Feudal fragmentation - a natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal estates. Feudal fragmentation is most often understood as the political and economic decentralization of the state, the creation on the territory of one state of practically independent independent states. state entities, formally having in common supreme ruler(in Rus', period XII - XV centuries).

Already in the word “fragmentation” the political processes of this period are recorded. By the middle of the 12th century, approximately 15 principalities had emerged. By the beginning of the 13th century - about 50. By the 14th century - approximately 250.

With approval feudal fragmentation The appanage order finally triumphed in Rus'. (Appanage - princely possession.) The princes ruled the free population of their principalities as sovereigns and owned their territories as private owners, with all the rights of disposal arising from such ownership. With the cessation of the movement of princes among principalities in order of seniority, all-Russian interests are replaced by private interests: increasing one’s principality at the expense of its neighbors, dividing it among one’s sons at the will of the father.

With the change in the position of the prince, the position of the rest of the population also changes. Service with the prince has always been voluntary for a free person. Now the boyars and boyar children have the opportunity to choose which prince to serve, which was recorded in the so-called right of departure. While maintaining their land holdings, they had to pay tribute to the prince in whose principality their estates were located.

Feudal fragmentation as a natural stage historical development human society is characterized by the following factors:

- positive(growth of cities, crafts and trade; cultural and economic development of individual lands);
- negative(weak central government; independence of local princes and boyars; disintegration of the state into separate principalities and lands; vulnerability to external enemies).

Since the 15th century it appears new form services - local. An estate is land, the holder of which had to perform compulsory service in favor of the prince and did not enjoy the right of departure. Such possession is called conditional, since the owner of the estate was not its owner in full. He owned it only while his service lasted. The prince could transfer the estate to another, take it away completely, or retain ownership under the condition of the service of the landowner's sons.

All land of the principality was divided into state land ("black"), palace land (belonging personally to the prince), boyar land (patrimony) and church land.

The land was inhabited by free community members who, like the boyars, had the right to transfer from one landowner to another. This right was not used only by personally dependent people - arable slaves, purchasers, servants.

Reasons for feudal fragmentation:

1. Formation of feudal land ownership: the old tribal nobility, once pushed into the shadow of the capital's military service nobility, turned into zemstvo boyars and, together with other categories of feudal lords, formed a corporation of land owners (boyar land ownership emerged). Gradually, tables turned into hereditary ones in princely families (princely land ownership). “Settling” on the ground, the ability to do without the help of Kyiv led to the desire to “settle” on the ground.
2. Development of agriculture: 40 types of rural agricultural and fishing equipment. Steam (two- and three-field) crop rotation system. The practice of fertilizing the land with manure. The peasant population often moves to "free" (free lands). The bulk of the peasants are personally free and farm on the lands of the princes. The direct violence of the feudal lords played a decisive role in the enslavement of the peasants. Along with this, it was also used economic enslavement: mainly food rent, to a lesser extent - labor.
3. Development of crafts and cities. In the middle of the 13th century, according to chronicles in Kievan Rus there were over 300 cities in which there were almost 60 craft specialties. The degree of specialization in the field of metal processing technology was especially high. In Kievan Rus, the internal market is being formed, but priority still remains with the external market. “Detintsi” are trade and craft settlements made up of runaway slaves. The bulk of the urban population are lesser people, bonded "hiremen" and declassed "poor people", servants who lived in the yards of feudal lords. Urban feudal nobility also live in cities and a trade and craft elite is formed. XII - XIII centuries in Rus' this is the era of the heyday of veche meetings.

The main reason for feudal fragmentation is the change in the nature of the relationship between the Grand Duke and his warriors as a result of the latter settling on the ground. In the first century and a half of the existence of Kievan Rus, the squad was completely supported by the prince. The prince, as well as his state machine, collected tribute and other exactions. As the warriors received land and received from the prince the right to collect taxes and duties themselves, they came to the conclusion that income from military spoils was less reliable than fees from peasants and townspeople. In the 11th century, the process of the squad’s “settling” to the ground intensified. And from the first half of the 12th century in Kievan Rus, the predominant form of property became the patrimony, the owner of which could dispose of it at his own discretion. And although ownership of the estate imposed on the feudal lord the obligation to perform military service, his economic dependence on the Grand Duke weakened significantly. The income of the former feudal warriors no longer depended on the mercy of the prince. They provided for their own existence. With the weakening of economic dependence on the Grand Duke, political dependence also weakens.

A significant role in the process of feudal fragmentation in Rus' was played by the developing institution of feudal immunity, which provided for a certain level of sovereignty of the feudal lord within the boundaries of his estate. In this territory, the feudal lord had the rights of the head of state. Grand Duke and its authorities did not have the right to act in this territory. The feudal lord himself collected taxes, duties, and administered justice. As a result, a state apparatus, squads, courts, prisons, etc. are formed in independent principalities-patrimonial lands, appanage princes begin to manage communal lands, transferring them in their own name to the power of boyars and monasteries. In this way, local princely dynasties are formed, and local feudal lords make up the court and squad of this dynasty. The introduction of the institution of heredity to the land and the people inhabiting it played a huge role in this process. Under the influence of all these processes, the nature of relations between local principalities and Kiev changed. Service dependence is replaced by relations of political partners, sometimes in the form of equal allies, sometimes suzerain and vassal.

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

The main dividing force was the boyars. Relying on his power, local princes were able to establish their power in each land. However, subsequently, contradictions and a struggle for power arose between the growing boyars and the local princes.

The fight against the crusaders and the raid of the Horde

Fight against Crusader aggression

The coast from the Vistula to the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea was inhabited by Slavic, Baltic (Lithuanian and Latvian) and Finno-Ugric (Estonians, Karelians, etc.) tribes. At the end of the XII - beginning of the XIII centuries. The Baltic peoples are completing the process of decomposition of the primitive communal system and the formation of an early class society and statehood. These processes occurred most intensively among the Lithuanian tribes. The Russian lands (Novgorod and Polotsk) had a significant influence on their western neighbors, who did not yet have their own developed statehood and church institutions (the peoples of the Baltic states were pagans).

The attack on Russian lands was part of the predatory doctrine of the German knighthood “Drang nach Osten” (onset to the East). In the 12th century. it began to seize lands belonging to the Slavs beyond the Oder and in the Baltic Pomerania. At the same time, an attack was carried out on the lands of the Baltic peoples. The Crusaders' invasion of the Baltic lands and North-Western Rus' was sanctioned by the Pope and German Emperor Frederick II. German, Danish, Norwegian knights and troops from other countries also took part in the crusade. northern countries Europe.

To conquer the lands of the Estonians and Latvians, the knightly Order of the Swordsmen was created in 1202 from the crusading detachments defeated in Asia Minor. Knights wore clothes with the image of a sword and cross. They pursued an aggressive policy under the slogan of Christianization: “Whoever does not want to be baptized must die.” Back in 1201, the knights landed at the mouth of the Western Dvina (Daugava) River and founded the city of Riga on the site of a Latvian settlement as a stronghold for the subjugation of the Baltic lands. In 1219, Danish knights captured part of the Baltic coast, founding the city of Revel (Tallinn) on the site of an Estonian settlement.

In 1224, the crusaders took Yuryev (Tartu). Knights arrived to conquer the lands of Lithuania (Prussians) and southern Russian lands in 1226 Teutonic Order, founded in 1198 in Syria during crusades. Knights - members of the order wore white cloaks with a black cross on the left shoulder. In 1234, the Swordsmen were defeated by the Novgorod-Suzdal troops, and two years later - by the Lithuanians and Semigallians. This forced the crusaders to join forces. In 1237, the Swordsmen united with the Teutons, forming a branch of the Teutonic Order - the Livonian Order, named after the territory inhabited by the Livonian tribe, which was captured by the Crusaders.

The offensive of the knights especially intensified due to the weakening of Rus', which was bleeding in the fight against the Mongol conquerors.

In July 1240, Swedish feudal lords tried to take advantage of the difficult situation in Rus'. The Swedish fleet with troops on board entered the mouth of the Neva. Having climbed the Neva until the Izhora River flows into it, the knightly cavalry landed on the shore. The Swedes wanted to capture the city Staraya Ladoga, and then Novgorod.

Prince Alexander Yaroslavich, who was 20 years old at the time, and his squad quickly rushed to the landing site. Hiddenly approaching the Swedes' camp, Alexander and his warriors struck at them, and a small militia led by Novgorodian Misha cut off the Swedes' path along which they could escape to their ships.

The Russian people nicknamed Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky for his victory on the Neva. The significance of this victory is that it stopped Swedish aggression to the east for a long time and retained access to the Baltic coast for Russia.

In the summer of the same 1240, the Livonian Order, as well as Danish and German knights, attacked Rus' and captured the city of Izborsk. Soon, due to the betrayal of the mayor Tverdila and part of the boyars, Pskov was taken (1241). Strife and strife led to the fact that Novgorod did not help its neighbors. And the struggle between the boyars and the prince in Novgorod itself ended with the expulsion of Alexander Nevsky from the city. In these conditions separate units The crusaders found themselves 30 km from the walls of Novgorod. At the request of the veche, Alexander Nevsky returned to the city. Together with his squad, Alexander liberated Pskov, Izborsk and other captured cities with a sudden blow. Having received news that the main forces of the Order were coming towards him, Alexander Nevsky blocked the path of the knights, placing his troops on the ice of Lake Peipsi. Alexander placed his troops under the cover of a steep bank on the ice of the lake, eliminating the possibility of enemy reconnaissance of his forces and depriving the enemy of freedom of maneuver. Considering the formation of the knights in a “pig” (in the form of a trapezoid with a sharp wedge in front, which was made up of heavily armed cavalry), Alexander Nevsky positioned his regiments in the form of a triangle, with the tip resting on the shore. Before the battle, some of the Russian soldiers were equipped with special hooks to pull knights off their horses. On April 5, 1242, a battle took place on the ice of Lake Peipsi, which became known as the Battle of the Ice. The knight's wedge pierced the center of the Russian position and buried itself in the shore. The flank attacks of the Russian regiments decided the outcome of the battle: like pincers, they crushed the knightly “pig”. The knights, unable to withstand the blow, fled in panic. The Novgorodians drove them seven miles across the ice, which by spring had become weak in many places and was collapsing under the heavily armed soldiers. The Russians pursued the enemy, “flogged them, rushing after him as if through air,” the chronicler wrote. According to the Novgorod Chronicle, “400 Germans died in the battle, and 50 were taken prisoner” (German chronicles estimate the death toll at 25 knights). The captured knights were marched in disgrace through the streets of Mister Veliky Novgorod.

The significance of this victory is that it was weakened military power Livonian Order. The response to the Battle of the Ice was the growth of the liberation struggle in the Baltic states. However, relying on the help of the Roman Catholic Church, the knights at the end of the 13th century. captured a significant part of the Baltic lands.

Russian lands under the rule of the Golden Horde

In the middle of the 13th century. one of Genghis Khan's grandsons, Khubulai, moved his headquarters to Beijing, founding the Yuan dynasty. The rest of the Mongol Empire was nominally subordinate to the Great Khan in Karakorum. One of Genghis Khan's sons, Chagatai (Jaghatai), received the lands of most of Central Asia, and Genghis Khan's grandson Zulagu owned the territory of Iran, part of Western and Central Asia and Transcaucasia. This ulus, allocated in 1265, is called the Hulaguid state after the name of the dynasty. Another grandson of Genghis Khan from his eldest son Jochi, Batu, founded the state of the Golden Horde.

The Golden Horde covered a vast territory from the Danube to the Irtysh (Crimea, North Caucasus, part of the lands of Rus' located in the steppe, former lands Volga Bulgaria and nomadic peoples, Western Siberia and part of Central Asia). The capital of the Golden Horde was the city of Sarai, located in the lower reaches of the Volga (sarai translated into Russian means palace). It was a state consisting of semi-independent uluses, united under the rule of the khan. They were ruled by Batu's brothers and the local aristocracy.

The role of a kind of aristocratic council was played by the “Divan”, where military and financial issues were resolved. Finding themselves surrounded by a Turkic-speaking population, the Mongols adopted the Turkic language. The local Turkic-speaking ethnic group assimilated the Mongol newcomers. A new people was formed - the Tatars. In the first decades of the Golden Horde's existence, its religion was paganism.

The Golden Horde was one of the most large states of its time. At the beginning of the 14th century, she could field an army of 300,000. The heyday of the Golden Horde occurred during the reign of Khan Uzbek (1312-1342). In this era (1312), Islam became the state religion of the Golden Horde. Then just like the others medieval states The Horde was going through a period of fragmentation. Already in the 14th century. The Central Asian possessions of the Golden Horde separated, and in the 15th century. The Kazan (1438), Crimean (1443), Astrakhan (mid-15th century) and Siberian (late 15th century) khanates stood out.

The Russian lands devastated by the Mongols were forced to recognize vassal dependence on the Golden Horde. The ongoing struggle waged by the Russian people against the invaders forced the Mongol-Tatars to abandon the creation of their own administrative authorities in Rus'. Rus' retained its statehood. This was facilitated by the presence in Rus' of its own administration and church organization. In addition, the lands of Rus' were unsuitable for nomadic cattle breeding, unlike, for example, Central Asia, the Caspian region, and the Black Sea region.

In 1243, the brother of the great Vladimir prince Yuri, who was killed on the Sit River, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich (1238-1246) was called to the khan's headquarters. Yaroslav recognized vassal dependence on the Golden Horde and received a label (letter) for the great reign of Vladimir and a golden tablet ("paizu"), a kind of pass through the Horde territory. Following him, other princes flocked to the Horde.

To control the Russian lands, the institution of Baskakov governors was created - leaders of military detachments of the Mongol-Tatars who monitored the activities of the Russian princes. Denunciation of the Baskaks to the Horde inevitably ended either with the prince being summoned to Sarai (often he was deprived of his label, or even his life), or with a punitive campaign in the rebellious land. Suffice it to say that only in the last quarter of the 13th century. 14 similar campaigns were organized in Russian lands.

Some Russian princes, trying to quickly get rid of vassal dependence on the Horde, took the path of open armed resistance. However, the forces to overthrow the power of the invaders were still not enough. So, for example, in 1252 the regiments of the Vladimir and Galician-Volyn princes were defeated. Alexander Nevsky, from 1252 to 1263 Grand Duke of Vladimir, understood this well. He set a course for the restoration and growth of the economy of the Russian lands. The policy of Alexander Nevsky was also supported by the Russian church, which saw the greatest danger in Catholic expansion, and not in the tolerant rulers of the Golden Horde.

In 1257, the Mongol-Tatars undertook a population census - “recording the number.” Besermen (Muslim merchants) were sent to the cities, and they were in charge of collecting tribute. The size of the tribute (“exit”) was very large, only the “tsar’s tribute”, i.e. the tribute in favor of the khan, which was first collected in kind and then in money, amounted to 1,300 kg of silver per year. The constant tribute was supplemented by “requests” - one-time exactions in favor of the khan. In addition, deductions from trade duties, taxes for “feeding” the khan’s officials, etc. went to the khan’s treasury. In total there were 14 types of tribute in favor of the Tatars.

Population census in the 50-60s of the 13th century. marked by numerous uprisings of Russian people against the Baskaks, Khan's ambassadors, tribute collectors, and census takers. In 1262, the inhabitants of Rostov, Vladimir, Yaroslavl, Suzdal, and Ustyug dealt with the tribute collectors, the Besermen. This led to the fact that the collection of tribute from the end of the 13th century. was handed over to the Russian princes.

The Mongol invasion and the Golden Horde yoke became one of the reasons for the Russian lands lagging behind developed countries Western Europe. Huge damage was caused to the economic, political and cultural development of Rus'. Tens of thousands of people died in battle or were taken into slavery. A significant part of the income in the form of tribute was sent to the Horde.

The old agricultural centers and once-developed territories became desolate and fell into decay. The border of agriculture moved to the north, the southern fertile soils received the name “Wild Field”. Russian cities were subjected to massive devastation and destruction. Many crafts became simplified and sometimes disappeared, which hampered the creation of small-scale production and ultimately delayed economic development.

The Mongol conquest preserved political fragmentation. It weakened the ties between various parts states. Traditional political and trade ties with other countries were disrupted. Russian vector foreign policy, which ran along the “south-north” line (the fight against the nomadic danger, stable ties with Byzantium and through the Baltic with Europe) radically changed its focus to “west-east”. The pace of cultural development of Russian lands has slowed down.

How to evaluate this process? But are there any problems here? The unified state disintegrated and was relatively easily conquered by the Mongol-Tatars. And before that there were bloody strife between the princes, from which the common people, peasants and artisans suffered.

Indeed, approximately this stereotype emerged recently when reading scientific and journalistic literature, and even some scientific works. True, these works also spoke about the pattern of fragmentation of Russian lands, the growth of cities, the development of trade and crafts. All this is true, however, the smoke of the fires in which Russian cities disappeared during the years of Batu’s invasion still obscures the eyes of many today. But can the significance of one event be measured by the tragic consequences of another? "If not for the invasion, Rus' would have survived."

But the Mongol-Tatars also conquered huge empires, such as China. The battle with Batu’s countless armies was a much more complex undertaking than the victorious campaign against Constantinople, the defeat of Khazaria, or the successful military operations of the Russian princes in the Polovtsian steppes. For example, the forces of only one of the Russian lands - Novgorod - turned out to be enough to defeat the German, Swedish and Danish invaders by Alexander Nevsky. In the person of the Mongol-Tatars, there was a clash with a qualitatively different enemy. So if you put the question in subjunctive mood, one can ask another way: could the Russian early feudal state have resisted the Tatars? Who dares to answer in the affirmative? And the most important thing. The success of the invasion cannot in any way be attributed to fragmentation.

There is no direct cause-and-effect relationship between them. Fragmentation is the result of progressive internal development Ancient Rus'. An invasion is an external influence with tragic consequences. Therefore, to say: “Fragmentation is bad because the Mongols conquered Rus'” does not make sense.

It is also wrong to exaggerate the role of feudal strife. IN working together N.I. Pavlenko, V.B. Kobrina and V.A. Fedorova “History of the USSR from ancient times to 1861” write: “You cannot imagine feudal fragmentation as a kind of feudal anarchy. Moreover, princely strife in single state, when it came to the struggle for power, for the grand princely throne or certain rich principalities and cities, were sometimes more bloody than during the period of feudal fragmentation. There was no breakup ancient Russian state, but its transformation into a kind of federation of principalities headed by the Grand Duke of Kyiv, although his power was weakening all the time and was rather nominal... The goal of the strife during the period of fragmentation was already different than in a single state: not the seizure of power in the entire country, but the strengthening of one’s own principality, expanding its borders at the expense of its neighbors."

Thus, fragmentation differs from the times of state unity not by the presence of strife, but by the fundamentally different goals of the warring parties.

"Next" order of succession to the throne. Dying, Yaroslav the Wise divided the territory of the state between his five sons and a nephew from his deceased eldest son Vladimir. He bequeathed to his heirs to live in peace and love and obey his elder brother Izyaslav in everything. This order of transferring the throne to the eldest in the family, i.e. from brother to brother, and after the death of the last of the reigning brothers to the eldest nephew, he received the name “next” or “ladder” (from the word “ladder”). The Kiev throne, therefore, was to be occupied by the eldest prince in the Rurik family.

The complexity of dynastic accounts, on the one hand, the growth of the power of each individual principality, on the other, personal ambitions, on the third, inevitably led to princely strife.

Lyubech Congress. With the death in 1093 of the last of the Yaroslavichs, Vsevolod, in accordance with the ladder of succession to the throne, power over Kiev passed to the eldest in the family Svyatopolk II Izyaslavich (1093-1113). New Prince failed to cope with the strife and resist the Polovtsians. Moreover, he was a selfish man, very unscrupulous in the means of strengthening power. Thus, during his reign there was widespread speculation in bread and salt, and uncontrolled usury flourished.

The most popular in Rus' at that time was Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh. On his initiative, the Lyubech Congress of Princes took place in 1097. It was decided to stop the strife and the principle “Let everyone keep his fatherland” was proclaimed. However, strife continued after the Lyubech Congress.

External factor, namely the need for otior, which appeared by the middle of the 11th century. in the southern Russian steppes to the nomadic Polovtsians, still kept Kievan Rus for some time from disintegrating into separate principalities. The fight was not easy. Historians count about 50 Polovtsian invasions from the mid-11th to the beginning of the 13th century.

Vladimir Monomakh. After the death of Svyatopolk II in 1113, an uprising broke out in Kyiv. The people destroyed the courts of princely rulers, large feudal lords and moneylenders. The uprising raged for four days. The Kyiv boyars called Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125) to the grand-ducal throne.

Vladimir Monomakh was forced to make certain concessions by issuing the so-called "Charter of Vladimir Monomakh", which became another part of “Russian Truth”. The Charter streamlined the collection of interest by moneylenders, improved the legal status of merchants, and regulated the transition to servitude. Monomakh devoted a large place in this legislation to legal status procurement, which suggests that procurement has become a very widespread institution and the enslavement of stinkers was proceeding at a more decisive pace.

Vladimir Monomakh managed to keep the entire Russian land under his rule, despite the fact that signs of fragmentation intensified, which was facilitated by the lull in the fight against the Polovtsians. Under Monomakh, the international authority of Rus' strengthened. The prince himself was the grandson of the Byzantine emperor Constantine Monomakh. His wife was an English princess. It is no coincidence that Ivan III, the Grand Duke of Moscow, who loved to “disturb the chroniclers,” often turned to the reign of Vladimir Monomakh. The appearance of the crown of the Russian tsars, the Monomakh cap, and the continuity of power of the Russian tsars from the emperors of Constantinople were associated with his name. Under Vladimir Monomakh, the initial Russian chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years” was compiled. He entered our history as a major political figure, commander and writer.

Son of Vladimir Monomakh Mstislav I the Great(1125-1132) managed to maintain the unity of the Russian lands for some time. After the death of Mstislav, Kievan Rus finally disintegrated into one and a half dozen principalities-states. A period has begun, which in history is called the period of fragmentation or the specific period.

Feudal fragmentation- a natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal estates. Feudal fragmentation is most often understood as the political and economic decentralization of the state, the creation on the territory of one state of practically independent state entities that formally had a common supreme ruler (in Rus', the period of the 12th - 15th centuries).
1. Formation of local princely dynasties. The development of the Rurikovich family domain into the family domain of individual branches of the clan led to the settling of princes in separate territories (future appanages). The prince increasingly thought not about obtaining a more prestigious and profitable table, but about securing his own possession.
2. Strengthening the local boyars. The formation of boyar regional groupings is taking place, caused, in turn, both by the successes of agriculture (the spread of arable farming, the emergence of three-field farming increased the production of surplus product, boyar estates turned into an important source of income), and the growth in the number of the squad and its passion for wealth. The boyars and the local prince were united by a desire for independence, a desire to get out from under the tutelage of the Kyiv prince, to stop paying him polyudie from their territories.
3. Development of crafts and trade led to the growth and strengthening of cities, which turned into centers of individual territories. Urban population began to be burdened by the need to pay tribute and protect the interests of the distant Kyiv prince. At the same time, the protection from raids of nomads and neighbors, necessary for free community members of the city and village, was provided by local princely squads.
4. The position and role of Kyiv itself has changed. With the loss of importance of the trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks in the 11th century, the economic basis of unity weakened, the receipt of trade duties was reduced, which undermined the economic power of the Kyiv prince.
5. Spiritual background division was the development of an authoritarian ideal that strengthened the power of local princes.

As a result of fragmentation, the principalities emerged as independent principalities, the names of which were given to the capital cities: Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslavskoe, Muromskoe, Ryazanskoe, Rostov-Suzdal, Smolensk, Galicia, Vladimir-Volynskoe, Polotsk, Turovo-Pinsk, Tmutarakanskoe; Novgorod and Pskov lands. Each of the lands was ruled by its own dynasty, one of the branches of the Rurikovichs.

VLADIMIRO-SUZDAL LAND.

The Rostov-Suzdal land came out of the control of Kyiv in the 30s of the 12th century, when the son of Monomakh reigned in it Yuri Vladimirovich (1125-1157), nicknamed Dolgoruky. He was the first of the Suzdal princes to achieve dominance in Rus'. Under him, the influence of the Rostov-Suzdal land extended to Novgorod, Murom and Ryazan and, in addition, a strong alliance was established with the Galician land. Wanting to consolidate power in Rus', Yuri sought to gain a foothold in Kyiv. Suzdal troops captured this capital city. However, after the death of Yuri, the Kyiv townspeople hastened to break their dependence on the Suzdal princes, plundering the courts of Yuri, his supporters and merchants throughout the Kyiv land.

Rostov-Suzdal Rus' in the middle of the 12th century. experienced significant economic growth. An agricultural culture developed here. New cities were built and grew - Vladimir-on-Klyazma, Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Yuryev-Polsky, Zvenigorod, Dmitrov, etc. Moscow was founded (it was first mentioned in the chronicle in 1147).

Yuri's successor, Prince Andrey Yurievich Bogolyubsky (1157-1174), relying on the nobles and supported by the townspeople of Rostov, Suzdal and residents of other cities, resolutely fought the rebellious boyars. He made Vladimir, where there was a strong trade and craft settlement, his capital, assigned himself the title of Grand Duke of All Rus' and sought to extend his power to Kyiv and Novgorod. Continuing to compete with the Volyn princes, Andrei Bogolyubsky organized a campaign against Kyiv in 1169, captured it and took many riches to his land, transferring the ancient capital to the management of one of his proteges. This completed the decline of Kyiv. But the unification policy of Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky was unexpectedly interrupted. He was killed, as mentioned above, by conspirators from among the boyars and rich warriors. His successor Vsevolod Yurievich Big Nest (1177-1212) suppressed the resistance of the feudal nobility and executed a number of boyars. He pursued a more balanced policy than Andrei, which made it possible to significantly strengthen the Principality of Vladimir and the power of the prince himself. He expanded his possessions, strengthened his squad, subjugated Novgorod and Ryazan to his influence, and launched a new campaign against Volga Bulgaria. As a result, the power of the Grand Duke was strengthened in North-Eastern Rus', and the primacy of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality among other Russian lands was established.

But centrifugal processes developed, and after the death of Vsevolod, civil strife began again, weakening the principality. As a result of the struggle of the Vsevolodovichs, his son Yuri (1218-1238) came to power, who became the last ruler of the independent Vladimir-Suzdal principality and died in the tragic year of the Mongol invasion.

NOVGOROD REPUBLIC.

The possessions of Novgorod extended from Gulf of Finland to the Urals and from the Arctic Ocean to the Upper Volga. Poor soils and a cold climate led to the fact that Novgorodians periodically experienced a shortage of bread. This economically and politically tied Novgorod to the Vladimir land, from where grain was mainly supplied. At the same time convenient geographical position turned Novgorod into the largest shopping mall, supplying European countries furs, honey, leather, marine products. Trade was organized by the merchants, but they received the products themselves from the boyar fishing villages.

The boyars also controlled highly developed handicraft production. In addition, Novgorod never had its own princely dynasty. This strengthened the position of the boyars.

In the city, even during the era of Kyiv’s domination, the activity of the people’s assembly - the veche - did not fade. After the expulsion of Prince Vsevolod Mstislavovich in 1136, the Novgorodians achieved complete independence, and the veche actually became the highest authority.

The Novgorod veche, while formally remaining a democratic body, inherently expressed the interests of the city's elite and was the basis of the aristocratic system of government.

In essence, the Novgorod land remained a monarchy with a weak princely power. Despite the established veche and oligarchic institutions of power, the Novgorodians, even after the expulsion of Vsevolod, continued to invite princes (most often from the Suzdal land). The prince appeared not only supreme military leader And highest court. An agreement was concluded with him - a series that limited the prince's powers to official functions - military, police, arbitration. He had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of city government, to acquire land property in the Novgorod volosts, to replace officials, carry out reprisals without trial, and in case of violation of the agreement, he was expelled from Novgorod.

The veche elected a mayor, who came from the most noble boyars and served as the head executive power. In addition, a thousand was elected, who was in charge of collecting taxes, led the Novgorod militia, and also controlled trade. The veche also elected the bishop - the head of the Novgorod church. He was a bishop (later an archbishop), who had some secular powers: judicial, financial, foreign policy. By presiding over meetings of the Council of Gentlemen and blessing the opening of veche meetings, he thereby, as it were, performed the functions of the head of state.

GALICY-VOLYNSK LAND.

The Galician-Volyn principality, located on the western and southwestern borders of Rus', in the interfluve of the Southern Bug and the Dniester, had extremely favorable conditions for the development of agriculture, crafts and trade.

Here, large private land ownership and a powerful boyar layer began to form quite early, striving for independence both from Kyiv and from their own princes.

The Galician land, the ancient center of which was Przemysl, became isolated by the beginning of the 12th century. into a separate principality under the rule of the great-grandsons of Yaroslav the Wise.

The Galich principality reached its highest power under Yaroslav VladimirovichOsmomysle (1151-1187). He managed to capture Kyiv in 1159. But even he, in a clash with the local all-powerful boyars, was forced to make a number of concessions, and after his death, a long period of unrest began in Galicia, complicated by the intervention of Hungary and Poland.

In 1199, the Volyn prince, great-grandson of Mstislav the Great Roman Mstislavovich, captured Galich, thereby creating the powerful Galician-Volyn principality. Relying on the townspeople and small landowners, he brutally dealt with the boyars who were dissatisfied with his policies.

Roman Mstislavich's eldest son Daniil (1221-1264) was only four years old when his father died. Daniel had to endure a long struggle for the throne with both Hungarian, Polish, and Russian princes. Only in 1238 Daniil Romanovich asserted his power over the Galypka-Volyn land. In 1240, having occupied Kyiv, Daniel managed to unite South-Western Rus' and the Kyiv land. However, in the same year, the Galician-Volyn principality was devastated by the Mongol Tatars. After the death of Daniil Romanovich in 1264, the principality was divided between the brothers, and in the 14th century. his lands became part of Poland, Lithuania and Hungary.

Feudal fragmentation is a natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal estates. Feudal fragmentation is most often understood as the political and economic decentralization of the state, the creation on the territory of one state of practically independent state entities that formally had a common supreme ruler (in Rus', the period of the 12th - 15th centuries).

But the Mongol-Tatars also conquered huge empires, such as China. The battle with Batu’s countless armies was a much more complex undertaking than the victorious campaign against Constantinople, the defeat of Khazaria, or the successful military operations of the Russian princes in the Polovtsian steppes. For example, the forces of only one of the Russian lands - Novgorod - turned out to be enough to defeat the German, Swedish and Danish invaders by Alexander Nevsky. In the person of the Mongol-Tatars, there was a clash with a qualitatively different enemy. So, if we pose the question in the subjunctive mood, we can ask another way: could the Russian early feudal state have been able to resist the Tatars? Who dares to answer in the affirmative? And the most important thing. The success of the invasion cannot in any way be attributed to fragmentation.

There is no direct cause-and-effect relationship between them. Fragmentation is the result of the progressive internal development of Ancient Rus'. An invasion is an external influence with tragic consequences. Therefore, to say: “Fragmentation is bad because the Mongols conquered Rus'” does not make sense.

It is also wrong to exaggerate the role of feudal strife. In the joint work of N. I. Pavlenko, V. B. Kobrin and V. A. Fedorov, “History of the USSR from ancient times to 1861,” they write: “You cannot imagine feudal fragmentation as a kind of feudal anarchy. Moreover, princely strife in one state, when it came to the struggle for power, for the grand princely throne or certain rich principalities and cities, were sometimes more bloody than during the period of feudal fragmentation. There was not a collapse of the ancient Russian state, but its transformation into a kind of federation of principalities headed by the great. the prince of Kyiv, although his power was weakening all the time and was rather nominal... The purpose of the strife during the period of fragmentation was already different than in a single state: not the seizure of power in the entire country, but the strengthening of one’s own principality, the expansion of its borders at the expense of its neighbors.”

Thus, fragmentation differs from the times of state unity not by the presence of strife, but by the fundamentally different goals of the warring parties.

Main dates of the period of feudal fragmentation in Rus':

date	Event
1097	Lyubechsky Congress of Princes.
1132	Death of Mstislav I the Great and the political collapse of Kievan Rus.
1169	The capture of Kyiv by Andrei Bogolyubsky and the plunder of the city by his troops, which indicated socio-political and ethnocultural isolation of individual lands of Kievan Rus.
1212	Death of Vsevolod "Big Nest" - the last autocrat of Kievan Rus.
1240	The defeat of Kyiv by the Mongol-Tatars.
1252	Presentation of the label for the great reign to Alexander Nevsky.
1328	Presentation of the label for the great reign to Moscow Prince Ivan Kalita.
1389	Battle of Kulikovo.
1471	Ivan III's campaign against Novgorod the Great.
1478	The inclusion of Novgorod into the Moscow state.
1485	Inclusion of the Tver Principality into the Moscow State.
1510	Inclusion of the Pskov land into the Moscow state.
1521	The inclusion of the Ryazan principality into the Moscow state.

General characteristics of the period of fragmentation

With the establishment of feudal fragmentation in Rus', appanage order finally triumphed. (Appanage - princely possession.) “The princes ruled the free population of their principalities as sovereigns and owned their territories as private owners, with all the rights of disposal arising from such property” (V. O. Klyuchevsky). With the cessation of the movement of princes among principalities in order of seniority, all-Russian interests are replaced by private interests: increasing one’s principality at the expense of its neighbors, dividing it among one’s sons at the will of the father.

Feudal fragmentation as a natural stage in the historical development of human society is characterized by the following factors:

Since the 15th century, a new form of service has appeared - local. An estate is land, the holder of which had to perform compulsory service in favor of the prince and did not enjoy the right of departure. Such possession is called conditional, since the owner of the estate was not its owner in full. He owned it only while his service lasted. The prince could transfer the estate to another, take it away completely, or retain ownership under the condition of the service of the landowner's sons.

All land of the principality was divided into state land ("black"), palace land (belonging personally to the prince), boyar land (patrimony) and church land.

- 82.50 Kb

Political fragmentation

- this is a natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal estates in Rus' in the middle of the 12th-13th centuries. (See the diagram “Apartment Rus'”). Based on Kievan Rus by the middle of the 12th century. About 15 lands and principalities were formed by the beginning of the 13th century. - 50, in the 14th century. - 250.

Further development of the Russian lands took place within the framework of new state formations, the largest of which were: the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, the Galicia-Volyn (See the article “Features of the development of the Galician-Volyn principality in the period of political fragmentation” in the anthology) and the Novgorod boyar republic, which were politically independent, had their own troops, coin, judicial institutions, etc.

Political fragmentation did not mean the collapse of Rus', but its transformation into a kind of federation of principalities and lands. The Kyiv prince remained the head only in name. Relations between princes were regulated by agreements and customs. The goal of feudal strife during the period of fragmentation was different than in a single state: not the seizure of power throughout the country, but the strengthening of one’s principality, its expansion at the expense of its neighbors.

During the period of fragmentation, a clear system of feudal hierarchy emerged.

At the top level were the appanage princes - the descendants and vassals of the great princes, who within their domains had the rights of independent sovereigns.

Subordinate to them were the service princes - descendants of princes who did not have their own inheritances and owned land on the terms of serving the appanage prince.

Boyars - owners of estates, members of advisory councils under appanage princes, received during this period the rights to independent actions in their domains, were free to choose one or another prince.

Needing obedient and reliable support in the fight against the arbitrariness of the boyars, the princes began to rely on people who in the 12th century began to be called the nobility or “children of the boyars.” These were warriors, servants, rank and file, tiuns, who performed economic, administrative and judicial functions in the principality and received princely “favor” for their service - princely lands for temporary use on estate terms.

From the point of view of general historical development, the political fragmentation of Rus' is a natural stage on the path to the future centralization of the country and future economic and political takeoff. This is evidenced by the vigorous growth of cities and patrimonial economies, and the entry of these practically independent states into the foreign policy arena: Novgorod and Smolensk maintained contacts with the Baltic states and German cities, Galich with Poland, Hungary, and Rome. In each of these principalities, the development of the culture of architecture and chronicle writing continued.

Prerequisites for political fragmentation in Rus': (See the diagram “Apartment Rus'”).

1.Social:

a) The social structure of Russian society became more complex, its layers in individual lands and cities became more defined: large boyars, clergy, merchants, artisans, the lower classes of the city, including serfs. Rural residents developed dependence on landowners. All this new Rus' no longer needed the previous early medieval centralization. The new economic structure required a different scale of state than before. Huge Rus', with its very superficial political cohesion, necessary primarily for defense against an external enemy, for organizing long-distance campaigns of conquest, now no longer corresponded to the needs of large cities with their branched feudal hierarchy, developed trade and craft layers, the needs of patrimonial landowners striving to have power, close to their interests - and not in Kyiv, and not even in the form of the Kyiv governor, but her own close one, here on the spot, who could fully and decisively defend their interests.

b) The transition to arable farming contributed to the sedentary lifestyle of the rural population and strengthened the desire of the warriors to own land. Therefore, the transformation of warriors into landowners began (on the basis of a princely grant). The squad became less mobile. The warriors were now interested in permanently staying near their estates and strived for political independence.

In this regard, in the 12-13th centuries. The system of immunities became widespread - a system that freed landowner boyars from princely administration and court and gave them the rights to independent action in their domains.

That is, the main reason for fragmentation was the natural process of the emergence of private land ownership and the settling of the squad on the land.

2. Economic:

Gradually, individual fiefs are strengthened and begin to produce all products only for their own consumption, and not for the market (natural economy ) . Commodity exchange between individual economic units practically ceases. Those. The formation of a subsistence farming system contributes to the isolation of individual economic units.

3. Political:

The main role in the collapse of the state was played by the local boyars; local princes did not want to share their income with the Grand Duke of Kyiv, and in this they were actively supported by the local boyars, who needed strong princely power locally.

4. Foreign policy:

The weakening of Byzantium due to attacks by the Normans and Seljuks reduced trade on the “route from the Varangians to the Greeks.” The Crusaders' campaigns opened up a more direct route of communication between Asia and Europe through the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Trade routes moved to central Europe. Rus' lost its status as a global trade intermediary and a factor that united the Slavic tribes. This completed the collapse of the unified state and contributed to the movement of the political center from the southwest to the northeast to the Vladimir-Suzdal land.

Kyiv finds itself away from the main trade routes. The most active trade begins: Novgorod with Europe and German cities; Galicia (safer here) - with northern Italian cities; Kyiv turns into an outpost of the fight against the Polovtsians. The population leaves for safer places: northeast (Vladimir-Suzdal Principality and southwest (Galician-Volyn Principality)

Consequences of political fragmentation.

1. In the conditions of the formation of new economic regions and the formation of new political entities, there was a steady development of the peasant economy, new arable lands were developed, there was an expansion and quantitative multiplication of estates, which for their time became the most progressive form of farming, although this happened at the expense of the labor of dependent peasant population.

2. Within the framework of the principality-states, the Russian church was gaining strength, which had a strong influence on culture.

3. The political collapse of Rus' was never complete:

a) The power of the great Kyiv princes, although sometimes illusory, existed. The Principality of Kiev, although formally, cemented all of Rus'

b) The all-Russian church retained its influence. The Kyiv metropolitans led the entire church organization. The Church opposed civil strife, and the oath on the cross was one of the forms of peace agreements between warring princes.

c) The counterbalance to the final collapse was the constantly existing external danger to the Russian lands from the Polovtsians; accordingly, the Kiev prince acted as the defender of Rus'.

4. However, fragmentation contributed to the decline of the military power of the Russian lands. This had the most painful effect in the 13th century, during the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

Feudal fragmentation: definition, chronological framework.
Feudal fragmentation is a natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal estates. Feudal fragmentation is most often understood as the political and economic decentralization of the state, the creation on the territory of one state of practically independent state entities that formally had a common supreme ruler (in Rus', the period of the 12th - 15th centuries).
Already in the word “fragmentation” the political processes of this period are recorded. By the middle of the 12th century, approximately 15 principalities had emerged. By the beginning of the 13th century - about 50. By the 14th century - approximately 250.
How to evaluate this process? But are there any problems here? The unified state disintegrated and was relatively easily conquered by the Mongol-Tatars. And before that there were bloody strife between the princes, from which the common people, peasants and artisans suffered.
Indeed, approximately this stereotype emerged recently when reading scientific and journalistic literature, and even some scientific works. True, these works also spoke about the pattern of fragmentation of Russian lands, the growth of cities, the development of trade and crafts. All this is true, however, the smoke of the fires in which Russian cities disappeared during the years of Batu’s invasion still obscures the eyes of many today. But can the significance of one event be measured by the tragic consequences of another? "If not for the invasion, Rus' would have survived."
But the Mongol-Tatars also conquered huge empires, such as China. The battle with Batu’s countless armies was a much more complex undertaking than the victorious campaign against Constantinople, the defeat of Khazaria, or the successful military operations of the Russian princes in the Polovtsian steppes. For example, the forces of only one of the Russian lands - Novgorod - turned out to be enough to defeat the German, Swedish and Danish invaders by Alexander Nevsky. In the person of the Mongol-Tatars, there was a clash with a qualitatively different enemy. So, if we pose the question in the subjunctive mood, we can ask another way: could the Russian early feudal state have been able to resist the Tatars? Who dares to answer in the affirmative? And the most important thing. The success of the invasion cannot in any way be attributed to fragmentation.
There is no direct cause-and-effect relationship between them. Fragmentation is the result of the progressive internal development of Ancient Rus'. An invasion is an external influence with tragic consequences. Therefore, to say: “Fragmentation is bad because the Mongols conquered Rus'” does not make sense.
It is also wrong to exaggerate the role of feudal strife. In the joint work of N. I. Pavlenko, V. B. Kobrin and V. A. Fedorov, “History of the USSR from ancient times to 1861,” they write: “You cannot imagine feudal fragmentation as a kind of feudal anarchy. Moreover, princely strife in one state, when it came to the struggle for power, for the grand princely throne or certain rich principalities and cities, were sometimes more bloody than during the period of feudal fragmentation. There was not a collapse of the ancient Russian state, but its transformation into a kind of federation of principalities headed by the great. the prince of Kyiv, although his power was weakening all the time and was rather nominal... The purpose of the strife during the period of fragmentation was already different than in a single state: not the seizure of power in the entire country, but the strengthening of one’s own principality, the expansion of its borders at the expense of its neighbors.”
Thus, fragmentation differs from the times of state unity not by the presence of strife, but by the fundamentally different goals of the warring parties.

Main dates of the period of feudal fragmentation in Rus': Date Event

1097 Lyubechsky Congress of Princes.

1132 Death of Mstislav I the Great and the political collapse of Kievan Rus.

1169 The capture of Kyiv by Andrei Bogolyubsky and the plunder of the city by his troops, which testified to the socio-political and ethnocultural isolation of individual lands of Kievan Rus.

1212 Death of Vsevolod “Big Nest” - the last autocrat of Kievan Rus.

1240 The defeat of Kyiv by the Mongol-Tatars.

1252 Presentation of the label for the great reign to Alexander Nevsky.

1328 Presentation of the label for the great reign to Moscow Prince Ivan Kalita.

1389 Battle of Kulikovo.

1471 Ivan III's campaign against Novgorod the Great.

1478 Incorporation of Novgorod into the Moscow State.

1485 Incorporation of the Tver Principality into the Moscow State.

1510 Inclusion of the Pskov land into the Moscow state.

1521 Incorporation of the Ryazan Principality into the Moscow State.
Causes of feudal fragmentation
Formation of feudal land ownership: the old tribal nobility, once pushed into the shadow of the capital's military service nobility, turned into zemstvo boyars and, together with other categories of feudal lords, formed a corporation of land owners (boyar land ownership emerged). Gradually, tables turned into hereditary ones in princely families (princely land ownership). “Settling” on the ground, the ability to do without the help of Kyiv led to the desire to “settle” on the ground.
Development of agriculture: 40 types of rural agricultural and fishing equipment. Steam (two- and three-field) crop rotation system. The practice of fertilizing the land with manure. The peasant population often moves to "free" (free lands). The bulk of the peasants are personally free and farm on the lands of the princes. The direct violence of the feudal lords played a decisive role in the enslavement of the peasants. Along with this, economic enslavement was also used: mainly food rent, and to a lesser extent, labor.
Development of crafts and cities. In the middle of the 13th century, according to chronicles, there were over 300 cities in Kievan Rus, in which there were almost 60 craft specialties. The degree of specialization in the field of metal processing technology was especially high. In Kievan Rus, the internal market is being formed, but priority still remains with the external market. “Detintsi” are trade and craft settlements made up of runaway slaves. The bulk of the urban population are lesser people, bonded "hiremen" and declassed "poor people", servants who lived in the yards of feudal lords. Urban feudal nobility also live in cities and a trade and craft elite is formed. XII - XIII centuries in Rus' this is the era of the heyday of veche meetings.
The main reason for feudal fragmentation is the change in the nature of the relationship between the Grand Duke and his warriors as a result of the latter settling on the ground. In the first century and a half of the existence of Kievan Rus, the squad was completely supported by the prince. The prince, as well as his state apparatus, collected tribute and other exactions. As the warriors received land and received from the prince the right to collect taxes and duties themselves, they came to the conclusion that income from military spoils was less reliable than fees from peasants and townspeople. In the 11th century, the process of the squad’s “settling” to the ground intensified. And from the first half of the 12th century in Kievan Rus, the predominant form of property became the patrimony, the owner of which could dispose of it at his own discretion. And although ownership of the estate imposed on the feudal lord the obligation to perform military service, his economic dependence on the Grand Duke weakened significantly. The incomes of the former feudal warriors no longer depended on the mercy of the prince. They provided for their own existence. With the weakening of economic dependence on the Grand Duke, political dependence also weakens.
A significant role in the process of feudal fragmentation in Rus' was played by the developing institution of feudal immunity, which provided for a certain level of sovereignty of the feudal lord within the boundaries of his estate. In this territory, the feudal lord had the rights of the head of state. The Grand Duke and his authorities did not have the right to act in this territory. The feudal lord himself collected taxes, duties, and administered justice. As a result, a state apparatus, squads, courts, prisons, etc. are formed in independent principalities-patrimonial lands, appanage princes begin to manage communal lands, transferring them in their own name to the power of boyars and monasteries. In this way, local princely dynasties are formed, and local feudal lords make up the court and squad of this dynasty. The introduction of the institution of heredity to the land and the people inhabiting it played a huge role in this process. Under the influence of all these processes, the nature of relations between local principalities and Kiev changed. Service dependence is replaced by relations of political partners, sometimes in the form of equal allies, sometimes suzerain and vassal.
All these economic and political processes in political terms meant the fragmentation of power, the collapse of the former centralized statehood of Kievan Rus. This collapse, as was the case in Western Europe, was accompanied by internecine wars. Three most influential states were formed on the territory of Kievan Rus: the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality (North-Eastern Rus'), the Galician-Volyn Principality (South-Western Rus') and the Novgorod Land (North-Western Rus'). Both within these principalities and between them , for a long time there were fierce clashes, destructive wars that weakened the power of Rus' and led to the destruction of cities and villages.
The main dividing force was the boyars. Relying on his power, local princes were able to establish their power in each land. However, subsequently, contradictions and a struggle for power arose between the growing boyars and the local princes. Causes of feudal fragmentation

Internal political. A single Russian state no longer existed under the sons of Yaroslav the Wise, and unity was supported rather by family ties and common interests in defense from the steppe nomads. The movement of princes through cities along the “Yaroslav Row” created instability. The decision of the Lyubech Congress eliminated this established rule, finally fragmenting the state. Yaroslav's descendants were more interested not in the struggle for seniority, but in increasing their own possessions at the expense of their neighbors. Foreign policy. Polovtsian raids on Rus' largely contributed to the consolidation of Russian princes to repel external danger. The weakening of the onslaught from the south broke the alliance of the Russian princes, who themselves more than once brought Polovtsian troops to Rus' in civil strife. Economic. Marxist historiography has put forward economic reasons to the fore. The period of feudal fragmentation was considered as a natural stage in the development of feudalism. The dominance of subsistence farming did not contribute to the establishment of strong economic ties between regions and led to isolation. The emergence of a feudal fiefdom with the exploitation of the dependent population required strong power locally, and not in the center. The growth of cities, colonization and the development of new lands led to the emergence of new major centers Rus', loosely connected with Kyiv.

Feudal fragmentation: historiography of the problem.
Chronologically, the historical tradition considers the beginning of the period of fragmentation to be 1132 - the death of Mstislav the Great - “and the whole Russian land was torn apart” into separate principalities, as the chronicler wrote.
The great Russian historian S. M. Solovyov dated the beginning of the period of fragmentation to 1169 - 1174, when the Suzdal prince Andrei Bogolyubsky captured Kyiv, but did not remain in it, but, on the contrary, gave it to his troops for plunder as a foreign enemy city, which indicated, according to according to the historian, about the isolation of Russian lands.
Until this time, the grand ducal power had not experienced serious problems on the part of local separatism, since the most important political and socio-economic levers of control were assigned to it: the army, the vicegerency system, tax policy, the priority of the grand ducal power in foreign policy.
Both the causes and the nature of feudal fragmentation in historiography were revealed differently at different times.

Within the framework of the formation-class approach in historiography, fragmentation was defined as feudal. The historical school of M. N. Pokrovsky considered feudal fragmentation as a natural stage in the progressive development of productive forces. According to the formational scheme, feudalism is the isolation of economic and political structures. Fragmentation is interpreted as a form of state organization, and the main reasons for fragmentation are reduced to economic, so-called “basic” ones:

The dominance of a closed natural economy is the lack of interest among direct producers in the development of market commodity-money relations. It was believed that the natural isolation of individual lands made it possible to more fully use the local potential.

The development of feudal estates in Kievan Rus, which played an organizing role in the development of agricultural production due to higher opportunities than peasant farms for running a diversified economy.
The selection of these reasons from the complex cause-and-effect complex was associated with the tradition of Soviet historiography to unify Russian history with the history of Western Europe.
With the development of Soviet historical science, the study of many phenomena inevitably deepened national history, including fragmentation, which, however, did not interfere with the persistence of stereotypes. The ambiguity in assessments also concerned fragmentation. The historian Leontyev assessed this phenomenon in 1975 as follows: “Feudal fragmentation was a new, higher stage in the development of feudal society and the state. At the same time, the loss of state unity of Rus', accompanied by civil strife, weakened its strength in the face of the growing threat of external aggression.”
References to the dialectical approach are not able to obscure the fact that the threat of external aggression called into question the very existence of Rus', regardless of the level of development of society and feudal relations. A higher level of development of society meant, first of all, increased opportunities for realizing local economic potential. In practice, such implementation was often hampered by many unfavorable factors: political instability, cutting off many regions from resources, etc.
With an objective approach to the study of this problem, it would be logical to abandon the traditional unification of the processes of fragmentation in Rus' with Western European feudalism. The development of ancient Russian land relations was largely influenced by such factors as the presence of communal land use and a huge fund of free land.
Historians Dumin and Tugarinov directly admit that according to written sources of the Kyiv era (XI - first half of the 13th century), the process of feudalization of land ownership is poorly traced. Of course, one cannot completely deny the feudalization tendencies of ancient Russian society. In this case, we are talking about the fact that the mechanism of interaction between the base and the superstructure should not be simplified. The political, cultural and socio-psychological aspects of the problem require great attention. Unsettled order of princely succession, strife within the princely ruling dynasty, separatism of the local landed nobility reflected the destabilization of the political situation in the country. The collision and struggle of centripetal and centrifugal factors determined the course both before and after the fragmentation of Kievan Rus.
The overwhelming majority of pre-Soviet historians were talking not about feudal, but about state fragmentation of the ancient Russian state.
Pre-October historiography showed that in the XIII - XIV centuries. Russian peasants were free tenants of privately owned lands, and quitrent was a kind of rent. The landowner class was heterogeneous and the boundaries between its various categories were constantly blurred. A structure of social hierarchy had emerged, which in itself did not yet imply the fragmentation of the state. According to N.M. Karamzin and S.M. Solovyov, this period was a kind of turmoil. Representatives of the state school did not use the concept of “feudal fragmentation” in relation to Kievan Rus.
V. O. Klyuchevsky spoke not about fragmentation, but about the appanage system, calling this period “appanage centuries.” His terminology implied, first of all, state decentralization due to the implementation of the principle of hereditary division of power within the princely family of Rurikovich. The concept of “feudalism” V. O. Klyuchevsky used exclusively in relation to Western Europe. The period of fragmentation according to Klyuchevsky was a time of difficult trials for Rus', but it had its historical meaning as a transition period from Kievan Rus' to Moscow Rus'. V. O. Klyuchevsky believes that during the specific period, despite fragmentation, integrating trends persisted in Rus'. Despite the crisis of the central government, there was a process of ethnic consolidation of the population of North-Eastern Rus'. The “universal feeling” of the Russians was reinforced by the unity of language, traditions, and mentality. The Orthodox Church was also the force that held the ancient Russian ethnos together. The unity of Kievan Rus was also visible in the system of relations within the princely house of Rurikovich. The princes “wandered” to more prestigious lands, while in the West the feudal lords firmly grew into their fiefs.
L. N. Gumilyov came up with an original explanation of the fragmentation of Kievan Rus. In his opinion, it was the result of a decline in passionary tension in the system of the ancient Russian ethnos. He saw the manifestations of this decline in the weakening of public and intrastate ties, due to the victory of narrow selfish interests and consumer psychology, when state organization was perceived by ordinary people as a burden, and not as a guarantee of survival, stability and protection. During the XI and early XII centuries. military clashes between Rus' and its neighbors did not outgrow the framework of military conflicts. Relative safety has become familiar to the Russian people. For the thinking part of ancient Russian society, fragmentation was a negative phenomenon (for example, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” 1185). The negative consequences of fragmentation were not long in coming. At the end of the 12th century, the onslaught of the Polovtsians intensified. The Polovtsians, together with internal strife, led the country to decline. The population of southern Rus' began its resettlement to the North-East of Rus' (colonization of the Vladimir-Suzdal land). Against the background of the decline of Kyiv, the relative rise of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus', Smolensk and Novgorod the Great was evident. However, this rise at that time could not yet lead to the creation of an all-Russian center capable of uniting Rus' and fulfilling strategic tasks. In the second half of the 13th century, Rus' faced its most difficult test, when the Mongols attacked from the east, and Germans, Lithuanians, Swedes, Danes, Poles and Hungarians from the west. The Russian principalities, weakened by infighting, were unable to unite to repel and resist the enemy.
General characteristics of the period of fragmentation
With the establishment of feudal fragmentation in Rus', appanage order finally triumphed. (Appanage - princely possession.) “The princes ruled the free population of their principalities as sovereigns and owned their territories as private owners, with all the rights of disposal arising from such property” (V.O. Klyuchevsky). With the cessation of the movement of princes among principalities in order of seniority, all-Russian interests are replaced by private interests: increasing one’s principality at the expense of its neighbors, dividing it among one’s sons at the will of the father.
With the change in the position of the prince, the position of the rest of the population also changes. Service with the prince has always been voluntary for a free person. Now the boyars and boyar children have the opportunity to choose which prince to serve, which was recorded in the so-called right of departure. While maintaining their land holdings, they had to pay tribute to the prince in whose principality their estates were located. Appanage prince

Service people

Military servants with the right of departure Service people without the right of departure
Feudal fragmentation as a natural stage in the historical development of human society is characterized by the following factors:

Positive:
Growth of cities, crafts and trade;

Cultural and economic development of individual lands.

Negative:
Weak central authority;

Independence of local princes and boyars;

Disintegration of the state into separate principalities and lands;

Vulnerability to external enemies.
Since the 15th century, a new form of service has appeared - local. An estate is land, the holder of which had to perform compulsory service in favor of the prince and did not enjoy the right of departure. Such possession is called conditional, since the owner of the estate was not its owner in full. He owned it only while his service lasted. The prince could transfer the estate to another, take it away completely, or retain the ownership under the condition of the service of the landowner's sons...
All land of the principality was divided into state land ("black"), palace land (belonging personally to the prince), boyar land (patrimony) and church land. Principality lands

State lands Palace lands Private boyar lands Church lands
The land was inhabited by free community members who, like the boyars, had the right to transfer from one landowner to another. This right was not used only by personally dependent people - arable slaves, purchasers, servants.
Political history of Kievan Rus during the period of feudal fragmentation
Thanks to the generally recognized authority of Monomakh, after his death in 1125, the Kiev throne was occupied by his eldest son, Mstislav (1125-1132), although he was not the eldest among the remaining princes. He was born around 1075 and for a long time was a prince in Novgorod, waged wars with the Chud and defended the Suzdal land from princes Oleg and Yaroslav Svyatoslavich. Having become the Grand Duke, Mstislav continued the policy of his father: he kept the appanage princes in strict obedience and did not allow them to start internecine wars. In 1128, Mstislav took possession of the Principality of Polotsk and gave it to his son Izyaslav. The Polotsk princes were forced to go into exile in Byzantium. In 1132 Mstislav fought with Lithuania and died in the same year.
Mstislav was succeeded by his brother Yaropolk (1132-1139). Under Vladimir Monomakh and his eldest son, Mstislav, the unity of the Old Russian state was restored. However, under Yaropolk Vladimirovich, discord began again between the heirs of Monomakh. The sons of Oleg Svyatoslavich also joined the fight for Kyiv. The Polotsk princes also took advantage of the strife and again occupied Polotsk.
After the death of Yaropolk, Oleg Svyatoslavich's eldest son, Vsevolod, expelled Vladimir Monomakh's son Vyacheslav from Kyiv and became the Grand Duke (1139 - 1146). Vsevolod wanted to be succeeded by his brother Igor. But the people of Kiev did not like the Olegovichs and called Izyaslav Mstislavich (1146-1154) as prince, and killed Igor. By occupying Kyiv, Izyaslav violated the right of seniority of his uncle Yuri Dolgoruky, the son of Vladimir Monomakh. A war began between them, in which other Russian princes, as well as Hungarians and Polovtsians, took part. The war went on with varying degrees of success. Yuri expelled Izyaslav from Kyiv twice, but in 1151 he was defeated by him and took the Kiev throne only in 1154, after the death of Izyaslav. Yuri Dolgoruky (1154-1157) was the youngest son of Vladimir Monomakh from his second wife. Born around 1090. Since childhood, he lived constantly in his father’s places - Rostov the Great, Suzdal, Vladimir. Monomakh gave him this inheritance with the intention - let the youngest son strengthen Rus' here and gain his wealth. Yuri lived up to his father's hopes.

Description of work

Political fragmentation is a natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal estates in Rus' in the middle of the 12th-13th centuries. (See the diagram “Apartment Rus'”). Based on Kievan Rus by the middle of the 12th century. About 15 lands and principalities were formed by the beginning of the 13th century. - 50, in the 14th century. - 250.
Further development of the Russian lands took place within the framework of new state formations, the largest of which were: the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, the Galicia-Volyn (See the article “Features of the development of the Galician-Volyn principality in the period of political fragmentation” in the anthology) and the Novgorod boyar republic, which were politically independent, had their own troops, coin, judicial institutions, etc.
Political fragmentation did not mean the collapse of Rus', but its transformation into a kind of federation of principalities and lands. Prince of Kyiv remained head in name only. Relations between princes were regulated by agreements and customs. The goal of feudal strife during the period of fragmentation was different than in a single state: not the seizure of power throughout the country, but the strengthening of one’s principality, its expansion at the expense of its neighbors.

Feudal fragmentation. The fight against the crusaders and the raid of the Horde. Features of the feudal fragmentation of ancient Rus' The natural process of economic strengthening and political

Political fragmentation