finally established political fragmentation. In this state, Rus' existed until the middle of the 13th century, when it survived the invasion of the Mongol-Tatar troops.

Kyiv land

Over the course of many years, the principalities of ancient Rus' were divided, united, the ruling branches of the Rurik dynasty changed, etc. However, despite the complexity of these events, several key fiefs can be identified that played the most important role in the life of the country. Even after the actual collapse of the de jure, it was the Kiev prince who was considered senior.

A variety of appanage rulers tried to establish control over the “mother of Russian cities.” Therefore if appanage principalities Since ancient Rus' had its own hereditary dynasties, Kyiv most often passed from hand to hand. After the death of Mstislav Vladimirovich in 1132, the city briefly became the property of the Chernigov Rurikovichs. This did not suit other representatives of the dynasty. Due to the subsequent wars, Kyiv first ceased to control the Pereyaslavl, Turov and Vladimir-Volyn principalities, and then (in 1169) it was completely plundered by the army of Andrei Bogolyubsky and finally lost its political significance.

Chernigov

Ancient Rus' on Chernigov land belonged to the descendants of Svyatoslav Yaroslavovich. They have been in conflict with Kyiv for a long time. For several decades, the Chernigov dynasty was divided into two branches: the Olgovichi and the Davydovichi. With each generation, more and more new appanage principalities arose, breaking away from Chernigov (Novgorod-Severskoye, Bryansk, Kursk, etc.).

Historians consider Svyatoslav Olgovich the most prominent ruler of this region. He was an ally It was with their allied feast in Moscow in 1147 that the history of the Russian capital, confirmed by chronicles, begins. When the principalities of ancient Rus' united in the fight against the Mongols who appeared in the east, the appanage rulers of the Chernigov land acted together with the rest of the Rurikovichs and were defeated. The invasion of the steppes affected not the entire principality, but only it eastern part. Nevertheless, it recognized itself as a vassal of the Golden Horde (after the painful death of Mikhail Vsevolodovich). In the 14th century, Chernigov, along with many neighboring cities, was annexed to Lithuania.

Polotsk region

Polotsk was ruled by the Izyaslavichs (descendants of Izyaslav Vladimirovich). This branch of the Rurikovichs stood out earlier than others. In addition, Polotsk was the first to begin an armed struggle for independence from Kyiv. The earliest such war happened at the beginning of the 11th century.

Like other principalities of ancient Rus' during the period of fragmentation, Polotsk eventually split into several small fiefs (Vitebsk, Minsk, Drutsk, etc.). Some of these cities as a result of wars and dynastic marriages passed to the Smolensk Rurikovichs. But the most dangerous opponents of Polotsk, without a doubt, were the Lithuanians. At first, these Baltic tribes staged predatory raids on Russian lands. Then they moved on to conquest. In 1307, Polotsk finally became part of the growing Lithuanian state.

Volyn

In Volyn (the southwest of modern Ukraine), two large political centers emerged - Vladimir-Volynsky and Galich. Having become independent from Kyiv, these principalities began to compete with each other for leadership in the region. At the end of the 12th century, Roman Mstislavovich united the two cities. His principality was named Galicia-Volyn. The influence of the monarch was so great that he sheltered someone expelled by the crusaders from Constantinople Byzantine emperor Alexei III.

Roman's son Daniel eclipsed his father's successes with his fame. He successfully fought against the Poles, Hungarians and Mongols, periodically concluding alliances with one of his neighbors. In 1254, Daniel even accepted the title of King of Rus' from the Pope, hoping for help from Western Europe in the fight against the steppe inhabitants. After his death, the Galicia-Volyn principality fell into decline. At first it split into several fiefs, and then was captured by Poland. The fragmentation of Ancient Rus', whose principalities were constantly at enmity with each other, prevented it from fighting against external threats.

Smolensk region

The Principality of Smolensk was located in geographical center Rus'. It became independent under the son of Mstislav the Great, Rostislav. At the end of the 12th century, the principalities of Ancient Rus' again began a fierce struggle for Kyiv. The main contenders for power in the ancient capital were the Smolensk and Chernigov rulers.

The descendants of Rostislav reached the pinnacle of power under Mstislav Romanovich. In 1214-1223 he ruled not only Smolensk, but also Kiev. It was this prince who initiated the first anti-Mongol coalition, which was defeated at Kalka. Subsequently, Smolensk suffered less than others during the invasion. Nevertheless, its rulers paid tribute to the Golden Horde. Gradually, the principality found itself sandwiched between Lithuania and Moscow, which were gaining influence. Independence in such conditions could not last long. As a result, in 1404, the Lithuanian prince Vitovt naturally annexed Smolensk to his possessions.

Outpost on the Oka

The Ryazan principality occupied lands on the Middle Oka. It emerged from the possessions of the Chernigov rulers. In the 1160s, Murom broke away from Ryazan. Mongol invasion hit this edge painfully. The inhabitants, princes, and principalities of ancient Rus' did not understand the threat posed by the eastern conquerors. In 1237, Ryazan was the first Russian city to be destroyed by the steppe inhabitants. Subsequently, the principality fought with Moscow, which was gaining strength. For example, the Ryazan ruler Oleg Ivanovich was an opponent of Dmitry Donskoy for a long time. Gradually Ryazan lost ground. It was annexed to Moscow in 1521.

Novgorod Republic

The historical characteristics of the principalities of Ancient Rus' cannot be complete without mentioning Novgorod Republic. This state lived according to its own special political and social structure. An aristocratic republic with a strong influence of the national council was established here. The princes were elected military leaders (they were invited from other Russian lands).

Similar political system took shape in Pskov, which was called “the younger brother of Novgorod.” These two cities were centers international trade. Compared to other Russians political centers they had the most contact with Western Europe. After the Baltic states were captured by the Catholic military, serious friction began between the knights and Novgorod. This struggle reached its climax in the 1240s. It was then that the Swedes and Germans were defeated in turn by Prince Alexander Nevsky. When the historical path from Ancient Rus' to Great Russia was almost completed, the republic was left alone with Ivan III. He conquered Novgorod in 1478.

North-Eastern Rus'

The first political centers of North-Eastern Rus' in the 11th-12th centuries. there were Rostov, Suzdal and Vladimir. The descendants of Monomakh and his ruled here youngest son Yuri Dolgoruky. Father's successors Andrei Bogolyubsky and Vsevolod Bolshoye Gnezdo strengthened their authority Principality of Vladimir, making it the largest and strongest in fragmented Rus'.

Under the children of Vsevolod the Big Nest, a major development began. The first appanage principalities began to appear. However, the real disasters came in North-Eastern Rus' along with the Mongols. The nomads ravaged this region and burned many of its cities. During the Horde rule, the khans were recognized as elders throughout Rus'. Those who received a special label were put in charge there.

In the struggle for Vladimir, two new opponents emerged: Tver and Moscow. The peak of their confrontation occurred at the beginning of the 14th century. Moscow turned out to be the winner in this rivalry. Gradually, its princes united North-Eastern Rus', overthrew the Mongol-Tatar yoke and ultimately created a single Russian state(Ivan the Terrible became its first king in 1547).

By the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century. Kievan Rus turned into a fairly developed state largely due to the development of the national economy: a regular system of land use appeared, new agricultural crops were developed, and cattle breeding developed. Gradually, specialization of production and the process of division of labor occurred. Along with the villages, cities also developed: by the beginning of the 12th century. There were about 300 large cities in Rus', and their prosperity grew.

However, quite serious changes began to occur in the political life of the state. First of all, the 12th century. (its second half) was marked by a gradual decline in the power of Kyiv and the decline of the Kyiv principality.

Decline of Kyiv. Domestic politics in Rus'

There were several reasons for the weakening of the Principality of Kyiv:

• decreasing importance of the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” which was of great importance for the economy of the region;
• strengthening of the princes locally (the growth of their prosperity led to the fact that the princes no longer needed significant support from Kyiv);
• growing military tension in Kyiv. The city was constantly under attack from both nomads and other princes who wanted to achieve a great reign. Every year the situation in the principality became more tense.

Despite the increasingly difficult state of affairs, Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich (son of Vladimir Monomakh) made attempts to reunite Rus' under the leadership of Kyiv, which, however, were unsuccessful. Already by the end of the 12th century. the center of Rus' increasingly shifted towards the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. Although Kyiv has not lost its political influence until the beginning of the Mongol-Tatar invasion, at the end of the 12th century. serious competition old capital compiled by Vladimir.

The strengthening of individual principalities led to the country becoming more fragmented; regions began to develop their own centers of power, uniting several nearby principalities under their leadership. Economic and political life By the end of the century, Rus' also lost its centralization.

Development of feudalism in the 12th century.

In the 12th century. the formation process is actually completed social structure society, characteristic of most medieval states: society is divided into free and dependent people, social layers appear.

With the development of society and the economy, land interests began to play more and more importance. The princes, who previously owned the majority of all land holdings, gradually transferred part of their administrative rights to the lands to the boyars and monasteries, so that they could independently collect tribute from the territories entrusted to them, freeing the princes themselves from this. This is how a system of private, boyar and monastic land ownership began to take shape. Later, the boyars and monasteries, who received land rights, were able to expand their own farms at the expense of the princely territories; these new, larger farms increasingly employed peasants, debtors, or those who sought protection from the boyar. Feudalism developed.

Foreign policy

The main direction of foreign policy during this period was periodically attacking Rus', as well as attempts to conquer some nearby lands and establish strong contacts with the border European principalities.

Life and culture of Rus' in the 12th century.

Formed under the influence of pagan traditions and ancient life, as well as traditions recently accepted Christianity. Traditional Russian culture with all its national traits and differences in this period are just beginning to form - new crafts are developing, fine arts, architecture.

Main events:

• 1100 - congress of princes in Vitichev;
• 1103 - the beginning of a whole series of campaigns against (1103-1120);
• 1110 - the beginning of the creation of the “Tale of Bygone Years”;
• 1111 - victory over the Cumans at Salnitsa;
• 1113 - beginning of the reign of Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125);
• 1115 - aggravation of relations between Novgorod and Kiev;
• 1116 - new victory of the Kievites over the Polovtsians;
• 1125 - creation of the “Teaching” of Vladimir Monomakh;
• 1125 - death of Vladimir Monomakh, the Kiev throne is occupied by Mstislav, the eldest son of Vladimir Monomakh (1125-1132);
• 1128 - Mstislav takes away independence from the Principality of Polotsk;
• 1130 - the first princely grants given to Novgorod monasteries;
• 1131 - beginning of successful campaigns against Lithuania (1131-1132);
• 1132 - death of Mstislav; this moment is considered the beginning of the period of fragmentation and feudal wars;
• 1136 - expulsion of Vsevolod Mstislavich from Novgorod, the beginning of the era of independence of Novgorod;
• 1139 - unrest in Kyiv, seizure of power by Vsevolod Olgovich;
• 1144 - unification of the Galician-Volyn appanages into a single Galician land;
• 1146 - reign in Kyiv of Izyaslav (1146-1154), the son of Mstislav, whom the people of Kiev invited to inherit the throne after the death of Vsevolod; the beginning of a fierce struggle between princes for the throne in Kyiv;
• 1147 - the first chronicle mention of Moscow;
• 1149 - the struggle of the Novgorodians with the Finns for Vod; attempts by the Suzdal prince Yuri Dolgoruky to recapture the Ugra tribute from the Novgorodians;
• 1151 - war of the Grand Duke of Kyiv Izyaslav in alliance with Hungary against Vladimir, Prince of Galicia;
• 1152 - foundation of Kostroma and Pereyaslavl-Zalessky;
• 1154 - reign

In tasks 1–3 give me one correct answer. Enter your answer in the table.

Task 1

In what year did Yaroslav the Wise and Mstislav Vladimirovich divide the Old Russian state along the Dnieper between themselves?

1. 1024
2. 1029
3. 1036
4. 1051

Task 2

Which of the following principalities was formed in the 12th century?

1. Moskovskoe
2. Tverskoye
3. Smolensk
4. Belozerskoe

Task 3

Indicate the name of the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus', who signed the Union of Florence on the unification of the Catholic and Orthodox churches?

1. Alexy
2. Macarius
3. Isidore

Answer:

1 point for each correct answer.

A total of 3 points for the assignments.

In tasks 4–6 select several correct answers from those proposed. Enter your answers into the table.

Task 4

Which of the listed figures was among Alexei Mikhailovich’s associates and advisers?

1. A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin
2. A.F. Adashev
3. B.I. Morozov
4. DI. Shuisky
5. G.P. Chernyshev
6. F.M. Rtishchev

Task 5

Which of the following terms are associated with the reforms of Catherine the Great?

1. viceroyalty
2. police captain
3. Landrat
4. order of public charity
5. district
6. committee of ministers

Task 6

In which of listed years were there major uprisings in Moscow?

1. 1440
2. 1547
3. 1662
4. 1721
5. 1830
6. 1905

Answer:

2 points for a completely correct answer. 1 point for an answer with one error (one of the correct answers is not indicated or one incorrect answer is given along with all the correct answers indicated).

A total of 6 points for the tasks.

Task 7

What's wrong historical point vision combines the elements listed in the series? Give the most accurate answer possible.

7.1. Tysyatsky, prince, mayor, archbishop.

7.2. 1487–1494, 1500–1503, 1512–1522, 1534–1537

Answer:

7.1. Officials in the Novgorod Republic.

7.2. Russian-Lithuanian wars.

2 points for each correct answer.

Total for the task is 4 points.

Task 8

Give a brief justification for the series (what unites the listed elements from a historical point of view) and indicate which of the elements is superfluous on this basis.

8.1. Yu.M. Martov, L.B. Kamenev, N.S. Chkheidze, N.N. Sukhanov.

8.2. Leningrad-Novgorod operation, Crimean operation, Operation Bagration, Smolensk operation.

Answer:

8.1. Mensheviks. Extra – L.B. Kamenev, Bolshevik.

8.2. The operations carried out in 1944 were among the “ten Stalinist strikes”. Extra – Smolensk operation 1943

2 points for each correct answer. (1 point for correct justification, 1 point for indicating something unnecessary.)

Total for the task is 4 points.

Task 9

Place in chronological sequence world events XIX history V.

• A) declaration of Greek independence
• B) Battle of Sinop
• B) “The Alliance of the Three Emperors”
• D) “spring of nations” in Europe
• D) Napoleon's "Hundred Days"
• E) abolition of slavery in the USA

Answer:

Total for the task is 5 points.

Task 10

Place events from history in chronological order judicial institutions Russia.

• A) the appearance of zemstvo district chiefs
• B) cancellation of feedings
• B) creation of a jury trial
• D) creation of city magistrates
• D) creation of court orders
• E) the emergence of a conscientious court

Answer:

5 points for a completely correct sequence. 2 points for a sequence with one error (i.e. the correct sequence is restored by rearranging any two characters). 0 points if more than one mistake is made.

Total for the task is 5 points.

Task 11

Match the years with the events that happened during these years. Write down the selected numbers in the table under the corresponding letters.

Answer:

Total for the task is 5 points.

Task 12

Match between public figures and the organizations/societies in which they belonged. Write down the selected numbers in the table under the corresponding letters.

Answer:

6 correct matches – 5 points;

5 correct matches – 4 points;

4 correct matches – 3 points;

3 correct matches – 2 points;

1–2 correct matches – 1 point.

Total for the task is 5 points.

Task 13

Establish a correspondence between centuries and cultural and artistic figures who worked in these centuries. Write down the selected numbers in the table under the corresponding letters.

Answer:

6 correct matches – 5 points;

5 correct matches – 4 points;

4 correct matches – 3 points;

3 correct matches – 2 points;

1–2 correct matches – 1 point.

Total for the task is 5 points.

Task 14

Identify titles, words, names, dates, indicated by serial numbers, missing in the text. If necessary, with serial numbers, explanations are given about the nature of the required insertion. Enter the required inserts under the corresponding numbers in the table below.

The peasant question first arose in full force in the second half (1) century. Already in (2 – name of documents) deputies of the Laid (3 – organ) In 1767, the idea of ​​the need to abolish serfdom, which finally took shape more than a hundred years ago in (4) d. First step in in this direction undertook (5 – name and number), who signed in (6) d. document known as the manifesto “On the Three-Day (7 – type of service)" His successor in (8) The city published a decree on free cultivators, allowing landowners to set peasants free with a land plot. The peasant question also worried the Decembrists - for example, in “ (9 – project name)" Nikita Muravyov envisioned the liberation of peasants without land, and according to Pavel's "Russian Truth" (10 – surname) peasants received half of the landowners' lands.

Active development peasant question began during the reign of Nicholas I, who established special secret (11 – organs). The result of their work was, in particular, a decree (12) Mr. "About (13 – title) peasants,” which allowed the liberation of peasants without land. In addition, it was carried out (14 – title) reform in Lithuania, Belarus and Right Bank Ukraine, which determined the exact amounts of peasant duties. However, the actual preparation peasant reform started only after finishing (15 – title) war. Its starting point is considered to be the so-called “rescript (16 – addressee's last name)", ordering the development of reform projects to begin in provincial institutions. However, the manifesto on the abolition of serfdom was ready only in February (17) G.

Answer:

17 correct insertions – 9 points;

15-16 correct insertions – 8 points;

13–14 correct insertions – 7 points;

11–12 correct insertions – 6 points;

9–10 correct insertions – 5 points;

7–8 correct insertions – 4 points;

5–6 correct insertions – 3 points;

3–4 correct insertions – 2 points;

1–2 correct insertions – 1 point;

Total for the task is 9 points.

Task 15

Look carefully at the diagram and complete the tasks.

15.1. During what war did the battle indicated by the arrows in the diagram take place? Indicate its year.

Answer: war of the Third Coalition/third anti-French coalition; 1805

1 point for each correct answer element. Only 2 points.

15.2. Name the state on whose territory the battle shown in the diagram took place.

Answer: Austria/Austrian Empire. 1 point.

15.3. Name the city indicated on the diagram by number 1, which gave its name to the battle.

Answer: Austerlitz. 1 point.

15.4. Indicate under what allegorical name the battle indicated in the diagram went down in history.

Answer:"The Battle of the Three Emperors" 1 point.

15.5. Are the statements below true (yes - no)? Enter your answers into the table.

A) The battle reflected in the diagram ended in the defeat of the allied army.

B) The diagram shows the name of the Russian general who received a mortal wound in the Battle of Borodino.

C) Russian troops in the battle reflected in the diagram were under the actual command of Emperor Alexander I.

D) One of Russia’s allies in the war, the events of which are reflected in the diagram, was Prussia.

D) One of the consequences of the battle in the diagram was the liquidation of the Holy Roman Empire.

E) The diagram shows the names of Napoleon’s marshals who took part in the war with Russia in 1812.

G) As part of the war, the battle of which is indicated in the diagram, the Russian fleet fought naval battles.

Answer:

1 point for each correct answer. Total 7 points.

Total for the task 12 points.

Task 16

Here are images of nine posters. They can be divided into 3 groups of 3 posters in each, basing the classification on issues issued under the same leader of the CPSU. Write down the surname and initials of the leaders in the top line of the table below, indicate the years they were in power. In the second line, enter the allegorical (established) name of the reign of each of them. In the third row of the table, enter serial numbers posters corresponding to the reign of each leader.

Answer:

For the full name of one manager - 1 point. For faithful years of government - 1 point; if there is any error in years, no points will be awarded for years.

For the correct name of one era - 1 point.

For each complete correct correlation - 2 points. 1 point for correlations with one error.

A total of 15 points for the task.

Task 17

Read an excerpt from a historical source and complete the tasks below.

“The repeated violations to which treaties considered the basis of European balance have been subjected in recent years have forced the imperial cabinet into the need to delve into their significance in relation to the political situation of Russia. Among these treaties, the treaty of March 18/30, 1856 most directly relates to Russia.

In a separate convention between both coastal powers of the Black Sea, which forms an annex to the treaty, Russia’s obligation to limit its naval forces to the smallest sizes. On the other hand, the treatise established the basic principle of neutralization of the Black Sea.<…>It was supposed to increase the number of countries enjoying, by unanimous agreement of Europe, the benefits of neutralization, and thus protect Russia from any danger of attack.

Experience has proven that this is the beginning on which border security depends Russian Empire on this side, throughout its entire length, has only theoretical value. Indeed: while Russia was disarming in the Black Sea and even, through a declaration included in the minutes of the conference, directly prohibited itself from taking effective measures naval defense in the adjacent seas and ports, Turkey retained the right to maintain unlimited naval forces in the Archipelago and in the straits; France and England could continue to concentrate their squadrons in the Mediterranean.

Moreover, as the treatise puts it, entry into the Black Sea is formally and forever prohibited to the military flag of both coastal and all other powers; but by virtue of the so-called Straits Convention, military flags are prohibited from passing through these straits only during times of peace. From this contradiction it follows that the shores of the Russian Empire are open to any attack, even from less powerful powers, if only they have naval forces, against which Russia could field only a few ships of weak size.<…>

After a mature consideration of this issue, E.I. V deigned to come to the following conclusions, which you are instructed to bring to the attention of the government under which you are authorized. In relation to the law, our august sovereign cannot allow treaties, violated in many of their essential and general articles, to remain binding on those articles that relate to the direct interests of his empire. In relation to application, E. I. V cannot allow the security of Russia to be made dependent on a theory that has not stood up to the experience of time, and that this security could be violated due to respect for obligations that were not fully respected their integrity.

The Sovereign Emperor, in trust in the sense of justice of the powers that signed the treaty of 1856, and in their consciousness of their own dignity, commands you to announce: that E. I. V can no longer consider himself bound by the obligations of the treaty of March 18/30, 1856 , to what extent they limit his supreme rights in the Black Sea.”

17.1. Indicate the year in which this document was created. Indicate the name, position and rank of the person who compiled this document.

Answer: 1870 (1 point). A.M. Gorchakov. (1 point). Minister of Foreign Affairs (1 point). Chancellor (1 point). Total 4 points.

17.2. What is the name of the treatise mentioned in the document? What European conflict ended this treatise? Indicate the years of this conflict.

Answer: Treaty of Paris. Crimean War 1853–1856 1 point for each answer element. Only 3 points.

17.3. The document contains a mention of the “so-called convention on the straits,” by virtue of which “passage through these straits is prohibited to military flags only in times of peace.” Indicate the name of this convention and the year it was adopted. Which Russian-Turkish alliance treaty did this convention replace? Indicate the year of his imprisonment.

Answer: London Convention of 1841. The Convention replaced the Unkar-Iskelesi Treaty of 1833. 2 points for the name of each act.

2 points for each date the document was accepted. Total 8 points.

17.4. Based on the text, what concerns does Russia see for its security in connection with the regime of neutralization of the Black Sea? Give three examples.

Answer:

A) The ability of Russia's opponents to build up naval forces in the Marmara and Mediterranean Seas, not far from Russian shores.

B) Prohibition of entry of naval vessels only in peacetime, whereas there is no prohibition in wartime.

IN) Russia does not have sufficient forces in the Black Sea to repel an attack.

2 points for each example given. Total 6 points.

Answer: A) It is expressly stated that a treaty that has been violated before cannot be observed any longer. B) Russia’s security in the event of neutralization of the Black Sea has never been confirmed in practice. C) Reluctance to question the security of the empire.

2 points for each example given. Total 4 points.

17.6. What European conflict contributed to the appearance of this document? Enter his years.

Answer: Franco-Prussian War 1870–1871

1 point for each answer element. Only 2 points.

A total of 27 points for the task.

Task 18

You will have to work with statements by historians and contemporaries about events and figures national history. Choose one of them that will become the topic of your essay. Your task is to formulate your own attitude to this statement and justify it with arguments that seem to you the most significant. When choosing a topic, assume that you:

1. clearly understand the meaning of the statement (you don’t have to completely or even partially agree with the author, but you need to understand what exactly he is saying);
2. you can express your attitude to the statement (reasonably agree with the author or completely or partially refute his statement);
3. have specific knowledge (facts, statistics, examples) on the topic;
4. know the terms necessary to correctly express your point of view.

When writing your work, try to assume that the jury, when evaluatingYour essay will be guided by the following criteria:

1. validity of the choice of topic (explanation of the choice of topic and the tasks that the participant sets for himself in his work);
2. literacy in the use of historical facts and terms;
3. clarity and evidence of the main provisions of the work;
4. knowledge of different points of view on a selected issue;
5. the presence of substantiated conclusions that correspond to the tasks set by the participant.

1. “Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky was a stern and capricious master, who acted in everything in his own way, and not according to old times and customs... In his person, the Great Russian first appeared on the historical stage, and this performance cannot be considered successful.” (V.O. Klyuchevsky)
2. “But even if recognition of the socio-political structure of Russia in the second half of the 16th century is established. the most optimal for the development of the country... then researchers will still be faced with the question of whether all those bloody sacrifices that marked the reign of Ivan IV were necessary to achieve such a result...” (B.N. Florya)
3. “Many people remember the spectacular, but, unfortunately, very lightweight phrase of V.O. Klyuchevsky that under Anna Ioannovna “the Germans poured into Russia like rubbish from a holey bag.” Meanwhile, the Germans “fell” into Russia long before Anne’s reign, and their numbers were never frightening for the national existence of the Russian people.” (E.V. Anisimov)
4. “The Decembrists were the last military conspirators... But they became the first ideological revolutionaries.” (P.N. Milyukov)
5. “As a result of the reign of Alexander III, the country seemed calmed and finally pacified. Revolutionary movement went deep underground. The liberal opposition has died down. The village was ruined and proletarianized almost without unrest or riots. With the advent of labor legislation, individual strikes by workers no longer looked frightening.” (V.A. Tvardovskaya)
6. "The clash between in regular units The Red and White armies were only a facade of the Civil War... Meanwhile, the victory of one side or another depended primarily on the sympathy and support... of the peasantry.” (A.A. Danilov)
7. "Defeat Nazi troops near Moscow had far-reaching political consequences. <…>So, in December 1941 the dawn of our victory began. It was from Moscow that we began to count our victorious kilometers to Berlin.” (D.D. Lelyushenko)

Up to 5 points for each criterion.

A total of 25 points for the task.

The maximum for the work is 130 points.

The geographical location of which we will consider further lasted from 1132 to 1471. Its territory included the lands of the glades and Drevlyans along the Dnieper River and its tributaries - Pripyat, Teterev, Irpen and Ros, as well as part of the left bank.

Principality of Kiev: geographical location

This territory bordered the Polotsk land in the northwestern part, and Chernigov was located in the northeast. Western and southwestern neighbors were Poland and the Principality of Galicia. The city, built on the hills, was ideally located militarily. Speaking about the peculiarities of the geographical location of the Principality of Kyiv, it should be mentioned that it was well protected. Not far from it were the cities of Vruchiy (or Ovruch), Belgorod, and also Vyshgorod - all of them had good fortifications and controlled the territory adjacent to the capital, which provided additional protection from the western and southwestern sides. From the southern part it was covered by a system of forts built along the banks of the Dnieper, and nearby well-defended cities on the Ros River.

Principality of Kiev: characteristics

This principality should be understood public education in Ancient Rus', which existed from the 12th to the 15th centuries. Kyiv was the political and cultural capital. It was formed from separated territories Old Russian state. Already in the middle of the 12th century. the power of the princes from Kyiv had significant significance only within the borders of the principality itself. The city lost its all-Russian significance, and the rivalry for control and power lasted until the Mongol invasion. The throne passed in an unclear order, and many could lay claim to it. And also, to a large extent, the possibility of gaining power depended on the influence of the strong boyars of Kyiv and the so-called “black hoods”.

Social and economic life

The location near the Dnieper played a big role in economic life. In addition to communication with the Black Sea, he brought Kyiv to the Baltic, in which Berezina also helped. The Desna and Seim provided connections with the Don and Oka, and Pripyat - with the Neman and Dniester basins. Here was the so-called route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” which was a trade route. Thanks to fertile soils and mild climate, agriculture developed intensively; Cattle breeding and hunting were common, and residents were engaged in fishing and beekeeping. Crafts were divided early in these parts. “Woodworking” played a fairly significant role, as well as pottery and leatherworking. Thanks to the presence of iron deposits, the development of blacksmithing was possible. Many types of metals (silver, tin, copper, lead, gold) were delivered from neighboring countries. So all of this had an impact on early education trade and craft relations in Kyiv and nearby cities.

Political history

As the capital loses its all-Russian significance, the rulers of the strongest principalities begin to send their proteges - “henchmen” - to Kyiv. The boyars subsequently used the precedent in which, bypassing the accepted order of succession to the throne, Vladimir Monomakh was invited to justify their right to choose a strong and pleasing ruler. The Principality of Kiev, whose history is characterized by civil strife, turned into a battlefield on which cities and villages suffered significant damage, were ruined, and the inhabitants themselves were captured. Kyiv saw a time of stability during the periods of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich Chernigov, as well as Roman Mstislavovich Volynsky. Other princes who quickly succeeded each other remained more colorless in history. The Principality of Kiev suffered greatly, geographical location which allowed him to defend well for a long time before, during the Mongol-Tatar invasion in 1240.

Fragmentation

The Old Russian state initially included tribal principalities. However, the situation has changed. Over time, when the local nobility began to be supplanted by the Rurik family, principalities began to form, ruled by representatives from the younger line. The established order of succession to the throne has always caused discord. In 1054, Yaroslav the Wise and his sons began to divide the Principality of Kiev. Fragmentation was the inevitable consequence of these events. The situation worsened after the Lyubechen Council of Princes in 1091. However, the situation improved thanks to the policies of Vladimir Monomakh and his son Mstislav the Great, who managed to maintain integrity. They were able to once again bring the principality of Kiev under control of the capital, the geographical position of which was quite favorable for protection from enemies, and for the most part only internal strife spoiled the position of the state.

With the death of Mstislav in 1132, political fragmentation set in. However, despite this, Kyiv for several decades retained the status of not only a formal center, but also the most powerful principality. His influence did not disappear completely, but was significantly weakened compared to the situation at the beginning of the 12th century.