In the second half of the XIV century. in northeastern Russia, the tendency to unite the lands intensified. The center of the association was the Moscow principality, separated from Vladimir-Suzdal in the 12th century.
The reasons.
The role of unifying factors was played by: the weakening and collapse of the Golden Horde, the development of economic ties and trade, the formation of new cities and the strengthening of the social stratum of the nobility. In the Moscow principality, a system developed local relations: the nobles received land from the Grand Duke for their service and for the duration of their service. This made them dependent on the prince and strengthened his power. Also the reason for the merger was struggle for national independence.
Features of Russian education centralized state:
Speaking of "centralization" one should keep in mind two processes: the unification of Russian lands around a new center - Moscow and the creation of a centralized state apparatus, a new power structure in the Muscovite state.
The state was formed in the northeastern and northwestern lands of the former Kievan Rus; From the 13th century Moscow princes and the church begin to carry out a wide colonization of the Trans-Volga territories, new monasteries, fortresses and cities are formed, the local population is conquered.
The formation of the state took place in a very short time, which was associated with the presence of an external danger in the face of the Golden Horde; the internal structure of the state was fragile; the state at any moment could break up into separate principalities;
the creation of the state took place on a feudal basis; feudal society began to form in Russia: serfdom, class, etc.; in Western Europe, the formation of states took place on a capitalist basis, and bourgeois society began to take shape there.
Features of the process of state centralization and boiled down to the following: Byzantine and Eastern influence led to strong despotic tendencies in the structure and politics of power; the main support of autocratic power was not the union of cities with the nobility, but the local nobility; centralization was accompanied by the enslavement of the peasantry and the strengthening of class differentiation.
The formation of the Russian centralized state took place in several stages:
Stage 1. Rise of Moscow(late XIII - early XIV centuries). By the end of the XIII century. the old cities of Rostov, Suzdal, Vladimir are losing their former importance. The new cities of Moscow and Tver are rising.
The rise of Tver began after the death of Alexander Nevsky (1263). During the last decades of the thirteenth century Tver acts as a political center and organizer of the struggle against Lithuania and the Tatars and tried to subdue the most important political centers: Novgorod, Kostroma, Pereyaslavl, Nizhny Novgorod. But this desire ran into strong resistance from other principalities, and above all from Moscow.
The beginning of the rise of Moscow is associated with the name of the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky - Daniel (1276 - 1303). Daniil got a small village of Moscow. For three years, the territory of Daniel's possession has tripled: Kolomna and Pereyaslavl have joined Moscow. Moscow became a principality.
His son Yuri (1303 - 1325). joined the Tver prince in the struggle for the throne of Vladimir. A long and stubborn struggle for the title of Grand Duke began. Yuri's brother Ivan Danilovich, nicknamed Kalita, in 1327 in Tver, Ivan Kalita went to Tver with an army and crushed the uprising. In gratitude, in 1327 the Tatars gave him a label for the Great reign.
Stage 2. Moscow - the center of the fight against the Mongol-Tatars(second half of the 14th - first half of the 15th centuries). The strengthening of Moscow continued under the children of Ivan Kalita - Simeon Proud (1340-1353) and Ivan II the Red (1353-1359). Under the reign of Prince Dmitry Donskoy, on September 8, 1380, the Battle of Kulikovo took place. The Tatar army of Khan Mamai was defeated.
Stage 3. Completion of the formation of the Russian centralized state (end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries). The unification of Russian lands was completed under the great-grandson of Dmitry Donskoy Ivan III (1462 - 1505) and Vasily III (1505 - 1533). Ivan III annexed the entire North-East of Russia to Moscow: in 1463 - the Yaroslavl principality, in 1474 - Rostov. After several campaigns in 1478, the independence of Novgorod was finally abolished.
Under Ivan III, one of the major events Russian history - the Mongol- Tatar yoke(in 1480 after standing on the Ugra River).
Cheat sheet on the history of the state and law of Russia Dudkina Lyudmila Vladimirovna
12. Prerequisites for the formation of a Russian centralized state. Features of the Russian centralized state
The Russian centralized state took shape in XIV-XVI centuries
Groups of prerequisites for the formation of a Russian centralized state.
1. Economic background: to early XIV in. in Russia, after the Tatar-Mongol invasion, economic life gradually revived and developed, which was the economic basis for the struggle for unification and independence. Cities were also restored, residents returned to their native places, cultivated the land, engaged in crafts, and trade relations were established. Novgorod contributed a lot to this.
2. Social background: by the end of the XIV century. the economic situation in Russia has already completely stabilized. Against this background, later feudal features are developing, and the dependence of the peasants on large landowners is growing more and more. At the same time, the resistance of the peasants also increases, which reveals the need for a strong centralized government.
3. Political background, which in turn are subdivided into internal and external ones:
1) domestic: in the XIV-XVI centuries. significantly increases and expands the power of the Moscow principality. His princes are building a state apparatus to strengthen their power;
2) foreign policy: the main foreign policy task of Russia was the need to overthrow the Tatar-Mongol yoke, which hampered the development of the Russian state. The restoration of the independence of Russia required a general unification against a single enemy: the Mongols - from the south, Lithuania and the Swedes - from the west.
One of the political prerequisites for the formation of a unified Russian state was union Orthodox Church and the Catholic Western Church, signed by the Byzantine-Constantinople Patriarch. Russia became the only Orthodox state uniting all the principalities of Russia at the same time.
The unification of Russia took place around Moscow.
The reasons for the rise of Moscow are:
1) good geographical and economic position;
2) Moscow was independent during foreign policy, she did not gravitate towards either Lithuania or the Horde, therefore she became the center of the national liberation struggle;
3) Moscow's support from the largest Russian cities (Kostroma, Nizhny Novgorod, etc.);
4) Moscow - the center of Orthodoxy in Russia;
5) the absence of internal enmity among the princes of the Moscow house.
Merging Features:
1) the unification of Russian lands took place not in the conditions of late feudalism, as in Europe, but in the conditions of its heyday;
2) the basis for unification in Russia was the union of Moscow princes, and in Europe - the urban bourgeoisie;
3) Russia united initially for political reasons, and then for economic ones, while the European states - primarily for economic ones.
The unification of Russian lands took place under the leadership of the prince of Moscow. He was the first to become the king of all Russia. AT 1478 after the unification of Novgorod and Moscow, Russia finally freed itself from the yoke. In 1485, Tver, Ryazan, etc., joined the Muscovite state.
Now the specific princes were controlled by proteges from Moscow. The Moscow prince becomes the supreme judge, he considers especially important cases.
Moscow principality for the first time creates new class nobles(service people), they were soldiers of the Grand Duke, who were awarded land on the terms of service.
From the book History of military courts of Russia author Petukhov Nikolai Alexandrovich§ 1. Characteristics of the main legislative acts of the specific-veche and Moscow periods of the Russian state Military courts in the modern sense arose in Russia with the advent of a regular army, requiring the maintenance of a certain legal order
From the book History of Legal and Political Doctrines. Crib author Shumaeva Olga Leonidovna59. Lawyers of the Russian Diaspora Interested researchers of the initial experience of Soviet Russia in a comparative-historical perspective have become jurists of the Russian Diaspora. It was a critical and analytical work that was carried out in the name of the "future" Russia, in
From the book Cheat Sheet on the History of the State and Law of Russia author Dudkina Ludmila Vladimirovna13. social order and the legal status of the population during the formation of the centralized Russian state. The development of the process of enslaving the peasants During the formation of the centralized Russian state, quite significant changes took place in
From the book History of State and Law foreign countries. cheat sheets author14. Political system during the formation of the Russian centralized state, Russia during the formation of a single centralized state was an early feudal monarchy. Signs of the presence of centralized power in the late XV-early XVI centuries: 1) the presence
From the book History of State and Law of Russia. cheat sheets author Knyazeva Svetlana Alexandrovna21. Trial of the Russian centralized state The trial during the formation and existence of the Russian centralized state in cases of petty crimes and property disputes was of an accusatory and adversarial nature.
From the book Overview of the History of Russian Law author Vladimirsky-Budanov Mikhail Flegontovich7. Features of the eastern path of state formation The eastern, or Asian, type of state formation is distinguished by the fact that political dominance was based on the administration of any public function, position. A huge influence on the way
From the book History government controlled in Russia author Shchepetev Vasily Ivanovich31. The European way of state formation Unlike the Asian state, the leading state-forming factor in Europe was the class division of society: there was an intensive formation of private ownership of land, livestock, slaves. In
From the book Problems of the Theory of State and Law: Textbook. author Dmitriev Yuri Albertovich21. Prerequisites and features of the formation of the Russian centralized state Overcoming feudal fragmentation and the creation of centralized states is a natural process in the development of feudalism. It was based on socio-economic factors:
From the author's book22. The state apparatus of the centralized Russian state The Russian state was headed by the Grand Duke, from the end of the 15th century. he began to be called the sovereign of all Russia. With the centralization of the state and the subordination of individual principalities to Moscow, the power of the Grand Duke
From the author's bookHistory of the Russian process
From the author's bookG. History of the Russian Trial M. T. Kachenovsky. "A Discourse on Judicial Combats". (Proceedings of general ist. and others. T. 1). 1811.I. Vasiliev. "Court of Lots". (Bulletin of Europe, 1826. No. 6. Ch. 146). M. Evgeniy. "On the different types of oaths among the Slavic Russians." (Proceedings and zap. general. ist. and others. P. III). Kachenovsky. "About judicial
From the author's book From the author's book From the author's book From the author's book§ 1.1. History and prerequisites for the emergence of the theory of state and law as a science Ancient thinkers' knowledge of the surrounding world was carried out within the framework of a single universal science - philosophy, which, along with logic, ethics, mathematics, physics, medicine, explored
From the author's book§ 11.1. Prerequisites for the emergence of the Soviet state The formation of the Soviet state had both objective and subjective prerequisites.
Chronology
- 1276 - 1303 Reign of Daniil Alexandrovich. Formation of the Moscow principality.
- 1325 - 1340 Reign of Ivan Danilovich Kalita.
- 1462 - 1505 Reign of Ivan III Vasilyevich.
- 1480 “Standing” on the Ugra River, liberation of Russian lands from the Golden Horde yoke.
Rise of Moscow
The rulers of the principalities that entered into rivalry with Moscow, not possessing sufficient on their own, were forced to seek support in the Horde or Lithuania. Therefore, the struggle of the Moscow princes against them acquired the character of an integral part of the national liberation struggle and received the support of both the influential church and the population interested in the state unification of the country.
From the end of the 60s. 14th century a long struggle began between the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich (1359 - 1389) and the creative prince Mikhail Alexandrovich, who entered into an alliance with the Grand Duke of Lithuania Olgerd.
By the time of the reign of Dmitry Ivanovich Golden Horde entered a period of weakening and protracted strife between the feudal nobility. Relations between the Horde and the Russian principalities became more and more tense. At the end of the 70s. Mamai came to power in the Horde, who, having stopped the disintegration of the Horde, began preparations for a campaign against Russia. The struggle to overthrow the yoke and ensure security from external aggression became the most important condition for the completion of the state-political unification of Russia begun by Moscow.
In the summer of 1380, having gathered almost all the forces of the Horde, which also included detachments of mercenaries from the Genoese colonies in the Crimea and the vassal Horde peoples of the North Caucasus and the Volga region, Mamai went to the southern borders of the Ryazan principality, where he began to expect the approach of the troops of the Lithuanian prince Jagiello and Oleg Ryazansky. The terrible threat looming over Russia raised the entire Russian people to fight against the invaders. In a short time, regiments and militias from peasants and artisans from almost all Russian lands and principalities gathered in Moscow.
On September 8, 1380, the Battle of Kulikovo took place- one of the largest battles of the Middle Ages, which decided the fate of states and peoples
Battle of Kulikovo
This battle showed the power and strength of Moscow as a political and economic center - the organizer of the struggle to overthrow the Golden Horde yoke and unite the Russian lands. Thanks to the Battle of Kulikovo, the amount of tribute was reduced. In the Horde, the political supremacy of Moscow among the rest of the Russian lands was finally recognized. For personal bravery in battle and military merits, Dmitry received the nickname Donskoy.
Before his death, Dmitry Donskoy transferred the great reign of Vladimir to his son Vasily I (1389 - 1425), no longer asking for the right to a label in the Horde.
Completion of the unification of Russian lands
At the end of the fourteenth century in the Moscow principality, several specific possessions were formed that belonged to the sons of Dmitry Donskoy. After the death of Vasily I in 1425, his sons Vasily II and Yuri (the youngest son of Dmitry Donskoy) began the struggle for the grand ducal throne, and after the death of Yuri, his sons Vasily Kosoy and Dmitry Shemyaka. It was a real medieval struggle for the throne, when blinding, poisoning, conspiracies and deceptions were used (blinded by opponents, Vasily II was nicknamed the Dark One). In fact, it was the largest clash between supporters and opponents of centralization. As a result, according to the figurative expression of V.O. Klyuchevsky "under the noise of specific princely quarrels and Tatar pogroms, the society supported Vasily the Dark". The completion of the process of unification of Russian lands around Moscow into a centralized state falls on the years of government
Ivan III (1462 - 1505) and Vasily III (1505 - 1533).
For 150 years before Ivan III, there was a gathering of Russian lands and the concentration of power in the hands of the Moscow princes. Under Ivan III Grand Duke rises above the rest of the princes not only in the amount of power and possessions, but also in the amount of power. It is no coincidence that a new title “sovereign” appears. The double-headed eagle becomes a symbol of the state when, in 1472, Ivan III marries the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Sophia Paleolog. Ivan III, after the annexation of Tver, received the honorary title "by the grace of God the sovereign of All Russia, the Grand Duke of Vladimir and Moscow, Novgorod and Pskov, and Tver, and Yugra, and Perm, and Bulgarian, and other lands."
The princes in the annexed lands became the boyars of the Moscow sovereign. These principalities were now called uyezds and were ruled by governors from Moscow. Localism is the right to occupy one or another position in the state, depending on the nobility and official position of the ancestors, their merits to the Grand Duke of Moscow.
A centralized control apparatus began to take shape. The Boyar Duma consisted of 5-12 boyars and no more than 12 okolnichi (boyars and okolnichi - the two highest ranks in the state). In addition to the Moscow boyars from the middle of the 15th century. local princes from the annexed lands, who recognized the seniority of Moscow, also sat in the Duma. The Boyar Duma had advisory functions on “land affairs.” With the increase in the function of state administration, it became necessary to create special institutions that would manage the military, judicial, financial affairs. Therefore, “tables” were created, controlled by clerks, who later turned into orders. The prikaz system was a typical manifestation of the feudal organization of state administration. It was based on the principles of inseparability of judicial and administrative power. In order to centralize and unify the procedure for judicial and administrative activities throughout the entire state, under Ivan III in 1497, the Sudebnik was compiled.
In 1480 it was finally overthrown. This happened after the clash of Moscow and Mongol-Tatar troops on the Ugra River.
Formation of the Russian centralized state
At the end of the XV - beginning of the XVI centuries. part Russian state included Chernihiv-Seversky lands. In 1510, the Pskov land was included in the state. In 1514, the Russian old City Smolensk. And finally, in 1521, the Ryazan principality also ceased to exist. It was during this period that the unification of the Russian lands was basically completed. A huge power was formed - one of the largest states in Europe. Within the framework of this state, the Russian people were united. This is a natural process historical development. From the end of the XV century. the term "Russia" began to be used.
Socio-economic development in the XIV - XVI centuries.
The general trend in the socio-economic development of the country during this period is intensive growth of feudal landownership. Its main, dominant form was the patrimony, the land that belonged to the feudal lord by right of hereditary use. This land could be changed, sold, but only to relatives and other owners of estates. The owner of the patrimony could be a prince, a boyar, a monastery.
nobles, those who left the court of a prince or boyar owned an estate, which they received on the condition of serving on the patrimony (from the word “estate” the nobles were also called landowners). The term of service was established by the contract.
In the XVI century. there is a strengthening of feudal-serfdom orders. The economic basis of serfdom is feudal ownership of land in its three forms: local, patrimonial and state. A new term “peasants” appears, which has become the name of the oppressed class of Russian society. According to their social status, the peasants were divided into three groups: the possessive peasants belonged to various secular and church feudal lords; palace peasants who were in the possession of the palace department of the Moscow grand dukes (tsars); black-mouse (later state) peasants lived in volost communities on lands that did not belong to any owner, but were obliged to perform certain duties in favor of the state.
The defeat of old, large cities, such as Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov, etc., a change in the nature of economic and trade ties and routes led to the fact that in the XIII - XV centuries. new centers received significant development: Tver, Nizhny Novgorod, Moscow, Kolomna, Kostroma, etc. In these cities, the population increased, stone building, the number of artisans and merchants grew. Great success was achieved by such branches of craft as blacksmithing, foundry, metalworking, and coinage.
Despite the regularities of the process of formation of centralized states common to a number of countries, this process in Russia had some significant features. The main feature was that Russia at that time not only had not yet entered that stage of late feudalism, in which signs of its future decomposition were already outlined, but the progressive development and strengthening of the feudal mode of production, its spread in breadth and depth, continued in it. The emergence of a centralized state in Russia was associated with the growth and strengthening of serfdom throughout the country. The leading social force in the process of forming a unified Russian state was the class of landowners (more early stage- mainly the boyars, later - the nobility).
The second feature of the process of formation of a centralized state in Russia was the weaker in comparison with the countries Western Europe urban development. The country retained mainly agrarian appearance and the role of the city in its economy was less noticeable than in the West. The level of development of cities in Russia in the XV century. was lower than the cities of Western Europe. There are many reasons for this: both the incompleteness of the process of feudalization throughout the country, and the slowness economic development in conditions Tatar-Mongol yoke, and isolation from sea trade routes, etc. And, nevertheless, without clarifying the participation of the city and citizens in the process of forming the Russian centralized state, this process cannot be understood.
The third feature of the process of formation of the Russian centralized state was the active influence on this process by the political superstructure. This impact is in turn due to the following three reasons:
1) a relatively weak level of economic ties between different regions of a vast country;
2) the progressive development of serfdom, which required the intervention of a strong government in order to help the ruling class keep the enslaved and enslaved masses in subjection;
3) an external danger that threatened Russia from several sides (from the Golden Horde and from the Tatar khanates that arose as a result of its collapse, from the State of Lithuania, the Livonian Order and Sweden) and required the active development of the armed forces.
Prerequisites for the formation of the Russian centralized state in the field of agrarian relations
Feudal fragmentation was a huge brake on the development of agriculture. In chronicles there is information about crop failures, which led to an increase in the price of bread, and in some cases to a terrible famine. In them we see that the causes of hunger lie not only in natural phenomena, depending on which agriculture is located, not only in the low level of agricultural technology, but also in the general conditions of the socio-economic and political development of Russia.
In an environment of economic isolation of individual Russian lands, aggravated by the presence of political partitions between them, in the event of a crop failure in any part of Russia, its population sometimes found itself on the verge of extinction. The supply of grain from other parts of the country was difficult for a number of reasons. general(economic isolation of agricultural regions, the absence of permanent ties between them, the presence of customs borders between the principalities, the policy of local princes, hostile to their neighbors) and the specific conditions of the moment ( feudal wars, raids of the Tatar-Mongolian military detachments, attacks by Lithuanian feudal lords and German knights etc.).
The population had a particularly bad time when famine struck a significant territory of Russia. The prospect of starvation forced the population to leave their homes and flee to neighboring, and even remote areas in search of food. In addition, the wealthy part of the population (feudal lords, large merchants) began to buy up and resell grain at inflated prices. Masses of people perished. The chronicles paint an extremely revealing and memorable picture in this regard, describing the famine of 1422. It touched the entire Russian land and lasted three years: “for the multiplication of our sins, for God’s forgiveness, the whole Russian land was glad for 3 years” “Pskov Chronicles” , issue. 2. - M., 1955. p. 38-39..
Feudal wars were a huge obstacle to the normal development of agriculture, since during these wars crop areas were barbarously destroyed. In 1372, when Lithuanian troops attacked Russia in alliance with the Prince of Tver Mikhail Alexandrovich, the latter took the city of Dmitrov, the Lithuanian army approached Pereyaslavl, “the settlement near the city and the church and the village burned down, and ... the zhita ravish ... » Electronic resource: http://krotov.info/acts/16/possevino/tipograf2.html Describing the campaign of the Moscow troops against Tver in 1375, the chronicler says that they “made all the volosts of Tver empty... but the zhita was ruined. ..” Electronic resource: http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/chrons/tipograf.htm
In 1465 there was a strife between Novgorod and Pskov. The Pskovians took possession of the lands of the Novgorod archdiocese (“taking away the land and water of the sovereign”). The Novgorod government entered into an alliance with Livonian Order. Then an embassy was sent from Pskov to Novgorod, which stated that the Pskov government was returning the lands and water taken from the archbishop, but as for the collected bread, it would not be returned.
Agriculture was severely damaged by the invasions of the Tatar-Mongolian feudal lords both by the fact that their hordes trampled and burned the fields with grain crops, and by the fact that they robbed the Russian peasants, taking all their grain from them, and by the fact that as a result of these invasions, normal trade was violated. connections between Russian lands. So, in the year of Edigei's invasion of Russia, there “there was a great price for every life”, “many Christians were emaciated from hunger”, and bread sellers (“grain sellers”) got rich PSRL, vol. XVIII. - M., 2007. p. 159..
Damage to agriculture in the Pskov and Novgorod lands was inflicted by the raids of the Livonian knights. In 1496, the German spy Chukhno, “closed” to Pskov, set fire to the Kremlin (“Krom”), “and a lot of crates burned down, and a lot of rust, and dresses.” After the fire was stopped, "and burnt rye was poured into small gates on the Pskov River" Electronic resource: http://www.nortfort.ru/pskov/foto_29.html.
It can be seen from chronicle monuments that even in good harvest years, the fruits of the harvest could not be sold because of the wars that began at that time. Moreover, in war time crops perished under the hooves of the horses of their own Russian soldiers. In 1403, a lot of bread was born in the Pskov land. Enough bread was collected in 1404. But military complications occurred near Pskov with the Livonian knights, and in 1403 the Pskovites went on a campaign, grassing bread on the vine on their own territory: they went “to the New Town (German) and exterminated ( "guts") living on their own land" Electronic resource: http://www.pskovcity.ru/his_let2.htm.
So, in the XIV-XV centuries. in agriculture Russia already clearly manifested an inhibitory influence political fragmentation to the development of productive forces. This influence had a particularly painful effect on the peasant economy, but it also strongly affected the feudal lords: both economically (their tendency to increase rent was objectively limited) and socially (class antagonisms became aggravated), but it can be considered a positive moment that all these negative phenomena contributed to a certain cohesion of the population in the struggle for survival in the most difficult historical situation - this was one of the first steps towards unification.
If overcoming political fragmentation on the basis of the feudal mode of production became a condition for a further rise in the productive forces in agriculture, then in order to bring Russia out of the state of fragmentation, a certain level of productive forces in agriculture was required in turn. This necessary level was achieved not so much due to changes in the field of agricultural implements, but as a result of the systematic development by the Russian peasantry for arable farming (using a three-field crop rotation system) of previously untouched or uncultivated lands for a long time.
In the villages, marketable bread was still produced to a very weak extent. The country lived in a subsistence economy. But the bread that came from scattered in different counties, belonging to large landowners (especially monasteries) sat in the centers of the owner's economy as quitrent, was the object of sometimes quite complex and lengthy transportation. Rent in products contributed to the establishment of links between different regions and the center of Russia, between villages within different regions. And at the same time, the expansion of these ties was hindered by the system of feudal fragmentation, permanent outposts and tombs. In the archives of various monasteries, princely charters were preserved, with which, at the request of the monastic authorities, the princes allowed duty-free transportation of dues bread from monastic villages.
From the letters of the Prince of Tver Mikhail Borisovich (1461-1485) it can be seen that from the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, two pavozkas and two boats were annually sent for bread and butter to the monastery villages of Priluki and Priseki, Uglich district. From there, they brought all sorts of supplies to the monastery on wagons, drove cattle. By order of the prince of Tver, his collectors and other tax collectors were not supposed to collect myta and other duties from monastic ships, wagons, and peasants. Peasants from the villages and suburbs of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery “with live or animal” or with some other “goods” passed through the Kozlovsky myt in the Serebozhsky volost of the Dmitrovsky district. Letter of Ivan III 1467-1474 exempted them from paying myta and other duties.
According to the information available in the letter of Grand Duke Ivan III to the governor of Yuryev in 1493, it is clear that from the Suzdal village of Shukhobalova, which belonged to the same monastery, “zhito” was delivered to the monastery. The letter says that the Suzdal governor took for the transportation of the monastery "zhit" on 154 carts washed in the amount of one and a half rubles and nine money. The prince ordered that this amount be returned to the monastery and ordered that in the future, "if they bring their bread to them from their village from the monastery from Shukhobalov," the governor would not take "any duties" from the monastery's clerks. Judging by the letters of the Dmitrovsky Prince Yuri Ivanovich in 1504 and the Moscow Grand Duke Ivan III in 1505, “zhito” from Dmitrov villages and villages was annually brought to the Simonov Monastery duty-free on one hundred carts.
So, even in the conditions of a subsistence economy between the centers of feudal estates and individual villages in different lands as agricultural centers there was constant communication, preparing the conditions for political unification on the feudal basis of the Russian lands.
Of essential importance in the unification of Russian lands was the settlement by peasants of wastelands and forest areas cleared for arable land. It should be emphasized that this process involves the disaggregation of large residential settlements and the individualization of agricultural production. On empty lands and forest thickets, as a rule, one-yard - two-yard repairs and villages are created, a kind of farmstead, evicted from large villages (privately owned or black-mowed). But the emergence of such farms, inevitable in the course of the colonization process, does not mean a break in their economic, administrative, cultural and everyday ties with the villages that gave birth to them. On the contrary, it means the expansion of the sphere of influence of the "old" villages, as centers of economy and administration within the limits of private estates or state black land ownership. Despite the struggle (sometimes ruinous for the economy) for the newly settled lands between different feudal lords, between the feudal lords and the black-eared peasants, an increase in the total area of arable land exploited by peasant labor, and the fouling of individual villages with an increasing number of villages and repairs in continuously increasing circles, sometimes closing and entering each other, marked that process in the field of agriculture, without which the growth of material prerequisites for centralization was unthinkable.
Feudalism spread in breadth and depth. The role of land as a means of production increased, its value increased, and the struggle for it intensified. In conditions of fragmentation, it was convenient for strong landowners to increase their estates at the expense of weaker ones, and for both to strengthen their economic positions on the basis of peasant labor and economy. But for the class of feudal lords as a whole (for all the contradictory interests of its individual groups), the further strengthening of the feudal basis on the scale achieved by the development of land ownership was possible within the framework of a feudal feudal state.
On the rise in the XIV-XV centuries. the value of land in connection with the development of feudal ownership of it can also be judged by the fact that land at that time was an object of sale and large landowners (primarily monasteries) spent significant sums of money on it.
So, from the bills of sale that have come down to us from the archive of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, it can be seen that out of 49 land purchases made by the monastic authorities (as well as some secular patrimonial owners, whose lands subsequently fell into the monastery) at the end of the 14th and in the first half of the 15th century, one was made for 300 rubles, one for 90 rubles; four - for amounts from 30 to 40 rubles, 7 - for amounts from 20 to 30 rubles, 14 - for amounts from 10 to 20 rubles, 16 - for amounts from one to 10 rubles each; one - for an amount below the ruble. The cost of five land plots is calculated per “white” Electronic resource: http://www.stsl.ru/manuscripts/index.php?col=4&gotomanuscript=0. In almost every bill of sale there is an indication of "refills", or additions, to the amount of money (usually in the form of some kind of pet).
Many princely and boyar families in the XV-XVI centuries. suffered economic collapse, their representatives were forced to incur debts, mortgage and sell their estates to monasteries. Due to the collapse of the land holdings of individual boyar families, the land ownership of the monasteries grew. From this, conclusions were drawn about the greater viability, flexibility and adaptability to commodity-market relations of the monastic economy in comparison with the boyar economy. But this conclusion cannot be proved theoretically and cannot be substantiated by concrete facts. The point, obviously, is something else. While renouncing for the time being the policy of the grand-princely power in relation to the boyars of individual feudal centers (the defeat of the boyar opposition by the Moscow princes in a number of principalities, etc.) and remaining only in the sphere of objective processes of a socio-economic nature, it must be said that in the XIV-XV centuries. there were more favorable conditions for the development of church and monastic landownership than for the development of boyar landownership. This is extraterritoriality, the unconnectedness of the right to dispose of church and monastic estates on the part of their owners with those legal norms that bound the possibility of alienating boyar estates. Therefore, church institutions and monasteries had more flexible (than the boyars) means for rounding up their estates through the exchange of land and other transactions. While the needs of the boyars for money were increasing due to the new conditions in which they were placed with the formation of a centralized Russian state, and money could be obtained by selling or mortgaging the land, the church was just the owner of the money. The sources of monetary savings for spiritual feudal lords were deposits "to their liking", usury, and trade. The funds accumulated by the church went to a large extent to increase land wealth, and, fighting for better conditions for expanding these wealth, the church supported the practice that was aimed at eliminating state fragmentation.
One of the most important prerequisites for the formation of a centralized state in the sphere of agrarian relations was the development during the XIV-XV centuries. in North-Eastern Russia conditional land tenure. We have received information about the distribution of land by the Moscow princes to their servants under the condition that they perform military affairs or duties in the princely palace economy. The earliest news of this kind was preserved in the spiritual letter of Ivan Kalita around 1339, in which we read: not to have to serve as my child, to take away the village” Electronic resource: http://www.sedmitza.ru/text/443472.html. In all likelihood, this act of the Grand Duke of Moscow should be considered in terms of his measures aimed at strengthening the political influence of the Moscow principality within the Rostov land.
In the spiritual letter of Ivan III of 1504, there is the following paragraph: “And which villages and villages in Novgorod in Nizhny are for my princes, and for the boyars, and for the children of the boyars, for whomever you wake, and then all to my son Vasily” Electronic resource: http://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/DG/ivan3.htm.
Based on a comparison of the above data, three conclusions can be drawn: 1) in the second half of the 15th century, during the period of the most intensive process of the formation of the Russian centralized state, the grand ducal "grants" of lands for conditional holding by boyars and boyar children acquire a wider character than before; 2) these "awards" are designed to strengthen the socio-economic base of the Moscow grand ducal power in those once fragmented feudal centers, on the basis of which the single state; 3) these "grants" to a large extent pursue the goal of economic development of the land area, the rise of vacant land, i.e., objectively, they were supposed to promote the growth of productive forces in agriculture on the basis of the strengthening of serfdom.
Conditional land holdings were also common in specific principalities. According to the spiritual charter of the Serpukhov and Borovsk prince Vladimir Andreevich around 1401-1402, the land ownership of his "servants under the court" was due to the performance of their service to the prince. If they stopped serving, they were also deprived of the land transferred to them by the prince: “And whoever comes out of the inheritance of my children and my princess is deprived of the land, and their land to my son, whose inheritance will be” Electronic resource: http://www.is -tok.ru/publ/4-1-0-128.
The further development of feudal landownership was associated with the spread in the third quarter of the 15th century. local system. Its socio-economic and political premises remain the same as those of earlier conditional holdings. This is the use of the largest possible land area (including deposits and virgin lands, as well as the confiscated "residential" possessions of the boyars and monasteries) to provide for the grand ducal servants, who are forming into a close-knit group of the ruling class - the nobility, the strengthening of serfdom. But the estate system arises at that stage in the process of folding a centralized state, when the unification of the main Russian principalities and regions ends (despite the resistance of some local feudal lords), the state apparatus is being restructured, and it becomes necessary to create a stronghold of grand ducal power in the person of the nobles in the once independent feudal centers. who receive land from it in conditional possession and on this basis are firmly connected with it.
Legally, the foundations of the local system were developed in the Sudebnik of 1497 (Articles 62-63). Sudebnik proceeds from the division of all the lands of the Russian state into two categories: 1) grand ducal (black and local); 2) not grand-ducal (monastic and boyar). Objectively, this meant the recognition of all lands in feudal ownership (either the state or individual estates and church corporations). This meant, further, the allocation of a special grand ducal land fund (from among the black lands, confiscated boyar and monastic lands, etc.) for the use of the nobles, while earlier the grand dukes resorted to the practice of endowing their servants with lands, the ownership of which was retained for church corporations. It is no coincidence that right now, with the emergence of the local system, the state is making secularization attempts in order to increase the grand ducal land fund as a source of allocation, while earlier church property was such a source. Finally, it is indicative that the state legally equates the landed estates with the black lands, regarding both of them as grand-princely lands. What can this mean objectively, if not a trend towards legal formalization in the conditions of the emerging centralized state of serfdom, one of the ways of growth of which is the transfer of black lands to the landlords?
XV century is characterized by intensive development various forms conditional land tenure, which prepared at the end of the century the emergence of the estate system. Here are some examples.
The term "old-timers" stood out in the process of developing feudal ownership of land and the enslavement of the peasants at a time when the bulk of the feudally dependent population was already made up of peasants, economically firmly connected with the land received from the feudal lords, and labor in their economy and the landowner's economy provided him with surplus product. “People” called up from other principalities, “repaid”, serfs gradually joined and merged with the number of peasants-old-timers. In a number of princely letters of commendation beginning of the 16th century there is no longer this distinction of old-timers, newcomers, “repaid people”, it is simply about “Christians”. This characterizes common line historical development in the direction of merging certain categories of the rural population into a single serf mass.
When studying the question of the formation of a Russian centralized state, it would be very important to pay attention to the ideology of the Russian peasantry, as such a social force that played a paramount role in social development that time. For example, the black land is considered by the peasants as the land of the grand princes. Four terms are used by black peasants to denote the legal foundations on which this type of land ownership is based: 1) the land of the Grand Duke, 2) black (i.e., non-privately owned), 3) taxable (i.e., taxed by the sovereign tax), 4) volost or stanovaya (i.e., administratively subordinate to representatives of the princely administration, standing above the elected peasant authorities, and not to patrimonial clerks).
During the XIV-XV centuries. as a result of the development by labor of the Russian peasantry for plowed agriculture of wastelands and forests, significant successes were achieved in agriculture. A significant complex of old arable lands with a stable composition of the population was formed. Appeared big number villages and villages, overgrown from different sides with newly emerging repairs around them. Through these villages, as centers of agricultural culture, new communication routes began to be laid, roads connecting individual regions with each other. With the growth of productive forces, the object of feudal ownership of land became more and more not wastelands, but inhabited lands. The feudal lords, rounding their possessions, sought to create compact land masses. The value of land increased. All this speaks of the spread in breadth and depth of feudal relations. The development of feudal land ownership destroyed the existing system of political fragmentation. Feudal landownership, spreading, did not take into account the boundaries of individual principalities. The monastic and church estates grew especially rapidly, absorbing the black lands. Conditional landownership became widespread, on the basis of which a new form of feudal ownership of land developed - the estate system. Significant changes have taken place in the field of patrimonial land tenure. A number of estate owners lost the right to dispose of their lands. Serving landlords and estates from among the boyars, the children of the boyars, the nobles, became the backbone of the emerging centralized state.
During the XV century. the boundaries between the individual ranks of the feudally dependent peasantry were blurred. At the same time, the feudal lords attacked the peasants. The right of the peasant transition was embarrassed. Prerequisites were created for the development of serfdom throughout the state. There was a rapprochement between peasants and serfs, which was one of the conditions for the growth of serf relations. The aggravation of the class struggle in the countryside forced the feudal lords to strengthen the apparatus of coercion. State centralization was supposed to contribute to this.
Russian centralized state
The formation of the Russian centralized state took place in several stages:
- The rise of Moscow - the end of the 13th - the beginning of the 11th centuries;
- Moscow - the center of the struggle against the Mongols-Tatars (second half of the 11th-first half of the 10th centuries);
- The completion of the unification of Russian lands around Moscow under Ivan III and Vasily III - the end of the 15th - the beginning of the 16th centuries.
Stage 1. Rise of Moscow. By the end of the 13th century, the old cities of Rostov, Suzdal, and Vladimir were losing their significance. The new cities of Moscow and Tver are rising. The rise of Tver began after the death of Alexander Nevsky (1263), when his brother, Prince Yaroslav of Tver, received a label from the Tatars for the Great Vladimir reign.
The beginning of the rise of Moscow is associated with the name of the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky - Daniel (1276-1303). Alexander Nevsky gave honorable inheritances to his eldest sons, and Daniil, as the youngest, got a small village of Moscow with a district on the far border of the Vladimir-Suzdal land. Daniel rebuilt Moscow, developed agriculture and started crafts. The territory has tripled and Moscow has become a principality, and Daniel is the most authoritative prince in the entire Northeast.
Stage 2. Moscow is the center of the fight against the Mongols-Tatars. The strengthening of Moscow continued under the children of Ivan Kalita - Simeon Proud (1340-1353) and Ivan 2 the Red (1353-1359). This inevitably had to lead to a clash with the Tatars. The clash occurred under the grandson of Ivan Kalita, Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy (1359-1389). Dmitry Donskoy received the throne at the age of 9 after the death of his father Ivan 2 the Red. Under the young prince, the position of Moscow was shaken, but he was supported by the powerful Moscow boyars and the head of the Russian church, Metropolitan Alexei. The metropolitan was able to achieve from the khans that the great reign would henceforth be transferred only to the princes of the Moscow princely house.
This increased the authority of Moscow, and after Dmitry Donskoy built the Kremlin in Moscow at the age of 17 from white stone, the authority of the Moscow principality became even higher. The Moscow Kremlin became the only stone fortress in the entire Russian Northeast. He became unapproachable.
In the middle of the 14th century, the Horde entered a period of feudal fragmentation. From its composition, independent hordes began to stand out, which waged a fierce struggle for power among themselves. All khans demanded tribute and obedience from Russia. Tension arose in relations between Russia and the Horde.
Stage 3. Completion of the formation of the Russian centralized state. The unification of the Russian lands was completed under the great-grandson of Dmitry Donskoy Ivan 3 (1462-1505) and Vasily 3 (1505-1533).
Under Ivan 3:
1) Accession of the entire North - East of Russia
2) In 1463 - Yaroslavl principality
3) In 1474 - Rostov Principality
4) After several campaigns in 1478 - the final liquidation of the independence of Novgorod
5) The Mongol-Tatar yoke has been dropped. In 1476 - Russia refused to pay tribute. Then Khan Akhmat decided to punish Russia and made an alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian king Casimir and set out on a campaign against Moscow with a large army. In 1480, the troops of Ivan 3 and Khan Akhmat met along the banks of the Ugra River (a tributary of the Oka). Akhmat did not dare to cross to the other side. Ivan 3 took a wait-and-see position. Help for the Tatars did not come from Casimir, and both sides understood that the battle was pointless. The power of the Tatars dried up, and Russia was already different. And Khan Akhmat led his troops back to the steppe. This ended the Mongol-Tatar yoke.
6) After the overthrow of the yoke, the unification of the Russian lands continued at an accelerated pace. In 1485, the independence of the Tver Principality was liquidated.
Under Vasily 3, Pskov (1510) and the Ryazan principality (1521) were annexed
