The era of feudal fragmentation in Europe, the distinctive features of feudalism in the Russian lands. Feudal fragmentation in Europe (IX-XI centuries)

Feudal fragmentation is a natural historical process. Western Europe and Kievan Rus during the period of feudal fragmentation

Having received a monopoly on land, the feudal lords also acquired significant political power: the transfer of part of their land to vassals, the right to litigate and mint money, the maintenance of their own military force, etc. In accordance with the new realities, a different hierarchy of feudal society is now taking shape, which has legal consolidation: "The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal." Thus, the internal cohesion of the feudal nobility was achieved, its privileges were protected from encroachments by the central government, which was weakening by this time. For example, in France before the beginning of the XII century. the real power of the king did not extend beyond the domain, which was inferior in size to the possessions of many large feudal lords. The king, in relation to his immediate vassals, had only formal suzerainty, and the big lords behaved completely independently. Thus began to take shape the foundations of feudal fragmentation.

It is known that on the territory that collapsed in the middle of the 9th century. Three new states arose in the empire of Charlemagne: French, German and Italian (Northern Italy), each of which became the base of the emerging territorial-ethnic community - nationality. Then the process of political disintegration embraced each of these new formations. So, in the territory of the French kingdom at the end of the 9th century. there were 29 possessions, and at the end of the tenth century. - about 50. But now they were for the most part not ethnic, but patrimonial seigneurial formations.

The situation changed after England in 1066 was conquered by the Duke of Normandy William the Conqueror. As a result, the country, moving towards feudal fragmentation, turned into a cohesive state with strong monarchical power. This is the only example on the European continent in this period.

The point was that the conquerors deprived many representatives of the former nobility of their possessions, carrying out mass confiscation of landed property. The king became the actual owner of the land, who transferred part of it as fiefs to his warriors and part of the local feudal lords who expressed their readiness to serve him. But these possessions were now in different parts of England. The only exceptions were a few counties, which were located on the outskirts of the country and were intended for the defense of the border areas. The dispersion of feudal estates (130 large vassals had land in 2-5 counties, 29 - in 6-10 counties, 12 - in 10-21 counties), their private return to the king served as an obstacle to the transformation of the barons into independent landowners, as it was, for example, in France.

In addition, in Germany, despite the rapid development already in the tenth century. cities (the result of the separation of craft from agriculture), did not develop, as was the case in England, France and other countries, an alliance between the royal power and the cities. Therefore, the German cities were unable to play an active role in the political centralization of the country. And, finally, Germany has not formed, like England or France, a single economic center that could become the core of political unification. Each principality lived separately. As the princely power strengthened, the political and economic fragmentation of Germany intensified.

The development of crafts and trade led at the beginning of the XII century. to the fairly rapid growth of Byzantine cities. But unlike Western Europe, they did not belong to individual feudal lords, but were under the rule of the state, which did not seek an alliance with the townspeople. Byzantine cities did not achieve self-government, like Western European cities. The townspeople, subjected to cruel fiscal exploitation, were thus forced to fight not with the feudal lords, but with the state. Strengthening the positions of feudal lords in the cities, establishing their control over trade and marketing of their products, undermined the well-being of merchants and artisans. With the weakening of imperial power, the feudal lords became sovereign masters in the cities.

Increasing tax oppression led to frequent uprisings that weakened the state. At the end of the XII century. the empire began to fall apart. This process accelerated after the capture of Constantinople in 1204 by the crusaders. The empire fell, and the Latin Empire and several other states were formed on its ruins. And although in 1261 the Byzantine state was restored again (it happened after the fall of the Latin Empire), but the former power was no longer there. This continued until the fall of Byzantium under the blows of the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

The collapse of the early feudal territorial organization of state power and the triumph of feudal fragmentation represented the completion of the formation of feudal relations and the flourishing of feudalism in Western Europe. In its content, it was a natural and progressive process, due to the rise of internal colonization, the expansion of the area of cultivated land. Thanks to the improvement of labor tools, the use of animal draft power and the transition to three-field cultivation, land cultivation improved, industrial crops began to be cultivated - flax, hemp; new branches of agriculture appeared - viticulture, etc. As a result, the peasants began to have surplus products that they could exchange for handicrafts, and not make them themselves.

The labor productivity of artisans increased, and the technique and technology of handicraft production improved. The craftsman turned into a small commodity producer working for trade. Ultimately, these circumstances led to the separation of craft from agriculture, the development of commodity-money relations, trade and the emergence of a medieval city. They became centers of crafts and trade.

As a rule, cities in Western Europe arose on the land of the feudal lord and therefore inevitably submitted to him. The townspeople, most of whom were mainly former peasants, remained in the land or personal dependence of the feudal lord. The desire of the townspeople to free themselves from such dependence led to a struggle between cities and lords for their rights and independence. This movement, widely developed in Western Europe in the X-XIII centuries. went down in history under the name of "communal movement". All rights and privileges won or acquired for a ransom were recorded in the charter. By the end of the XIII century. many cities achieved self-government, became commune cities. So, about 50% of English cities had their own self-government, city council, mayor and court. The inhabitants of such cities in England, Italy, France, etc. became free from feudal dependence. A fugitive peasant who lived in the cities of these countries for a year and one day became free. Thus, in the XIII century. a new estate appeared - the townspeople - as an independent political force with its own status, privileges and liberties: personal freedom, jurisdiction of the city court, participation in the city militia. The emergence of estates that achieved significant political and legal rights was an important step towards the formation of estate-representative monarchies in the countries of Western Europe. This became possible thanks to the strengthening of the central government, first in England, then in France.

The development of commodity-money relations and the involvement of the countryside in this process undermined the subsistence economy and created conditions for the development of the domestic market. The feudal lords, seeking to increase their income, began to transfer land to the peasants for hereditary holding, reduced the lord's plowing, encouraged internal colonization, willingly accepted fugitive peasants, populated uncultivated lands with them and provided them with personal freedom. The estates of the feudal lords were also drawn into market relations. These circumstances led to a change in the forms of feudal rent, the weakening, and then the complete elimination of personal feudal dependence. Quite quickly this process took place in England, France, Italy.

The development of social relations in Kievan Rus is probably following the same scenario. The onset of a period of feudal fragmentation fits into the framework of the all-European process. As in Western Europe, tendencies towards political fragmentation in Russia appeared early. Already in the tenth century after the death of Prince Vladimir in 1015, a struggle for power breaks out between his children. However, a single ancient Russian state existed until the death of Prince Mstislav (1132). Since that time, historical science has been counting down the feudal fragmentation in Russia.

What are the reasons for this phenomenon? What contributed to the fact that the unified state of the Rurikovich quickly disintegrated into many large and small principalities? There are many such reasons.

Let's highlight the most important of them.

The main reason is the change in the nature of relations between the Grand Duke and his warriors as a result of the settlement of warriors on the ground. In the first century and a half of the existence of Kievan Rus, the squad was completely supported by the prince. The prince, as well as his state apparatus, collected tribute and other requisitions. As the combatants received land and received from the prince the right to collect taxes and duties themselves, they came to the conclusion that the income from military robbery booty is less reliable than fees from peasants and townspeople. In the XI century. the process of "settlement" of the squad on the ground intensified. And from the first half of the XII century. in Kievan Rus, the votchina becomes the predominant form of ownership, the owner of which could dispose of it at his own discretion. And although the possession of a fiefdom imposed on the feudal lord the obligation to perform military service, his economic dependence on the Grand Duke was significantly weakened. The incomes of the former feudal combatants no longer depended on the mercy of the prince. They made their own existence. With the weakening of economic dependence on the Grand Duke, political dependence also weakens.

A significant role in the process of feudal fragmentation in Russia was played by the developing institution feudal immunity, providing for a certain level of sovereignty of the feudal lord within the boundaries of his fiefdom. In this territory, the feudal lord had the rights of the head of state. The Grand Duke and his authorities did not have the right to act in this territory. The feudal lord himself collected taxes, duties, and administered court. As a result, a state apparatus, a squad, courts, prisons, etc., are formed in independent principalities-patrimonies, and specific princes begin to dispose of communal lands, transfer them on their own behalf to boyars and monasteries. Thus, local princely dynasties are formed, and local feudal lords make up the court and squad of this dynasty. Of great importance in this process was the introduction of the institution of heredity on the earth and the people inhabiting it. Under the influence of all these processes, the nature of relations between the local principalities and Kiev changed. Service dependence is being replaced by relations of political partners, sometimes in the form of equal allies, sometimes suzerain and vassal.

All these economic and political processes politically meant fragmentation of power, the collapse of the former centralized statehood of Kievan Rus. This disintegration, as it was in Western Europe, was accompanied by internecine wars. Three most influential states were formed on the territory of Kievan Rus: Vladimir-Suzdal principality (North-Eastern Rus), Galicia-Volyn principality (South-Western Rus) and Novgorod land (North-Western Rus). Both within these principalities and between them, fierce clashes took place for a long time, destructive wars that weakened the power of Russia, led to the destruction of cities and villages.

Foreign conquerors did not fail to take advantage of this circumstance. The uncoordinated actions of the Russian princes, the desire to achieve victory over the enemy at the expense of others, while maintaining their own army, the lack of a unified command led to the first defeat of the Russian army in the battle with the Tatar-Mongols on the Kalka River on May 31, 1223. Serious disagreements between the princes, which did not allow them to act as a united front in the face of the Tatar-Mongol aggression, led to the capture and destruction of Ryazan (1237). In February 1238, the Russian militia on the Sit River was defeated, Vladimir and Suzdal were captured. In October 1239, Chernigov was besieged and taken; in the fall of 1240, Kyiv was captured. Thus, from the beginning of the 40s. 13th century the period of Russian history begins, which is usually called the Tatar-Mongol yoke, which lasted until the second half of the 15th century.

It should be noted that the Tatar-Mongols during this period did not carry out the occupation of Russian lands, since this territory was of little use for the economic activity of nomadic peoples. But this yoke was very real. Russia found itself in vassal dependence on the Tatar-Mongol khans. Each prince, including the Grand Duke, had to receive permission from the khan to rule the "table", the khan's label. The population of the Russian lands was subject to heavy tribute in favor of the Mongols, there were constant raids of the conquerors, which led to the devastation of the lands and the destruction of the population.

At the same time, a new dangerous enemy appeared on the northwestern borders of Russia - in 1240 the Swedes, and then in 1240-1242. German crusaders. It turned out that the Novgorod land had to defend its independence and its type of development under pressure from both the East and the West. The struggle for the independence of the Novgorod land was led by the young prince Alexander Yaroslavich. His tactics were based on the struggle against the Catholic West and concession to the East (Golden Horde). As a result, the Swedish troops that landed in July 1240 at the mouth of the Neva were defeated by the retinue of the Novgorod prince, who received the honorary nickname "Nevsky" for this victory.

Following the Swedes, German knights attacked the Novgorod land, which at the beginning of the 13th century. settled in the Baltics. In 1240 they captured Izborsk, then Pskov. Alexander Nevsky, who led the fight against the crusaders, managed to liberate Pskov in the winter of 1242, and then on the ice of Lake Peipsi in the famous battle on the ice (April 5, 1242) inflicted a decisive defeat on the German knights. After that, they no longer made serious attempts to seize Russian lands.

Thanks to the efforts of Alexander Nevsky and his descendants in the Novgorod land, despite the dependence on the Golden Horde, the traditions of Western orientation were preserved and the features of allegiance began to form.

However, in general, by the end of the XIII century. North-Eastern and Southern Russia fell under the influence of the Golden Horde, lost ties with the West and the previously established features of progressive development. It is difficult to overestimate the negative consequences that the Tatar-Mongol yoke had for Russia. Most historians agree that the Tatar-Mongol yoke significantly delayed the socio-economic, political and spiritual development of the Russian state, changed the nature of statehood, giving it the form of relations characteristic of the nomadic peoples of Asia.

It is known that in the fight against the Tatar-Mongols, the princely squads took the first blow. The vast majority of them died. Together with the old nobility, the traditions of vassal-druzhina relations left. Now, with the formation of the new nobility, the relationship of allegiance was established.

Relations between princes and cities changed. Veche (with the exception of the Novgorod land) has lost its significance. The prince in such conditions acted as the only protector and master.

Thus, Russian statehood begins to acquire the features of oriental despotism with its cruelty, arbitrariness, complete disregard for the people and the individual. As a result, a peculiar type of feudalism was formed in Russia, in which the “Asian element” is quite strongly represented. The formation of this peculiar type of feudalism was facilitated by the fact that, as a result of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, Russia developed for 240 years in isolation from Europe.

topic 5 The formation of the Muscovite state in the XIV-XVI centuries

1 / Unification of Russian lands around Moscow and the formation of a single Russian state

2/ The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the formation and strengthening of the Russian state

3/ Formation of a centralized Russian state

4 / XVII century - the crisis of the Moscow kingdom

Ministry of Sports of the Russian Federation FGBOU VPO "Povolzhskaya GAFKSIT"

ESSAY

in history

SUBJECT:Feudal fragmentation in Western

Europe

Completed:

Abdullin Nurzat Almazovich, student 4213z

Accepted:

Shabalina Yulia Vladimirovna

Kazan

1) Feudal fragmentation is a natural process.

2) Feudal fragmentation in Western Europe

a) Feudal fragmentation in England

b) The development of medieval Germany

c) Growth of Byzantine cities

d) a predatory campaign in Italy

e) Reasons for the fragmentation of Western Europe

f) War between feudal lords

g) Feudal staircase

h) Summary

Introduction

With the branching of the ruling dynasty in the early feudal states, the expansion of their territory and the administrative apparatus, whose representatives exercise the power of the monarch over the local population, collecting tribute and troops, the number of contenders for central power increases, peripheral military resources increase, and the control capabilities of the center weaken. The supreme power becomes nominal, and the monarch begins to be elected by large feudal lords from his midst, while the resources of the elected monarch, as a rule, are limited by the resources of his original principality, and he cannot transfer supreme power by inheritance. In this situation, the rule "the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal" works.

The first exceptions are England in the north-west of Europe (the Salisbury oath of 1085, all feudal lords are direct vassals of the king) and Byzantium in its south-east (at about the same time, Emperor Alexei I Komnenos forced the crusaders who seized the lands in the Middle East, recognize vassal dependence on the empire, thereby including these lands in the empire and preserving its unity). In these cases, all the lands of the state are divided into the domain of the monarch and the lands of his vassals, as in the next historical stage, when the supreme power is assigned to one of the princes, it again begins to be inherited and the process of centralization begins (this stage is often called a patrimonial monarchy).

The full development of feudalism became a prerequisite for the end of feudal fragmentation, since the overwhelming majority of the feudal stratum, its ordinary representatives, were objectively interested in having a single spokesman for their interests:

Feudal fragmentation is natural

process

In the history of the early feudal states of Europe in the X-XII centuries. are a period of political fragmentation. By this time, the feudal nobility had already turned into a privileged group, belonging to which was determined by birth. The existing monopoly property of the feudal lords on land was reflected in the rules of law. "There is no land without a lord." The peasants found themselves for the most part in personal and land dependence on the feudal lords. Having received a monopoly on land, the feudal lords also acquired significant political power: the transfer of part of their land to vassals, the right to litigate and mint money, the maintenance of their own military force, etc. In accordance with the new realities, a different hierarchy of feudal society is now taking shape, which has legal consolidation: "The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal." Thus, the internal cohesion of the feudal nobility was achieved, its privileges were protected from encroachments by the central government, which was weakening by this time. For example, in France before the beginning of the XII century. the real power of the king did not extend beyond the domain, which was inferior in size to the possessions of many large feudal lords. The king, in relation to his immediate vassals, had only formal suzerainty, and the big lords behaved completely independently. Thus began to take shape the foundations of feudal fragmentation. It is known that on the territory that collapsed in the middle of the 9th century. Three new states arose in the empire of Charlemagne: French, German and Italian (Northern Italy), each of which became the base of the emerging territorial-ethnic community - nationality. Then the process of political disintegration embraced each of these new formations. So, in the territory of the French kingdom at the end of the 9th century. there were 29 possessions, and at the end of the tenth century. - about 50. But now they were for the most part not ethnic, but patrimonial seigneurial formations

The collapse of the early feudal territorial organization of state power and the triumph of feudal fragmentation represented the completion of the process

the formation of feudal relations and the flourishing of feudalism in Western Europe. In its content, it was a natural and progressive process, due to the rise of internal colonization, the expansion of the area of cultivated land. Thanks to the improvement of labor tools, the use of animal draft power and the transition to three-field cultivation, land cultivation improved, industrial crops began to be cultivated - flax, hemp; new branches of agriculture appeared - viticulture, etc. As a result, the peasants began to have surplus products that they could exchange for handicrafts, and not make them themselves. The labor productivity of artisans increased, and the technique and technology of handicraft production improved. The craftsman turned into a small commodity producer working for trade. Ultimately, these circumstances led to the separation of craft from agriculture, the development of commodity-money relations, trade and the emergence of a medieval city. They became centers of crafts and trade. As a rule, cities in Western Europe arose on the land of the feudal lord and therefore inevitably submitted to him. The townspeople, most of whom were mainly former peasants, remained in the land or personal dependence of the feudal lord. The desire of the townspeople to free themselves from such dependence led to a struggle between cities and lords for their rights and independence. This movement, widely developed in Western Europe in the X-XIII centuries. went down in history under the name of "communal movement". All rights and privileges won or acquired for a ransom were recorded in the charter. By the end of the XIII century. many cities achieved self-government, became commune cities. So, about 50% of English cities had their own self-government, city council, mayor and court. The inhabitants of such cities in England, Italy, France, etc. became free from feudal dependence. A fugitive peasant who lived in the cities of these countries for a year and one day became free. Thus, in the XIII century. a new estate appeared - the townspeople - as an independent political force with its own status, privileges and liberties: personal freedom, jurisdiction of the city court, participation in the city militia. The emergence of estates that achieved significant political and legal rights was an important step towards the formation of estate-representative monarchies in the countries of Western Europe. This became possible thanks to the strengthening of the central government, first in England, then in France. The development of commodity-money relations and the involvement of the countryside in this process undermined the subsistence economy and created conditions for the development of the domestic market. The feudal lords, seeking to increase their income, began to transfer land to the peasants for hereditary holding, reduced the lord's plowing, encouraged internal colonization, willingly accepted fugitive peasants, populated uncultivated lands with them and provided them with personal freedom. The estates of the feudal lords were also drawn into market relations. These circumstances led to a change in the forms of feudal rent, the weakening, and then the complete elimination of personal feudal dependence. Quite quickly this process took place in England, France, Italy. .

Feudal fragmentation in Western Europe

Feudal fragmentation in England

The process of feudal fragmentation in the X-XII centuries. began to develop in England. This was facilitated by the transfer by the royal power to the nobility of the right to collect feudal duties from the peasants and their lands. As a result of this, the feudal lord (secular or ecclesiastical), who received such an award, becomes the full owner of the land occupied by the peasants and their personal master. The private property of the feudal lords grew, they became economically stronger and sought greater independence from the king. The situation changed after England in 1066 was conquered by the Duke of Normandy William the Conqueror. As a result, the country, moving towards feudal fragmentation, turned into a cohesive state with strong monarchical power. This is the only example on the European continent in this period.

The point was that the conquerors deprived many representatives of the former nobility of their possessions, carrying out mass confiscation of landed property. The king became the actual owner of the land, who transferred part of it as fiefs to his warriors and part of the local feudal lords who expressed their readiness to serve him. But these possessions were now in different parts of England. The only exceptions were a few counties, which were located on the outskirts of the country and were intended for the defense of the border areas. The dispersion of feudal estates (130 large vassals had land in 2-5 counties, 29 - in 6-10 counties, 12 - in 10-21 counties), their private return to the king served as an obstacle to turning the barons into independent landowners, as it was, for example in France

Development of medieval Germany

The development of medieval Germany was characterized by a certain originality. Until the 13th century it was one of the most powerful states in Europe. And then the process of internal political fragmentation begins to develop rapidly here, the country breaks up into a number of independent associations, while other Western European countries embarked on the path of state consolidation. The fact is that the German emperors, in order to maintain their power over dependent countries, needed the military assistance of the princes and were forced to make concessions to them. Thus, if in other countries of Europe the royal power deprived the feudal nobility of its political privileges, then in Germany the process of legislative consolidation of the highest state rights for the princes developed. As a result, the imperial power gradually lost its positions and became dependent on large secular and church feudal lords. . In addition, in Germany, despite the rapid development already in the tenth century. cities (the result of the separation of craft from agriculture), did not develop, as was the case in England, France and other countries, an alliance between the royal power and the cities. Therefore, the German cities were unable to play an active role in the political centralization of the country. And, finally, Germany has not formed, like England or France, a single economic center that could become the core of political unification. Each principality lived separately. As the princely power strengthened, the political and economic fragmentation of Germany intensified.

Growth of Byzantine cities

In Byzantium at the beginning of the XII century. the formation of the main institutions of feudal society was completed, a feudal estate was formed, and the bulk of the peasants were already in land or personal dependence. The imperial power, presenting wide privileges to secular and church feudal lords, contributed to their transformation into all-powerful patrimonials, who had an apparatus of judicial and administrative power and armed squads. It was the payment of the emperors to the feudal lords for their support and service. The development of crafts and trade led at the beginning of the XII century. to the fairly rapid growth of Byzantine cities. But unlike Western Europe, they did not belong to individual feudal lords, but were under the rule of the state, which did not seek an alliance with the townspeople. Byzantine cities did not achieve self-government, like Western European cities. The townspeople, subjected to cruel fiscal exploitation, were thus forced to fight not with the feudal lords, but with the state. Strengthening the positions of feudal lords in the cities, establishing their control over trade and marketing of their products, undermined the well-being of merchants and artisans. With the weakening of imperial power, the feudal lords became sovereign masters in the cities. . Increasing tax oppression led to frequent uprisings that weakened the state. At the end of the XII century. the empire began to fall apart. This process accelerated after the capture of Constantinople in 1204 by the crusaders. The empire fell, and the Latin Empire and several other states were formed on its ruins. And although in 1261 the Byzantine state was restored again (it happened after the fall of the Latin Empire), but the former power was no longer there. This continued until the fall of Byzantium under the blows of the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

Plundering campaign in Italy

In the X century, the German feudal lords, led by their king, began to make predatory campaigns in Italy. Having captured part of Italy with the city of Rome, the German king declared himself Roman emperor. The new state was later called the "Holy Roman Empire". But it was a very weak state. The large feudal lords of Germany did not submit to the emperor. The population of Italy did not stop fighting the invaders. Each new German king had to make a campaign for the Alps in order to conquer the country again. For several centuries in a row, German feudal lords plundered and ravaged Italy.

The states of Western Europe were not united. Each of them broke up into large fiefs, which were divided into many small ones. In Germany, for example, there were about 200 small states. Some of them were so small that they jokingly said: “The head of the ruler, when he goes to bed, lies on his land, and his legs have to be pulled into the possessions of a neighbor.” It was a time of feudal fragmentation in Western Europe

Reasons for the fragmentation of Western Europe

Why were the states of Western Europe fragmented? With subsistence farming, there were not and could not be strong trade ties between individual parts of the country, there were no ties even between individual estates. In each estate, the population lived its own isolated life and had little contact with people from other places. People spent most of their lives in their village. Yes, they had no reason to go anywhere: after all, everything necessary was produced on the spot.

Each fief was almost an independent state. The feudal lord had a detachment of warriors, collected taxes from the population, performed judgment and reprisals on them. He himself could declare war on other feudal lords and make peace with them. Whoever owned the land had the power.

Large feudal lords - dukes and counts - had little regard for the king. They claimed that the king was only "first among equals", that is, they considered themselves no less noble than the king. Many large feudal lords themselves were not averse to seizing the royal throne.

The dominance of natural economy led to the fragmentation of the states of Western Europe. Royal power in the IX - X centuries. was very weak.

War between feudal lords

In times of fragmentation, the feudal lords continuously fought among themselves. These wars were called internecine wars
.

Why did internecine wars break out? The feudal lords sought to take away each other's land along with the peasants who lived on it. The more serfs the feudal lord had, the stronger and richer he was, since serfs were liable for the use of land.

Wishing to undermine the strength of his enemy, the feudal lord ruined his peasants: he burned villages, drove cattle, trampled crops.

The peasants suffered the most from internecine wars; the feudal lords could sit behind the strong walls of their castles.

feudal stairs

In order to have his own military detachment, each feudal lord distributed part of the land with serfs to smaller feudal lords. In relation to these feudal lords, the owner of the land was a lord (“senior”), and those who received land from him were his vassals, that is, military servants. Taking possession of the feud, the vassal knelt before the lord and took an oath of allegiance to him. As a sign of the transfer, the feudal lord handed over to the vassal a handful of earth and a tree branch.

The king was considered the head of all feudal lords in the country. He was the lord for dukes and counts.

In their possessions there were usually hundreds of villages, they disposed of large detachments of warriors.

A step below stood barons - vassals of dukes and earls. Usually they owned two or three dozen villages and could put up a detachment of warriors.

Barons were lords of petty feudal lords - knights.

Thus, the same feudal lord was the lord of a smaller feudal lord and a vassal of a larger one. Vassals were to obey only their lords. If they were not vassals of the king, then they were not obliged to follow his orders. This order was fixed by the rule: Vassal of my vassal is not my vassal».

Relations between feudal lords resemble a ladder, on the upper steps of which stand the largest feudal lords, on the lower steps - small ones. These relationships are called feudal stairs

The peasants did not enter the feudal ladder. And seigneurs, vassals were feudal lords. All of them - from the petty knight of the king - lived on the labor of serfs.

The vassal was obliged, by order of his lord, to go on a campaign with him and lead a detachment of soldiers. In addition, he had to help the lord with advice and redeem him from captivity.

The lord defended his vassals from the attacks of other feudal lords and from the rebellious peasants. If the peasants rebelled in the village of the knight, he sent a messenger to the seigneur, and he, with his detachment, hurried to his aid.

When a war broke out with another state, the entire feudal ladder, as it were, began to move. The king called for the campaign of dukes and counts, they turned to the barons, who led the detachments of knights. This is how the feudal army was created. But vassals often did not follow the orders of their lords. In such cases, only force could force them to obey.

During the period of fragmentation, the feudal ladder was the organization of the feudal class. With its help, the feudal lords waged wars and helped each other to keep the peasants in subjection.

Conclusion

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

Bibliography

Textbook. History of the Middle Ages. V.A. Vedyushkin. M "Enlightenment" 2009

2. History of the Middle Ages. M. Boytsov, R Shukurov. M.

"Miros", 1995

3.R.Yu.Viller Brief textbook of the history of the Middle Ages

1-2 parts M. School - Press, 1993

2.1. The period of feudal fragmentation in Western Europe and in Russia: the essence and causes

2.2. Mongol-Tatars and Russia

The period of feudal fragmentation is a natural stage in the progressive development of feudalism. The dismemberment of the early feudal grandiose empires (Kievan Rus or the Carolingian empire in Central Europe) into a number of de facto (and sometimes legally) sovereign states was an inevitable stage in the development of feudal society.

Even in the IV century. (395) The Roman Empire broke up into two independent parts - Western and Eastern. The capital of the Eastern part was Constantinople, founded by Emperor Constantine on the site of the former Greek colony of Byzantium. Byzantium was able to withstand the storms of the so-called "great migration of peoples" and survived after the fall of Rome (in 1410, the Visigoths took Rome after a long siege) as the "empire of the Romans." In the VI century. Byzantium occupied vast territories of the European continent (even Italy was conquered for a short time). Throughout the Middle Ages, Byzantium maintained a strong centralized state.

The Mongolian state arose thanks to the military and diplomatic activities of Temujin, in the future Genghis Khan, aimed at uniting the Mongol tribes. The latter included the Mongols proper, to which Temujin belonged, the Merkits, Keraits, Oira-ty, Naimans, Tatars. The largest and most warlike of the Mongol tribes was the Tatar tribe. Tanguts, Jurchens, Chinese, who bordered on the Mongols, often transferred the name "Tatars" in general to all Mongolian tribes of the 11th-12th centuries.

The future Genghis Khan was born, according to some sources, in 1162, according to others - in 1155. He received the name Temujin at birth, because his father, the grandson of Yesugei Bagatur, who was at enmity with the Tatars, captured the Tatar leader the day before

In his struggle for power over other tribes, Temujin achieved significant success. Around 1180, he was elected khan of the Mongol tribal union proper. The decisive factor was the real power that Temujin gained thanks to his abilities. Representatives of the Mongolian steppe aristocracy, having elected Temujin Khan, gave him the title of Chiigis Khan.

In 1185 Temujin, in alliance with the head of the Kereit tribe, Van Khan, defeated the Merkit union of tribes. This victory strengthened his position.

In the spring of 1202, Genghis Khan utterly defeated the Tatars. All captured Tatar men were killed, and women and children were distributed among different tribes. The khan himself took two Tatars as his wife.

Sooner or later, the logic of the struggle had to lead Chiygis Khan to a clash with the Kereit Van Khan, from which he ultimately emerged victorious. Having crushed in 1204 the last strong rival of Tayan Khan, the head of the Naiman union of tribes, Genghis Khan became the only powerful leader in the Mongolian steppes.

In 1206, at a congress (kurultai) of the Mongol nobility in the upper reaches of the Onon River, Genghis Khan was again proclaimed khan, but already of a single Mongol state.

The Mongolian state was built on a military model. The entire territory and population were divided into three parts: the center, the right and left wings. Each part, in turn, was subdivided into "darkness" (10 thousand people), "thousands", "hundreds", "tens" headed by temniks, thousanders, centurions, tenants. Companions were at the head of these military-administrative formations Genghis Khan - his noyons and nukers.

Each military-administrative unit, starting from the lowest level, had not only to put up a fixed number of soldiers with horses, equipment, provisions, but also to bear various feudal duties.

Having created a strong state, the structure of which contributed to the rapid deployment of military forces, Genghis Khan began to implement plans to conquer neighboring states.

The news that reached the northeast of Russia about the defeat and capture by the Mongol-Tatars of the largest states of Asia, the devastation of vast territories with flourishing cities and populous villages served as a terrible warning.

It is quite possible to assume that Vladimir and the Vladimir-Suzdal principality were one of the most informed regions of Europe. Proximity and constant communication with the Volga made it possible to obtain reliable and varied information about the East, Asia, and the Tatars.

Apparently, in Russia they also knew about the Mongol campaign of 1219-1224. to Central Asia, about its enormous devastating consequences for the agricultural regions and urban life of Central Asia. They knew what the civilian population expected in the event of an invasion by nomadic conquerors.

It should be noted that under Genghis Khan organized robbery and division of military booty, the devastation of entire regions and the extermination of the civilian population were used. A whole system of mass organized terror has developed, which was carried out from above (and not from below, by ordinary soldiers, as before, during the invasions of nomads), aimed at destroying elements of the population capable of resistance, intimidating civilians.

During the siege of the city, residents received mercy only on condition of immediate surrender, although this rule was sometimes not respected if it seemed unprofitable to the Mongols. If the city surrendered only after a long resistance, its inhabitants were driven out into the field, where they were left for five to ten days or more under the supervision of the Mongol warriors. After the robbery of the city and the division of the booty, they were mistaken for the townspeople. Soldiers were killed, their families were turned into slavery. Girls and young women also became slaves and were divided between the nobility and warriors. According to a contemporary, the Arab historian Ibn al-Asir, after the capture of Bukhara, the inhabitants were driven out into the field and then were divided among the warriors by order of Genghis Khan. According to Ibn al-Asir, the Tatars raped the women they inherited right there in front of the townspeople, who “looked and cried,” unable to do anything.

Artisans and skilled craftsmen were distributed as slaves between the Mongol princes and the nobility, but their fate was somewhat better, since they were often not separated from their families. Healthy male youth climbed into the "crowd", i.e. it was used for heavy siege work and convoy service, and during the battles, the “crowd people” were in front of the troops, serving as a target for shots by their compatriots. The rest of the inhabitants were allowed to return to their ruined dwellings.

If the city was taken only by storm after stubborn resistance, or if an uprising began in an already conquered city, the Mongols carried out a general massacre. The surviving inhabitants, who were previously expelled into the field, were distributed among the soldiers, who were to kill the survivors. Sometimes, along with the cities, their rural districts were also cut out. After the massacre, the captured scribes were forced to count the number of those killed.

After the defeat on the Kalka River in 1223, Russia began to closely monitor the actions of the Mongol-Tatars. Let us pay attention to the fact that the chronicle of the Vladimir principality contains records of the victory of the Mongols over the Saksins and Eastern Polovtsy in 1229, about the wintering of the Mongol-Tatars near the borders of the Volga Bulgaria in 1232. Under 1236, the chronicle contains a message about the conquest of the Volga Bulgaria by the Mongols . The chronicler describes the defeat of the capital of Bulgaria - the Great City. This message of the Vladimir chronicler carried a frank warning of impending catastrophe. She broke out a year later.

It should be noted that in 1235 a decision was made at the kurultai on a general Mongol campaign to the West. According to the Persian author Juvayni (died in 1283), at the kurultai of 1235, “a decision was made to take possession of the countries of Bulgar, Ases and Rus, which were in the neighborhood of the Batu camp, but were not yet completely conquered and were proud of their large numbers.”

Having defeated the Volga Bulgaria in 1236, having launched a broad offensive against the Polovtsians in the Caspian steppes, in the North Caucasus in 1237, by the autumn of 1237 the Mongol-Tatars concentrated their forces near the borders of North-Eastern Russia. The Ryazan Principality was the first to experience the strength of the Mongol-Tatar army. Having taken Ryazan in December 1237, Batu set off on the ice of the Oka towards Kolomna. Near Kolomna, the Mongol-Tatars were waiting for the Vladimir-Suzdal regiments, led by the son of the great Vladimir prince Vsevolod. The battle that took place in January 1238 near Kolomna was distinguished by stubbornness and bitterness. It is known that Prince Kyulkan (the only prince who died during the western campaign of the Mongols) was mortally wounded in the battle. This gives grounds to conclude that the battle was of an exceptionally tense character (like all Chinggisids, the youngest son of Chinggis Khan Kulkan, in accordance with the Mongol rules of war, was located in the rear of the troops). Despite the fact that, according to the chronicler, the Vladimir-Suzdal and Ryazan warriors "strongly fought" near Kolomna, they failed to stop the Mongol-Tatars. Having crushed Moscow in January 1238, the Mongols approached Vladimir in early February. In view of the significant losses suffered by the Vladimir-Suzdal army near Kolomna, Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich went north to gather forces, leaving his sons Vsevolod and Mstislav in Vladimir. Despite the fact that the city had quite powerful fortifications, the defenders of Vladimir, with all their heroism and courage, were able to resist the Mongols, who used siege, wall-beating weapons, only for a few days, until February 8th. And then followed the horrific defeat of the capital of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir. On March 4, 1238, the Mongol commander Burundai surprised Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich, who was encamped on the City River. Together with the Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich, many Russian waves died. Mongolian detachments captured Tver, appeared within the Novgorod land. Before reaching 100 versts to Novgorod, the Mongol-Tatars turned south and, having passed the "raid" through the Russian lands (including the outskirts of the Smolensk and Chernigov principalities), returned to the steppe.

After spending the summer of 1238 in the Don steppes, Batu again invaded the Ryazan land in the fall. In 1239, the main blow of the Mongols-Tatars fell on the southern Russian lands. In the spring of 1239, the Principality of Pereyaslavl was defeated, in the autumn it was the turn of Chernigov, which was besieged on October 18, 1239. The city was defended to the last opportunity. Many of its defenders perished on the walls. At the end of 1240 Kyiv fell. In 1241, Batu invaded the Galicia-Volyn principality.

Reporting on the Mongol invasion, the chronicler noted that the Tatars appeared innumerable, "like a pruzi, eating grass." The question of the number of Batu's troops has attracted the attention of historians for about 200 years. Starting from N.M. Karamzin, most pre-revolutionary researchers (D.I. Ilovaisky and others) arbitrarily estimated the size of the Mongol army at 300 thousand people, or, uncritically using the data of chroniclers, wrote about 400, 500, and even 600 thousand army.

Such figures are, of course, a clear exaggeration, because it is much more than there were men in Mongolia in the thirteenth century.

Historian V.V. Kargalov, as a result of studying the problem, came to the conclusion that the strength of Batu's army was 120-140 thousand people. However, this figure should be recognized as overestimated.

After all, each Mongol warrior needed to have at least three horses: riding, pack and fighting, which was not loaded, so that she retained her strength by the decisive moment of the battle. Providing food for half a million horses concentrated in one place is an extremely difficult task. The horses died, went to the food of the soldiers. It is no coincidence that the Mongols demanded fresh horses from all the cities that entered into negotiations with them.

The well-known researcher N. Veselovsky determined the number of the Mongolian army at 30 thousand people. L.N. adhered to the same assessment. Gumilev. A similar position (the number of Batu's army is 30-40 thousand people) is characteristic of historians

According to the most recent estimates, which can be considered quite convincing, the number of Mongol troops proper, which were at the disposal of Batu, was 50-60 thousand people.

The widespread opinion that every Mongol was a warrior cannot be considered reliable. How was the Mongol army recruited? A certain number of wagons put up one or two warriors and supplied them with everything necessary for the campaign.

An opinion is expressed that in addition to the Mongol troops proper, 50-60 thousand people, Batu's army included auxiliary corps from the conquered peoples. However, in reality, Batu did not have such corps. Usually the Mongols did this. Prisoners captured in battle and civilians were herded into an assault crowd, which was driven into battle in front of the Mongol units. Detachments of allies and vassals were also used. Behind this "assault crowd", doomed to die in the vanguard battle, the Mongolian barrage detachments were placed.

By the way, approaching the real figure of the number of Mongolian troops helps to understand the nature of hostilities in 1237-1238. Having suffered significant losses in battles with the Ryazan and Vladimir residents, the Mongols then hardly took the small cities of Torzhok and Kozelsk and were forced to abandon the campaign against the populous (about 30 thousand inhabitants) Novgorod.

When determining the real size of Batu's army, the following must be taken into account. The military equipment of the Mongol-Tatars was superior to the European one. They did not wear heavy armor, but robes with several layers of felt protected them better than iron from arrows. The range of the arrow flight for the English archers, the best in Europe, was 450 m, and for the Mongols - up to 700 m. This advantage was achieved due to the complex design of their bow, the fact that certain muscle groups were trained in the Mongolian archers from childhood. Mongolian boys, from the age of six, mounting a horse and taking up arms, growing up, became a kind of perfect war machines.

As a rule, Russian cities withstood no more than one or two weeks of siege, since the Mongols at the same time carried out continuous exhausting attacks, changing units. For example, from December 16 to December 21, 1237, Ryazan was subjected to a similar continuous assault, after which the city was plundered and burned, and the inhabitants were killed.

What military forces did Russia have? Russian and Soviet historians since the time of S.M. Solovyov, following the chronicler's report, believed that Vladimir-Suzdal Russia, together with Novgorod and Ryazan, could put up 50 thousand people and the same number of Southern Russia. There are reasons to doubt the reality of such figures.

It would be unreasonable to reduce the essence of the problem to this particular figure. It can be assumed that all the Russian principalities could potentially put together an army of similar numbers. But the whole point is that the Russian princes were unable to unite their efforts even in the hour of formidable danger.

Unsuccessfully, the Ryazan prince Yuri Igorevich turned to Vladimir and Chernigov for help. Why did the Grand Duke of Vladimir and the supreme overlord of the Ryazan princes Yuri Vsevolodovich not send help? It is even difficult to assume that Yuri Vsevolodovich wanted to defeat the vassals, which deprived him of a buffer between the steppe and the borders of his own principality. The defeat of the Volga Bulgaria, the death of the population, which the Grand Duke was aware of, left no doubt that there would be a life-and-death struggle.

Of course, the explanation can be sought in the fact that help did not have time to reach. However, this is what the chronicler writes: “Prince Yury himself does not go, he does not listen to the prayers of the princes of Ryazan, but he wants to create abuse himself ...”. That is, in essence, the same situation arose as in the battle on the Kalka in 1223. Each prince wanted to fight alone, without allies.

Is it just a simple desire for individual action? It seems that we are faced with the manifestation of one of the features of social psychology, characteristic of chivalry during the period of feudal fragmentation, when every knight, every commander, every feudal army pursued the goal of their own personal participation in the battle, often not at all taking into account common actions, which predetermined the unfavorable outcome of the battle . So it was in the West, so it happened in Russia.

The strife continued. The chronicler, next to the story of the defeat of Pereyaslavl and Chernigov by the Mongols, calmly tells about the campaign of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, during which he took the city of Kamenets, in which the family of his rival Mikhail Vsevolodovich Chernigov was located, captured many prisoners.

Discord over the Kiev table did not stop. Occupying the reign of Kiev, Mikhail Vsevolodovich, not hoping to protect the city, fled to Hungary. The vacated Kyiv throne was hurried to take the Smolensk prince Rostislav Mstislavich, but he was soon expelled by Daniel of Galicia, who did not prepare the city for defense. Leaving Kyiv, Daniel left the thousandth

According to the Mongolian rules of war, those cities that submitted voluntarily were called "gobalyk" - a good city. From such cities, a moderate contribution was taken in horses for the cavalry and food supplies. But after all, it is quite natural that the Russian people, in the face of ruthless conquerors, tried with all their might to defend their native land and rejected the idea of capitulation. Evidence of this, for example, is the prolonged defense of Kyiv (according to the Pskov Third Chronicle, for 10 weeks and four days, from September 5 to November 19! 1240). Excavations of other cities of the Kiev land (Vyshgorod, Belgorod, etc.) also point to the heroic defense of these centers. Archaeologists have discovered thick layers of conflagrations, hundreds of human skeletons have been found under burnt houses, fortress walls, in the streets and squares.

Yes, one can cite facts of open cooperation with the Tatars. So, the petty princes of the Bolokhov land (Upper Bug region), who supported the Galician boyars in the fight against Daniil Romanovich, quickly agreed with the Mongol-Tatars. The latter freed them from recruitment into their army, on the condition that they be supplied with wheat and millet.

The Mongol army needed to be replenished, so the Mongols offered those captured to buy freedom at the price of joining their army. In the chronicle of Matthew of Paris, there is a letter from two monks, in which it was reported that there were “many Cumans and pseudo-Christians” (i.e., Orthodox) in the Mongol army. The first recruitment among Russians was made in 1238-1241. Note that in this case we are again talking, apparently, about the "assault crowd".

This happened in real life, but the emphasis should be placed differently.

The consequences of the Mongol invasion were extremely severe. In the cultural deposits of the cities that took the blow of the Mongol-Tatars, layers of continuous conflagrations and hundreds of skeletons with traces of wounds were found. There was no one to collect and bury the bodies of the dead. When Daniil Romanovich returned to Vladimir-Volynsky, a terrible sight appeared before his eyes. In the deserted city, as noted by N.I. Kostomarov, the churches were filled with piles of corpses. In church buildings, residents sought refuge and died there.

The Italian monk Plano Carpini, who visited Russia in 1246, wrote that "when we rode through their land, we found countless heads and bones of dead people lying on the field." In Kyiv, according to Plano Carpini, there are only 200 houses left.

The border of agriculture moved to the north, the southern fertile lands were called the "Wild Field". Russian people who were driven to the Horde, partly remained there as servants and slaves, partly were sold to other countries. In the slave trade of the Golden Horde with Egypt, Syria, France, Italy, women were the main commodity. In the Western European market, the most significant amount (15 times more than the usual price) was paid for a seventeen-year-old Russian girl.

Despite the dire consequences of the Mongol-Tatar campaign against Russian lands, life went on. The Mongols did not leave garrisons anywhere, and after the departure of the Mongol army, the inhabitants returned to their ruined homes and cities. Survived such large centers as Novgorod, Pskov, Polotsk, Smolensk. Often, when the Tatars approached, the population went into the forest. Forests, ravines, rivers, swamps sheltered both villages and people from the Tatar cavalry. Ukrainian archaeologist

The period of feudal fragmentation is a natural stage in the progressive development of feudalism. The dismemberment of the early feudal grandiose empires (Kievan Rus or the Carolingian empire in Central Europe) into a number of de facto sovereign states was an inevitable stage in the development of feudal society.

The overthrow of Romulus Augustine (1476) is generally considered to be the end of the Western Roman Empire. Numerous “barbarian” states arose on its ruins: the Ostrogothic (and then Lombard) in the Apennines, the kingdom of the Visigoths in the Iberian Peninsula, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Britain, the state of the Franks on the Rhine, etc.

The Frankish leader Clovis and his successors expanded the borders of the state, pushed back the Visigoths and soon became hegemons in Western Europe. The position of the empire was strengthened even more under the Carolingians (VIII-IX centuries). However, behind the external centralization of the empire of Charlemagne, its internal weakness and fragility were hidden. Created by conquest, it was very diverse in its ethnic composition: it included Saxons, Frisians, Alamans, Thuringians, Lombards, Bavarians, Celts and many other peoples. Each of the lands of the empire had little connection with the others and, without constant military and administrative coercion, did not want to submit to the power of the conquerors.

This form of empire - externally centralized, but internally amorphous and fragile political association, gravitating towards universalism - was characteristic of many of the largest early feudal states in Europe.

The collapse of the empire of Charlemagne (after the death of his son Louis the Pious) in the 40s of the IX century. and the formation of France, Germany and Italy on its basis meant the beginning of a new era in the development of Western Europe.

X-XII centuries are a period of feudal fragmentation in Western Europe. There is an avalanche-like process of fragmentation of states: The feudal state in Western Europe in the X-XII centuries. exists in the form of small political formations - principalities, duchies, counties, etc., which had significant political power over their subjects, sometimes completely independent, sometimes only nominally united under the rule of a weak king.

Many cities of Northern and Central Italy - Venice, Genoa, Siena, Bologna, Ravenna, Lucca, etc. - in the IX-XII centuries. became city-states. Many cities in northern France (Amiens, Sussan, Laon, etc.) and Flanders also became self-governing commune states. They elected the council, its head - the mayor, had their own court and militia, their own finances and taxes. Often, commune cities themselves acted as a collective lord in relation to the peasants who lived in the territory surrounding the city.

In Germany, a similar position was occupied in the XII-XIII centuries. the largest of the so-called imperial cities. Formally, they were subordinate to the emperor, but in reality they were independent city republics (Lübeck, Nuremberg, Frankfurt am Main, etc.). They were governed by city councils, had the right to independently declare war, conclude peace and alliances, mint coins, etc.

A distinctive feature of the development of Germany during the period of feudal fragmentation was the predominance of the territorial principle over the tribal principle in its political organization. In place of the old tribal duchies, about 100 principalities appeared, of which over 80 were spiritual. The territorial princes took the place of the tribal dukes in the feudal hierarchy as well, forming an estate of imperial princes, the direct feudal lords of the crown. Many German imperial princes in the XII century. found themselves in vassalage from foreign sovereigns (sometimes even from several states).

In general, the period of feudal fragmentation was a period of economic growth in Europe. In the X-XII centuries. The feudal system in Western Europe took on a pan-European character and experienced a rise: the growth of cities, commodity production, and a deep division of labor turned commodity-money relations into the most important factor in social life. Clearing for arable land was accompanied by deforestation and reclamation work (Lombardy, Holland).

The secondary landscape has risen; swamp area has been reduced. A qualitative leap was experienced by mining and metallurgical production: in Germany, Spain, Sweden, and England, mining and metallurgical industries grew into independent, separate industries. Construction is also on the rise. In the XII century. the first water pipeline with sewage elements is being built in Troyes. Mirror production begins (Venice). New mechanisms are created in weaving, mining, construction, metallurgy and other crafts. So, in Flanders in 1131, the first loom of a modern type appeared, etc. There was an increase in foreign and domestic trade.

On the other hand, the increase in the needs of the feudal lords in connection with the development of the market not only led to an increase in the exploitation of the peasantry, but also increased the desire of the feudal lords to seize other people's lands and wealth. This gave rise to many wars, conflicts, clashes. Many feudal lords and states were drawn into them (due to the intricacy and interweaving of vassal ties). State borders are constantly changing. More powerful sovereigns sought to subjugate others, making claims to world domination, tried to create a universalist (comprehensive) state under their hegemony. The main bearers of universalist tendencies were the Roman popes, Byzantine and German emperors.

Only in the XIII-XV centuries. in the countries of Western Europe, the process of centralization of the state begins, which gradually takes the form of a class monarchy. Here, already relatively strong royal power is combined with the presence of class-representative assemblies. The most rapid process of centralization took place in the following Western European states: England, France, Castile, Aragon.

In Russia, the period of feudal fragmentation begins in the 30s of the XII century. (In 1132, the Grand Duke of Kyiv Mstislav, the son of Vladimir Monomakh, died; under 1132, the chronicler wrote: “And the whole Russian land was torn apart ...”). In place of a single state, sovereign principalities began to live an independent life, equal in scale to Western European kingdoms. Novgorod and Polotsk separated themselves earlier than others; after them - Galich, Volyn and Chernihiv, etc. The period of feudal fragmentation in Russia continued until the end of the 15th century.

Within this more than three centuries of time there was a clear and difficult milestone - the Tatar invasion of 1237-1241, after which the foreign yoke sharply disrupted the natural course of the Russian historical process, greatly slowing it down.

Feudal fragmentation became a new form of statehood in the conditions of the rapid growth of productive forces and was largely due to this development. Tools of labor were improved (scientists count more than 40 types of them only from metal); plowed agriculture was established. Cities became a major economic force (in Russia there were then about 300 of them). Ties with the market of individual feudal estates and peasant communities were very weak. They sought to satisfy their needs as much as possible at the expense of internal resources. Under the dominance of natural economy, it was possible for each region to separate from the center and exist as independent lands.

In the last years of the existence of Kievan Rus, the many thousands of local boyars received the Long Russian Pravda, which determined the norms of feudal law. But the book on parchment, kept in the Grand Duke's archive in Kyiv, did not contribute to the real implementation of the boyars' rights. Even the strength of the grand-princely virniki, swordsmen, and governor could not really help the distant provincial boyars on the outskirts of Kievan Rus. Zemsky boyars of the XII century. they needed their own, close, local authorities, which would be able to quickly implement the legal norms of Pravda, help in clashes with the peasants, and quickly overcome their resistance.

Feudal fragmentation was (however paradoxical at first glance!) the result not so much of differentiation as of historical integration. There was a growth of feudalism in breadth and its strengthening on the ground (under the dominance of subsistence farming), feudal relations took shape (vassal relations, immunity, the right to inherit, etc.).

The optimal scales for the feudal integration of that time, the geographical limits were worked out by life itself, even on the eve of the formation of Kievan Rus - "unions of tribes": glades, drevlyans, krivichi, vyatichi, etc. - Kievan Rus collapsed in the 30s. 12th century into one and a half dozen independent principalities, more or less similar to one and a half dozen ancient tribal unions. The capitals of many principalities were at one time the centers of tribal unions (Kyiv near the glades, Smolensk near the Krivichi, etc.). The unions of tribes were a stable community that took shape over the centuries; their geographical limits were determined by natural boundaries. During the existence of Kievan Rus, cities developed here that competed with Kiev; tribal and tribal nobility turned into boyars.

The order of taking the throne that existed in Kievan Rus, depending on seniority in the princely family, created an atmosphere of instability and uncertainty. The transition of the prince in seniority from one city to another was accompanied by the movement of the entire domain apparatus. Foreigners (Poles, Polovtsy, etc.) were invited by the princes to resolve personal strife. Temporary stay in this or that land of the prince and his boyars gave rise to increased, "hurried" exploitation of the peasants and artisans. New forms of political organization of the state were needed, taking into account the prevailing correlation of economic and political forces.

Feudal fragmentation became such a new form of state-political organization. In the centers of each of the principalities, their own, local dynasties developed: Olgovichi - in Chernigov, Izyaslavichi - in Volyn, Yuryevichi - in the Vladimir-Suzdal land, etc. Each of the new principalities fully satisfied the needs of the feudal lords: from any capital of the XII century. it was possible to ride to the border of this principality in three days. Under these conditions, the norms of Russian Truth could be confirmed by the ruler's sword in a timely manner. The calculation was also made on the interest of the prince - to transfer his reign to children in good economic condition, to help the boyars, who helped to settle here.

Each of the principalities kept its own chronicle; princes issued their statutory charters. On the whole, the initial phase of feudal fragmentation (before the factor of conquest intervened in normal development) is characterized by the rapid growth of cities and the bright flowering of the culture of the 12th - early 13th centuries. in all its manifestations. The new political form contributed to progressive development, created conditions for the expression of local creative forces (each principality has its own architectural style, its own artistic and literary trends).

Let's pay attention to the negative aspects of the era of feudal fragmentation:

A clear weakening of the overall military potential, facilitating foreign conquest. However, a caveat is needed here as well. Authors of the book “History of the Russian State. Historical and bibliographic essays” raises the question: “Would the Russian early feudal state be able to resist the Tatars? Who dares to answer in the affirmative? The forces of only one of the Russian lands - Novgorod - a little later turned out to be enough to defeat the German, Swedish and Danish invaders by Alexander Nevsky. In the face of the Mongol-Tatars, there was a collision with a qualitatively different enemy.

Internecine wars. But even in a single state (when it came to the struggle for power, for the grand prince's throne, etc.), princely strife was sometimes more bloody than during the period of feudal fragmentation. The goal of strife in the era of fragmentation was already different than in a single state: not to seize power throughout the country, but to strengthen one's principality, expanding its borders at the expense of neighbors.

Increasing fragmentation of princely possessions: in the middle of the XII century. there were 15 principalities; at the beginning of the thirteenth century. (on the eve of the invasion of Batu) - about 50, and in the XIV century. (when the unification process of the Russian lands had already begun) the number of great and specific principalities reached approximately 250. The reason for this fragmentation was the division of the possessions by the princes between their sons: as a result, the principalities became smaller, weakened, and the results of this spontaneous process gave rise to ironic sayings among contemporaries (“In the Rostov land - a prince in every village ";" In the Rostov land, seven princes have one warrior ", etc.). Tatar-Mongol invasion 1237-1241 Russia found itself a flourishing, rich and cultured country, but already affected by the “rust” of feudal specific fragmentation.

In each of the separated principalities-lands, at the initial stage of feudal fragmentation, similar processes took place:

The growth of the nobility (“lads”, “children”, etc.), palace servants;

Strengthening the positions of the old boyars;

The growth of cities - a complex social organism of the Middle Ages. The association of artisans, merchants in cities into “brotherhoods”, “communities”, corporations close to craft workshops and merchant guilds of cities in Western Europe;

The development of the church as an organization (dioceses in the 12th century geographically coincided with the borders of the principalities);

Strengthening of the contradictions between the princes (the title "Grand Duke" was worn by the princes of all Russian lands) and the local boyars, the struggle between them for influence and power.

In each principality, due to the peculiarities of its historical development, its own balance of forces developed; its own, special, combination of the above elements came to the surface.

Thus, the history of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus is characterized by the victory of the grand ducal power over the landed aristocracy by the end of the 12th century. The princes here were able to suppress the separatism of the boyars, the power was established in the form of a monarchy.

In Novgorod (and later in Pskov), the boyars were able to subjugate the princes and established boyar feudal republics.

In the Galicia-Volyn land, there was an extremely heightened rivalry between the princes and local boyars, there was a kind of "balance of power". The boyar opposition (moreover, constantly relying on either Hungary or Poland) failed to turn the land into a boyar republic, but significantly weakened the grand ducal power.

A special situation has developed in Kyiv. On the one hand, he became the first among equals. Soon, some Russian lands caught up and even outstripped him in their development. On the other hand, Kyiv remained an "apple of discord" (they joked that there was not a single prince in Russia who did not seek to "sit" in Kyiv). Kyiv was "recaptured", for example, by Yuri Dolgoruky, Prince of Vladimir and Suzdal; in 1154 he achieved the throne of Kiev and sat on it until 1157. His son Andrei Bogolyubsky sent regiments to Kyiv, and so on. Under such conditions, the Kiev boyars introduced a curious system of "duumvirate" (co-government), which lasted the entire second half of the 12th century.

The meaning of this original measure was as follows: at the same time, representatives of two warring branches were invited to Kiev land (an agreement was concluded with them - a “row”); thus, a relative balance was established and strife was partly eliminated. One of the princes lived in Kyiv, the other - in Belgorod (or Vyshgorod). They acted jointly on military campaigns and carried out diplomatic correspondence in concert. So, co-rulers duumvirs were Izyaslav Mstislavich and his uncle - Vyacheslav Vladimirovich; Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich and Rurik Mstislavich.

causes	process	manifestation	result
1. Development of private land tenure	The transformation of land grants for military service into hereditary property.	"The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal." The power of the king extended to the territory of his own possessions - the royal domain.	The dependence of the feudal nobility on the central government weakened.
2. Growth of dependence of peasants on feudal lords	Instead of a foot militia of communal peasants, under Charles Martell, a heavily armed knightly cavalry was created.	The fall of the role of assemblies of tribal nobility and free community members. distribution to knights (feudal lords) of land with peasants for life.	Reinforcement of the peasants. Weakened support for the power of the monarch on the part of the once free community members.
3. The dominance of subsistence farming	Weak economic ties between parts of the feudal state.	“In my own territory, I am the king.” In the structure of medieval society, the townspeople did not stand out as a separate estate.	Feudal farms were economically self-sufficient. Trade was underdeveloped.
4.Cultural and ethnic differences	The peoples that were part of the Carolingian Empire spoke different languages, had different customs and traditions.	The desire for secession, speaking out against the central government in the person of the monarch (separatism).	The partition of Verdun in 843 and the emergence of the kingdoms that gave rise to modern European states: France, Italy and Germany.

End of work -

This topic belongs to:

History textbook (primitive, antiquity, middle ages)

Institution of secondary vocational.. education of the republic of bashkortostan.. bashkir medical college..

If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:

What will we do with the received material:

If this material turned out to be useful for you, you can save it to your page on social networks:

All topics in this section:

From primitive to civilization
According to generally accepted estimates, the era of primitiveness began no later than 2.5 million years ago, while the first civilizations appeared no earlier than the 4th millennium BC. Thus, more than 99% of human history

Ancient East and Antique World
Ancient Egypt Stages of the history of Ancient Egypt 2nd floor. IV millennium BC There were more than 40 states in the Nile Valley.

Ancient Egypt
The largest state of the Ancient East in northeast Africa, the territory of which stretched wide flat along the Nile valley and its rapids to the delta.

demanded
Creation of irrigation systems Organization of collective labor of a large number of people

Society structure
The king (pharaoh) is a ruler who has supreme military, judicial and priestly power. Revered as the god Ra.RA

Eastern despotism
With the emergence of the so-called chiefdoms under the conditions of the Neolithic revolution, uniting a number of communities under the rule of a leader, a major step was taken in the movement towards the state. leader, power

social structure
With all the regional features, the social structure of the Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Chinese, Indian, Persian society is generally of the same type. The social hierarchy can be

The emergence of ancient civilization
Temple of the Parthenon in Athens. 5th century BC. Ancient civilization was formed in the Mediterranean. Initially, states arose in Greece and Italy (Crete, Mic

Hellenism: state and society
The constant struggle for primacy between the two most important policies - democratic Athens and aristocratic Sparta - in the end, weakened Greece and made possible its subordination to the northern

Roman Peace of the Mediterranean
In the policies of Italy, the landowning aristocracy reigned supreme. One of them - Rome, which arose, according to legend, in 753 BC. - was destined to become the master of the Mediterranean. Per

Civilization of the East. ancient civilization
Centralized monarchy Polises - city-states Ruler - supreme owner Communal and private property of the whole earth. Private ownership of land Nasele

Appropriating and producing economy
Appropriating economy Producing economy Neolithic revolution VIII-VII millennium BC

Eastern Roman Empire
(Byzantium) 395 - Formation of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) with the capital Constantinople (Balkan Peninsula, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Palestine and other lands).

Public administration
Offices Tax; military; Department of State Post and Foreign Relations; department that protected the interests of the imperial family.

Rise of Islam
In the 7th century In Arabia, the third world religion (after Buddhism and Christianity) was born - Islam. This word means “surrendering oneself to Allah”, “submission”.

Conquest policy
In a short period, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Iran, North Africa, the Army, part of Georgia, Spain, part of Central Asia were conquered. The capital of the caliphate is Mecca, Damascus, Baghdad. Important

Ways of development of feudalism
Feudalism was established in most of Europe through the interaction of late Roman society with barbarian - a synthesis path. Rapid development of feuds

Frankish state of the Merovingians
The creator is the leader of the tribe of the Salian Franks, Clovis from the Merovei clan. 486 - victory over the Romans in the battle of Soissons; subjugation Sev

Central administration under the Merovingians
King Mayordom - First Councilor of the Palace Kingdom

Charlemagne and his empire
During the reign of Charlemagne (768 - 814), the Frankish state became one of the largest states in Europe. Karl's army made more than 50 campaigns in neighboring countries.

Carolingian Renaissance - the time of Charlemagne
· 800 - the Pope proclaimed Charlemagne Emperor. For the first time after the fall of the Roman Empire (476), the power of the emperor in the West was restored. Karl began to apply for

France in the 11th - 14th centuries
The struggle of the kings of France for the "gathering" of the lands of the XI century. – France was divided into a number of large fiefs: duchies – Normandy, Burgundy, Brittany, Aquitaine

England in the XI-XII centuries
Norman conquest of England After the conquest of Britain by the Angles and Saxons, 7 kingdoms were formed there, warring with each other. In the ninth century they united in the kingdom of England

Features of warring armies
The English army The basis is foot soldiers recruited from free peasants, archers. The knightly cavalry received a salary from the royal treasury. Benefits: o High

War of the Scarlet and White Roses
(1455-1485) Reason The rivalry between two groups of feudal lords - the old aristocracy and the new nobility, connected with the economic interests of the bourgeoisie. To

Absolute monarchy
In the XV - XVI centuries. absolute monarchies are formed in the countries of Western Europe. Absolutism is a form of government in a feudal state, when the monarch owns

The main features of an absolute monarchy
1. Creation of an extensive bureaucracy. 2. The creation of a professional army - the pillars of absolutism. 3. Strengthening of punitive bodies. 4. Activity class-pr

Feudal Society in the Middle Ages
The concentration of the absolute majority of the population in the villages (agrarian society) The most numerous estate was the peasants. City

Glossary of terms
Absolutism is an unlimited monarchy; a form of government in which the executive, legislative and judicial powers belong to one person - the monarch. Antique

Major Events in World History
Foreign countries IV millennium BC I millennium BC - middle of the 5th century AD 527-565 Con. 5th - 8th century 7th-10th centuries 800-84

Feudal fragmentation is a natural historical process. Western Europe and Kievan Rus during the period of feudal fragmentation

History textbook (primitive, antiquity, middle ages)

What will we do with the received material:

All topics in this section:

RELATED ARTICLES