Acquisition by Kyiv in the first half of the tenth century. international recognition was immediately reflected in the content of the term Russian land. Now, along with the narrow meaning of the tribal region of the Middle Dnieper Rus, it has received a broader meaning. state territory. In the latter sense, the term Russian land covered the entire realm of the Russian princes, inhabited by Slavic-Finno-Baltic tribes.

In the middle of the X century. this broad interpretation was used mainly at the level of interstate relations, denoting the sovereign territory over which the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv extended. For Byzantine diplomats, Russian land in this sense was "Russia", "country of Russia", "Russian land" or, in the terminology of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, "outer Russia", in contrast to "inner Russia", Tauric Russia. (Just as the Azov Black Bulgaria is called Inner Bulgaria in Arabic sources, in contrast to the Outer - Volga Bulgaria.) Russia has a similar meaning in the message of Ibrahim ibn Yakub (circa 966): in the east of Russia", in the Latin document Dagome iudex (circa 991): "The region of the Prussians, as they say, extends as far as the place called Russia, and the region of the Russ extends as far as Krakow", in the announcement of the Quedlinburg annals about the death of St. Bruno in 1009 from the hands of the pagans "on the border of Russia and Lithuania" and in many other sources of that time.

But inside the country, under the Russian land, they still actually understood the Middle Dnieper region with a narrow strip along the right bank of the Dnieper south of Kyiv, stretching almost to the very Black Sea coast (the right bank of the Dnieper became “Russian”, apparently due to the fact that it is higher left and, therefore, it was him, for the sake of convenience and safety, that the Russians chose for movement and parking). These ancient geographical boundaries The Russian land in its narrow sense is attested by several chronicle articles. In 1170, two Polovtsian hordes invaded the Kyiv and Pereyaslav principalities. The horde that went to Kyiv along the right bank of the Dnieper, across the Russian land, the chronicler calls the Russian Polovtsy, while the other horde, moving towards Pereyaslavl along the Dnieper left bank, is called Pereyaslav Polovtsy by him. In 1193, Rostislav, the son of the Kyiv prince Rurik, went on a campaign against the Polovtsy. He crossed the southern border Kyiv principality- the river Ros - and went deep into the steppe along the right bank of the Dnieper. All the steppe space he passed in the annals is called the Russian land.
At the same time, stepping out of the Kyiv land a little further north, into the territory of the Pripyat basin, already meant leaving the borders of Russia. In the same 1193, a prince, alarmed that the Kievan prince Rurik Rostislavich stayed too long in the city of Ovruch (on the Uzhe River, a tributary of the Pripyat), reproached him: “Why did you leave your land? Go to Russia and guard her." “I go to Russia,” says the Novgorod I chronicle about the Novgorod archbishop, when he happened to go to Kyiv.

In such a narrow sense, the Russian land corresponded to the tribal territory of "Polyanskaya Rus", which, from the second third of the 9th century. made military campaigns along the Dnieper and trade trips to the Black Sea.

Ancient Russian people often invested in the concept of the Russian land, along with geographical and political, also an ethnographic meaning, meaning by it Russia itself, an armed crowd of Russian warriors under the command of a Russian prince. It was precisely this meaning that Prince Svyatoslav attached to the Russian land, when, before the battle with the Greeks, he addressed his soldiers with the words: “Let us not shame the Russian land, but we will lie down with that bone, we will not have a litter; if we run away, shame on us.” Here, the Russian land turns out to be equivalent to “we”, that is, the entire Russian army, and by no means the territory of the Middle Dnieper, which, by the way, could not be put to shame when fighting the Greeks in the Balkans.

In the same way, according to the subtle observation of V. O. Klyuchevsky, “the singer of “The Tale of Igor's Campaign”, a monument of the end of the 12th or the very beginning of the 13th century, remarks: “O Russian land! you are already behind the shelomyan”; this expression means that the Russian land has already gone beyond the rows of steppe trenches that stretched along the southern borders of the principalities of Chernigov and Pereyaslav. Under the Russian land, the singer of the “Words” means a squad that went on a campaign against the Polovtsians with his hero, Prince Igor, therefore, he understood the geographical term in an ethnographic sense ”[Klyuchevsky V.O. Works in 9 vols. M., 1987. T. VI. S. 98].

The orientation system of the Middle Ages was built on the principle of "from near to far", "from one's own to another". The author of the Lay looked at the movement of Igor's squad towards the Don from the side of Russia, and not through the eyes of the Russians themselves, who went deep into the steppe. Therefore, his woeful exclamation “O Russian land! you're already behind the hill" refers to the retreating Russian army, and not to the proper Russian territory, which remained behind Igor's army.

P.S.
We observe the replacement of the “troops” with “land” in an annalistic article under 1152, but already in relation to the Polovtsy: “And Yury went with his sons ... so are the Polovtsians of Orplyuev and Toksobich and the whole Polovtsian land, whatever they are between the Volga and the Dnieper ".

Source:
Tsvetkov S. E. Russian land. Between paganism and Christianity. From Prince Igor to his son Svyatoslav. M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2012. S.265-267.

In 1112, the monk Nestor completed the first Russian historical narrative - the chronicle: “Behold the Tale of Bygone Years, from where the Russian land is and went ...” In 1238, during the Tatar-Mongolian devastation and rout, an unknown Russian author writes "The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land": “O light bright and red-decorated Russian land! You amaze with many beauties: with many lakes, you amaze with rivers and locally revered springs, steep mountains, high hills, frequent oak forests, marvelous fields ... " In a disastrous situation, it is written about the most important thing, without which a person cannot live. So, from the very beginning, the Russian person was given and given the task of realizing the Russian land as the highest value, through which the inhabitants of different tribes and divided states felt their Russian unity. Nikolai Berdyaev wrote that the mysticism of blood is unusual for Russians, but we have a strong earth mysticism- Russian distances, Russian fields, rivers, sky … The Russian people possessed the gift of development and design of space, they strove not only for state accession and economic development, but also for the design, spiritualization of lands; Russian land is a spiritualized space. “The world is God's creation, the world is beautiful; one who contemplates the beauty of nature approaches the knowledge of the Creator. The Russian landscape, whether urban or rural, always invites such contemplation. It became the basis of our worldview, fixed in consciousness, in culture. Hence this striking correspondence between the “landscape of the Russian land” and the “landscape of the Russian soul”(F.V. Razumovsky). The typically Russian religious development of the land is noteworthy. monks- ascetics sought solitude, went to uninhabited forests, islands. Around the first desert dwellers, monastic communities arose, then monasteries, economically equipping vast spaces. New ascetics went further into the dense forests. This is how the Russian Thebaid settled down - the land consecrated by Orthodox ascetics.

Absence middle dimension, stable rootedness in worldly everyday life, characteristic of European peoples, does not exclude the deep mystical relationship of Russian people with the earth and nature. Russian people call their country Russian land. “The soul of the people grows out of the spirit of the earth. This spirit determines its permanent national qualities. In the infinitely wide, boundless plains, man especially feels his smallness, his lostness. Eternity looks at him majestically and calmly, dragging him away from the earth.(W. Schubart). The Russian active and contemplative spirit was brought up on a harsh land. “Nature is the cradle, the workshop, the deathbed of the people; space is fate and its educator, the threshold of its creative spirit, its window to God.(I.A. Ilyin). Russian culture is permeated with a kind of poetic attitude to the earth, nature - perhaps that is why the Russian words "verses" and "element" are similar. The image of the Mother of Raw Earth was reflected in Russian culture in various forms. "Not only earth, but also fire, water, sky - other "elements" of medieval cosmology - played the role of important symbols for the Russian imagination, and even now the Russian language retains many overtones associated with the mythology of the earth, which were lost by more sophisticated European languages"(D.H. Billington).

Terrestrial spaces initially largely determined the life structure of the Russian people. “Our Slavic ancestors (except for the glades) had a territorial community. The Slavic tribes were called by their habitats, and not by the name of their ancestor, as, for example, among the Germans. In the Russian community, who settled, and even a former slave, was not considered a stranger, could be included in the community and marry here. There was no closeness of the clan-tribe, only the unity of the “native land”. Not only that, the Slavic tribal unions of the 9th century. there were states built from the bottom up"(A.I. Solzhenitsyn).

A deep and persistent spirit is capable of a metaphysical attitude to nature, from harmonious communication with which it is enriched. New European man “looks at the world as chaos, which he must - first by the will of God, and then arbitrarily - tame and shape ... Thus the world loses its unity, yielding to the forces of separation ... The Russian, with his living sense of the Universe, is constantly drawn to the infinite at the sight of his boundless steppes, will never be in tune with the Promethean culture, imbued with a “point feeling” and aimed at the autonomy of the human individual or, which is the same thing, at the crushing of the gods”(W. Schubart).

Not being completely attached to the mundane, the Russian people treated the land with care, did not extort the next products from it for new needs. The nature of economic life was not predatory, consumer, did not stimulate the robbery of the conquered territories and did not grind Natural resources. The ascetic people did not adapt aggressively to themselves environment but kept it and adapted to it. A European is a conqueror, a conqueror, imposing his way of life on peoples, striving to dominate nature. The Russian is a master, a transformer, organically embedding his dwelling in natural landscapes and the rhythms of the cosmos. Hence the careful attitude to nature, the openness of its mystery and beauty. In Russia, the idea that a person, like any living being, is an automaton (Descartes), and nature is a machine (La Mettrie) could not be born. Russian people treated the universe not as a soulless habitat, but as a living organism, in nature they valued its beautiful soul.

For the Russian people, nature is not an alien cold nature, but that which, with a generic, nature, is one-natural, dear and close; and therefore the people and the nature subordinate to it are connected existentially. "Russian soul with early childhood feels the fatefulness, imperiousness, richness, significance and severity of his nature; her beauty, her majesty, her fear; and, perceiving all this, the Russian soul has never believed and will never believe in the randomness, mechanicalness, senselessness of its Russian nature, and therefore of nature in general. Russian people are connected with their nature for life and death - and in floods, and in drought, and in thunderstorms, and in the steppe, and in the forest, and in the salt marsh, and in the mountain gorge, and in their full-flowing, rapid rivers, and in the autumn strait, and in the snowdrift, and in the bitter cold. And bound in this way, he contemplates nature as a sacrament of God, as the living power of God, as God's task, given to man as God's punishment and God's wrath, as God's gift and God's mercy "(I.A. Ilyin). Feeling like a wanderer and an alien in this world, the Russian person is nevertheless connected by mystical roots with nature, the earth, and through it - with the cosmos and with the inscrutable depths of being, longing for transformation. That's why “Immeasurability for a Russian person is a living concrete given, its object, its starting point, its task. But in this immensity, a deaf dreaming chaos slumbers, breathes and “moves”: the chaos of nature, the chaos of the desert and steppe, the chaos of passion and its visions. “Darkness” was over the “deep,” but “the Spirit of God hovered over the waters” (Genesis 1:2), and the Russian soul struggles for this Spirit and seeks transfiguration. Whoever sees this holds the key to the treasury of Russian art."(I.A. Ilyin). The Russian soul felt in nature not only not only cosmic harmony, but also the chaotic abyss under its cover. Therefore, many ascetics went to the "deserts" - to deep forests and harsh lands, to the ends of the promised land, in order to openly meet the evil of chaos and resist it, to overcome the evil itself in the form of natural chaos. The austerity of intense physical struggle, in turn, contributed to the formation of new forms of spirituality. On this "front" the creation of the Valaam and Solovetsky civilizations began.

The perception of the universe is loving in immensity and concreteness, the soul of a Russian person is wide open and the expanse of heaven, and every blade of grass:

I bless you forests

Valleys, fields, mountains, waters!

I bless freedom

And blue skies!

And I bless my staff

And this poor bag

And the steppe from edge to edge,

And the sun is light, and the night is darkness,

And a lonely path

Which way, beggar, I go,

And in the field every blade of grass,

And every star in the sky!

Oh, if I could mix my whole life,

All soul together with you merge.

Oh, if I could in my arms

I am you, enemies, friends and brothers,

And enclose all nature!

(A.K. Tolstoy)

Nikolai Berdyaev described a kind geopolitical psychology Russian people: “The vastness of Russia is its metaphysical property, and not only the property of its empirical history. The great Russian spiritual culture can only be characteristic of a huge country, a huge people. Great Russian literature could have arisen only in numerous people living on a vast earth ... The material geography of the people is only a symbolic reflection of its spiritual geography, the geography of the soul of the people. This does not exclude that “Russian space and Russian land had a great influence on the soul of the Russian people: non-differentiation and extensiveness, freedom and Dionysism ... In the soul of Western peoples there is no breadth, immensity, excess freedom, it is too differentiated, squeezed, everywhere it stumbles upon borders and limits ... The plain of Russia and the immensity of its spaces is the inner dimension of the soul of the Russian people… it has endless spaces, infinite expanse, the absence of borders and divisions, and infinite horizons, infinite distance are revealed to it… The Russian person is infinitely freer in spirit, freer in life, freer in religious life, he is less bound form, organization, law and order… This freedom of spirit is primordial for a Russian person, it is an existential discipline… Russians have a different sense of the earth, and the earth itself is different from that of the West. The mysticism of race and blood is alien to Russians, but the mysticism of the earth is very close.(N.A. Berdyaev).

The famous breadth of the Russian soul corresponds to the boundless Russian spaces: “There was a kind of spatial imperative that opened “beyond the distance”. The expanse of the Russian land, Fedorov believed, gave birth to enterprising characters, destined for geographical and cosmic feats.(A.V. Gulyga). But a Russian person is broad-minded not only because of the Russian expanses. In many ways, and vice versa: the Russian nation acquired vast expanses due to the original breadth of the soul ( the open world is given to man for freedom). The boundless aspirations of the Russian people moved him to the development of the boundless expanses of the earth. The discoveries of new lands were the result of certain spiritual changes and spiritual needs in the Russian people. The open spaces cultivated certain qualities in the people. “The Russian is destined to live in a harsh environment. Nature mercilessly demands adaptation from him: it shortens summer, drags out winter, saddens in autumn, seduces in spring. She gives space, but fills it with wind, rain and snow. She grants a plain, but life on this plain is hard and harsh. It bestows beautiful rivers, but it turns the struggle for their mouths into a difficult historical task. It gives access to the southern steppes, but brings robbers from there - nomadic peoples. She promises fertile lands in arid regions and bestows forest wealth in swamps and swamps. Tempering for a Russian is a vital necessity, he does not know pampering. Nature demands endurance without measure from him, prescribes his worldly wisdom in many respects, and makes him pay for every step of life with hard work and deprivation.(I.A. Ilyin).

Russian people, lovingly equipping their land, organically shaped themselves. "Tendency to contemplation- this need to concretely, plastically and vividly represent an object, thereby giving it a form and individualizing it - the Russian received from his nature and from his space. For centuries he saw before him vast expanses, enticing plains, though endless, but still giving hope to shape them. The eye rests on the immeasurable and cannot be satisfied with it. Clouds, like mountains, pile up on the horizon and are discharged by a majestic thunderstorm. Winter and frost, snow and ice create the most beautiful visions for him. The northern lights play their aerial symphonies for him. Promising vague promises, distant mountains speak to him. Like magnificent paths, his rivers flow for him. For him, the seas hide their deep secrets. Fragrant flowers sing to him and forests whisper about worldly happiness and wisdom. freecontemplation Russian is given by nature "(I.A. Ilyin).

The native harsh nature responded in the soul of a Russian person with the widest range of feelings and qualities. « empathy became for the Russian a necessity and a gift, fate and joy. For centuries, he lived in an oscillating rhythm: burning or calm, concentrated or relaxed, impetuous or drowsy, jubilant or twilight, passionate or indifferent, “joyful to heaven - sad to death” ... but what in the same temperament remains drowsy and hidden - in peace and relaxation, indifference and laziness - later awakens in him, noisily and passionately rejoices. It is like a flame that has been extinguished for the time being, weakened composure and drowsy intensity, which can be found in the radiance of the eyes, in a smile, in a song and in a dance ... The range of moods and vibrations are given to him by nature ... One must directly experience all these raging snow blizzards, these impressive spring floods, these powerful ice drifts, these burning droughts, these polar frosts, when water splashed out of a glass falls to the ground in pieces of ice, these rolling lightning bolts, to understand that the Russian perceives all this passionately and rejoices in the power of the world's elements. He does not know the fear of nature, even if it is terribly violent and formidable: he sympathizes with her, he follows her, he is involved in her temperament and her rhythms. He enjoys space, light, fast, assertive movement, ice drift, forest thicket, deafening thunderstorms. But he revels not so much in "disorder" or "destruction" as such, as some in Western Europe madly talk about, but in the intensity of being, power and beauty. natural phenomena, the immediate proximity of its elements, empathy with the Divine essence of the world, the contemplation of chaos, peering into the fundamental principle and the abyss of being, the revelation of God in it. And even more than that: in chaos, he feels a call from space; in discord, he anticipates the emerging harmony and the future symphony; the dark abyss allows him to see the Divine light; in the immeasurable and in the infinite he seeks law and form. That is why the chaos of nature is for him not a disorder, not decay or death, but, on the contrary, a harbinger, the first step to a higher understanding, an approach to revelation: whether the abyss threatens to swallow him up - he turns his gaze upward, as if praying and conjuring the elements reveal your true form to him."(I.A. Ilyin). From the experiences of nature and views on it, Ivan Ilyin is convinced, and “this Russian craving for the full achievement of the goal, the dream of the last and final, the desire to look into the boundless distance, the ability not to be afraid of death”.

The population of Russia was tied to the land by its life - its expanses, rhythms, beauty, harsh conditions. That's why “The character of the Russian people is the character of a peasant. The traits of this character are trusting humility with fate, compassion, readiness to help others, sharing their daily life. This is the ability for self-denial and self-sacrifice; readiness for self-condemnation and public repentance; exaggeration of their weaknesses and mistakes; ease of dying and epic calmness in accepting death; contentment with moderate prosperity and not the pursuit of wealth. (“He who is dissatisfied with little is not worthy of big”)”(A.I. Solzhenitsyn).

Which ITAR-TASS asked various experts about certain aspects of the history of Russia that should be reflected in textbooks and educational standard, I decided, as an intellectual exercise, to give answers to those questions about which I was not asked.

Question 1. The formation of the Old Russian state and the role of the Varangians in this process

The answer to this question can be divided into several different answers on different sides of the question.

a. Would an ancient Russian state have been formed if not a single Scandinavian had ever appeared on the territory of Russia? Answer: it would have formed and, most likely, at about the same time.

b. Would there be something shameful or humiliating for the Russians in the participation of the Normans in the process of state formation if it really took place? Answer: absolutely nothing. On the contrary, the Norman origin of the state would be a mark of quality. Around the same time, the Duchy of Normandy in France and the Kingdom of Sicily in southern Italy were created by the Normans. These were powerful, dangerous, highly developed states with the most developed administrative and military systems for that era. The Normans conquered England, the Sicilian Normans became the decisive factor due to which the political power of the papacy was established in the fight against the emperors. The contribution of the Normans was enormous and Crusades. That is, if Old Russian state and indeed created by the Norman Conquest, there would be nothing to be ashamed of.

in. Is there any reason to believe that the Norman conquest or the peaceful calling of the Scandinavian elite actually took place? Answer: There is no reason to believe so. Archaeological traces and evidence of written documents do not give a picture of any Scandinavian dominance in the territory of Russia. The names of all Russian cities - the centers of statehood, are of Slavic origin. Not a single source known to us speaks of the Russian state as a state where the "Varangians" or Scandinavians dominate the Slavs.

d. What was the real role of the Scandinavians in the formation of the Russian state? Answer: The role of the Scandinavians was that their presence, raids and attempts to take tribute from the Slavic, Baltic and Finno-Ugric tribes caused their resistance and the desire to create a military-political structure that would resist this pressure. This way of becoming a state is called "reactive" and consists in the fact that statehood develops not as a result of conquest, but in response to an external invasion. The chronicle under the year 862 contains information about exile Varangians and the refusal to pay tribute to them, and only then about the calling of Rurik and the creation with his participation of the foundations of sovereign statehood. Russia began not with a calling, but with the expulsion of the Varangians.

e. Who were the Vikings called together with Rurik? Answer: the dogma of "Normanism" is that Rurik and his people were Swedes. No serious evidence for this thesis has been presented. The dogma of anti-Normanism is that the Varangians and Rurik were Western Slavs. Certain confirmations of this thesis exist, but they are not decisive. The most popular in modern historiography and, apparently, a fair point of view on Rurik is to identify him with Rurik of Friesland, the Danish king, who actively acted both in alliance and against the Carolingian Empire. It is likely that Rurik had a mixed Danish-Obodrite origin, the word "rerik" in Danish meant "encourage", among the Obodrite leaders who fought with the Franks, Gostomysl was recorded, considered in legends to be the ancestor of Rurik. It is known that Rurik repeatedly took part in the wars of Obodrites against the Franks. Modern anthropologists and linguists have established that the Slovene tribe, which, along with the Krivichi and the Chud, is considered the founders of Novgorod (however, Novgorod as a city arose much later than 862) and the initiators of Rurik's vocation are Western Slavs who migrated from the southern Baltic. Thus, the history of Rurik's vocation is presented as the vocation of an influential and strong military leader of mixed Danish-Slavic origin to ensure security from Scandinavian raids on the northern lands. Rurik, without stopping his activities in other regions of the Baltic and the North Sea, assumed these functions and, apparently, successfully coped with them. One of Rurik's comrades-in-arms, Oleg, managed to capture the southern Russian center of Kyiv, formally in the interests of Rurik's son, Igor (in any case, the Rurik-Igor genealogy is the only one based on sources, everything else is speculation) and created a single political entity along the entire Black Sea-Baltic trade way, which took the name of Russia.

e. Were the events associated with Rurik the only line of development of ancient Russian statehood? Answer: No, they were not. Obviously, the political center in Kyiv existed long before Rurik and Oleg. It was the territory around this center that was called "Rus" in later ancient Russian and foreign sources. There are sufficient written and archaeological data to speak of a serious threat from this political center, felt by Khazaria, forced to build fortresses on the northern border. In any case, it is not necessary to say that the Old Russian state was formed thanks to the "calling of the Varangians". A more powerful state center was formed in the south, in Kyiv, and the fact that it was captured by the princes who came from the north was, to a certain extent, a historical accident. One way or another, after the unification of the south and north, the military-political center of the state of Russia was precisely in the south.

Question 2. The existence of the Old Russian people and the perception of heritage Ancient Russia as a common foundation for the history of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

The existence of the Old Russian people is a historical fact. The historical succession from this nationality of the Great Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians is also a fact. The assertions of Ukrainian chauvinists that allegedly only Ukraine has the right to the historical succession of Kievan Rus obviously do not correspond to historical facts. Of the largest political centers of Ancient Russia, some are in Russia - Novgorod, Smolensk, Rostov the Great, others - in Ukraine - Kyiv, Chernigov, and finally Polotsk - in Belarus. At the same time, only the Russian state was founded by the very dynasty that ruled in Kievan Rus. Russian princes and tsars until the very end of the 16th century. - direct descendants of Rurik, Igor, Svyatoslav, Vladimir and Yaroslav. The political genesis of Ukraine and Belarus does not have such a direct connection with Kievan Rus because of the Lithuanian conquest, which brought Western and Southwestern Russia under the rule of Poland.

Question 3. The historical choice of Alexander Nevsky in favor of the subordination of Russian lands to the Golden Horde.

"The historical choice of Alexander Nevsky in favor of subjugating the Russian lands to the Golden Horde" is a historical fiction, a fiction of the ideological school of the Eurasians, which, however, was eagerly taken up by the camp of Russophobes-Westerners. Both sides are actively exploiting the myth about the "Mongolization" of Russian statehood, about the unusually great influence of the Mongols on the internal political development of Russia, and about Alexander Nevsky as the alleged initiator of this process. All this has nothing to do with historical facts.
a. No choice to obey or not to obey the Mongols ("Golden Horde" during the life of Alexander did not exist) before the Russian princes did not stand in view of the overwhelming military superiority of the Mongols and their immediate proximity to Russia.
b. The relations of Russia with the Mongols were settled by the father of Alexander Nevsky - Yaroslav Vsevolodovich. Settled on the principles of maintaining the independence of the Russian Lands with the recognition of vassalage from the Khan and the payment of tribute.
in. There was no "alternative course" to oppose the Mongols among the Russian princes. The mythical "course of Daniel of Galicia" towards an alliance with the West and opposition to the Mongols ceased as soon as he was threatened by a powerful Mongol invasion. To avoid this, Daniel dug down the fortified cities, and his sons took part in the Mongol campaign against Lithuania.
The role of Alexander Nevsky in forcing Novgorod to participate in the payment of tribute is quite understandable, given that Novgorod was a rich merchant city and his contribution could significantly lighten the tax burden of Russia as a whole.
e. The assertion that Alexander relied on the Mongols for the purpose of "civilizational confrontation with the West" is completely mythical. There was simply no such confrontation in this era. The Russian principalities and cities and the Livonian Order were in a permanent swing between conflicts and alliances. And before Alexander and under him and after, Russians and Livonians no less often jointly made trips to Lithuania than they fought with each other. However, in the same way, either allies or opponents during the reign of Alexander were the principalities under his rule and Lithuania.
e. Honoring Alexander Nevsky as an outstanding national hero and the saint was based not on the mythical "choice between East and West" but on his specific deeds to protect the entire Russian Land from all its enemies, carried out both by military and diplomatic means.

Question 4. The reasons for the rise of Moscow, the policy of the first Moscow princes in relation to the Horde khans and the rulers of other Russian lands.

The reason for the rise of Moscow is rooted in the exceptionally high quality of feudal management carried out by the Moscow princes. They managed to attract the main military and political resource for that era - the service boyars, together with their military detachments, to create a military-political organization unique in effectiveness - the Sovereign Court, and with the help of military and diplomatic means to impose recognition of the primacy of the Moscow princely house as other Russian princes , and the Golden Horde.

Assertions that the rise of Moscow was carried out thanks to the "special relationship" between Moscow and the Horde do not correspond to reality. On the contrary, the Moscow princes were systematic troublemakers.

Daniil of Moscow was one of the leaders of the coalition of princes, which was guided by the temnik Nogai and opposed the henchman of the Great Horde Andrei Gorodetsky. At some point, the Moscow prince became the de facto leader of this coalition and opposed the Great Horde, even fighting the Tatar detachments. The founder of the Moscow Grand Duchy, Yuri Danilovich, twice did not obey direct orders from the Horde, seized the great reign by force, since according to the old Russian ladder system he had no right to it - his father was never the Grand Duke) and actually imposed himself on the Horde in the role of the Grand Duke. In this capacity, he challenged the khans by embezzling the tribute collected for the Horde. Ivan Kalita and Simeon the Proud had no conflicts with the Horde, not because they were servile to the khan, but because the policy of the khans generally coincided with the interests of Moscow in strengthening control over the great reign and expanding the domain of the Moscow princes. Ivan Kalita managed to continue the policy of Yuri Danilovich, without entering into conflict with the khans, acting through diplomacy and bribery. Contrary to popular legends, Kalita was not the founder of the Moscow great power - many of the achievements of his father and elder brother were transferred to his personality, since Daniel was not a Grand Duke, and Yuri was not an ancestor of subsequent sovereigns. The main achievement of Kalita was the "silence" that he provided in Russia during his reign, the complete freedom of the territories subject to the Moscow prince from the Horde raids and internecine strife. Simeon the Proud traveled to the Horde during his reign 5 times and each time received certain awards and profits from the khans. It was not so much that Moscow had to kowtow to the khans, but that the khans had to buy the loyalty of the distinguished Russian vassals.

When the policy of the Horde, shaken by confusion, came into conflict with the interests of Moscow in the youth of Dmitry Donskoy and the khans made an attempt to transfer the great reign to the Nizhny Novgorod princes, Moscow took tough military and church measures (another important factor in the rise of Moscow was the active assistance of the Church, which placed the residence of the metropolitans in Moscow ) against the inhabitants of Nizhny Novgorod, up to the hands of the Venerable. Sergius of Radonezh interdict (closing of churches). When Moscow’s active policy of subjugating the Upper and Middle Volga region to its power aroused the concern of Temnik Mamai, Grand Duke Dmitry went into open military confrontation, which included a significant victory of Russian troops over the Tatars on the Vozha River in 1378 and ended with a large-scale defeat of Mamai on the Kulikovo field. The Kulikovo victory unequivocally confirmed the primacy of Moscow among the Russian principalities and the heredity of the grand ducal power in the Moscow House.

Dmitry Donskoy in general turns out to be an extremely underestimated, and often unfairly attacked, hero of Russian history. He is an outstanding commander who won victories in two major battles - on the Vozhe and on the Kulikovo Field. Vigorous statesman, who made the hegemony of Moscow in Russia indisputable and energetically set a limit to the expansion of the sphere of influence of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania under Olgerd and Jagiello. In domestic politics, Dmitry sought to concentrate the fullness of power in the hands of the Grand Duke, eliminating the Moscow thousands and energetically insisting that the church policy of Constantinople after the death of Metropolitan Alexy be consistent with the Moscow state interests. The attacks on Dmitry for his imaginary "flight" from Moscow (in fact, leaving for the sake of gathering troops) during the invasion of Tokhtamysh are unfair. The capture of Moscow and the massacre organized by the Tatars showed that the defense of the city without troops could only end with the death of the prince and the military-political catastrophe of Moscow. At the time of his death, Dmitry Donskoy left the Grand Duchy of Moscow as an influential regional power that inspired fear and respect for both the Horde and Lithuania and enjoyed unquestioned authority in Russia. After the Kulikovo victory he won, even the capture of Moscow by Khan Tokhtamysh in 1382 did not return real control over the internal affairs of Russia to the Horde. From now on, the khans could only count on tribute and on the formal right to approve the Moscow princes in the rank of grand duke. Gradually, these rudiments of dependence were eliminated by Moscow.

Thus, contrary to the popular historical myth, Moscow achieved political elevation not by the special obedience of its princes to the Horde khans, but, on the contrary, by a daring aggressive policy based on a powerful military service layer that rallied around Moscow. With the help of this policy, the Moscow princes managed to impose themselves on the Horde as the main partners in Russia (having pushed aside, in particular, the influential house of Tver), put other princes under control of relations with the Horde and forced them to recognize Moscow hegemony. The fruit of this hegemony was the Battle of Kulikovo and the further liberation of Russia from the power of the Horde, and at the same time its unification in a centralized state.

Question 5. The role of Ivan IV the Terrible in Russian history.

When talking about the role of Ivan the Terrible in the history of Russia, two completely different things can be meant. The first is the role of the era of his reign, which lasted almost half a century. The second is the role of the personality of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich himself.

These two aspects are by no means identical to each other, because, contrary to the myth of Russian absolutism, created primarily by the uncritical transfer to Ivan the Terrible of the features of the political power of Peter the Great, for most of the reign of Tsar Ivan, his personal power was by no means the source of all political, social, cultural, and religious changes. During the early period of his reign, the boyar elite played a huge role, which from the 14th century, together with the princes, determined the political course of the emerging Russian state. The role of the Orthodox Church was also enormous, in particular, the role of Metropolitan Ivan Makariy, who set the entire style of the early period of the reign. On the other hand, a large number of epochal events of this period were an initiative from below, at best supported by the tsar - Yermak's campaign in Siberia, the defense of Pskov, the creation of the Zaporizhzhya Sich by Dmitry Vishnevetsky.

The course of events in the era of Ivan the Terrible was not entirely determined by the personal will of Ivan the Terrible himself, although most of his efforts as tsar were spent precisely on increasing the degree of personal control over the Russian state. Tsar Ivan tried to turn his power as an autocratic monarch, but involved in a variety of traditional political institutions, into a personal dictatorship with elements of tyranny. It was for this purpose that such an odious political instrument as the oprichnina was established, designed to remove obstacles to the concentration of all power personally in the hands of the king. This inclination towards the establishment of absolutist dictatorships with elements of tyranny within the framework of a monarchical system is a pan-European trend for the 16th century. These dictatorships were Henry VIII in England, Philip II in Spain, Christian II in Denmark and many others.

Ivan's efforts to establish his personal dictatorship have to be assessed rather negatively - on the way to it, he had to physically eliminate many first-class military men, diplomats, and political advisers, whose contribution to the success of his reign was very significant. The influence of external forces on Russia's policy - German advisers and, in particular, England, to which the tsar had a special favor and even received the nickname "English Tsar" - seriously increased. Ivan's personal diplomacy failed - he failed to prevent the creation of a broad coalition of Eastern European powers against Russia during the Livonian War, which led, in particular, to the invasion of the Crimean Tatars in 1571 and the burning of Moscow, he also failed to use internal contradictions in Livonia, failing to keep King Magnus in obedience, attempts ended in failure to prevent the election of Stefan Batory as the Polish king, also largely due to the diplomatic intemperance of the king personally. The Livonian War, in which Tsar Ivan made the greatest personal contribution as a politician, diplomat and military leader, he lost.

At the same time, the catastrophic nature of these failures cannot be exaggerated - much greater military and diplomatic failures fell to the lot of other sovereigns of that era. Measures to establish autocracy also had a very limited effect - Ivan's son Fedor, as well as the first sovereigns from the Romanov family, ruled based on all the same traditional institutions of the Moscow state. By and large, only one thing has changed in the highest ruling stratum - after Ivan, not so much the dominant clans as the royal favorites and relatives begin to play a large role in management, and in this regard, the quality of management is significantly reduced. A blow to the influence and authority of the Russian Church as a result of the massacre of Met. Philip also did not have a critical impact, not preventing the Church from playing a mobilizing role during the Time of Troubles and not preventing the emergence of such ambitious church-political figures as Patriarch Nikon.

At the same time, the era of Ivan IV for the Russian state was brilliant
1547 - crowning the kingdom
1550 - the publication of a new Sudebnik, Zemstvo reforms and the formalization of the order system.
1553 - the capture of Kazan
1556 - annexation of Astrakhan
1558-59 - victories of Vishnevetsky and Adashev over the Crimean Tatars
1550-1560s - the development of the Russian privateer fleet in the Baltic.
1569 - reflection of the Turkish-Tatar campaign against Astrakhan
1572 - defeat Crimean Tatars in the battle of Molodi, which forever ensured the strategic security of Moscow from the south (the battle of Molodi should generally be recognized as one of the greatest battles in the history of Russia and included in the Russian military-patriotic canon).
1581 - heroic defense of Pskov
1582 - the beginning of the conquest of Siberia by Yermak

It is hard to deny that the contribution of the autocratic monarch in such a brilliant era should also have been significant, but at the same time, these were the successes not only of the tsar, but of the entire state system that was created by the ancestors of Tsar Ivan. And it can be stated that the tsar's struggle for despotic power, for the redistribution of powers in the state system in his favor rather hindered than contributed to its functioning. In any case, under the son and successor of Tsar Ivan, the pious Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, when the work of the state mechanism of Russia normalized, no less outstanding successes were achieved in a short time - the establishment of the Patriarchate, the revenge war with Sweden, the successful completion of the annexation of Siberia.

One way or another, when evaluating Ivan the Terrible, it is necessary to take into account 1). the difference between the systemic and personal impact of the king on the events of his reign, 2). the need for a resolute refusal to replicate pseudo-historical myths and direct slander against Tsar Ivan, a thorough check of the legends that arose around his name, 3). the need for an equally resolute rejection of false apologetics, up to attempts to canonize, in which the actions of the tsar are explained by a priori conspiracy theory, all the victims of repressive policies are obviously guilty, and the obvious miscalculations and failures of Ivan the Terrible's personal policy are intrigues of enemies.

Maybe I'll continue if the work does not wind up ...

Russian land. Between paganism and Christianity. From Prince Igor to his son Svyatoslav Tsvetkov Sergey Eduardovich

The concept of "Russian land"

The concept of "Russian land"

Acquisition by Kyiv in the late 30s - early 40s. 10th century political independence was immediately reflected in the content of the term Russian land. Now, along with the narrow meaning of the tribal region of the Middle Dnieper Rus, it received a broader meaning of the state territory. In the latter sense, the term Russian land covered the whole of Igor's state, that is, a significant area of ​​​​Eastern Europe, inhabited by Slavic-Finno-Baltic tribes and subject to the Kievan Rus.

In the middle of the X century. this broad interpretation was used mainly at the level of interstate relations, denoting the sovereign territory over which the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv extended. For Byzantine diplomats, the Russian land in this sense was "Russia", "country of Russia", "Russian land" or, in the terminology of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, "outer Russia", in contrast to "inner Russia", Tauride Russia. Russia has a similar meaning in the message of Ibrahim ibn Yakub (circa 966): “Rus neighbors in the east with Mieszko [country of Prince Meshko - Poland]”, in the Latin-language document Dagome iudex (circa 991): “The area of ​​the Prussians, as they say , extends as far as the place called Russia, and the region of Russ extends as far as Krakow", in the news of the Quedlinburg Annals about the death of St. Bruno in 1009 at the hands of the pagans "on the border of Russia and Lithuania" and in many other sources of that time.

But inside the country, under the Russian land, they still understood the Middle Dnieper proper with a narrow strip along the right bank of the Dnieper south of Kyiv, stretching almost to the very Black Sea coast. These ancient geographical boundaries of the Russian land in its narrow sense are attested by several chronicle articles. In 1170, two Polovtsian hordes invaded the Kyiv and Pereyaslav principalities. The horde that went to Kyiv along the right bank of the Dnieper, across the Russian land, the chronicler calls the Russian Polovtsy, while the other horde, moving towards Pereyaslavl along the Dnieper left bank, is called Pereyaslav Polovtsy by him. In 1193, Rostislav, the son of the Kyiv prince Rurik, went on a campaign against the Polovtsy. He crossed the southern border of the Kyiv principality - the river Ros - and went far into the steppe along the right bank of the Dnieper. All the steppe space he passed in the annals is called the Russian land. At the same time, stepping out of the Kyiv land a little further north, into the territory of the Pripyat basin, already meant leaving the borders of Russia. In the same 1193, a prince, alarmed that the Kievan prince Rurik Rostislavich stayed too long in the city of Ovruch (on the Uzhe River, a tributary of the Pripyat), reproached him: “Why did you leave your land? Go to Russia and guard her." “I go to Russia,” says the Novgorod I chronicle about the Novgorod archbishop, when he happened to go to Kyiv. In such a narrow sense, the Russian land corresponded to the tribal territory of "Polyanskaya Rus", which, from the second third of the 9th century. made military campaigns along the Dnieper and trade trips to the Black Sea.

Ancient Russian people often invested in the concept of the Russian land, along with geographical and political, also an ethnographic meaning, meaning by it Russia itself, an armed crowd of Russian warriors under the command of a Russian prince. It was precisely this meaning that Prince Svyatoslav attached to the Russian land, when, before the battle with the Greeks, he addressed his soldiers with the words: “Let us not shame the Russian land, but we will lie down with that bone, we will not have a litter; if we run away, shame on us.” Here, the Russian land turns out to be equivalent to “we”, that is, the entire Russian army, and by no means the territory of the Middle Dnieper, which, by the way, could not be put to shame when fighting the Greeks in the Balkans. In the same way, according to the subtle observation of V.O. Klyuchevsky, "the singer of The Tale of Igor's Campaign, a monument from the end of the 12th or the very beginning of the 13th century, remarks:" O Russian land! You are already behind the Shelomyan "; this expression means that the Russian land has already gone beyond the rows of steppe trenches that stretched along the southern borders of the principalities of Chernigov and Pereyaslav. Under the Russian land, the singer of the Lay means a squad that went on a campaign against the Polovtsians with his hero, Prince Igor, therefore, he understood the term geographical in the ethnographic sense. - to someone else". The author of the Word looked at the movement of Igor's squad to the Don from the side of Russia, and not through the eyes of the Russians themselves, who went deep into the steppe. Therefore, his sorrowful exclamation "O Russian land! you are already behind the hill" refers to the retreating Russian army.

This text is an introductory piece.

From the book Russian History. 800 rare illustrations author

From the book Course of Russian History (Lectures I-XXXII) author Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

Russian land in the middle of the 15th century Almost the entire north of our plain with its northwestern corner to the Gulf of Finland constituted the region of free Novgorod the Great, to which in the southwest, from the side of Livonia, a small region of another free city, Pskov, adjoined. All Western

From the book Russian Roots. We Hold the Sky [Three bestsellers in one volume] author Prozorov Lev Rudolfovich

CAUCASUS RUSSIA Where Russian blood is shed, there is the Russian land. The Caucasian issue has always been one of the main trump cards in the propaganda arsenal of Russia's enemies - for two centuries the West has been accusing our country of "colonialism", "imperial expansion" and "conquest

From the book Rurik. lost reality author Zadornov Mikhail Nikolaevich

Where does the Russian land come from and why? their first prince,

From the book Unknown Russia. A story that will surprise you the author Uskov Nikolai

And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed The Russian people are not blood and not faith. The entire history of our state is the history of not a biological or confessional, but a political community, which cannot even be called purely Slavic. Among the peoples who acted

From the book Rus. Other story author Goldenkov Mikhail Anatolievich

Where is the Russian land from? 5th-9th centuries Whose offspring are we? It is no secret that the Slavs moved from west to east. But when and where? This question has always worried historians, since the era of the chronicle "where does the Russian land come from." However, the school and university history of Belarus,

From the book Muscovy. Legends and myths. A new look at the history of the state author Bychkov Alexey Alexandrovich

Where are you, native Russian land? L. V. Alekseev in the book “ Polotsk land" (1966) writes: "Modern data of archeology and toponymy show that in the Early Iron Age Eastern Europe inhabited by three major groups of tribes. The first, Iranian-speaking, occupied the Crimean peninsula,

From the book Russian History. 800 rarest illustrations [no illustrations] author Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

RUSSIAN LAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE XI CENTURY Population and limits. Having described the activities of the first Kievan princes, let us summarize its results, and take a quick look at the state of Russia around the middle of the 11th century. With their sword, the first princes of Kyiv outlined a fairly wide range of lands, political

From the book Mysterious Pages of Russian History author Bondarenko Alexander Yulievich

Where did the Russian land come from? Adherents of the most ancient faith of our ancestors - representatives of the "Old Russian Ynglistic Church of Orthodox Old Believers-Ynglings", living in the Omsk region and some other regions of Russia, have, according to them,

From the book How grandmother Ladoga and father Veliky Novgorod forced the Khazar girl Kyiv to be the mother of Russian cities author Averkov Stanislav Ivanovich

4 Where did the Russian land come from? Each of us is interested in where the Russian land came from? Historians have created many hypotheses about its origin. If we summarize (INTERNET EDITION "Lingvoforus") all existing hypotheses about the origin of statehood among the Eastern Slavs and

From the book At the origins of the ancient Russian people author Tretyakov Petr Nikolaevich

"Russian Land" and "Antiquities of the Rus" 1 Numerous discoveries in the field of Slavic-Russian antiquities of the 6th-8th centuries, made in the Dnieper region over the past two decades, insistently urge once again to return to one of the darkest and most confusing issues of history

From the book Sacred Rivers of Russia author Bazhanov Evgeny Alexandrovich

Chapter 2 WHERE THE RUSSIAN LAND IS Before turning to the sacred rivers of Russia, it is important to clarify where the Russians lived, where the original Russian culture matured. Without this, it is difficult to understand the significance of a particular river. Turning to any facet of Russian culture:

From the book What was before Rurik author Pleshanov-Ostoya A.V.

Biarmia. Unknown Russian land In the Middle Ages, Norwegians traveling to the northeast mentioned a rich country - Biarmia, where there is plenty of everything, and people know how to conjure. Information about it is also found in other sources that placed it in different parts.

UDC 321 (091) (4/9), 34 (091) (4/9 )

Russian lands in relation to the ulus of Jochi (Horde):
is it a vassal state or part of the Horde state?

I.I. Nazipov

Senior Lecturer of the Department of Legal Disciplines
Perm Institute of Economics and Finance
614068, Perm, st. Bolshevik, 141
E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You must have JavaScript enabled to view.

The article examines one of the most debatable in historical science, the question of the state ownership of the Russian lands of the XIII-XV centuries. ulus of Jochi. So far, scientists have not applied scientific and legal methods to solve it. The legal approach (within the framework of the theory of the state) makes it possible to isolate a number of basic features of the state, which can be classified as generally recognized. The study of the connections between the Russian lands and the ulus of Jochi, within the framework of these features, adjusted for the realities of the 13th-15th centuries, gives the following answer to the research question: the Russian lands were not always part of the Horde state. Identified periods of belonging of the Russian lands to the statehood of the Horde and periods of the sovereign status of the Russian lands in the XIII-XV centuries. indicated in the article.

Keywords: signs of the state; ulus of Jochi; state affiliation of Russian lands

Domestic historical and historical-legal science gives three answers to the question of whether the Russian lands belong to the Horde statehood. However, each of the options is not supported by a special in-depth study of the signs of the state that appear in the Russian lands as evidence of the functioning of the Horde state or the states - Russian principalities. These answers are only a short incidental statement in the presentation and study of other aspects of Russian-Horde relations - a retelling of the events of Russian-Horde relations, identifying the consequences of the Horde's influence on historical development Russia. 

The first position in historiography: complete disregard for the issue. The phrase "under Mongol rule" replaces the answer to the question what this power was, replaces the identification of this power. Scientists within the framework of this approach qualitatively describe the events of Russian-Horde relations, characterize their forms, the severity of the influence of the Horde for Russia, use the term “yoke”, but do not touch on the issue of the state ownership of Russian lands. Probably, at the same time, they understand that the problem exists, but are not ready to solve it and therefore “do not notice”. To solve this problem, it is not enough to be a historian (even an outstanding one), one must simultaneously be a specialist in political science and legal sciences. Perhaps it is precisely the lack of development of the theory of the state, before the twentieth century, that explains this position in historiography, because it is precisely the scientists who lived and worked before the twentieth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century that it is represented.

I will quote the most famous representatives of this group of scientists, choosing quotes so that they reflect their way of bypassing this issue as close to the problem as possible.

N.M Karamzin:“The princes, humbly groveling in the Horde, returned from there as formidable rulers: for they commanded in the name of the supreme king.” “If the Mongols did the same with us as they did in China, in India, or what the Turks did in Greece; if, leaving the steppe and nomadism, they returned to our cities, they could still exist in the form of a state. Fortunately, the harsh climate of Russia removed this thought from them. The khans only wanted to be our masters "from afar", not interfering in civil affairs, they demanded only silver and obedience from the princes.

CM. Solovyov:"The Mongols remained to live far away, they only cared about collecting tribute, not interfering in any way with internal relations, leaving everything as it was."

IN. Klyuchevsky: "The Horde khans did not impose any orders on Russia, being content with tribute, they even poorly understood the order that operated there."

S.F Platonov:“The Tatars called Russia their “ulus”, that is, their parish or possession; but they left his old device in this ulus.

The second position in historiography: the Russian lands (North-Eastern, Southern Russia) belonged to the Horde state, being part of it. Basically, representatives of this position are scientists of the early twentieth century. These are the so-called "Eurasians". This point of view was shared by N.I. Kostomarov. Below are quotes characterizing the position of these scientists.

G.V. Vernadsky:“... the Golden Horde Khan was the supreme ruler of Russia - its “king”, as the Russian chronicles call him”; “While Western and Eastern Russia were under the control of the khan, both were parts of one political entity, the Golden Horde.”

N.S. Trubetskoy:“Russia was at that time a province of a large state. It is authentically known that Russia was also drawn into the general financial system of the Mongolian state.

N.I. Kostomarov:"A number of princes and states are in unconditional dependence on the supreme sovereign, the Tatar Khan, the true owner of the Russian land"; "The supreme lord, conqueror and owner of Russia, the khan, correctly called by the Russians, the tsar, distributed the land to the princes into estates."

The third position in historiography: the preservation of the Russian lands of their own statehood during the period of the "yoke". It is represented by "Soviet historiography" (the idea that Russia in relation to the Horde is a "vassal state") and L. Gumilyov (the idea of ​​free Russian states and their union with the Horde).

Here is how they write about it most famous representatives"Soviet historiography".

B.D. Grekov, A.Yu. Yakubovsky:“The Russian lands conquered by the Tatar army were not directly included in the Golden Horde. The Golden Horde khans considered the Russian lands as politically autonomous, having their own power, but being dependent on the khans and obliged to pay tribute to them - "exit". Russian feudal principalities became vassal to the khan.

V.V. Kargalov:“Unlike other countries conquered by the Mongol-Tatars, Russia retained its political and social order. There has never been a Mongol administration on Russian soil. Even the Mongol-Tatars themselves did not call the Russian land "ulus", that is, part of the Golden Horde, completely subject to the khan.

V.V. Mavrodin:“Vasselage was expressed in the payment of tribute and in the fact that the Russian princes, in order to rule in their own principality, were obliged to receive special letters-labels from the khan.”

I.B. Grekov, F.F. Shahmagonov: "An occupation Northeast Russia, as well as the Middle Dnieper, was beyond the strength of the Horde and did not promise her, in essence, any benefits. These lands were needed by the Horde as a permanent and reliable source of income in the form of tribute.

It is not clear to the author of the article how the state, i.e. an organization that has sovereignty can be a vassal, i.e. subject public relations, which does not have a sign of sovereignty. Even if we accept the application of the term characterizing feudal relations within the class of feudal lords to interstate relations, we observe a contradiction.

L.N. Gumilyov: “There was no question of any Mongol conquest of Russia. The Mongols did not leave the garrisons, they did not think of establishing their permanent power. With the end of the campaign, Batu went to the Volga. "Alexander Yaroslavich...< >... went to Berka and agreed on a tribute to the Mongols in exchange for military assistance against the Lithuanians and Germans ”(i.e., tribute is just a payment for military assistance under a business deal); "The Russian principalities that accepted an alliance with the Horde have fully retained their ideological independence and political independence"; "The label is a pact of friendship and non-aggression".

Below is short version research of the problem by the author of the article, using the methods of legal sciences.

The concept of "state" is ambiguous. Here the state is defined as a political-territorial sovereign organization public authority, having a special apparatus of control and coercion, capable of making its regulations obligatory for the population of the whole country. The state is revealed and characterized through a number of features: 1) the presence of public authority, which has a special apparatus of management and state coercion, violence; 2) organization of power and population on a territorial basis; 3) state sovereignty, understood as the dual unity of the supremacy and the uniqueness of the power of the state on certain territory in relation to individuals and communities within the country and independence in relations with other states; 4) comprehensive, obligatory nature of acts issued by the state; the prerogative (exclusive right) of the state to issue laws and other normative acts containing generally binding rules of conduct for the population of the country; 5) taxation and collection of taxes, duties and other fees. Quite often, as the main features of the state in the literature are called: 6) a single language of communication; 7) the presence of an army; 8) a unified system of defense and foreign policy.

Let us characterize the features of the state listed above, including those adjusted for the realities of the Russian lands and the Horde in the era of the 13th–15th centuries.

1. public authority. It "stands" above society, separated from it. Regardless of whether the exercise of power is entrusted to an individual or to any body, they act on behalf of the state (in the Middle Ages, on behalf of the monarch - the owner of the land, and, importantly, on behalf of the prince, in Russian lands sometimes on behalf of the khan) and as state bodies (whose bodies are important here: khan, Horde or independent Russian, princely). This power is independent and independent in relation to other sources of power. Power in the state must be legal and legitimate. Legal power is a power that acquires powers in accordance with the law and rules with the help of laws. In the realities of the Middle Ages, in addition to laws, also in accordance with customs, orders of the monarch, and religious principles. In the study, we need to determine whether the power over the Russian lands was based on the Horde customs of the organization of management, on the orders of the khan. The legitimacy of power characterizes the special relationship between the government and the population given state, legitimacy characterizes the degree of recognition of power by the population, the subordination of the population to power orders. (It is important whether the population of the Russian lands obeyed the khan in the person of his officials and (or) through his orders, whether the Russians, from peasants to princes, recognized the power of the khan).

2. Territory. Includes the land and the people who lived on it, who are subject to the power of the state. The state determines its borders (it is important whether the borders of the Russian principalities were changed by the decision of the khan or the khan's administration) and protects its borders from invasions (it is important whether the Horde protects the Russian lands as their own or not).

3. state sovereignty. It includes the supremacy of state power within the country, i.e. independence in determining the content of their activities, policies. It includes full rights in determining the life of society within its territory (internal sovereignty) and independence in relations with other states in determining its foreign policy (external sovereignty). (It is important for our study: did the Russian lands and their public authorities have internal independence and external independence from the Horde). A number of important features of sovereignty duplicate other features of the state, which have been or will be discussed separately. For example, territorial supremacy (only the laws of this state apply on the territory of a given state) or territorial integrity (the territory of a state cannot be changed, either downward or upward, without the consent of a higher authority of this state).

An important sign of sovereignty, both within the state and outside it, is formal independence from other states or monarchs. (It is important for our study: there were non-Russian lands and their rulers were formally independent of the Horde and (or) Khan or recognized their supremacy and suzerainty).

External sovereignty implies, first of all, that another state and its ruler cannot exercise their power over this state and its ruler (par in paren non habet jmperium - an equal has no power over an equal). This is expressed, in particular, in disobedience to external and domestic policy state to another state. It is important for us whether there was such disobedience to the Horde of the Russian lands. For example, did the Russian rati, at the behest of the khan, fight with other, neighboring and non-neighboring, states. For example, whether new taxes were established in the Russian lands by order of the khan. This is expressed in disobedience at the level of foreign policy relations to legislation (any regulations; here - labels) of another state. The immunity of a sovereign state also covers the lack of jurisdiction of its judicial authorities of another state. (To determine the sovereignty of the Russian lands, it is important: whether they and their rulers were subjected to trial in the Horde).

4. The Comprehensive Binding Nature of State Acts. This sign is determined by the exclusive powers of the state to carry out lawmaking, i.e. to issue, change or cancel generally binding acts for the entire population of the state and to force their execution. (The presence of acts issued in the Horde and obligatory for the population in the Russian lands means the restriction or absence of this feature of the state in these lands. What is important for our study). Acts are not only rules of conduct that are binding on everyone to whom they are addressed in a permanent life, but also acts of "state law", i.e. on the succession to the throne, on the appointment of a specific person to the post of head of state.

5. Taxation. This sign includes a rule according to which only the state has the right to establish taxes and extend the obligation to pay them to absolutely everyone who is on its territory, or to exempt certain categories of people and organizations from them. (If the khans established taxes in Russia and collected them, if they exempted certain categories of people and organizations from taxes, then this sign of the state will be absent in Russia or will be severely limited. Which we should note in our study.)

6. Single language of communication. Multinational states also existed in antiquity, but a single language of communication (for communication at the highest state level, for the state of laws, leadership in the army, for legal proceedings) was usually the language of the people who, having subjugated others, created this state and is the main people in it . In the Hellenistic states and in Byzantium, for example, Greek was such, in Ancient Rome- Latin. (If the acts in the Russian lands were written in Kypchak or Mongolian, then this indicates the limitation or absence of this feature of the state in the Russian lands).

7. Having an army. A medieval state, unlike a number of modern ones, could not exist without an army. The absence of such (regular troops or squads plus militias) indicates that this territorial unit was not a state. But the presence does not at all mean that this territory was a sovereign state. In those days, the armed forces performed the functions: the police against internal enemies ruling power in the territory; protection against attacks by external land and water (sea, river) gangs of bandits; protection from the aggression of other states in conditions when the main armed forces of the state have not yet come to the rescue or for some reason cannot come. Local feudal lords without fail had armed forces, regardless of whether the given territory was a separate state (de jure or de facto, as was often the case during the period of medieval fragmentation) or was part of another state.

8. Unified system of defense and foreign policy. In the Middle Ages, the foreign and military policy of states often did not express the interests of these states for the reason that it expressed the interests of their rulers, which often did not coincide with the interests of states. Then dynastic politics, politics related to religion, the need for glory of rulers, even the desire of rulers to change their throne to a more prestigious and rich throne of another state, mattered. But when neither the interests of the state, nor the interests of the ruler, nor the aggression of another state induce the state to take hostile actions against this other state (its ruler), and these actions are actively carried out, it can be concluded that this policy is part of the policy of another state, imposed given. For example, if Russian soldiers participated in military operations far beyond the borders of Russia and not in the interests of their lands or rulers, then this means that they participated in the implementation of the foreign policy of the Horde. It is important for us to study this too and take it into account when assessing Russian-Horde relations in terms of the entry or non-inclusion of Russian lands into the Horde as part of it.

If the above features of the state in the study prove to be evidence of Russian statehood, then we can conclude that the Russian lands were independent states. If, however, these signs in relation to the Russian lands appear precisely as signs of the Horde state, then, consequently, the Russian lands in this period of history were part of the Horde. If a number of signs indicate that the Russian lands were independent, and a number of signs indicate that they were part of the Horde, then, drawing conclusions, it is necessary to focus on the most important ones in the context of belonging to the Horde.

Power in the Russian lands was exercised on behalf of the "tsar", not the prince. And this indicates that the lands belong to the Horde state. This is also evidenced by the Russian chronicles, which call the Khan of the Horde “king”, reporting on the position of the Russian princes subordinate to the khan, on the “secondary” nature of their power over the Russian lands, a derivative of the power and will of the khan. For example: “Batu is almost Yaroslav with great honor and his men, and let him go, and tell him: Yaroslav, be old and all the prince in the Russian language.” “Oleksandr and Andrey arrived in Kanovich. And order Oleksandrov Kiev and the whole Russian land and Andrey to your table in Volodimer. Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich of Tver, grandson of Yaroslavl, came from the Horde with a grant from Tsar Azbyak for the great reign of Volodimer.

The princes were the "officials" of the khan, who performed the duties assigned by the khan to them in their lands. This speaks for the belonging of the Russian lands to the Horde state. Here is a quote about the assigned duty to collect tribute for the khan, which Mikhail of Tverskoy did not cope with enough, in the opinion of Uzbek Khan who judged him: "... you did not give tribute to the kings." To refuse to serve the khan meant not to be a prince in one’s own land, moreover, to flee from it: “Prince Andrey, Prince Yaroslavich, with his boyars, ran away with his boyars, rather than serve as a tsar and run away to an unknown land.”

In the Russian lands, the khan administration from among the foreigners (foreigners for the population of these lands) operates. This testifies to the belonging of the Russian lands to the Horde state. In the story about the torment of Mikhail Chernigov, it is said that Batu appointed governors and authorities in all Russian cities. The story about the Kursk Baskak Akhmat says that the Tatars kept the Basques in Russian cities throughout the Russian land. Under the year 1262, the chronicler speaks of the Russian council against the Tatars, whom Batu and Sartak planted in all cities by Russian rulers. The chronicles describe both the administrative activities of these officials in the Russian lands, and the structure of the staff of these officials: “The same winters arrived in numbers, and counted the entire land of Suzhlsk and Ryazan and Murom and put foremen and centurions and thousandths and temniks” .

The territory of the principalities was changed by the decision of the khan. This testifies to their belonging to the Horde state. This happened more than once, when the khan wished it: the divisions of the Great Vladimir reign in 1328, 1341, in the 50s of the XIV century.

The princes and people of Russia recognized the power of the khan ("tsar") over the Russian lands as legitimate. It also speaks of the lack of formal sovereignty of the Russian lands they rule. Below are quotes about the recognition by the princes of the supreme power of the "king" and the impossibility of fighting with him for this reason. Oleg Ryazansky says: "... it is not appropriate for a Russian prince to stand against an eastern king." Opinion of Ivan III before standing on the Ugra: “Under the oath of the spring from the forefathers, if you don’t raise your hand against the king, then how can I destroy the oath and stand against the king.”

The formal recognition of the power of the khan was accompanied by humiliating procedures for the Russian princes! For example, according to Herberstein, there was a ritual according to which the prince went outside the city on foot, towards the Horde ambassadors who brought basma, bowed to them, brought a cup of koumiss and listened to the khan's letter while kneeling. Here is how, during a visit to the Horde in order to recognize the power of the Khan, one of the most proud and famous Russian princes was humiliated at the same time: “Daniel Romanovich, the great prince, owned the Russian land, Vladimir and Galich, together with his brother; and now he sits on his knees and is called a serf, they want tribute, he does not care for his stomach, and thunderstorms come. Oh, the evil honor of the Tatar!

Russian people, especially princes and boyars, were subjected to trial in the Horde, and, moreover, they themselves (!) went to court on the khan’s call (not as prisoners of war, for example, were subjected to trial, but precisely as subjects, subordinates!). Also, individual Russian lands were subjected to khan's condemnation and punitive military action. This indicates the degree of subordination of the Russian lands to the Horde, their corresponding belonging to the Horde statehood. For example, Mikhail of Tverskoy and his governor Fedor, Roman Ryazansky, were tried and executed in the Horde. As a vivid example of punishment to the principality, one can recall the ruin of Tver, which showed rebelliousness, in 1328.

The khans received regular taxes and fees from Russia and even instructed their officials to collect them. We see here the operation in the Russian lands of the system of taxation of the Horde state. Systems developed, with population censuses. Moreover, the khans (which suggests that tribute is taxes, and not reparations from a defeated enemy) exempted certain categories of the population and organizations from taxes - the church and its ministers.

Russian detachments were forced to fight at the behest of the khans; thus, in their foreign policy, the Russian lands were not sovereign, but were subordinate to the Horde. In these cases, the Russian lands often had to fight against their will: “Because then the need is great from foreigners, and Christians are driven to order to fight with them.” in the Caucasus, in Central Asia.

All signs of the state in part from total duration Russian-Horde political ties appear in the Russian lands as signs of the Horde state and, therefore, as evidence of state ties between the Horde and the Russian lands. Accordingly, for such periods it is necessary to conclude that the lands of North-Eastern Russia were not sovereign states, but part of the Horde state.

The above set of manifestations of signs of state ties in political relations between the Horde and the lands of North-Eastern Russia did not always take place, in the duration of 261 calendar year of Russian-Horde relations. Or not always completely. In a number of periods, the nature of Russian-Horde relations, according to the analysis of the totality of the features of the state, manifests itself as evidence of the functioning of the statehood of the Russian lands and, accordingly, the interstate type of Russian-Horde relations. The signs of the state must be studied separately, according to the totality of events, periods of Russian-Horde ties.

Period 1242-1362 is characterized by pronounced Russian-Horde ties, subordinate to the state character. In 1243–1244 Russian princes come to the Horde, receive a label from the Khan for reigning, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich is appointed "Grand Duke", and Vladimir is approved as the main city in Russia. The payment of tribute to the Horde began. In 1252, a punitive campaign was organized by the Khan against a number of princes who did not want to obey in North-Eastern Russia. During this period, Khan officials conducted two censuses of the population of North-Eastern Russia (1257, 1275), a permanent institution of officials of non-Russian origin began to function in the Russian lands, and permanent Horde military garrisons were placed. There is chronicle evidence of a "tribute in blood" - forced, judging by the nature of chronicle reports, the participation of Russian squads (1263, 1278) in military campaigns organized by the khan against other countries. The collection of tribute to the Horde during this period is regular; controls direct and indirect taxation. In a short period of time, in the late 50's - early 60's. In the 13th century, Muslim merchants-farmers collected tribute with particular cruelty in the Russian lands. After 1280, there were no permanent Horde administration and garrisons in the Russian lands of non-Russian origin. There is no information about the "tribute in blood". There were no population censuses after 1275. Tribute was collected and taken to the Horde from Russian lands only by Russian princes. Otherwise, the content of Russian-Horde ties is the same. For this time period, there are two groups of especially cruel Horde military campaigns on Russian lands, organized by the ruler of the Horde, to punish the lands and princes who did not submit to him and to approve their decisions (the first: 1281–1293; the second: 1315–1327) . In order to punish attacks on Russian lands and to protect them from expansion during this period, the Horde actively carries out campaigns against Lithuania and Poland, both independently and together with Russian detachments. In order to protect Russian lands from the expansion of Lithuania and Poland in the 80s.

Period 1362-1427 characterized by the absence of a subordinate position of the Russian lands to the Horde. In the context of the internecine war in the Horde, called in the annals "The Great Zamyatnya", the power of the Horde and its rulers over the Russian lands was formal until 1372, and in 1372-1382. it has not become formal either. Since 1362, in North-Eastern Russia, all issues have been resolved by the balance of power of the local Russian principalities. The label for the reign of Vladimir, being given to a non-Moscow prince (1365 and 1371), did not give its owner the actual opportunity to receive the Vladimir lands to rule, due to opposition to the will of the khan from Moscow. The princes do not take tribute to the Horde, there is no “tribute in blood” to the Horde. In the 1370s, an anti-Lithuanian and anti-Horde coalition of princes was formed in North-Eastern Russia, headed by the Moscow prince. This coalition wages war with the Horde and detachments of the Horde, isolated in the conditions of civil strife in the Horde, until 1382. In 1382, for 12 years, the complete dependence of the Russian lands on the Horde is restored: tribute paid to the Horde, princes travel to the Horde to the khan, receiving labels for reigning , the participation of Russian soldiers in the distant Horde campaigns. In 1395, the dependence of the Russian lands on the Horde, defeated by Timur, led by a non-khan from the Jochi dynasty and engulfed in a special war, ceased again. (The exception is 1412-1414, when the power in the Horde belonged to the children of Tokhtamysh). During this period, the Russian lands do not pay tribute to the Horde, the princes do not receive labels. In December 1408, a campaign of the Horde against Russia was undertaken in order to punish disobedience and restore dependence, but it did not achieve its goal. The participation of the Horde in repelling the Lithuanian aggression against Russia took place in 1406 and 1408.

In the period 1428–1480, with actual independence from the Horde, the Russian lands recognize the formal sovereignty of the Horde "tsar". In 1428–1437 in Russia, there is a confrontation between Vasily the Dark and Yuri Galitsky, they turn to the Khan of the Horde with a request to judge in the dispute and issue a label to one of the applicants. Princes aspire to princes to use the Horde as an instrument in the internal struggle, and this was associated with obtaining a label, with tribute payments to the Horde. In 1437–1445 in the Horde, the confrontation continues, with the complete advantage of Vasily the Dark and the children of Yuri Galitsky. Tribute under these conditions is not paid, the khans of the Horde do not have actual power over Russia. In 1445-1461, except for the period 02/12/1446 - 02/17/1447, there is a political dependence of the Russian lands on the Kazan Khanate. Russia pays a ransom to Kazan in long-term payments for the captive Vasily the Dark, a system of Kazan officials functions in the Russian lands, Kazan military detachments on the side of Vasily the Dark participate in the suppression of the opposition of Dmitry Shemyaka, and also protect the borders of Russia from attacks by the Horde troops. In short time intervals: April - May 1434 and 02/12/1446 - 02/17/1447. power in Russia was seized by Yuri Galitsky and Dmitry Shemyaka. During these years, Russia openly showed itself to be independent of the Horde and hostile to it. In 1461-1472, in the first decade of the reign of Ivan III, no tribute was paid to the Horde, the Khan's power over Russia was only formal. For the Horde, this is a time of constant wars with the Crimean Khanate. The Horde does not undertake military campaigns on Russian lands. In 1472-1480. there is a dependence of Russian lands on the Horde. The khan had formal power over Russia, and the Moscow prince calls himself his “ulusnik”. Until 1476, tribute was paid to the Horde, but in smaller amounts than in past periods of dependence. There were two powerful campaigns of the Horde troops against Russia - 1472, 1480.

In the period 1481-1502. there were no manifestations of submission to the Horde and its Khan on the part of the Russian lands, Russia was independent from the Horde in fact and formally.

On the whole, from 1242 to 1502, we observe in Russian-Horde political relations periods of pronounced power-subordinate ties, periods with formal power-subordinate ties with virtually equal relations, periods of actually and formally equal relations. The nature of the connections reflected the ratio of the military potential of the Russian lands and the Horde, as well as the legitimacy of the ruler of the Horde, by origin from the Jochid khan family, which was recognized by Russia as the ruling dynasty of the supreme rulers in the feudal hierarchy of rulers.

The state-political status of the lands of North-Eastern Russia as a territorial and political element of the statehood of the Horde was revealed in the periods: 1242–1361. (120 years), "September 1382 - April 1395" (aged 12.5), 1412–1414 (aged 3), summer 1445–1461 (16.5). As an element of the statehood of the Kazan Khanate - in the period 1445-1461. The status of the lands of North-Eastern Russia as sovereign states was revealed for the periods: 1362 - September 1382. (aged 21), April 1395–1411 (aged 16.5), 1415–1427 (aged 13), 1481–1502 (22). In the periods 1428 - summer 1445. (17.5 years) and 1461 - 1480. (19 years old) - North-Eastern Russia recognized the power of the Khan of the Horde over itself and was part of the Horde, only formally, in fact, being sovereign.

Of the 261 years of Russian-Horde relations, the principalities of North-Eastern Russia in relation to the Horde were independent for 89 years. But of these, 16.5 years was the subordination of the Kazan Khanate, positioned as the successor of the Horde. The state nature of the political relations of North-Eastern Russia and the Horde amounted to a total of 172 years. Of these, approximately 36-37 years, this involvement is only formal - in the form of a formal recognition of the Khan's suzerainty over Russian lands and sending him gifts. The belonging of the Russian lands to the Horde statehood, not only formal, but also actual, lasted 135–136 years. In this period, there are 24 years when the forms of involvement in the Horde state of the Russian lands were especially strong: the functioning of permanent Horde officials and garrisons in the Russian lands, the implementation of censuses to streamline taxation.

Bibliographic list

Big Russian Encyclopedia: in 30 volumes. T. 7. M .: Bolshaya Ros. Encycl., 2007. Vol. 7. 767 p.

Vernadsky G.V. Mongols and Russia / trans. from English. E. P. Berenstein. Tver: AGRAF; M.: LEAN, 1999. 480 p.

Resurrection chronicle. T. VII. M.: Languages ​​of Russian. culture, 2000. 345 p. ( complete collection Russian chronicles).

Herberstein C. Notes on Muscovy / per. with him. A.I. Maleina, A.V. Nazarchenko. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1988. 430 p.

Grekov B.D.,Yakubovsky A.Yu. Golden Horde and her fall. M.; L.: AN SSSR, 1950. 478 p.

Grekov I.B.,Shakhmagonov F.F.World of history: Russian lands in X III –XV centuries. M.: Young Guard, 1986. 334 p.

Gumilyov L.N. Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe. M.: Thought, 1989.764 p.

Gumilyov L.N. From Russia to Russia. M.: Drofa, 1996. 352 p.

Zadonshchina// Monuments of literature of Ancient Russia: XIV - mid-XV century. M.: Artist. lit., 1981. 602 p.

Ipatievskaya chronicle. T. II. M.: Publishing house Vost. Literature, 1962. 604 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Karamzin N.M.History of Russian Goverment. T. V –VIII . Kaluga: Golden Alley, 1993. 576 p.

Kargalov V.V. Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia. XIII century. Moscow: Education, 1966. 135 p.

Klyuchevsky V.O.Works: in 9 volumes. II In: Course of Russian history. Part 1. / under. ed. V.L. Yanina. M. : Thought, 1987. 447 p.

Kostomarov N.I. Historical monographs and researches. T. 12. The beginning of autocracy in ancient Russia. SPb.: Type. D. E. Kozhanchikova, 1863. 463 p.

Lavrentievskaya chronicle. T. I. M .: Publishing house Vost. Literature, 1926. 648 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Mavrodin V.V. Popular movement against foreign invaders in Ancient Russia. L.: Polit. lit., 1945. 52 p.

Nikonovskaya chronicle. T. X. M .: Languages ​​of Russian. culture, 2000. 248 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Nikonovskaya chronicle. T. XII. M.: Languages ​​of Russian. culture, 2000. 272 ​​p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Novgorod I chronicle. T. III. M.: Languages ​​of Russian. culture, 2000. 693 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Platonov S.F.Lectures on Russian history. St. Petersburg: Crystal, 1992. 838 p.

Tale on the Life and Courage of the Blessed and Grand Duke Alexander // Monuments of Literature of Ancient Russia: XIII century. M.: Artist. lit., 1981. S. 426 - 439.

Collection documents on the history of the USSR. M. : Vyssh. school, 1971. 238 p.

Soloviev S.M. Works. T. 16. A look at the history of the establishment of state order in Russia before Peter the Great / ed. I. Kovalchenko. Moscow: Thought, 1995, pp. 5–42.

Sofia the first chronicle of the older edition. Vol. VI, no. 1. M.: Languages ​​of Russian. culture, 2000. 581 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Tizengauzen V.G. Collection of materials related to the history of the Golden Horde: in 2 volumes. T 2. M .; L.: AN SSSR, 1941. 275 p.

Trubetskoy N.S. Legacy of Genghis Khan. M.: AGRAF, 2000. 560 p.