The state system of the Galicia-Volyn principality. Strengthening the political power of local princes and boyars V. Struggle for power between princes and boyars


Prince and princely government in Kievan Rus.

The prince in relation to other sovereign princes was an independent sovereign. Inside his volost, the prince was the head of the administration, the highest commander and judge. Princely power was a necessary element in the state power of all Russian lands. However, the state system of the ancient Russian principalities cannot be called monarchical. The state system of the ancient Russian principalities of the X-XII centuries. represents a kind of "unstable balance" between the two elements of state power: monarchical, in the person of the prince, and democratic, in the person of the people's assembly or vecha senior volost cities. The power of the prince was not absolute, it was everywhere limited by the power of the veche. But the power of the veche and its intervention in affairs manifested itself only in cases of emergency, while the power of the prince was a constantly and daily acting governing body.

The duty of the prince was primarily to maintain external security and protect the land from attacks by an external enemy. The prince led foreign policy, was in charge of relations with other princes and states, concluded alliances and treaties, declared war and made peace (however, in those cases when the war required the convocation of the people's militia, the prince had to obtain the consent of the council). The prince was a military organizer and leader; he appointed the head of the people's militia ("thousand") and during the hostilities he commanded both his squad and the people's militia.

The prince was a legislator, administrator and supreme judge. He had to "work the truth in this world." The prince often entrusted the court to his deputies, “posadniks” and “tiuns”, but the people always preferred the personal court of the prince.

The prince was the head of government and appointed all officials. Regional governors appointed by the prince were called "posadniks". The administrative and judicial powers were in the hands of the posadniks. Under the prince and under the posadniks, there were petty officials, some of the free, some of their slaves, for all kinds of judicial and police executive actions - these were “virniki”, “metal workers”, “children”, “youths”. The local free population, urban and rural, made up their own communities, or worlds, had their own elected representatives, elders and “good people” who defended their interests before the princely administration. At the princely court was the management of the vast princely economy - "tiuny courtiers".

The princely income consisted of tribute from the population, fines for crimes and trade duties and income from princely estates.

In their government activities, the princes usually used the advice and help of their senior warriors, "princely husbands." In important cases, especially before the start of military expeditions, the princes gathered the entire squad for advice. The combatants were personally free and connected with the prince only by the bonds of a personal agreement and trust. But the thought with the boyars and warriors was not mandatory for the prince, as well as did not impose any formal obligations on him. There was also no mandatory composition of the princely council. Sometimes the prince consulted with the entire retinue, sometimes only with its highest layer of “princely men”, sometimes with two or three close boyars. Therefore, that “aristocratic element of power”, which some historians see in the Russian princely Duma, was only an advisory and auxiliary body under the prince.

But in this druzhina or boyar duma sat the "old men of the city", that is, the elected military authorities of the city of Kyiv, and perhaps other cities, "thousand" and "sotsky". So the very question of accepting Christianity was decided by the prince on the advice of the boyars and the "old men of the city." These elders, or elders of the city, are hand in hand with the prince, together with the boyars, in matters of administration, as in all court celebrations, forming, as it were, a zemstvo aristocracy next to the princely service. At the prince's feast on the occasion of the consecration of the church in Vasilevo in 996, along with the boyars and posadniks, "the elders from all over the city" were called. In exactly the same way, by order of Vladimir, it was supposed to come to his Sunday feasts in Kyiv boyars, “gridi”, “sotsky”, “ten” and all “deliberate men”. But constituting the military-government class, the princely retinue at the same time still remained at the head of the Russian merchant class, from which it stood out, taking an active part in overseas trade. This Russian merchant class is about half of the 10th century. far from being Slavic Russian.

Organization of military forces in Kievan Rus.

The main components of the armed forces of the principalities in the X-XII centuries. were, firstly, the princely squad, and secondly, the people's militia.

The princely squad was not numerous; even among the senior princes, it was a detachment of 700-800 people. But they were strong, brave, trained professional warriors. The squad was divided into the younger (lower, “young”), which was called “grid” or “gridboi” (Scandinavian grid - yard servant), “lads”, “children”, and the older (higher), which was called princely husbands or boyars. The oldest collective name of the junior squad “grid” was later replaced by the word yard or servants. This retinue, together with its prince, emerged from among the armed merchants of large cities. In the XI century. it still did not differ from this merchant class in sharp features, either political or economic. The squad of the principality was, in fact, a military class.

Initially, the squad was kept and fed at the princely court and, as an additional reward, received its share from the tribute collected from the population and from military booty after a successful campaign. Subsequently, the combatants, especially their upper stratum, the boyars, began to acquire land and acquire a household, and then they went to war with their “lads” - servants.

The princely squad was the strongest core and the main core of the army. In the event of the upcoming extensive military operations, the people's militia, made up of the free urban population, was called to arms, and in cases of emergency, rural residents - "smerds" - were also called up for military service.

Large trading cities were organized in a military way, each integral organized regiment was formed, called a thousand, which was subdivided into hundreds and tens (battalions and companies). A thousand (people's militia) were commanded by the “thousand” who was chosen by the city, and then appointed by the prince, hundreds and tens were also elected “sotsky” and “tenth”. These elected commanders made up the military administration of the city and the region that belonged to it, the military-government foreman, who is called in the annals "the elders of the city." City regiments, more precisely, armed cities took a constant part in the prince's campaigns along with his squad. But the prince could call on the people's militia only with the consent of the veche.

In addition to the princely squad and the people's militia, auxiliary detachments from foreigners took part in the wars. Initially, these were mainly Varangian squads that the Russian princes hired into their service, and from the end of the 11th century they were cavalry detachments of “their filthy” or “black hoods” (torks, berendeys, pechenegs), which the Russian princes settled on the southern outskirts of the Kievskaya earth.

Veche.

The news of the chronicles about veche life in Russia is numerous and varied, although we find detailed descriptions of veche meetings very rarely. Of course, in all cases when the population of the city acted independently and independently of the prince, we must assume a preliminary conference or council, that is, a veche.

In the era of tribal life. Before the formation and strengthening of the Grand Duchy of Kyiv, individual tribes, glades, Drevlyans, and others, gather, if necessary, at their tribal meetings and confer with their tribal princes on common affairs. In the X and at the beginning of the XI century. with the strengthening of the central power in the person of the Grand Duke of Kyiv (Vladimir the Holy and Yaroslav the Wise), these tribal gatherings lose their political significance, and from the middle of the 11th century they were replaced by an active and influential veche of the older regional cities.

However, in exceptional cases (especially in the absence of the prince), the urban population shows its activity and initiative in the early period of the Kievan state. For example, in 997 we see a veche in Belgorod besieged by the Pechenegs.

After the death of Yaroslav (in 1054), when the Russian land was divided into several principalities, the veche of the main volost cities acts as the bearer of supreme power in the state. When the prince was strong enough and popular enough, the veche was inactive and left the prince to manage government affairs. On the other hand, emergency cases, such as a change in the throne or the solution of questions of war and peace, caused the powerful intervention of the veche, and the voice of the people's assembly in these matters was decisive.

The power of the veche, its composition and competence were not determined by any legal norms. Veche was an open meeting, a national meeting, and all the free could take part in it. It was only required that the participants should not be under paternal authority (the fathers of the veche decided for the children) or in any private dependence. In fact, the veche was a meeting of the townspeople of the main city; residents of small towns or "suburbs" had the right to attend the veche, but rarely had the actual opportunity to do so. The decision of the veche meeting of the older city was considered binding on the residents of the suburbs and for the entire volost. No law defined or limited the powers of the veche. Veche could discuss and resolve any issue that interested him.

The most important and common subject of the competence of veche meetings was the calling, or acceptance, of princes and the expulsion of princes who were not pleasing to the people. The calling and change of princes were not only political facts, resulting from the real balance of forces, but were generally recognized law population. This right was recognized by the princes themselves and their squads.

The second - extremely important - range of questions to be decided by the veche were questions about war and peace in general, as well as about the continuation or cessation of hostilities. For the war by his own means, with the help of his squad and hunters from the people, the prince did not need the consent of the veche, but for the war by means of the volost, when the convocation of the people's militia was required, the consent of the veche was needed.

Hinny summer 1556

4. Novgorod land

Novgorod occupies a special place in Russian history. Here, longer than in other lands, veche orders. Novgorod in Russian literature was considered a "stronghold of liberty". Its history is much more connected with international trade than with feudal landownership. However, unlike trade republics of the European Middle Ages, the wealth of Novgorod relied primarily on land ownership and commercial hunting. That is why the real power in Novgorod belonged boyars. Novgorod land, located in the north-west of Russia, is characterized by an abundance of swamps and poor soil. Vast forest areas, a lot of fur-bearing animals. Conditions for farming - unfavorable. Bread had to be bought, most often in North-Eastern Russia. Novgorod is located on the Volkhov River, directly on the way " Varangians to Greeks", which created favorable conditions for the development of trade with Western Europe.

R. Volkhov divided Novgorod into two sides - Sofia and trading. Each consisted of ends. At first there were three, later - five. The ends were independent multi-tribal villages, which later merged into a single city. Scientists believe that they inhabited them Ilmen Slovenes, krivichi, measuring("nareva"). Directly "Novgorod" at first was not called the whole city, but Kremlin, where the secular administration and priesthood common to all villages were located.

Decisive role in Novgorod belonged to the boyars. Novgorod boyars, in contrast to the boyars Vladimir-Suzdal Rus, were by origin not princely vigilantes, and the descendants of the local tribal know. They were a closed aristocratic caste, a certain range of families. It was impossible to become a Novgorod boyar; just be born. The boyars owned extensive possessions in the territories subject to Novgorod. Initially, they collected from the population of the lands tribute in favor of the city treasury, and then took possession of them, turning them into their estates. That., private land ownership in Novgorod, unlike North-Eastern Russia, was not based on princely grants. From the estates, the boyars received not only agricultural products, but also salt and (ch. arr.) what was mined in the forest and sea industries: furs, honey, wax, leather, walrus ivory. Exactly these products formed the basis of the Novgorod export to Western Europe.


Novgorod merchants acted as trading agents of the boyars. Novgorod traded not only in what was produced in its lands, but also conducted intermediary trade. Foreign merchants could not trade with each other in Novgorod, but were obliged to sell their goods only to Novgorodians. The most important trading partners of Novgorod were the North German ( Hanseatic) cities, especially Lübeck, as well as Swedish merchants from the island of Gotland. In Novgorod there were Hanseatic and Gotland trading yards. Novgorod imported fabrics, metal products, luxury goods, as well as raw materials for handicraft production (in the Novgorod land itself, only wood and building stone were in abundance). Since the exported goods belonged to the boyars, they also owned the imported raw materials. The boyars supplied them to artisans. Novgorod craft reached an exceptionally high level of development. Artisans depended on the boyars, worked for them, the yards of artisans were often located on the land that belonged to the boyars. The wealth and power of the boyars was based, therefore, on land ownership and trade.

Political arrangement of Novgorod. Novgorod sharply differed from all other Russian lands in its political structure.

posadnik
thousand
archbishop
prince


White hood of the Novgorod Archbishop Vasily. Ethnographic sketches by Fyodor Solntsev

Power in Novgorod belonged to the veche. Modern data indicate that it consisted of 300-500 human representing 30-40 noble families of the city. Apparently, the boyars and, perhaps, some of the richest merchants were present at the veche. The veche elected a posadnik, who managed the city economy, and a thousand, who was in charge of collecting taxes. The city was divided into 10 taxable"hundreds", which were controlled by the Sots, who were subordinate to the thousand. Previously, it was believed that Tysyatsky led the Novgorod militia - "thousand". One of the boyars always became the posadnik. Tysyatsky was originally a representative of the merchant class, but in the XIII-XIV centuries. and this position passed into the hands of the boyars. At the disposal of the posadnik and the thousandth was a whole staff of subordinates, with the help of which they carried out administration and court. They announced the decision of the council, informed the court about the commission of a crime, summoned to court, produced search, etc. However, the first place among elected officials was occupied by the bishop, who received in 1165 rank of archbishop. He got out at the veche, and then he was approved by the Kyiv metropolitan. The archbishop (together with the mayor) sealed the international treaties of Novgorod with his seal, represented Novgorodians; in negotiations with the Russian princes. He even had his own regiment. The ordinary population of Novgorod took part only in the Konchan and Ulitchan veche, electing the elders of the ends and streets (streets). However, the boyars also often used the Konchan and Ulich veche for their own purposes, inciting the inhabitants of "their" end against rivals from other ends.


Veliky Novgorod (Novgorod Boyar Republic)

The prince played a largely formal role in the system of Novgorod administration. AT 1015 Yaroslav the Wise, who then reigned in Novgorod, in exchange for the support of its inhabitants in the struggle for Kyiv agreed to the lack of jurisdiction of the Novgorod boyars to the princely court. AT 1136 Novgorodians rebelled and expelled the prince Vsevolod(grandson of Monomakh). After that, Novgorod itself began to invite the prince, with whom the veche concluded a "row" - an agreement. A prince who violated the "row" could be expelled. The prince had no right to interfere in the affairs of the city self-government, to appoint and dismiss the posadnik and the thousandth, to buy land on the outskirts of the Novgorod territory. As a rule, Novgorodians invited princes from the most powerful princely family at that time. But Novgorod never tried to do without a prince at all. Prince, because he belonged to a single family Rurikovich, was symbol unity of Novgorod with the rest of Russia. Tribute was received in his name, for he was considered the supreme owner of the Novgorod land. He performed (together with the posadnik and the archbishop) the functions of an arbitrator. The prince could also lead the Novgorod army, but this function was secondary. Quite often minors reigned in Novgorod. The widespread idea of ​​the Novgorod prince as a commander is explained by the influence of the image Alexander Nevsky. Political history of Novgorod in the XII-XIII centuries. had an intricate weave fight for independence from anti-feudal speeches folk the masses and the struggle for power m. boyar factions(representing the boyar families of the Trade and Sofia sides cities, its ends and streets). The entire population of Novgorod was divided into "better people" and "smaller ( black) of people".


In the XIII-XIV centuries. there were about 50 uprisings of "black" people against the "best". Sometimes two vechas gathered: on the trading side and at Sophia Cathedral. Anti-feudal speeches of the city the poor boyars often used to remove their rivals from power, dulling the anti-feudal nature of these speeches by reprisals against individual boyars or officials. The largest anti-feudal movement there was an uprising 1207 against the posadnik Dmitry Miroshkinich and his relatives, who burdened the city people and peasants arbitrary fees and usurious bondage. The rebels defeated the city estates and the villages of Miroshkinich seized their debt bondage. The boyars, hostile to the Miroshkinichs, took advantage of the uprising to eliminate them from authorities. Novgorod held an active foreign politics. His contract is known 1191 with the Goth Coast (Gotland Island on Baltic), as well as an agreement with German cities on peace, embassy, ​​trade relations and court 1192 . In the XIII century. seceded from Novgorod Pskov, but even after that, when the Novgorod republic became part of the Moscow states, then the territory of the latter has doubled. The annexation of Novgorod so strengthened Moscow that in the same year (1192) she refused to pay tribute Mongolian Tatars. Evolution republican statehood was accompanied by the extinction of the role of the city council. At the same time, the importance of the city boyar council grew. Republican statehood has undergone changes from relative democracy to frank oligarchic system reign to the 15th century. In the XIII century. a council was formed of representatives from the five ends of Novgorod, from which the posadniks were selected. In the beginning of the XV century. decisions of the veche were almost entirely prepared by the council. Novgorod boyars against interests the townspeople were prevented from joining Moscow. 15 JAN 1478 Novgorod submitted to Moscow.

Thus, Novgorod was ruled elective authorities representing the top of the population. It is on this basis that Novgorod is considered an aristocratic republic.


Aristocracy Archbishop Balta Blaga Boyars Veche Vladimir-Suzdal Principality (Zalessky land, Zalesky region) Power State power Political power Eastern Slavs Patronage Hansa Cities of the Eastern Slavs

Kievan Rus of the 9th - 12th centuries is, firstly, the cradle of the statehood of three fraternal peoples - Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and secondly, it is one of the largest powers of medieval Europe, which played a historical role in the fate of the peoples and states of the West, East and distant North. Kyiv - the capital of Russia - was one of the five largest cities in the world.

From a relatively small union of the Slavic tribes of the Middle Dnieper (the origins of this union go back to the time of Herodotus), Russia grew to a huge power that united both all the East Slavic tribes, as well as a number of Lithuanian-Latvian tribes in the Baltic states and numerous Finno-Ugric tribes of northeast Europe.
The importance and necessity of studying Kievan Rus as the first state formation was already fully realized by our ancestors: Nestor's Tale of Bygone Years, created at the beginning of the 12th century, was copied and multiplied by scribes for more than 500 years. And this is a wise order for us to study the glorious epic past of our Motherland in its entirety and variety of historical sources available to us.
The era of Kievan Rus is the era of the greatness of our people, so I consider its history to be one of the most important pages of our past.
In this work, I would like to consider the role of the prince and the veche in the “political” sphere of society in the 9th-12th centuries. Here the main question is how the relations between the called-up governmental principle and the call- ing tribes, as well as those who were subsequently subordinated, were determined; how the life of these tribes changed as a result of the influence of the governmental principle - the retinue, and how, in turn, the life of the tribes influenced the determination of the relationship between the governmental principle and the rest of the population when establishing an internal order, or attire.
Sources and historiography

Sources on the history of Kievan Rus are quite plentiful and varied. A good and detailed review of Russia and the feudal principalities is made in a solid collective work created under the editorship of V. V. Mavrodin: “Soviet Kievan Rus” (L., 1979), where the authors reasonably understand by Kievan Rus not only the period from IX to the beginning of XII century, but also the initial phase of feudal fragmentation until the beginning of the 13th century, which is substantiated by them in another very useful publication.
Of great interest are the letters of the 12th century that have come down to us, some of which reflect individual transactions between feudal lords, and some give a broad picture of the whole principality. A number of princely and veche deeds are reflected in the birch-bark letters of Novgorod the Great. Birch-bark writings turn out to be a very important source when compared with chronicles, act material, and later scribe books.
For the era of the existence of Kievan Rus in the 9th - 12th centuries, chronicles are still the most important historical source. In numerous works of historians and literary critics, both the all-Russian annals and the annals of different regions are comprehensively considered.
Two works devoted to the bibliography and historiography of chronicle writing help to orientate in the extensive and involuntarily contradictory literature on Russian chronicle writing: these are the works of V. I. Buganov and R. P. Dmitrieva.
If the 10th century left us only the chronicle of Kyiv, then the 11th century, when the state chronicle in the capital continued uninterruptedly, added the chronicle of Novgorod, which often gave a different, local assessment of events and figures. In the future boyar republic (since 1136), interest in the life of the city is clearly visible, some Kyiv princes are negatively evaluated. It is possible that the Novgorod posadnik Ostomir was the initiator of the first chronicle of the “Lord of Veliky Novgorod”.
In the twelfth century, chronicle writing ceased to be the privilege of only these two cities and appeared in every major center. Chronicles continued to be kept both in Kyiv and Novgorod.
Sources on the history of Kievan Rus are numerous and varied. Studying them and extracting from them data on the economy, social structure, political system and social thought is still far from complete.
In this work, I used several books - works of famous historians.
For example, the work of I. N. Danilevsky gives an idea of ​​the current state of domestic and foreign science in the study of the early period of Russian history (before the 12th century). The book is based on a critical rethinking of the source base used for historical constructions, and it also includes a detailed analysis of the potential opportunities and experience accumulated to date in the study of Russian history by different schools of the humanities.
The work of the largest Russian historian S. M. Solovyov “History of Russia from ancient times”, which is a great scientific work, and historical and cultural interest in which is not weakening, was used.
Also, the monographs of Rybakov B.A., who wrote fundamental works on the history of our Motherland, the study of the origin of the ancient Slavs, the initial stages of the formation of Russian statehood, Kievan Rus of the 9th-12th centuries, the development of crafts, the culture of Russian lands and the art of the ancient Slavs, served as sources.

Prerequisites for the formation of the state

and his education.

Origin of the Eastern Slavs

H

Based on the analysis of archaeological sites, the following is known: in the village. I millennium BC e. Proto-Slavs lived in Powislenie. They maintained ethnic contacts with the Balts, Germans, Illyrians, Celts, from the 2nd century BC. - with the descendants of the Scythians and Sarmatians. Finds on the Kyiv hills of treasures of Roman coins and jewelry of the 1st–3rd centuries. testify to the trade of the Slavs with the Greek colonies. In the III century. the Slavs fought fierce wars with the Goths, and in the 4th century. - with the Huns. At the same time, the area of ​​​​settlement of the Proto-Slavs in the 4th century. expanded from the lower reaches of the Elbe in the west to tributaries and the middle Dnieper in the east. The Slavs constituted a single Indo-European community with the Germans.
From written sources we know the following: the Proto-Slavs - Wends (as the Proto-Slavs were called in ancient sources of the 1st century) - lived in small villages. The social system is a tribal community. The basis of the economy from the I-III centuries. arable farming is becoming, as well as cattle breeding, fishing and hunting. Tools of labor - axes, knives, sickles - were also made of stone. Bronze was used mainly for decorations, and from household equipment only for chisels needed in wooden construction. Herodotus wrote about the northern regions, where "many huge rivers" lived Scythian plowmen, "who sow grain not for their own needs, but for sale." In the II century. the Slavs borrowed the "chetverik" bread measure from the colonists. Information about the life and social system of the Eastern Slavs is contained in the work "Strategikon" by the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea. In the IV century. Proto-Slavic tribes united in tribal unions.
Neither from archaeological nor from written sources do we reliably know the origin of the Slavs. Some researchers believe that the Slavs were the autochthonous population of Eastern Europe; others believe that the Slavs are descended from Herodotus' "Scythian plowmen"; still others believe that the Slavs descended from the Finno-Ugric peoples and the Balts. "The Tale of Bygone Years" reports that the Slavs are from Central Europe. Academician Rybakov B. A. noted: "... judging by the landscape designations common to all Slavic peoples, the Proto-Slavs lived in the zone of deciduous forests and forest-steppe, where there were glades, lakes, swamps, but there was no sea; where there were hills, ravines, watersheds, but there were no high mountains.

The resettlement of the ancient Russian peoples

AT

3rd–4th centuries The settlement of the territory of Eastern and Southern Europe by the Slavs begins.
The reasons:
1. Slavic tribal unions were involved in the last wave of the Great Migration. In 530 Slavic migration intensified. The first mention of the people "Ros" dates back to this time.
2. The appearance of the Slavs in the IV-V centuries. arable farming, which required new lands
3. Gradual cooling on the European continent.
Migration did not come from one region, but from different dialect areas of the Proto-Slavic area. This circumstance, along with the processes of assimilation of the local population, led to the collapse in the 6th-8th centuries. Proto-Slavs into three branches of the Slavs: Wends, Ants and Slavs. Wends - the ancestors of the Czechs, Poles, Slovaks, Lusatian Serbs - Western Slavs. Sklavins - the ancestors of Serbs, Slovenes, Croats, Bulgarians, Balkan Muslims - southern Slavs. Anty - the ancestors of Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians - Eastern Slavs.
The Old Russian nationality was formed in the vast expanses of the East European Plain. Neighbors of the Ants in the VI-VII centuries. there were Finno-Ugric, Lithuanian, Turkic (Berendey, obry, torks, Khazars, black hoods, Pechenegs) tribes. Relations with neighbors were uneven. In 558, the Avar Khagan Boyan killed Mezhamir, the ambassador of the Dulebs, and conquered their country. In 602, the Avars again sent an army under the command of Aspih to the land of the Antes. The history of Eastern Slavs begins from the period when an independent East Slavic language began to stand out from the common Slavic (Proto-Slavic) language. This happened in the 7th-8th centuries. Tribal differences within the East Slavic community were due to mixing with the peoples of the Finno-Ugric group.
During the settlement (IV-IV centuries), there were changes in the socio-political structure:
1. East Slavic tribal unions were formed (Polyans, Northerners, Ulichs, Dulebs, Drevlyans, Volynians, Buzhans, White Croats, Dregovichi, Krivichi, Radimichi, Vyatichi, Ilmen Slovenes and others), each consisting of 120-150 tribes. According to the "Tale of Bygone Years" in the VIII century. 12–15 tribal unions lived on the territory of Eastern Europe
2. The tribal community and the patriarchal family were replaced by a branch
3. The transition from military democracy to an early feudal monarchy began.



State formation
D

the ancient Russian state was formed as a result of internal prerequisites: the decomposition of the tribal system, common territory, culture, language, history, economic structure. Along with the formation of the state as a result of the merger of tribal unions, an ancient Russian single nationality was taking shape.
The initiators of the creation of a tribal union on the middle Dnieper in the 5th century. there were clearings in the person of Prince Kiy - the legendary founder of Kyiv. There is very little reliable information about the history of this proto-state. It is known that the Kyiv prince with his retinue referred to themselves as "dews", in contrast to the bulk of the tax-paying population - glades.
OK. 6th century a similar proto-state of Slavia was formed - a tribal union of the Ilmen Slovenes around Novgorod and Ladoga. It was the Ilmenian Slovenes who initiated the formation of a single East Slavic state through the unification of Kyiv and Novgorod.
It is absolutely not known exactly when the Old Russian state was formed, because. this stage of development is legendary. The main signs of the existence of statehood in early medieval society, modern historians consider the presence of power alienated from the people, the distribution of the population according to the territorial principle and the collection of tribute to maintain power. You can add to this as a prerequisite - the inheritance of power by the prince. In the conditions of Kievan Rus at the end of the 8th - beginning of the 9th century, specific forms of statehood were: the conquest of the territories of tribal principalities by the power of the state center and the spread of a system of collecting tribute, administration and legal proceedings to these lands.
Thus, among the Eastern Slavs, the existence of tribute collection and veche can be distinguished. The veche is characterized by the fact that the Slavs have some kind of organization that needs to be led, therefore, there is a “chairman”. The collection of tribute is the establishment of the order by which the contract arises: "We protect you - you pay us." Tribute is the payment for a failed raid. So, we see that in the VIII century. - early 9th century the structure of the prince - squad - veche is associated with the use of force, but there are no rules (laws) as such yet. Therefore, we call this period "military democracy". At this time, society is heterogeneous: a prince stands out - a military leader who managed the affairs of the tribe, but at the same time there was a veche - a people's assembly, which gathered a tribal militia (at the head of the militia - governor). There is a squad under the prince (its members are “lads” – warriors).
The state of the Eastern Slavs arises as a two-centered state with centers in Kyiv and Novgorod. (Oleg united Novgorod and Kyiv Rus in 882. And, although Novgorod was the initiator of the unification, the state of the Eastern Slavs was called "Kievan Rus", since Kyiv was richer and had traditional ties with Byzantium.)
The history of the formation of the state of Kievan Rus covers the period from 862 to 1019, i.e. from the calling of Rurik to the beginning of the reign in Kyiv of Yaroslav the Wise. At that time, the following ruled: Rurik - Oleg - Igor - Olga - Svyatoslav - Vladimir - Svyatopolk. The main subject of their concerns and efforts were: the unification of all East Slavic (and part of the Finnish) tribes under the rule of the Grand Duke of Kyiv; the acquisition of overseas markets for Russian trade and the protection of trade routes that led to these markets; protection of the borders of the Russian land from the attacks of the steppe nomads.
Later we will consider in detail how these rulers reigned.

The political structure of Russian lands in the X-XII centuries.

AT

Early ninth century marked the transition from military democracy to early feudal monarchy. The process of turning the tribal nobility into owners of the land began. There was a structure of tribal "executive" power - a prince, a squad (boyars, gridi, youths) and a structure of "legislative" power - a veche. The class of feudal lords was also formed by singling out the most prosperous members of the community, who turned part of the communal arable land into property. The growth of the economic and political power of the landowners led to the establishment of various forms of dependence of ordinary community members on landowners. Against this background, the role of councils of elders and people's militias gradually decreased.
Kievan Rus XI-XII centuries. It was not a single state, nor was it a political federation, because princely congresses were a comparatively rare phenomenon, gathered only in exceptional cases, and resolutions were not legally binding. All members of the Rurik clan considered themselves born sovereign princes and “brothers” among themselves; they usually call the eldest in the family, the Grand Duke of Kyiv, their “father”, but this is nothing more than an honorary appointment without any real content, especially since the Kyiv prince was by no means always really the eldest in the family. In reality, each prince within his “volost” and in inter-princely relations behaved like an independent sovereign and his relations with other princes were determined “either by the army or by peace”, that is, all disputed issues were resolved either by force of arms, or agreements, treaties with other princes. This contractual principle in inter-princely relations runs through the entire ancient Russian history and stops only in the Muscovite state.
Kievan Rus did not develop any definite order in the distribution of volosts among the princes, because that regular order of princely possessions, based on the principle of tribal seniority, did not really enter the political life of Kievan Rus.

A number of other principles and factors that did not depend on seniority played a role in the distribution of princely tables. One of them was the principle of "fatherland", or hereditary possession. Princes often claim the nominal area that their father owned and where they were born and raised. Already the Lubech Congress of Princes in 1097, in order to get out of difficulties, adopted a resolution: “let each one keep his fatherland.” Quite often, "tables" were distributed according to agreements and treaties between the princes. Sometimes the order or testament of a sufficiently strong and authoritative sovereign prince transferred the throne to his son or brother.
Very often, the population of the older volost cities at the veche decided the question of inviting some popular prince to reign or the expulsion of a prince unloved by the people, without, of course, paying any attention to the family accounts of the princes. Veche sent their ambassadors to the elected candidate for the throne with an invitation.
Finally, quite often stronger, bolder, enterprising and shameless princes occupied the tables simply by force of arms, defeating a rival prince. This practice of “mining” tables has been going on continuously throughout our ancient history.
Veche and princely power in Kievan Rus
Prince and princely government in Kievan Rus.
The prince in relation to other sovereign princes was an independent sovereign. Inside his volost, the prince was the head of the administration, the highest commander and judge. Princely power was a necessary element in the state power of all Russian lands. However, the state system of the ancient Russian principalities cannot be called monarchical. The state system of the ancient Russian principalities of the X-XII centuries. represents a kind of "unstable balance" between the two elements of state power: monarchical, in the person of the prince, and democratic, in the person of the people's assembly or vecha senior volost cities. The power of the prince was not absolute, it was everywhere limited by the power of the veche. But the power of the veche and its intervention in affairs manifested itself only in cases of emergency, while the power of the prince was a constantly and daily acting governing body.
The duty of the prince was primarily to maintain external security and protect the land from attacks by an external enemy. The prince conducted foreign policy, was in charge of relations with other princes and states, concluded alliances and treaties, declared war and made peace (however, in cases where the war required the convocation of the people's militia, the prince had to obtain the consent of the veche). The prince was a military organizer and leader; he appointed the head of the people's militia ("thousand") and during the hostilities he commanded both his squad and the people's militia.
The prince was a legislator, administrator and supreme judge. He had to "work the truth in this world." The prince often entrusted the court to his deputies, “posadniks” and “tiuns”, but the people always preferred the personal court of the prince.
The prince was the head of government and appointed all officials. Regional governors appointed by the prince were called "posadniks". The administrative and judicial powers were in the hands of the posadniks. Under the prince and under the posadniks, there were petty officials, some of the free, some of their slaves, for all kinds of judicial and police executive actions - these were “virniki”, “metal workers”, “children”, “youths”. The local free population, urban and rural, made up their own communities, or worlds, had their own elected representatives, elders and “good people” who defended their interests before the princely administration. At the princely court was the management of the vast princely economy - "tiuny courtiers".
The princely income consisted of tribute from the population, fines for crimes and trade duties and income from princely estates.
In their government activities, the princes usually used the advice and help of their senior warriors, "princely husbands." In important cases, especially before the start of military expeditions, the princes gathered the entire squad for advice. The combatants were personally free and connected with the prince only by the bonds of a personal agreement and trust. But the thought with the boyars and warriors was not mandatory for the prince, as well as did not impose any formal obligations on him. There was also no mandatory composition of the princely council. Sometimes the prince consulted with the entire retinue, sometimes only with its highest layer of “princely men”, sometimes with two or three close boyars. Therefore, that “aristocratic element of power”, which some historians see in the Russian princely Duma, was only an advisory and auxiliary body under the prince.
But in this druzhina or boyar duma sat the "old men of the city", that is, the elected military authorities of the city of Kyiv, and perhaps other cities, "thousand" and "sotsky". So the very question of accepting Christianity was decided by the prince on the advice of the boyars and the "old men of the city." These elders, or elders of the city, are hand in hand with the prince, together with the boyars, in matters of administration, as in all court celebrations, forming, as it were, a zemstvo aristocracy next to the princely service. At the prince's feast on the occasion of the consecration of the church in Vasilevo in 996, along with the boyars and posadniks, "the elders from all over the city" were called. In exactly the same way, by order of Vladimir, it was supposed to come to his Sunday feasts in Kyiv boyars, “gridi”, “sotsky”, “ten” and all “deliberate men”. But constituting the military-government class, the princely retinue at the same time still remained at the head of the Russian merchant class, from which it stood out, taking an active part in overseas trade. This Russian merchant class is about half of the 10th century. far from being Slavic Russian.
Organization of military forces in Kievan Rus.
The main components of the armed forces of the principalities in the X-XII centuries. were, firstly, the princely squad, and secondly, the people's militia.
The princely squad was not numerous; even among the senior princes, she was a detachment of 700-800 people. But they were strong, brave, trained professional warriors. The squad was divided into the younger (lower, “young”), which was called “grid” or “gridboi” (Scandinavian grid - yard servant), “lads”, “children”, and the older (higher), which was called princely husbands or boyars. The oldest collective name of the junior squad “grid” was later replaced by the word yard or servants. This retinue, together with its prince, emerged from among the armed merchants of large cities. In the XI century. it still did not differ from this merchant class in sharp features, either political or economic. The squad of the principality was, in fact, a military class.
Initially, the squad was kept and fed at the princely court and, as an additional reward, received its share from the tribute collected from the population and from military booty after a successful campaign. Subsequently, the combatants, especially their upper stratum, the boyars, began to acquire land and acquire a household, and then they went to war with their “lads” - servants.
The princely squad was the strongest core and the main core of the army. In the event of the upcoming extensive military operations, the people's militia, made up of the free urban population, was called to arms, and in cases of emergency, rural residents - "smerds" - were also called up for military service.
Large trading cities were organized in a military way, each integral organized regiment was formed, called a thousand, which was subdivided into hundreds and tens (battalions and companies). A thousand (people's militia) were commanded by the “thousand” who was chosen by the city, and then appointed by the prince, hundreds and tens were also elected “sotsky” and “tenth”. These elected commanders made up the military administration of the city and the region that belonged to it, the military-government foreman, who is called in the annals "the elders of the city." City regiments, more precisely, armed cities took a constant part in the prince's campaigns along with his squad. But the prince could call on the people's militia only with the consent of the veche.
In addition to the princely squad and the people's militia, auxiliary detachments from foreigners took part in the wars. Initially, these were mainly Varangian squads that the Russian princes hired into their service, and from the end of the 11th century they were cavalry detachments of “their filthy” or “black hoods” (torks, berendeys, pechenegs), which the Russian princes settled on the southern outskirts of the Kievskaya earth.
Veche.
The news of the chronicles about veche life in Russia is numerous and varied, although we find detailed descriptions of veche meetings very rarely. Of course, in all cases when the population of the city acted independently and independently of the prince, we must assume a preliminary conference or council, that is, a veche.
In the era of tribal life. Before the formation and strengthening of the Grand Duchy of Kyiv, individual tribes, glades, Drevlyans, and others, gather, if necessary, at their tribal meetings and confer with their tribal princes on common affairs. In the X and at the beginning of the XI century. with the strengthening of the central power in the person of the Grand Duke of Kyiv (Vladimir the Holy and Yaroslav the Wise), these tribal gatherings lose their political significance, and from the middle of the 11th century they were replaced by an active and influential veche of the older regional cities.
However, in exceptional cases (especially in the absence of the prince), the urban population shows its activity and initiative in the early period of the Kievan state. For example, in 997 we see a veche in Belgorod besieged by the Pechenegs.
After the death of Yaroslav (in 1054), when the Russian land was divided into several principalities, the veche of the main volost cities acts as the bearer of supreme power in the state. When the prince was strong enough and popular enough, the veche was inactive and left the prince to manage government affairs. On the other hand, emergency cases, such as a change in the throne or the solution of questions of war and peace, caused the powerful intervention of the veche, and the voice of the people's assembly in these matters was decisive.
The power of the veche, its composition and competence were not determined by any legal norms. Veche was an open meeting, a national meeting, and all the free could take part in it. It was only required that the participants should not be under paternal authority (the fathers of the veche decided for the children) or in any private dependence. In fact, the veche was a meeting of the townspeople of the main city; residents of small towns or "suburbs" had the right to attend the veche, but rarely had the actual opportunity to do so. The decision of the veche meeting of the older city was considered binding on the residents of the suburbs and for the entire volost. No law defined or limited the competence of the evening. Veche could discuss and resolve any issue that interested him.
The most important and common subject of the competence of veche meetings was the calling, or acceptance, of princes and the expulsion of princes who were not pleasing to the people. The calling and change of princes were not only political facts, resulting from the real balance of forces, but were generally recognized law population. This right was recognized by the princes themselves and their squads.
The second - extremely important - range of questions to be decided by the veche were questions about war and peace in general, as well as about the continuation or cessation of hostilities. For the war by his own means, with the help of his squad and hunters from the people, the prince did not need the consent of the veche, but for the war by means of the volost, when the convocation of the people's militia was required, the consent of the veche was needed.

Development of political freedom and independence of the Great
Novgorod. Veche and princely power of Novgorod Rus. .

AT

X-XI centuries Novgorod was under the rule of the great princes of Kyiv, who kept their governor in it (usually one or their sons) and to whom Novgorod, until the time of Yaroslavl I, paid tribute on an equal basis with other Russian lands. However, already under Yaroslavl, a significant change took place in Novgorod's relations with the Grand Duke of Kyiv. Yaroslav "was sitting" in Novgorod in 1015, when his father died, Vladimir the Holy and his brother Svyatopolk began to beat their brothers in order to seize power over all Russian lands. Only thanks to the active and energetic support of the Novgorodians did Yaroslav manage to defeat Svyatopolk and take possession of the Grand Duchy of Kyiv.
The division of Russia into several separate principalities weakened the power and influence of the Grand Duke of Kyiv, and strife and civil strife in the princely family provided Novgorod with the opportunity to invite rival princes, who was “loved” to him, to reign.
The right of Novgorod to choose for itself any prince among all the Russian princes was indisputable and universally recognized. In the Novgorod chronicle we read: “And Novgorod laid out all the princes in freedom: wherever they are, they can capture the same prince.” In addition to the prince, the head of the Novgorod administration was a posadnik, who in the 10th-11th centuries. was appointed prince, but in the 30s. 12th century the important post of posadnik in Novgorod becomes elective, and the right to change the posadnik belongs only to the veche.
The important position of the thousand ('thousand') also becomes elective, and the Novgorod veche “gives” and “takes away” it at its own discretion. Finally, from the second half of the XII century. upon the election of the veche, the high post of the head of the Novgorod church, the lord of the archbishop of Novgorod, is replaced. In 1156, after the death of Archbishop Nifont, “gathering all the city of people and deigning to appoint a bishop, a man chosen by God by Arcadius”; of course, the chosen one of the veche was then to receive a “decree” for the episcopal chair from the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia.
Thus, during the XI-XII century. the entire higher Novgorod administration becomes elected, and the Veche of the Lord of Veliky Novgorod becomes the sovereign steward of the fate of the Novgorod state.
State structure and management:

Prince.
The Novgorodians were “free men”, they lived and ruled “with all their will”, but they did not consider it possible to do without a prince. Novgorod needed the prince mainly as the leader of the army. That is why the Novgorodians so valued and respected their warlike princes. However, giving the prince command of the armed forces, the Novgorodians by no means allowed him to independently conduct foreign policy affairs and start a war without the consent of the veche. Novgorodians demanded an oath from their prince that he would inviolably observe all their rights and liberties.
Inviting a new prince, Novgorod entered into a formal agreement with him, precisely defining his rights and obligations. Each newly invited prince undertakes to observe inviolably: “On this prince, kiss the cross to all Novgorod, on which grandfathers and fathers kissed, keep Novgorod in the old days, according to the duty, without offense.” All the judicial and governmental activities of the prince must go in agreement with the Novgorod posadnik and under his constant supervision: “And the demon of the posadnik, prince, do not judge the court, neither give out volosts, nor give letters”; and without the fault of the husband, the volost cannot be deprived. And in the row in the Novgorod volost you, prince, and your judges do not judge (i.e., do not change), but do not plot lynching. The entire local administration should be appointed from Novgorodians, and not from princely husbands: “that the volosts of all Novgorod, that you, prince, do not keep your husbands, but keep the men of Novgorod; you have a gift from those volosts.” This “gift” from the volosts, the size of which is precisely determined in the contracts, is the remuneration of the prince for his government activities. A number of decrees secured the trade rights and interests of Novgorod from violations. Ensuring the freedom of trade between Novgorod and the Russian lands, the treaties also demanded from the prince that he should not interfere with Novgorod trade with the Germans and that he himself should not take a direct part in it.
Novgorod took care that the prince with his retinue did not enter too closely and deeply into the inner life of Novgorod society and would not become an influential social force in it. The prince with his court was supposed to live outside the city, on Gorodische. He and his people were forbidden to take any of the Novgorodians into personal dependence, as well as to acquire landed property in the possessions of Veliky Novgorod - “and you, prince, neither your princess, nor your boyars, nor your nobles, do not hold villages, nor buy, nor receive freely throughout the Novgorod volost.
Thus, “the prince had to stand near Novgorod, serving him. And not at the head of him, they are right,” says Klyuchevsky, who points to the political contradiction in the system of Novgorod: he needed the prince, but “at the same time treated him with extreme distrust” and tried in every possible way to constrain and limit his power.
Veche.
Veliky Novgorod was divided into “ends”, “hundreds” and “streets”, and all these divisions represented self-governing communities, they had their own local councils and elected sotsk, as well as Konchan and street elders for management and representation. The union of these local communities constituted Veliky Novgorod, and “the combined will of all these allied worlds was expressed in the general veche of the city” (Klyuchevsky). The veche was not convened periodically, at certain times, but only when the need arose. Both the prince and the posadnik, and any group of citizens could convene (or “call”) a veche. All free and full-fledged Novgorodians gathered on Veche Square, and everyone had the same right to vote. Sometimes residents of the Novgorod suburbs (Pskovians and Ladoga residents) took part in the veche, but usually the veche consisted of citizens of one older city.
The competence of the Novgorod veche was comprehensive. It adopted laws and regulations (in particular, in 1471, the Novgorod Code of Laws, or the so-called “judgment charter” was adopted and approved in 1471); it invited the prince and concluded an agreement with him, and in case of dissatisfaction with him, expelled him; the veche elected, replaced and judged the posadnik and the thousandth, and sorted out their disputes with the prince; it chose a candidate for the post of archbishop of Novgorod, sometimes "peace" put churches and monasteries; the veche granted the state lands of Veliky Novgorod to church institutions or private individuals, and also granted some suburbs and lands “for feeding” the invited princes; it was the highest court for the suburbs and for private individuals; was in charge of the court for political and other major crimes, combined with the most severe punishments - deprivation of life or confiscation of property and exile; finally, the veche was in charge of the entire field of foreign policy: it made a decision on the collection of troops, the construction of fortresses on the borders of the country, and in general on the measures of defense of the state; declared war and concluded peace, as well as concluded trade agreements with foreign countries.
The veche had its own office (or veche hut, headed by the “eternal clerk” (secretary). The decrees or sentences of the veche were recorded and sealed with the seals of the Lord Veliky Novgorod (the so-called “eternal letters”). Letters were written on behalf of all Novgorod, its government and In the salary of the Novgorod charter given to the Solovetsky Monastery, we read: “And with the blessing of Mr. His Grace Archbishop of Veliky Novgorod and Bishop of Pskov Jonah, Mr. Ivan Lukinich, the posadnik of Veliky Novgorod, and the old posadniks, and Mr. and boyars, and living people, and merchants, and black people, and the whole Mr. Sovereign Veliky Novgorod, all five ends, at the veche, in the Yaroslavl court, granted the abbot ... and all the elders ... tymy islands ”...
A large Novgorod veche usually gathered on the trading side, in Yaroslavl's yard (or "courtyard"). The huge crowd of many thousands of “freemen” who gathered here, of course, did not always observe order and propriety: “At a meeting, by its very composition, there could be neither a correct discussion of the issue, nor a correct vote. The decision was drawn up by eye, it is better to say by ear, rather by the strength of the cries than by the majority of votes ”(Klyuchevsky). In case of disagreement, noisy disputes arose at the veche, sometimes fights, and “the side that prevailed was recognized by the majority” (Klyuchevsky). Sometimes two vechas met at the same time: one on the trading side, the other on the Sofia side; some participants appeared “in armor” (i.e., armed), and disputes between hostile parties sometimes reached armed clashes on the Volkhov bridge.
administration and court.
Advice of gentlemen At the head of the Novgorod administration were the “powerful posadnik” and the “powerful tysyatsky”.
The court was distributed among different authorities: the lord of Novgorod, the princely governor, the posadnik and the thousand; in particular, the tysyatsky, together with a board of three elders from living people and two elders from merchants, was supposed to “manage all sorts of affairs” of the merchants and the “trading court”. In appropriate cases, a joint court of different instances acted. For "gossip", i.e. to review cases decided in the first instance, there was a board of 10 "rapporteurs", one boyar and one "zhite" from each end. For executive judicial and administrative-police actions, the higher administration had at its disposal a number of lower agents who bore various names: bailiff, podvoisky, callers, izvetniki, birichi.
The populous veche crowd, of course, could not sensibly and in detail discuss the details of government measures or individual articles of laws and treaties; she could only accept or reject the ready reports of the highest administration. For the preliminary development of the necessary measures and for the preparation of reports in Novgorod, there was a special government council, or council of gentlemen, it consisted of a sedate posadnik and a thousand, Konchansky elders, sotsk and old (i.e. former) posadniks and thousand. This council, which included the tops of the Novgorod boyars, had a great influence in the political life of Novgorod and often predetermined issues to be decided by the vecha - “‘it was a hidden, but very active spring of Novgorod government” (Klyuchevsky).
In the regional administration of the Novgorod state, we find a duality of principles - centralization and local autonomy. From Novgorod, posadniks were appointed to the suburbs, and the judicial institutions of the older city served as the highest authority for the suburbanites. The suburbs and all volosts of Novgorod had to pay tribute to Mr. Veliky Novgorod. Troubles and abuses in the field of administration caused tsetrifuzhny forces in the Novgorod regions, and some of them sought to break away from their center.

Historical fate of Ancient Russia


The Russian land as an indivisible whole, which was in the common possession of the princes-relatives, from the turn of the XI-XIII centuries. ceases to be political reality.
Despite the differences between Kievan and Novgorod Rus, they had some common features. Everywhere we see as the main political institutions three forces: the prince, the squad (boyars), the city veche.
At the same time, these principalities can be conditionally divided into two types: early feudal monarchy and feudal republic. They differed in which of the listed political bodies played a decisive role in them. At the same time, other power structures could continue to exist, although in everyday life they often remained outside the attention of contemporaries. Only in extreme situations did society "remember" such traditional state institutions.
An example of the first type of state is the Kiev principality. The princes are fighting for the throne of Kyiv. Possession of it gave the right to be titled the Grand Duke, who formally stood above all other - appanage - princes.
In Kyiv (and later in Galicia and Volhynia) the princely power was strong, based on the retinue. One of the first mentions of a direct attempt by the squad of the Kyiv prince to independently resolve the issue of who will sit on the Kiev table dates back to 1015. Upon learning of the death of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, his warriors offered to become the prince of Kyiv to their youngest son Boris. And only the unwillingness to violate the tradition of submission to the eldest in the family (this is how the chronicler interprets this episode in any case) did not allow the squad to insist on its own. By the way, immediately after Boris refused to fight for power in Kyiv, his father's combatants left him. Another example of this kind can be a meeting with his "husbands" in 1187 of the dying Galician prince Yaroslav Osmomysl about the transfer of power in Galicia to his younger son, bypassing the eldest - the legitimate heir.
.
The southern princes conferred with their retinues when resolving issues of war and peace. So, in 1093, the princes Svyatopolk, Vladimir and Rostislav, before the start of hostilities, held a council with their “senseful men”: “Should we attack the Polovtsy or is it more profitable to make peace with them?” The question of the timing of the speech against the Polovtsy during the princely congresses of 1103 and 1111 was also discussed with the squads. At the same time, the voice of the prince turned out to be decisive, but only after he convinced the warriors of the correctness of his decision.
At the same time, in critical situations, when the prince, for some reason, could not perform his functions, the real power was taken into the hands of the city veche. This happened in 1068, when the Kyiv prince Izyaslav could not resist the Polovtsy and fled from the battlefield. The consequence of this was the veche decision of the people of Kiev to remove the "legitimate" prince and put Vseslav Bryachislavich Polotsky in his place. Only as a result of the most stringent measures, the former prince managed to regain the throne of Kyiv.
Another example is the situation when the Kiev veche in 1113, contrary to the existing order of succession to the throne (Kyiv was not his "patrimony" invited to the grand-ducal throne of Vladimir Monomakh. In 1125, the elder Monomashich Mstislav was placed on the Kyiv table, and after his death in 1132, the people of Kiev transferred power to his brother Yaropolk. In 1146, the people of Kiev summoned Prince Igor Olgovich, who, according to the will of his brother Vsevolod, was to take the throne of Kyiv. It is characteristic that Igor was afraid to appear at the veche himself, he did not dare to ignore the "invitation". As his plenipotentiary (while the pretender to the throne himself with his retinue was in ambush), he sent Svyatoslav Olgovich to the meeting of the townspeople, who had to listen to the complaints of the inhabitants of Kyiv and promise to stop the abuses of the princely people.
The situation in Kyiv changed with the coming to power of Grand Duke Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky (1157-1174). If his father, Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky, sought the throne of Kyiv all his life, then Andrei twice left the Kyiv suburb, where he was planted by the Grand Duke in the North-East of Russia. There he eventually settled. Having become the Grand Duke, Andrei moved his "table" to the former suburb of Suzdal - Vladimir-on-Klyazma. Moreover, in 1169, the united troops of the Russian lands, led by Andrei, attacked Kyiv, which tried to get out of his influence, and plundered it. After that, the importance of the southern capital of the Russian land began to decline rapidly. Despite the fact that the second all-Russian campaign against Kyiv in 1173 turned out to be a failure, the former capital never recovered from the blow. In 1203, Kyiv was again plundered in a joint campaign by Rurik Rostislavich, the Olgovichi and the Polovtsians. The invasion of the Mongol detachments in 1240 only completed what the Russian princes had begun. Nevertheless, it was the southern Russian lands that continued to preserve the management traditions that had developed in Kievan Rus for a long time: the power of the prince rested there on the strength of the squad and was controlled by the city council. Conventionally, this form of government is called early feudal monarchy.
Its own type of state power has developed in the North-West of Russia. Here the princely power as an independent political force ceased to exist as a result of the events of 1136 (the so-called Novgorod "revolution"). On May 28, the Novgorodians put under arrest their prince, a protege of the prince of Kyiv, Vsevolod Mstislavich, and then expelled him from the city. From that time on, the procedure was finally established to elect the Novgorod prince, like all other state posts of Novgorod the Great, at the veche. It became part of the city administrative apparatus. Now its functions were limited to military matters. The voivode was in charge of protecting law and order in the city, and all the power in the periods between veche gatherings was concentrated in the hands of the Novgorod posadniks and the bishop (since 1165 the archbishop). Difficult issues could be resolved on the so-called mixed court, which included representatives of all government structures of Novgorod.
This type of government can be defined as feudal Republic, moreover, the republic "boyar", "aristocratic".
On the one hand, only members of influential (aristocratic) boyar families were elected to the highest government positions (primarily posadniks, who apparently had full power in between meetings of the veche) in Novgorod.
On the other hand, the characteristic of the Novgorod state is associated with the aristocratic composition of the veche - the highest state body of Novgorod. According to V.L. Yanin, from 300 to 500 people gathered at the veche - people from the largest boyar "surnames" (as we remember, M.Kh. Aleshkovsky believed that the wealthiest Novgorod merchants were also among the vechniks from the 13th century). There is, however, another point of view, according to which not only all adult residents of Novgorod, regardless of their social status, but, possibly, residents of the Novgorod suburbs, including rural ones, took part in the Novgorod veche (I.Ya. Froyanov, V. .F. Andreev and others). The most important issues of the republic's political life were decided at the veche. Chief among them was the election of officials who performed power functions: posadniks, thousandths, a bishop (archbishop), an archimandrite, a prince.
The further development of the Russian lands could follow any of the emerging paths, however, the invasion in the second third of the 13th century. Mongolian troops significantly changed the political situation in the country. But this is a topic for a special discussion.


Kievan Rus was a whole epoch in the history of the Slavic peoples. It was the only Slavic state that could compete in terms of its level of development with the leading countries of the world.

The first reason for feudal fragmentation was the growth of boyar estates, the number of smerds dependent on them. XII - the beginning of the XIII century were characterized by the further development of boyar land ownership in various principalities of Russia. The boyars expanded their possession by seizing the lands of free community smerds, enslaving them, buying lands. In an effort to get a larger surplus product, they increased the quitrent in kind and the working off, which was carried out by dependent smerds. The increase in the surplus product received by the boyars as a result of this made them economically powerful and independent. In various lands of Russia, economically powerful boyar corporations began to take shape, striving to become sovereign masters of the lands where their estates were located. They wanted to judge their peasants themselves, to receive vira fines from them. Many boyars had feudal immunity (the right of non-interference in the affairs of the patrimony), Russkaya Pravda determined the rights of the boyars. However, the Grand Duke (and such is the nature of princely power) sought to retain full power in his hands. He intervened in the affairs of the boyar estates, sought to retain the right to judge the peasants and receive vir from them in all the lands of Russia.

The Grand Duke, considered the supreme owner of all the lands of Russia, and their supreme ruler, continued to consider all the princes and boyars as his service people, and therefore forced them to participate in the numerous campaigns he organized. These campaigns often did not coincide with the interests of the boyars, tearing them away from their estates. The boyars began to be burdened by the service of the Grand Duke, sought to elude her, which led to numerous conflicts. The contradictions between the local boyars and the great prince of Kyiv led to an intensification of the desire of the former for political independence. The boyars were also driven to this by the need for their close princely power, which could quickly implement the norms of Russkaya Pravda, since the strength of the grand-princely virniks, governors, combatants could not provide quick real help to the boyars of the lands remote from Kyiv. The strong power of the local prince was also necessary for the boyars in connection with the growing resistance of the townspeople, smerds, the seizure of their lands, enslavement, and an increase in requisitions. The consequence of this was the growth of clashes between smerds and townspeople with the boyars.

The need for local princely power, the creation of a state apparatus forced the local boyars to invite the prince and his retinue to their lands. But, inviting the prince, the boyars were inclined to see in him only a police and military force, not interfering in boyar affairs. Such an invitation was also beneficial for the princes and squad. The prince received a permanent reign, his land estate, stopped rushing from one princely table to another. The squad was also satisfied, which was also tired of following from table to table with the prince. Princes and warriors had the opportunity to receive a stable rent-tax. At the same time, the prince, having settled in one land or another, as a rule, was not satisfied with the role assigned to him by the boyars, but sought to concentrate all power in his hands, limiting the rights and privileges of the boyars. This inevitably led to a struggle between the prince and the boyars.



The growth and strengthening of cities as new political and cultural centers

During the period of feudal fragmentation, the number of cities in the Russian lands reached 224. Their economic and political role increased as the centers of a particular land. It was on the cities that the local boyars and the prince relied in the struggle against the great Kievan prince. The growing role of the boyars and local princes led to the revival of city veche assemblies. Veche, a peculiar form of feudal democracy, was a political body. In fact, it was in the hands of the boyars, which excluded the real decisive participation in the management of ordinary citizens. The boyars, controlling the veche, tried to use the political activity of the townspeople in their own interests. Very often, the veche was used as an instrument of pressure not only on the great, but also on the local prince, forcing him to act in the interests of the local nobility. Thus, cities, as local political and economic centers, gravitating towards their lands, were the stronghold of the decentralization aspirations of local princes and nobility.

First strife.

After the death of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich in 1015, a long war began between his numerous sons, who ruled over separate parts of Russia. The instigator of the strife was Svyatopolk the Accursed, who killed his brothers Boris and Gleb. In internecine wars, princes - brothers brought to Russia either the Pechenegs, or the Poles, or the mercenary detachments of the Varangians. In the end, the winner was Yaroslav the Wise, who divided Russia (along the Dnieper) with his brother Mstislav of Tmutarakan from 1024 to 1036, and then, after the death of Mstislav, became "autocratic".



After the death of Yaroslav the Wise in 1054, a significant number of sons, relatives and cousins ​​of the Grand Duke ended up in Russia.

Each of them had one or another "fatherland", his own domain, and each, to the best of his ability, sought to increase the domain or exchange it for a richer one. This created a tense situation in all princely centers and in Kyiv itself. Researchers sometimes call the time after the death of Yaroslav the time of feudal fragmentation, but this cannot be considered correct, since real feudal fragmentation occurs when individual lands crystallize, large cities grow up to head these lands, when each sovereign principality consolidates its own princely dynasty. All this appeared in Russia only after 1132, and in the second half of the 11th century. everything was changeable, fragile and unstable. Princely strife ruined the people and the squad, shook the Russian state, but did not introduce any new political form.

In the last quarter of the XI century. in the difficult conditions of an internal crisis and the constant threat of external danger from the Polovtsian khans, princely strife acquired the character of a national disaster. The grand-ducal throne became the object of contention: Svyatoslav Yaroslavich expelled his elder brother Izyaslav from Kyiv, "initiating the expulsion of the brothers."

The strife became especially terrible after the son of Svyatoslav Oleg entered into allied relations with the Polovtsians and repeatedly brought the Polovtsian hordes to Russia for a self-serving decision between princely strife.

Oleg's enemy was the young Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, who reigned in the border Pereyaslavl. Monomakh managed to convene a princely congress in Lyubech in 1097, the task of which was to secure the "fatherlands" for the princes, condemn the instigator of the strife Oleg and, if possible, eliminate future strife in order to resist the Polovtsy with united forces.

However, the princes were powerless to establish order not only in the entire Russian land, but even within their princely circle of relatives and cousins ​​and nephews. Immediately after the congress, a new strife broke out in Lyubech, which lasted for several years. The only force that, under those conditions, could really stop the rotation of the princes and the princely squabbles was the boyars - the main composition of the then young and progressive feudal class. Boyar program at the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th centuries. consisted in limiting princely arbitrariness and excesses of princely officials, in eliminating strife and in the general defense of Russia from the Polovtsians. Coinciding in these points with the aspirations of the townspeople, this program reflected the interests of the whole people and was undeniably progressive.

In 1093, after the death of Vsevolod Yaroslavich, the people of Kiev invited the insignificant Turov prince Svyatopolk to the throne, but they miscalculated significantly, as he turned out to be a bad commander and a greedy ruler.

Svyatopolk died in 1113; his death was the signal for a widespread uprising in Kyiv. The people attacked the courts of princely stewards and usurers. The Kiev boyars, bypassing the princely seniority, chose Vladimir Monomakh as Grand Duke, who successfully reigned until his death in 1125. After him, the unity of Russia was still maintained under his son Mstislav (1125-1132), and then, according to the chronicler, Russian land" into separate independent principalities.

Essence

The loss of the state unity of Russia weakened and divided its forces in the face of the growing threat of foreign aggression and, above all, the steppe nomads. All this predetermined the gradual decline of the Kyiv land from the 13th century. For some time, under Monamakh and Mstislav, Kyiv rose again. These princes were able to repulse the Polovtsian nomads.

Russia broke up into 14 principalities, a republican form of government was established in Novgorod. In each principality, the princes, together with the boyars, "thought about the land system and the military." The princes declared wars, concluded peace and various alliances. The Grand Duke was the first (senior) among equal princes. Princely congresses have been preserved, where questions of all-Russian politics were discussed. The princes were bound by a system of vassal relations. It should be noted that for all the progressiveness of feudal fragmentation, it had one significant negative point. Constant strife between the princes, now subsiding, now flaring up with renewed vigor, exhausted the strength of the Russian lands, weakened their defenses in the face of external danger. The collapse of Russia did not lead, however, to the collapse of the ancient Russian nationality, the historically established linguistic, territorial, economic and cultural community. In the Russian lands, a single concept of Russia, the Russian land, continued to exist. "Oh, Russian land, you are already over the hill!" - proclaimed the author of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" During the period of feudal fragmentation, three centers emerged in the Russian lands: the Vladimir-Suzdal, Galicia-Volyn principalities and the Novgorod feudal republic.

The power of the prince

Princely power.

In the political system of the Russian lands and principalities, there were local features due to differences in the level and pace of development of the productive forces, feudal land ownership, and the maturity of feudal production relations. In some lands, the princely power, as a result of a stubborn struggle that continued with varying success, was able to subjugate the local nobility and strengthen itself. In the Novgorod land, on the contrary, a feudal republic was established, in which the princely power lost the role of the head of state and began to play a subordinate, mainly military service role.

With the triumph of feudal fragmentation, the all-Russian significance of the power of the Kievan great princes was gradually reduced to a nominal "seniority" among other princes. Linked to each other by a complex system of suzerainty and vassalage (due to the complex hierarchical structure of land ownership), the rulers and the feudal nobility of the principalities, for all their local independence, were forced to recognize the seniority of the strongest of their midst, who united their efforts to resolve issues that could not be resolved by the forces of one principality or affected the interests of a number of principalities.

Already from the second half of the XII century, the strongest principalities were distinguished, the rulers of which became "great", "oldest" in their lands, representing in them the top of the entire feudal hierarchy, the supreme head, without whom the vassals could not do and in relation to which they were simultaneously in a state of constant rebellion.

political centers.

Until the middle of the 12th century, the prince of Kyiv was such a head in the feudal hierarchy on the scale of all Russia. From the second half of the XII century. his role passed to the local grand dukes, who, in the eyes of contemporaries, as the "oldest" princes, were responsible for the historical fate of Russia (the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe ethnic-state unity of which continued to be preserved).

At the end of the XII - beginning of the XIII century. three main political centers were defined in Russia, each of which had a decisive influence on the political life in their neighboring lands and principalities: for North-Eastern and Western (and also to a large extent for North-Western and Southern) Russia - the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality ; for Southern and South-Western Russia - the Galicia-Volyn principality; for North-Western Russia - the Novgorod feudal republic.

In the conditions of feudal fragmentation, the role of all-Russian and land congresses (diets) of princes and vassals sharply increased, at which issues of inter-princely relations were considered and appropriate agreements were concluded, issues of organizing the fight against the Polovtsy and holding other joint events were discussed. But the attempts of the princes by convening such congresses to mitigate the most negative consequences of the loss of the state unity of Russia, to link their local interests with the problems of an all-Russian (or all-land) scale that confronted them, ultimately failed because of the incessant strife between them.

Vassals and overlords

Causes and consequences of feudal fragmentation.

I. Periods of development of the feudal state:

1. Early feudal state.

2. Feudal fragmentation.

II. Feudal fragmentation- a natural stage in the development of the feudal state, the process of fragmenting the state into small parts with the weak power of the Grand Duke.

III. Reasons for F.R.

1097 1132


1. Remains of tribal isolation. 1. Development of feudal relations:

2. The struggle of the princes for the best principalities, the formation of the princely-boyar

and territories. land ownership - the seizure of communal lands,

3. The dominance of natural economy - the organization of the apparatus of coercion

isolation, self-sufficiency, independence from the center

weak economic ties. 2. Strengthening the economic and

the political power of the cities

centers of independent principalities.

3. Weakening of Kyiv (non-payment of tribute by cities,

raids of nomads, the decline of trade along the Dnieper).

4. Elimination of external danger (?)

IV. F.R. Consequences:

Positive Consequences Negative Consequences
1. The cessation of the princes' movements in search of a richer and more honorable throne, the specific princes ceased to perceive their cities as temporary inheritances, strengthening individual principalities; the growth and strengthening of cities. 2. Economic and cultural upsurge: * development of agriculture, crafts, development of domestic trade * construction, laying roads * local annals ... 3. Preservation of ethnic unity: * single language, * Orthodox religion, * legislation - Russian Truth, * popular consciousness of unity. 1. Weak central government. 2. Weakening of the defense capability of Russia - vulnerability to external enemies. 3. Continued strife and strife between the princes. 4. The fragmentation of individual principalities into smaller parts between the heirs. 5. Conflicts between princes and boyars.

V. Struggle for power between princes and boyars.

Boyars Prince Veche

Descendants of the tribal nobility, Formerly the supreme body of the city

senior warriors, ruler of the state, self-government,

large landowners. now - the ruler of the people's assembly.

Boyar Duma- the council of the boyars of the principality.

with the prince.

4. Support - service people (for service - land, nobility). 1. Elected power (choice of the prince by the Boyar Duma) 2. Against participation in the army (economy). 3. Evasion from participation in campaigns, conspiracies, refusal to help princes in strife, inviting other princes to the throne, help in seizing power.

Prerequisites for political fragmentation in Russia:

1.Social:

a) The social structure of Russian society has become more complex, its strata in individual lands and cities have become more defined: boyars, clergy, merchants, artisans, the bottom of the city, including serfs. Developed dependence on the landowners of rural residents. All this new Russia no longer needed the former early medieval centralization. For the new structure of the economy, other than before, the scale of the state was needed. Huge Russia, with its very superficial political cohesion, necessary primarily for defense against an external enemy, for organizing long-range campaigns of conquest, now no longer corresponded to the needs of large cities with their extensive feudal hierarchy, developed trade-handicraft layers, needs estates who seek to have power close to their interests - and not in Kyiv, and not even in the form of a Kyiv governor, but their own, here, on the spot, which could fully and decisively defend their interests.

b) The transition to arable farming contributed to the settled way of life of the rural population and increased the desire vigilantes to land ownership. Therefore, the transformation of combatants into landowners began (on the basis of princely awards). The squad became less mobile. The warriors were now interested in a permanent stay near their estates and strove for political independence.

In this regard, in the 12-13 centuries. the system of immunities became widespread - a system that frees boyars- landowners from princely administration and court and gave them the right to independent action in their possessions.

That is, the main reason for fragmentation was the natural process of the emergence of private land ownership and subsidence squads to the ground.

2. Economic:

Gradually, individual estates become stronger 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. folding system subsistence farming 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 Great Kyiv prince, and in this they were actively supported by the local boyars, who needed a strong princely power in the field.

4. foreign policy:

Weakening Byzantium because of the attacks Normans and the Seljuks reduced trade on "the route from the Varangians to the Greeks". Crusader campaigns opened a more direct route of communication between Asia and Europe through the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. Trade routes moved to central Europe. Russia lost the status of a world trade intermediary and the factor that united 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 in Vladimir-Suzdal earth.

Kyiv is away from the main trade routes. The most active start to trade: Novgorod with Europe and German cities; Galicia (it's safer here) - with northern Italian cities; Kyiv is turning into an outpost of the fight against Cumans. The population moves to safer places: northeast ( Vladimir-Suzdal Principality and southwest ( Galicia-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 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 due to the labor of a dependent peasant population.

2. Gained strength within the principality-states Russian church which had a profound effect on culture.

3. The political collapse of Russia has never been complete:

a) The power of the great Kyiv princes, albeit sometimes illusory, but existed. The Kiev principality, although formally, cemented all of Russia

b) The all-Russian church retained its influence. 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) A counterbalance to the final disintegration was the constantly existing external danger to the Russian lands from Cumans, respectively, the Kyiv prince acted as a defender of Russia.

4. However, fragmentation contributed to the decline of the military power of the Russian lands. This was most painfully affected in the 13th century, during the period Mongol-Tatar invasion.

Read also