CIVILIZATIONS OF THE WORLD

Ancient Russian civilization:. the main features of the social system // Questions of History, 2006, No. 9.

A. H. Polyakov

The question of the fundamental foundations of ancient Russian society has always worried Russian historical science. Historians of the 19th century considered the essence of social relations of that time mainly within the framework of the opposition: prince - veche. A common place was the idea that the prince stood outside the social structure, was a kind of alien force that was voluntarily called upon by virtue of internal necessity, put up with it, or for some reason expelled. K. P. Pavlov-Silvansky, unlike most pre-revolutionary Russian historians, sought to prove the analogy of the historical paths of Russia and the West. Russia, like medieval Europe, seemed to him a feudal country. By feudalism, he understood the regime of private law, the main feature of which he considered the fragmentation of the supreme power or a close merger of power with land ownership. The works of N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky, as B. D. Grekov put it, "spoiled the sleeping sleep", made many historians who adhered to the principles of the traditional school worry, but they did not lead to a turn in their views on the social system in Kievan Rus.

Soviet historians2 returned to the question of feudalism in Russia. But this was a qualitatively new level of historical research, a different approach and a completely different perception of feudalism. Soviet historians studied Kievan Rus through the prism of the theory of socio-economic formations. Socio-economic ties were placed at the basis of the social system, but attention was paid mainly to the relations of exploitation and the production process. The very concept of feudalism was essentially reduced to the dominance of large-scale private ownership of land under the condition of the exploitation of the serf (or simply dependent) peasantry. S. V. Yushkov3 was the first Soviet historian to devote a special work to the origin of phsodhtasm in Russia. He believed that feudal relations in Russia were formed under the influence of the economic crisis of the late 12th century, which brought Russia out of international trade. From the end of the 30s of the XX century. the attitude towards ancient Russian society as feudal (in the Marxist-Leninist sense) began to dominate. This happened not least thanks to the works of B. D. Grekov,4 who became a recognized

authority on the problems of ancient Russia. Kievan Rus began to appear, and sometimes still appears, as a country where a class of large landowners dominated, exploiting the feudally dependent peasantry, deprived of land.

However, Soviet science did not achieve complete unity in this area. Disputable were not only questions related to the ways of origin and features of feudalism in Russia or the dating of its beginning, but also the questions of defining the social system as a whole. So, L.V. Cherepnin proposed the concept of the so-called "state feudalism". In his opinion, the emergence of feudal relations in Kievan Rus was associated with the emergence of state (princely) supreme ownership of land, which prevailed in the X - lane. floor. XI centuries, and patrimonial land ownership - the basis of feudalism in the traditional sense for Soviet science - has been developing only since the second half of the XI century 5. This concept was supported to one degree or another by O. M. Rapov, Ya. N. Shchapov, M. B. Sverdlov, V. L. Yanin, A. A. Gorsky, L. V. Milov and others. Some historians were inclined to believe that the ancient Russian society was not feudal, but slave-owning (P.I. Lyashchenko) and, before becoming feudal, it passed through the slave-owning formation (I.I. Smirnov, A.P. Pyankov, V.I. . Goremykin).

I. Ya. Froyanov, relying on the ideas of A. I. Neusykhin, attributed Russia to a transitional - from primitive to feudal - formation, which absorbed elements of both: community (without primitiveness) and social inequality. He came to the conclusion that ancient Russian society is a complex social organism that combines various types of production relations 6.

In modern historical science, the theory of formations has ceased to be a dogma, but among historians there are still quite a few of its supporters. Some researchers are looking for new forms and approaches. IN Danilevsky in his latest works tried to get away from the "objective" coverage of history and apply the so-called anthropological approach 7. As a result, the problem of the social system was relegated to the background, or even to the third.

Thus, the essence of the social system of Kievan Rus can hardly be considered fully understood. This problem, I think, could not be solved within the framework of the theory of socio-economic formations. The prevailing method and theoretical guidelines did not make it possible to put the known historical facts into a logically coherent picture. Sources showed that various types of production relations were used in Russia - slavery, different types of hiring, tributary, Soviet historians also found serfdom, but it was not possible to understand which of them prevailed. The theory required a consistent change of formations on the scale of entire regions of the Earth, ideally - of all mankind. But it is practically impossible to reconcile the incredibly rich in diversity and originality - cultural and temporal - the human world. On the one hand, the Eastern Slavs, before the formation of the Russian land, lived in a primitive system; then in Russia, it would seem, it is necessary to look for the predominance of slave-owning relations. On the other hand, in Europe in those centuries feudalism dominated, therefore, Russia, since it belongs to this time, should be feudal. The fact that the bulk of Soviet historians nevertheless leaned in favor of feudalism is not connected with facts, but with the desire to follow the theory, even sometimes contrary to historical facts. The concept of I. Ya. Froyanov arose as an attempt to reconcile the source, the fact that follows from it, and the theory, remaining within the framework of the formation scheme. Froyanov found enough grounds (and at that time also courage) to assert that the view of ancient Russian society as feudal, which was established in Soviet science, does not have solid ground. As it turned out, even in the Marxist-Leninist sense, which quite broadly interprets the concept of feudalism, the existence of the latter in Russia without obvious exaggerations to recognize

It is forbidden. This once again shows the impossibility of applying the theoretical principles adopted in Soviet science without harming the main principle of science - objectivity.

The method proposed in this article for studying the social structure of Ancient Russia is based on a special understanding of the essence of civilization as an objectively existing social phenomenon. Its main feature is the presence of a social core, such a layer of the population that forms the dominant forms of life, the way of life of society as a whole, its external - cities, monumental architecture, luxury goods - and its internal appearance. A distinctive feature of this social stratum is a special position in society, which gives the right and opportunity to a person belonging to it to free himself from the need to engage in productive labor. The typology of civilizations is based on identifying significant links within this social core. The basis of the social relations of civilization - its basis - is seen in the cultural and economic structure: a special type of economic relations within the social core and the corresponding system of structurally important values.

In the agricultural society, there are three main types of civilization: polis, patrimonial and feudal. The polis type is based on the supreme right of the urban community (polis) to land. In order to own a land plot (allot-lot), the landowner must be a member of the polis community. As the most important values, the polis type cultivates patriotism, a sense of solidarity and freedom. The patrimonial type of civilization assumes only one full owner of the land

Land - the king, or rather, the sovereign, who allocates land to other landowners, provided that they perform military or other service. The patrimonial way of life corresponds to diligence, devotion, obsequiousness. The feudal type is based on hierarchical ties between the owners of the land. In this case, the supreme rights to the land belong to the landowners themselves, and relations between them are built on the basis of vassalage, that is, the right of one land owner is dominated by the rights of another, larger one, and above him by a third, etc. The most important value for a feudal society is loyalty - both to the lord on the part of the vassal, and to the vassal on the part of the lord.

Kievan Rus developed as a civilization on the basis of pagan values ​​and traditions, which did not disappear even after the adoption of Christianity. If you read only literary works, you might get the impression that the society of the XI-XIII centuries. already fully saturated with Christian values. Only The Tale of Igor's Campaign contradicts this, which is why from time to time they try to declare it a late pastiche or simply a fake. Indeed, such a work, in which the author would openly proceed from a pagan worldview, is no longer known. However, data on the significant role of the pagan tradition in Kievan Rus

Not in the first person, as in the Tale of Igor's Campaign, but in the third person - everything
and there is. I mean teachings against paganism. Of them becomes
it is clear that the population of Russia not only in the 11th or at the end of the 12th century, but also in the 13th and
even the 14th century. continued to follow pagan customs. This means that and
behavior, and the value system that determines it, is largely incomplete
Tew, of course, remained then pagan. Additional information in this
respect, they provide household items and jewelery found by archaeologists
lyre products, and even decorations of Christian churches.

In the "Word of a certain Christ-lover", written in the XIII-XIV centuries. we read: “... So even this one could not stand the Christians living twice, and they believe in Perun, and in Khors, and in Mokosh, and in Sim, and in Ryla, and in Vila, their number is 39 sisters. To speak ignorantly and think of goddesses, and so lays-wahut they are, and the chickens laugh at them, and they pray to the fire, calling him Svaro-zhichsm, and the chives make him a god. When someone has a feast, then they put it in buckets and in bowls and piss, rejoicing about their idols ... like

in faith and in baptism, it’s not only ignoramuses to do such things, but also priests - priests and scribes ... For this reason, it’s not appropriate for peasants to play demonic games, if there is dancing, buzzing, worldly songs and idol sacrifices, hedgehogs to pray to the fire under the barn, and Vilam , and Mokosh, and Sim, and Rgl, and Perun, and Rod and Rozhanitsa ... We don’t just do the same evil, but we mix some pure prayers with cursed idol prayers ”8. It turns out, both in the XIII and in the XIV century, in Russia, not only the customs of the pagans were firmly alive - people still believed in the old gods: the deities from the Perun family, to whom Vladimir set idols in 980 (978), did not disappear, they were sacrificed and dedicated holidays. And this was done by people who considered themselves Christians, and among them were not only "ignorant", as the author of the teaching writes, but also "vezh" - priests and scribes.

Judging by the archaeological data, even after the baptism of Russia, things with pagan symbols accompanied the ancient Rus everywhere. Among them are spindle whorls, combs, household utensils (ladles, salt shakers, etc.), amulets, silver or gold bracers, psaltery, brownie figurines, and much more. Pagan symbolism is permeated with women's headdress, in general, and the ornament on the huts. Here we meet with images of a lizard, a falcon, a griffin, symbols of the sun, earth, water, here are the guises of pagan gods, and wolf heads, and horses, and "heavenly abyss", etc. 9.

The Tale of Igor's Campaign in this environment no longer looks like an exception, but like a happy find, behind which stands a whole layer of literature that has not come down to us, created by expert scribes, from those who did not disdain to have fun at feasts in front of the idols of Perun and Dazhbog. One of them, apparently, was the author of the Lay about the unfortunate campaign of the Novgorod-Seversky prince. “The word about Igor's regiment gives us truly invaluable first-hand information, more precisely, first-hand, not denouncing paganism in Russian Christianity, but professing this paganism. The author of the Lay reflects the views of the majority of the population of Kievan Rus. And therefore, his poem is a valuable source of the true worldview of the ancient Russians, the real foundations of ancient Russian society.

In The Lay, Igor and his regiments operate in a special world. Here it is difficult to distinguish where is the comparison, where is the metaphor, where is life, and where is the image, who is God and where is the Devil. The Great Sun blocks his grandchildren! way, destroys them with thirst. Black clouds and evil winds shower the Russians with arrows. The forces of Evil and the forces of Good seem to have conspired. Before us is an example of a pagan perception of the world, where there are no boundaries between this and that light, where everything interacts with each other: the sun, winds, animals, people, spirits. There is no unconditional Good or unconditional Evil. A person communicates with both. Is it conceivable in the Christian system of values ​​for a servant of God to reproach God for the trials sent down to him, as Yaroslavna does in the “Word” in relation to the Sun? Is it conceivable that a Christian would call the devil a master, as Yaroslavna does in relation to the evil Wind?

The values ​​adhered to by the author of the Lay and his heroes are the brave Russians, the flesh of the flesh of this world. There is no humiliation inherent in Christian authors, a call for humility and the taming of pride. There is no coarse flattery and servility, no appeal to the fear of God and repentance. In the "Word" life triumphs over death, showing the triumph of the human spirit and strength. Here we see a call to war, a thirst for revenge for the desecrated honor, for the sake of everything that is so dear to the nameless ancient Russian poet.

The most prominent place among the values ​​in the Tale of Igor's Campaign is occupied by the "Russian Land". In the text of the poem, this term occurs 21 times, expressing the patriotic feelings of Russian soldiers and acting as the main justifying motive for Igor's campaign. And this is only at the first, superficial glance! If you take a closer look, the importance of the Russian land in the system of values ​​of the Russians will be even more significant.

The justification for the campaign is also "glory" and "honor". The Russians go to the Polovtsians "searching for honor for themselves, and for the prince - glory" "". "Glory" is sung

Various peoples to the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav. The glory of great-grandfathers ring the Chernigov howls of Prince Yaroslav. Igor and Vsevolod, according to Svyatoslav, wanted to steal the “front” glory and share the “back” glory. "Glory" occurs 15 times in the text of the poem. Twice as a glorification (the author praises the participants of the campaign at the end of the poem), twice in the sense of a song, the rest in the meaning of ordinary military glory. For the creator of the poem, "glory" is one of the values ​​that determine the behavior of Russians. In a number of cases, the author of the Lay directly indicates what exactly the heroes of his poem became famous for. Kuryans are their martial arts: they are twisted under the pipes, cherished under the helmets, fed from the end of the spear, their paths are led, their bows are strained, their sabers are sharpened, and they gallop like gray wolves in the field. The glory of Chernigov is in their fearlessness: they can defeat regiments without shields, with knives alone, or even with just a click. Svyatoslav is famous for his victory over Kobyak. Yaroslav of Galicia by blocking the way for the king and shutting the gates of the Danube. Old Vladimir with his numerous campaigns. Oleg Svyatoslavich, whom the author of the poem, in general, sympathizes with, calling him "Gorislavich", forged sedition with a sword and sowed arrows on the ground. Under him, the Russian land suffered from civil strife, the property of Dazhbozh's grandson perished, and the crows played over the corpses. Vseslav Polotsky roamed like a wolf throughout Russia right up to Tmutarakan, he wanted to skip the path of the Great Horse. The desire to gain glory through military exploits is quite natural for princes and brave Russians, because they are warriors. However, according to the author of the poem, good fame is not born on its own, not with any military feat, as the stories about Oleg and Vseslav speak quite eloquently. Real glory is achieved only if this feat is accomplished in the name of the Russian land - the highest value, as Old Vladimir, Yaroslav of Galitsky and Svyatoslav of Kiev did in their time. This should have been done by Chernigov residents, but they did not, which Svyatoslav regrets in his “golden word”. This should have been done by the Kuryans, but they could not, because they went on a campaign early and alone, were defeated and instead of glory they deserved blasphemy. Thus, the two most important values ​​- patriotism and glory, which the Russians professed, judging by the Tale of Igor's Campaign, turn out to be firmly interconnected, practically inseparable. A truly famous person in Russia could only be a patriot who devoted all his exploits to his dear Motherland.

The data of the Tale of Igor's Campaign about the Russian land as the most important value of that time are confirmed by other monuments of ancient Russian literature. Regardless of the origin of the author and the place of creation of the work, the main thoughts and feelings in them are most often directed to Russia as a whole, and not to their own city. For example, hegumen Daniil of Chernigov, according to his “Journey”, while in Palestine, felt himself a messenger of all Russia, and not Chernigov, and the honor that he was given there, connected with respect specifically for the Russian land. Grace” of the middle of the 11th century, the Kiev scribe Hilarion wrote about the Russian princes: ““Not at a loss and unknown to the land of your dominion, but in Ruska, even known and audible, there are all four ends of the earth” p. I.S. Chichurov rightly sees in these words Hilarion's pride in his country, his awareness of its worthy place among many other peoples. And you are surprised by many beauties: many lakes, surprised by rivers and local treasures, steep mountains, high hills, frequent oak forests, polmy wondrous, animals of various personalities, birds without number, cities full, wondrous villages, monastic vineyards, church houses and formidable princes , honest boyars, many nobles - just fill the Russian land ... ". “The Tale of the Devastation of Ryazan by Batu” is imbued with deep patriotism: “It was necessary to have an extraordinary stamina of patriotic feeling so that, despite the terrible catastrophe, horror and soul-draining oppression

evil Tatars,” writes D.S. Likhachev, “measure so much in their compatriots, be proud of them and love them” 15. Even in the era of the so-called political fragmentation and independence of large urban centers, residents of Russian cities “remembered their connection with Kiev , felt like a single entity - citizens of the Russian world. Perhaps that is why it is impossible to find any traces of fragmentation in Russian epics - “The motherland; for epics was Kievan Rus throughout its entire length ... Kiev is a material, spiritual and territorial center ...” 16.

In the “Tale of Igors' Regiment*, such values ​​as freedom and brotherhood (solidarity, mutual assistance) are prominently heard. This is evidenced by several episodes in the Word. The description of the hike here begins with a story about a solar eclipse. The bright sun, having covered Igor's soldiers with darkness, foreshadowed their imminent death. This explains the words spoken then by the prince: and sit down, brethren, on our brothers komo-ni, let us see the blue Don. After the eclipse, Igor and his companions, realizing that they are going to certain death, want, if not to win, then at least to look at the Don. Become famous, if not for victory, then at least for your desire to go to the end.

At the same time, Igor utters a phrase that is similar in meaning to the one that Svyatoslav Igorevich said in Bulgaria, going to the last battle: “... Let us not shame the Russian lands, but we will lay down that bone. and the dead are not a litter. if we don’t know, shame on us. and do not run away imam. but we will stand strong, but I will go before you, if my head lies down. also provide for yourself” |7. Behind the readiness to perish, there is concern for the honor and glory of Russian soldiers, and, ultimately, the Russian land. The code of conduct of the Russian warrior, as follows from here, ordered to prefer death to captivity or flight. By this, the Rusich achieved good fame about himself in his homeland. And the point here is not only that he fought to the end, was steadfast and brave, as befits a warrior, the main thing is different - he died free, not a slave. Leo Deacon left us information that fully explains this behavior of Russian soldiers: “... Those killed in battle by the enemy, they believe, after death and excommunication of the soul from the body, become his slaves in the underworld. Fearing such a service, abhorring to serve their murderers, they themselves inflict death. This is the kind of conviction that possesses them.

It is difficult to say how persistent these ideas turned out to be in ancient Russian society, to what extent they continued to live in the minds of the Rusich after the adoption of Christianity. Given the role of the pagan worldview as a whole, it must be assumed that such beliefs continued to exist in Russia for a long time and firmly. In any case, this means that the “freedom” of the individual was valued quite highly in Russia. This is also evidenced by another remarkable phrase in the Tale of Igor's Campaign. Reporting on the consequences of Igor's defeat, the author of the poem says: I will already crack the need to freedom; already vrzhesya div on the ground. We are talking about the fact that instead of glory (praise), which was expected, blasphemy came to Russia, and instead of will - need, that is, oppression. Under the "earth" is meant Russia, Div, personifying evil, fell upon it. But the author considers it important to note not only the military consequences of the defeat, he lists the values ​​that, from his point of view, were violated after the death of Igor's regiments. These are glory (praise), will (freedom) and (Russian) land. So, these concepts were the main ones for him.

Proverbs speak eloquently about the importance of personal freedom for Russian society. “Liberty is the best (more expensive). Volya is its own god” – this is precisely the attitude towards freedom that has developed among the Russian people. The opinion is often expressed that some special understanding of freedom has formed in Russia, different from the “European” one. “The place of personal freedom,” writes I. I. Danilevsky, “in the Russian spiritual culture was occupied by the category of will.” "Will" according to V.I. Dalyu means “the arbitrariness of actions given to a person; freedom, scope in actions; lack of will." In Russian proverbs.

Among the people, this understanding of freedom can be traced quite clearly: “He who is strong is free-”; “Own will: I want to laugh, I want to cry”; “As I want, I turn back”; “No one can tell me”; four wills: at least there, at least here, at least differently ";1). But both the ancient Greeks and medieval Europeans understood freedom this way. Aristotle writes: "... To live as everyone wants; this feature ... ecu, precisely a consequence of freedom ... From this arose the desire not to be at all in submission ... ". In the code of feudal laws of the XIII century. "Seven Partides", compiled under the king of Lyon and Castile Alphonse X, it says: "Freedom is the natural ability of a person to do whatever he wants..." 20.

You can often find the opinion that “all members of ancient Russian society, except for the ruler himself, were denied freedom *. This idea of ​​Ancient Russia is based on a retrospection of the Moscow orders of the 16th-17th centuries and in fact has no factual basis. Moreover, it contradicts the facts. In Yaroslav's Pravda, out of 17 articles, 10 are devoted to individual rights (we are talking about members of the urban community: they are armed, go to feasts, own slaves and other movable and immovable property). They protect the life and health of a free person. Another four articles are devoted to the property of the free. An insult inflicted on a freeman by a serf - in this sense, one can consider Article 17 on hitting a freeman with a serf and subsequent harboring by his owner - was punished with a fine of 12 hryvnia, which is more than twice the amount assigned for the murder of someone else's slave. The desire to protect the honor and dignity of a free husband can be seen in the articles: 8 - on a mustache and beard, the fine for damaging which was the same (12 hryvnias), and this, by the way, was more than half a load of rye (its market value in the 13th century was 9 hryvnia) or more than forty beaver skins (10 hryvnia 22), at least 8 cows (a cow in the middle of the 12th century could be bought for 1 - 1.5 hryvnia), 6 slave women (in birch bark No. 2 hryvnia, as well as a slave and a slave for a total cost of 7 hryvnia 23); Art. 9 - about the threat to hit with a sword (for this they gave 1 hryvnia) and Art. 10 - about insulting by action (“If the husband rushes any way from himself, love to himself ...”, the fine for this is 3 hryvnias). Meanwhile, in Pravda Yaroslav there is not a single article protecting the personality of the prince (separately from other members of the city community) and even his property. They appear only in Pravda Yaroslavichi and relate only to property, but not to the personality of the prince. In the lengthy edition of Russkaya Pravda, the number of articles on princely property became much larger, but all the articles on the rights of a free person remained. According to the Church Charter of Yaroslav, the law in Russia protected the honor and dignity of not only a free man, but also a free woman. An insult inflicted on her by someone else's husband was to be punished: "If anyone calls someone else's wife a whore ... for shame on her 5 hryvnias of gold" 24. A similar episode was reflected in birch bark document No. 531 (end of the XII - beginning of the XIII centuries): “From Anya bowed to Klimya-te. Brother sir, talk about my gun Kosnyatinou. And now I’ve told him to people how you are my cow and my daughter’s whore. ..". According to V. L. Yanin, we are talking about insulting rural wives (not even boyar ones!) 25. Anna asks Klimyata to take care of the case related to the insult of her sister and daughter.

The meaning of “freedom” for a Russian is also evidenced by the fact that service to the prince, and service in general, was perceived in Russia as slavery. This follows from the words of Daniil Zatochnik: “Because the prince is a generous father, there are servants to many ... For a good lord, serving the settlement will serve, and serving the evil lord will serve more robots” 26. B. A. Romanov wrote on this occasion: “" Work "( productive labor) is opposed by him [Daniel Zatochnik] to “freedom” (to achieve “freedom” or “great work”). Yes, and the very word “work” in its base has a “slave”: “work” also means “slavery”, “work yoke” is both a slave and a labor yoke, “work” (work) and “labor” (enslave).

schat) - one root ... personal labor in the mind of a "free * husband" was invariably quoted as a sign of submission and bondage. Accordingly, the “free” husband was somehow not conceived without a slave (and a robe), a slave is an indispensable part of the life of the “free”. And those who did not have slaves tried to acquire them by truth or untruth. Servant people like tiuns apparently really lived well: they drank honey with the prince, walked in beautiful and rich clothes (in the words of Daniil Zatochnik - in “black-not-boot”), speaking on behalf of the prince in court, abused their position, but The “slave name” deprived them of the main thing - freedom. The same Romanov emphasized: “Nothing can compensate for the loss of personal freedom in the eyes of the former free “husband”:“ It’s not absurd ... for there were gold rings in the boiler’s ear, but blackness and burning did not escape its bottom; more than measure, he was proud and buoy, "by reproach to him, he will not get rid of his own - servants of the name" ": 7.

Igor’s speech during a solar eclipse indirectly testifies to the meaning for the Russians of such a concept as “brotherhood”: “I want more, - speech, - a copy to break the end of the Polovtsian field, with you, Russ, I want to attach my head, and it’s nice to drink a helmet to the Don. Amazingly, brotherhood and a sense of solidarity turn out to be stronger than the threats of higher powers. For the sake of his squad, Igor is ready to despise any signs. Like him, the voivode Vyshaga in 1043, according to the chronicle, said: “... If I live, then I will be with them [the retinue], or else I will die with the retinue ...”: ii. In 1043, Prince Yaroslav sent his son Vladimir with the Kyiv army to Tsargrad. But the storm scattered the ships of the Russians. And then they decided to return to their homeland on foot. None of the princely entourage at first ventured to lead them. Made it by Vyshaga. Then he said those words. And here we see a brotherly solidarity that is stronger than the threat of death.

The central place among these values ​​is occupied by the concept, mainly indirectly reflected in the sources, and therefore often overlooked by researchers - this is freedom. "Brotherhood" was conceived as a unity of free people, mutual assistance between them, "Russian Land" - as a fraternal community of Russian people (Russian squad), a homeland and a guarantee of freedom. "Honor" and "glory" were earned in the struggle for the freedom of the Russian land, and therefore for the freedom of any Russian. So "Russian land", "freedom", "brotherhood" (solidarity, mutual fidelity), "honor and glory" - were combined into an inextricable chain of values ​​that determined the behavior of a free husband in Kievan Rus. 3.1 this system of values ​​are people whose main work is war; they spent half their lives feasting and hunting. They drank intoxicated honey and beer, they loved fun -<<А мы уже, дружина, жадни веселия», говорит автор «Слова о полку Игоревс». развлекались с наложницами, внимали скоморо­хам, гуслярам и гудцам, участвовали в «бесовских» играх и плясках. Это их стараниями Русь стала такой, какой мы се знаем: полной жизни и света. По их заказу строились белокаменные храмы, словно богатыри, выраставшие из-под земли, ковались золотые и серебряные кольца и колты, писались ико­ны. Ради их любопытства и славы их собирались книжниками изборники и летописные своды. Это их имена мы в основном и знаем. Примерно в тех же ценностных координатах проходила жизнь и всех остальных жителей Киевс­кой Руси - смердов. И хотя основным их занятием было земледелие, а не война, они тоже были воинами, жили общинами и ценили братскую взаимо­помощь, волю и Родину. Так же как в более позднее время это делали рус­ские крестьяне и особенно казаки. И центральные дружинные слои, и окру­жавшие их смерды мыслили тогда одними понятиями и прекрасно понимали друг друга.

In Kievan Rus, as in any agricultural civilization, economic ties within the social core were based on the conditions of land ownership. Relations between landowners depended on who owned the supreme right to land. The tilt that was made in favor of the relationship between the free and working strata of ancient Russian education

Society, left without attention the peculiarities of connections within the social core of the ancient Russian civilization. More precisely, these features were noticed, but they were not given due importance. Soviet historians observed the underdevelopment of relations of vassalage in Russia, and some denied its feudal character 29, finding with difficulty conditional land ownership. M. N. Tikhomirov, purposefully looking for him, pointed only to the merciful. Froyanov noted on this occasion: “If the prince granted his servants money, weapons and horses, then this did not make them feudal lords” “”. The boyars generally go beyond the scope of this kind of relationship. As early as the beginning of the 20th century. AE Presnyakov wrote that there are no data on princely land grants as a source of boyar land ownership. After decades of searches undertaken by Soviet researchers, at the beginning of the 21st century. Danilevsky states just as categorically: “The Old Russian combatant did not receive for his service (and for its time) a land allotment that could provide him with everything he needed” 12. The awards mentioned by the sources do not concern land, but income. Froyanov writes: “... The transfer of the feeding of cities and villages was of a land character. After all, it was not the territory that was transferred, but the right to collect income from the population living on it” 33.

The life of the big ancient Russian "feudal lords" - boyars and princes - did not seem quite the same as in the West, not even at all like that. In the historical works of the Soviet era, instead of a hierarchical ladder, they most often form corporations of a completely different kind, especially when it comes to the Novgorod feudal lords. VL Yanin called state land ownership in Novgorod a synonym for corporate boyar land ownership. O.V. Martyshin called the Novgorod state a collective feudal 34. In addition, it was recognized that the members of these associations resolved all issues related to land at the veche, and this characterizes this corporation only as a landowning community. A. A. Gorsky relates land holdings of the 10th century. to the joint (corporate!:) property of the military squad nobility. A. V. Kuza spoke of the ancient Russian city as a landowning corporation. The townspeople "turn out to be a corporation of landowners," he wrote, "who collectively own the territory of the city." According to him, this is the social basis of the urban system of Russia. Therefore, the ancient Russian city was often presented to Soviet historians as a collective castle of the largest land magnates of a certain circle.

In Russia - it is well known - instead of castles, boyars and princes lived in cities. Even such pillars of Soviet historiography as M.N. Tikhomirov and B.D. Grekov wrote about the connection of the ancient Russian “feudal lord” with the city. Tikhomirov noted that in the XI-XIII centuries. “everywhere there appears its own, local boyars, firmly rooted in a particular city.” B. D. Grekov, speaking of the picture drawn by the ancient Pravda, and this is the XI century, wrote: “...Men-knights are connected with the worlds-communities, live on their territory, where their tightly built mansions stand ...” . The community-world, according to Grekov, is the same as a rope, and the same as a city. After analyzing Russkaya Pravda, he came to the conclusion: “We get the right to add “city” to the identification of the rope with the world, understanding this term in the sense of an urban district, that is, the same world, headed by the city.” Grekov also recognizes that in the XI-XII centuries. In Russia, the activities of veche meetings of the main cities are awakening, the decisions of which were binding on the entire territory dependent on them. M.N. was convinced of the existence of urban communities. Pokrovsky, Ya. N. Shchapov, A. V. Kuza, V. A. Burov, Yu. G. Alekseev and other historians who saw Russia as feudal, not to mention I. Ya. Froyanov and A. Yu. the presence of feudalism in Russia 37.

So, many Soviet researchers, including supporters of feudalism, noticed such features of relations in the social core of Kievan Rus as corporate (in the sense of communal) land ownership, the lack of land grants to the boyars from the princes and, as a result, conditional

limited ownership of land, the absence (or weak development) of vassal relations between boyars and princes, the connection of princes and boyars with cities, the existence of urban communities and the strengthening of cities in an era of fragmentation. All this does not fit into the concept of feudalism in the "European" sense of the word and differs significantly from the medieval order in Europe, that is, the real feudal system.

Significant archaeological material does not fit into the Soviet formation scheme either. Material culture (especially the traces of life of the nobility) quite accurately reflects the nature of the socio-economic structure of civilization and makes it possible to more clearly understand many written - often too short and ambiguous - sources. There is a fairly obvious connection between the type of civilization and material culture. So, the patrimonial type is characterized by the presence of majestic royal palaces, which embody the power of their owners, and the central position in the cities indicates the corresponding place in society. In ancient Egypt - a classic patrimonial civilization - the palaces of the pharaohs occupied entire blocks in the cities. Thus, the palace in Alexandria, the capital of Egypt in the Ptolemaic era, occupied a third of the city's territory. residence

The severity of the climatic conditions of Eastern Europe, isolation from the centers of ancient civilization delayed and slowed down the process of folding the state among the Eastern Slavs. It was formed as a result of a complex interaction of internal and external factors, which allowed it to appear, based on only one communal basis. The Germanic tribes, having accepted the achievements of Roman civilization, approached the state forms of organizing social life earlier and faster.

One of the features of the ancient Russian state was that from its very beginning it was multi-ethnic in composition. In the future, this will contribute to the fact that the state and the Orthodox religion will become the main forces ensuring internal unity.

The Kievan Rurikids could not rely, like the Roman emperors, on a perfect military-bureaucratic system or, like the Achaemenid shahs, on a numerically and culturally dominant ethnic group. They found the footing of a new religion and carried out power building largely as a missionary task of converting the Gentiles.

For all the importance of the substrate layer of cultural norms, traditions and customs of the population that made up the Old Russian state, there is no doubt that Christianity became its main ideological, cultural, informational (in terms of writing), educational, value-oriented base. Thus, the question of what is the origin of Russian culture should be answered: Slavic in language, Greek Orthodox in most other parameters. In this new, Christian cultural and value worldview and the language of worldview, the Slavs went through the path of assimilation and “Russification” as significant as the Balts, Finns and other components of the ancient Russian ethnos. It was Christianity that formed and consolidated a new ethnic group, and it also became the main instrument for creating the Old Russian state.

“Churching” as a political program of Kievan Rus (not proclaimed in any documents, but clearly “read” in the practical politics of the house of Rurikovich) had another important socio-cultural consequence - the formation of an urban Christian culture in a predominantly agricultural country. At the same time, one should also take into account the specific “Sloboda” character of Russian cities, where the bulk of the townspeople continued to engage in agricultural production (only to a small extent supplemented by small-scale crafts), and the urban culture proper was concentrated in a relatively narrow circle of secular and church aristocracy. This can also explain the very superficial (formally ritual) level of Christianization of Russian philistines and villagers, their ignorance in many elementary religious issues and the naive social and utilitarian interpretation of the foundations of the dogma, which so surprised Europeans who visited the country, both in the Middle Ages and in more recent times. late times. The reliance of the authorities on religion primarily as a social and normative institution for regulating public life (to the detriment of its spiritual and moral aspect, discussed mainly in the circles of church writers) formed that special type of Russian mass Orthodoxy - formal, ignorant, often synthesized with pagan mysticism , - which N. Berdyaev aptly called "Orthodoxy without Christianity."

In general, the ancient Russian civilization of the "Kyiv" period, in its typological features, did not differ much from the similar early feudal period of Western European civilization; they were brought together by the prevailing technologies of material production, the urban character of the "titular", i.e. marking the whole society as a whole, culture, a high level of militarization and aggressiveness of political ideology and practice, the uniformity of many value orientations and attitudes of consciousness (especially in the elite layer), etc.

Of course, the Orthodox character of Russian Christianity and the closest canonical (and partly political) communication with Byzantium could not but determine the stylistic specifics of the civilization of Ancient Russia. Perhaps, in the first centuries of ancient Russian statehood, Kievan Rus, in many formal cultural and value-oriented features, can be considered as a “child” zone of Byzantine culture, although in most essential forms of social structure and life it was rather closer to Western and especially Central Europe. .

So, at the first stage of its formation, Russian civilization already synthesized features of European social realities (especially in the elite part of its culture) and Byzantine mystical reflections.

The formation of the state was of great historical importance for the Eastern Slavs. It created favorable conditions for the development of agriculture, crafts, foreign trade, and influenced the formation of the social structure. For example, the performance of power functions in a later period contributed to the transformation of princes and boyars into landowners.

Thanks to the formation of the state, ancient Russian culture is being formed, a single ideological system of society is being formed.

Within the framework of the Old Russian state, a single Old Russian nationality is being formed - the basis of the three East Slavic peoples: Great Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian.

For centuries after its inception, the Old Russian state fought off the “waves” of nomads, took the blow on itself, thereby providing favorable conditions for the development of European civilization. On the other hand, Russia became a kind of bridge through which cultural and trade exchanges took place between the West and the East. However, the inter-civilizational position of Russia will largely influence its own path of development, causing internal contradictions, deepening the socio-cultural split.

The Kievan state began to disintegrate at the end of the 11th century. Many sovereign lands-principalities arose: by the middle of the 12th century - fifteen, by the beginning of the 13th century there were already about fifty. The united ancient Russian state disappeared. There was no single center of power. The process of fragmentation of a large early medieval state was natural and was determined by the following reasons: the development of feudal relations, the settlement of warriors on the ground, insufficiently strong state principles, the movement of world trade to the Mediterranean, the loss of Russia's former role as an intermediary between the Asian, Greek and European worlds, devastating raids of nomads on southern Russian lands, which caused the outflow of the population to the northeast, the development of productive forces (growth of cities). Europe also experienced a period of disintegration, fragmentation, but then national states arose in it. It can be assumed that ancient Russia could have come to a similar result.

Fragmentation weakened the overall military potential, strife ruined the population. At the same time, cities grew rapidly at that time, art flourished. The foundations of economic unity were laid, the subsistence economy was destroyed, the craftsmen moved on to work for the market. Usury appeared, it contributed to the accumulation of capital. In the conditions of fragmentation, the prerequisites for unification on a new basis - economic, cultural, political - were ripening. A national state could have arisen here, but development in the Russian lands went differently.

The XIII century became a turning point in the history of Ancient Russia. In 1237, the Mongol-Tatars appeared within the Russian borders, and with them - the death of people, the destruction of the economy and culture. However, the danger came not only from the East, but also from the West. Strengthening Lithuania, Swedes, Germans, Livonian knights advanced on Russian lands. Fragmented Russia faced the problem of self-preservation, survival. She found herself, as it were, between two millstones: the Tatars ravaged the Russian lands, the West demanded the adoption of Catholicism. Jarl Birger from the famous Volkung family undertook two crusades against North-Western Russia. In this regard, the Russian princes could make concessions to the Horde to save the lands and people, but actively resisted the aggression of the West.

The Mongol-Tatars, like a tornado, swept through the Russian lands, showed up in Hungary, Poland, then went to the lower reaches of the Volga, making crushing raids from there, collecting heavy tribute. The southwestern lands of Russia during this period passed under the rule of Poland (Galic), pagan Lithuania (Minsk, Gomel, Kyiv) - they sought to escape from the Mongol ruin, to preserve their type of development.

There are various approaches to the allocation of the time frame of the ancient Russian civilization. Some researchers begin it from the formation of the ancient Russian state in the 9th century, others from the baptism of Russia in 988, and others from the first state formations among the Eastern Slavs in the 6th century. O. Platonov believes that Russian civilization is one of the oldest spiritual civilizations in the world, the basic values ​​of which were formed long before the adoption of Christianity, in the first millennium BC. e. The era of Ancient Russia was usually brought up to Peter's transformations in the 18th century. At present, most historians, regardless of whether they single out Ancient Russia as a separate civilization or consider it as a Russian sub-civilization, believe that this era ends in the XIV-XV centuries. According to some historians, the main features of ancient Russian civilization, which distinguish it primarily from Western civilization, include the predominance of spiritual and moral foundations over material ones, the cult of kindness and love of truth, non-acquisition, the development of original collective forms of democracy, embodied in the community and artel (O. Platonov ). Considering the ethno-cultural origins of the ancient Russian civilization, many scientists note that the ancient Russian nationality developed in a mixture of three sub-ethnic components - agricultural Slavic and Baltic, as well as hunting - fishing Finno-Ugric with a noticeable participation of Germanic, nomadic Turkic and partly North Caucasian substrates. Moreover, the Slavs numerically prevailed only in the Carpathian and Ilmen regions. Thus, the ancient Russian civilization was born as a heterogeneous community, formed on the basis of the combination of three regional economic and production structures - agricultural, pastoral and commercial, and three types of lifestyle - settled, nomadic and wandering; mixture of several ethnic groups with a significant diversity of religious beliefs. The Kyiv princes, in the conditions of the multivariance of social structures, could not rely, like, for example, the Achaemenid shahs, the numerically and culturally predominant ethnic group. The Rurikoviches did not have a powerful military-bureaucratic system, like the Roman emperors or eastern despots. Therefore, in Ancient Russia, Christianity became an instrument of consolidation. A major role in the formation of the Orthodox matrix of ancient Russian civilization was played by the dominance of the Slavic language in its area. The specifics of ancient Russian civilization was largely due to the beginning in the middle of the XII centuries. colonization of the center and north of the Russian Plain. The economic development of this region proceeded in two streams: colonization was peasant and princely. Peasant colonization went along the rivers, in the floodplains of which intensive farming was organized, and also captured the forest zone, where the peasants led an integrated economy, which was based on extensive slash-and-burn agriculture, hunting and gathering. Such an economy was characterized by a significant dispersion of peasant communities and households. The princes preferred large expanses of forest-free fields, which gradually expanded by reducing the forest to arable land. The technology of agriculture in the princely fields, on which the princes planted people dependent on themselves, was, in contrast to the peasant colonization, intensive (two - and three-field). This technology also assumed a different settlement structure: the population was concentrated in small territories, which made it possible for the princely power to exercise fairly effective control. In such conditions, the Mongol invasion in the middle of the XIII century. had a negative impact primarily on the processes of princely colonization, to a small extent affecting the small and fairly autonomous villages, scattered over a vast territory, created in the course of peasant colonization. The princely power was greatly weakened at first, both physically (after bloody battles) and politically, falling into vassal dependence on the Tatar khans. In Russia, a period has come, perhaps, of maximum independence of the individual from power. Peasant colonization continued during the period of Tatar-Mongol domination and was completely oriented towards extensive slash-and-burn agriculture. Such agriculture, as some researchers note, is not just a certain technology, it is also a special way of life that forms a specific national character and cultural archetype (V. Petrov). The peasants in the forest actually lived a pre-state life, in pairs or large families, outside the sphere of power and pressure of the community, property relations and exploitation. Slash-and-burn agriculture was built as an economic system that did not imply ownership of land and forests, but required the constant migration of the peasant population. After the undercut was abandoned after three or four years, the land again became no man's land, and the peasants had to develop a new site, moving to another place. The population in the forests grew much faster than in and around the cities. The vast majority of the population of Ancient Russia in the XIII-XIV centuries. lived far away from princely oppression and bloody princely civil strife, and from the punitive invasions of the Tatar detachments and extortions of the Khan's Baskaks, and even from church influence. If in the West "the air of the city made a person free", then in North-Eastern Russia, on the contrary, the "spirit of the peasant world" made a person free. Thus, as a result of the peasant and princely colonization of the central and northern lands, in the Old Russian civilization, two Russ were formed, as it were: Rus - urban, princely-monarchical, Christian Orthodox, and Rus - agricultural, peasant. In general, the following features were characteristic of the ancient Russian, or "Russian-European" civilization: 1. The dominant form of integration, as in Europe, was Christianity, which, although it was spread in Russia by the state, was largely autonomous in relation to it. character. Firstly, the Russian Orthodox Church for a long time was dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople, and only in the middle of the 15th century. gained actual independence. Secondly, the state itself - Kievan Rus - was a confederation of fairly independent state formations, politically bound only by the unity of the princely family, after the collapse of which at the beginning of the 12th century. acquired full state sovereignty (the period of "feudal fragmentation"). Thirdly, Christianity set a normative-value order common to Ancient Russia, the only symbolic form of expression of which was the Old Russian language. 2. Ancient Russian civilization was a traditional society that had a number of common features with Asian-type societies: for a long time (until the middle of the 11th century) there was no private property and economic classes; the principle of centralized redistribution (tribute) dominated; there was an autonomy of communities in relation to the state, which gave rise to significant potential opportunities for socio-political regeneration; evolutionary nature of development. At the same time, the Old Russian civilization had a number of common features with the traditional societies of Europe. These are Christian values; the urban character of the "titular", that is, marking the whole society, culture; the predominance of agricultural technologies of material production; the “military-democratic” nature of the genesis of state power (the princes occupied the position of “first among equals” among the “knightly” squad); the absence of the syndrome of the servile complex, the principle of total slavery when the individual comes into contact with the state; the existence of communities with a certain legal order and their own leader, built on the basis of internal justice, without formalism and despotism (I. Kireevsky). The specifics of the Old Russian civilization were as follows: 1. The formation of urban Christian culture took place in a predominantly agricultural country. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the special, "sloboda" character of Russian cities, where the bulk of the townspeople were engaged in agricultural production. 2. Christianity captured all strata of society, but not the whole person. This can explain the very superficial (formal-ceremonial) level of Christianization of the “silent” majority, their ignorance in elementary religious issues and the naive social-utilitarian interpretation of the foundations of the dogma, which surprised European travelers so much. This was largely due to the fact that the state relied on the new religion primarily as a social and normative institution for regulating social life (to the detriment of its spiritual and moral aspect, which is discussed mainly in church circles). This led to the formation of that special type of Russian mass Orthodoxy, which N. Berdyaev called "Orthodoxy without Christianity", formal, ignorant, synthesized with pagan mysticism and practice. 3. Despite the great role played by the closest canonical (and partly political) ties between Russia and Byzantium, Old Russian civilization as a whole, during its formation, synthesized features of European socio-political and production-technological realities, Byzantine mystical reflections and canons, as well as Asian principles of centralized redistribution.

The history of the Slavs is a rather significant part of world history, since for many centuries the Slavic peoples have played and continue to play a significant role in the formation and development of the peoples of our planet, especially European and Asian ones.

Suffice it to say that the Slavs are still the largest group of peoples, which is united by a common origin and proximity of languages. Slavs remain the main population of Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria and other states. A certain number of Slavs live in Greece, Austria, Italy, and also make up a large part of immigrants in the USA, Canada, South America and Australia.

The beginning of the formation and development of ancient Russian civilization dates back to ancient times, when primitive society began to disintegrate. And it was carried out in the interaction of various factors and components. Among them: the geographical environment, political structure and ecology, social structure and legislation, religion and philosophy, literature, art, life of people, etc. West and East, Europe and Asia. It became the "Middle World", a Eurasian civilization.

At the same time, the incalculable potential riches of the vast territory of Russia entailed significant difficulties for the development of civilization, requiring a long time, huge human resources, colossal labor efforts and significant funds for their development.

6.1. The first evidence of the Slavs

Until now, scientists continue to debate about the time and in what way the settlement of the Slavs took place in the expanses of the East European Plain, where their ancestral home was located, how intertribal associations and ancient Slavic cities were formed, etc.

In determining the ancestral home of the Slavs, Russian historians are not always unanimous.

So, CM. Solovyov and IN. Klyuchevsky tend to rely on the "Danubian version",

A. A. Shakhmatov believes that the Slavs came from the territory of the upper reaches of the Vistula River and the slopes of the Carpathians. B.L. Rybakov notes that after the advance of the shepherd tribes in Eastern Europe, there has been a gradual unification of the settled kindred tribes in

major epics, one of which became,1

Ancient Slavic figurine of a dancing man

Archaeological research allows us to conclude that the ancestors of the current Slavic peoples - the Proto-Slavs are known from the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. They stood out from the Indo-European family of peoples. In the same period, other peoples (Ugro-Finnish tribes and others) came out and settled the vast expanses of Eurasia from the Indo-European family of peoples.

By the turn of the 1st millennium BC. include the first written evidence of the Slavs of Greek, Roman, Arabic, Byzantine historians. They called the ancient Slavs Wends, Antes or Slavens (Sklavens), characterizing them as "countless tribes", "great people".

By the 4th century AD there is a mention that from the upper reaches of the Vistula River to the Northern Black Sea region, the Germanic tribes of the Goths, led by Germanarich, but were defeated by the Slavs. his successor Vinitar deceived and brutally dealt with 70 Slavic elders, led by God(Bus). Eight centuries later, an author unknown to us in the famous "Tale of Igor's Campaign" mentioned "the time of Busov."

By the end of the IV century. the Gothic tribal union was broken by the Turkic-speaking tribes of the Huns, who came from Central Asia. Moving west, the Huns carried away part of the Slavs.

The era of the Great Migration of Peoples (IV-VI centuries) also opened the way for advancement to the Avars, and later to the Turkic nomadic tribes (Black Bulgarians, Khazars, Pechenegs, Polovtsy, etc.). Until the middle of the 1st millennium BC. the Proto-Slavic ethnos developed in contact with other peoples: the tribes of the Celts, Thracians, Germans, Scythians. Already in the VI century. the Slavs repeatedly made military campaigns against the largest state of that time - Byzantium, which would hardly have been possible for weak and small tribes.

A very peculiar characteristic was given to the Slavs of that time by the Byzantine Procopius from Caesarea. In the book “War with the Goths,” he says that the Slavs and Antes speak the same language, are not controlled by one person, and these tribes live in the rule of the people, and therefore happiness and unhappiness in life are considered a common thing for them. They believe that only God, the creator of lightning, is the master of all, bulls are sacrificed to him and other sacred rites are performed.

Byzantine authors also argued that at that time the Slavs were at the stage of decomposition of the primitive system and the formation of a class society. In turn, campaigns against Byzantium were accompanied by the enrichment of the tribal elite of the Slavs, thus accelerating the disintegration of primitive society.

Separation from a single Slavic community of the Eastern Slavs occurred by the VI century. Traditions, reflected in the ancient Russian chronicles, point to the formation of large Slavic tribal associations on the example of a number of principalities. In particular, reigns kiya with brothers Cheek, Khoriv and sister Lybidyu in the Middle Dnieper. The name of the older brother Kyi became the name of the city of Kyiv founded here.

Thus, for one and a half to two millennia, the process of formation of a common Slavic ethnic group of peoples continued, from which in the VI century. a branch of the Eastern Slavs became isolated, which became the ancestral home of the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples.

• Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the XII-XIII centuries. M.: Nauka, 1993. S. 14.

1. Formation of the Old Russian state.

2. Political and socio-economic structure of Kievan Rus.

3. Christianization of Russia and its historical significance.

4. Feudal fragmentation in Russia.

1. Formation of the Old Russian state. The main written sources on the topic are ancient Russian chronicles, among which the most important is The Tale of Bygone Years", created Nestor, a monk of the Kiev Caves Monastery, around 1113. Information about Ancient Russia is also contained in foreign sources – by Byzantine authors Procopius of Caesarea, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, eastern, primarily Arab, - al-Masudi, Ibn Fadlan, in Western European chronicles, incl. Bertine Annals of the Franks. Important are a archaeological sources - excavation materials in Kyiv, Novgorod, other ancient Russian cities, incl. Novgorod birch bark letters.

The question of the origin of the Old Russian state is closely related to the problem ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs- the people who created the first state formation on the territory of our country. There are different theories of the origin of the Slavs. IN. Klyuchevsky and a number of other historians believed that the ancestors of the Slavs - Scythian farmers about which Herodotus wrote. In accordance with Carpathian theory- their ancestral home is located between the Danube and the Carpathian mountains. At present, there are two most common points of view on the question of the place of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs. According to one, it was the territory between the Oder and the Vistula, according to the other - between the Oder and the Middle Dnieper. Great Migration, which began in the first centuries of the new era and was caused by the movement of the Goths in the north of Europe and the nomadic Huns led by Attila from the east, led to the disintegration of the Proto-Slavic community into three branches - southern, western and eastern Slavs.

In the VI - VIII centuries. Eastern Slavs settled along the banks of the Dnieper. According to the annals, it is possible to establish the existence by this time of about 14 tribal associations. Glade and Drevlyane settled the territory of modern Ukraine and Belarus; krivichi settled along the Dnieper and Dvina; street, tivertsy- in the Black Sea region, along the Dniester; Vyatichi- on the Oka; radimichi– modern Central Russia; Slovenia - the area of ​​Lake Ilmen, around Novgorod, etc. The most developed of them are Polans and Slovenes, which formed two centers - Kyiv and Novgorod, - the union of which served as the beginning of the Old Russian state.

By the time of settlement in the Dnieper region, the Slavs lived tribal system. The main social unit was genus- a group of relatives who jointly owned land, pastures, worked together and equally divided the results of labor. At the head of the family were elders, the most important issues were decided by the people's assembly - veche. Several genera united in tribe.

In the 7th - 9th centuries. Slavs enter the period military democracy- the decomposition of the primitive communal system and the emergence of the beginnings of social inequality. With the development of the productive forces, private property is born. All adult men of the tribe still participated in the popular assembly and military campaigns, but wealth and power are gradually concentrated in the hands of the leaders and elders. To solve military problems, there are tribal unions and superunions (unions of unions) headed by princes, which, according to Academician B.A. Rybakov and some other historians, meant the collapse of the tribal system and the transition to the state.

State- this is a mechanism of political power: 1) in a certain territory; 2) with a certain system of governing and coercive bodies; 3) with a certain legal framework; 4) existing through the collection of taxes.

The question of the origin of the Old Russian state is debatable, the central place here is occupied by Norman problem . For the first time, the Norman question was raised by German historians who worked at the Russian Academy of Sciences in the second half of the 18th century. - G. Bayer, G. Miller, A. Schlozer, who argued on the basis of The Tale of Bygone Years that the Scandinavians (Normans, Varangians) founded the first ruling dynasty in Russia.

opposed them M.V. Lomonosov who became the founder anti-Norman (Slavic) theories of the origin of the Old Russian state. He tried to substantiate the Slavic origin of the name "Rus" - from the river Ros(south of Kyiv) and a Slavic tribe with the same name.

However, the leading Russian historians (N.M. Karamzin, V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.F. Platonov and others) were Normanists to one degree or another. Among modern domestic historians, the opinion prevails that the state among the Eastern Slavs finally took shape in connection with the emergence of land ownership, the emergence of feudal relations and classes at the turn of the 8th - 10th centuries. However, the influence of the subjective factor - the personality of the Scandinavian prince Rurik - in the formation of the state is not rejected. There is nothing unusual in the very fact that foreigners are on the throne (Frenchman William the Conqueror, and later the Scottish Stuart dynasty, became English kings; Russian tsars after Peter turned more and more into ethnic Germans, etc.). This question has nothing to do with patriotism. Statehood cannot be brought in from outside , if the internal prerequisites for this have not matured. From The Tale of Bygone Years it follows that the Slavs invited the Varangians (Scandinavians) to end internal strife, as an external neutral force (“Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no outfit [order] in it”). Another probable reason for calling the Varangians was the desire of the Slavs with their help to get rid of dependence on the part of the Khazar Khaganate, to which tribute was paid. In addition, the Varangian squad could become a force capable of assisting local princes in collecting tribute, in polyudie. However, it is quite possible to assume that the "calling" of the Varangians (on contractual terms) turned into a "conquest" for the Slavs.

On the other hand, the coming of the Scandinavians to Russia is also explained by internal reasons in Scandinavian society itself. The Viking Age begins in Europe (end of the 8th - 11th centuries). viking- "warrior", the word comes from the common Scandinavian root " vic”, i.e. settlement, bay, trading (or other) coastal place, camp. Thus it is not ethnonym, not the name of the people, but the designation of the military squad. In Europe they are also called Normans(northern people), and in Russia - Varangians. Ethnically, in Europe, these are Norwegians, Danes, and in Russia - Swedes (partly Norwegians). (At the same time, the Scandinavian sagas say little about campaigns against Russia, it is only mentioned as the designation of Russia, Gardarika- country of cities.

Reasons for the campaigns of the Normans: an increase in the population in Scandinavia, where there is little land suitable for cultivation (in Norway and now only 3%), as a result, the excess population was “thrown out” of these countries, primarily adult men capable of carrying weapons. In order to feed themselves and their families, they formed a militia (“ledung”) headed by a military leader (“king”) and went to conquer and impose tribute on other countries, or were hired to serve the rulers of Western European countries, Byzantium, Russia. They formed settlements and entire states on a vast territory - from Greenland and Britain to Sicily, besieged Paris. Their invasions terrified the peoples of continental Europe (there was even a Catholic prayer - "Save us from the fury of the Normans, Lord", "De furror normanorum libre nos, Domine"). 500 years before Columbus, in the 9th century, the Scandinavians probably reached North America (King Leif Eiriksson). In the east they reached the Volga region. The level of socio-economic development of the Scandinavians and Slavs was approximately the same, which also contributed to their ethno-political synthesis, while the peoples of Western Europe had already significantly advanced.

The same " vocation of the Varangians", in accordance with the message of The Tale of Bygone Years, happened as follows: in 862, the ambassadors of the Ilmen Slavs, Krivichi and Chud invited the Varangian prince to stop internal strife. Three brothers came Rurik, Sineus, Truvor(according to another version, Rurik came with a retinue and relatives) , – and began to reign, respectively, in Novgorod ( or in Staraya Ladoga), on the Beloozero, in Izborsk. At the same time, in Kyiv, the glades began to reign Askold and Dir. Most likely, they ruled at different times, but the chronicle connects them together.

The whole story about the calling of the Varangians is semi-legendary, not supported by indisputable historical facts, but probably has a certain historical basis - the invitation of the Scandinavian squads. As a result, two tribal superunion - northern (Novgorod) and southern (Kyiv).

Actually history united ancient Russian state begins when Rurik's successor Oleg in 882 . came at the head of the army from Novgorod to Kyiv, killed Askold and Dir and became the prince of Kyiv. Kyiv was proclaimed mother to Russian cities". Thus, the unification of Northern and Southern Russia at the end of the 9th century. became the starting point for the creation Kievan Rus. In the future, the activities of the Kyiv princes will be directed to the expansion of the Kyiv principality.az. This happens mainly during the X century. Under Oleg, the Drevlyans, northerners, Radimichi were attached; under Igor, the streets and Tivertsy; under Svyatoslav and Vladimir, the Vyatichi.

Thus, the East Slavic state was formed at the turn of the 9th - 10th centuries, when the Kyiv princes gradually subordinated the unions of tribal principalities to their power. Played a leading role in this process military service nobility- squad of Kyiv princes.

The territorial basis of the unified state was the path " from Varangians to Greeks”, i.e. from the Baltic to Byzantium. The ships descended along the rivers - the Neva, Volkhov, then dragged to the upper reaches of the Dnieper, then reached the Black Sea and sailed to Constantinople. This path was the pivot around which the Old Russian lands were consolidated.

The Norman question is also related to the problem of the origin of the term " Russia". Some historians (for example, the Ukrainian historian M.S. Grushevsky at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries) associated this word only with Kyiv, the Dnieper, believing that it came from the name of the river Ros(a tributary of the Dnieper, south of Kyiv), and only later did the northern Slavs appropriate this name for themselves.

There is another concept (modern historians E.A. Melnikova , V.Ya. Petrukhin). Before the arrival of the Scandinavians, the Slavs did not have a tribe or union of tribes called "Rus". The meadows that lived around Kyiv were also never called "Rus" before the arrival of Oleg. Probably, this term comes from the common Scandinavian (or Finnish) word ruotsi - “ row, rower, oar” and originally denoted the Varangian squad, which sailed on ships. Then it acquires a social meaning, because there is a merger of the alien Varangian nobility with the local Slavic and there is "Rus"- a new multinational elite of society - which is separated from the " Slovenian"(the rest of the population). Finally, after the creation of a single state, this designation extends to the entire territory subject to the Kyiv prince, and to all the population living there. It is important that the term "Rus" was not originally associated with any tribal name, it is neutral, and therefore became a means of uniting the tribes.

2. Political and socio-economic structure of Kievan Rus. The time of existence of Kievan Rus is the end of the 9th - the beginning of the 12th centuries. By political structure This was union of tribal principalities, city-states under the supreme authority of the prince of Kyiv. At the first stage, subordination to the Kyiv prince was expressed in the payment of tribute, then the tribal principalities were directly subordinate, that is, the local reign was liquidated, and a representative of the Kyiv dynasty was appointed as viceroy. Territories within a single state, ruled by princes - vassals Kyiv ruler, received the name parish.

1) the unification of all Slavic (and part of the Finnish) tribes under the rule of the Kyiv prince;

2) the acquisition of overseas markets and the protection of trade routes;

3) protection of the borders from the attack of the steppe nomads;

4) internal function - collection of tribute.

founder of the state Oleg (882 - 912) makes campaigns against Constantinople in 907 and 911. In 911, a Russian-Byzantine trade agreement was concluded - the first official written monument in Russia - which granted Russian merchants the right to trade duty-free in Constantinople. At the same time, this agreement also ensured the political interests of Byzantium, the Slavs were obliged to provide troops to fight the main enemy of the Byzantine Empire in the East - the Arab Caliphate.

Oleg's successor on the throne of Kiev becomes Igor (912 – 945). In 945, he demanded additional tribute from the Drevlyans, but they rebelled and killed the greedy prince. Igor's wife Olga (945 – 957 ), being a regent for her young son Svyatoslav, cruelly avenged the Drevlyans for the death of her husband. However, for the first time she streamlined the collection of tribute, setting its size - lessons and collection points churchyards. In 957 Olga traveled to Constantinople, where she was probably baptized.

Svyatoslav (957 - 972)- a prominent commander, conducted a number of successful campaigns, incl. to the North Caucasus, conquered the Yases (Ossetians), Kasogs (Circassians or Chechens). The campaigns were especially successful in 965, when he defeated the Khazars (as a result, the Khazar Khaganate ceased to exist), defeated the Danube Bulgarians, and even wanted to transfer the capital from Kyiv to the Danube. But in 971 Svyatoslav was defeated by Byzantium. He was forced to leave Bulgaria, accepted the obligation not to attack Byzantium, and joint actions against common enemies were envisaged.

The heyday of Kievan Rus occurs under one of the younger sons of Svyatoslav - Vladimir the Red Sun (Saint) (978 – 1015 ). Under him, the territorial structure of the state is finally formalized. He planted his sons to reign in the nine largest centers of Russia.

Relatively socio-political structure and forms of government in the Old Russian state, there are different points of view. The first is based on the fact that in the IX - X centuries. still remained in Russia three-stage control model"- the people's assembly ( veche), council of elders (" the elders of the city”, i.e. urban), prince. The tribal elite (elders) and the prince were part of the community on the terms of the agreement (“ row”), largely depended on it. The people's assembly continued to resolve the most important issues (judicial, military, etc.), there was still no big separation of power from the people and differentiation among free people. In addition, at the heart of relations, in many respects, there are still tribal ties, the former territory of the settlement of tribes. True, there was already an older and younger squad (“boyars” and “lads”), but it did not completely oust the people's militia.

Based on this V.V. Mavrodin, AND I. Froyanov and some other historians believe that the socio-political system of Kievan Rus is not feudalism, but the highest stage in the development of tribal relations. The prince is a tribal leader and, therefore, Ancient Russia - tribal super union. Feudalism finally takes shape only after the Mongol conquest in the 13th century.

However, most historians are of the opinion that Kievan Rus - early feudal monarchy . By the 11th century noticeable changes are taking place in the social structure of ancient Russian society, which fixes " Russian Truth"- the first Russian code of laws (code of laws). Its oldest version is created under the son of St. Vladimir - Yaroslav the Wise (1019 – 1054 ), contains a total of 17 articles; the main thing in it is the restriction of blood feud around the immediate family. Second edition - The Truth of the Yaroslavichs”, i.e. sons and descendants of Yaroslav (1072). Here, the fine for killing a noble person is 15 times more than for killing a simple community member. Third edition at Vladimir Monomakh(1113) - "Charter on purchases and interest" - supplemented by articles on new economic relations (usury, etc.).

Russkaya Pravda mentions various categories dependent population: servants- household servants serfs- slaves stinks- community members (free and dependent), purchases- became dependent on the received loan (“kupa”), Ryadovichi- worked on a "row", a contract. Special category - outcasts, i.e. people expelled from the community. Thus, society is social stratification.

Gradually begins to form private ownership of land the economic basis of feudalism. However feudal fiefdom(hereditary land ownership of princes, boyars, old tribal nobility), according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, was at that time only "an island in the sea of ​​free communal land tenure." From the 11th century appear appanage principalities- estates of individual princely families.

There is a formation political organization Kievan Rus. Great Kyiv prince represented monarchical element of the state, but he did not have the full autocratic power. In fact, the whole family of Rurikovich ruled, the eldest in the family was on the throne of Kiev ( next order of succession, by seniority). The prince of Kyiv had to hold council with Boyar Duma(boyars, i.e. servants of the prince, his vassals), which included senior combatants, the old tribal nobility (clan aristocracy), the urban elite. The control apparatus is being formed - posadniks, governors, thousand, mytniks, tiunas appointed by the prince to perform military, judicial functions, collect taxes, etc. The first set of laws is being created - "Russian Truth". At the same time, the emerging institutions of the state were combined with the remnants of former tribal relations - popular assembly and militia.

Based on this characteristic of socio-economic and political relations in Kievan Rus, the opinion was established that it is early feudal monarchy. It was the initial stage feudalization. Feudalism- an agrarian society of the Middle Ages, which is characterized by: 1) large landed property with a small peasant economy subordinate to it; 2) a closed estate organization; 3) natural economy; 4) the dominance of religion in the spiritual sphere.

3. Christianization of Russia and its historical significance. According to legend, the apostle was the first to bring Christianity to the Slavs. Andrew the First-Called. In the 1st century n. e. he allegedly erected a cross on the site of the future Kyiv. The Tale of Bygone Years tells about this, but its path, in fact, is “from the Varangians to the Greeks”, i.e. description of the usual route of the Byzantines to Russia.

For the first time, the presence of Christians among the Rus was mentioned after their campaign against Constantinople in 860, in the message of the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius. He argues that already under Askold and Dir, the barbarians join the faith, and in 866. accept baptism. Probably, here the desired is presented as real, but, on the other hand, it was during this period that the first attempts to Christianize the Slavs were apparently made.

In the agreement between Oleg and Byzantium in 911. the Rus are still entirely pagans, opposed to the Christian Greeks. Igor's treaty of 944 already distinguishes pagan Rus from Christians. The first Christian church of St. Elijah and the first Christian community, which consisted mainly of merchants who traded in Byzantium, mercenary soldiers and foreigners who served there. Along with the Christian there were Muslim and Jewish communities. Christians, like all the inhabitants, were sacrificed by lot to the pagan gods.

In the struggle to strengthen the central government, the Kyiv princes use, incl. religion. In 980 Vladimir holds "pagan reform". Six idols (idols) were placed “outside the terem yard”, i.e. outside the princely estate, on a hill (Perun, Horos [Khors], Dazhbog, Stribog, Simargl, Mokosh). This was an attempt to establish Perun as the main deity surrounded by other tribal gods. " Setting idols»- a means to keep the conquered tribes, to preserve the unity of the state. True, O.M. Rapov believes that it was simply about creating a new place ( temple) for the administration of a pagan cult. Be that as it may, at the beginning of Vladimir's reign, paganism still completely prevails. In 983, there is a clash between pagans and Christians, including the mass extermination of the latter.

However, paganism gradually ceased to meet the interests of the prince and the nobility. A new religion is being established Christianity. Historians have different opinions regarding the reasons for its adoption in Russia. Most believe that, since the process of feudalization was underway, a new religion was needed to justify the centralization of power and the obedience of ordinary community members to the feudal elite. AND I. Froyanov and his supporters believe that this was an attempt to finally consolidate the dominance of the Polyans and the Polyan tribal nobility over the rest of the Slavs. , to prevent the disintegration of the union of tribes under the rule of Kyiv. Thus, in their opinion, the reason for Christianization is not the strengthening of new feudal, but the conservation of old tribal relations. Objectively, this retarded the development of society and had no progressive significance.

However, in reality, Christianity, to a greater extent than paganism, corresponded to the changed socio-political situation. As society and the state developed, a religion with more complex dogma and cult than in paganism was needed. The unification of different peoples under the rule of Kyiv accelerated , more in line with the centralized state monotheism(monotheism), ideologically supporting the autocracy of the Kyiv prince. The international relations of Russia were strengthened, it joined the ranks of the civilized European peoples, thanks to Christianization, Russian history was included in a single world, biblical, history. It became possible to enter into dynastic marriages with foreign rulers who agreed to give their daughters in marriage only to Christians.

Vladimir's desire to conclude a dynastic marriage with Anna Komnina(sister of the Byzantine emperor Basil) and became a direct impetus for his baptism (in 986 or 987). He wanted to intermarry with the Byzantine emperors, to become equal with them. However, before making the final decision on the Christianization of all of Russia, Vladimir, according to The Tale of Bygone Years, held " test of faith", i.e. listened to representatives of different religions. Probably, the speeches of the envoys themselves, their content is a fantasy, a later insertion into the text of the chronicle, but this message also had a real basis. Indeed, at that time there were missionaries of various confessions in Kyiv, and there was a problem of choosing a faith that would be most acceptable both for the Kyiv elite and for the whole society.

However, even after that, Vladimir doubted, and at the meeting they decided to send ten "wise and glorious men" to different countries so that they themselves could see how the preachers' speeches corresponded to reality. Most of all, the envoys from Kyiv liked the beauty of Greek (i.e. Byzantine) temples and worship, after which Vladimir inclined towards the adoption of Eastern (Byzantine) Christianity. Thus, according to the chronicle, his choice was based on aesthetic criterion. Probably, this is also a later insertion into the text of the chronicle, but one cannot completely deny the influence of such a circumstance on the thinking of the pagan, on the emotional impressions of the barbarian, who perceived, first of all, the external side of phenomena.

However, there were also quite real reasons for the adoption of Christianity precisely from Byzantium: 1) closer political, cultural, trade ties between Russia and Byzantium than with Western countries, the need for their further strengthening; 2) Pecheneg raids on the southern borders of Russia became more frequent, so a military alliance with Byzantium was also needed; 3) dependence of the Byzantine church on the emperor, while in the West the popes sought to assert their priority over secular power; The “Byzantine model” of the relationship between church and state suited Vladimir more as a secular ruler; 4) certain democracy of the Byzantine church, tolerance for pagans, which facilitated the spread of Christianity; 5) national, not Latin language of worship understandable to everyone. In addition, Bulgaria had already been baptized, it was possible to use liturgical literature on Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) language. Later, the Byzantine version of Christianity in Russia began to be called Orthodoxy.

The baptism of the people of Kiev took place in 988 g. with great resistance or, according to I.Ya. Froyanov, voluntarily, because was of no importance to them. In most other lands, baptism was carried out by force, “with fire and sword,” which Froyanov also recognizes, but considers this evidence of the opposition of other tribes to the power of the glades. Most historians believe that the reason for the opposition is the persistence of pagan beliefs, it is noted " dual faith”(the term of academician B.A. Rybakov) even in the XI - XII centuries.

The point of view of A.P. Novoseltseva: the final approval of Christianity occurred only after the Mongol invasion in the 13th-14th centuries, when the foreign yoke was reinforced by a foreign religion (at first the Mongols were pagans, then they converted to Islam); then in Russia there was a desire to ideologically oppose itself to the conquerors. It was after this that Christianity truly became the religion of the Russian people. The concept of "Christian" peasant"(peasant) began to denote the bulk of the population, while the Russian nobility willingly became related to the Tatar nobility, erected their genealogy to it and, thereby, laid the foundation for some famous noble families - the families of the Yusupovs, Kutuzovs, Urusovs, etc.

Significance of Christianization. The process of unification of the Slavic tribes into a single state accelerated. The international prestige of Russia was strengthened. There is a flourishing of culture - writing, book business, art. Christianity also approved a new moral ideal - "God's ten commandments". Within the framework of a single state, a single faith, the formation of the Old Russian people, the Old Russian language took place. In general, it was a civilization western type, because in its main features (albeit with a lag), it corresponded to the development of the countries of Western Europe at that time.

4. Feudal fragmentation in Russia. After the death of St. Vladimir between his sons there were civil strife. Svyatopolk declared himself the Grand Duke of Kyiv, occupying the throne in 1015-1019. On his orders, his younger brothers Boris and Gleb were killed (later canonized and became the first Russian saints). Svyatopolk, for his atrocity, received the nickname "Cursed". He was then defeated by his brother Yaroslav.

Yaroslav the Wise (1019 – 1054 ) established close dynastic ties with the rulers of Europe, gave his daughters in marriage to influential European kings (Anne - for the French, Elizabeth - for the Norwegian, Catherine - for the Hungarian). The creation of Russkaya Pravda is associated with him, but also the beginning political fragmentation. Before his death, he divided his possessions between his five sons, then his descendants ruled. Giving land to their sons and grandsons, the princes of Kyiv kindled civil strife, which the nomads took advantage of (from 1061 to the beginning of the 13th century - 46 Polovtsian invasions). The princes themselves in the internecine struggle resorted to the help of the Polovtsian khans.

Princely congresses are convened to end strife and settle disagreements. In 1097, at a congress in Lyubech, a decision was made - “everyone and keep his fatherland”, i.e. for the first time the principle is legally fixed feudal fragmentation.

Yaroslav's grandson Vladimir (Vsevolodovich) Monomakh (1113 – 1125 ) managed to stop the strife. He was called to Kyiv by the local boyars during the popular uprising of 1113, inflicted a crushing defeat on the Polovtsy, and for a short time reunited the Russian principalities. Then conflicts flare up with renewed vigor. Political fragmentation finally takes shape after the death of the eldest son Monomakh Mstislav the Great ( 1132). By the middle of the XII century. there were already 15 independent principalities, by the beginning of the XIII century. - about 50.

Reasons for fragmentation. Economic: the growth of estates and the economic independence of the feudal lords, the dominance of natural economy, which led to the economic isolation of the territories. Political: the increase in power and military power of the princes in the field. These reasons are common to all of Europe, and in general, fragmentation is a natural stage in the development of any feudal state.

However, fragmentation in Russia had its own specific features. The power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv was weak, because. the order of succession to the throne of Kyiv by seniority led to constant conflicts. At the same time, the political role of Kyiv is weakening due to the loss of its significance as a trading center due to the raids of nomads and changes in trade routes in Europe (in the Eastern Mediterranean, after the Crusades, a new route appeared from Europe to the Middle East, so the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" lost previous value). In addition, the victories of Vladimir Monomakh over the Polovtsy temporarily weakened the external danger, and the local princes became less in need of Kyiv's help.

Consequences of fragmentation. Positive: flourishing of new urban centers, economy, culture under the auspices of local princes. Negative: the vulnerability of individual principalities to external danger, which soon manifested itself during the Mongol invasion.

Main principalities:

Vladimir-Suzdal(North-Eastern Russia). Favorable position on the Volga trade route. On the one hand, the connection is with the Baltic, the North-West, on the other hand, with the Volga region, the East, the Bulgars and the Finno-Ugric peoples. Capital: until the middle of the XII century. - Rostov the Great (Rostov-Suzdal Principality); then - Suzdal, from the second half of the XII century. - Vladimir. princes: Yuri Dolgoruky (1125 - 1157), under whom the city of Moscow was founded (first mentioned in the annals - 1147); Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157 - 1174); Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176 - 1212).

Galicia-Volyn. From Polissya to the Carpathians, i.e. the territory of modern Western Ukraine and Western Belarus. It had the greatest connection with Europe - Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic. Capital: Galich. princes: Yaroslav Osmomysl (1152 - 1187); Daniil Romanovich (1221 - 1264) - most successfully fought against the Mongols, defended the independence of these lands. Almost the only principality in Russia (except for the Novgorod and Pskov lands) that actually did not fall under the rule of the Mongols.

Novgorod land. From the Baltic to the Northern Urals. It had trade relations with the West and the East. feudal republic. The main role is vecha, where, however, noble families ruled. It chose posadnik- the head of the local government and thousandth- the head of the military militia. The role of the head of the church is great - archbishop, who was in charge not only of church affairs, but also of the city treasury and external relations. Prince- only the leader of the military squad, he was invited and expelled by the veche. AT Pskov there was also a republic, the political system was close to that of Novgorod.

Chernihiv, Polotsk, Kiev and other principalities. This is the territory of modern Ukraine and Belarus. A fierce struggle continued for the throne of Kyiv as for the old center of the state, it remained prestigious, although it no longer gave real power. So, Yuri Dolgoruky captured Kyiv, became the Grand Prince of Kyiv, but did not "sit" in Kyiv, he went back to Suzdal. Andrei Bogolyubsky, having seized the throne of the Grand Duke, gave Kyiv to his squad for plunder. Ultimately, Kyiv was destroyed both by civil strife and by the Mongol pogrom of 1240. In 1246, the Italian traveler Plano Carpini noted the presence of only 200 houses in Kyiv (and even in the 12th century there were several dozen churches).

In different principalities there was a different political system. In Kyiv, Vladimir - monarchical rule was established; in Novgorod everything was determined by the veche; in the Galicia-Volyn principality, the boyars, the highest aristocracy, and the oligarchy played an important role. However, everywhere, along with the right to inherit the princely throne, the right of the community and the veche to call and expel the prince is preserved.

Thus, in Russia in the XII - XV centuries. united state is replaced political fragmentation (specific period), those. the existence of independent principalities. This period conditionally continued until 1485, when under Ivan III, after the Tver principality was annexed to Moscow, the process of gathering Russian lands around Moscow was basically completed.