Kievan Rus in the 11th–12th centuries. Fragmentation of Rus' XII - XIII centuries. Rus' in the fight against Swedish and German aggression
(1103 - 1120). On April 11, in the area of the city of Suten (east of the Dnieper rapids), a battle took place between the army under the command of the Russian princes Svyatopolk and Vladimir Monomakh with the Polovtsian army under the command of Khan Urusoba. At the beginning of the battle, the Russians surrounded the Polovtsian vanguard under the command of the hero Altunopa and completely destroyed it. Then, encouraged by success, they attacked the main Polovtsian forces and inflicted a crushing defeat on them. According to the chronicler, never before have the Russians won such a brilliant victory over the Polovtsians. Urusoba and 19 other khans fell in the battle. This victory marked the beginning of Russian offensive actions against the Polovtsians.
The Battle of Lipitsa 1176 - this year the Rostovites and their boyars, knowing about the imminent death of the sick Grand Duke. Vladimir Mikhail (Mikhalka) Yuryevich, they sent to Novgorod the Great for the prince who was sitting there. Mstislav Rostislavich. He immediately arrived in Rostov and, having gathered an army, moved towards Vladimir, wanting to occupy the city and thereby preventing the election of other contenders for the great table. But the people of Vladimir were already kissing the cross for Mikhalko’s brother, Vsevolod the Big Nest, who moved his troops towards Mstislav. From Suzdal, Vsevolod made an attempt to reconcile with Mstislav. He invited everyone to stay in the city that chose him, but let Suzdal choose whoever he wants as prince. Having received a refusal, Vsevolod united with the Pereyaslavl people at Yuryev-Polsky. Meanwhile, Mstislav was already marching against Vsevolod. The battle took place on June 27 near Yuryev, between the Lipitsa and Gza rivers. Vsevolod completely defeated the army of Mstislav, who fled to Rostov with great damage.Cards:
Notes
Pereyaslavl-Zalessky- an ancient Russian city on the shore of Lake Pleshcheevo (now the regional center of the Yaroslavl region Pereslavl-Zalessky). Founded in 1152 by Yuri Dolgoruky as a fortress covering the Rostov-Suzdal land. In 1175 -1302 - the capital of the Pereyaslavl principality. The Chronicle of Pereyaslavl-Suzdal was compiled here. In 1302 it became part of the Moscow Principality. It was destroyed several times: in 1238 by the Tatars of Batu Khan, in 1293 by Gorodets Prince Andrei Alexandrovich, in 1382 by Khan Tokhtamysh, in 1408 by Emir Edigei. The city is decorated with many temples and monasteries. The first temple was founded by the founder of the city (1152) and received the name Spas-Preobrazhensky. In 1585, the tented church of Metropolitan Peter was built. In the 16th century, the Goritsky and Danilov monasteries were erected. In the vicinity of the city, the earthen ramparts of the town of Kleshchino (12th century) have been preserved.
Dmitrov- Old Russian city on the river Yakhroma. First mentioned. chronicles (c. 1154 in connection with the birth of the Suzdan prince Yuri Dolgoruky's son Vsevolod the Big Nest, who had the church name Dimitri, in whose honor Dmitrov was built. In 1180 it was burned by the Chernig prince Svyatoslav Vsevolodich. Twice ( 1238 and 1293) was burned and devastated by the Tatar-Mongols. In 1272, Dmitrov was owned by the Galician-Dmitrov prince Davyd Konstantinovich, then by his son Boris Davidovich and grandson Dmitry Ivanovich, who was expelled from Dmitrov by Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy. XIII - XIV centuries Dmitrov is the center of the princedom of the same name.From the end of the XIV century until his death (1428), it was owned by the son of Dmitry Donskoy - Pyotr Dmitrievich, after which Dmitrov was annexed to Moscow.
Salnitsa (Russian-Polovtsian wars, XI-XIII centuries). A river in the Don steppes, in the area of which on March 26, 1111, a battle took place between the united army of Russian princes under the command of Prince Vladimir Monomakh (up to 30 thousand people) and the Polovtsian army. The outcome of this bloody and desperate, according to the chronicle, battle was decided by a timely strike by the regiments under the command of princes Vladimir Monomakh and Davyd Svyatoslavich. The Polovtsian cavalry tried to cut off the Russian army's path home, but during the battle they suffered a crushing defeat. According to legend, heavenly angels helped Russian soldiers defeat their enemies. The Battle of Salnitsa was the largest Russian victory over the Cumans. Never since the campaigns of Svyatoslav (10th century) have Russian warriors gone so far into the eastern steppe regions. This victory contributed to the growing popularity of Vladimir Monomakh, the main hero of the campaign, the news of which reached “even Rome.”
The factors that caused the collapse of Kievan Rus are diverse. The system of subsistence farming that had emerged by that time in the economy contributed to the isolation of individual economic units (family, community, inheritance, land, principality) from each other. Each of them was self-sufficient, consuming all the product it produced. There was no significant exchange of goods.
Along with the economic prerequisites for fragmentation, there were socio-political preconditions. Representatives of the feudal elite (boyars), having transformed from the military elite (combatants, princely men) into feudal landowners, strived for political independence. The process of “settling the squad to the ground” was underway.
In the financial field, it was accompanied by the transformation of tribute into feudal rent. Conventionally, these forms can be divided as follows: tribute was collected by the prince on the basis that he was the supreme ruler and defender of the entire territory over which his power extended; rent is collected by the owner of the land from those who live on this land and use it. During this period the system changes government controlled: the decimal is replaced by the palace-patrimonial one. Two control centers are formed: the palace and the fiefdom. All court ranks (Kravchiy, bed-keeper, equerry, etc.) are simultaneously government positions within each individual principality, land, appanage, etc.
Finally, in the process of collapse of the relatively unified Kyiv state important role foreign policy factors played a role.
The invasion of the Tatar-Mongols and the disappearance of the ancient trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks", which united around itself Slavic tribes, completed the collapse. In the 13th century. The Principality of Kiev, seriously damaged by the Mongol invasion, was losing its significance as a Slavic state center. But already in the 12th century. A number of principalities are separated from it. A conglomerate of feudal states was formed:
Rostov-Suzdal;
Smolensk;
Ryazanskoe;
Muromskoe;
Galicia-Volynskoe;
Pereyaslavskoe;
Chernigovskoe;
Polotsk-Minsk;
Turovo-Pinsk;
Tmutarakanskoe;
Kyiv;
Novgorod land.
Smaller feudal formations formed within these principalities, and the process of fragmentation deepened.
In the XII - XIII centuries. great development received an immune system. liberating boyar estates from princely administration and court. A complex system of vassal relations and a corresponding system of feudal land ownership was established. The boyars received the right of free “departure”, that is, the right to change overlords.
Old Russian principalities- This state entities, which existed in Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation.
Originated in the second half of the 10th century. and became in the 11th century. The practice of distributing lands for conditional holding by the rulers of the Old Russian state to their sons and other relatives became the norm in the second quarter of the 12th century. to its actual collapse.
The conditional holders wanted, on the one hand, to turn their conditional holdings into unconditional ones and achieve economic and political independence from the center, and on the other, by subjugating the local nobility, to establish complete control over their possessions.
The prince was considered the supreme owner of all lands in the principality: part of them belonged to him as a personal possession (domain), and he disposed of the rest as the ruler of the territory; they were divided into domain possessions of the church and conditional holdings of the boyars and their vassals (boyar servants).
In the middle of the 11th century. The process of disintegration of large principalities began, first of all affecting the most developed agricultural regions. In the XII - first half of the XIII century. this trend has become universal. Fragmentation was especially intense in the Kiev, Chernigov, Polotsk, Turovo-Pinsk and Murom-Ryazan principalities. To a lesser extent, it affected the Smolensk land, and in the Galicia-Volyn and Rostov-Suzdal (Vladimir) principalities, periods of collapse alternated with periods of temporary unification of destinies under the rule of the “senior” ruler. Only the Novgorod land continued to maintain political integrity throughout its history.
Principality of Smolensk was located in the Upper Dnieper basin. It bordered in the west with Polotsk, in the south with Chernigov, in the east with the Rostov-Suzdal principality, and in the north with the Pskov-Novgorod land. It was inhabited by the Slavic tribe of Krivichi.
B 1125 new Kyiv prince Mstislav the Great allocated the Smolensk land as an inheritance to his son Rostislav, the founder of the local princely dynasty of the Rostislavichs, since then it has become an independent principality.
In the second half of the XII - early XIII century. The Rostislavichs very actively tried to bring the most prestigious and richest regions of Rus' under their control.
In the second half of the 13th century. The lines of Davyd Rostislavich were established on the Smolensk table: it was successively occupied by the sons of his grandson Rostislav Gleb, Mikhail and Feodor. Under them, the collapse of the Smolensk land became inevitable, Vyazemsky and a number of other appanages emerged from it. The Smolensk princes had to recognize vassal dependence on the Great Prince of Vladimir and the Tatar Khan (1274).
In the XIV century. Under Alexander Glebovich, his son Ivan and grandson Svyatoslav, the principality completely lost its former political and economic power; the Smolensk rulers tried unsuccessfully to stop Lithuanian expansion in the west. After the defeat and death of Svyatoslav Ivanovich in 1386 in a battle with the Lithuanians on the Vehra River near Mstislavl, the Smolensk land became dependent on the Lithuanian prince Vitovt, who began to appoint and remove Smolensk princes at his discretion, and in 1395 established his direct rule.
In 1401, the Smolensk people rebelled and, with the help of the Ryazan prince Oleg, expelled the Lithuanians, the Smolensk table was occupied by Svyatoslav's son Yuri. However, in 1404 Vytautas took the city, liquidated the Smolensk Principality and included its lands in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
Galicia - Volyn principality. The southwestern lands of Rus' - Volyn and Galicia, where the Slavic tribes of the Dulebs, Tiverts, Croats, and Buzhans had long settled - became part of Kievan Rus at the end of the 10th century. under Vladimir Svyatoslavich.
The heyday of the Principality of Galicia occurred during the reign of Yaroslav Vladimirovich Osmomysl (1153 - 1187). Yaroslav Osmomysl had unquestioned authority, both in domestic Russian affairs and in international ones, he gave a decisive rebuff to the Hungarians and Poles who pressed him and led a fierce struggle against the boyars. After the death of Yaroslav Osmysl, the Galician land became the arena of a long internecine struggle between the princes and the local boyars.
Its duration and complexity is explained by the relative weakness of the Galician princes, whose land ownership lagged behind that of the boyars in size.
The situation was different in the Volyn land. Volyn until the middle of the 12th century. did not have its own dynasty of princes. From the middle of the 12th century, the Volyn land became the ancestral domain of the descendants of Izyaslav Mstislavich. A powerful princely fiefdom developed here early on.
In 1189, the Volyn prince Roman Mstislavich united the Galician and Volyn lands. With the death of Osmomysl's son, Vladimir Yaroslavich, the Rostislavich dynasty ceased to exist. In 1199, Roman Mstislavich again took possession of the Galician principality and again united the Galician and Volyn lands into a single Galician-Volyn principality.
The economic and cultural rise of the Galicia-Volyn principality during the reign of Daniil Romanovich was interrupted by the invasion of Batu. In 1259, at the request of the Tatars, Daniil tore down the fortifications of the cities of Danilov, Lvov, Kremenets, Lutsk, Vladimir, the only way he managed to save these cities from destruction and ruin. Hoping to create an anti-Horde coalition on a European scale with the help of the pope, Daniil Romanovich agreed to accept the royal crown offered to him by Innocent IV. The coronation took place in 1253 during the campaign against the Lithuanian Yatvingians, in the small town of Dorogichina, located near the western border of the principality. The Roman Curia turned its attention to Galicia and Volhynia, hoping to spread Catholicism to these lands.
In 1264, Daniil Romanovich died in Kholm. After his death, the decline of the Galicia-Volyn principality began, breaking up into four appanages.
In the 1270s, Lev Daniilovich moved the capital of the principality to Lviv, where it was located until 1340. In 1292 - annexed Lublin.
In the XIV century. Galicia was captured by Poland, and Volyn by Lithuania. After the Union of Lublin in 1569, the Galician and Volyn lands became part of a single multinational Polish-Lithuanian state - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Rostov-Suzdal (Vladimir-Suzdal) principality. The state of society in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality is most easily understood by its class composition, dividing the population by class, legal and social status.
The feudal class consisted of princes, boyars, free servants, nobles, children of boyar and church feudal lords. The legal status of the princes was characterized by:
Ownership of hereditary princely estates - domains;
The combination of the supreme power of the prince and his ownership of the largest land estates, villages and cities;
Allocation of the prince's estates, merging with state lands, into palace lands.
The legal status of the boyars was characterized by:
1. vassalage to the prince, military service with him;
2. the presence of land estates, formed as a result of princely grants and the seizure of communal lands;
3. the presence of the right to sever official ties with the prince at his own discretion while maintaining the estates;
4. development of immunities, i.e., exemption of estates from princely taxes and duties;
5. exercise of the right of sovereign rulers in their fiefdoms;
6. the presence of their own vassals - that is, medium and small feudal lords.
The majority of feudal lords in the Northeast were free servants. They were obliged to bear military service The Vladimir princes were given the right to freely move from one prince to another. The boyar children included former descendants of impoverished boyar families. The nobles, who emerged as a social group at the top of society in the 12th century, constituted its lowest layer. The nobles were characterized by the following features of their legal status: they served their prince, received land for this, the property was conditional - that is, during the time the nobleman served.
Church feudal lords occupied a significant place among the feudal lords. Their land ownership grew from princely grants, land contributions from boyars, and the seizure of peasant communal lands. The dependent population united, in addition to smerds, purchases, outcasts, and serfs, also new categories: ladles, mortgages, sufferers. The ladles went into bondage to the feudal lords for a share of the harvest. Mortgages were “pawned” to the feudal lords for food. The term "sufferers" meant slaves who were put on the ground.
The legal status of dependent peasants was characterized by the fact that they had the right to transfer from one feudal lord to another after paying off the debt. Peasants bore service in the form of quitrent in kind, labor rent (corvee labor), and state duties.
By the middle of the 12th century. The Rostov-Suzdal principality seceded from the Kyiv state and became an independent land; at the end of the same century, the capital of the land moved to Vladimir, the city of the Great Prince of Vladimir-Suzdal. The prince's power extended over most of the territory of North-Eastern Rus'.
The features of the reign were a very strong princely power, deprivation of cities of veche independence, and the construction of new cities. The transfer of the grand prince's throne from Kyiv to Vladimir, as well as the move of the Kyiv metropolitan, contributed to the transformation of Vladimir into the central city of the Northeast.
Vladimir-Suzdal Principality began to lay claim not only to independence, but also to a central position in all of Rus'. It strengthened and grew. The principality maintained international relations with the countries of the West and East, fought with neighboring Russian principalities and established close economic and political ties with Novgorod. It reached its greatest prosperity in the 12th and first half of the 13th centuries.
On the territory of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality there were many large cities, but the urban population was divided into two categories: citizens of old cities, with veche privileges, and residents of new cities, entirely subject to the prince.
The feudal-dependent population consisted of peasants living on lands owned by princes and boyars. In part it was completely enslaved, in part it was semi-free.
At the head of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality was the Grand Duke, who had great political influence. The prince had a council consisting of boyars and clergy; to restore order and wars - the princely squad. Feudal congresses were occasionally held. Even less often, a city people's assembly - a veche - was convened to resolve important issues.
In the Vladimir-Suzdal principality there was a palace-patrimonial system of government, with all characteristic features: at the head of the system was a butler; local representatives of princely power were posadniks (governors) and volostels, who carried out the functions of administration and court; instead of a salary for their service, they received “food” - part of what was collected from the population. The time of greatest prosperity of the principality also coincided with the time of its decline: in the 13th century. it was conquered by the Mongols.
Novgorod land. It occupied a huge territory (almost 200 thousand sq. km.) between the Baltic Sea and the lower reaches of the Ob. Its western border was the Gulf of Finland and Lake Peipsi, in the north it included Lakes Ladoga and Onega and reached White Sea, in the east it captured the Pechora basin, and in the south it was adjacent to the Polotsk, Smolensk and Rostov-Suzdal principalities (modern Novgorod, Pskov, Leningrad, Arkhangelsk, most of the Tver and Vologda regions, Karelian and Komi autonomous republics). It was inhabited by Slavic (Ilmen Slavs, Krivichi) and Finno-Ugric tribes (Vod, Izhora, Korela, Chud, Ves, Perm, Pechora, Lapps).
The unfavorable natural conditions of the North hindered the development of agriculture; grain was one of the main imports. At the same time huge forested areas and numerous rivers favored fishing, hunting, fur trading, and the extraction of salt and iron ore became of great importance.
Since ancient times, the Novgorod land has been famous for its various crafts and high quality handicraft products. Its advantageous location at the intersection of routes from the Baltic Sea to the Black and Caspian Sea ensured its role as an intermediary in the trade of the Baltic and Scandinavian countries with the Black Sea and Volga regions. Craftsmen and merchants, united in territorial and professional corporations, represented one of the most economically and politically influential layers of Novgorod society. Its highest stratum – large landowners (boyars) – also actively participated in international trade.
The Novgorod land was divided into administrative districts - Pyatina, directly adjacent to Novgorod (Votskaya, Shelonskaya, Obonezhskaya, Derevskaya, Bezhetskaya), and remote volosts: one stretched from Torzhok and Volok to the Suzdal border and the upper reaches of the Onega, the other included Zavolochye (the interfluve of the Onega and Mezen), and the third - lands east of Mezen (Pechora, Perm and Yugorsk territories).
In 1102, the Novgorod elite (boyars and merchants) refused to accept the reign of the son of the new Grand Duke Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, wishing to retain Mstislav, and the Novgorod land ceased to be part of the grand ducal possessions. In 1117 Mstislav handed over the Novgorod table to his son Vsevolod (1117–1136).
In 1136 the Novgorodians rebelled against Vsevolod. Accusing him of misgovernment and neglect of the interests of Novgorod, they imprisoned him and his family, and after a month and a half they expelled him from the city. From that time on, a de facto republican system was established in Novgorod, although princely power was not abolished.
The supreme governing body was the people's assembly (veche), which included all free citizens. The Veche had broad powers - it invited and removed the prince, elected and controlled the entire administration, decided issues of war and peace, was the highest court, and introduced taxes and duties.
The prince turned from a sovereign ruler into a supreme official. He was the supreme commander-in-chief, could convene a veche and make laws if they did not contradict customs; Embassies were sent and received on his behalf. However, upon election, the prince entered into contractual relations with Novgorod and gave an obligation to rule “in the old way”, to appoint only Novgorodians as governors in the volost and not to impose tribute on them, to wage war and make peace only with the consent of the veche. He did not have the right to remove other officials without a trial. His actions were controlled by the elected mayor, without whose approval he could not make judicial decisions or make appointments.
The local bishop (lord) played a special role in the political life of Novgorod. From the middle of the 12th century. the right to elect him passed from the Kyiv metropolitan to the veche; the metropolitan only sanctioned the election. The Novgorod ruler was considered not only the main clergyman, but also the first dignitary of the state after the prince. He was the largest landowner, had his own boyars and military regiments with a banner and governors, certainly participated in negotiations for peace and the invitation of princes, and was a mediator in internal political conflicts.
Despite the significant narrowing of princely prerogatives, the rich Novgorod land remained attractive to the most powerful princely dynasties. First of all, the elder (Mstislavich) and younger (Suzdal Yuryevich) branches of the Monomashichs competed for the Novgorod table; The Chernigov Olgovichi tried to intervene in this struggle, but they achieved only episodic success (1138–1139, 1139–1141, 1180–1181, 1197, 1225–1226, 1229–1230).
In the 12th century the advantage was on the side of the Mstislavich family and its three main branches (Izyaslavich, Rostislavich and Vladimirovich); they occupied the Novgorod table in 1117–1136, 1142–1155, 1158–1160, 1161–1171, 1179–1180, 1182–1197, 1197–1199, some of them (especially the Rostislavichs) managed to create independent, but short-lived principalities in the Novgorod land (Novotorzhskoe and Velikolukskoe).
However, already in the second half of the 12th century. The position of the Yuryevichs began to strengthen, who enjoyed the support of the influential party of Novgorod boyars and, in addition, periodically put pressure on Novgorod, closing the routes for the supply of grain from North-Eastern Rus'.
In 1147, Yuri Dolgoruky made a campaign in the Novgorod land and captured Torzhok; in 1155, the Novgorodians had to invite his son Mstislav to reign (until 1157). In 1160, Andrei Bogolyubsky imposed his nephew Mstislav Rostislavich on the Novgorodians (until 1161); he forced them in 1171 to return Rurik Rostislavich, whom they had expelled, to the Novgorod table, and in 1172 to transfer him to his son Yuri (until 1175). In 1176, Vsevolod the Big Nest managed to plant his nephew Yaroslav Mstislavich in Novgorod (until 1178).
In the 13th century. The Yuryevichs (the line of Vsevolod the Big Nest) achieved complete dominance. In the 1200s, the Novgorod table was occupied by Vsevolod's sons Svyatoslav (1200–1205, 1208–1210) and Constantine (1205–1208). True, in 1210 the Novgorodians were able to get rid of the control of the Vladimir-Suzdal princes with the help of the Toropets ruler Mstislav Udatny from the Smolensk Rostislavich family; The Rostislavichs held Novgorod until 1221 (with a break in 1215–1216). However, then they were finally forced out of the Novgorod land by the Yuryevichs.
The success of the Yuryevichs was facilitated by the deterioration of the foreign policy situation of Novgorod. In the face of increased threats to his western possessions from Sweden, Denmark and Livonian Order Novgorodians needed an alliance with the strongest Russian principality at that time - Vladimir. Thanks to this alliance, Novgorod managed to protect its borders. Summoned to the Novgorod table in 1236, Alexander Yaroslavich, nephew of the Vladimir prince Yuri Vsevolodich, defeated the Swedes at the mouth of the Neva in 1240, and then stopped the aggression of the German knights.
The temporary strengthening of princely power under Alexander Yaroslavich (Nevsky) gave way at the end of the 13th – beginning of the 14th centuries. its complete degradation, which was facilitated by the weakening external danger and the progressive collapse of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. At the same time, the role of the veche decreased. An oligarchic system was actually established in Novgorod.
The boyars turned into a closed ruling caste, sharing power with the archbishop. The rise of the Moscow Principality under Ivan Kalita (1325–1340) and its emergence as a center for the unification of Russian lands aroused fear among the Novgorod elite and led to their attempts to use the powerful Lithuanian Principality that had arisen on the southwestern borders as a counterweight: in 1333, it was first invited to the Novgorod table Lithuanian prince Narimunt Gedeminovich (although he only lasted a year), in the 1440s the Grand Duke of Lithuania was granted the right to collect irregular tribute from some Novgorod volosts.
Although the XIV century. became a period of rapid economic prosperity for Novgorod, largely due to its close ties with the Hanseatic Trade Union; the Novgorod elite did not take advantage of it to strengthen their military-political potential and preferred to pay off the aggressive Moscow and Lithuanian princes. At the end of the 14th century. Moscow launched an offensive against Novgorod. Vasily I captured the Novgorod cities of Bezhetsky Verkh, Volok Lamsky and Vologda with the adjacent regions; in 1401 and 1417 he tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to take possession of Zavolochye.
Principality of Chernigov became isolated in 1097 under the rule of the descendants of Svyatoslav Yaroslavich, their rights to the principality were recognized by other Russian princes at the Lyubech Congress. After the youngest of the Svyatoslavichs was deprived of his reign in 1127 and, under the rule of his descendants, the lands on the lower Oka separated from Chernigov, and in 1167 the line of descendants of David Svyatoslavich was cut off, the Olegovich dynasty established itself on all the princely tables of the Chernigov land: the northern and upper Oka lands the descendants of Vsevolod Olegovich owned (they were also permanent claimants to Kyiv), the Novgorod-Seversky principality was owned by the descendants of Svyatoslav Olegovich. Representatives of both branches reigned in Chernigov (until 1226).
In addition to Kyiv and Vyshgorod, at the end of the 12th and beginning of the 13th centuries, the Olegovichs managed to briefly extend their influence to Galich and Volyn, Pereyaslavl and Novgorod.
In 1223, the Chernigov princes took part in the first campaign against the Mongols. In the spring of 1238, during the Mongol invasion, the northeastern lands of the principality were devastated, and in the autumn of 1239, the southwestern ones. After the death of the Chernigov prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich in the Horde in 1246, the lands of the principality were divided between his sons, and the eldest of them, Roman, became a prince in Bryansk. In 1263, he liberated Chernigov from the Lithuanians and annexed it to his possessions. Starting from Roman, the Bryansk princes were usually titled as the Grand Dukes of Chernigov.
At the beginning of the 14th century, the Smolensk princes established themselves in Bryansk, presumably through a dynastic marriage. The struggle for Bryansk lasted for several decades, until in 1357 Grand Duke Lithuanian Olgerd Gediminovich did not put one of the contenders, Roman Mikhailovich, to reign. In the second half of the 14th century, in parallel with him, Olgerd’s sons Dmitry and Dmitry-Koribut also reigned in the Bryansk lands. After the Ostrov agreement, the autonomy of the Bryansk principality was eliminated, Roman Mikhailovich became the Lithuanian governor in Smolensk, where he was killed in 1401.
The Grand Duchy of Moscow was formed around the middle of the 14th century. as a result of the growth of the Moscow principality, which emerged in the 1st half. XIII century as the inheritance of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality.
Since the 1320s, Moscow princes bore the title of Grand Dukes of Vladimir. In 1247, the Principality of Moscow went to Prince Mikhail Yaroslavich Khorobrit.
From 1267, Daniil, the son of Prince Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, reigned in Moscow. At the beginning of the 14th century. The Moscow principality expanded significantly due to the annexation of Kolomna (1301), Pereslavl-Zalessky (1302), and Mozhaisk (1303). Relying on growing material forces, the Moscow princes waged a stubborn struggle for political supremacy in the Russian lands.
Prince Yuri Danilovich, relying on the support of Novgorod the Great, as well as using the Golden Horde khans, became the Grand Duke of Vladimir in 1318, but from 1325 the great reign was transferred to the Tver prince. Ivan Danilovich Kalita gained great confidence from the khan and in 1328 became the Grand Duke of Vladimir.
The skillful policy of Ivan Kalita provided the Moscow principality with a long respite from Mongol invasions, which contributed to the rise of its economy and culture. Kalita's heir, Grand Duke Semyon Ivanovich Proud (1340 - 53), called himself “Grand Duke of All Rus'.”
In the 1360s, after the struggle with the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod prince, the great reign was established with Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy (1359 - 89). Moscow became the center of gathering forces against the Mongol-Tatar conquerors, Moscow troops repulsed the attacks of the Mongol-Tatars in the Nizhny Novgorod and Ryazan principalities, and in 1380 Dmitry Ivanovich led the all-Russian forces that moved towards the troops of Temnik Mamai.
The victory in the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380 consolidated the leading position of the Grand Duchy of Moscow in the Russian lands. Dmitry Ivanovich for the first time transferred the Great Reign to his son Vasily Dmitrievich (1389-1425) as his “fatherland”, without the sanction of the Golden Horde Khan.
The territory of the Grand Duchy of Moscow at the end of the 14th century consistently expanded, in 1392 Nizhny Novgorod was annexed, and the influence of the Grand Duchy of Moscow in the possessions of the Novgorod feudal republic increased significantly.
Grand Duchy of Lithuania. One of the consequences of the state decentralization of the Kievan state, intensified by Batu’s pogrom, was the disunion of ancient Russian territories, when Southern and Western Rus' fell under the rule of Lithuania. The once united Russian people were divided into three branches - Great Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. The severance of cultural and political ties between parts of a previously unified whole led to the conservation of some dialectal and ritual features, although the awareness of spiritual and ethnic community did not leave the descendants of the ancient Russians in conditions of mutual isolation.
The annexation of Western Russian lands to Lithuania began in the second third of the 13th century under the Grand Duke of Lithuania Mindovgas. During the reign of Gediminas and his son Olgerd, Lithuania's territorial acquisitions continued. It included Polotsk, Vitebsk, Minsk, Drutsk principalities, Turov-Pinsk Polesie, Beresteyshchyna, Volyn, Podolia, Chernigov land and part of the Smolensk region. In 1362, Kyiv was brought under the rule of the Lithuanian prince. Indigenous Lithuania was surrounded by a belt of Russian lands subject to it, which amounted to 9/10 of the entire territory of the resulting state, stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
Russian cultural influence in the new state enjoyed overwhelming predominance, subjugating the politically dominant nation - the Lithuanians. Gediminas and his sons were married to Russian princesses, and the Russian language dominated at court and in official business. Lithuanian writing did not exist at all at that time.
Until the end of the 14th century, Russian regions, joining Lithuania, did not experience national-religious oppression. The structure and character of local life was preserved, the descendants of Rurik remained in their economic positions, losing little in political terms, since the political system of Lithuania was federal in nature. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was more of a conglomerate of lands and possessions than a single political whole. For some time now, Russian cultural influence in the Lithuanian-Russian state has been increasing. The Gediminites became Russified, many of them converted to Orthodoxy. There were trends leading towards the formation of a new, unique version of Russian statehood in the southern and western lands of the former Kyiv state.
These trends were broken when Jogaila became the Grand Duke of Lithuania. His pro-Western orientation was the result of Jagiello's personal characteristics: lust for power, vanity, cruelty. In 1386, he converted to Catholicism and formalized the union of Lithuania with Poland. The ambitions of the Polish gentry, associated with the desire to penetrate the vast Western Russian lands, were satisfied.
Her rights and privileges quickly outweighed the rights of the Russian aristocracy. Catholic expansion into the western lands of Rus' began. Large regional principalities in Polotsk, Vitebsk, Kyiv and other places were abolished, self-government was replaced by governorship. The Lithuanian aristocracy changed its cultural orientation from Russian to Polish.
Polonization and Catholicization captured part of the Western Russian nobility, while the majority of Russians remained faithful to Orthodoxy and ancient traditions. National and religious enmity began, which did not exist until the 80s of the 14th century. This enmity developed into a fierce political struggle, during which the nationally-minded part of the Western Russian population inevitably grew stronger in favor of a unified Russian state. The process of forming the state core in the northeast of Rus' influenced and strengthened these sentiments.
So, each principality in southwestern Rus' had its own prince. The prince was considered the supreme owner of all lands in the principality: part of them belonged to him as a personal possession (domain), and he disposed of the rest as the ruler of the territory; they were divided into domain possessions of the church and conditional holdings of the boyars and their vassals.
In fact, culture, which reflected the progressive development of feudalism along an ascending line, experienced a new rise and continued to develop at the pace and level of cultural development in other European countries. Evidence of the further rise of culture in Rus' was the formation of local cultural centers, local literary and art schools. The development of culture went in depth, identifying and further developing local ancient tribal traditions, while simultaneously accumulating them in the process of communication between lands and principalities into national cultural traditions. In the XII - early XIII centuries. Three most powerful cultural centers emerged: Veliky Novgorod with Pskov, Vladimir-on-Klyazma and Galich, where their own literary and artistic forces appeared. The largest cultural centers of Kyiv and Chernigov retained their importance. A feature of the culture of Novgorod and Pskov was the presence in it of strong democratic traditions, due to the veche basis of their state system and the high political activity of the urban plebs. By its nature, the culture of these cities acquired typical features of the culture of medieval feudal republics.
In the material culture of Rus' in the XII - early XIII centuries. greatest successes were achieved in urban crafts, where new samples of products were created, technological techniques were improved, processes of crushing and specialization of the craft were outlined. The surviving craft products testify to the high skill and artistic taste of the artisans, their desire to give even common household items of household equipment convenient and beautiful forms, to decorate them with “patterns.” Jewelry was distinguished by its meticulous finishing and artistry, examples of which can be vessels made of chased silver by the Novgorod masters Kostka and Bratila, military armor and weapons created by orders of the nobility, church utensils, etc. An example of the artistic foundry skills of Russian artisans is a sculpture-self-portrait of a Novgorod master Abrahamia.
Education
In the cultural development of every nation, in the creation and consolidation of spiritual values and in the introduction to the riches of world culture, writing and education are of the utmost importance. The great advantage of Rus' in the spread of literacy and education was the use of its native language as the state and literary language. IN Catholic countries In Europe, the official and literary language was the Latin language, which was alien to their peoples and had become dead (and in many non-Arab countries of the East, the Arabic language), knowledge of which was an indispensable condition for literacy, which made it difficult to spread. The widespread spread of literacy in the most diverse social strata of the population of Ancient Rus', especially among the trade and craft people of the city, is evidenced by numerous birch bark letters discovered for the first time in 1951 in Novgorod, and then in other cities (Pskov, Smolensk, Vitebsk, Staraya Russ). The found birch bark letters refuted the previously prevailing idea of the complete illiteracy of the working masses in the 12th - 13th centuries, which was contrasted with individual literati and scribes from among the clergy and secular feudal lords. Birch bark letters revealed previously unknown to researchers privacy townspeople of that time, with their living spoken language and even with the literacy system itself. Widespread literacy among the people served solid foundation the development of original Russian literature and the active assimilation of the literary heritage of other countries, and above all Byzantium and the southern Slavs, and through them elements of ancient culture.
Chronicle
The leading genre of literature remained chronicle writing, which was given great importance political significance and to which the best literary forces were attracted. In the XII - XIII centuries. chronicling was carried out in almost all major feudal centers at princely and episcopal courts or monasteries. Regional chronicle writing, by its nature, excluded the possibility of creating a chronicle corpus that would differ in the all-Russian scope and significance of the Tale of Bygone Years, but nevertheless it was a step forward in the development of Russian historical thought. Local chronicles had a pronounced political orientation, covering events from the standpoint of religious and church providentialism, regional “autonomism” and political interests his principality. Chronicle records became more detailed and detailed a large number facts, documentary material from the princely archives. Separate literary works of secular and ecclesiastical content were inserted into chronicle texts. The distinctive features of the chronicle were subjectivity in the choice of material, its interpretation in the light of feudal and church ideology, and narrow personalism, which was reduced to a description of inter-princely relations and the life of the princely court. Only in the texts of the Novgorod chronicles were the life of the Novgorod black urban people, their participation in the internal political struggle, and anti-feudal uprisings reflected. Despite the regional nature of the chronicles of the 12th - 13th centuries, it continued to retain all-Russian significance. The compilers of the chronicles supported their readers' idea of the territorial-ethnic unity and community of political interests of Rus' divided into principalities, and inserted into the chronicles information related to political life in other lands.
Literature
A relatively small number of literary monuments of the 12th - 13th centuries have survived to this day. does not give a complete idea of the number and significance of the original works created during that period.
Translated literature was represented mainly by church canonical, “hagiography” and moralizing literature. Special attention translators were attracted to works containing information on various branches of knowledge. Ideas about the structure of the Universe, nature and society in the light of Christian theological mysticism were drawn from Byzantine and South Slavic literature, which also contained grains of scientific information on geography, botany, zoology, medicine, world history, elements of scientific achievements of antiquity and philosophy (“Six Days”, “physiologist”, “Christian Topography” by Cosmas Indikoplov, Byzantine chronicles, etc.). Interest in the geography and history of other countries sparked the appearance of original works by Russian travelers - the so-called “Walkings”.
Religious providentialism in explaining phenomena occurring in nature and society, and the church’s intolerance to rationalistic thinking hampered the development of scientific knowledge. At the same time, the facts of careful recording in chronicles of unusual, striking natural phenomena (eclipses, comets, storms and thunderstorms, earthquakes and floods, outbreaks of epidemics, locust invasions, etc.), recording of calendar phenomena of the seasons in folklore contained elements of scientific knowledge, testified" to the accumulation of factual material, the necessary basis for the future development of sciences, to spontaneous rationalistic and empirical observation of natural phenomena. Elements of mathematics, mechanics, astronomy, chemistry, agronomy and geography were used in agriculture, craft technology, architecture, painting, etc. etc. In terms of the nature and level of knowledge and their application in practical activities, Rus' was on a par with other countries medieval Europe.
In church literature further development received solemn sermons, teachings and “accusatory” writings against pagan beliefs and customs held in folk life, “walkings” of Russian travelers, “hagiographic” literature. At the beginning of the 13th century. one of the most interesting monuments of “hagiography” literature began to take shape - the “Paterikon” of the Kyiv Pechersk Monastery - a collection of stories about the life of monks and the main monastic shrine of the cathedral church of the Assumption, the fantastic stories of the “Paterikon” about “miracles” and “feats” performed by the monks, intertwined with bright pictures of monastic life and individual real events that took place outside the walls of the monastery.
Secular literature was varied in genre: biographical, chronicle, stories about princes (biographies of Izyaslav Mstislavich of Kiev, Daniil Romanovich Galitsky, Rurik Rostislavich of Smolensky, stories about the murder of Igor Olgovich in Kiev and the boyar conspiracy against Andrei Bogrlyubsky), stories about the military campaigns of princes (about Igor Svyatoslavich’s campaign against the Polovtsians in 1185, about the battle with the Tatars on the Kalka River), the story of the destruction of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204, etc. Many of these stories, included in chronicle texts, were later at the hands of church rulers, have largely lost their secular character.
One of the most interesting literary works (known from two editions of the 12th and 13th centuries) is “The Lay” or “The Prayer of Daniel the Imprisoner” - a vivid journalistic work written by a representative of the small feudal service people in the form of a letter of appeal to the prince. Daniel glorifies the strong princely power, to serve which, in his words, is “an honor and mercy” for everyone, contrasting it with the humiliating service of the arrogant boyar nobility, who committed arbitrariness against ordinary people. Daniel widely uses the wealth of folklore, reveals his good knowledge of the literature of that time, equips his speech with book aphorisms, sayings, folk sayings, proverbs, and jokes. With humor, which often turns into satire and sarcasm, Daniil describes various aspects of the life and everyday life of his contemporaries, who belonged to different segments of the population.
The literature of that time was distinguished by ideological purposefulness and social significance, high artistic merit and living connections with oral folk art. As the rust of feudal strife increasingly struck and weakened Rus', the literature more and more persistently raised the question of the need to end the strife and restore the political and military unity of the princes in the name of common interests for all Russian lands.
A unique monument ancient Russian literature, which rightfully took its place among greatest works world literature, is “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, the plot of which is based on a description of the unsuccessful campaign in 1185 of the Seversky prince Igor Svyatoslavich against the Polovtsians. The author of the Lay remains unknown. The most reasoned hypothesis was put forward by B. A. Rybakov, linking the writing of the “Lay” with the Kyiv thousand-man Peter Borislavich, who compiled one of the most interesting chronicle princely biographies (Izyaslav Mstislavich of Kyiv). But whoever the author of “The Lay” was, he created one of those works of genius in which perfection was achieved in the unity of high artistic form and expressiveness with deep ideological content and social significance of the work.
The description of Igor’s unsuccessful “special” campaign was for the author of the Lay the basis for a passionate appeal to the princes to unite their forces to protect Rus' from its most dangerous enemies - the steppe nomads. The established order of feudal fragmentation was unshakable for the author of the Lay, but he managed to rise above the parochial limitedness of the princes, for most of whom the “fatherland” ended beyond the borders of their reigns. For the author of the Lay, all the principalities together constituted a single whole - the “Russian Land” - the homeland of all Russian people, the responsibility for the protection of which should be equally borne by all princes, no matter what clan they belong to. The defeat of Igor from the Polovtsians is a defeat not only of the Seversky prince, but also of all other princes, the defeat of all of Rus'. With all the strength of his mighty poetic talent, he paints a broad and vivid picture of the heroic past of the Russian land, its wealth, the strength and power of the Russian princes, highly those who raised the international prestige of Rus' - the Vladimir prince Vsevolod the Big Nest, who could “splash the Volga with oars” and “scoop up the Don with helmets”, the Galician prince Yaroslav Osmomysl, who supported “the Ugric mountains with his iron regiments” and “closed the gates of the Danube.” But this power of Rus' was senselessly wasted in the internecine wars of the princes, who ravaged and weakened the country, who “laid sheaves from heads, threshed with damask flails, laid life on the threshing floor, winnowed the soul from the body.” The enemies of Rus' took advantage of the lack of unity and strife between the princes, coming “from all countries” and devastating its lands, in which the voices of plowmen were heard less and less often, but crows cawed more and more often over the corpses! fallen soldiers and villagers. Assessing the significance of the “Lay,” K. Marx wrote: “The essence of the poem is the call of the Russian princes to unity just before the invasion of the Mongol hordes proper” 1.
Painting and architecture
In the XII - early XIII centuries. local painting and architectural schools are emerging, of which the most significant role in ancient Russian art Novgorod-Pskov and Vladimir-Suzdal art schools played. Old Russian painting (mosaics, frescoes, icons) more than
any other type of art was associated with religion and the church, being one of the most important integral part into the interior of religious temple buildings. Medieval painting, with its religious mystical and allegorical themes, was characterized by the transmission of real concepts and living reality through the language of symbols, conventional painting techniques canonized by the church.
The works of Vladimir-Suzdal masters, which preserved the Byzantine sophistication of writing, were distinguished by their lyricism and cheerfulness; they softened the harsh asceticism of Byzantine iconographic images by giving them greater humanity and secularity. The paintings of Novgorod and Pskov masters reflected the democratic traditions of the culture of their cities. Their painting style was distinguished by laconicism and simplicity, which gave their works a more realistic and emotional character.
With the onset of feudal fragmentation, church monumental construction, which was given great socio-political significance, is carried out even more intensively, but loses its former grandiose scale and becomes cheaper. Multi-domed churches, complex in design and architectural forms, are replaced by smaller, single-domed cubic cross-domed churches with a mosquito-covered roof. The expensive and complex mosaics in their interiors were replaced by fresco painting. However, the reduction in the scale of the structures did not lead to the loss of their architectural expressiveness. Combining the basic techniques of stone religious construction adopted from Byzantium (which made it possible to erect structurally complex buildings with domes, cylindrical, domed and cross vaults) with elements of Western European Romanesque architecture (arcature columnar belts, perspective portals, buttresses, decorative plastic, etc.) and based Based on the rich traditions of folk wooden architecture, Russian masters created structures of great architectural expressiveness. Their creations were distinguished by the proportionality of strict forms, the harmony of volumes and lines, and the inextricable unity of architecture with the surrounding landscape. The artistic tastes of the people, which were formed under the influence of living conditions, found expression in the variety of architectural forms. Squat, single-domed, with powerful drums, like 6s roughly hewn from one stone monolith, Pskov churches resembled fortifications, which they often became during the repulsion of invasions of German crusader knights. Small, but powerful in masonry, single-domed Novgorod churches, which were also used for public needs, were distinguished by their stern simplicity, consistent with the character and morals of the Novgorodians and their harsh northern nature. In Chernigov, a unique tower-shaped temple was created, crowned with a high dome, in which the traditions of wooden architecture were most manifested (the Church of Paraskeva-Pyatnitsa).
Princely and church temple construction in the Vladimir-Suzdal land reached a mighty scale, distinguished by amazing insight in volumes and lines, giving the buildings lightness and grace. Their ceremonial and solemn appearance was further emphasized by the rich decoration of the facades with decorative plastic - carvings of figures of saints, plant and “animal” ornaments on white stone. In one of the last cathedrals built on the eve of the Mongol-Tatar invasion
(St. George's Cathedral in Yuryev-Polsky), all the external planes of the walls of the temple were covered with decorative carved plastic, like a carpet pattern.
The most perfect monuments of Vladimir-Suzdal architecture, which are world masterpieces, were created during the reign of Andrei Bogolyubsky and Vsevolod the Big Nest, who sought to emphasize the primacy of their principality in Rus' with the splendor of their buildings: the majestic and strict Uspensky (built in 1158 - 1161 and expanded in 1185), the solemn “patterned” Dmitrievsky (1194 - 1197) cathedrals in Vladimir and one of the most beautiful creations of ancient Russian architects - the small intimate and lyrical Church of the Intercession on the Nerl (1165).
Stone construction was predominantly cultic, but civil buildings were also built - princely palaces in Bogolyubovo, Galich and other cities, the fortress “Golden Gate” in Vladimir, etc.
In terms of their level, the fine arts and architecture of pre-Mongol Rus', like its entire culture, stood at the level of the contemporary culture of Western Europe, actively interacted with the latter, big influence for the development of the culture of other peoples of our country. The progressive development of the culture of the Old Russian people was interrupted by the Mongol-Tatar invasion, which ultimately contributed to the political separation of the Russian lands into three parts, marking the beginning of the history of three fraternal peoples: Great Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian. The high level of culture of the Old Russian people became the basis for their cultural and historical development, which predetermined the proximity of their cultures and close interaction between them.
Kievan Rus 9-12 centuries.
Plan:
Origin of Rus'
The first Russian princes
Baptism of Rus'
First civil strife
The heyday of Rus' under Yaroslav the Wise (1020-1054)
Origin of Rus'. The question of the origin of the state among the Eastern Slavs has always been a political question. The basis for the discussion about the origins of the state was laid in the mid-18th century in the works of German historians Bayer, Miller and Schlözer. These scientists were invited by Empress Elizabeth to work in Russian archives. By that time, the archives had not been sorted out, and German scientists actually opened them for public use.
The Norman theory was based on the story of the chronicler Nestor, who wrote that in 862, in order to stop the strife among the Slavs, the Varangian prince Rurik and his brothers Sineus and Truvor were invited.
By the time of the creation of “The Tale of Bygone Years,” more than 300 years had passed from Rurik’s calling, and, as a consequence of this, there were gross errors in Nestor’s story.
The Norman theory was accepted by the entire scientific community. Later, based on this theory, conclusions were drawn about the insufficient level of development of the Slavs, who were allegedly unable to create a state on their own. Lomonosov immediately came out with a refutation of the Norman theory, proving that Rurik never existed in Rus', and the Slavs had statehood much earlier than the Varangians in Rus'.
The modern approach to the creation of our state considers Rurik a historical character, and the very fact of calling a foreign ruler is quite common. In the same way, Great Britain was created after the campaigns of William the Conqueror.
Foreigners acted as a third saga above local disputes, but the influence of the Varangians needs to be reconsidered.
According to archaeological data, there were very few Varangians in Rus'; their number hardly exceeded several hundred people. Their activities were specific: they were naval mercenaries, and almost all nautical terms go back to Scandinavian words (boat, sail, anchor, etc.).
They had a slight influence on the life and character of the Slavs. Only three names, and then very distorted ones, came into use in Russia - Oleg, Olga (Helga) and Igor (Ingvar). As for “The Tale of Bygone Years,” research has shown the fallacy of many of Nestor’s statements: the story about Rurik and his brothers, after a detailed disassembly, looks a little different: the Scandinavian words “sine” and “hus” mean “squad” and “house,” and the word “ truve" - "treasury". Thus, Rurik did not have any brothers, but he came to Rus' with his squad, house and treasury, that is, forever.
The only thing that reminds us of the calling of the Varangians now is the outdated name of our state: Rus'. This was probably the name of the Rurik clan. But here we are not original: the modern name of France goes back to the name of the Franco-German tribe. In the 5th and 6th centuries in Germany, tribes pushed the Slavs to the east and forced most of them to leave for eastern Europe. Here, at the turn of the 7th century, the single Slavic people were divided into three branches: one part of the Slavs moved along the Baltic coast to Lake Ilmen, where a “new city” was formed - Novgorod; the second part settled in the middle Dnieper region, where the legendary Prince Kiy with his brothers Shchek, Khoriv and sister Lybid founded the city of Kyiv; a third of the Slavs went to the Balkans. Then, in the 8th-9th centuries, settlement began between the Oka and Volga rivers, as well as the extreme southern point of Kievan Rus - the Tmutarakan principality.
The first princes. The reign of Rurik. According to the chronicle, in 862 Rurik arrived in Novgorod at the invitation of the Novgorodians, and most likely headed the naval service. Nothing more is known about Rurik, but he managed to retain the title of prince, becoming the founder of the grand ducal and then royal dynasty, which would rule our country from 862 to 1598, and would end with the last Rurikovich - the son of Ivan the Terrible, Fyodor Ioannovich.
Dying, in 880, Rurik leaves a son and heir - the young prince Igor, due to whose youth power passes to Oleg, nicknamed “The Prophetic”.
Oleg's board(880 – 920). In 882, Prince Oleg assembled a squad and led it south to Kyiv, where two Varangians ruled - Askold and Dir. Oleg ordered them killed and proclaimed Igor a Russian prince. Thus, having united southern and northern Rus', Oleg creates the first state of the Eastern Slavs - Kievan Rus, which formally will exist from 882 to 1097, until the descendants of Yaroslav the Wise at the congress in Lyubich decide: “Everyone holds his own fatherland.” This will become a legal formalization of feudal fragmentation.
Prince Oleg the Prophet pursued a policy typical of a Varangian prince, i.e. was engaged in organizing and conducting military campaigns against close neighbors.
The largest and richest state was the Byzantine Empire, which became the target of the military campaigns of the Russian princes. Twice in 907 and 911 Oleg went to Byzantium. Having failed to take the heavily fortified Constantinople, the prince nevertheless twice received a rich ransom. He died in 920 during a campaign against the Khazars.
Igor's reign. After Oleg's death, Igor becomes Grand Duke. Very little is known about him, but what is certain is that he was not interested in domestic politics. He did the same thing as his predecessors - war. Most likely, Igor did not have the talents of a conqueror: two campaigns he organized in 941 and 914 ended in complete failure, especially the last one, in which he lost the fleet and most of his squad. Faced with the need to pay the mercenaries, Igor discovered a lack of money and went to personally collect tribute. In the Drevlyan land he was killed, according to legend, after demanding too much tribute.
Igor's widow, Olga, cruelly took revenge on the murderers of her husband and, due to the early age of her son and heir Svyatoslav, began to rule the state herself. She carries out the first reform in the history of Rus': she introduces a churchyard-lesson system, where lessons are a pre-agreed amount of tribute, which can neither be increased nor decreased, and the churchyard is a place for collecting tribute at a clearly agreed time (November - March). The introduction of this system significantly strengthened the power of Kyiv over the surrounding peoples, and Olga herself was the first of the Russian princes to convert to Christianity (955, the city of Constantinople). Her godfather was the Byzantine Emperor Constantine IX Porphyrogenitus. Olga was canonized and glorified as Equal-to-the-Apostles for her role in the spread of Christianity.
The reign of Svyatoslav. After 962, Olga retired from active affairs, and all power passed to her son Svyatoslav Igorevich. Svyatoslav also does not want to deal with internal affairs, preferring war.
In the period from 962 to 972, Svyatoslav made very daring military campaigns. His first campaign was directed against the Khazar Kaganate. Svyatoslav recaptured the Belaya Vezha fortress from the Khazars, turning it into his stronghold. This was important because... The Khazars attacked Rus' almost every year, and it was difficult to restrain them.
In 966, Svyatoslav left Kyiv towards the land of the Vyatichi, who, having conquered them, forced them to pay tribute. Then the prince defeated the Volga Bulgars, and, going down the Volga, unexpectedly attacked the Khazar Kaganate. In the battle near the city of Itil, the great kagan died, the Khazar Kaganate ceased to exist.
But Svyatoslav’s most important goal was the Balkans. He dreamed of moving his capital there, uniting all the Slavs under his own rule. In this endeavor, he was opposed by the Byzantine Empire, and it was the Byzantine campaign that became the last for Svyatoslav.
In the spring of 969, Svyatoslav crosses the Danube. The Bulgarian Tsar promises support, but betrays him, leaving the Russian squad alone with the soldiers of the Byzantine Emperor John Tzimiskes. In open battle, the small Russian squad was defeated, but managed to hide behind the walls of the city of Dorostol. Svyatoslav sat outside its walls for a whole year, until in the fall of 971 he concluded a truce, received a ransom and took his squad to Rus'. In the area of the Dnepropetrovsk rapids, in March 972, his small detachment fell into a Pecheneg ambush, in which Svyatoslav died.
First feud(972 – 980). Going on a Balkan campaign, Svyatoslav scattered his children among the principalities: the eldest son Yaropolk remained in Kyiv, the middle one, Oleg, went to the Drevlyans, and the youngest Vladimir went to Novgorod.
After the death of Svyatoslav younger brothers refused to obey Yaropolk, announcing their claims to the throne.
Oleg attacked first, but died in battle. Junior Vladimir managed to knock Yaropolk out of Kyiv, he fled to his father-in-law, the Czech king, where he soon died under unclear circumstances. So Vladimir I the Red Sun became the sole ruler of Rus'.
He adopts Yaropolk's newly born son, Svyatopolk. The reign of Vladimir I begins (980 – 1015). This one will go down in Russian history as an Equal-to-the-Apostles saint and with the popular nickname “Red Sun”.
The most famous event during the reign of this prince was his baptism; moreover, Vladimir baptized Rus'. The traditional date of the Baptism of Rus' is considered to be 988. Vladimir was baptized in Chersonesus, which at that moment was a Byzantine colony. After baptism, Vladimir I married the sister of the Byzantine emperor Anna.
Second civil strife. Officially, Prince Vladimir I was married three times (the chronicle indicates that he had 600 wives), officially he had nine children, whom he arranged to reign in different cities. Vladimir himself planned to transfer the principality to his beloved son Boris, who at the time of his father’s death was on a military campaign and commanded his squad. Thus, Svyatopolk ended up in Kyiv and declared himself Grand Duke.
They didn’t like Svyatopolk, but they were afraid of him. He ordered his younger brothers Boris and Gleb to come to Kyiv. The squad tried to dissuade them, but they still obeyed and came. Boris was killed first, followed by Gleb.
The murder of two young and innocent princes outraged Russian society, they were canonized, and Svyatopolk was nicknamed “The Accursed”. Soon Yaroslav, the youngest of the brothers, will expel Svyatopolk from Kyiv; he flees to Poland, where he will die under unclear circumstances.
The reign of Yaroslav the Wise. 1020 – 1054 became the heyday of Kievan Rus. Under Yaroslav the Wise, the first collection of laws “Russian Truth” appeared.
Having defeated the Pechenegs, Yaroslav built the main Russian Cathedral of St. Sophia on this site.
He died in 1054 at the zenith of his fame and European fame. The restoration of his sarcophagus made it possible to discover the official title of the ruler of Kievan Rus - Tsar.
Kievan Rus in the 11th–12th centuries
The adoption of Christianity with its diverse consequences represents the boundary in the history of Kievan Rus that separates the most ancient era from the so-called appanage era. Studying the pre-Christian period, we come to the conclusion that there was no autocracy at that time; Rus' was split into principalities several times (after Svyatoslav, Vladimir the Saint). During the life of the prince-father, the sons sat as governors in the main cities and paid tribute to their father. After the death of the father, the land was divided into parts according to the number of sons, and only a political accident led to the fact that autocracy was eventually restored. Brothers, quarreling over inheritance, usually exterminated each other. After such a struggle between the sons of St. Vladimir, Rus' was divided into two parts: on the left side of the Dnieper Mstislav ruled, on the right - Yaroslav. After the death of Mstislav, Yaroslav owned all the land; dying (1054) he divided the land in this way: the eldest son, Izyaslav, was given Kyiv and Novgorod, that is, the two ends of the trade route (obviously, Izyaslav was the richest, most powerful prince), the second son, Svyatoslav, was given Chernigov, the third, Vsevolod, - Pereyaslavl (not far from Kiev), fourth, Vyacheslav, - Smolensk, fifth, Igor, - Vladimir-Volynsky; but Yaroslav also had a grandson from his eldest son, Vladimir Yaroslavich, the valiant Rostislav, about whom many legends arose - Yaroslav gave him nothing.
Then Rostislav rushed to Tmutarakan himself, captured it and left it behind him. Yaroslav ordered to honor Izyaslav as an elder, but Izyaslav was unable to maintain his authority and antagonized the Kievites, who expelled him. Returning then to Kyiv, Izyaslav was expelled from there for the second time by his brothers; he fled to the west; Svyatoslav took the Kiev table and reigned there until his death. Then Kyiv again goes to Izyaslav, and Chernigov at this time goes to Vsevolod. After the death of Izyaslav, Vsevolod took the throne of Kiev, and Vsevolod gave the second city - Chernigov - to his eldest son Vladimir. He completely crossed out the children of Svyatoslav from the common heritage, as outcasts who had no right to the grand ducal throne, for their father could not have become the grand duke if he had respected seniority and had not driven his elder brother, who outlived him, from the throne. In 1093, Vsevolod died, leaving behind his son Vladimir, nicknamed Monomakh after his maternal grandfather. Vladimir would not have encountered any obstacles from the people of Kiev if he had wanted to take his father’s grand-ducal throne, but, not wanting new strife and observing clan seniority, Monomakh provides the Kiev table to the eldest of his cousins, Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, who, as the eldest in the family, had Grand Duke's table all rights. This prince, however, did not know how to maintain peace in the Russian land and therefore did not enjoy popular favor; During his reign, the Svyatoslavichs, recognized as outcasts by their uncles Izyaslav and Vsevolod, began to seek political full rights and laid claim to the Chernigov table occupied by Monomakh. After much unrest, the Lyubech Congress of 1097 restored the rights of the Svyatoslavichs to Chernigov, and at the same time the congress divided all Russian volosts between the princes on the basis of justice. But justice was soon trampled upon by its main guardian, Svyatopolk, who, together with David Igorevich, committed well-known violence against Vasilko. This violence led to new strife, to end which a new congress was appointed. In 1100, in the city of Uvetichi, or Vitichev, Svyatopolk, Monomakh and Svyatoslavich entered into an alliance with each other to restore peace in Rus'.
When the Vitichevsky Congress established order in internal affairs, then it became possible to think about external affairs - about the fight against the Polovtsians. Vladimir and Svyatopolk gathered on the shores of Lake Dolobsky (1103) and decided to move with their joint forces against the Polovtsians. These congresses - Lyubechsky, Vitichevsky and Dolobsky - show us that in important controversial issues the princes - the grandchildren of Yaroslav - resort to congresses as a higher institution that has the right of peremptory decision. The events that caused them testify that Rus' during the reign of Svyatopolk did not enjoy peace and that the violator of this peace was often the Grand Duke himself. It is clear why, after the death of Svyatopolk (1113), even the chronicler, always ready to praise the late prince, remains completely silent about him.
After the death of the unloved prince, the people of Kiev sent to call Vladimir Monomakh to the grand ducal throne, but Monomakh, not wanting to violate the once recognized rights of the Svyatoslavichs, renounced the grand duchy. However, the people of Kiev, who did not like the Svyatoslavichs, did not accept either the Svyatoslavichs or Monomakh’s refusal and sent him a new embassy with the same proposal, threatening outrage if he persisted, and then Vladimir was forced to agree and accept Kyiv. Thus the will of the citizens violated the rights of seniority, placing them in the hands of the most worthy besides the elder. However, this violation of seniority, although forced, was supposed to cause new strife, and if during the life of the strong and beloved Monomakh the Svyatoslavichs had to harbor their hatred for the unwitting thief of their rights, then they passed on this hatred to their children; It was this that caused the bloody strife between the offspring of Svyatoslav and the offspring of Vsevolod, but these strife occurred much later. The descendants of Svyatoslav of Chernigov did not prevent his son Mstislav from taking the Kiev throne after the death of Monomakh (1125). And it was not easy to challenge the grand-ducal table from him: the Svyatoslavichs, according to the concepts of that time, lost their rights to Kyiv because they did not oppose the occupation of the Kyiv table by Monomakh; by this they lowered their clan before the clan of Monomakh and lost not only in the present, but also in the future, all right to the grand-ducal table. On the part of the Chernigov princes, there was also no renewal of claims to Kyiv even when (in 1132) Mstislav died and seniority passed into the hands of his brother, Yaropolk Vladimirovich, which was quite consistent with the desire of the Kievites, who did not want anyone except the Monomakhovichs. The Chernigov princes could not protest, for they were powerless while peace reigned in the Monomakh family. During the reign of Yaropolk, however, this peace was disrupted. Before his death, Mstislav obliged his brother and successor Yaropolk to give Pereyaslavl to his eldest son, Vsevolod Mstislavich. Having ascended the grand prince's throne, Yaropolk hastened to fulfill his brother's dying will, but this caused displeasure on the part of younger sons Monomakh - Yuri Rostovsky and Andrey Vladimir-Volynsky. Having learned about the movement of their nephew to Pereyaslavl, they considered this a step towards seniority besides them (the princes of Kievan Rus of the 11th–12th centuries had a ladder ascent from the table of less importance to the table of more important, and so on to Kyiv) and hastened to expel Vsevolod from Pereyaslavl. Then Yaropolk installed the second Mstislavich there - Izyaslav, who reigned in Polotsk. But this order did not reassure the younger princes: in each nephew who was sitting in Pereyaslavl, they saw the heir to seniority, the future prince of Kyiv. To calm the brothers, Yaropolk also brought Izyaslav out of Pereyaslavl and sent his brother, Vyacheslav, but he soon left this region himself, and it was ceded to Yuri of Rostov.
The Svyatoslavichs were not slow to take advantage of the enmity between uncles and nephews in Monomakh’s descendants and decided to lay claim to their rights to the great reign. Circumstances were favorable for the Svyatoslavichs: Yaropolk Vladimirovich died in 1139 and his place was taken by his brother, Vyacheslav, a characterless and incapable man. The Svyatoslavichs in the person of Vsevolod Olgovich took advantage of such insignificance of the Grand Duke; he approached Kyiv; Vyacheslav could not resist and left for Turov, and Vsevolod took his place. It is quite clear why the Monomakhovichs allowed the grandson of Svyatoslav to occupy the senior table - the Monomakh line at that time had no head, all the senior Monomakhovichs (Vyacheslav, Yuri, Andrey) were weak, unenergetic people, and the only enterprising person who could defend the interests of his family was the eldest son of the elder Monomakhovich is Izyaslav Mstislavich Vladimir-Volynsky, but he was at enmity with the elder members of the family and therefore did not stand up for the rights of his uncle Vyacheslav. This was also facilitated by the fact that Izyaslav’s elder sister was married to Prince Vsevolod Olgovich, and according to the concepts of that time, the eldest son-in-law was revered as a father.
In 1144, Vsevolod Olgovich, in the presence of the Olgovichs, Davidovichs and one Monomakhovich - Izyaslav Mstislavich - announced that the act of Monomakh and his son Mstislav, who, without paying attention to the family of Svyatoslav, gave Kiev one to his son, the other to his brother, gives him the right transfer seniority to his brother Igor in addition to the Monomakhovichs. All those present were required to take an oath of recognition of Igor Olgovich on the Kiev table. The same oath was taken from the Kyiv citizens in 1146, but this oath was soon broken. As soon as Igor sat down on the table, the people of Kiev sent an embassy to invite Izyaslav Mstislavich to the Kiev table. The latter immediately moved towards Kyiv, announcing that he had tolerated Vsevolod on the senior table as a husband older sister his own, but that he will not tolerate other Olgovichs on the Kiev table. The people of Kiev went over to his side. Igor was captured and died, and Izyaslav took the grand-ducal table.
In the person of Izyaslav, the clan of Monomakh again triumphed over the clan of Svyatoslav. But Izyaslav’s unauthorized seizure of the Kyiv table armed against him the two senior Monomakhovichs, his two uncles - Vyacheslav, who once sat in Kyiv, but was expelled by Vsevolod Olgovich, and Yuri, Prince of Rostov. Yuri, dissatisfied with the fact that seniority went to his nephew and not his brother, began a fight with Izyaslav and gained the upper hand. Izyaslav retired to Vladimir-Volynsky, and Yuri began to reign in Kyiv. But he did not retain the Kiev table for long; Izyaslav managed to expel him and regain Kyiv, and in order to protect himself from accusations of the lawless seizure of the throne, he invited his eldest uncle, Vyacheslav, to Kiev, who, content with honor, granted all power to his nephew. But Yuri did not abandon his claims to Kyiv, despite the fact that Izyaslav arranged the matter completely legally, took advantage of the first convenient moment and approached Kyiv. Izyaslav and Vyacheslav left the city, and Yuri took possession of it for the second time, but again not for long. Kyiv citizens loved Izyaslav and, at his first appearance, went over to his side. Yuri left Kyiv again, and Izyaslav, true to his previous intention, began to reign in the name of Vyacheslav. In 1154 Izyaslav died; the elderly Vyacheslav summoned his other nephew, Rostislav of Smolensky, and the people of Kiev swore allegiance to him, concluding, however, an agreement that he would honor his uncle Vyacheslav, as his late brother did. After the death of Vyacheslav, the people of Kiev accepted Izyaslav Davidovich, the representative of the Svyatoslavichs, but then Yuri steps in again, and the throne passes to him for the third time.
In 1157, Yuri dies, and the people of Kiev, who did not love this prince, although he was Monomakhovich, again called Izyaslav Davidovich to the Kiev table, but one of the younger Monomakhovichs, Mstislav Izyaslavich Vladimir-Volynsky, fearing that the Kiev table would leave the hands of the Monomakhovichs, expelled Izyaslav from Kiev and installed his uncle Rostislav there, and after his death in 1168 he himself took the grand-ducal throne. At the same time, the contender for seniority is Yuri's son Andrei, whom Mstislav bypassed, just as his father Izyaslav had bypassed his uncle Yuri. The same relationships caused the same consequences - persistent enmity. Victory in this fight remained on Andrei's side; in 1169 Kyiv was taken, and Mstislav retired to his Volyn region. Kyiv was robbed and burned, and the winner himself did not stay there, but went north...
From the book History of Russia from Rurik to Putin. People. Events. Dates author Anisimov Evgeniy ViktorovichKievan Rus (IX-XII centuries) The first appearance of the Slavs in world history The “Tale of Bygone Years” - our main source on the initial history of Rus' - tells the continuation of the famous biblical story about the Tower of Babel, when a single human race scattered throughout
From the book Who's Who in Russian History author Sitnikov Vitaly Pavlovich From the book Independent Ukraine. Project collapse author Kalashnikov MaximKievan Rus Raising a howl about the constant oppression of Ukraine by Moscow, the Nazis are trying to prove that at all times it was the Russians who were the main enemies of the Ukrainians. And as an example of the first aggression of the “Muscovites”, the capture of Kyiv by Prince Yuri Dolgoruky is constantly cited, and
From the book Four Suns author Zhigunov Viktor VasilievichThe Kievan Rus Chronicle reports that in 852 “the nickname “Russian Land” began.” It was a powerful state, stretching from the White Sea to the Black Sea, from the Carpathians to the Volga. In the south, occupying the territory of present-day Greece and Asia Minor, there was an empire that was then
From the book Dokievskaya Rus author Buzina Oles AlekseevichKievan Rus... is no longer Kievan The article “Kievan Rus” has disappeared from the Russian-language Wikipedia. Instead of it now - “Old Russian State”. The cradle of the “three fraternal peoples” has been handed over to the warehouse of history. Russia and Ukraine are moving away from each other not only in politics, but also in
From the book Complete course of lectures on Russian history author Platonov Sergey FedorovichKievan Rus
From the book History of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century author Froyanov Igor YakovlevichII. Kievan Rus From a tribal union to a union of tribal unions Further development public relations among the Eastern Slavs led to the formation of new social organisms: the union was formed by tribes that themselves were already part of tribal union. Political
From the book Ancient Russian Fortresses author Rappoport Pavel AlexandrovichKievan Rus Old Russian fortifications of the 8th–10th centuries. were still very primitive and could successfully perform their defensive functions only because the opponents that the Eastern Slavs had to face at that time did not know how to besiege fortified settlements. But also
From the book The Secret History of Ukraine-Rus author Buzina Oles AlekseevichFictional Kievan Rus Kievan Rus is an artificial name. It was invented by historians to distinguish it from Muscovite Rus', which arose five centuries later. In fact, no Kievan Rus existed. It was just Rus'. Moreover, it arose not in Kyiv, but in
From the book At the Origins of Historical Truth by Veras VictorKievan Rus Another obvious non-obviousness is Kievan Rus. Is this a Slavic state? “Of course,” you answer. Obviously? - Yes. Right? Let's try to figure it out. If a child is born in an established family, where the father is Iranian and the mother is Slavic, who is he?
From the book The Great Past of the Soviet People author Pankratova Anna Mikhailovna From the book Russian History author Platonov Sergey FedorovichKievan Rus in the 11th–12th centuries The adoption of Christianity with its diverse consequences represents the boundary in the history of Kievan Rus that separates the most ancient era from the so-called era of the appanage veche. Studying the pre-Christian period, we come to the conclusion
From the book Rus' and its Autocrats author Anishkin Valery GeorgievichKievan Rus N.M. Karamzin notes that Nestor does not distinguish between the Varangians and Russia. However, scientists and foreign writers distinguish them, and currently the term Varangians-Rus is considered obsolete and is used in some cases to refer to the Baltic
What else to read
THE LAST NOTES
- Predators and prey. Predators and their prey. Who are the predators
- Andrey Shcheglov: Reformation in Sweden
- Vegan pumpkin stuffed with rice and baked whole in the oven
- Teleportation and time travel
- Notification of changes in the terms of the employment contract and transition to an effective contract Notification of the employee about the introduction of an effective contract