fragmentation period.

In 1125, after the death of Monomakh, his eldest son Mstislav established himself on the throne of Kiev. Under him, the Polotsk Vseslavichs were expelled from their possessions. Due to internal strife, the Chernigov Svyatoslavichs weakened. None of the princes dared to confront Mstislav. After his death in 1132, the eldest of the Monomakhoviches, Yaropolk, who had previously been the prince of Pereyaslavl, ascended the throne of Kyiv. At first glance, as academician Sakharov writes, it seemed that everything was going on as usual, that the mighty Kievan state was simply going through another change of prince. But, starting from 1132, events in Russia began to take on such a character that it became clear: the country had entered a new historical stage, which had been gradually preparing over the previous decades.

Outwardly, this was expressed in the fact that another inter-princely turmoil broke out in Russia. Its main characters were again Monomakhovichi and Olgovichi. At the beginning there was a quarrel between the sons and grandsons of Monomakh. An attempt by the great Kyiv prince Yaropolk to give Pereyaslavl to his nephew Vsevolod Mstislavich, as he promised Mstislav before his death, met with resistance from Yuri Vladimirovich of Rostov and Andrei Vladimirovich, who ruled in Volyn. The sons of Monomakh, not without reason, suspected that the childless Yaropolk intended to prepare the transfer of the throne of Kyiv to the son of Mstislav the Great. Their rebuff led to the fact that Pereyaslavl was given to Yuri Dolgoruky.

The strife among the Monomakhoviches was used by Vsevolod Olgovich Chernigovsky, who, with the support of the Polovtsy and the neutrality of the Rostov and Volyn princes, attacked Kyiv. For three days Vsevolod stood under the city; the Polovtsy committed at that time the defeat of the Dnieper lands. But the prince of Chernigov failed to take the city, and he went home.

The offensive of the Chernigov prince rallied the sons of Monomakh - Yaropolk, Yuri and Andrey. Now they begin to oppose Vsevolod Olgovich in unison, but he makes an alliance with the grandchildren of Monomakh, the sons of Mstislav, whom their uncles actively began to rub into the shadows.

In the mid-30s of the XII century, this enmity resulted in a series of warriors, in which the Polovtsian detachments traditionally acted on the side of the Chernigov prince.

Yaropolk died in 1139. After his death, Vyacheslav, the eldest of the surviving children of Monomakh, took the throne in Kyiv, but a few days later he was expelled from the city by Vsevolod Olgovich. Finally, the Chernigov princes exercised their right of seniority and occupied Kyiv. Neither Yuri nor Andrei Vladimirovich had good reasons to interfere in the fight: both of them were only the youngest in a large family of great-grandchildren of Yaroslav the Wise.

The reign of the Chernigov prince did not put an end to civil strife, but only made them more stubborn and large-scale. From now on, the sons and grandsons of Monomakh and the most active of them, Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky, became constant enemies of the Kyiv prince.

After the death of Vsevolod Olgovich in 1146, the throne of Kyiv briefly passed to his brother Igor. But soon another uprising of "lesser" people broke out and the frightened Kyiv elite sent walkers, as once in 1113, to Pereyaslavl, where Monomakh's grandson Izyaslav Mstislavich reigned. He approached Kyiv with an army. So the Monomakh dynasty again regained the throne of Kyiv. This was done bypassing the elders in the family.

In the course of almost a decade of internecine struggle, Kyiv several times passed from hand to hand. It was ruled either by the Chernigov princes, or by the children and grandchildren of Monomakh. An active role in this strife was played by the Rostov-Suzdal prince Yuri Dolgoruky. But the Kyiv elite did not favor Yuri.

In the course of this fierce struggle for Kyiv, the princes - pretenders, occupying the throne of Kyiv, nevertheless, retained their former possessions. So Yuri Dolgoruky, having become the great prince of Kyiv, continued to live in his beloved northeast, the Olgovichi also relied on Chernigov, remaining, first of all, the Chernigov princes, and then the princes of Kyiv.

What is the meaning of this new position in which the capital of Russia found itself in the 12th century? According to many historians, the social structure of Russian society became more complex, its layers in individual lands and cities became more defined: large boyars, clergy, merchants, artisans. Dependence of villagers on landowners developed. All this new Russia no longer needed the former centralization. The huge Kievan Rus, with its very superficial political cohesion, necessary, first of all, for defense against an external enemy, for organizing long-range campaigns of conquest, now no longer corresponded to the needs of large cities with their branched hierarchy, developed trade and craft layers, the needs of patrimonials striving to have power, close to their interests - and not in Kyiv, and not even in the person of the Kyiv governor, but their own, close, here on the spot, which could fully and decisively defend their interests. The nobility was born, the life of which was based on service in exchange for a land grant. This system further strengthened the position of local princes. They also often relied in the fight against the willfulness of the boyars on the increased political activity of the townspeople. The urban strata began to turn into a certain counterbalance in relations between the princes and the boyars. All this determined the shift of historical accents from the center to the periphery, from Kyiv to the centers of individual principalities.

The loss of its historical role by Kyiv, according to Sakharov A.N., was to a certain extent connected with the movement of the main trade routes in Europe and Asia Minor. The Kyiv princes' defense of the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" lost its meaning, because in Europe the trade route from the Baltic coast to Venice ("Amber Road") came to the fore. In Northern Europe, German cities were gaining strength, to which Novgorod and other cities of the Russian north-west began to focus more and more.

Centuries of intense struggle with the nomads - the Pechenegs, Polovtsy, Turks - could not pass without a trace for Kyiv and the Russian land. This struggle exhausted the people's strength, slowing down the overall progress of the region, and doomed it to fall behind. The advantage was given to those regions of the country that, although they were in less favorable conditions (Novgorod land, Rostov-Suzdal Rus), did not experience such debilitating pressure from the nomads as the Middle Dnieper. All taken together, it determined the weakening of Kyiv, the power of the great princes, and led to the beginning of the political disintegration of Russia.

The fierce struggle of the princes with each other, the endless civil strife were only an external expression of the deep processes of development of the Russian lands. If earlier internecine strife was a reflection of tendencies or tribal separatism, or were associated with crises of power after the death of the great princes, now these wars were the result of new circumstances in Russian life. They defended the right of princes to decide the fate of their possessions. And behind the princes were grown, formed social worlds.

As Sakharov figuratively said, Kievan Rus nursed and raised other Russian principalities, and now they have scattered around the world like independent chicks. During the twelfth century, Russia politically became like a patchwork quilt.

So, the historical tradition considers the year 1132 to be the chronological beginning of the period of fragmentation, when, after the death of Mstislav, the son of Monomakh, “the Russian land was torn apart” (according to the chronicle) into separate principalities. Prior to this, the grand ducal power had not experienced an excessive threat from local separatism. Since the most important political and economic levers were assigned to it: the army, tax policy, the priority of the princely treasury in foreign trade.

The process of regulation of intrastate relations did not take place without friction between the central government and local self-government. At the same time, public practice was not suppressed by power structures, the centralism of management got along well with local characteristics and traditions. Nevertheless, in the second third of the 12th century, disintegration tendencies took over - Russia fell into a period of fragmentation.

From the point of view of general historical development, the political fragmentation of Russia is only a natural stage on the way to the future centralization of the country and the future economic and political rise already on a new civilizational basis. This is evidenced by the rapid growth of cities and patrimonial economy in individual principalities, and the entry of these practically independent states into the foreign policy arena: Novgorod and Smolensk later concluded their own agreements with the Baltic lands, with German cities; Galich actively maintained diplomatic relations with Poland, Hungary and even with papal Rome. Culture continued to develop in each of these principalities-states. The famous "Tale of Igor's Campaign" was born just at the time of this political collapse of the once united Russia.

Within the framework of the principalities - states, the Russian church was gaining strength. During these years, many remarkable philosophical and theological creations came out of the circles of the clergy. And most importantly, in the conditions of the formation of new economic regions and the formation of new political formations, the peasant economy was steadily developing, new arable land was being developed, and estates were expanding and quantitatively multiplying. Which for their time became the most progressive form of conducting a large complex economy, although this happened due to the forced labor of the dependent peasant population, either given by the prince to the votchinnik along with the lands, or who fell into poverty to a wealthy landowner. But such are the paradoxes of history, where progress is sometimes based on suffering and where future prosperity passes through the great difficulties of the country.

Moreover, the political disintegration of Russia has never been complete. The centripetal forces were preserved, which constantly opposed the centrifugal forces. First of all, it was the power of the great Kyiv princes. Although sometimes transparent, it existed, and even Yuri Dolgoruky, remaining in the far northeast, called himself the Great Prince of Kyiv. And later: among other Russian principalities there was the principality of Kiev, which, albeit formally, but cemented all of Russia. Not without reason for the author of The Tale of Igor's Campaign, the power and authority of the Kyiv prince stood on a high political and moral pedestal.

The all-Russian church retained its influence. The Kyiv metropolitans were the leaders of the entire church organization. The church stood for the unity of Russia. She condemned the internecine wars of the princes. The oath on the cross in the presence of church leaders was one of the forms of peace agreements between the warring parties.

A counterbalance to the forces of disintegration and separatism was the constantly existing external danger to the Russian lands from the side of the Polovtsians. On the one hand, the rival princely clans attracted the Polovtsy as allies, and they ravaged the Russian lands, on the other hand, the idea of ​​​​unity of forces in the fight against an external enemy constantly lived in the all-Russian consciousness, the ideal of the prince was preserved - the guardian of the Russian land, which was Vladimir I and Vladimir Monomakh. Not without reason, in Russian epics, the images of these two princes merged into one ideal image of the defender of the Russian land from evil enemies.

Among one and a half dozen principalities that were formed in the XII century on the territory of Russia, the largest were: Kiev, Chernigov, Novgorod, Galicia-Volyn, Vladimir-Suzdal, Polotsk, Smolensk. The Kiev principality, although it lost its significance as the political center of the Russian lands, however, the largest number of large patrimonial estates and arable land was located here. In the 30s - 40s of the XII century, Kyiv irrevocably lost control over the Rostov-Suzdal land, where the power-hungry Yuri Dolgoruky ruled, over Novgorod and Smolensk, whose boyars themselves began to select princes for themselves.

For the Kyiv land, the big European politics, long trips to the heart of Europe, to the Balkans, to Byzantium and to the East, are in the past. Now the foreign policy of the Kyiv princes was limited to two directions. The old exhausting struggle with the Polovtsy continues. The Vladimir-Suzdal Principality, which grows stronger every year, becomes a new strong adversary. If the Kyiv princes managed to contain the Polovtsian danger, relying on the help of other principalities, which themselves suffered from Polovtsian raids, then it was more difficult to cope with the northeastern neighbor. After the death of Yuri Dolgoruky, the Vladimir-Suzdal throne passed to his son Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky, who in 1169 approached Kyiv with other princes. For the first time in its history, Kyiv was taken “on the shield”, and not by external enemies, but by the Russians themselves. As the chronicler said, there were then in Kyiv “a groan and anguish on all people; inconsolable sadness and incessant tears. Unlike Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky paid the main attention to the internal affairs of his principality. He severely suppressed the opposition speeches of the local boyars, sought to strengthen the princely power. Andrey's policy caused dissatisfaction with the local boyars, and he was killed by the conspirators. The murder of the prince and the strife between his younger brothers because of the princely "table" interrupted the process of centralization in the Vladimir-Suzdal land. The principality of Kiev, according to Sakharov, achieved stability under Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, who shared power in the principality with his co-ruler Rurik Rostislavich of Smolensk. After the death of Svyatoslav, Rurik shared power with the pretender to the throne Roman Mstislavich, the great-great-grandson of Monomakh, until the beginning of the 13th century. But Roman captured Rurik and tonsured his family as monks. He continued the policy of centralization of power, suppressed boyar separatism. The boyars waged a struggle against the centralization of power, entered into an agreement with Hungary and Poland, and undermined the political and military power of the principality.

Both the causes and the very nature of this phenomenon, researchers at different times revealed in different ways. The school of M.N. Pokrovsky considered feudal fragmentation as a natural stage in the progressive development of productive forces. According to the formation scheme, feudalism is the isolation of economic and political structures. Fragmentation is interpreted as a new form of state organization. It was believed that the natural isolation of individual lands made it possible to better use the local economic potential.

Historians S.V. Dumin, A.A. Turilov directly admit that the unsettled order of the princely succession to the throne, strife within the ruling dynasty, separatism and ambitions of the local landed nobility reflected the destabilization of the political situation in the country. Moreover, this destabilization was not an abstract trend, but expressed itself through the concrete activities of specific people.

According to N.M. Karamzin and S.M. Solovyov, this period was a kind of turmoil, a “dark, silent” time, as well as “meager deeds of glory and rich in insignificant strife.” V.O. Klyuchevsky spoke not about fragmentation, but about the “specific system”, called this period “specific centuries”. Klyuchevsky's terminology implied, first of all, state decentralization due to the implementation of the principle of hereditary division of land and power within the princely family. Thus, the joint tribal order of ownership of the entire Russian land in Kievan Rus, which operated between the Yaroslavichs in order of seniority, gave way in the Suzdal north in the offspring of Vsevolod III to separate hereditary possession of parts of the land on the right of full personal property that belonged to each prince-owner. The new order was established in northern Russia simultaneously with its Russian colonization, which was the main reason for this change. The northern princes, leading this colonization, populating and arranging their possessions, got used to looking at them as the work of their own hands, that is, as their personal property. The action of this order was accompanied by consequences very important for the subsequent political fate of northern Russia:

1. By dividing the princely estates among the heirs, northern Russia gradually fragmented into many small destinies, approaching in size to the estates of ordinary private landowners;

2. The reduction of appanages was accompanied by the impoverishment of the appanage princes and the decline of their government authority;

3. The specific order introduced mutual alienation among the princes, weakening their sense of solidarity, common interests, weaning them to act together, making them incapable of friendly political alliances;

4. Alienating the princes from each other and closing them in small hereditary estates, the specific order lowered the level of their civic feelings and zemstvo consciousness, obscuring the idea of ​​the unity of the Russian land, of the common good of the people.

According to the great Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky, "the concept of a separate hereditary property is ... the content of a specific order." The Russian land as an indivisible whole, which is in the common possession of princes - relatives, from the turn of the 10th-12th centuries ceases to be a proper political reality. Nevertheless, it continues to exist in the form of a single ethnic and confessional territory, governed from Kyiv.

Quite large independent state formations arose on the ruins of Kievan Rus. Despite their differences, they all share some common features. As the main political institutions, three forces are characteristic: princes, squad, city council. In addition, in the background there is a "service organization". It serves the first two forces and gradually gains more and more political influence.

All these state formations can be divided into three types:

Early feudal monarchy

a feudal republic

despotic monarchy.

They differ in which of the listed political bodies play a decisive role in them.

An example of the first type of state is the Kievan and Galicia-Volyn principalities. The princes continue to fight for the throne of Kyiv. Possession of it gives the right to be called the Grand Duke, formally standing above all other - appanage - princes. Here the strong Kievan power, based on the retinue, the voice of the prince is the decisive force.

Its own type of state power has developed in the North-West of Russia. Here, the princely power as an independent political force ceased to exist as a result of the events of 1136, when the Novgorodians put the ruling prince under arrest, from that time the Novgorod prince was elected at the veche, and his functions were limited to military issues. All power in the periods between veche gatherings was concentrated in the hands of the Novgorod posadniks and bishops. This type of government can be defined as a feudal republic.

A completely different type of power is taking shape in the North-East of Russia. This region, whose settlement by the Slavs was completed only in the 11th-12th centuries, obviously did not have deep veche traditions. The social base on which the prince relied, carrying out his transformations, became "merciful", that is, people who depend on the mercy of the prince.

We are talking about the "service organization", the yard "serfs" of the prince. The service of the “mercifuls” to the prince was in unconditional dependence on the master, the “merciful” was the property of the prince, although he could hold high positions and have large possessions. A new system of state power is being strengthened - a despotic monarchy, based on the direct subordination of the subjects of the serfs to their master - the prince.

The tendency to strengthen princely power, according to many historians, met with stubborn resistance from the boyars. The first news about the clashes between the princes and the local boyars appeared in chronicles from the 60s of the 12th century. In the fight against the boyars, the princes relied on the princely domain. The direct military support of the prince was his "yard" - the squad. The nature of the squad during the period of fragmentation in Russia changes. Instead of senior warriors - boyars, who settled on the ground and turned into vassals of the prince, military servants, "youths" and "children", who received land ownership for service, were recruited into the squad. A new class of feudal lords grew up - service feudal lords. The prototype of the future local nobility. The final outcome of the struggle between the princes and the boyars was determined by the real balance of power in each principality. In the land of Novgorod, the boyars turned out to be so powerful that they completely subjugated the princes, turning Veliky Novgorod into a kind of "boyar republic". In fact, the old Kiev boyars also held power in their hands, expelling objectionable princes and inviting others. Stubborn and lengthy was the struggle between the princely power and the boyars in the Galicia-Volyn land. The struggle between the princely power and the boyars was the main content of the realistic life of the Russian feudal principalities in the second half of the 12th - first half of the 13th centuries.

According to the concept of L.N. Gumilyov, the fragmentation of the Kievan state was the result of a decline in passionary energy in the system of the ancient Russian ethnos. He saw manifestations of this decline in the weakening of public and intrastate ties due to the victory of selfish interests and consumer psychology, when the state organization was perceived by the inhabitants as a burden, and not a guarantor of stability and protection. Consumerism kindled selfish passions, spread indifference to state problems, and made it difficult to sensitively guess the prospect. Relative safety became familiar, introduced elements of carelessness. Generations that grew up in such conditions overlooked the idea of ​​the state as a guarantor of the survival of the people - an idea well understood by their ancestors, who created the state in an environment of continuous wars with nomads. People lost their vigilance, their attention switched to internal political squabbles.

According to A.N. Sakharov, it was not political reasons that underlay the collapse of Russia. Within the framework of a single state, independent economic regions have developed over three centuries, new cities have grown, large patrimonial farms, possessions of monasteries and churches have arisen and developed. In each of these centers, behind the backs of the local princes stood the growing and united feudal clans - the boyars with their vassals, the rich top of the cities, church hierarchies.

VV Artemov believes that with the economic development of individual lands, their inhabitants gradually ceased to feel the need for a central government. The population grew in the lands, material conditions were created for the maintenance of their own troops. Therefore, it seemed superfluous to send to Kyiv in the form of a tribute of a significant part of what was produced locally. Therefore, the importance of Kyiv in the XII century decreased. A significant reason was the fact that since 1132 there were no more authoritative princes on the throne of Kiev, capable of keeping all of Russia under their rule. The power of the princes weakened as a result of the fragmentation of the principalities. According to N.M. Karamzin, an example of a device with a weak power of the prince is the Novgorod Republic. Republic means such a political structure, when power belongs to a group of the most noble people. How can one explain the reasons for such a feature in Novgorod? Novgorod was the largest center of trade, on the one hand, but due to the low fertility of the soil, agriculture was not developed as, for example, in the southern regions. Therefore, the owners of land - the boyars-patrimonials did not have economic power and political weight. Artisans, merchants, merchants played the main role. This was reflected in the specifics of the Novgorod system: an aristocratic republic with a very limited power of the prince, who was invited.

According to O.A. Platonov, the first and main reason for the decline of Kievan Rus was that in a single land, in a single society there was no single political power - a numerous princely family owned Russia; when tribal and family accounts were confused because of seniority or because of some kind of grievances, the princes often started strife and dragged the population into an internecine war; people suffered from these strife, the development of national life suffered. Of the 170 years (1055-1224), 30 years passed in strife. The second misfortune of Kievan Rus was the strengthening, from the middle of the XII century, of its steppe enemies. The Polovtsy appeared in the southern steppes, and over the course of two centuries they devastated the Russian land forty times with significant raids, and small raids can not be counted. Trade with the south began to fade thanks to the same Polovtsy; they robbed merchants on the lower Dnieper and Dniester, and trade caravans were out of danger only under strong military cover. In 1170, the southern Russian princes, on the initiative of Mstislav Izyaslavich, had a congress at which they discussed means of combating the Polovtsy, and it was said that the Polovtsy “are already taking away from us the Grechsky path (to Tsargrad) and the Salt (Crimean or Czech) , and Zalozny (to the lower Danube)." This was a great disaster for the country. Because of the Polovtsian threat, our ancestors did not notice that their trade was also falling for another reason, precisely because the crusades created a new trade route for communications between Europe and Asia, past Kyiv, through the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean Sea.

By the XIII century, the life of Kievan Rus became poorer and lost its last security; than further. It became all the more difficult to live in the south, which is why entire cities and volosts begin to empty, especially since the princes, as they used to quarrel over seniority, now began to quarrel over people, over "full". They began to raid neighboring principalities and led away the people in droves, the population could not live in peace, because their own princes tore it from the land, from the economy.

These circumstances - the strife of the princes, the lack of external security, the decline in trade and the flight of the population to the northern and northwestern regions of the country - were the main reasons for the decline of southern Russian public life.

Against the background of the decline of Kyiv, the relative political rise of the Vladimir-Suzdal and Smolensk principalities, as well as the Novgorod land, is manifested. However, this rise at that time could not yet lead to the creation of an all-Russian center capable of uniting Russia and fulfilling the most important external strategic tasks.

In the second third of the 12th century, Russia faced severe trials when the Mongols attacked it from the east, and from the west - German, Danish, Swedish knights, Lithuanian, Polish and Hungarian feudal lords. The Russian princes, swathed in strife, failed to unite to repel aggression. The collapse of the state organization weakened the ability to resist.

Thus, by the beginning of the XIII century, Russia lived in conditions of fragmentation for more than a century. There were up to one and a half dozen principalities. Most of them were monarchies headed by the Grand Duke, he was subject to, within his land, the principality, the owners of smaller destinies - princes appanage. All of them handed down power by inheritance. Republican orders were established only in Novgorod the Great, and then in Pskov. By the beginning of the XIII century, the lands of Russia extended to the Urals. In the first third of the XIII century, political leaders emerged, the most powerful states - the principalities: Galicia-Volyn and Vladimir-Suzdal. They indicated clear aspirations for the political unification of the lands of Russia, for centralization. But this was prevented by the Tatar-Mongol invasion.

Our historiography is sympathetic to Kievan Rus. This Russia has not developed a stable political order capable of withstanding external blows; however, researchers of various trends are generally inclined to paint the life of Kievan Rus with light colors. Where is the reason for this attitude? There were many troubles in the old Kyiv life. But in the princes of that time, a kindred, or rather genealogical feeling was so alive, so much prowess, the desire "to get glory for yourself, but to lay down your head for the Russian land."

Further development of the Russian lands could follow any of the emerging paths, however, the invasion of the Mongol troops in the second half of the 13th century significantly changed the political situation in the country.

Since the 30s of the XII century. Russia irreversibly entered a period of feudal fragmentation, which became a natural stage in the development of all major European states in the early Middle Ages. If its early manifestations were still extinguished by the force of inertia, by the will of such prominent statesmen as Vladimir Monomakh and Mstislav, then after their departure from the historical arena, new economic, political, and social trends powerfully declared themselves.

By the middle of the XII century. Russia split into 15 principalities, which were only formally dependent on Kyiv. At the beginning of the XIII century. there were already about 50 of them. During the XII century. Russia politically became like a patchwork quilt.

Of course, one of the reasons for such a state of statehood in Russia was the constant princely divisions of lands between the Rurikovichs, their endless internecine wars and new redistribution of lands. However, it was not political reasons that underlay this phenomenon. Within the framework of a single state, independent economic regions have developed over three centuries, new cities have grown, large patrimonial farms, possessions of monasteries and churches have arisen and developed. In each of these centers, behind the backs of the local princes stood the growing and united feudal clans - the boyars with their vassals, the rich elite of the cities, church hierarchs.

The formation of independent principalities within the framework of Russia resembled the background of the rapid development of the productive forces of society, the progress of agriculture, handicrafts, domestic and foreign trade, which increased the exchange of goods between individual Russian lands.

The social structure of Russian society also became more complex, its layers in individual lands and cities became more defined: the large boyars, the clergy, merchants, artisans, the lower classes of the city, including serfs. Dependence of villagers on landowners developed. All this new Russia no longer needed the former early medieval centralization. The lands, which differed from others in natural, economic data, became more and more isolated under the new conditions. For the new structure of the economy, other than before, the scale of the state was needed. The huge Kievan Rus, with its very superficial political cohesion, necessary primarily for defense against an external enemy, for organizing long-range campaigns of conquest, now no longer corresponded to the needs of large cities with their branched feudal hierarchy, developed trade and craft strata, the needs of patrimonials striving to have power , close to their interests - and not in Kyiv, and not even in the person of the Kyiv governor, but their own, close, here on the spot, which could fully and resolutely defend their interests.

The nobility was born, the life of which was based on service to the overlord in exchange for a land grant for the time of this service. This system further strengthened the position of local princes. They also often relied in the fight against the willfulness of the boyars on the increased political activity of the townspeople. The urban strata began to turn into a certain counterbalance in relations between the princes and the boyars. All this determined the shift of historical accents from the center to the periphery, from Kyiv to the centers of individual principalities.

The loss of its historical role by Kyiv was to a certain extent connected with the movement of the main trade routes in Europe and Asia Minor. In connection with the rapid growth of Italian cities and the activation of Italian merchants in Southern Europe and the Mediterranean, ties between Western and Central Europe, between Byzantium and Asia Minor, became closer. The Crusades brought the Middle East closer to Europe. These ties developed, bypassing Kyiv. In Northern Europe, German cities were gaining strength, to which Novgorod and other cities of the Russian north-west began to focus more and more. The former brilliance of the once glorious "path from the Varangians to the Greeks" has faded.

Centuries of intense struggle with the nomads - Pechenegs, Torks, Polovtsy - could not pass without a trace for Kyiv and the Russian land. This struggle exhausted the people's strength, slowed down the general progress of the region, doomed it to fall behind in the new economic, social and political conditions. The advantage was given to those regions of the country that, although they were in less favorable natural conditions (Novgorod land, Rostov-Suzdal Rus), did not experience such constant and debilitating pressure from the nomads as the Middle Dnieper.

All this taken together and determined the weakening of Kyiv, the power of the great princes and led to the beginning of the political collapse of Russia.

The fierce struggle of the princes with each other, the endless civil strife was only an external expression of the deep processes of development of the Russian lands. If earlier internecine strife was a reflection of tendencies or tribal separatism, or were associated with crises of power after the death of the great princes, now these wars were the result of new circumstances in Russian life. They defended the right of princes to decide the fate of their possessions. And behind the princes were grown, formed social worlds. As one historian figuratively said, Kievan Rus nursed and raised other Russian principalities, and now they scattered around the world like independent chicks.

In the minds of subsequent generations, the political disintegration of Russia into separate parts was understood as a great misfortune, as a rollback of society. Moreover, such a disintegration led to the activation of the opponents of Russia - the Polovtsians. In the future, fragmented Russia could not resist the hordes of the Mongols-Tatars. All this is so. But history measures not in years, and not even in decades, but in centuries. From the point of view of general historical development, the political fragmentation of Russia is only a natural stage on the way to the future centralization of the country and the future economic and political rise already on a new civilizational basis. This is evidenced by the rapid growth of cities and patrimonial economy in individual principalities, and the entry of these practically independent states into the foreign policy arena: Novgorod and Smolensk later concluded their own agreements with the Baltic lands, with German cities; Galich actively maintained diplomatic relations with Poland, Hungary and even with papal Rome. In each of these principalities - states, culture continued to develop, remarkable architectural structures were built, chronicles were created, literature and journalism flourished.

Within the framework of the principalities-states, the Russian church was gaining strength. During these years, many remarkable literary, philosophical and theological creations came out of the circles of the clergy. And most importantly, in the conditions of the formation of new economic regions and the formation of new political formations, the steady development of the peasant economy took place, new arable lands were developed, there was an expansion and quantitative multiplication of estates, which for their time became the most progressive form of conducting a large complex economy, although this happened over an account of the forced labor of the dependent peasant population, either given by the prince to the votchinnik along with the lands, or who, due to poverty, fell into bondage to a wealthy landowner.

Moreover, the political disintegration of Russia has never been complete. The centripetal forces were preserved, which constantly opposed the centrifugal forces. First of all, it was the power of the great Kyiv princes. Although sometimes ghostly, it existed, and even Yuri Dolgoruky, remaining in the far northeast, called himself the Grand Duke of Kyiv. And later: among other Russian principalities there was the principality of Kiev, which, albeit formally, but cemented all of Russia. Not without reason for the author of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" the power and authority of the Kyiv prince stood on a high political and moral pedestal.

The all-Russian church also retained its influence. The Kyiv metropolitans were the leaders of the entire church organization. The Church, as a rule, advocated the unity of Russia, condemned the internecine wars of the princes, and played a great peacemaking role. The oath on the cross in the presence of church leaders was one of the forms of peace agreements between the warring parties.

A counterbalance to the forces of disintegration and separatism was the constantly existing external danger to the Russian lands from the side of the Polovtsians. On the one hand, the rival princely clans attracted the Polovtsians as allies and they ravaged the Russian lands, on the other hand, the idea of ​​unity of forces in the fight against an external enemy constantly lived in the all-Russian consciousness, the ideal of the prince, the guardian of the Russian land, was preserved, such as Vladimir I and Vladimir Monomakh. Not without reason, in Russian epics, the images of these two princes merged into one ideal image of the defender of the Russian land from evil enemies.

All these contradictory forces of Russian society had yet to pass the test of time. But this time history took surprisingly little - only a few decades, a new formidable danger was approaching from the East - the Mongol-Tatars.

At the end of the XII - beginning of the XIII century. three main political centers were determined in Russia: Vladimir-Suzdal, Galicia-Volyn and Novgorod lands.

Unlike the West, cities in Russia did not play an independent role, with the exception of Novgorod. In the XII century. in Novgorod, the independence of the boyars in relation to the princely power increased (which resulted in a republican form of government at the end of the 13th century).

Gradually, the negative aspects of crushing began to appear: by the beginning of the 13th century. there were already about fifty principalities, and by the XIV century. their number reached two and a half hundred. These microstates were deprived of a historical perspective. The loss of the state unity of Russia was accompanied by protracted princely civil strife and separated her forces in the face of foreign aggression.

Feudal fragmentation in Russia was a natural phenomenon. In the X-XII centuries. the early medieval states of Western and Central Europe disintegrate. The fragmentation of Kievan Rus took place within the framework of a single pan-European process.

However, unlike in the West, state property remained the leading form of ownership in Russia. As in the West, the establishment of a mature stage of feudal relations contributed to the technical, economic and cultural upsurge. Soil cultivation techniques are improving, new breeds of livestock, water mills are appearing, cities are growing, trade, crafts, and stone construction are developing. If during the period of Kievan Rus almost exclusively the main cities developed - Kyiv and Novgorod, then in the specific period each prince sought to attract as many settlers as possible to his principality, build cities, develop agriculture and handicrafts.

After the collapse of the Russian state by the middle of the XII century. internecine strife intensified. The practice of military alliances with foreigners against their rivals in Russia was widespread.

In the 40-70s. 12th century during the fierce struggle between the Volyn, Chernigov, Suzdal and Smolensk princes, the Russian princes often attracted the Hungarians and Polovtsy as military allies. In South Russia in the 30s. 13th century a major internecine war broke out, caused by the struggle for the "all-Russian" tables - Kyiv and Galich. She was not even stopped by the news of the devastation of North-Eastern Russia by the Tatars. In the first half of the XIII century. in the internecine struggle for the Galician reign, Poland and Hungary independently participated, defeated by the Volyn prince.

Polovtsian raids continued until the 13th century. After that, the Polovtsy continue to participate in the internecine wars of the Russian princes, but there is no information about their independent actions.

History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century Andrey Nikolaevich Sakharov

§ 2. The beginning of the political fragmentation of Russia

Since the 30s of the XII century. Russia irreversibly entered a period of feudal fragmentation, which became a natural stage in the development of all major European states in the early Middle Ages. If its early manifestations were still extinguished by the force of inertia, by the will of such prominent statesmen as Vladimir Monomakh and Mstislav, then after their departure from the historical arena, new economic, political, and social trends powerfully declared themselves.

By the middle of the XII century. Russia split into 15 principalities, which were only formally dependent on Kyiv. At the beginning of the XIII century. there were already about 50 of them. During the XII century. Russia politically became like a patchwork quilt.

Of course, one of the reasons for such a state of statehood in Russia was the constant princely divisions of lands between the Rurikovichs, their endless internecine wars and new redistribution of lands. However, it was not political reasons that underlay this phenomenon. Within the framework of a single state, independent economic regions have developed over three centuries, new cities have grown, large patrimonial farms, possessions of monasteries and churches have arisen and developed. In each of these centers, behind the backs of the local princes stood the growing and united feudal clans - the boyars with their vassals, the wealthy elite of the cities, church hierarchs.

The formation of independent principalities within Russia took place against the background of the rapid development of the productive forces of society, the progress of agriculture, handicrafts, domestic and foreign trade, and the increasing exchange of goods between individual Russian lands.

The social structure of Russian society also became more complex, its layers in individual lands and cities became more defined: the large boyars, the clergy, merchants, artisans, the lower classes of the city, including serfs. Dependence of villagers on landowners developed. All this new Russia no longer needed the former early medieval centralization. The lands, which differed from others in natural, economic data, became more and more isolated under the new conditions. For the new structure of the economy, other than before, the scale of the state was needed. The huge Kievan Rus, with its very superficial political cohesion, necessary primarily for defense against an external enemy, for organizing long-range campaigns of conquest, now no longer corresponded to the needs of large cities with their branched feudal hierarchy, developed trade and craft strata, and the needs of patrimonials striving to have power. , close to their interests - and not in Kyiv, and not even in the person of the Kyiv governor, but their own, close, here on the spot, which could fully and resolutely defend their interests. The nobility was born, the life of which was based on service to the overlord in exchange for a land grant for the time of this service. This system further strengthened the position of local princes. They also often relied in the fight against the willfulness of the boyars on the increased political activity of the townspeople. The urban strata began to turn into a certain counterbalance in relations between the princes and the boyars. All this determined the shift of historical accents from the center to the periphery, from Kyiv to the centers of individual principalities.

The loss of its historical role by Kyiv was to a certain extent connected with the movement of the main trade routes in Europe and Asia Minor. In connection with the rapid growth of Italian cities and the activation of Italian merchants in Southern Europe and the Mediterranean, ties between Western and Central Europe, between Byzantium and Asia Minor, became closer. The Crusades brought the Middle East closer to Europe. These ties developed, bypassing Kyiv. In Northern Europe, German cities were gaining strength, to which Novgorod and other cities of the Russian north-west began to focus more and more. The former brilliance of the once glorious "path from the Varangians to the Greeks" has faded.

Centuries of intense struggle with the nomads - Pechenegs, Torks, Polovtsy - could not pass without a trace for Kyiv and the Russian land. This struggle exhausted the people's strength, slowed down the general progress of the region, doomed it to fall behind in the new economic, social and political conditions. The advantage was given to those regions of the country that, although they were in less favorable natural conditions (Novgorod land, Rostov-Suzdal Rus), did not experience such constant and debilitating pressure from the nomads as the Middle Dnieper.

All this taken together and determined the weakening of Kyiv, the power of the great princes and led to the beginning of the political collapse of Russia.

The fierce struggle of the princes with each other, the endless civil strife were only an external expression of the deep processes of development of the Russian lands. If earlier internecine strife was a reflection of tendencies or tribal separatism, or were associated with crises of power after the death of the great princes, now these wars were the result of new circumstances in Russian life. In them from one hundredand the princes had the right to decide the fate of their possessions. And behind the princes were grown, formed social worlds. As one historian figuratively said, Kievan Rus nursed and raised other Russian principalities, and now they scattered around the world like independent chicks.

In the minds of subsequent generations, the political disintegration of Russia into separate parts was understood as a great misfortune, as a rollback of society. Moreover, such a disintegration led to the activation of the opponents of Russia - the Polovtsians. In the future, fragmented Russia could not resist the hordes of the Mongols-Tatars. All this is so. But history measures not by years or even decades, but by centuries. From the point of view of general historical development, the political fragmentation of Russia is only a natural stage on the way to the future centralization of the country and the future economic and political rise already on a new civilizational basis. This is evidenced by the rapid growth of cities and patrimonial economy in individual principalities, and the entry of these practically independent states into the foreign policy arena: Novgorod and Smolensk later concluded their own agreements with the Baltic lands, with German cities; Galich actively maintained diplomatic relations with Poland, Hungary and even with papal Rome. In each of these principalities-states, culture continued to develop, remarkable architectural structures were built, chronicles were created, literature and journalism flourished. The famous “The Tale of the Igoreven Regiment” was born just at the time of this political collapse of the once united Russia.

Within the framework of the principalities-states, the Russian church was gaining strength. During these years, many remarkable literary, philosophical and theological creations came out of the circles of the clergy. And most importantly, in the conditions of the formation of new economic regions and the formation of new political formations, the steady development of the peasant economy took place, new arable lands were developed, there was an expansion and quantitative multiplication of estates, which for their time became the most progressive form of conducting a large complex economy, although this happened over account of the forced labor of the dependent peasant population, either given by the prince to the votchinnik along with the lands, or who, due to poverty, fell into bondage to a wealthy landowner. But such are the paradoxes of history, where progress is sometimes based on suffering and where the future prosperity of a country sometimes passes through its great difficulties.

Moreover, the political disintegration of Russia has never been complete. The centripetal forces were preserved constantly opposed the centrifugal forces. First of all, it was the power of the great Kyiv princes. Although sometimes ghostly, it existed, and even Yuri Dolgoruky, remaining in the far northeast, called himself the great prince of Kyiv. And later: among other Russian principalities there was the principality of Kiev, which, albeit formally, but cemented all of Russia. Not without reason for the author of The Tale of Igor's Campaign, the power and authority of the Kyiv prince stood on a high political and moral pedestal.

The all-Russian church also retained its influence. The Kyiv metropolitans were the leaders of the entire church organization. The Church, as a rule, advocated the unity of Russia, condemned the internecine wars of the princes, and played a great peacemaking role. The oath on the cross in the presence of church leaders was one of the forms of peace agreements between the warring parties.

A counterbalance to the forces of disintegration and separatism was the constantly existing external danger to the Russian lands from the side of the Polovtsians. On the one hand, the rival princely clans attracted the Polovtsians as allies and they ravaged the Russian lands, on the other hand, the idea of ​​unity of forces in the fight against an external enemy constantly lived in the all-Russian consciousness, the ideal of the prince, the guardian of the Russian land, was preserved, such as Vladimir I and Vladimir Monomakh. Not without reason, in Russian epics, the images of these two princes merged into one ideal image of the defender of the Russian land from evil enemies.

All these contradictory forces of Russian society had yet to pass the test of time. But history took surprisingly little of this time - only a few decades, a new formidable danger was approaching from the East - the Mongol-Tatars.

From the book The Newest Book of Facts. Volume 3 [Physics, chemistry and technology. History and archeology. Miscellaneous] author Kondrashov Anatoly Pavlovich

From the book History. A new complete guide for schoolchildren to prepare for the exam author Nikolaev Igor Mikhailovich

From the book History of Public Administration in Russia author Shchepetev Vasily Ivanovich

Chapter III Management in Russia during the feudal period

author Milov Leonid Vasilievich

Chapter 4

From the book World History: in 6 volumes. Volume 2: Medieval Civilizations of the West and East author Team of authors

A PERIOD OF FRAGRANCE IN RUSSIA Already during the reign of the youngest son of Vladimir Monomakh Yaropolk (1132–1139), the Chernigov Olgovichi, led by Vsevolod Olgovich, who, after the death of Yaropolk, captured Kyiv and kept it at a price, joined the struggle for the Kyiv table.

From the book History of China author Meliksetov A.V.

Chapter V. China in the Era of Political Fragmentation 1. The Three Kingdoms Period and Attempts to Unify China under the Rule of the Jin Empire (3rd-4th centuries)

From the book World History. Volume 2. Bronze Age author Badak Alexander Nikolaevich

From political fragmentation to the creation of a single centralized state

From the book History of the National State and Law: Cheat Sheet author author unknown

7. REASONS FOR FEUDAL Fragmentation IN RUSSIA. THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF THE NOVGOROD FEUDAL REPUBLIC Feudal fragmentation in Russia took shape in the first third of the 12th century, after the death of Grand Duke Mstislav Vladimirovich the Great. Prerequisites for development

From the book Economic History of Russia author Dusenbaev A A

From the book Chronology of Russian History. Russia and the world author Anisimov Evgeny Viktorovich

1132 Beginning of an era of fragmentation in Russia After the death of Monomakh in 1125, his 50-year-old son Mstislav Vladimirovich came to power. He successfully repelled the invasion of the Polovtsy, and then dealt with the Polotsk princes, who had resisted the power of the Yaroslavichs for a long time.

From the book Auxiliary Historical Disciplines author Leontieva Galina Alexandrovna

Metrology of the period of feudal fragmentation of Russia (XII-XV centuries) Russian measures of the studied period are characterized by exceptional diversity, due to the general course of the historical development of Russia. Local units of measurement appeared and were fixed. local measures

From the book History of Ukraine from ancient times to the present day author Semenenko Valery Ivanovich

Ukrainian lands during the period of political fragmentation of Russia and the Mongol invasion (second third of the 12th - first half of the 13th century) During 1139–1239, 48 separate administrative periods changed in Kyiv, and 36 times the reign lasted only one year or even

From the book A Short Course in the History of Russia from Ancient Times to the Beginning of the 21st Century author Kerov Valery Vsevolodovich

2. Beginning of the period of fragmentation and its general characteristics 2.1. The beginning of the division. Centrifugal tendencies in Ancient Russia began to manifest themselves in the era of the Yaroslavichs and, gradually increasing, resulted in the end of the 11th century. in princely strife. The aspiration of princes, with

From the book History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century author Sakharov Andrey Nikolaevich

§ 2. The beginning of the political fragmentation of Russia Since the 30s of the XII century. Russia irreversibly entered a period of feudal fragmentation, which became a natural stage in the development of all major European states in the early Middle Ages. If its early manifestations are still

From the book Essays on the History of China from Ancient Times to the Middle of the 17th Century author Smolin Georgy Yakovlevich

Chapter IV

From the book History of State and Law of Russia author Timofeeva Alla Alexandrovna

The state and law of Russia during the period of feudal fragmentation (XII-XIV centuries) Option 11. Determine which of the following phenomena can be considered the causes of feudal fragmentation a) strife between princes; b) growth of cities; c) strengthening of land ownership; d) decline of the economy; e)

In 1097, princes from different lands of Kievan Rus came to the city of Lyubech and proclaimed a new principle of relations among themselves: "Let everyone keep his fatherland." Its adoption meant that the princes abandoned the ladder system of succession to princely thrones (it went to the eldest in the entire grand ducal family) and switched to inheriting the throne from father to eldest son within individual lands. By the middle of the XII century. the political fragmentation of the Old Russian state with its center in Kyiv was already a fait accompli. It is believed that the introduction of the principle adopted in Lyubech was a factor in the collapse of Kievan Rus. However, not the only and not the most important.

Political fragmentation was inevitable. What were her reasons? During the 11th century Russian lands developed in an ascending line: the population grew, the economy grew stronger, large princely and boyar land ownership increased, cities grew rich. They were less and less dependent on Kyiv and were burdened by his guardianship. To maintain order within his "fatherland", the prince had enough strength and power. Local boyars and cities supported their princes in their quest for independence: they were closer, more closely connected with them, better able to protect their interests. External reasons were added to the internal ones. Polovtsy raids weakened the southern Russian lands, the population left the restless lands for the northeastern (Vladimir, Suzdal) and southwestern (Galic, Volyn) outskirts. The princes of Kyiv were weakening in the military and economic sense, their authority and influence in solving all-Russian affairs were falling.

The negative consequences of the political fragmentation of Russia are concentrated in the military-strategic area: the defense capability has weakened in the face of external threats, inter-princely feuds have intensified. But fragmentation also had positive aspects. The isolation of the lands contributed to their economic and cultural development. The collapse of a single state did not mean a complete loss of principles that united the Russian lands. The seniority of the Grand Prince of Kyiv was formally recognized; ecclesiastical and linguistic unity was preserved; the basis of the legislation of the destinies was the norms of Russian Truth. In the popular mind up to the XIII-XIV centuries. lived ideas about the unity of the lands that were part of Kievan Rus.

At the end of the XII century. There were 15 independent lands, essentially independent states. The largest were: in the south-west - the Galicia-Volyn principality; in the northeast - the Vladimir-Suzdal principality; in the northwest - the Novgorod Republic.

The Galicia-Volyn principality (formed in 1199 as a result of the subordination of Galich to the Volyn princes) inherited the political system of Kievan Rus. The princes (the largest was Daniil Romanovich, the middle of the 13th century), when solving important issues, had to take into account the opinion of the boyar-druzhina nobility and city assemblies (veche). This feature reflected the peculiarity of the socio-economic development of the Galicia-Volyn land: boyar estates and cities were traditionally strong here. From the middle of the XIII century. the principality was weakening: internal unrest and constant wars with Hungary, Poland and Lithuania led to the fact that it was included in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland.

The Vladimir-Suzdal principality separated from Kyiv under Prince Yuri Dolgoruky (1125-1157). Its mass settlement took place in the XI-XII centuries. Settlers from the southern regions of Russia were attracted by the relative safety from raids (the region was covered with impenetrable forests), the fertile lands of the Russian opolye, navigable rivers, along which dozens of cities grew (Pereslavl-Zalessky, Yuryev-Polsky, Dmitrov, Zvenigorod, Kostroma, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod ). There were no old boyar estates and strong traditions of city self-government here. The Vladimir-Suzdal princes were much freer in their decisions and relied not so much on the boyars and cities, but on the princely servants personally devoted to them (mercy, that is, people who depend on the mercy of the prince).

Decisive in the process of the rise of princely power was the reign of Yuri Dolgoruky's son Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157-1174). Under him, the capital of the principality was moved to Vladimir, and a new title of the ruler was established - "Tsar and Grand Duke." Andrei Bogolyubsky led an active foreign policy, fought for influence in Kyiv and Novgorod, organizing all-Russian campaigns against them. In 1174, he was killed by boyar conspirators. Under his brother Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176-1212), the principality flourished, interrupted by civil strife that began after his death, and the invasion of the Mongo-Lo-Tatars in 1237-1238.

The Vladimir-Suzdal principality became the cradle of the formation of the Great Russian people and in the near future - the center for rallying the Russian lands into a single Russian state.

A different type of state structure developed in Novgorod. One of the oldest Russian cities was at the same time one of the richest and most influential. The basis of its prosperity was not agriculture (Novgorod depended on the supply of bread from the neighboring Vladimir-Suzdal principality), but trade and handicrafts. The local merchants were a full participant in trade operations in the north-west of Europe, they traded with the German Hansa (the representative office of this powerful trade union of German cities was in Novgorod), Sweden, Denmark, the countries of the East with cloth, salt, amber, weapons, jewelry, furs, wax. Power and influence were concentrated in the hands of the Novgorod veche. Historians argue about its composition. Some believe that the entire urban population and even residents of nearby villages participated in it. Others argue that the so-called "five hundred golden belts" - people from large boyar families - were full participants in the veche. Be that as it may, the influential boyar and merchant families, as well as the clergy, played a decisive role. Officials were elected at the veche - the posadnik (governor of Novgorod), the thousand (leaders of the militia), the governor (maintaining law and order), the bishop (later the archbishop, the head of the Novgorod church), the archimandrite (the elder among the abbots of the Novgorod monasteries). The veche resolved the issue of inviting the prince, who, under the supervision of the council of gentlemen and the posadnik, performed the functions of a military leader. This order developed after 1136, when the Novgorodians expelled Prince Vsevolod from the city.

Novgorod, thus, was an aristocratic (boyar) republic, the keeper of the veche traditions of Ancient Russia.

In 1097, princes from different lands of Kievan Rus came to the city of Lyubech and proclaimed a new principle of relations among themselves: "Let everyone keep his fatherland." Its adoption meant that the princes abandoned the ladder system of succession to princely thrones (it went to the eldest in the entire grand ducal family) and switched to inheriting the throne from father to eldest son within individual lands. By the middle of the XII century. the political fragmentation of the Old Russian state with its center in Kyiv was already a fait accompli. It is believed that the introduction of the principle adopted in Lyubech was a factor in the collapse of Kievan Rus. However, not the only and not the most important.

Political fragmentation was inevitable. What were her reasons? During the 11th century Russian lands developed in an ascending line: the population grew, the economy grew stronger, large princely and boyar land ownership increased, cities grew rich. They were less and less dependent on Kyiv and were burdened by his guardianship. To maintain order within his "fatherland", the prince had enough strength and power. Local boyars and cities supported their princes in their quest for independence: they were closer, more closely connected with them, better able to protect their interests. External reasons were added to the internal ones. Polovtsy raids weakened the southern Russian lands, the population left the restless lands for the northeastern (Vladimir, Suzdal) and southwestern (Galic, Volyn) outskirts. The princes of Kyiv were weakening in the military and economic sense, their authority and influence in solving all-Russian affairs were falling.

The negative consequences of the political fragmentation of Russia are concentrated in the military-strategic area: the defense capability has weakened in the face of external threats, inter-princely feuds have intensified. But fragmentation also had positive aspects. The isolation of the lands contributed to their economic and cultural development. The collapse of a single state did not mean a complete loss of principles that united the Russian lands. The seniority of the Grand Prince of Kyiv was formally recognized; ecclesiastical and linguistic unity was preserved; the basis of the legislation of the destinies was the norms of Russian Truth. In the popular mind up to the XIII-XIV centuries. lived ideas about the unity of the lands that were part of Kievan Rus.

At the end of the XII century. There were 15 independent lands, essentially independent states. The largest were: in the southwest - the Galicia-Volyn principality; in the northeast - Vladimir-ro-Suzdal principality; in the northwest - the Novgorod Republic.

The Galicia-Volyn principality (formed in 1199 as a result of the subordination of Galich to the Volyn princes) inherited the political system of Kievan Rus. The princes (the largest was Daniil Romanovich, the middle of the 13th century), when solving important issues, had to take into account the opinion of the boyar-druzhina nobility and city assemblies (veche). This feature reflected the peculiarity of the socio-economic development of the Galicia-Volynskaya land: boyar estates and cities were traditionally strong here. From the middle of the XIII century. the principality was weakening: internal unrest and constant wars with Hungary, Poland and Lithuania led to the fact that it was included in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland.

The Vladimir-Suzdal principality separated from Kyiv under Prince Yuri Dolgoruky (1125-1157). Its mass settlement took place in the XI-XII centuries. Settlers from the southern regions of Russia were attracted by the relative safety from raids (the region was covered with impenetrable forests), the fertile lands of the Russian opolye, navigable rivers, along which dozens of cities grew (Pereslavl-Zalessky, Yuryev-Polsky, Dmitrov, Zvenigorod, Kostroma, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod ). There were no old boyar estates and strong traditions of city self-government here. The Vladimir-Suzdal princes were much freer in their decisions and relied not so much on the boyars and cities, but on the princely servants personally devoted to them (mercy, that is, people who depend on the mercy of the prince).

Decisive in the process of the rise of princely power was the reign of Yuri Dolgoruky's son Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157-1174). Under him, the capital of the principality was moved to Vladimir, and a new title of the ruler was established - "Tsar and Grand Duke." Andrei Bogolyubsky led an active foreign policy, fought for influence in Kyiv and Novgorod, organizing all-Russian campaigns against them. In 1174, he was killed by boyar conspirators. Under his brother Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176-1212), the principality flourished, interrupted by civil strife that began after his death, and the invasion of the Mongo-Lo-Tatars in 1237-1238.

The Vladimir-Suzdal principality became the cradle of the formation of the Great Russian people and in the near future - the center for rallying the Russian lands into a single Russian state.

A different type of state structure developed in Novgorod. One of the oldest Russian cities was at the same time one of the richest and most influential. The basis of its prosperity was not agriculture (Novgorod depended on the supply of bread from the neighboring Vladimir-Suzdal principality), but trade and handicrafts. The local merchants were a full participant in trade operations in the north-west of Europe, they traded with the German Hansa (the representative office of this powerful trade union of German cities was in Novgorod), Sweden, Denmark, the countries of the East with cloth, salt, amber, weapons, jewelry, furs, wax. Power and influence were concentrated in the hands of the Novgorod veche. Historians argue about its composition. Some believe that the entire urban population and even residents of nearby villages participated in it. Others argue that the so-called "five hundred golden belts" - people from large boyar families - were full participants in the veche. Be that as it may, the influential boyar and merchant families, as well as the clergy, played a decisive role. Officials were elected at the veche - the posadnik (governor of Novgorod), the thousand (leaders of the militia), the governor (maintaining law and order), the bishop (later the archbishop, the head of the Novgorod church), the archimandrite (the elder among the abbots of the Novgorod monasteries). The veche resolved the issue of inviting the prince, who, under the supervision of the council of gentlemen and the posadnik, performed the functions of a military leader. This order developed after 1136, when the Novgorodians expelled Prince Vsevolod from the city.

Novgorod, thus, was an aristocratic (boyar) republic, the keeper of the veche traditions of Ancient Russia.