A centralized state is a state in which the management system is based on the principle of subordination of all to a single central one that controls the entire system and coordinates it.

In this state, the lands (territories, administrative divisions, etc.) are united politically by common legislation and economically by a single market around a strong central government. At the same time, at the stage of intensive land consolidation, an unlimited monarchy is established in the form of absolutism (autocracy).

In Russia, a centralized state was created at the end of the 15th century under Ivan III. Moscow became its main city. The completion of the processes of centralization occurred under the first Romanovs, ending at the beginning of the 18th century with the establishment of absolutism under

Such a political-territorial organization of the state is based on the division of all its territories into provinces, districts, regions, which have a relatively limited independence. The state has a single legislation, common citizenship, a system of state power and administration, judicial and tax, etc.

The centralized state exists due to a number of objective factors. First of all, this is national unity, which is a prerequisite for the formation of this form of unification of the lands and the people inhabiting them. At the same time, the state reflects the interests of the entire nation as a political community, and not of individual regional, social or ethnic groups. Thanks to a strong center, society is united, which was previously impossible due to the rivalry of individual representatives of the nobility who fought for power.

The following essential features are distinguished centralized state.

The centralization factor is the need to create uniform bodies Unify general laws and only the central government is capable of providing citizens with uniform public services. Its existence provides people with the possibility of free migration from one region to another.

An important advantage of such a development is all its citizens. Under conditions of decentralism, certain peripheral administrative and political institutions rely only on own forces. Correcting inequalities requires the power of a central government that has more powers than regions that have less and therefore have more acute social problems and needs.

The processes of centralization go hand in hand with the economic strengthening of the state. A single control center is able to ensure stable economic growth and the creation of infrastructure (communication systems).

Many countries have millions of people. Therefore, at present, their management may not be as effective as during their period. early history development. The reasons for this lie in the dangers of bureaucratic chaos. Therefore, now the processes of centralization in many fears of the world are beginning to move in the opposite direction - towards decentralization.

The centralized state is characterized by the complete absence of local autonomy, since the functions local authorities are carried out by administrators (officials) appointed from above. Therefore, in such a situation, authoritarian political properties are clearly traced. The greatest degree of centralism is observed in states in which there is a vertical system of government. Today, in its purest form, such a system can be observed only under military regimes.

Lecture Assoc. Mosunova T.G.

FORMATION OF THE GREAT RUSSIAN STATEHOOD

XIV - XVI centuries.

1. Prerequisites and features of the process of state centralization.

2. "Line of choice": determination of the leader of the unification process (mid-XIII - mid-XV centuries).

3. The final stage of political unification. Formation of a centralized Russian state.

4. The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the formation and strengthening of Russian statehood.

5. Alternatives for the socio-political development of Russia in the 16th century. Choice of path under Ivan the Terrible: Chosen Rada or Oprichnina.

Prerequisites and features of the process of state centralization.

After a period feudal fragmentation in Russia, the time comes for the formation of a single Moscow (Russian) state. The formation of centralized states is a natural process in world history, long, complex, alternative, and proceeding in a peculiar way in each individual case.

The transformation of Russia into Russia lasted for two centuries (X1V - XV centuries) and took place in the conditions of Russia's dependence on the Horde. In 1242, Batu Khan demanded tribute from the Russian lands for the first time. The first Russian princes with "gifts" moved to Sarai, and then to Karakorum. Thus began the era, called in traditional historiography the "Mongol-Tatar yoke". This concept forms a historical boundary in our minds. It determines the division of early Russian history into two periods: the time of Ancient (Kyiv) Rus - already past, and - visible on the horizon - the era of Moscow Rus and Great Russia. Second half of the XIII century. appears to be a transitional period. Soviet historian Cherepnin L.V. based fundamental research concluded that the process of formation of a centralized state in Russia began at the end of the 13th century. and clearly manifested itself by the beginning of the 15th century. The decisive facet of this process is the 80s of the fifteenth century. If before that Russia was characterized by political fragmentation, in the conditions of which the gradual unification of Russian lands took place and the prerequisites for the creation of a centralized state apparatus were growing, then for the period that began in the 80s of the 15th century, there is every reason to talk about the Russian centralized state.

In the mid 1990s. on the pages of Rodina magazine, a discussion unfolded, during which, among other issues, the question of the terminology used in characterizing Russian state. Historians breed the concepts of "centralized" and "single" state, referring to the "under-centralization" of the Russian state in the 15th century. At the same time, some prove the conventionality of the term "Russian centralized state" (Yu.V. Krivosheev). Others believe that this term is quite consistent with the political realities of the late 15th-15th centuries. (D. Volodikhin). In general, the following approach to this problem deserves attention.

Political centralization and unification of individual fiefs into single state These are two interrelated, but not completely coinciding processes. The subordination of a large territory to one monarch or the unification of several previously independent states cannot be considered sufficient signs of centralization. centralized one can name only such a state in which there are laws recognized in all its parts, and a management apparatus that ensures the implementation of these laws, realizing political decisions taken in one center. All links of such an apparatus act in concert, all state officials are responsible to the authorities or the monarch and can exercise their powers only within the limits outlined by the higher authority. Ruler of the centralized ( or in the process of centralization) the state not only takes new lands under its hand, but also includes them in the system of legal relations that have developed (or are emerging) in its more ancient possessions.

Centralization requires qualitative transformations that affect the spiritual and material interests of people, and therefore needs a generally understood and generally recognized unifying idea. In most cases, the rationale for centralization is the idea of ​​a national community. Therefore, feudal (specific) fragmentation is usually replaced by nation state. national character A centralized state does not presuppose complete ethnic homogeneity of subjects (which in the Middle Ages was not found anywhere in either Western or Eastern Europe), but an objectively existing and subjectively recognized community of language, culture, and religion of the population.

The unification of lands that are aware of their cultural, ethnic and religious community, connected by coinciding economic and political interests, are only prerequisites for the process of centralization, which may be realized in part or not at all. Thus, a set of economic, social, political (internal and external) and spiritual preconditions.

The world historical process has marked two ways of centralization and formation of united national states. The first path is characterized by the fact that processes of political and economic unification are taking place in parallel. In the countries of Western Europe, the elimination of feudal fragmentation was the beginning of the transition to capitalism. First, economic unification took place: economic ties were established between parts of the future state, pulling the country into a single economic whole, and a single market was taking shape. The economic unification was followed by a political one: the contradictions between the feudal nobility and the burghers, the social support of the central government, seeking to eliminate the feudal privileges of this nobility and unite the fragmented socio-political space into a single state, intensified. Since the bourgeoisie (burghers) were engaged in trade and commodity production, the formation of centralized states was based on the development of bourgeois relations. The second way is characterized by the fact that first there is a political unification, and then an economic one.

There are different points of view on the question of the prerequisites for the formation of the Muscovite state. Some historians believe that the process of centralization in Russia was the same as in the countries of Western Europe - already in the 15th century. in the Russian lands, such signs of early bourgeois relations appeared as the development of crafts, trade and the market. However, the majority of domestic historians are of the opinion that socio-political and spiritual factors had a predominant influence in Russia. The political processes were ahead of the economic ones. Socio-economic factors also influenced, but different than in Western Europe. In Russia at that time there was no urban bourgeoisie yet, the all-Russian market began to take shape only in the 15th century. The main social support of the Moscow princes during the unification was the service class (landlords). Therefore, the process of formation of the Muscovite state took place not on the bourgeois, but on a feudal basis and was accompanied by further enslavement of the peasants and strict regulation of the life of all other classes (A.A. Gorsky, M.M. Gorinov, A.A. Danilov, etc.).

Socio-economic background. At the beginning of the fifteenth century Russia begins to overcome the crisis caused by the Mongol-Tatar invasion, and by the end of the century revives its economic potential. Cities are being restored. Moreover, there is an increase in cities that did not play a serious role in the pre-Mongolian period (Moscow, Tver, Kostroma, Nizhny Novgorod). Fortresses are being actively built, construction is being resumed stone temples, interrupted for half a century after the Batu invasion (Nikolo-Lipenskaya Church near Novgorod, 1292; Assumption Cathedral of Ivan Kalita, 1326). The 15th century was marked by the development of handicrafts. Water wheels and water mills became widespread, parchment began to be replaced by paper, and the size of the iron parts of the plow increased. Salt production is spreading in the regions Staraya Russa, Salts of Galicia, Kostroma, etc. Massive casting (bell production) develops, copper foundry workshops for artistic casting appear, the art of filigree and pitted enamel is being revived. By 1382, the first mention of Russian artillery - “mattresses” dates back.

However, the cities did not become the economic centers of the unification of Russia - commodity-money relations were too poorly developed. In his monograph, L.V. Cherepnin shows that internal and external trade during the 15th-15th centuries. constantly grew. Foreigners were amazed by the abundance in the Moscow markets, where, in particular, meat was sold not by weight, but by eye. However, the opponents of the historian notice that the indicator of the development of the medieval economy is not just trade, but trade in handicrafts, originally intended for sale. In Europe, it was this type of trade that led to profound socio-political changes. By uniting in workshops, creating class-representative institutions with petty feudal lords and seeking their rights, the townspeople initially limited the power of the monarch.

There was no such trade in the northeastern principalities. Russian merchants and artisans differed in their status from Europeans: the majority were in personal dependence on the feudal lords. There were no workshops and guilds in Russia. At the head of the cities were administrators appointed by the prince (king). The increase in the power of the feudal lords in the cities was manifested in particular in the fact that, in contrast to the "black" settlement, i.e. part of the city, inhabited by free citizens, grew "belomestny" settlement - fiefdoms in cities. The townspeople voluntarily "mortgaged" on the feudal lords, so as not to pay ruinous taxes. Archaeological data indicate that in the X1V - XV centuries. in the northeastern and northwestern lands, craft workshops were mostly located on the territories of rich feudal estates. If the prince, the boyars, the monasteries were selling handicrafts, then this did not in any way contribute to the movement towards creating the prerequisites for a bourgeois society.

Even at the end of the nineteenth century. P. Milyukov put forward the thesis about the artificiality of the north-eastern cities from the European point of view: "Earlier than the population needed the city, the government needed it." Chronicles report a large number of cities, since any fortified settlement was called a city in Russia. The main sign of the city is the fortress wall, not the character public life population. Currently, the trade and craft settlement is considered an archaeological sign of the city. And the settlements for North-Eastern Russia were not typical. Up to the 15th century. small but heavily fortified fortresses prevailed there - the administrative and economic centers of the principalities. The trade and craft population of these cities was extremely small. Most cities had less than one thousand households, although there were also "megacities": Pskov - 6500 households (30-35 thousand people), Novgorod - 5300 households (30 thousand people), Yaroslavl, Vladimir, Ryazan, Nizhny Novgorod - 1500-1000 (data from the first half of the 15th century). The Grand Dukes showed interest in the growth of the townspeople mainly because handicrafts are the most important source of tribute to the Golden Horde.

Thus, in Russia, the role of cities as strategic centers turned out to be more important: points of defense and deployment of forces for military operations. This is one of the features of Russian civilization.

In agriculture, the main branch of production, the following changes took place: undercutting is being replaced by field arable land, three-field cultivation is spreading, along with cereals, the production of industrial crops is growing, the number of domestic animals is increasing, and hence the application of organic fertilizers to the fields. But the growth of production was ensured mainly due to extensive farming methods - the development of forests of North-Eastern Russia for arable land. This was also facilitated by the deterioration weather conditions, because from the 15th century cooling began in the region. As a result, the construction of new villages, the development of crafts in them, a noticeable demographic rise become, hidden from a superficial glance, the basis for the country's progress, a prerequisite for its political consolidation.

One of the main socio-economic factors of the association was growth of the service class and feudal landownership. In Russia With There were the following types of land tenure: patrimony, parochial possessions (sources - grand ducal grants, contributions, purchases, seizure), black-soil lands (supreme owner - Grand Duke, but the black-eared peasants could sell, change, bequeath the land on the condition that the new owner would pay taxes in favor of the state), estates. Along with the princely and boyar estates, which were inherited on the basis of full ownership and were considered a guarantee free choice suzerain as a landowner, under Ivan I Kalita (1325-1345), the birth of the estate system and the formation of the nobility began. The servants of the prince "placed" on the ground (hence the name of the landowners), i.e. received land for military and administrative service to the Grand Duke, lived and armed at the expense of income from estates.

During the fourteenth century the boyars continued to be the main military and political force of the princes. The main source of development of the boyar estates was the princely grants of land to the peasants, which made the boyars more dependent on the prince than in the Kievan period. The shortage of arable land limited the formation of the boyar estate and, consequently, weakened the position of the princes, especially the military. In the second half of the 15th century, due to the expansion of the area of ​​arable land, a rapid growth in the number of service nobility began. The authorities staked on this layer of service people, and it became the basis for strengthening the military potential of the Moscow Grand Dukes, the key to the success of their unifying policy.

In general, the main trends in the development of feudal land tenure during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. these are: the fragmentation and reduction of patrimonial property, the growth of local and parochial land ownership, the reduction of black-soil lands due to their plunder and transfer to private ownership by the nobility and monasteries.

Socio-political background unification process are as follows. The princes, who were interested in strengthening their military service forces, became crowded within the framework of small principalities (and they were in the system of the Vladimir reign in early XIV in. - the apogee of fragmentation - there were more than ten). As a result, the contradictions between the princes, who were supported by their boyar groups, escalated. This led to a struggle for the expansion of the possessions of some at the expense of others, for the label and the role of leader in the region. It should be noted polycentrism at the initial stage of the struggle for leadership.

The Grand Duchy of Vladimir, whose significance was actually restored by the Tatars, was a ready-made institution of power for the future unified state. Grand Duke Vladimirsky, being supreme ruler throughout North-Eastern Russia, including Novgorod the Great, having received a label, practically remained the ruler only in his principality and did not move to Vladimir. But the great reign gave him a number of advantages: the prince disposed of the lands that were part of the grand prince's domain, and could distribute them to his servants, he controlled the collection of tribute, as the "eldest" represented Russia in the Horde. That is why the princes of individual lands waged a fierce struggle for a shortcut to a great reign.

The Orthodox Church, as a force that preserved the cultural and national integrity of Russia, was also interested in uniting the lands. In 1299, Metropolitan Maxim moved his residence from Kyiv to Vladimir. This increased the role of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, put it in line with the stronger Tver and Ryazan principalities. The desire to preserve and strengthen a single church organization, to eliminate the threat to its positions both from the Catholic West and from the East (after the Horde adopted Islam as the state religion in 1313) - all this forced the church to support the prince who would be able to unite Russia.

The main foreign policy prerequisite for the merging of fragmented lands was the urgent task of liberating the country from the rule of the Horde. In addition, the confrontation between the North-Eastern Principalities and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which also claimed the role of a collector of Russian lands, and moreover, successfully united the South-Western Russian lands during the 11th century, played a big role.

Cultural and spiritual background also contributed to the unification. In the conditions of fragmentation, the Russian people retained mutual language, legal norms, and most importantly - the Orthodox faith. Orthodoxy relied on developing self-awareness, which began to manifest itself especially actively from the middle of the 15th century, which accelerated the process of the formation of the Russian state. In 1453, Constantinople fell, and the center of Orthodoxy fell into the hands of the Turks. This caused a feeling of "spiritual loneliness" among the Russian people. Their desire for unity intensified, their desire to submit to the authority of the most powerful prince, in whom they saw an intercessor before God, a defender of the land and the Orthodox faith. The mentality of the people unusually raised the authority of the Grand Duke of Moscow, strengthened his power and made it possible to complete the creation of a single state.

"Line of choice": determination of the leader of the unification process (mid-XIII - mid-XV centuries). Initial stages of association.

The unification of the territories of previously independent lands-principalities into one Moscow kingdom, which by the middle of the 15th century. already headed by the “sovereign of all Russia”, stretched out for more than 200 years. The events of the political history of this long process are divided by modern researchers into three stages: the first - the end of the 13th century. - the middle of the 15th century; the second - the middle of the 15th - the middle of the 15th centuries; final - the middle of the fifteenth century. - beginning of the 15th century This periodization takes into account the alternativeness of the unifying process to a greater extent than the previous one. The unification of the lands under the rule of Moscow was not predetermined. The Moscow principality had competitors in collecting all Russian lands. Until the middle of the fifteenth century. there were various contenders for the role of the leader of the unification process both on an all-Russian scale (the Lithuanian-Russian Principality and the Grand Duchy of Vladimir) and on the scale of North-Eastern Russia (Tver, Nizhny Novgorod, Moscow, Suzdal, Galich).

In the XIII-XV centuries. there was a close relationship between the process of unification of Russian lands and the struggle for their liberation from the Horde. At the initial stage of collecting lands, the issue of relations with the Horde in the Vladimir principality at the state level was resolved in favor of subordination to the khans, while the center of the anti-Horde struggle becomes Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia. In the 40s of the 13th century, when Great Russia fell under Mongol rule, on the outskirts Kievan Rus a new state arose - the Lithuanian principality, later transformed into the Lithuanian-Russian. It was not a tributary of the Golden Horde. The creator of the state was the Lithuanian prince Mindovg, who united the lands inhabited by indigenous Lithuanians (Aukshaitia) and the territories of the former Kievan Rus in the Upper Neman (Black Rus) basin. The formation of the Principality of Lithuania was accelerated by the need to fight the invasion of the Crusaders, who had gained a foothold in the Baltic at the beginning of the 13th century, and the Golden Horde. In the 15th century under Prince Gediminas (1315-1341) and his son Olgerd (1345-1377), the following Russian lands became part of Lithuania: Polotsk, Turov-Pinsk, Volyn, Vitebsk, Kyiv, Pereyaslav, Podolsk, Smolensk, Chernigov-Seversk. In the 60s. the borders of Lithuanian Rus were significantly expanded to the mouth of the Dniester and Dnieper as a result of Olgerd's campaigns and the defeat of the Tatars on the Blue Waters River in 1363. Thus, as a result of the unification of Lithuania and Western Russia, a Balto-Slavic state was formed. In its heyday, it occupied a vast territory from the Baltic to the Black Sea and from the borders of Poland and Hungary to the Moscow region. The Old Russian lands made up the main part of the territory of this new European state, and the population in it was three-quarters Russian and Orthodox. The word "Rus" already in the XIII century. was present in the title of the rulers of the state.

AT historical literature There are different views on the question of who was the initiator of the creation of such a state. For many years, official historiography interpreted the formation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a result of the seizure of Slavic lands by the Lithuanians and regarded it as hostile to Russia. Traditional historiography, although it recognizes polycentrism, characteristic of the initial stage of the struggle for unity and liberation, but not beyond the borders of North-Eastern Russia. Conclusions about the messianic role of this region in general and Moscow in particular were dominant. The Moscow princes were evaluated exclusively as collectors, and the Lithuanian ones as conquerors. True, individual attempts to justify the policy of the Lithuanian princes were already encountered in pre-revolutionary literature, then in Soviet literature (for example, in the 1960s, research by I.B. Grekov). Modern scientists refuse a one-sided approach to the problem. Sufficiently reasoned is the approach of those historians who believe that the emergence of this state was the result of an agreement between the Lithuanian and East Slavic nobility.

The union of the Lithuanian nobility, the East Slavic boyars and the townspeople made it possible not only to stop the advance of the German knights to the East and the Horde to the West, but also to free in the future most of the Russian lands from Tatar yoke. The desire of the Lithuanian princes to expand their possessions objectively corresponded to the real desire of the East Slavic lands to unite. In this region, the Lithuanian princes took over the function that the Rurikovichs performed in other parts of Russia. The implementation of this unifying program on a large scale is associated with the name of Prince Gediminas. It was under this prince that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia became the center of the anti-Horde struggle.

In general, the expansion of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia took place relatively peacefully, since the conditions for joining the lands to this state were mainly satisfied by the most influential circles of the local population: the boyars, the townspeople, and the church. Formed as a federation as a result of a compromise, the Grand Duchy offered its new subjects a guarantee of the preservation of "old times", i.e. former forms of ownership, local way of life, political rights of the population. In Russian cities, the old traditional norms of self-government continued to operate, in many Western Russian lands until the 15th century. the decisive vote in political matters was retained by the veche. In many of these lands, the descendants of Yaroslav the Wise continued to rule, in others the throne passed to the Lithuanian princes; both of them were subject to the Grand Duke. The local population paid tribute to the Lithuanian Grand Duke, was obliged to participate in the militia in the event of military operations by Lithuania. The inhabitants spoke the dialects that gave rise to Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. The official documents used the Old Russian language, which had changed somewhat since the Kievan times, and became the state language. Orthodoxy was preserved in the Russian lands. Princes of the 15th century - Gedimin, Olgerd, their closest relatives were Orthodox, but did not break with the ancient pagan faith of the Baltic tribes and skillfully balanced between Eastern and Western Christianity. In general, the Lithuanian-Russian state was characterized by religious and national tolerance. Even in the princely capital, Vilnius, at the end of the fifteenth century. Orthodox Christians made up about half of the population. Until the end of the 15th century it is legitimate to talk about the trend of Russification of the social elite of the Lithuanians. The situation gradually began to change in the 15th century, after an agreement on a dynastic union was adopted at the congress of Polish and Lithuanian feudal lords in 1385. Poland and Lithuania were brought together by the threat from the Order. The Polish-Lithuanian (Krevskaya) union assumed the marriage of Prince Jagiello (1377-1392) with the heir to the Polish throne, his adoption of the title of king while maintaining separate internal administration of the Kingdom of Poland and the Principality of Lithuania. Catholicism was declared the state religion of Lithuania. Jagiello became the Polish king under the name Vladislav P. His cousin Vytautas (1392-1430) did not submit to the Union of Kreva and fought Jagiello for the independence of Lithuania. As a result, an agreement was concluded under which Vitovt was recognized as the lifelong ruler of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and a vassal of the Polish king. He still sought to implement the program of unification of Lithuanian and Muscovite Russia, while his successors abandoned the all-Russian program.

Consider the situation in North-Eastern Russia. Stable dynasties were established in the specific principalities of this region. But in the first half of the 15th c. in the course of a rigorous selection for the role of unifier stood out Moscow. Let's trace the main milestones of this process.

Moscow, founded in 1147, turned into a principality only in 1276, when the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky Daniel (1261-1303) became prince. Initially, the territory of the principality was small, and the Moscow princes were not taken seriously. In genealogical terms, they were inferior to other princes, primarily those of Tver, who had the right of seniority in the Rurik family. For the descendants of Daniel, who, being a branch of the Rurik family, began to be called Danilovichs, the low "rating" served as a kind of challenge, an incentive in the political struggle.

According to researchers (Gorsky A.A., Kuchkin V.A.), the peak of the political struggle in the North-Eastern region of Russia falls on the 80-90s. XIII century. All the principalities were dependent on the Golden Horde, so the success of their policy depended on how they build their relations with the Horde and how they can use the Horde khans as patrons. At this stage, the Horde split into two groups - the Volga (Saray Khan Tokhta) and Nogai (Khan Nogai was actually an independent ruler of the western part of the Mongols state - the territory of the lower Danube and the Dnieper). Prince Daniil led a coalition of princes, which focused on Nogai. But in 1299-1300. Nogai was defeated and died. And in general, the situation did not contribute to the promotion of Moscow to the first roles: Moscow lost its powerful patron in the Horde; princes of the allies; and with the death of Daniel in 1303, formal rights to the great reign (the new Moscow prince Yuri Danilovich was younger than his cousin uncle Mikhail of Tverskoy). Meanwhile, the activities of the Moscow princes were surprisingly successful. Prince Daniel managed to make a number of land acquisitions: in 1301. take away Kolomna from Ryazan, and in 1302. annex Pereyaslavl reign. His son Yuri in 1303. captured Mozhaisk, which made it possible to take control of the entire Moskva River basin. The Moscow principality became a large territorial entity along with Tver, Yaroslavl, Gorodetsko-Nizhny Novgorod. Historian Gorsky A.A. suggested that the active policy of the Moscow princes indicates an increase in military strength due to the arrival of a significant number of service people, mainly from South Russia, into their service. After the death of their princes, the boyars departed from the pro-Nogai principalities to Daniil, the head of this coalition, thereby strengthening the military power of Moscow.

Yuri Danilovich (1303-1324) already led a decisive struggle for the label with the Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver. Having entered into the confidence of Khan Uzbek and married his sister Konchaka, Yuri in 1316 received a label taken from the prince of Tver. But soon, in a battle with Michael's army, he was defeated, and his wife was captured. She died in Tver, which gave Yuri reason to accuse the Tver prince of all sins. Realizing what awaits him in the Horde, Mikhail Yaroslavich nevertheless decided to appear before the khan's court, hoping thereby to save his land from the Tatar devastation. As a result, Michael was executed. His son Dmitry the Terrible Eyes, having met in the Horde the culprit of the death of his father, could not stand it and hacked Yuri Danilovich to death. For this lynching, he had to pay with his own life, but Khan Uzbek decided to transfer the label to the great reign to Dmitry's younger brother, Alexander Mikhailovich.

In 1327, a spontaneous popular uprising broke out in Tver, caused by the actions of a Tatar detachment led by the Baskak Cholkhan. The uprising was supported by Prince Alexander. These events were skillfully used by the new Moscow prince, the younger brother of Yuri Danilovich, Ivan 1 Kalita (1328-1340). He led a punitive Horde expedition to Tver. The Tver land was devastated, Alexander Mikhailovich fled to Pskov (executed in the Horde in 1339. A possible reason is his “Lithuanian connections”). The Moscow prince received a label for a great reign as a reward and the right to collect taxes for the khan himself.

These facts indicate that the political line in relations with the Horde was different for the main rivals. In the behavior of the princes of Tver, traits characteristic of the princes of the pre-Mongol era can be traced. Whereas the Moscow princes are politicians of a new generation, professing the principle "the end justifies the means." On this occasion, V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote as follows: “On the side of the Tver princes were the right of seniority and personal prowess, legal and moral means. On the side of the Muscovites were money and the ability to take advantage of circumstances, material and practical means, and then Russia was going through a time when the last means were more effective than the first. The princes of Tver could not understand the true state of affairs in the beginning of the 11th century. still considered it possible to fight the Tatars. Moscow princes... seeing that it is much more profitable to act on the Horde with "humble wisdom", i.e. servility and money than weapons, diligently looked after the khan and made him an instrument of their plans. None of the princes more often than Kalita went to bow to the khan, and there he was always a welcome guest, because he did not come there empty-handed ... ".

After the Tver uprising, the Horde finally abandoned the Basque system and transferred the collection of tribute to the hands of the Grand Duke. Ivan I, who was the intermediary of the Golden Horde in collecting tribute, achieved a virtual monopoly on visiting Saray. This led to the fact that gradually Ivan I and his successors reserve only the right to communicate with the Horde and other countries. Moscow is turning into diplomatic center Northeast Russia. The enrichment of the treasury of the Moscow prince allowed him to annex neighboring territories (Uglich, Kostroma, Galich Kostroma, Beloozero, etc.) to his possessions, which he took away from the specific princes, who were unable to pay tribute to the Horde in a timely manner. The collection of tribute and the expansion of land holdings attracted the boyars to the service of the Moscow prince. Moreover, Kalita himself acquired and encouraged the purchase of villages in other principalities by his boyars. This was contrary to the law of that time, but strengthened the influence of Moscow, attracted boyar families from other principalities under the rule of Kalita. Thus, the formation of a stable and reliable layer of the ruling elite continued, which we will later call the “old Moscow boyars”.

Under Ivan Kalita, cooperation between the metropolitans of the Russian Orthodox Church and Moscow princes began (after the devastation of Kyiv by the Mongol-Tatars, Metropolitan Maxim moved his residence to Vladimir in 1299, and from 1328 the head of the Church began to live permanently in Moscow). Principality becomes Orthodox center Russia. This is all the more important when you consider that during the period of Horde domination financial situation and the ideological influence of the ROC was significantly strengthened. As a result of the religious tolerance of the Horde khans in the 15th-15th centuries. monastery building flourished. It was at this time that the largest Russian monasteries were founded: Trinity-Sergievsky, Kirillo-Belozersky, Solovetsky. The transfer of the Orthodox residence to Moscow helped to attract here the material resources that the church had at its disposal. In addition, the ideological support that the Moscow prince received strengthened the confidence in him on the part of the population of other lands.

In the historical literature there are conflicting characteristics of the personality of Ivan 1 Kalita, whose origins go back to pre-revolutionary historiography. There is a point of view that one of the main factors that ensured the rise of Moscow was "clever, cunning, cruel, absolutely unprincipled policy of the Moscow princes." Under the pen of researchers, Kalita appears as a "miser", "a cynical saint, a puppet wholly devoted to Tatar interests", "sly", "Baskak with Russian blood". According to another point of view, Ivan Kalita is a wise, flexible, realistic, far-sighted ruler. For example, the historian Presnyakov A.E. back in 1918 he wrote: “Of course, Ivan Danilovich was a vassal of Khan Uzbek and was forced, like any other prince, to fulfill his orders. The reign of Uzbek (1312-1342) was the time of the maximum inclusion of the Moscow principality in the structure of the Jochi ulus. But the paradox is that it was in the era of Kalita that the foundations of Moscow's power were laid ... ". Modern researcher N.S. Borisov, highly appreciating the activities of Kalita, notes that "he made a kind of revolution in politics, turning the struggle for supreme power in North-Eastern Russia from a predominantly military-political task into a national-religious task." In his opinion, "the technology of the Moscow victory is one of the brightest pages in the political history of medieval Russia, and perhaps the whole of Eastern Europe."

The policy of Ivan I Kalita was continued by his sons - Simeon the Proud (1340-1353) and Ivan P Krasny (1353-1359). Thus, through the efforts of the Moscow princes at the first stage of consolidation Moscow became the most significant and strong principality in economic and military-political terms.

Reasons for the rise of Moscow historians explain differently. The generally accepted opinion today is as follows: Moscow owes its strengthening to the combined action of numerous factors, among which the main one is the policy of the Moscow princes and their personal qualities.

The primary factor - the geographical conditions of the country - was given by nature and did not depend on the will of man. The Moscow principality was surrounded by other principalities and lands, and was protected from external enemies. Both the Tatars and Lithuania, before reaching it, brought down their first blow on the Ryazan, Smolensk or Tver regions, and often, having met a rebuff here, they no longer went further, but, like a wave that had lost its original strength, rolled back. Thanks to this, the population of the outskirts willingly went under the protection of the Moscow princes. The Moscow inheritance lay on the border of South-Western and North-Eastern Russia; the flow of migrants, heading from the Kyiv Dnieper region to the Volga and Oka basins, having crossed abroad, spread over the region and increased its population density. This road from the South-West to the North-East was crossed almost at a right angle by another road - from the North-West to the South-East, from the Upper Volga to the middle reaches of the Oka. The Moskva River, with its course bringing the Volga closer to the Okoya, created a convenient transit route from Novgorod to the Ryazan Territory, the richest in the entire Northeast, according to travelers. Novgorodians have long used this route to export honey and wax to Europe. Thus, the first road increased the population of the Moscow inheritance, the second - enriched it materially (carriage duties to the prince's treasury; earnings for local residents). Moscow early became a junction of trade routes, and, in particular, an important center for the trade in bread.

Moscow princes skillfully used the advantages of their geographical position. In addition, they were able to enlist the support of the church, and Moscow became the spiritual center of the Russian lands. True, historians emphasize that this factor manifested itself later, when the figures of the builders of the Russian land were more or less outlined. The main and main strength is in the personal qualities of the Moscow princes: the impetus for everything was given by them. The Moscow rulers were consistent, persistent, practical, far-sighted, tough, and, if necessary, hypocritical, cruel, treacherous and vile politicians. In the historical literature, the nickname of prince-gatherers has long been established behind them. As a chicken pecks grain by grain, so did the princes of Moscow increase and expand their inheritance. At the same time, they used all methods: marriage alliances, armed seizure, seizure with the involvement of the forces of the Mongols, annexation as a result of diplomatic efforts, purchase, acquisition

escheated destinies (liberated lands, without heirs, most often after epidemics).

The second stage of consolidation.

If, through the efforts of the Moscow princes, at the first stage of unification, Moscow only became the most significant and strong principality in economic and military-political terms, then at the second stage it turned into the undisputed center of both unification and the struggle for the independence of Russian lands. Under Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy (1359-1389), significant events took place in the unification process and the course in relations with the Horde changed.

Moscow in the middle of the 15th century. afflicted with misfortunes that at other times might have thrown her far back. In 1353, the "black death" - the plague struck down Prince Simeon the Proud with his entire family. Six years later, the last of the sons of Ivan Kalita, Ivan P Krasny, died. 9-year-old Dmitry (the future Dmitry Donskoy) remained in Moscow. At this time, the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod prince took possession of the label for a great reign. A sharp struggle unfolded between him and the group of the Moscow boyars. For a number of years, Moscow diplomacy sought to solve a purely regional problem - the restoration of its leadership within the North-East of Russia. On the side of Moscow, Metropolitan Alexy (guardian of the young prince) spoke, who actually headed the Moscow government, until Moscow finally won the victory in 1363. Thanks to the smart state and church policy of Metropolitan Alexy, the boyar government and the maturing Dmitry Ivanovich, the importance of Moscow not only did not fall, but rapidly increased. Evidence of this was the construction in 1367 of the Kremlin of white limestone - the first stone structure in Russia after Mongol invasion and the first stone fortress in the Northeast. In Moscow, the trade and craft population is increasing, and the arms business is developing. In the 60-70s, Moscow successfully endured the struggle for the great reign of Vladimir with the Suzdal, Nizhny Novgorod, Tver, Ryazan princes. At the same time, Moscow politicians used a variety of methods of struggle. For example, Moscow actively intervened in the strife between the princes of Nizhny Novgorod. Political success was secured by the marriage of 16-year-old Dmitry of Moscow to the daughter of Dmitry of Suzdal, Evdokia (marriage bonds tied two grand ducal dynasties - Moscow and Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod).

Lithuania, on which Tver was guided, acted as a serious rival of Moscow. In 1363 On the Blue Waters River, the Lithuanian prince Olgerd defeated the Tatars, as a result of which a significant part of the territory of the southwestern Russian lands was liberated from the Horde yoke. Some authors call this battle the prologue of the Battle of Kulikovo. In alliance with Tver, Olgerd tried to consolidate this success in the North-East, to realize his plan - to unite the two Russias. But three trips to Moscow in 1368, 1371 and 1372. turned out to be unsuccessful. Olgerd could not take the city. In addition to military force, in order to unite all Russian lands into a single state, Olgerd tried to use the influence of the Orthodox Church (in 1375 he planted Metropolitan Cyprian in Kyiv) and dynastic marriages (in his second marriage he was married to Ulyana Alexandrovna Tverskaya). In 1377, he died in the fight against the crusaders. The prince of Tver in the last Moscow-Tver war of 1375 was defeated and recognized vassal dependence on Moscow (he became a “younger brother” in the terminology of that time). Thus began the process of turning independent princes into appanage princes, which strengthened the Moscow principality, secured its rear and allowed it to fight the Horde.

This was also facilitated by the offensive from the end of the 50s of the "great massacre" in the Horde itself, expressed in a series of murders and coups. In 1375, power was seized by Temnik Mamai, who, not being a Chingizid, had no legal rights to the Khan's throne. Dmitry Ivanovich, taking advantage of the weakening of the Horde, refused to pay tribute under the pretext of the illegality of Mamai's rule. A collision became inevitable. By this time, Prince Dmitry had assembled a large Great Russian Union to fight the Tatars. The main principle of governance in this union was the council of princes. A congress of Russian princes gathered in Pereyaslavl to discuss issues of fighting the Horde. The beginning of an active confrontation with the Horde caused a positive response among the masses. The Tatars sought to split the union and carried out attacks in order to force each of the princes to think about the security of their principality. Not wanting to allow the collapse of the union, Dmitry of Moscow had to move at the head of the army to defend the allies at the slightest Tatar danger. Under the leadership of the Moscow prince or his governor, all the anti-Horde actions of subsequent years took place. In 1376, the army under the command of Bobrok successfully went on a campaign against the vassal of the Horde - the Volga Bulgar. The following year, the allied army was defeated by the Tatars with the help of the Mordovians on the Pyan River. Dmitry immediately organized a reciprocal punitive campaign in the Mordovian lands. In August 1378, Mamai sent a large army to Russia under the command of Emir Begich. The Russian army went out to meet the Tatars in Ryazan, on the Vozha River. The victory in the battle was complete, the Tatars fled. Then five Horde princes died, which had never happened before in clashes. The Vozh battle was a significant victory over a large Horde army. And this happened only thanks to the joint actions of the Great Russian Union.

On the eve of these events, Mamai faced a dilemma. He could either undertake a campaign against Tokhtamysh, who captured Saray and was preparing to continue his advance to the west; or try to defeat Moscow, and then, using Russian resources, pay attention to Tokhtamysh. Vozhskoe defeat pushed Mamai to choose the second option. In this situation, Takhtamysh acted as a natural ally of the Moscow prince.

The decisive battle took place on the Kulikovo field on September 8, 1380. The forces of almost all the lands of North-Eastern Russia rallied under the grand ducal banner. In Kolomna, the place of gathering of the united army of 23 princes, very strong squads of Andrei Polotsky and Dmitry Bryansk approached. These were the sons of Olgerd from his first marriage, the half-brothers of Jagiello. Karamzin N.M. noted that it was the Olgerdovichi who insisted on crossing the Don in order to cut off the retreat. The Lithuanian squads, the bulk of which consisted of Russian soldiers, Dmitry Donskoy placed in the center of his troops, and they played an important role in the difficult battle.

Whereas the successor of Olgerd, his son Jagiello, for the first time in the history of the Principality of Lithuania, entered into an alliance with the Horde (Mamaeva). However, Jagiello did not take part in the battle. About the reasons this fact there is no consensus in the historical literature. It is traditionally believed that Jagiello could not connect with Mamai's army, since Prince Dmitry crossed the Don and prevented this. But there is an opinion that the Lithuanian prince deliberately hesitated, giving Dmitry the opportunity to win. Perhaps he was not sincere, promising Mamai support. It is suggested that his soldiers did not wish this, among which a significant part were Russian regiments, who well remembered Olgerd's victories over the Tatars and sympathized with the anti-Horde struggle. LN Gumilyov cites the fact that Oleg Ryazansky with a detachment of five thousand managed, skillfully maneuvering, to detain the Lithuanians.

According to the chronicle, the forces of the parties were approximately equal (100-150 thousand people each). Modern researchers have again turned to the calculations of the number of troops that met in a deadly battle on the Kulikovo field. The opinion is expressed that the facts refute the thesis about the equality of forces. Dmitry Donskoy could hardly have gathered such a large army without the support of all the lands and principalities. Dmitry's army probably numbered 30-40 thousand people. According to the most conservative estimates, Mamaev's army was one and a half to two times superior to the Russian army.

Battle of Kulikovo - biggest battle middle ages. She became a milestone national history. This is recognized by the vast majority of historians. However, the significance of the Battle of Kulikovka is still estimated differently. The traditional assessment is as follows. The victory on the Kulikovo field is not only a military-political, but also a spiritual and moral victory. Russia was saved from ruin, which threatened to become no less terrible than Batyevo. The battle showed that the Russian army can fight on equal terms and win. The myth about the invincibility of the Horde was dispelled. Moscow finally secured for itself the role of a unifier, and its princes - the defenders of the Russian land. This first strategically important victory, which gave Dmitry the nickname "Donskoy", made the Russian people believe in themselves, strengthened them in the correctness of their faith, revived a sense of national pride and dignity. “The ethnic significance of what happened on the Kulikovo field turned out to be colossal. Suzdal, Vladimir, Rostov, Pskov went to fight on the Kulikovo field as representatives of their principalities, but returned from there as Russians, although living in different cities. Orthodox solidarity became a universal conviction, accompanied by a readiness for self-sacrifice and a feat for the faith. The spiritual father of the Battle of Kulikovo is considered to be St. Sergius of Radonezh. Before the battle, Sergius consecrated the sword of Dmitry Ivanovich and blessed the monks of his Trinity-Sergius monastery, heroes Andrei Oslyablya and Alexander Peresvet, to participate in the battle. Peresvet with his duel with Chelubey opened the Battle of Kulikovo. In Russian Orthodoxy, taking up arms was not a sin when it came to protecting shrines and fulfilling a moral duty. Christianity in Russia was not perceived only as humility. The Gospel of Luke says through the mouth of Jesus Christ: "Sell your clothes and buy a sword."

In modern historiography, new assessments are being actively developed, made in connection with the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kulikovo. So, LN Gumilyov gave the following interpretation of the events. On the field of Kulikovo, Russia fought not against the Golden Horde, but against the Mamaev Horde, which relied on an alliance with the West. Mamai carried out the will of the Genoese. They are in the 15th century. owned virtually the entire southern coast of Crimea, had huge incomes from trade and sought to turn Russia into their colony. The political role of the Genoese in the events of 1380. was decisive. Mamai's army consisted of Genoese infantry, and was also staffed by Alans (Ossetians), Kasogs (Circassians) and other mercenaries mobilized with Genoese money. In addition, Mamai was waiting for help from the Lithuanian prince Jagiello, who was later persuaded by Pope Urban IV to accept Catholicism. Rome coordinated the actions of this coalition, which meant the Catholic coloring of Mamaev's campaign against Russia. If we put the problem more broadly, Gumilyov and his supporters pointed out, then Russia fought against "a world force in which the Catholic West and part of the Asian army united."

The defeat inflicted on Mamai soon led to his death in the fight against Khan Tokhtamysh, who took possession of all the lands of the Golden Horde. Meanwhile, the coalition of Russian princes broke up. Khan sent ambassadors to Dmitry Donskoy. In winter - in the spring of 1381. the Russian princes released the ambassadors with gifts, which meant the formal recognition of Tokhtamysh as overlord. But the Moscow side was clearly not going to raise the issue of paying the tribute debt accumulated over the six years of confrontation with Mamai. Dmitry Donskoy was in no hurry to restore tributary relations with the Horde, but at the same time he had no reason not to recognize the “royal” dignity of the new ruler of the Horde, who, moreover, had just finished with his enemy. The Grand Duke, most likely, took a wait-and-see attitude. When Tokhtamysh realized that the Russians, inspired by the Battle of Kulikovo, were not going to fulfill their vassal obligations, he decided to resort to military force. He managed to ensure the surprise of the attack. The prince of Nizhny Novgorod, having learned about the approach of the khan, sent his two sons to him. Oleg Ryazansky pointed out to Tokhtamysh the fords on the Oka River. Dmitry Donskoy left Moscow and went to Kostroma. Valiantly led the defense of Moscow and the Lithuanian prince Ostey (grandson of Olgerd) died. In August 1382 Khan Tokhtamysh burned Moscow, Vladimir, Zvenigorod, Yuriev, Mozhaisk, Dmitrov, Pereyaslavl, Kolomna. Having crossed the Oka, he devastated the Ryazan land.

The question of the motives for the behavior of Dmitry Donskoy, leaving the capital to him, is debatable. The opinions of historians range from recognizing the departure as a necessary tactical maneuver aimed at gathering troops, to declaring it a shameful flight. In any case, in the Russian chronicles, the motives for the behavior of Prince Dmitry do not look pejorative. In 1383 a compromise was reached: a) Moscow recognized the debt to pay the "exit" from the Moscow principality for 1381/82 and 1382/83 - the reign of Tokhtamysh after the death of Mamai; b) Khan went to recognition of the Vladimir Grand Duchy as a hereditary possession of the Moscow princely house. After the death of Dmitry Donskoy, his son Vasily was elevated by the khan's ambassador to the great reign of Vladimir without a personal appearance for a label in Saray, which had never happened before. From these historical facts, some modern researchers draw the following conclusion. Assessing the political side of the issue, “it should be recognized, however paradoxical it may seem, that the results of the generally unsuccessful conflict with the Horde in 1381-1383. turned out to be more significant for Moscow than the consequences of the Battle of Kulikovo. The defeat of Mamai did not cause a fundamental change in Muscovite-Mongolian relations, moreover, it contributed to the rapid restoration of the unity of the Horde under the rule of Tokhtamysh, and the losses suffered by the Russians did not allow them to effectively resist the Khan in 1382. (this, of course, does not reduce the historical significance of the Battle of Kulikovo as a whole, which went far beyond the scope of specific political consequences).

There is another assessment of the events described above. It belongs to the supporters of ideas about the Russian-Lithuanian principality as a real and even desirable alternative to Moscow in collecting Russian lands. The course of reasoning of historians of this direction is as follows. As a result of Moscow's victory on the Kulikovo field, its international prestige grew. After 1380 Jagiello was looking for an alliance no longer with the Tatars, but with Dmitry Donskoy. In 1381 Negotiations on the unification of the two state entities were led by the mother of Jagiello Ulyana Alexandrovna. As a result, a draft agreement on the union of Moscow and Lithuania was developed. Among other points, the project provided for the baptism of Jagiello into Orthodoxy and his marriage to one of the daughters of Dmitry Donskoy. The consequence of the union of Moscow and Lithuania, i.е. the unification of the East Slavic lands into a single state could be: a) the completion of the process of Slavicization of the Lithuanian lands (this process has already been going on for a hundred years); b) Christianization of the Lithuanian population according to the Orthodox rite; c) the overthrow of the yoke of the Tatars over the North-Eastern Russian principalities a hundred years earlier. Such a brilliant opportunity was prevented by the unsuccessful policy of Dmitry Donskoy. In 1382 Khan Tokhtamysh burned down Moscow. This event forced Jagiello to look for other, stronger allies. In 1385 an alliance between Lithuania and Poland was signed, and in 1387. the population of Lithuania is baptized according to the Catholic rite.

The last who tried to unite the two Russias was Prince Vitovt (1392-1430), Olgerd's nephew. In 1396 in Smolensk, an agreement was signed on joint action between Vitovt and Vasily I Dmitrievich (1389-1425), who was married to Vitovt's daughter Sophia. Moscow under Vasily I recognized the leadership of Lithuania in the affairs of all Russia. Before his death, Vasily I entrusted his 10-year-old son Vasily II to the care of his father-in-law Vitovt. However, Vitovt died before he could unite the two Russias. His successors abandoned the all-Russian program, and Vasily II had no time for fighting Lithuania. He was forced to focus on regional issues, in particular on the war with his uncle, Prince Yuri Dmitrievich of Galicia, for the throne of Vladimir.

So, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. quite real was the prospect of unification of Lithuanian and Muscovite Rus. But this alternative was not destined to come true. The reasons are given as follows:

● the policy of the Moscow princes was unpopular in Lithuanian Rus, since there the townspeople and feudal lords had greater rights and privileges than the corresponding categories of the population of Vladimir Rus;

● The main opponent of the Gediminids in the North-East was Moscow, which, as the leader of this region, in case of their victory, lost much more than other principalities. In the XIV-XV centuries. the Moscow princes were not able to prevent the successes of the Gediminids in the West and South of Russia, but they turned out to be strong enough to prevent the completion of the unification of the Russian lands under the rule of Vilna;

● The Orthodox Church also opposed the unification plans of the Lithuanian princes. She feared that in the political life of the unified state she would no longer play such a prominent role as in Muscovite Russia.

Dynastic War. In the second quarter of the fifteenth century the process of unification took on a more tense and contradictory character. The struggle for leadership was no longer between individual principalities, but within the Moscow princely house. The war for the grand princely throne of Vasily II (1425-1462) lasted 28 years with his uncle Yuri Dmitrievich Galitsky (the second son of Dmitry Donskoy) and his sons Dmitry Shemyaka, Vasily Kosy, Dmitry Krasny. Behind the clash was the confrontation between the traditional patrimonial principle of inheritance of power (from brother to brother), inherent in the era of Kievan Rus, with the new family principle (from father to son), coming from Byzantium and strengthening the grand ducal power.

In the years of infancy, Vasily II was under the patronage of his grandfather Vitovt, which in 1428 forced Yuri to recognize his 13-year-old nephew as "the elder brother" and the Grand Duke. But after the death of the Lithuanian prince, the talented commander Yuri expelled Vasily II from Moscow in 1433. Not having received the support of the Moscow boyars, who began to “move off” to Vasily II in Kolomna allocated to him as an inheritance, Yuri was forced to leave the city. The behavior of the Moscow boyars, guided by already clear ideas about the differences in the status of the grand and appanage princes and understanding that with the advent of Yuri, the service-parochial hierarchy that had developed within the boyars would change, predetermined the outcome of the war. True, due to the military and political inexperience of Vasily II and his some kind of fatal failure, it will continue for many more years and entail numerous victims. Already in 1434, near Galich, the troops of the Grand Duke would again be defeated, and Prince Yuri would take the throne of Moscow for the second time.

Soon, Prince Yuri died, and his sons continued the struggle for the great reign. In fratricidal warfare, means were used that corresponded to the spirit of this cruel age. So, Vasily II, having achieved victory and captured Vasily Kosoy, ordered to blind him.

Until 1445, a peaceful respite continued, which, however, did not extend to the foreign policy sphere, because. the disintegrating Horde increased pressure on Russia. In the summer of 1445, Vasily II was defeated by the founder of the Kazan Khanate, Ulu-Mukhammed, and was taken prisoner. He was released for a huge ransom, the entire burden of which fell on the civilian population. Taking advantage of the discontent of the Muscovites, Dmitry Shemyaka in February 1446 made a coup. Having seized the Moscow throne, he blinded Vasily II (hence his nickname "Dark") and exiled him to Uglich, but the situation of 1433 was repeated: the Moscow boyars began to "depart" from the capital, which allowed Vasily II, who also received support church and prince of Tver, in 1447 once again regain the throne. The war continued until Dmitry, who had hidden in Novgorod, was poisoned there by the people of Vasily II in 1453.

Reasons for the victory of Vasily P:

1. Creation of a strong military force. The environment of the Grand Duke of Moscow grew at the expense of the descendants of those boyars who served his ancestors in the XIV century. In all eras in Russia, as in most countries, the provincials sought to the capital, where they can make a career and get rich. There was not enough land around Moscow. Land could only be taken from neighbors. Under such conditions, a military stratum was formed, whose representatives were ready to do anything to get land, money, fame for participating in the campaigns of the Moscow prince against his enemies. War for such people (service princes, boyars and boyar children) became a matter of life. As a result, the army (Dvor) of Vasily II, compared with the troops of other princes, was stronger, quite monolithic and mobile.

2. Support for the Russian Orthodox Church. The entire hierarchy was pro-Moscow. Except for the Archbishop of Novgorod and the Bishop of Tver, who tried to keep themselves independent, all the other hierarchs were obedient to the grand duke's authority. In the XV century. the church had high authority among all segments of the population, its voice was listened to in all regions of the country.

3. Horde support. In the confrontation between the freedom-loving Galician princes (successors of the work of Dmitry Donskoy) and the obedient Moscow princes - their faithful allies - the Horde khans supported the Moscow princes.

At the beginning of the XIV century. the fragmentation of Russian lands stops, giving way to their unification. The unification of Russian lands around Moscow led to a radical change in the political significance of this city and the great Moscow princes. They, the recent rulers of one of the Russian principalities, found themselves at the head of the most extensive state in Europe. The emergence of a single state created favorable conditions for the development of the national economy and for repelling external enemies.

There are several factors that influenced the formation of a single state.

geographic factors. Compared with Tver, the Moscow principality occupied a more favorable central position in relation to other Russian lands. The river and land routes passing through its territory gave Moscow the importance of the most important junction of trade and other ties between the Russian lands. Thanks to this, Moscow became in the XIV century. a major trade and craft center. Covered from the northwest of Lithuania by the Principality of Tver, and from the east and southeast of the Golden Horde by other Russian lands, the Principality of Moscow was less subject to sudden devastating raids by the Golden Horde. This allowed the Moscow princes to gather and accumulate strength, gradually create superiority in material and human resources, in order to act as organizers and leaders of the liberation process and the liberation struggle. Geographical position The principality of Moscow was also predetermined by its role as the ethnic core of the emerging Great Russian people.

Economic forces. Strengthening economic ties between the Russian lands, which was a consequence of the overall economic development of the country.

At this time, intensive development of agriculture begins, which requires acreage => development of new lands => increase in surplus product in agriculture => sale of grain to the side.

The need for agricultural tools determines the necessary development of handicrafts in cities => interaction between city and countryside => creation of markets, trade => division of labor between individual regions of the country, due to their natural features, forms economic ties throughout Russia.

Development foreign trade=> the need to create a centralized state (not a decisive factor)

Socio-political factors. The rise of the economy => increased exploitation of the peasants => the feudal lords want to secure the peasants to their estates and estates => the natural resistance of the peasantry (they kill the feudal lords, seize their property, set fire to estates, shoots) => the need to create a powerful centralized state to suppress the resistance of the exploited masses.

Merging features:

• 1) carried out under the conditions of the Horde yoke (external threat)
• 2) the unification policy of the Moscow princes received support from the vast majority of the population, there is no opposition to the unification process
• 3) the flexible policy of the Moscow princes in relation to the Horde Khan
• 4) Ros. state was originally created as a multinational
• 5) The metropolitan see was transferred from Vladimir to Moscow

The social system of the Moscow state

The incompleteness of the process of formation of estates. The most significant and largest categories of the population were as follows.

The class of feudal lords was divided into patrimonial boyars (large and influential landowners. The patrimonial boyars were also vassals of the Grand Duke. They had rights to the land and the peasants who lived on it: they transferred the land by inheritance, alienated it, changed it, etc., in their hands there was a court, administration, tax collection, etc. As the lands were unified and the grand duke's power was strengthened, the status of the boyars-patrimonials changed significantly: their privileges were reduced) and noble landowners (they owned land on the so-called local right, for service and for a while services. The nobility formed the basis of the armed forces of the state. The owners of the local lands could not alienate and inherit them, were not included in the Boyar Duma, could not receive higher ranks in the palace administration and be governors. Subsequently, the rights of the nobles to the land were significantly expanded).

At the head of the feudal hierarchy was the Grand Duke - the largest feudal lord, the head of state, who owned the palace and black-moss lands. The peasants of these lands bore duties in favor of the state and were ruled by its governors.

Further along the hierarchy came the appanage princes, who entered the service of the Grand Duke and lost their independence, turned into large patrimonials, first vassals, and then subjects of the Grand Duke, who were indebted to him for service.

In a single state, the title of boyars began to be fully associated with public service and was now a court rank granted by the Grand Duke. The title of prince was preserved only as evidence of origin. The second court rank was the rank of okolnichi (small appanage princes and noble boyars).

The church and monasteries were the largest landowners, patrimonies, acted as a serious political force, actively contributed to the strengthening of the feudal state. The possessions of the church and monasteries were free from state tax and service. All ministers: white (parish ministers, rectors of cathedrals), black (monastic) clergy. The church elite was formed from both parts of the clergy - white and black. The clergy were subject only to the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court.

The urban population began to be subject to the same taxes and duties as the peasants. Merchants were at the top of the population. The "best people" of the settlement received some privileges - they were exempted from part of the sovereign's duties, they could acquire land, create their own corporations ("hundreds", "rows", for artisans - "streets") with some self-government rights.

The main part of the urban population were "black people", sovereign taxpayers, artisans, handicraftsmen who lived in the suburb adjoining the city center and made up black settlements and hundreds, paid taxes and carried duties. Large merchants and artisans exploited the lower classes of the city.

Peasantry. Black tax (later - state) and privately owned (palace, patrimony, church and monastery, local). continued to live in the community. The yard, buildings, tools, livestock were privately owned by the peasant economy, and the territory was permanently privately owned (because the prince was the owner of the land). Kholops were kept in the courts of the large feudal nobility, but most of the serfs were planted on the ground.

State system of Muscovite Russia

feudal monarchy. At the head of the state, the Grand Duke, whose power was significantly increased, because. added new territories. He turned into an autocratic monarch of the largest state of that time.

The Boyar Duma (the former council under the prince) was a permanent body, met regularly, discussed the most important issues for the state internal and foreign policy, was at the same time a legislative body, and a governing body and a judicial body. On especially important occasions, metropolitans and other hierarchs of the church took part in its meetings. There was no delimitation of the competence of the Boyar Duma and the Grand Duke (Tsar) either legally or in fact. supreme power they did it together.

Grand Duke

Administration of the Palace of the Way Local authorities Council under the prince

Urban Rural

Management was carried out by "ways" - palace departments, which were engaged not only in palace management, but also in lands, lands, villages assigned to a certain industry. They were subject to the population of these lands.

To manage the annexed lands - "regional palaces" - Tver, Novgorod, Ryazan, etc. They were in charge of collecting taxes, local administration, considering land disputes, forming a feudal militia, etc.

Ways and regional palaces continued to be in charge, first of all, of the prince's economy, palace lands and peasants belonging to the grand duke and his family.

In the XV century. there are such departments as orders. Court orders were formed in Moscow for each annexed principality to receive, analyze and resolve cases of persons seeking judicial protection from the Moscow sovereign. The sovereign ordered any boyar to deal with this business or industry on his own.

In the XV century. All-Russian departments become the grand ducal orders of the Treasury and Palace. Controlled cash receipts and circulation of land.

In administrative terms, the Grand Duchy of Moscow was divided into districts (with governors; next to the governors there were lip institutions that were limited to the persecution of robbers, had police and judicial powers) - cities with lands belonging to them. Counties were divided into camps, camps into volosts (with volosts; they had their own zemstvo administration, which dealt with finances and tax collection)

A nation state is a state formed by an ethnos (nation) on the basis of an ethnic territory and embodying the political independence and independence of the people. The theoretical and ideological basis of such a state was the principle of nationality, under the flag of which the economically and politically strengthened bourgeoisie fought against obsolete feudalism. The desire to create a nation state is largely due to the fact that the preservation of the socio-economic (or ultimately ethnic) integrity of the nation is possible only if it is within the framework of one state. The formation of a nation-state best of all satisfies these requirements of social development and is therefore the tendency of every national movement.

Nation-states usually took shape in conditions where the formation of nations and the formation of the state took place simultaneously, in connection with which political boundaries most often coincided with ethnic ones. Thus, the states of Western Europe and Latin America arose. This was typical, normal for the capitalist period of development. Since in the countries of Western Europe, where the formation of nations began for the first time in history, this process coincided with the emergence and centralization of states that developed in territories with a predominantly ethnically homogeneous population, the term “nation” itself acquired a political meaning here - the belonging of people to one, “national ", to the state. The principle of "one nation - one state" began to be promoted in Europe during the French Revolution. In Europe, for a long time there was a point of view that the nation-state is the optimal model for organizing society. nation states
formed here in the form of a monarchy, parliamentary and presidential republics.

After World War I, at the instigation of US President Woodrow Wilson, the principle of "one nation, one state" is applied in Central and Eastern Europe. The borders of new countries are cut along national lines. This helped to remove many of the old contradictions, but gave rise to new ones. The fundamental difficulty of successfully applying such an approach is that even if one tries to objectively determine the dividing lines between nations, it is impossible to do so consistently. There are almost no ethnically homogeneous massifs that would not mix in a significant part of their border or deep territories with other national borders, which, being enclosed within the borders of another national state, would not turn into national minorities. Yes, section Ottoman Empire and the collapse of the Habsburg Empire in Europe were marked by the creation of small states, the process of fragmentation into which was called "Balkanization", and with a negative meaning.

The states of Europe and other continents within the boundaries that we know were formed over several centuries. Most of them have become mononational. In this regard, the term "nation" itself acquired a political meaning - the belonging of people to one "national" state. In this case, the term "nation" is used in a statist sense and refers to states that have arisen on the principle of "one nation - one state." Consequently, the concept of "nation-state" is valid only for mono-national states.

The national state creates the necessary conditions for the economic, social, cultural progress of the people, for the preservation of the national language, traditions, customs, etc. Therefore, the creation of their own statehood is the desired goal of each ethnic group. However, all ethnic groups cannot achieve this goal. This requires at least two conditions: compactness of residence and small number.

In this regard, more than once scientific literature the question of whether statehood is an obligatory, necessary sign of a nation was discussed. Most researchers think not. In practice, when attributing one or another ethnic community to a nation, special importance is often attached to the presence of its own state. This is largely due to the fact that the preservation of the socio-economic (and ultimately ethnic) integrity of the nation is possible only if it is within the framework of one state. However, "one's own" state is by no means an obligatory sign of a nation. History knows many examples of the presence of several nations in the composition of one state. The Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian empires included various nations that did not have their own statehood. It is also known that the Polish nation was deprived of its statehood for a long time, but did not cease to be a nation.

AT modern conditions the term "nation state" is used in two senses. First, to designate states with an absolute majority of an ethnically homogeneous population. These national states include Japan, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Greece, Poland, Hungary, France, most Arab and Latin American countries, where representatives of the titular nation make up 90 or more percent of the population of these states. Secondly, the concept of a nation-state is also used in relation to those states where, in addition to the titular nation, significant groups of other ethnic entities live. However, historically, a state was formed on this territory, bearing the name of the largest ethnic group settled in this territory. Among these states are Romania, Sweden, Finland, Syria, Iraq, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, etc. Due to the growth of interstate migrations and the multi-ethnic population, the number of such nation-states will gradually increase.

It should be noted that although in Russian Federation the state-forming nation - Russians - makes up 82% of the population, it does not belong to the category of nation-states, but is a multinational state. This is due to the fact that in addition to Russians, dozens of indigenous peoples live on the territory of Russia, many of which have formed here into a nation and have their own national statehood, being part of the Russian Federation. Therefore, Russia is the ethnic territory of many non-Russian peoples, who, together with the Russians, constitute a multinational people.

After October revolution most of the peoples living in the territory Russian Empire, created various forms nation-state formations and nation-states. Moreover, the forms of national statehood chosen by ethnic groups did not remain unchanged: they improved and developed. Most peoples have passed from the original lower form to a higher form of national statehood. For example, the Kyrgyz ethnos in a short period has gone from an autonomous region to a union republic within the USSR.

According to the 1977 Constitution, there were 53 nation-states and national-state formations in the USSR: 15 union republics, 20 autonomous republics, 8 autonomous regions and 10 autonomous districts. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993, the Russian Federation includes 21 republics (national states), some of them are binational, for example, Kabardino-Balkaria, and even multinational (Dagestan); one autonomous region and 10 autonomous regions. In fact, all republics and national-state formations are multi-ethnic. Therefore, the republics within the Russian Federation are the statehood not only of the “titular” nation, but of the entire multi-ethnic people of this republic, citizens of all nationalities living on their territory.

A detailed solution to paragraphs § 3 on social science for students in grade 9, authors A.I. Kravchenko, E.A. Pevtsova 2015

Questions and tasks

1. What is the difference between a centralized state and a nation state?

The centralized state is a method rather of a territorial-administrative feature. More than one nation can live in a centralized state. Centralization indicates how numerous territories are connected to a common center. The main difference between a nation-state and a centralized one is that one nation dominates (in number) on the territory of the nation-state, while representatives of other nations are of secondary importance and are represented by small groups (Germany, France).

2. * Which of these types does modern Russia belong to?

Modern Russia belongs to a centralized state. It cannot be attributed to the nation state, because 30 nations live on the territory of Russia, which have equal rights. If one nation and ethnic groups close to it lived on its territory, then one could talk about a national state.

3. What is the process of collecting land and how did it take place on the territory of our homeland?

The unification of ethnically and politically divided lands around a certain center is called the process of annexation of lands.

The process of collecting land can be divided into 2 parts:

1. The period of the Old Russian state;

2. period of Muscovy.

The second stage of collecting lands began in 1382, when the Moscow prince Ivan Kalita, as a reward for pacifying the uprising in Tver against the tribute collectors (Baskak), received from the Khan of the Golden Horde a label for the great Vladimir reign along with the right to collect tribute from the Russian principalities. Since the time of Ivan Kalita, it was the Moscow princes who began to pursue a policy aimed at collecting lands around Moscow. Later, the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III destroyed the specific principalities and united under the rule of Moscow most of the lands of North-Eastern Russia. Gradually, Yaroslavl, Rostov, Ryazan, Tver, and also Novgorod submitted to Moscow.

4. * Try to compare the process of collecting land in the countries of Western Europe and in Russia. What conclusions can you come to?

Gathering land in the tenth century. in Western Europe, the German king and emperor of the Holy Roman Empire Otto I the Great and the Danish rulers were engaged. Otto was able to create a state that lasted for many centuries. The first Danish ruler who united the country for the first time was Gorm the Old (920 - 940), who subjugated the Viking settlement of Hedeby and expanded the territory of the Danish state. In other Scandinavian countries, small kingdoms united around strong rulers, but disintegrated after their death. The first king who subjugated a significant part of Norway was Harald the Fair-Haired. In Sweden, a single state arose at the turn of the 10th and 11th centuries. Bolesław I the Brave (992-1025) united the Polish lands. The unification of the lands in Italy and Germany took place only in the 19th century.

The process of collecting land in Russia can be divided into 2 parts:

3. The period of the Old Russian state;

4. period of Muscovy.

The first stage began with the establishment of the Rurik dynasty in Kyiv in 882, when the ancient Russian lands united into a single state.

The second stage of collecting lands began in 1382, when the Moscow prince Ivan Kalita, as a reward for pacifying the uprising in Tver against the tribute collectors (Baskak), received from the Khan of the Golden Horde a label for the great Vladimir reign along with the right to collect tribute from the Russian principalities. Since the time of Ivan Kalita, it was the Moscow princes who began to pursue a policy aimed at collecting lands around Moscow. Later, the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III destroyed the specific principalities and united under the rule of Moscow most of the lands of North-Eastern Russia. Gradually, Yaroslavl, Rostov, Ryazan, Tver, and also Novgorod submitted to Moscow.

The process of collecting land in Western Europe was more bloody than in Russian land. Therefore, the formation of large states practically took place during the reign of one ruler (for example, Otto I). In Russia, the process of collecting lands stretched for more than one century and was of a natural nature.

5. How does the tendency of uniting and separating nations manifest itself in the modern world community? What are the similarities and differences between these trends?

These trends manifest themselves as follows.

One of them is ethnic differentiation, that is, the isolation of people of a certain ethnic group, its desire for self-development, for national independence, for the flourishing of its own economy, politics, and culture. This trend is also called national.

The second is integration, the unification of nations (it is also called international). This trend leads to the expansion of ties between different ethnic groups, the destruction of borders, the perception of all the best that has been created by other peoples, to the deepening economic relations, the development of communication in the field of culture, etc. Both trends are interrelated. They are explained by objective economic and socio-cultural needs.

The action of both these tendencies in the development of an ethnos can be clearly traced throughout the history of mankind. Both of them contribute to the progress of civilization, because one leads to internal self-improvement, the flourishing of the ethnic group, and the second - contributes to the mutual enrichment of peoples, the exchange of national values, the strengthening of mutual understanding, trust, friendship and peace. Ultimately, both tendencies contribute to the development of the human personality. However, the desire of nations to create their own states can lead to the collapse of an already established state and protracted military conflicts, since one side wants independence, while the other seeks to prevent the alienation of its territory.

One of the leading factors in the development of mankind today is the scientific and technological revolution. It predetermines both the specialization of production and its broad cooperation (collaboration), because the productive forces that are growing rapidly are closely within a single nation and even a large multinational state (for example, transnational corporations today have branches in almost all countries of the world and continue to strengthen its power).

There is a process of economic integration of peoples and states, and at the same time their natural rapprochement, internationalization of all aspects of life. A striking example of this process can be the European Union (EU), which today unites fifteen European countries. And this process is intensifying. The interests of the peoples of the EU are expressed by several joint bodies. Among them, for example, the European Council, which guides the entire policy of the EU (it consists of heads of state), the European Parliament - a legislative body elected by the entire adult population of the PIEC. Another example is the agreement between the United States of America and Mexico on the creation of a common economic space, the abolition of customs tariffs and the implementation of a single economic policy in relation to other states.

6. Why and how do nation-states fall apart?

Of course, the problem of the nation-state is not as simple as it might seem. Take, for example, Yugoslavia, which previously included only representatives of one ethnic group - Slavic. On formal grounds, this is a nation-state. But the Slavs-Serbs profess Orthodoxy, and the Slavs-Croats - Catholicism. And in the 1990s, a war broke out between them. What is this war - civil or national? It's hard to find the exact name. But as a result, two different states are formed, now one-national. What kept them together before? communist ideology.

But split in two political states- The FRG and the GDR - a single German nation in the same 1990s reunited into a single national state. The same thing happened with the North and South Vietnam separated by political barriers. On the same path are today the Northern and South Korea, political differences between which are still very strong. But it is quite possible that in the future they will fade into the background, giving way to centripetal national tendencies.

7. What role did separatism play in recent history? Have you heard the expression "parade of sovereignties"? How is this phenomenon related to separatism?

Separatism is the desire for separation, isolation. The division of nations could take place peacefully or militarily. The second way was more often chosen. The form of non-peaceful separation is national liberation wars and interethnic conflicts. It is difficult to draw dividing lines between them, but it can be said that wars more often occur where one nation has enslaved another, and conflicts occur between peoples that once peacefully united, one of which decided to secede.

If you trace this process in history. You can refer to the events that took place in 1989. Then the series Soviet republics one after another began to declare their independence and withdrawal from the USSR (parade of sovereignties). Thus, the disintegration of the multinational state took place, i.e., the national republics showed a desire for separatism. However, this did not go unnoticed. Not all newly formed states were happy with their borders or internal administrative arrangements.

Thus, the government of the young Georgian state announced the liquidation of the autonomies of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians. In response, these autonomous entities announced their secession from Georgia. Armed conflicts began, which have not been overcome so far.

Or, for example, Moldova, after declaring independence, took a course towards rapprochement with Romania. This caused discontent in the regions on the left bank of the Dniester, where the predominantly Russian and Ukrainian population lives. They formed the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic and declared their secession from the country, which led to an armed conflict.

8. * Guess what problems disappear and what appear among the population and authorities when a multinational state breaks down into national ones.

The following problems may appear:

1. Economic - before the new state was part of a larger public education, where in a certain way there was a distribution of resources between territorial units. New borders and new problems appear, as the new state may not have its own raw material base for the development of the economy as a whole.

2. Financial - they are drawn to the problems of the economy. The economy is not working well - there are few budget revenues.

3. The problem of national intolerance (if more than one nation lives on the territory of the new state).

4. Radical changes in the sphere of culture as a result of national intolerance.

5. Management of a new state in new conditions, establishing relations with other states (usually this problem is solved rather quickly).

The following problems may disappear:

1. Interethnic conflicts (if they were previously present).

2. Difficulty in controlling a large area.

Problem. Think about what features of the Russian political system and traditions of domestic statehood ensure the unity and integrity of our country.

Community, catholicity, sovereignty (statehood), patriotism, social justice, the priority value of labor, spirituality. The traditional ideal (mentality) of the peoples of Russia is a strong centralized state capable of ensuring the necessary order, the integrity of society, and protecting the country from foreign invasions. Powerfulness includes military service to the state, readiness to defend its sovereignty. The opposition of society to the state is not inherent in the Russian mentality: community and sovereignty smoothed out contradictions, alienation between the state and the individual.

Workshop.

There are about 200 states and up to 5 thousand ethnic groups in the world, of which several hundred are nations. Today's Russia includes more than 100 ethnic groups, including 30 nations. Comparing these figures, is it possible to conclude that not all nations have a state, although most, if not all, strive for this?

Yes, not all nations have a state, but many strive for it. For example, the Kurds. They inhabit the ethno-geographic region in Western Asia (Kurditsan), which is divided between several states (Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria). Until now, the Kurds are trying to achieve at least the rights of autonomy within the state in which they live.

However, in the territory modern Russia There are about 30 nations that have their own republics and are part of the Russian Federation.