"Russian land" - the Kievan state of the IX-XII centuries

In chronicle sources, the terms "Russian land", "Rus" in relation to the IX-XI centuries usually designate all the lands of the Kievan state. In the X-XI centuries, "Rus" in the annals occupies a vast territorial space from the Carpathians to the Don and from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, and as an ethnic group, as a country, it is opposed to the "Varangians", "Greeks", "Lyash land", "Polovtsian land" and other peoples and countries. At the same time, historians note that in the sources of the 10th-beginning of the 12th centuries, the “Russian Land” is also distinguished as the territorial and political core of the Kievan state. So, Konstantin Porphyrogenitus in his essay “De administrando imperio” writes about Novgorod as “outer Russia”, and also contrasts Russia with countries “paying tribute to the Russian land”. In The Tale of Bygone Years in the 10th century, "Rus" is contrasted with the Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribal unions of the emerging Kievan state; as an exception - the tribal union "glade", which is identified with "Rus". In the first articles of the short edition of Russkaya Pravda, “Rusyns” and “Slovenes” simultaneously appear. In addition, the researchers point to the fact that the Kyiv princes, until the end of the 11th century, sought to preserve the unity of the lands of the Middle Ponneprovye (that is, the Kyiv, Chernihiv and Pereyaslav lands), thereby discovering in the lands of the Middle Dnieper the “inner Russia” of the 9th-11th centuries.

"Russian land" in the XII-XIII centuries

In the 12th century, with the disintegration of the Kievan state into separate principalities-half-states, the tradition of using the term "Russian land" in the annals also changed. “Russian land” in the XII-XIII centuries, chroniclers, as a rule, designate either the lands of the Middle Dnieper (that is, the lands of the Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereyaslav principalities), or the lands of the Kyiv principality. It should be noted that in the XII century, the chronicler once contrasted the city of Vruchiy with its surroundings (North-Western Polissya of the Kyiv principality) to the “Russian land”, and from the “Russian land” of the Chernigov principality, the chroniclers exclude all the lands of this principality to the north and north-east of the cities of Starodub , Trubchevsk and Kursk. However, in the XII-XIII centuries, the terms "Rus", "Russian land" in chronicle sources often refer to all the lands of Southern Russia. The ancient annalistic meaning of the "Russian Land" as all Eastern European lands controlled by the princes of the Rurik dynasty was also preserved at this time.

Literature

• Chronicles according to Ipat., Lavr. lists; Novg. I chronicle of the senior and junior editions
• Nasonov A.N. "Russian land" and the formation of the territory of the ancient Russian state "- Moscow, 1951
• Rybakov B. A. "Kievan Rus and Russian Principalities of the XII-XIII centuries." - Moscow, 1982

Notes

see also

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

Synonyms:

• Russian SS division (film)
• Russian game (film, 2007)

See what "Russian land" is in other dictionaries:

Russian land- noun, number of synonyms: 2 light Russia (3) holy Russia (3) ASIS Synonym Dictionary. V.N. Trishin. 2013 ... Synonym dictionary

Russian land- the name of the state formation of the Eastern Slavs of the 9th century. on the middle Dnieper, spreading to the entire territory of Kievan Rus. In 12-13 centuries. Russia is the name of ancient Russian lands and principalities. Names arise: White Russia, Little Russia, Black Russia ... Political science. Vocabulary.

Russian land- a daily political, social and literary newspaper published in Moscow since March 18, 1906. Ed. S. K. Glinka Yanchevsky; ed. A. S. Suvorin ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

Russian land- Russian land (Russia, Russia) ... Russian spelling dictionary

Russian land- (Russia, Russia) ... Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language

RUSS (Russian land)- RUSSIA (Russian land), the name of the territory of the settlement of the Eastern Slavs (see EASTERN SLAVES) from the 9th century. Russia is evidenced by Konstantin Porphyrogenitus in the work “De administrando imperio” (10th century), treaties of Russia with Byzantium of the 10th century, Russian ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

On that stood and will stand the Russian land- It is usually believed that the author of these words is the Novgorod prince Alexander Nevsky. But, judging by the annals, he never uttered these words anywhere. This phrase is from the movie "Alexander Nevsky" (1938), filmed by director S. Eisenstein according to the script ... ... Dictionary of winged words and expressions

Earth- (41) 1. Land, the surface of the land: Boyan for things, if anyone wants to create a song, then he will spread his thoughts on the tree, with a gray wail on the ground, with a chimney eagle under the clouds. 2 3. The earth is here, the rivers flow muddy, the pigs cover the fields. 12. Ty bo Oleg ... ... Dictionary-reference book "The Tale of Igor's Campaign"

Russian literature- I. INTRODUCTION II. RUSSIAN ORAL POETRY A. Periodization of the history of oral poetry B. Development of ancient oral poetry 1. Ancient origins of oral poetry. Oral and poetic creativity of ancient Russia from the 10th to the middle of the 16th century. 2. Oral poetry from the middle of the XVI to the end ... ... Literary Encyclopedia

EARTH- 1. LAND1, lands, wines. earth, pl. lands, lands, lands, wives. 1. only units The planet we live on. The earth revolves around the sun. The Moon is the Earth's satellite. 2. trans., only units. In mythology and poetry, reality, in contrast to the world... ... Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

Books

• Russian land and state in the era of Ivan the Terrible. Essays on the history of local self-government in the 16th century, VV Bovykin. The monograph is devoted to the most important historiographically problem of national history - the clarification of the socio-political nature of the Russian state and the genesis of the system of the central ...

If I were asked to state the idea of ​​the book in one sentence, it would be like this: "The history of Russians is the history of a successful people who have done tremendous civilizational work on one sixth of the earth's land and created their own world."

We will talk about the Russian world, because Russians have the same sacred right to comprehend their history, like Georgians, Mongols, etc. And the space for comprehension is as huge as the space that the Russian people managed to master. How many good and bad films we have seen about the American frontier. And what is filmed about how the Russians conquered the space and created the country? In response, silence. This topic has never been particularly favored by popularizers of historical information. Looking for information on the Web about some ancient Russian city, we are more likely to learn about which “fighter against the autocracy” drove tea there in exile than about those who built it, plowed the land around it and defended it from enemies.

The history of the conquest and development of the spaces that created the largest country in the world, is, paradoxically, a silent story. Well, let's try to break the silence.

Two worlds, two colonizations

Large-scale colonization, carried out in the interests of the Russian people by the Russian state, began in the middle of the 16th century.

This century (often extended to the "long 16th century" - from the middle of the 15th to the middle of the 17th century) was marked by a sharp global transition from the "golden autumn" of the late Middle Ages to the aggressive, caustic New Age.

Capital enters the world arena, invades subsistence societies, rapes and destroys them, erases, like an eraser, peoples who are late in their development. Doomed to extinction were tens of millions of Native Americans, and in the most developed regions of the New World, where complex intensive farming technologies were used, such as chinampas (artificial islands).

In Europe, this is the time of the offensive against the peasants, which took place with the confiscation of communal and small peasant landed property. Sacred property becomes only when it falls into the hands of the powerful. Seniors take land from peasants, urban capitalists buy land from seniors. Masses of people are deprived of their own means of production and subsistence. The elites decide in their own way the issue of rural population surpluses. Courts burn witches, send landless peasants who have become vagabonds to the gallows or into slavery on overseas plantations. Cities are flooded with a hungry proletariat, forced to give their labor to the first employer they meet at any (that is, minimum) price. The proletarian has a "big choice" between a chopping block, a prison - a workhouse and such a "free hire".

"Free labor" is in fact the slavery of the robbed worker to the collective capitalist. The dictatorship of capital operates through the anti-worker Workers Statute, the super-repressive Vagabond Laws, the ruthless Workhouse Acts. Researchers testify to a sharp decline from the second half of the 16th century. standard of living in a Europe recently littered with hams and sausages.

Even where the power of the lords (lords, barons) has been preserved, the peasants begin to work under duress for the needs of the world market - the “second edition of serfdom” according to Marx, or “secondary serfdom” in Braudel's terminology, comes. Panshchina-corvée in Poland, Livonia, Hungary reaches six, then up to seven days a week. The peasant no longer has time to work on his plot and receives a month's ration as a prisoner. Pan, driving raw materials to Hanseatic and Dutch wholesalers, is becoming more and more interested in lands and serfs in the east, and the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth of pans conducts its “drang nach osten”, the colonization of Russian lands. It swallows Galicia-Volyn Rus, Polotsk land, the Dnieper region, jumps over the Dnieper, sneaks along the Smolensk-Moscow Upland to Mozhaisk. The Russian peasant must provide the pan-raw materialist with supplies to the rapidly growing European market.

European religious wars, the hunt for "heretics", "witches" and "tramps" (in fact, the robbed common people) - all this masks the offensive of capital and takes millions of lives ...

The death of the mass of the indigenous population in the colonies was largely a consequence of the destruction of the public agricultural systems there, which was typical of the "wild" phase of the formation of capital ...

The Russians could share the fate of the American Indians. And only its own colonization of new lands, service and peasant, launched on a large scale in the era of Ivan the Terrible, saved Russia from the invasion of Western capital. Made it the largest in the world in terms of size and third in terms of population (until 1991), brought her relatively fertile land and mineral deposits, which are practically absent in the historical center of the country.

As M. Lyubavsky, the largest researcher of Russian colonization, pointed out, only 12% of its area was the result of the conquest.

“In the history of the territorial formation of Russia, the house-builder people should stand in the foreground ... and not the conquering people, not high-profile victories and treatises, but the acquisition of land and their settlement, the emergence of villages and cities.”

From the end of the 15th to the end of the 16th century. the territory of Muscovite Russia grew four times. The same rapid growth continued into the next century.

Explosive territorial growth of Russia in the XVI-XVII centuries. is explained not by the conquest of other cultures and civilizations, but by the spread of civilization and culture to those regions where savagery and emptiness reigned before. Sometimes it was the return of civilization to where it had once been swept away by nomadic barbarians.

The expansion of the Russian land was, in fact, the realization of the people's needs. After the capture of the Black Sea region by the Kypchaks and the loss of most of the land south of the Oka in the XII-XIV centuries. Russians were left with podzolic loams and sandy loams of the cold northeast and north of the East European Plain.

The short growing season in this region was exacerbated by the low sum of accumulated temperatures. In the middle of the XVI century. summer in the Moscow region began in mid-June, and at the end of September the first frosts already came. There were about 110 frost-free days here, temperatures above 15 °C lasted 59–67 days. There were 60 warm days in Vologda, 48 in Ustyug.

“The main feature of the territory of the historical core of the Russian state in terms of agricultural development is an extremely limited period for field work. The so-called "till-free period" is about seven months. For many centuries, the Russian peasant had about 130 days for agricultural work (taking into account the ban on work on Sundays). Of these, haymaking took about 30 days,” writes Academician L.V. Milov. In Western Europe, only December and January fell out of the working season. Even in northern Germany, England, the Netherlands, the agricultural period was 9-10 months - thanks to the Gulf Stream and Atlantic cyclones. The European peasant had about twice as much time for cultivating crops, for hay harvesting, than the Russian. The long agricultural period gave the Europeans the opportunity for regular work, better tillage and, consequently, to increase productivity.

The short season of agricultural work determined the yields in Russia on average sam-2, sam-3 for the most common crop - unpretentious rye. For one sown grain - 2–3 harvested; about 3 times less than in England at that time. This meant a very small surplus product, which went, rather, not to the market, but to the maintenance of the defending warriors. The low marketability of agriculture also determined the slow development of cities.

The earth is the ruler!

I bowed my head to you

And through your fragrant cover

I felt the flame of my native heart,

I heard the trembling of world life.

V. Solovyov

The cult of the earth is earlier than the cult of the sky: the idea of ​​celestial souls was formed later, and before that, people made requests to the buried parents who were in the earth and, as it was believed, took care of the prosperity of the living. The main birthing force and the reliable shelter of the dead were united in the earth.

The Earth was presented as a universal source of life, the mother of all living things, including man, Mother - Cheese-Earth. The expression "Mother - Cheese-Earth" emphasizes the connection of the earth with the element of water: only the earth blessed with heavenly rain is able to bring a good harvest. In the mythical representations of the Slavs, the Earth "closes", falls asleep for the winter, and in the spring, awakening, it enters into a marriage union with Heaven, and after the first spring thunder, the Earth fertilized by rain regains the ability to give birth.

In some places, starting to sow the field, the peasants said the following prayer: "Father Ilya, bless the seeds to be thrown into the ground. You give your mother - the damp earth cold dew, so that she brings the grain, stirs it up, returns it to me with a large ear."

According to ancient beliefs, until the rye is harvested, the Earth is "heavy", and at that time it was supposed to be treated with due respect and attention, it was forbidden to beat it with sticks.

In other parts, it was believed that on Spirits Day (Monday after Trinity), the Earth is a birthday girl, and therefore she needs to be given rest. On this day, they did not plow, did not harrow, did not dig the ground. In some places, the "name day of the Earth" was celebrated on Simon the Zealot - the next day after spring Nikola, the patron saint of agriculture (May 10 / May 23). And they also said: "The earth is a birthday girl for Simon the Zealot: it's a sin to plow"; others, on the contrary, argued: "Sow wheat for the Zealot, like gold will be born." On this day, herbs and roots were collected for potions. And also on the day of the Apostle Simon the Zealot they look for treasures, thinking that there is some connection between the Zealot and gold. But all this has already been fixed in Christian times.

Folk ideas tried to humanize the Earth, comparing the wide expanses of land with a gigantic body, imagining grass, bushes, trees with the Earth's hair; solid rocks, stones - her bones; water - the blood of the Earth; tree roots are its veins. And vice versa, the legends about the origin of man say that the human body is taken from the earth and turns into it after death. These beliefs are thus spoken of in an old verse:

Our bodies are from the damp earth, Strong bones are taken from the stone, Blood-ore from the black sea.

It was believed that the Earth, as an organized outer space, rests on an iron oak resting on golden whales that swim in a fiery river. Probably earlier was the image of the Kit-fish (Kytra-fish), also common in the Ancient East. It is preserved in the epic of the Pigeon Book**:

And the whale-fish is the mother of all fish, Why is that whale-fish the mother of all fish? Therefore, that whale-fish is the mother of all fish - The Earth is founded on seven whales.

According to another belief, only initially the Earth rested on seven whales, but after it became heavy from human sins, four whales went into the Ethiopian desert, and during the Flood all the whales went there. It also speaks of the four original whales, and

The flood happens because the Earth sank into the water, because one of the whales died. After the death of the rest of the whales, the end of the world will come. Sometimes there is a story about one whale, on which the Earth rests. It is motionless, but if it floats, then earthquakes occur on Earth from its movements.

Whale fish underground tremble

(or: rolls over to the other side).

(Proverb, V. Dahl)

The earth has always been considered clean. A special attitude to the land was manifested in the fact that when eating in the field, the peasants wiped their hands on it, attributing to it the same cleansing properties as water. According to the beliefs of the Eastern Slavs, dating back to the era of Ancient Russia, the righteous bosom of the earth does not accept anything unclean, therefore they did not bury sorcerers, suicides and those who were cursed by their parents (they were called "mortgaged dead"). There are stories that the earth throws out bones or a coffin with the body of a sorcerer - a man who dealt with evil spirits. In epics and spiritual verses, there is an episode when the earth refuses to accept the blood of a snake shed by a hero or saint, and does this only at their request. Malicious, evil spirits in myths and folklore usually fall "through the ground", and do not remain in it. Therefore, a severe oath was born: "I will fall through the ground."

One of the most reliable and terrible in Russia was considered an oath in which they kissed or ate the earth. During boundary disputes, a person put a piece of earth or turf on his head and walked along the boundary with it. The border thus drawn was considered inviolable; if someone decided to deceive, then, according to legend, the earth began to crush him with terrible weight and forced him to confess to the forgery. The oath, during the pronunciation of which the turf was kept on the head, is also mentioned in the Slavic insertion in the translation of the "Word" by Gregory the Theologian (XI century) and dates back to pre-Christian antiquity. A respectful attitude towards the earth was also reflected in the fact that if a person fell, then he turned to the earth in this place so that she would forgive the pain caused to her. There was a custom to ask for forgiveness from the earth in case of illness or the approach of death.

The funeral was represented as a return to the mother's womb of the earth, and in order not to desecrate the earth, the Russian people, in case of mortal danger, put on clean underwear. The land where the ancestors were buried was especially revered. She was called "parent". After all, the earth, in the worldview of the Slavs, embodied not only the image of the mother of man, but the whole race as a unity of the living and those who had already departed to another world. Funeral rites with their visits to graves and their care, funeral meals at the graves and at home, accompanied by the invitation of ancestors, were called upon to maintain the unity of the family and the continuity of generations. The ancestors lying in the earth, as it were, merged with it, became part of it. The fertility of the earth and the abundance of rainfall depended on their goodwill towards the living, they were turned to for help in difficult cases. Saving and cleansing properties were also attributed to the earth collected from the seven graves of virtuous people.

Comprehension of the Motherland is also deeply connected with the image of the earth. When leaving for a foreign land, the Russian people took a handful of their native land with them, wore it on their chest in a bag, and after their death they put it with them in the grave. Dying in a foreign land, they often bequeathed to bury themselves without fail in their native land. Returning from a difficult exile, they bowed low first of all to the earth, knelt down and kissed her, fell to her, as to her own mother.

The Eastern Slavs revered the holy land; for example, in a curse it says: "The holy earth would not accept him" or in goodwill: "Be healthy like a fish, good like water, cheerful like spring, working like a bee, and rich like a holy land."

There were many beliefs, signs, rituals, it is impossible to list them all, but one thing remains unchanged in them: the earth is the closest and most reliable helper of a person, he is connected with it by strong ties and must take care of his mother earth.

Goy, the ecu earth is damp,

mother earth,

Mother to us ecu dear!

All ecu gave birth to us,

Raised, raised

And endowed with land;

For us, our children,

Potions ecu gave birth,

And drink every cereal

Polga and drive away the demon

And help in illnesses.

They took off from themselves

Various needs, lands,

For the benefit of the stomach.

UDC 321 (091) (4/9), 34 (091) (4/9 )

Russian lands in relation to the ulus of Jochi (Horde):
is it a vassal state or part of the Horde state?

I.I. Nazipov

Senior Lecturer of the Department of Legal Disciplines
Perm Institute of Economics and Finance
614068, Perm, st. Bolshevik, 141
E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You must have JavaScript enabled to view.

The article examines one of the most debatable in historical science, the question of the state ownership of the Russian lands of the XIII-XV centuries. ulus of Jochi. So far, scientists have not applied scientific and legal methods to solve it. The legal approach (within the framework of the theory of the state) makes it possible to isolate a number of basic features of the state, which can be classified as generally recognized. The study of the connections between the Russian lands and the ulus of Jochi, within the framework of these features, adjusted for the realities of the 13th-15th centuries, gives the following answer to the research question: the Russian lands were not always part of the Horde state. Identified periods of belonging of the Russian lands to the statehood of the Horde and periods of the sovereign status of the Russian lands in the XIII-XV centuries. indicated in the article.

Keywords: signs of the state; ulus of Jochi; state affiliation of Russian lands

Domestic historical and historical-legal science gives three answers to the question of whether the Russian lands belong to the Horde statehood. However, each of the options is not supported by a special in-depth study of the features of the state that appear in the Russian lands as evidence of the functioning of the state of the Horde or states - Russian principalities. These answers are only a short incidental statement in the presentation and study of other aspects of Russian-Horde relations - a retelling of the events of Russian-Horde relations, identifying the consequences of the Horde's influence on the historical development of Russia. 

The first position in historiography: complete disregard for the issue. The phrase "under Mongol rule" replaces the answer to the question what this power was, replaces the identification of this power. Scientists within the framework of this approach qualitatively describe the events of Russian-Horde relations, characterize their forms, the severity of the influence of the Horde for Russia, use the term “yoke”, but do not touch on the issue of the state ownership of Russian lands. Probably, at the same time, they understand that the problem exists, but are not ready to solve it and therefore “do not notice”. To solve this problem, it is not enough to be a historian (even an outstanding one), one must simultaneously be a specialist in political science and legal sciences. Perhaps it is precisely the lack of development of the theory of the state, before the twentieth century, that explains this position in historiography, because it is precisely the scientists who lived and worked before the twentieth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century that it is represented.

I will quote the most famous representatives of this group of scientists, choosing quotes so that they reflect their way of bypassing this issue while getting as close to the problem as possible.

N.M Karamzin:“The princes, humbly groveling in the Horde, returned from there as formidable rulers: for they commanded in the name of the supreme king.” “If the Mongols did the same with us as they did in China, in India, or what the Turks did in Greece; if, leaving the steppe and nomadism, they returned to our cities, they could still exist in the form of a state. Fortunately, the harsh climate of Russia removed this thought from them. The khans only wanted to be our masters "from afar", not interfering in civil affairs, they demanded only silver and obedience from the princes.

CM. Solovyov:"The Mongols remained to live far away, they only cared about collecting tribute, not interfering in any way with internal relations, leaving everything as it was."

IN. Klyuchevsky: "The Horde khans did not impose any orders on Russia, being content with tribute, they even poorly understood the order that operated there."

S.F Platonov:“The Tatars called Russia their “ulus”, that is, their parish or possession; but they left his old device in this ulus.

The second position in historiography: the Russian lands (North-Eastern, Southern Russia) belonged to the Horde state, being part of it. Basically, representatives of this position are scientists of the early twentieth century. These are the so-called "Eurasians". This point of view was shared by N.I. Kostomarov. Below are quotes characterizing the position of these scientists.

G.V. Vernadsky:“... the Golden Horde Khan was the supreme ruler of Russia - its “king”, as the Russian chronicles call him”; “While Western and Eastern Russia were under the control of the khan, both were parts of one political entity, the Golden Horde.”

N.S. Trubetskoy:“Russia was at that time a province of a large state. It is authentically known that Russia was also drawn into the general financial system of the Mongolian state.

N.I. Kostomarov:"A number of princes and states are in unconditional dependence on the supreme sovereign, the Tatar Khan, the true owner of the Russian land"; "The supreme lord, conqueror and owner of Russia, the khan, correctly called by the Russians, the tsar, distributed the land to the princes into estates."

The third position in historiography: the preservation of the Russian lands of their own statehood during the period of the "yoke". It is represented by "Soviet historiography" (the idea that Russia in relation to the Horde is a "vassal state") and L. Gumilyov (the idea of ​​free Russian states and their union with the Horde).

Here is how the most famous representatives of "Soviet historiography" write about it.

B.D. Grekov, A.Yu. Yakubovsky:“The Russian lands conquered by the Tatar army were not directly included in the Golden Horde. The Golden Horde khans considered the Russian lands as politically autonomous, having their own power, but being dependent on the khans and obliged to pay tribute to them - "exit". Russian feudal principalities became vassal to the khan.

V.V. Kargalov:“Unlike other countries conquered by the Mongol-Tatars, Russia has retained its political and social system. There has never been a Mongol administration on Russian soil. Even the Mongol-Tatars themselves did not call the Russian land "ulus", that is, part of the Golden Horde, completely subject to the khan.

V.V. Mavrodin:"Vasselage was expressed in the payment of tribute and in the fact that the Russian princes, in order to rule in their own principality, were obliged to receive special letters-labels from the khan."

I.B. Grekov, F.F. Shahmagonov: “The occupation of North-Eastern Russia, as well as the Middle Dnieper, was beyond the Horde's strength and did not promise her, in essence, any benefits. These lands were needed by the Horde as a permanent and reliable source of income in the form of tribute.

It is not clear to the author of the article how the state, i.e. an organization that has sovereignty can be a vassal, i.e. a subject of social relations that does not have a sign of sovereignty. Even if we accept the application of the term characterizing feudal relations within the class of feudal lords to interstate relations, we observe a contradiction.

L.N. Gumilyov: “There was no question of any Mongol conquest of Russia. The Mongols did not leave the garrisons, they did not think of establishing their permanent power. With the end of the campaign, Batu went to the Volga. "Alexander Yaroslavich...< >... went to Berka and agreed on a tribute to the Mongols in exchange for military assistance against the Lithuanians and Germans ”(i.e., tribute is just a payment for a business deal for military assistance); "The Russian principalities that accepted an alliance with the Horde have fully retained their ideological independence and political independence"; "The label is a pact of friendship and non-aggression".

Below is a brief version of the study of the problem by the author of the article, using the methods of legal sciences.

The concept of "state" is ambiguous. Here the state is defined as a political-territorial sovereign organization of public power, having a special apparatus of control and coercion, capable of making its regulations binding on the population of the entire country. The state is revealed and characterized through a number of features: 1) the presence of public authority, which has a special apparatus of management and state coercion, violence; 2) organization of power and population on a territorial basis; 3) state sovereignty, understood as the dual unity of the supremacy and uniqueness of the power of the state in a certain territory in relation to individuals and communities within the country and independence in relations with other states; 4) comprehensive, obligatory nature of acts issued by the state; the prerogative (exclusive right) of the state to issue laws and other normative acts containing generally binding rules of conduct for the population of the country; 5) taxation and collection of taxes, duties and other fees. Quite often, as the main features of the state in the literature are called: 6) a single language of communication; 7) the presence of an army; 8) a unified system of defense and foreign policy.

Let us characterize the features of the state listed above, including those adjusted for the realities of the Russian lands and the Horde in the era of the 13th–15th centuries.

1. public authority. It "stands" above society, separated from it. Regardless of whether the exercise of power is entrusted to an individual or to any body, they act on behalf of the state (in the Middle Ages, on behalf of the monarch - the owner of the land, and, importantly, on behalf of the prince, in Russian lands sometimes on behalf of the khan) and as state bodies (whose bodies are important here: khan, Horde or independent Russian, princely). This power is independent and independent in relation to other sources of power. Power in the state must be legal and legitimate. Legal power is a power that acquires powers in accordance with the law and rules with the help of laws. In the realities of the Middle Ages, in addition to laws, also in accordance with customs, orders of the monarch, and religious principles. In the study, we need to determine whether the power over the Russian lands was based on the Horde customs of the organization of management, on the orders of the khan. The legitimacy of power characterizes the special relationship between the government and the population of a given state, legitimacy characterizes the degree of recognition of power by the population, the subordination of the population to power orders. (It is important whether the population of the Russian lands obeyed the khan in the person of his officials and (or) through his orders, whether the Russians, from peasants to princes, recognized the power of the khan).

2. Territory. Includes the land and the people who lived on it, who are subject to the power of the state. The state determines its borders (it is important whether the borders of the Russian principalities were changed by the decision of the khan or the khan's administration) and protects its borders from invasions (it is important whether the Horde protects the Russian lands as their own or not).

3. state sovereignty. It includes the supremacy of state power within the country, i.e. independence in determining the content of their activities, policies. It includes full rights in determining the life of society within its territory (internal sovereignty) and independence in relations with other states in determining its foreign policy (external sovereignty). (It is important for our study: did the Russian lands and their public authorities have internal independence and external independence from the Horde). A number of important features of sovereignty duplicate other features of the state, which have been or will be discussed separately. For example, territorial supremacy (only the laws of this state apply on the territory of a given state) or territorial integrity (the territory of a state cannot be changed, either downward or upward, without the consent of a higher authority of this state).

An important sign of sovereignty, both within the state and outside it, is formal independence from other states or monarchs. (It is important for our study: there were non-Russian lands and their rulers were formally independent of the Horde and (or) Khan or recognized their supremacy and suzerainty).

External sovereignty presupposes, first of all, that another state and its ruler cannot exercise their power over this state and its ruler (par in paren non habet jmperium - an equal has no power over an equal). This is expressed, in particular, in non-subordination of the foreign and domestic policy of the state to another state. It is important for us whether there was such disobedience to the Horde of the Russian lands. For example, did the Russian rati, at the behest of the khan, fight with other, neighboring and non-neighboring, states. For example, whether new taxes were established in the Russian lands by order of the khan. This is expressed in disobedience at the level of foreign policy relations to the legislation (any normative acts; here - labels) of another state. The immunity of a sovereign state also covers the lack of jurisdiction of its judicial authorities of another state. (To determine the sovereignty of the Russian lands, it is important: whether they and their rulers were subjected to trial in the Horde).

4. The Comprehensive Binding Nature of State Acts. This sign is determined by the exclusive powers of the state to carry out lawmaking, i.e. to issue, change or cancel generally binding acts for the entire population of the state and to force their execution. (The presence of acts issued in the Horde and obligatory for the population in the Russian lands means the restriction or absence of this feature of the state in these lands. What is important for our study). Acts are not only rules of conduct that are binding on everyone to whom they are addressed in a permanent life, but also acts of "state law", i.e. on the succession to the throne, on the appointment of a specific person to the post of head of state.

5. Taxation. This sign includes a rule according to which only the state has the right to establish taxes and extend the obligation to pay them to absolutely everyone who is on its territory, or to exempt certain categories of people and organizations from them. (If the khans established taxes in Russia and collected them, if they exempted certain categories of people and organizations from taxes, then this sign of the state will be absent in Russia or will be severely limited. Which we should note in our study.)

6. Single language of communication. Multinational states also existed in antiquity, but a single language of communication (for communication at the highest state level, for the state of laws, leadership in the army, for legal proceedings) was usually the language of the people who, having subjugated others, created this state and is the main people in it . In the Hellenistic states and in Byzantium, for example, Greek was such, in Ancient Rome - Latin. (If the acts in the Russian lands were written in Kypchak or Mongolian, then this indicates the limitation or absence of this feature of the state in the Russian lands).

7. Having an army. A medieval state, unlike a number of modern ones, could not exist without an army. The absence of such (regular troops or squads plus militias) indicates that this territorial unit was not a state. But the presence does not at all mean that this territory was a sovereign state. In those days, the armed forces performed the following functions: police against internal enemies of the ruling force in the territory; protection against attacks by external land and water (sea, river) gangs of bandits; protection from the aggression of other states in conditions when the main armed forces of the state have not yet come to the rescue or for some reason cannot come. Local feudal lords without fail had armed forces, regardless of whether the given territory was a separate state (de jure or de facto, as was often the case during the period of medieval fragmentation) or was part of another state.

8. Unified system of defense and foreign policy. In the Middle Ages, the foreign and military policy of states often did not express the interests of these states for the reason that it expressed the interests of their rulers, which often did not coincide with the interests of states. Then dynastic politics, politics related to religion, the need for glory of rulers, even the desire of rulers to change their throne to a more prestigious and rich throne of another state, mattered. But when neither the interests of the state, nor the interests of the ruler, nor the aggression of another state induce the state to take hostile actions against this other state (its ruler), and these actions are actively carried out, it can be concluded that this policy is part of the policy of another state, imposed given. For example, if Russian soldiers participated in military operations far beyond the borders of Russia and not in the interests of their lands or rulers, then this means that they participated in the implementation of the foreign policy of the Horde. It is important for us to study this too and take it into account when assessing Russian-Horde relations in terms of the entry or non-inclusion of Russian lands into the Horde as part of it.

If the above signs of the state in the study prove to be evidence of Russian statehood, then we can conclude that the Russian lands were independent states. If, however, these signs in relation to the Russian lands appear precisely as signs of the Horde state, then, consequently, the Russian lands in this period of history were part of the Horde. If a number of signs indicate that the Russian lands were independent, and a number of signs indicate that they were part of the Horde, then, drawing conclusions, it is necessary to focus on the most important ones in the context of belonging to the Horde.

Power in the Russian lands was exercised on behalf of the "tsar", not the prince. And this indicates that the lands belong to the Horde state. This is also evidenced by the Russian chronicles, which call the Khan of the Horde “king”, reporting on the position of the Russian princes subordinate to the khan, on the “secondary” nature of their power over the Russian lands, a derivative of the power and will of the khan. For example: “Batu is almost Yaroslav with great honor and his men, and let him go, and tell him: Yaroslav, be old and all the prince in the Russian language.” “Oleksandr and Andrey arrived in Kanovich. And order Oleksandrov Kiev and the whole Russian land and Andrey to your table in Volodimer. Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich of Tver, grandson of Yaroslavl, came from the Horde with a grant from Tsar Azbyak for the great reign of Volodimer.

The princes were the "officials" of the khan, who performed the duties assigned by the khan to them in their lands. This speaks for the belonging of the Russian lands to the Horde state. Here is a quote about the assigned duty to collect tribute for the khan, which Mikhail of Tverskoy did not cope with enough, in the opinion of Uzbek Khan who judged him: "... you did not give tribute to the kings." To refuse to serve the khan meant not to be a prince in one’s own land, moreover, to flee from it: “Prince Andrey, Prince Yaroslavich, with his boyars, ran away with his boyars, rather than serve as a tsar and run away to an unknown land.”

In the Russian lands, the khan administration from among the foreigners (foreigners for the population of these lands) operates. This testifies to the belonging of the Russian lands to the Horde state. In the story about the torment of Mikhail Chernigov, it is said that Batu appointed governors and authorities in all Russian cities. The story about the Kursk Baskak Akhmat says that the Tatars kept the Basques in Russian cities throughout the Russian land. Under the year 1262, the chronicler speaks of the Russian council against the Tatars, whom Batu and Sartak planted in all cities by Russian rulers. The chronicles describe both the administrative activities of these officials in the Russian lands, and the structure of the staff of these officials: “The same winters arrived in numbers, and counted the entire land of Suzhlsk and Ryazan and Murom and put foremen and centurions and thousandths and temniks” .

The territory of the principalities was changed by the decision of the khan. This testifies to their belonging to the Horde state. This happened more than once, when the khan wished it: the divisions of the Great Vladimir reign in 1328, 1341, in the 50s of the XIV century.

The princes and people of Russia recognized the power of the khan ("tsar") over the Russian lands as legitimate. It also speaks of the lack of formal sovereignty of the Russian lands they rule. Below are quotes about the recognition by the princes of the supreme power of the "king" and the impossibility of fighting with him for this reason. Oleg Ryazansky says: "... it is not appropriate for a Russian prince to stand against an eastern king." Opinion of Ivan III before standing on the Ugra: “Under the oath of the spring from the forefathers, if you don’t raise your hand against the king, then how can I break the oath and take it against the king of the article.”

The formal recognition of the power of the khan was accompanied by humiliating procedures for the Russian princes! For example, according to Herberstein, there was a ritual according to which the prince went outside the city on foot, towards the Horde ambassadors who brought basma, bowed to them, brought a cup of koumiss and listened to the khan's letter while kneeling. Here is how, during a visit to the Horde in order to recognize the power of the Khan, one of the most proud and famous Russian princes was humiliated at the same time: “Daniel Romanovich, the great prince, owned the Russian land, Vladimir and Galich, together with his brother; and now he sits on his knees and is called a serf, they want tribute, he does not care for his stomach, and thunderstorms come. Oh, the evil honor of the Tatar!

Russian people, especially princes and boyars, were subjected to trial in the Horde, and, moreover, they themselves (!) went to court on the khan's call (not as prisoners of war, for example, were subjected to trial, namely as subjects, subordinates!). Also, individual Russian lands were subjected to khan's condemnation and punitive military action. This indicates the degree of subordination of the Russian lands to the Horde, their corresponding belonging to the Horde statehood. For example, Mikhail of Tverskoy and his governor Fedor, Roman Ryazansky, were tried and executed in the Horde. As a vivid example of punishment to the principality, one can recall the ruin of Tver, which showed rebelliousness, in 1328.

The khans received regular taxes and fees from Russia and even instructed their officials to collect them. We see here the operation in the Russian lands of the system of taxation of the Horde state. Systems developed, with population censuses. Moreover, the khans (which suggests that tribute is taxes, not reparations from a defeated enemy) exempted certain categories of the population and organizations from taxes - the church and its ministers.

Russian detachments were forced to fight at the behest of the khans; thus, in their foreign policy, the Russian lands were not sovereign, but were subordinate to the Horde. In these cases, the Russian lands often had to fight against their will: “Because then the need is great from foreigners, and Christians are driven to order to fight with them.” in the Caucasus, in Central Asia.

All the signs of the state, in part from the total duration of the Russian-Horde political ties, appear in the Russian lands as signs of the Horde state and, therefore, as evidence of the state ties of the Horde and Russian lands. Accordingly, for such periods it is necessary to conclude that the lands of North-Eastern Russia were not sovereign states, but part of the Horde state.

The above set of manifestations of signs of state ties in political relations between the Horde and the lands of North-Eastern Russia did not always take place, in the duration of 261 calendar year of Russian-Horde relations. Or not always completely. In a number of periods, the nature of Russian-Horde relations, according to the analysis of the totality of the features of the state, manifests itself as evidence of the functioning of the statehood of the Russian lands and, accordingly, the interstate type of Russian-Horde relations. The signs of the state must be studied separately, according to the totality of events, periods of Russian-Horde ties.

Period 1242-1362 is characterized by pronounced Russian-Horde ties, subordinate to the state character. In 1243–1244 Russian princes come to the Horde, receive a label from the Khan for reigning, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich is appointed "Grand Duke", and Vladimir is approved as the main city in Russia. The payment of tribute to the Horde began. In 1252, a punitive campaign was organized by the Khan against a number of princes who did not want to obey in North-Eastern Russia. During this period, Khan officials conducted two censuses of the population of North-Eastern Russia (1257, 1275), a permanent institution of officials of non-Russian origin began to function in the Russian lands, and permanent Horde military garrisons were placed. There is chronicle evidence of a "tribute in blood" - forced, judging by the nature of chronicle reports, the participation of Russian squads (1263, 1278) in military campaigns organized by the khan against other countries. The collection of tribute to the Horde during this period is regular; controls direct and indirect taxation. In a short period of time, in the late 50's - early 60's. In the 13th century, Muslim merchants-farmers collected tribute with particular cruelty in the Russian lands. After 1280, there were no permanent Horde administration and garrisons in the Russian lands of non-Russian origin. There is no information about the "tribute in blood". There were no population censuses after 1275. Tribute was collected and taken to the Horde from Russian lands only by Russian princes. Otherwise, the content of Russian-Horde ties is the same. For this time period, there are two groups of especially cruel Horde military campaigns on Russian lands, organized by the ruler of the Horde, to punish the lands and princes who did not submit to him and to approve their decisions (the first: 1281–1293; the second: 1315–1327) . In order to punish attacks on Russian lands and to protect them from expansion during this period, the Horde actively carries out campaigns against Lithuania and Poland, both independently and together with Russian detachments. In order to protect Russian lands from the expansion of Lithuania and Poland in the 80s.

Period 1362-1427 characterized by the absence of a subordinate position of the Russian lands to the Horde. In the context of the internecine war in the Horde, called in the annals "The Great Zamyatnya", the power of the Horde and its rulers over the Russian lands was formal until 1372, and in 1372-1382. it has not become formal either. Since 1362, in North-Eastern Russia, all issues have been resolved by the balance of power of the local Russian principalities. The label for the reign of Vladimir, being given to a non-Moscow prince (1365 and 1371), did not give its owner the actual opportunity to receive the Vladimir lands to rule, due to opposition to the will of the khan from Moscow. The princes do not take tribute to the Horde, there is no “tribute in blood” to the Horde. In the 1370s, an anti-Lithuanian and anti-Horde coalition of princes was formed in North-Eastern Russia, headed by the Moscow prince. This coalition wages war with the Horde and detachments of the Horde, isolated in the conditions of civil strife in the Horde, until 1382. In 1382, for 12 years, the complete dependence of the Russian lands on the Horde is restored: tribute paid to the Horde, princes travel to the Horde to the khan, receiving labels for reigning , the participation of Russian soldiers in the distant Horde campaigns. In 1395, the dependence of the Russian lands on the Horde, defeated by Timur, led by a non-khan from the Jochi dynasty and engulfed in a special war, ceased again. (The exception is 1412-1414, when the power in the Horde belonged to the children of Tokhtamysh). During this period, the Russian lands do not pay tribute to the Horde, the princes do not receive labels. In December 1408, a campaign of the Horde against Russia was undertaken in order to punish disobedience and restore dependence, but it did not achieve its goal. The participation of the Horde in repelling the Lithuanian aggression against Russia took place in 1406 and 1408.

In the period 1428–1480, with actual independence from the Horde, the Russian lands recognize the formal sovereignty of the Horde "tsar". In 1428–1437 in Russia, there is a confrontation between Vasily the Dark and Yuri Galitsky, they turn to the Khan of the Horde with a request to judge in the dispute and issue a label to one of the applicants. Princes aspire to princes to use the Horde as an instrument in the internal struggle, and this was associated with obtaining a label, with tribute payments to the Horde. In 1437–1445 in the Horde, the confrontation continues, with the complete advantage of Vasily the Dark and the children of Yuri Galitsky. Tribute under these conditions is not paid, the khans of the Horde do not have actual power over Russia. In 1445-1461, except for the period 02/12/1446 - 02/17/1447, there is a political dependence of the Russian lands on the Kazan Khanate. Russia pays a ransom to Kazan in long-term payments for the captive Vasily the Dark, a system of Kazan officials functions in the Russian lands, Kazan military detachments on the side of Vasily the Dark participate in the suppression of the opposition of Dmitry Shemyaka, and also protect the borders of Russia from attacks by the Horde troops. In short time intervals: April - May 1434 and 02/12/1446 - 02/17/1447. power in Russia was seized by Yuri Galitsky and Dmitry Shemyaka. During these years, Russia openly showed itself to be independent of the Horde and hostile to it. In 1461-1472, in the first decade of the reign of Ivan III, no tribute was paid to the Horde, the Khan's power over Russia was only formal. For the Horde, this is a time of constant wars with the Crimean Khanate. The Horde does not undertake military campaigns on Russian lands. In 1472-1480. there is a dependence of Russian lands on the Horde. The khan had formal power over Russia, and the Moscow prince calls himself his “ulusnik”. Until 1476, tribute was paid to the Horde, but in smaller amounts than in past periods of dependence. There were two powerful campaigns of the Horde troops against Russia - 1472, 1480.

In the period 1481-1502. there were no manifestations of submission to the Horde and its Khan on the part of the Russian lands, Russia was independent from the Horde in fact and formally.

On the whole, from 1242 to 1502, we observe in Russian-Horde political relations periods of pronounced power-subordinate ties, periods with formal power-subordinate ties with virtually equal relations, periods of actually and formally equal relations. The nature of the connections reflected the ratio of the military potential of the Russian lands and the Horde, as well as the legitimacy of the ruler of the Horde, by origin from the Jochid khan family, which was recognized by Russia as the ruling dynasty of the supreme rulers in the feudal hierarchy of rulers.

The state-political status of the lands of North-Eastern Russia as a territorial and political element of the statehood of the Horde was revealed in the periods: 1242–1361. (120 years), "September 1382 - April 1395" (aged 12.5), 1412–1414 (aged 3), summer 1445–1461 (16.5). As an element of the statehood of the Kazan Khanate - in the period 1445-1461. The status of the lands of North-Eastern Russia as sovereign states was revealed for the periods: 1362 - September 1382. (aged 21), April 1395–1411 (aged 16.5), 1415–1427 (aged 13), 1481–1502 (22). In the periods 1428 - summer 1445. (17.5 years) and 1461 - 1480. (19 years old) - North-Eastern Russia recognized the power of the Khan of the Horde over itself and was part of the Horde, only formally, in fact, being sovereign.

Of the 261 years of Russian-Horde relations, the principalities of North-Eastern Russia in relation to the Horde were independent for 89 years. But of these, 16.5 years was the subordination of the Kazan Khanate, positioned as the successor of the Horde. The state nature of the political relations of North-Eastern Russia and the Horde amounted to a total of 172 years. Of these, approximately 36-37 years, this involvement is only formal - in the form of a formal recognition of the Khan's suzerainty over Russian lands and sending him gifts. The belonging of the Russian lands to the Horde statehood, not only formal, but also actual, lasted 135–136 years. In this period, there are 24 years when the forms of involvement in the Horde state of the Russian lands were especially strong: the functioning of permanent Horde officials and garrisons in the Russian lands, the implementation of censuses to streamline taxation.

Bibliographic list

Big Russian Encyclopedia: in 30 volumes. T. 7. M .: Bolshaya Ros. Encycl., 2007. Vol. 7. 767 p.

Vernadsky G.V. Mongols and Russia / trans. from English. E. P. Berenstein. Tver: AGRAF; M.: LEAN, 1999. 480 p.

Resurrection chronicle. T. VII. M.: Languages ​​of Russian. culture, 2000. 345 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Herberstein C. Notes on Muscovy / per. with him. A.I. Maleina, A.V. Nazarchenko. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1988. 430 p.

Grekov B.D.,Yakubovsky A.Yu.Golden Horde and its fall. M.; L.: AN SSSR, 1950. 478 p.

Grekov I.B.,Shakhmagonov F.F.World of history: Russian lands in X III –XV centuries. M.: Young Guard, 1986. 334 p.

Gumilyov L.N. Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe. M.: Thought, 1989.764 p.

Gumilyov L.N. From Russia to Russia. M.: Drofa, 1996. 352 p.

Zadonshchina// Monuments of literature of Ancient Russia: XIV - mid-XV century. M.: Artist. lit., 1981. 602 p.

Ipatievskaya chronicle. T. II. M.: Publishing house Vost. Literature, 1962. 604 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Karamzin N.M.History of Russian Goverment. T. V –VIII . Kaluga: Golden Alley, 1993. 576 p.

Kargalov V.V. Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia. XIII century. Moscow: Education, 1966. 135 p.

Klyuchevsky V.O.Works: in 9 volumes. II In: Course of Russian history. Part 1. / under. ed. V.L. Yanina. M. : Thought, 1987. 447 p.

Kostomarov N.I. Historical monographs and researches. T. 12. The beginning of autocracy in ancient Russia. SPb.: Type. D. E. Kozhanchikova, 1863. 463 p.

Lavrentievskaya chronicle. T. I. M .: Publishing house Vost. Literature, 1926. 648 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Mavrodin V.V. Popular movement against foreign invaders in Ancient Russia. L.: Polit. lit., 1945. 52 p.

Nikonovskaya chronicle. T. X. M .: Languages ​​of Russian. culture, 2000. 248 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Nikonovskaya chronicle. T. XII. M.: Languages ​​of Russian. culture, 2000. 272 ​​p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Novgorod I chronicle. T. III. M.: Languages ​​of Russian. culture, 2000. 693 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Platonov S.F.Lectures on Russian history. St. Petersburg: Crystal, 1992. 838 p.

Tale on the Life and Courage of the Blessed and Grand Duke Alexander // Monuments of Literature of Ancient Russia: XIII century. M.: Artist. lit., 1981. S. 426 - 439.

Collection documents on the history of the USSR. M. : Vyssh. school, 1971. 238 p.

Soloviev S.M. Works. T. 16. A look at the history of the establishment of state order in Russia before Peter the Great / ed. I. Kovalchenko. Moscow: Thought, 1995, pp. 5–42.

Sofia the first chronicle of the older edition. Vol. VI, no. 1. M.: Languages ​​of Russian. culture, 2000. 581 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Tizengauzen V.G. Collection of materials related to the history of the Golden Horde: in 2 volumes. T 2. M .; L.: AN SSSR, 1941. 275 p.

Trubetskoy N.S. Legacy of Genghis Khan. M.: AGRAF, 2000. 560 p.

Acquisition by Kyiv in the first half of the tenth century. international recognition was immediately reflected in the content of the term Russian land. Now, along with the narrow meaning of the tribal region of the Middle Dnieper Rus, it received a broader meaning of the state territory. In the latter sense, the term Russian land covered the entire realm of the Russian princes, inhabited by the Slavic-Finno-Baltic tribes.

In the middle of the X century. this broad interpretation was used mainly at the level of interstate relations, denoting the sovereign territory over which the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv extended. For Byzantine diplomats, Russian land in this sense was "Russia", "country of Russia", "Russian land" or, in the terminology of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, "outer Russia", in contrast to "inner Russia", Tauric Russia. (Just as the Azov Black Bulgaria is called Inner Bulgaria in Arabic sources, in contrast to the Outer - Volga Bulgaria.) Russia has a similar meaning in the message of Ibrahim ibn Yakub (circa 966): in the east of Russia", in the Latin document Dagome iudex (circa 991): "The region of the Prussians, as they say, extends as far as the place called Russia, and the region of the Russ extends as far as Krakow", in the announcement of the Quedlinburg annals about the death of St. Bruno in 1009 from the hands of the pagans "on the border of Russia and Lithuania" and in many other sources of that time.

But inside the country, under the Russian land, they still actually understood the Middle Dnieper region with a narrow strip along the right bank of the Dnieper south of Kyiv, stretching almost to the very Black Sea coast (the right bank of the Dnieper became “Russian”, apparently due to the fact that it is higher left and, therefore, it was him, for the sake of convenience and safety, that the Russians chose for movement and parking). These ancient geographical boundaries of the Russian land in its narrow sense are attested by several chronicle articles. In 1170, two Polovtsian hordes invaded the Kyiv and Pereyaslav principalities. The horde that went to Kyiv along the right bank of the Dnieper, across the Russian land, the chronicler calls the Russian Polovtsy, while the other horde, moving towards Pereyaslavl along the Dnieper left bank, is called Pereyaslav Polovtsy by him. In 1193, Rostislav, the son of the Kyiv prince Rurik, went on a campaign against the Polovtsy. He crossed the southern border of the Kyiv principality - the river Ros - and went far into the steppe along the right bank of the Dnieper. All the steppe space he passed in the annals is called the Russian land.
At the same time, stepping out of the Kyiv land a little further north, into the territory of the Pripyat basin, already meant leaving the borders of Russia. In the same 1193, a prince, alarmed that the Kievan prince Rurik Rostislavich had lingered too long in the city of Ovruch (on the river Already, a tributary of the Pripyat), reproached him: “Why did you leave your land? Go to Russia and guard her." “I go to Russia,” says the Novgorod I chronicle about the Novgorod archbishop, when he happened to go to Kyiv.

In such a narrow sense, the Russian land corresponded to the tribal territory of "Polyanskaya Rus", which, from the second third of the 9th century. made military campaigns along the Dnieper and trade trips to the Black Sea.

Ancient Russian people often invested in the concept of the Russian land, along with geographical and political, also an ethnographic meaning, meaning by it Russia itself, an armed crowd of Russian warriors under the command of a Russian prince. It was precisely this meaning that Prince Svyatoslav attached to the Russian land, when, before the battle with the Greeks, he turned to his soldiers with the words: “Let us not shame the Russian land, but lie down with that bone, we are not dead; if we run away, shame on us.” Here, the Russian land turns out to be equivalent to “we”, that is, the entire Russian army, and by no means the territory of the Middle Dnieper, which, by the way, could not be put to shame when fighting the Greeks in the Balkans.

In the same way, according to the subtle observation of V. O. Klyuchevsky, “the singer of “The Tale of Igor's Campaign”, a monument of the end of the 12th or the very beginning of the 13th century, remarks: “O Russian land! you are already behind the shelomyan”; this expression means that the Russian land has already gone beyond the rows of steppe trenches that stretched along the southern borders of the principalities of Chernigov and Pereyaslavl. Under the Russian land, the singer of the “Words” means a squad that went on a campaign against the Polovtsians with his hero, Prince Igor, therefore, he understood the geographical term in an ethnographic sense ”[Klyuchevsky V.O. Works in 9 vols. M., 1987. T. VI. S. 98].

The orientation system of the Middle Ages was built on the principle of "from near to far", "from one's own to another". The author of the Lay looked at the movement of Igor's squad towards the Don from the side of Russia, and not through the eyes of the Russians themselves, who went deep into the steppe. Therefore, his woeful exclamation “O Russian land! you're already behind the hill" refers to the retreating Russian army, and not to the proper Russian territory, which remained behind Igor's army.

P.S.
We observe the replacement of the “troops” with “land” in an annalistic article under 1152, but already in relation to the Polovtsy: “And Yury went with his sons ... so are the Polovtsians of Orplyuev and Toksobich and the whole Polovtsian land, whatever they are between the Volga and the Dnieper ".

Source:
Tsvetkov S. E. Russian land. Between paganism and Christianity. From Prince Igor to his son Svyatoslav. M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2012. S.265-267.