Plato, in his Republic and Republic, postulated two higher forms of government - monarchy and aristocracy, and three lower forms - tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. In his latest work, Laws, looking at the problem from a different angle, he proposes two main forms - monarchy and democracy, from which all the others come.
Aristotle, in his Politics, speaks of three main forms of government - royal, aristocratic and "civil" (politeia, perhaps better translated as "constitutional democracy"); and about three deviations - tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. Generally speaking, in the political thought of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy were considered the three main forms of government.
The rule of Russian lands during the Kiev period was a mixture of these three forms. Historically, as we know, ancient Russian rule combined the city-state and the power of the prince. Since the prince's strength depended on his squad, the latter soon became an influential political factor itself.
We can say that the prince represented the monarchical principle in Kievan Rus, the squad - aristocratic, and the veche - democratic. All three principles were represented in the government of each of the Russian lands, but the degree of importance of one or another of them varied in different cases. At the end of the twelfth century, the monarchical principle became dominant in the Suzdal land, and the aristocratic principle in Galicia. In Novgorod, on the other hand, democracy during this period acquired a particularly important. Whether the Novgorod government was truly a “politeia”, or a democracy, from the point of view of Aristotelian terminology, is another question.
Let us now look at all three components of government one by one, starting with the monarchical one.
A. MONARCHICAL BEGINNING: PRINCE
“Prince” is an Old Slavonic word. It comes from the Old Germanic kuning (Old Norse koningr), meaning "king". Most likely, the Ant and Slovenian princes of the sixth and seventh centuries, like the Drevlyan prince Mal of the tenth century, were elders of clans and tribes. The nature of princely power changed with the advent of the Scandinavians in Rus'.
Oleg and his successors represented the foreign element dominating the ancient tribes and cities. By the middle of the tenth century, new princes were firmly established in Kyiv, and gradually the house of Rurik became an integral part of all Russian political life.
Justice and military defense were the areas in which the people needed a prince. In fulfilling both of these duties, the prince relied on the help of his squad, but the highest responsibility fell on him.
The prince was also the head of the executive branch and after the conversion of Rus' became the protector of the Church, although at that time he had no special powers in the church administration, since the Russian Church was not autocephalous and the Metropolitan of Kiev was under the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople. However, some princes were ready to support that part of the Russian clergy that advocated greater independence from Byzantium. Thus, Yaroslav the Wise took the initiative to convene the Council of Russian Bishops, which elected Hilarion as metropolitan without prior confirmation from the patriarch (1051), and a century later Izyaslav II did the same (1147).
It seems that the first Kyiv princes considered Rus' their patrimony, which they could bequeath and inherit to representatives of their clan. However, after the death of Yaroslav the Wise, succession to the throne was regulated by two, at first glance, opposing principles: seniority by birth and popular election. Of these two, the second factor did not operate, while the first worked unhindered, and this was the case until the middle of the twelfth century. The accession to the throne of each of the Kyiv princes in that period of the political world was confirmed by public approval from both the nobility and the urban population, which was a kind of formality.
However, even during this period, the population raised its voice whenever the prince led the country to a disastrous situation or oppressed the people in one way or another. So, when it became clear that Prince Izyaslav I was not able to organize the defense of the city from the Polovtsians, the people of Kiev rebelled against him and chose Vseslav of Polotsk as their prince (1068). However, when the latter did not live up to their expectations, they were forced to allow Izyaslav to the throne again.
Beginning in the forties of the twelfth century, the Kiev veche began to play a more active role in the election of the prince, expressing support or disapproval of one or another candidate for the grand ducal table. In general, the people of Kiev gave preference to the Monomashichs (descendants of Vladimir Monomakh) over the Olgovichi (descendants of Oleg Chernigovsky), but in a number of cases they were ready to recognize Olgovich on their own terms.
Each Kiev prince during this period had to come to agreement with the veche. Both sides then “kissed the cross,” promising to honor the terms of the agreement. Unfortunately, not a single copy of such a document has survived, and the chronicles contain only brief mentions of the terms of such agreements. One chronicler records that Prince Svyatoslav, son of Oleg, who signed the treaty for his sick brother Igor in 1146, agreed to make the position of tiun (chief judge) elective.
Let us now turn to consider the principle of seniority by birth as a factor in succession to the throne. It was based on the will of Yaroslav (see Chapter IV, 4), and behind it is the idea of dynastic interests. The right to rule Russia was considered not so much the prerogative of an individual prince, even a powerful one, but of the entire house of Rurik. Each member of the house was given the right to a share in the inheritance and a table in a separate principality, which were distributed among the princes in accordance with each person's place on the family tree.
The higher the prince's genealogical position, the more important and lucrative the table he could demand. The eldest prince was given the right to the Kiev table, Chernigov was considered second in importance, then came Pereyaslavl, Smolensk and Vladimir Volynsky, in that order, according to the will of Yaroslav. By the end of the twelfth century, some ancient cities, such as Pereyaslavl, had lost their former importance, and a number of new ones, such as Vladimir of Suzdal, had risen to prominence, resulting in the need for adjustment.
The death of any prince affected those who owned the smaller cities, and the death of the Kyiv prince affected them all, serving as a signal for a general redistribution of tables, each prince wanting to rise a step higher on the political ladder; the Chernigov prince hoped to move to Kyiv, the Pereyaslavl prince to Chernigov, and so on. With the increase in the number of princes and the ramifications of the house of Rurik, this system gradually collapsed, since with each new generation it became more and more difficult to establish genealogical seniority, especially in view of the fact that a nephew could be, and often was, older than some of his uncles. The rule that the eldest son of the first brother in the princely family was genealogically equated with his third uncle (i.e., fourth brother) - a rule formulated to prevent discord - did somewhat soften the situation.
Although at the end of the twelfth century it was still possible to establish seniority for each branch of the house of Rurik, deciding which of the elders in each branch was genealogically the head of the house as a whole became a task prohibitively difficult, and ultimately futile, since genealogical seniority was often not coincided with political power.
The House of Rurik, which under the rule of Vladimir, and then again under the rule of Yaroslav, had consisted of a single family, now became a populous clan. Sociologically, the strengthening of individual princely branches can be described as the disintegration of the clan and its disintegration into separate families. As for the house as a whole, this process turned out to be protracted and was not completed even after the Mongol invasion. Despite the real emancipation of individual families, the idea of the unity of the clan as a whole did not disappear.
In accordance with all of the above, by the end of the twelfth century the principle of general genealogical seniority hardly played any role in the succession to the Kiev table, and even in other principalities it was replaced by clan instincts and the desire of each powerful prince to ensure the reign of his heirs. The intricacy of princely demands and mutual claims led to infighting, and, of course, internecine strife and fratricidal wars, which were characteristic of Kievan Rus and seriously depleted the vitality of the nation.
As a remedy against the scourge of civil war, as we have seen before, princely councils met from time to time for the purpose of clarifying mutual demands and grievances. The very first meetings of this kind were held on the initiative of Vladimir Monomakh (in 1097 and 1100). At the end of the twelfth century, several similar councils took place in Kyiv. Although such a princely council never became a permanent establishment on a solid basis, the very fact that such meetings took place was evidence of constructive tendencies in the attitude of the princes to reality.
In addition to the council, another approach was tried at the end of the twelfth century on the Suzdal land: the establishment of inter-princely relations on the basis of political seniority, instead of genealogical one. Both Andrei Bogolyubsky and his brother Vsevolod III considered the lesser princes, at least in the Suzdal land, to be their “helpers.” The assistants had to promise to be obedient to those older than them. At first this trend was met with rebellion on the part of the lesser princes, but later some of them were forced to accept the new establishment.
Vsevolod III in fact intended to become the overlord of the lesser princes, whom he treated as his vassals. It is noteworthy that he appropriated to himself the title "Grand Duke", which was used by Moscow princes in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. As already mentioned, Vsevolod expressed his readiness to accept even the title of “autocrat.” This was the beginning of the end of the social and political equality that each member of the house of Rurik originally claimed.
In this state of affairs, it would not be out of place to mention that although the name “house of Rurik” was used above to designate the princely clan and is usually used by historians in this meaning, the name itself does not refer to the Kiev period. The princes of Kievan Rus liked to emphasize the unity of their clan, saying that they were “grandsons of a common grandfather,” but the name of Rurik was never mentioned in this connection. Yaroslav the Wise was usually considered the progenitor of the clan. Only in the early Moscow period was Rurik recognized as the founder of the dynasty, who gave it its name.
The Russian princes of the Kyiv period had a common heraldic emblem: the trident. It is represented on the coins of both Vladimir I and Yaroslav I, and was used by all branches of the house, with the exception of the Suzdal princes, who replaced the trident with a lion.
B. ARISTOCRATIC BEGINNING: BOYAR COUNCIL
There is an established tradition in Russian historical writings of calling the council of boyars the “boyar duma.” This term, of course, is quite appropriate, and there is no reason not to use it, but at the same time it should be made clear that it was not used in ancient Rus', and in this sense it turns out to be artificial. In modern Russia, the term "Duma" officially referred to city councils, as well as the House of Representatives in the pre-revolutionary period. The noun “duma” is associated with the verb “dumati”, which in modern Russian means “to think”, and in ancient Russian it had a special additional meaning “to consult”, especially to discuss government affairs or any other serious problems. One of the functions of the prince was to confer with his boyars, and “thinker” became the usual epithet for the boyar who was a member of the council.
The boyar council was a significant addition to the princely power. Not a single important decision could be made by the prince, or carried out by him, without the consent of the boyars. It was the opposition of the squad towards the new faith that Svyatoslav motivated his refusal to accept Christianity. On the other hand, Vladimir's appeal was approved by the boyars. The boyars also took part in lawmaking and codification of laws. It is noteworthy that in the introduction to Pravda the sons of Yaroslav mention the names of the leading boyars along with the names of the princes. Boyar approval was also required for concluding international treaties; for example, in Igor’s agreement with Byzantium (945), the appeal to the boyars was emphasized. The prince consulted with the boyar duma on issues of internal governance.
In certain cases, the Duma acted as the supreme court. So, when Vladimir’s wife Rogneda attempted to kill him, he called the boyars and allowed them to make a decision. By the way, they advised to show mercy. In 1097, Prince Svyatopolk II consulted with the boyars about Prince Vasilko’s suspicion of treason. The boyars were also represented at the inter-princely councils of the late eleventh and twelfth centuries.
Although the boyar duma was a permanent institution, its competence, as well as its functions, were determined more by custom than by law. However, if the prince was elected by the veche, the boyars were usually the party expressing consent, and when an agreement was signed between the prince and the veche, the boyars also took an oath. It is not clear whether in such cases a separate agreement was signed between the prince and the boyars.
In other cases, it is known that the princes had to enter into special agreements with the boyars. After the death of Prince Svyatoslav of Chernigov (1164), his widow wanted to ensure that their son succeeded him. Therefore, she began to confer with the bishop and senior members of Svyatoslav’s squad. An agreement was reached and an oath was taken. The very fact that such special agreements between the prince and the boyars were necessary is evidence of the absence of any normative charter, thanks to which the prerogatives of the boyar duma would be ensured once and for all.
The composition of the boyar duma was as uncertain as its competence. Custom required that the prince consult only with old and experienced people. If the prince violated this rule, he was subjected to severe criticism from, so to speak, public opinion. The compiler of The Tale of Bygone Years attributed the difficulties of the last period of the reign of Vsevolod I to the fact that Vsevolod “The opinions of young people gave him pleasure, and he consulted with them. They persuaded him to deprive his older followers of his confidence.". Although the chronicler is indignant at Vsevolod, whom he excuses only because he was old and sick, the chronicler does not see in his behavior a breach of any agreement. Obviously, at that time there was no agreement.
In the functioning of the boyar duma one can distinguish between the inner circle and the wider assembly. Only leading members of the squad (“front men”) took part in the activities of the inner circle. This internal council consisted of three to five members, including the Tysyatsky, who was probably an ex officio member. This composition was permanent. Vladimir Monomakh instructed his children to “sit and consult” with his followers every morning; undoubtedly in this case he had internal advice in mind. In a sense, this institution was the prince’s office.
Although the cabinet was considered competent to consider current issues of both legislation and administration, a plenary session of the Duma had to be convened to discuss major government affairs. Not only members of the princely squad took part in it, but also boyars from outside. The group of these latter consisted of people from the families of the former leaders of the clans and tribes, as well as from the new urban trading aristocracy. In those cities that retained self-government, elected elders were also invited to general meetings, and in the tenth and eleventh centuries this group in the Duma was known as the “city elders.”
In the twelfth century, these two groups were mixed under one name - “boyars”. Apparently, every boyar associated with the capital of the land was given the right to sit at the plenary meeting of the Duma, but it is not known whether they were always invited. There is no evidence that a certain number of members of the Duma was limited by law, but perhaps this was the case by custom. It should be noted that, unlike the princes, the boyars did not form an internally closed layer. Thanks to service in the princely squad, access to the boyars was open to every capable person, at least in theory. In fact, it was probably easier for the son of a boyar to achieve a high position in the squad than for someone from the common people.
The boyar had no obligation to serve the prince, and he could freely leave one prince and go to the service of another at any time. Even if he was given land for his service, the land allotment that he received - with the exception of Galich in the thirteenth century - became his personal property and did not entail an obligation to perform service. Thus, the boyar, whether he is a member of the princely council or a bearer service the prince was not his vassal. This is an important point of difference between the social structure in Kievan Rus and in the west during the same period.
Only in Western Ukraine did certain feudal customs and institutions manifest themselves, which were partly the result of foreign influence. The Ipatiev Chronicle records that Prince Boleslav of Poland during his visit to Volyn in 1149 "girded many boyar sons"- that is, he knighted them.
In Galich, the boyars made efforts to achieve political equality with the princes, and in 1212 the boyar Vladislav even proclaimed himself the prince of Galich, this is the only known case in pre-Mongol Rus' when a person not belonging to the house of Rurik assumed the title of prince. Around the same time, some of the boyars were appointed rulers of Galician cities with full princely power, although without conferring the title of prince. The sources also mention cases of granting lands to the Galician boyars for “holding”. All this is clear evidence of the process of feudal fragmentation of the Galician principality during this period. The Galician boyars tried to establish themselves as feudal aristocrats.
IN. DEMOCRATIC BEGINNING: EVENING
The city assembly was a universal institution in ancient Rus', both in large cities and in rural areas. In large cities, the population of each of the district communities met to discuss community affairs, but in addition there were also meetings of the population of the entire city. In this sense, each ancient Russian city had its own veche. However, the meeting in the capital of the land was a veche in the special sense of the term, that is, a fully developed political institution.
The word "veche" corresponds to the French parlement, literally - a place where people talk (about state affairs). The Russian word "sovet" comes from the same root as "veche". All free citizens had the right to take part in veche meetings. Although the meeting was always convened in the capital city, representatives of the suburbs had the right to be there and vote. In reality, few of them were able to do this due to the remoteness and lack of practice of notifying “small towns” about such meetings. Meetings were called as soon as the need arose; people gathered in the market square when they heard heralds or the ringing of the city bell.
Thus, for practical reasons, the veche can be defined, with minor reservations, as the general assembly of the population of the capital city only. Only men, and only heads of families, had the right to vote. This does not mean that bachelors were excluded in principle, but the votes of unmarried sons living in their father's house were not counted. A bachelor living on his own was a member of the congregation.
Custom required that the decision be unanimous. The small minority had to submit to the majority. When there was no clear majority, the two divergent parties argued for hours and often started fights. In such cases, either no decision was reached or one side finally gained the upper hand and the minority had to grudgingly accept the inevitable.
Usually the meeting was chaired by the city mayor, but sometimes the metropolitan (as was the case in Kiev in 1147) or the local bishop was asked to lead the meeting, apparently in cases where an influential group of townspeople was in opposition to the head. The prince could attend the meetings, as usually happened when he himself convened the meeting. Often, however, it could be convened by a group of townspeople dissatisfied with the prince’s policies. In such cases, the prince refrained from any participation in the meeting. Such protest meetings usually took place in the market square. In normal times, the veche took place either on the square in front of the princely palace or in front of the cathedral.
As we have already seen, the veche had its own voice in deciding the question of succession to the throne, supporting or opposing a candidate from the point of view of the interests of the city, and in certain cases even demanded the abdication of a prince already in power. In normal times, it agreed with the prince and the boyar duma on all major issues of legislation and general government. Less frequently, it acted as a supreme court. In cities where government was not in the power of the prince, the veche elected the head of other representatives of the city government, as well as the heads of the suburbs.
The degree of influence of the veche varied in different cities. This institution reached the pinnacle of power in Novgorod.
G. THE PROBLEM OF REPRESENTATIVE POWER
Russian democratic institutions of the Kyiv period belonged to the classical Greek type - the type of direct democracy. The participation of all citizens in the meeting was expected, and this led to the fact that the citizens of the capital city were in a privileged position, since only they could physically participate in the veche. Thus, the capital city politically dominated the suburbs. The population of the latter gathered to discuss local affairs, but such meetings had no political importance. There were no attempts to organize the meeting on a representative basis, through delegates from both the capital and the suburbs. There were also no efforts made to improve the functioning of the capital's council by creating a city house of representatives.
The method of direct democracy is only suitable for small communities. Aristotle believed that a city that could be well governed should normally have a population of about five thousand people. The population of Novgorod was much larger, and the inconvenience that Aristotle warned about was felt very acutely, especially in times of sharp political crises.
If we turn to the aristocratic institutions of Kievan Rus, we discover the same impossibility of using the method of representation. The prince's cabinet - the very inner circle of the boyar duma - was not elected by the plenary assembly. And in general meeting Not all boyars of a given land participated, but only those associated with the capital.
Only in the monarchical part of the government can one observe something like an experiment with the idea of representation. In 1211, Vsevolod III, in order to stabilize inter-princely relations in the Suzdal land, convened a meeting, which a number of Russian historians consider the prototype of future consultative assemblies of the Muscovite kingdom, the so-called Zemsky Sobor. According to the chronicler, the prince called for a meeting “all their boyars, both those living in cities and those living in rural areas; Bishop John, and abbots, and priests; and merchants, and nobles, and all the people".The text is rather vague, but it can be assumed that “merchants, and nobles, and all the people” were not invited to participate in corpore, but only through representatives chosen by them themselves. Otherwise, the meeting would have to include the entire male population of Suzdal land, which, of course, is unthinkable. And yet the chronicler’s statement is too vague to allow any clear conclusion to be drawn from it.
Prince and princely administration in Kievan Rus.
The prince was an independent sovereign in relation to other ruling princes. Within his volost, the prince was the head of administration, the highest military leader and judge. Princely power was a necessary element in the state power of all Russian lands. However, the state system of the ancient Russian princely lands cannot be called monarchical. The state structure of the ancient Russian principalities of the 10th–12th centuries. represents a kind of “unstable balance” between two elements of state power: monarchical, in the person of the prince, and democratic, in the person of the people’s assembly or evening older volost towns. The power of the prince was not absolute; it was limited everywhere by the power of the veche. But the power of the veche and its intervention in affairs manifested itself only in emergency cases, while the princely power was a constantly and daily operating governing body.
The prince's responsibilities were primarily to maintain external security and protect the land from attacks by external enemies. The prince conducted foreign policy, was in charge of relations with other princes and states, concluded alliances and treaties, declared war and made peace (however, in those cases when the war required the convening of a people's militia, the prince had to secure the consent of the veche). The prince was a military organizer and leader; he appointed the head of the people's militia (“tysyatsky”) and during military operations he commanded both his squad and the people’s militia.
The prince was a legislator, administrator and supreme judge. He had to “act truthfully in this world.” The prince often entrusted the court to his deputies, “mayors” and “tiuns,” but the people always preferred the prince’s personal court.
The prince was the head of government and appointed all officials. Regional governors appointed by the prince were called “posadniks”. Administrative and judicial power was in the hands of the mayors. Under the prince and under the posadniks there were minor officials, partly from free people, partly from their slaves, for all kinds of judicial and police executive actions - these were “virniki”, “metalniks”, “children”, “youths”. The local free population, urban and rural, formed their own communities, or worlds, and had their own elected representatives, elders and “good people” who defended their interests before the princely administration. At the princely court there was management of the extensive princely household - “court tiuns”.
The princely income consisted of tribute from the population, fines for crimes and trade duties, and income from the princely estates.
In their government activities, the princes usually used the advice and help of their senior warriors, “princely men.” On important occasions, especially before the start of military expeditions, the princes gathered the entire squad for council. The warriors were personally free and connected with the prince only by bonds of personal agreement and trust. But there was no Duma with the boyars and warriors mandatory for the prince, nor did it impose any formal obligations on him. There was also no mandatory composition of the princely council. Sometimes the prince consulted with the entire squad, sometimes only with its highest stratum “princely men,” sometimes with two or three close boyars. Therefore, that “aristocratic element of power” that some historians see in the Russian princely Duma was only an advisory and auxiliary body under the prince.
But in this druzhina or boyar duma there also sat the “city elders,” that is, the elected military authorities of the city of Kiev, perhaps other cities, “thousands” and “sotskas.” So the very question of accepting Christianity was decided by the prince in consultation with the boyars and “city elders.” These elders, or city elders, appear hand in hand with the prince, together with the boyars, in matters of government, as in all court celebrations, forming, as it were, a zemstvo aristocracy next to the princely servants. Along with the boyars and mayors, “elders throughout the city” were invited to the princely feast on the occasion of the consecration of the church in Vasilevo in 996. In the same way, by order of Vladimir, boyars, “gridi”, “sotsky”, “ten” and all “deliberate men” were supposed to come to his Sunday feasts in Kiev. But while constituting the military-governmental class, the princely squad at the same time remained at the head of the Russian merchant class, from which it stood out, taking an active part in overseas trade. These are Russian merchants around the half of the 10th century. was far from being Slavic-Russian.
Organization of military forces in Kievan Rus.
The main components of the armed forces of the principalities in the X-XII centuries. There were, firstly, the princely squad, and secondly, the people's militia.
The princely squad was not numerous; even among the senior princes, it constituted a detachment of 700–800 people. But they were strong, brave, trained professional warriors. The squad was divided into the younger (lower, “youth”), which was called “gridy” or “gridboy” (Scandinavian grid - yard servant), “youths”, “children’s”, and the older (higher), which was called princely men or boyars. The oldest collective name for the junior squad “grid” was later replaced by the word yard or servants. This squad, together with its prince, came from among the armed merchants of large cities. In the 11th century it was not yet distinguished from this merchant class by any sharp features, either political or economic. The squad of the principality constituted, in fact, the military class.
Initially, the squad was supported and fed at the princely court and, as an additional reward, received its share from the tribute collected from the population and from military booty after a successful campaign. Subsequently, the warriors, especially their highest stratum, the boyars, began to acquire land and establish a household, and then they went to war with their “youths” - servants.
The princely squad formed the strongest core and the main core of the army. In the event of upcoming extensive military operations, the people's militia, composed of the free urban population, was called to arms, and in emergency cases they were called to military service and rural residents are “smerdas”.
Large trading cities were organized in a military manner, each formed a solid organized regiment, called a thousand, which was divided into hundreds and dozens (battalions and companies). The thousand (people's militia) were commanded by the “thousand's” chosen by the city and then appointed by the prince; hundreds and dozens were also elected by the “sotskiy” and “ten's.” These elected commanders constituted the military administration of the city and the region that belonged to it, the military-government elders, who are called in the chronicles “city elders.” City regiments, or more precisely, armed cities, took a constant part in the prince’s campaigns along with his squad. But the prince could call upon the people’s militia only with the consent of the veche.
In addition to the princely squad and the people's militia, auxiliary detachments from foreigners took part in the wars. Initially, these were mainly Varangian squads, which the Russian princes hired for their service, and from the end of the 11th century these were cavalry detachments of “their filthy” or “black hoods” (Torks, Berendeys, Pechenegs), which the Russian princes settled on the southern outskirts of the Kiev region. land.
Veche.
The news from chronicles about veche life in Rus' is numerous and varied, although we find detailed descriptions of veche meetings very rarely. Of course, in all cases when the population of the city acted independently and independently of the prince, we must assume a preliminary meeting or council, i.e., a veche.
In the era of tribal life. Before the formation and strengthening of the Grand Duchy of Kiev, individual tribes, glades, Drevlyans, etc., gather, if necessary, for their tribal meetings and consult with their tribal princes about common affairs. In the X and early XI centuries. with the strengthening of central power in the person of the Grand Duke of Kiev (Vladimir the Holy and Yaroslav the Wise), these tribal gatherings lost their political significance, and from the middle of the 11th century they were replaced by an active and influential council of senior regional cities.
However, in exceptional cases (especially in the absence of the prince), the urban population shows its activity and initiative in the early period of the Kyiv state. For example, in 997 we see a veche in Belgorod, besieged by the Pechenegs.
After the death of Yaroslav (in 1054), when the Russian land was divided into several principalities, the veche of the main volost cities acted as the bearer of supreme power in the state. When the prince was strong enough and popular enough, the veche remained inactive and left the prince in charge of government affairs. But emergency cases, such as a change in the throne or the resolution of issues of war and peace, caused the imperious intervention of the veche, and the voice of the people's assembly in these matters was decisive.
The power of the veche, its composition and competence were not determined by any legal norms. The veche was an open meeting, a national gathering, and all free people could take part in it. It was only required that those participating not be under paternal authority (the fathers decided the veche for the children) or in any kind of private dependence. In fact, the veche was a meeting of the townspeople of the main city; residents of small towns or “suburbs” had the right to attend the meeting, but rarely had the actual opportunity to do so. The decision of the veche meeting of the senior city was considered binding for residents of the suburbs and for the entire volost. No law defined or limited the competence of the veche. The veche could discuss and resolve any issue that interested it.
The most important and common subject of competence of veche meetings was the calling, or acceptance, of princes and the expulsion of princes who were not pleasing to the people. The calling and change of princes were not only political facts, stemming from the real balance of forces, but were generally recognized right population. This right was recognized by the princes themselves and their squads.
The second - extremely important - range of issues to be resolved by the veche were questions about war and peace in general, as well as the continuation or cessation of hostilities. For a war with his own means, with the help of his squad and hunters from the people, the prince did not need the consent of the veche, but for a war with the means of the volost, when the convening of the people's militia was required, the consent of the veche was needed.
Kievan Rus of the 9th - 12th centuries is, firstly, the cradle of statehood of three fraternal peoples - Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and secondly, it is one of the largest powers of medieval Europe, which played a historical role in the destinies of the peoples and states of the West and East and the remote North. Kyiv, the capital of Rus', was one of the five largest cities in the world.From a relatively small union of Slavic tribes of the Middle Dnieper region (the origins of this union go back to the time of Herodotus), Rus' grew to a huge power that united everything in the East Slavic tribes, as well as a number of Lithuanian-Latvian tribes of the Baltic states and numerous Finno-Ugric tribes of north-eastern Europe.
The importance and necessity of studying Kievan Rus as the first state formation was already fully understood by our ancestors: Nestor’s “Tale of Bygone Years,” created at the beginning of the 12th century, was copied and duplicated by scribes for more than 500 years. And this is a wise instruction for us to study the glorious epic past of our Motherland in the fullness and diversity of historical sources available to us.
The era of Kievan Rus is the era of the greatness of our people, therefore I consider its history one of the most important pages of our past.
In this work, I would like to consider the role of the prince and the veche in the “political” sphere of society in the 9th – 12th centuries. Here main question consists in how the relationship was determined between the called government and the calling tribes, as well as those that were subsequently subjugated; how the life of these tribes changed due to the influence of the governmental principle - the squad, and how, in turn, the life of the tribes acted on determining the relationship between the governmental principle and the rest of the population when establishing internal order, or order.
Sources and historiography
Sources on the history of Kievan Rus are quite abundant and varied. Good and detailed review Rus' and feudal principalities was made in a solid collective work created under the editorship of V.V. Mavrodin: “Soviet Kievan Rus” (L., 1979), where the authors reasonably understand by Kievan Rus not only the period from the 9th to the beginning of the 12th century, but also the initial phase of feudal fragmentation until the beginning of the 13th century, which they substantiated in another also very useful publication.
Of great interest are the charters that have come down to us from the 12th century, some of which reflect individual transactions between feudal lords, and some give a broad picture of the entire principality. A whole series of princely and veche affairs are reflected in the birch bark charters of Novgorod the Great. Birch bark letters turn out to be a very important source when compared with chronicles, official material and later scribal books.
For the era of the existence of Kievan Rus of the 9th – 12th centuries, chronicles are still the most important historical source. Numerous works by historians and literary scholars have comprehensively examined both all-Russian chronicles and chronicles different regions.
Two works devoted to the bibliography and historiography of chronicle writing help to navigate the vast and inevitably contradictory literature on Russian chronicles: these are the works of V. I. Buganov and R. P. Dmitrieva.
If the 10th century left us only the chronicle of Kyiv, then the 11th century, when state chronicle writing in the capital continued continuously, added the chronicle of Novgorod, which often gave a different, local assessment of events and figures. In the future boyar republic (from 1136), interest in the life of the city is clearly visible, and some Kyiv princes are assessed negatively. It is possible that the initiator of the first chronicle of “Mr. Veliky Novgorod” was the Novgorod mayor Ostomir.
In the 12th century, chronicle writing ceased to be the privilege of only these two cities and appeared in every major center. Chronicles continued to be kept both in Kyiv and Novgorod.
Sources on the history of Kievan Rus are numerous and varied. The study of them and the extraction from them of data about the economy, social structure, political system and social thought is still far from complete.
In this work, I used several books - works of famous historians.
For example, the work of I. N. Danilevsky gives an idea of the current state of domestic and foreign science in the study of the early period of Russian history (before the 12th century). The book is based on a critical rethinking of the source base used for historical constructions; it also includes a detailed analysis of the potential opportunities and experience accumulated to date in the study of Russian history by different schools of humanities.
The work of the greatest Russian historian S. M. Solovyov “History of Russia since ancient times” was used, which is a great scientific work, and the historical and cultural interest in which does not wane.
Also sources were the monographs of Rybakov B.A., who wrote fundamental works on the history of our Motherland, the study of the origin of the ancient Slavs, the initial stages of the formation of Russian statehood, Kievan Rus of the 9th - 12th centuries, the development of crafts, the culture of Russian lands and the art of the ancient Slavs.
Prerequisites for the formation of a state
and his education.
Origin of the Eastern Slavs
| N |
And the basis of the analysis of archaeological sites is the following: in the village. 1st millennium BC e. Proto-Slavs lived in Povislenie. They maintained ethnic contacts with the Balts, Germans, Illyrians, Celts, from the 2nd century. - with the descendants of the Scythians and Sarmatians. Finds of treasures of Roman coins and jewelry of the 1st–3rd centuries on the Kyiv hills. testify to the trade of the Slavs with the Greek colonies. In the 3rd century. the Slavs waged fierce wars with the Goths, and in the 4th century. - with the Huns. At the same time, the area of settlement of the Proto-Slavs in the 4th century. expanded from the lower Elbe in the west to the tributaries and middle Dnieper in the east. The Slavs formed a single Indo-European community with the Germans.
From written sources we know the following: the Proto-Slavs - the Wends (as the Proto-Slavs were called in ancient sources of the 1st century) - lived in small villages. The social system is a tribal community. The basis of the economy from the I–III centuries. arable farming begins, as well as cattle breeding, fishing and hunting. Tools - axes, knives, sickles - were also made of stone. Bronze was used mainly for decorations, and from household equipment only for chisels needed in wood construction. Herodotus wrote about the northern regions, where Scythian ploughmen lived near “many huge rivers,” “who sow grain not for their own needs, but for sale.” In the II century. The Slavs borrowed the “chetverik” grain measure from the colonists. Information about the life and social structure of the Eastern Slavs is contained in the work "Strategikon" by the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea. In the 4th century. Proto-Slavic tribes united into tribal unions.
We do not know for sure the origin of the Slavs either from archaeological or written sources. Some researchers believe that the Slavs were an autochthonous population of Eastern Europe; others believe that the Slavs descend from Herodotus’ “Scythian ploughmen”; still others believe that the Slavs descended from the Finno-Ugrians and Balts. The Tale of Bygone Years reports that the Slavs come from Central Europe. Academician Rybakov B.A. noted: “... judging by the landscape designations common to all Slavic peoples, the Proto-Slavs lived in the zone of deciduous forests and forest-steppe, where there were glades, lakes, swamps, but there was no sea; where there were hills, ravines, watersheds, but there were no high mountains."
Settlement of ancient Russian peoples
| IN |
III–IV centuries The settlement of Eastern and Southern Europe by the Slavs begins.
Causes:
1. Slavic tribal unions were involved in the last wave of the Great Migration. In 530, Slavic migration intensified. The first mention of the “ros” people dates back to this time.
2. Appearance among the Slavs in the 4th–5th centuries. arable farming, which required new lands
3. Gradual cooling on the European continent.
The migration took place not from one region, but from different dialect areas of the Proto-Slavic area. This circumstance, along with the processes of assimilation of the local population, led to the collapse in the 6th–8th centuries. Proto-Slavs into three branches of Slavs: Wends, Antes and Sklavins. Wends - the ancestors of the Czechs, Poles, Slovaks, Lusatian Serbs - Western Slavs. Sklavins - the ancestors of Serbs, Slovenes, Croats, Bulgarians, Balkan Muslims - southern Slavs. Ants are the ancestors of Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians - Eastern Slavs.
The Old Russian people formed over vast areas of the East European Plain. Neighbors of the Antes in the 6th–7th centuries. there were Finno-Ugric, Lithuanian, Turkic (Berendei, Obry, Torques, Khazars, Black Klobuks, Pechenegs) tribes. Relations with neighbors were uneven. In 558, the Avar Kagan Boyan killed the Duleb ambassador of Mezhamir and conquered their country. In 602, the Avars again sent an army under the command of Aspikh to the land of the Antes. The history of the Eastern Slavs begins from the period when an independent East Slavic language began to emerge from the Common Slavic (Proto-Slavic) language. This happened in the 7th–8th centuries. Tribal differences within the East Slavic community were determined by mixing with the peoples of the Finno-Ugric group.
During the period of settlement (IV–IV centuries), changes occurred in the socio-political structure:
1. East Slavic tribal unions were formed (Polyans, Northerners, Ulichs, Dulebs, Drevlyans, Volynians, Buzhans, White Croats, Dregovichi, Krivichi, Radimichi, Vyatichi, Ilmen Slovenes and others), each consisting of 120–150 tribes. According to the "Tale of Bygone Years" in the 8th century. 12–15 tribal unions lived in Eastern Europe
2. The clan community and patriarchal family were replaced by a branch
3. The transition from military democracy to early feudal monarchy began.
State formation
| D |
the Revnerussian state was formed as a result of internal prerequisites: the decomposition of the tribal system, common territory, culture, language, history, economic structure. Along with the formation of the state, as a result of the merger of tribal unions, the Old Russian unified nationality took shape.
The initiators of the creation of a tribal union on the middle Dnieper in the 5th century. there were glades in the person of Prince Kiy - the legendary founder of Kyiv. There is very little reliable information about the history of this proto-state. It is known that the Kiev prince and his retinue considered themselves to be “Rus”, in contrast to the bulk of the tax-paying population - the Polyans.
OK. VI century A similar proto-state of Slavia was formed - a tribal union of Ilmen Slovenes around Novgorod and Ladoga. It was the Ilmen Slovenes who initiated the formation of a single East Slavic state through the unification of Kyiv and Novgorod.
It is not absolutely known when the Old Russian state was formed, because This stage of development is legendary. Modern historians consider the main signs of the existence of statehood in early medieval society to be the presence of power alienated from the people, the distribution of the population on a territorial basis, and the collection of tribute to maintain power. We can add to this as a mandatory condition - the inheritance of power by the prince. In the conditions of Kievan Rus at the end of the 8th - beginning of the 9th century, specific forms of statehood were: the conquest by the power of the state center of the territories of tribal principalities and the extension of the system of collecting tribute, administration and legal proceedings to these lands.
Thus, among the Eastern Slavs one can highlight the existence of tribute collection and veche. The Veche is characterized by the fact that the Slavs have some kind of organization that needs to be led, therefore, there is a “chairman”. Collection of tribute is the establishment of a procedure by which an agreement arises: “We protect you - you pay us.” Tribute is payment for a failed raid. So, we see that in the 8th century. – beginning 9th century The structure of the prince - squad - veche is associated with the use of force, but there are no rules (laws) as such yet. That's why we call this period "military democracy". At this time, society is heterogeneous: there is a prince - a military leader who managed the affairs of the tribe, but at the same time there was a veche - a people's assembly that collected the tribal militia (at the head of the militia - the voivode). Under the prince there is a squad (its members are “youths” - warriors).
The state of the Eastern Slavs emerged as a two-centric state with centers in Kyiv and Novgorod. (Oleg united Novgorod and Kievan Rus in 882. And, although Novgorod was the initiator of the unification, the state of the Eastern Slavs received the name " Kievan Rus", since Kyiv was richer and had traditional ties with Byzantium.)
The history of the formation of the state of Kievan Rus covers the period from 862 to 1019, i.e. from the calling of Rurik to the beginning of the reign of Yaroslav the Wise in Kyiv. At this time the rulers were: Rurik - Oleg - Igor - Olga - Svyatoslav - Vladimir - Svyatopolk. The main subject of their concerns and efforts were: the unification of all East Slavic (and part of the Finnish) tribes under the rule of the Grand Duke of Kyiv; the acquisition of overseas markets for Russian trade and the protection of trade routes that led to these markets; protection of the borders of Russian land from attacks by steppe nomads.
Later we will look in detail at how these rulers reigned.
Political structure of Russian lands in the X–XII centuries.
| IN |
Early 9th century marked the transition from military democracy to early feudal monarchy. The process of transforming the tribal nobility into land owners began. The structure of tribal “executive” power was taking shape - the prince, the squad (boyars, gridi, youths) and the structure of the “legislative” power - the veche. The feudal class was also formed by separating from the community its most prosperous members, who turned part of the communal arable land into property. The growth of the economic and political power of landowners led to the establishment of various forms of dependence of ordinary community members on landowners. Gradually, against this background, the role of councils of elders and people's militias decreased.
Kievan Rus XI–XII centuries. was not a single state, nor was it a political federation, for princely congresses were a relatively rare phenomenon, they met only in exceptional cases, and decisions were not legally binding. All members of the Rurik family considered themselves natural-born princes and “brothers” among themselves; They usually call the eldest in the family, the Grand Duke of Kiev, their “father,” but this is nothing more than an honorary appointment without any real content, especially since the Prince of Kiev was by no means always really the eldest in the family. In fact, each prince within his “volost” and in inter-princely relations behaved as an independent sovereign and his relations with other princes were determined “either by the army or by peace,” i.e. All controversial issues were resolved either by force of arms, or by agreements, treaties with other princes. This contractual principle in inter-princely relations runs through the entire ancient Russian history and stops only in the Moscow state.
Kievan Rus did not develop any specific order in the distribution of volosts between the princes, because that regular order of princely ownership, based on the principle of tribal seniority, did not actually enter the political life of Kievan Rus.
A number of other principles and factors that did not depend on seniority played a role in the distribution of princely tables. One of them was the principle of “patternship,” or hereditary ownership. Princes often lay claim to the named region that their father owned and where they were born and raised. Already the Lyubech Congress of Princes in 1097, in order to get out of difficulties, adopted a resolution: “let each one keep his fatherland.” Quite often, “tables” were distributed according to agreements and treaties between princes. Sometimes an order or will of a sufficiently strong and authoritative sovereign prince transferred the throne to his son or brother.
Quite often, the population of the older volost cities at the meeting decided on the issue of inviting some popular prince to reign or about expelling a prince unloved by the people, without, of course, paying any attention to the family scores of the princes. The Veche sent its ambassadors to the elected candidate for the throne with an invitation.
Finally, very often stronger, braver, enterprising and shameless princes occupied tables simply by force of arms, having defeated a rival prince. This practice of “getting” tables runs continuously throughout our ancient history.
Veche and princely power in Kievan Rus
Prince and princely administration in Kievan Rus.
The prince was an independent sovereign in relation to other ruling princes. Within his volost, the prince was the head of administration, the highest military leader and judge. Princely power was a necessary element in the state power of all Russian lands. However, the state system of the ancient Russian princely lands cannot be called monarchical. The state structure of the ancient Russian principalities of the 10th–12th centuries. represents a kind of “unstable balance” between two elements of state power: monarchical, in the person of the prince, and democratic, in the person of the people’s assembly or evening older volost towns. The power of the prince was not absolute; it was limited everywhere by the power of the veche. But the power of the veche and its intervention in affairs manifested itself only in emergency cases, while the princely power was a constantly and daily operating governing body.
The prince's responsibilities were primarily to maintain external security and protect the land from attacks by external enemies. The prince conducted foreign policy, was in charge of relations with other princes and states, concluded alliances and treaties, declared war and made peace (however, in those cases when the war required the convening of a people's militia, the prince had to secure the consent of the veche). The prince was a military organizer and leader; he appointed the head of the people's militia (“tysyatsky”) and during military operations he commanded both his squad and the people’s militia.
The prince was a legislator, administrator and supreme judge. He had to “act truthfully in this world.” The prince often entrusted the court to his deputies, “mayors” and “tiuns,” but the people always preferred the prince’s personal court.
The prince was the head of government and appointed all officials. Regional governors appointed by the prince were called “posadniks”. Administrative and judicial power was in the hands of the mayors. Under the prince and under the posadniks there were minor officials, partly from free people, partly from their slaves, for all kinds of judicial and police executive actions - these were “virniki”, “metalniks”, “children”, “youths”. The local free population, urban and rural, formed their own communities, or worlds, and had their own elected representatives, elders and “good people” who defended their interests before the princely administration. At the princely court there was management of the extensive princely household - “court tiuns”.
The princely income consisted of tribute from the population, fines for crimes and trade duties, and income from the princely estates.
In their government activities, the princes usually used the advice and help of their senior warriors, “princely men.” On important occasions, especially before the start of military expeditions, the princes gathered the entire squad for council. The warriors were personally free and connected with the prince only by bonds of personal agreement and trust. But there was no Duma with the boyars and warriors mandatory for the prince, nor did it impose any formal obligations on him. There was also no mandatory composition of the princely council. Sometimes the prince consulted with the entire squad, sometimes only with its highest stratum “princely men,” sometimes with two or three close boyars. Therefore, that “aristocratic element of power” that some historians see in the Russian princely Duma was only an advisory and auxiliary body under the prince.
But in this druzhina or boyar duma there also sat the “city elders,” that is, the elected military authorities of the city of Kiev, perhaps other cities, “thousands” and “sotskas.” So the very question of accepting Christianity was decided by the prince in consultation with the boyars and “city elders.” These elders, or city elders, appear hand in hand with the prince, together with the boyars, in matters of government, as in all court celebrations, forming, as it were, a zemstvo aristocracy next to the princely servants. Along with the boyars and mayors, “elders throughout the city” were invited to the princely feast on the occasion of the consecration of the church in Vasilevo in 996. In the same way, by order of Vladimir, boyars, “gridi”, “sotsky”, “ten” and all “deliberate men” were supposed to come to his Sunday feasts in Kiev. But while constituting the military-governmental class, the princely squad at the same time remained at the head of the Russian merchant class, from which it stood out, taking an active part in overseas trade. These are Russian merchants around the half of the 10th century. was far from being Slavic-Russian.
Organization of military forces in Kievan Rus.
The main components of the armed forces of the principalities in the X-XII centuries. There were, firstly, the princely squad, and secondly, the people's militia.
The princely squad was not numerous; even among the senior princes, it constituted a detachment of 700–800 people. But they were strong, brave, trained professional warriors. The squad was divided into the younger (lower, “youth”), which was called “gridy” or “gridboy” (Scandinavian grid - yard servant), “youths”, “children’s”, and the older (higher), which was called princely men or boyars. The oldest collective name for the junior squad “grid” was later replaced by the word yard or servants. This squad, together with its prince, came from among the armed merchants of large cities. In the 11th century it was not yet distinguished from this merchant class by any sharp features, either political or economic. The squad of the principality constituted, in fact, the military class.
Initially, the squad was supported and fed at the princely court and, as an additional reward, received its share from the tribute collected from the population and from military booty after a successful campaign. Subsequently, the warriors, especially their highest stratum, the boyars, began to acquire land and establish a household, and then they went to war with their “youths” - servants.
The princely squad formed the strongest core and the main core of the army. In the event of upcoming extensive military operations, the people's militia, made up of the free urban population, was called to arms, and in emergency cases, rural residents - “smerdas” - were also called up for military service.
Large trading cities were organized in a military manner, each formed a solid organized regiment, called a thousand, which was divided into hundreds and dozens (battalions and companies). The thousand (people's militia) were commanded by the “thousand's” chosen by the city and then appointed by the prince; hundreds and dozens were also elected by the “sotskiy” and “ten's.” These elected commanders constituted the military administration of the city and the region that belonged to it, the military-government elders, who are called in the chronicles “city elders.” City regiments, or more precisely, armed cities, took a constant part in the prince’s campaigns along with his squad. But the prince could call upon the people’s militia only with the consent of the veche.
In addition to the princely squad and the people's militia, auxiliary detachments from foreigners took part in the wars. Initially, these were mainly Varangian squads, which the Russian princes hired for their service, and from the end of the 11th century these were cavalry detachments of “their filthy” or “black hoods” (Torks, Berendeys, Pechenegs), which the Russian princes settled on the southern outskirts of the Kiev region. land.
Veche.
The news from chronicles about veche life in Rus' is numerous and varied, although we find detailed descriptions of veche meetings very rarely. Of course, in all cases when the population of the city acted independently and independently of the prince, we must assume a preliminary meeting or council, i.e., a veche.
In the era of tribal life. Before the formation and strengthening of the Grand Duchy of Kiev, individual tribes, glades, Drevlyans, etc., gather, if necessary, for their tribal meetings and consult with their tribal princes about common affairs. In the X and early XI centuries. with the strengthening of central power in the person of the Grand Duke of Kiev (Vladimir the Holy and Yaroslav the Wise), these tribal gatherings lost their political significance, and from the middle of the 11th century they were replaced by an active and influential council of senior regional cities.
However, in exceptional cases (especially in the absence of the prince), the urban population shows its activity and initiative in the early period Kyiv State. For example, in 997 we see a veche in Belgorod, besieged by the Pechenegs.
After the death of Yaroslav (in 1054), when the Russian land was divided into several principalities, the veche of the main volost cities acted as the bearer of supreme power in the state. When the prince was strong enough and popular enough, the veche remained inactive and left the prince in charge of government affairs. But emergency cases, such as a change in the throne or the resolution of issues of war and peace, caused the imperious intervention of the veche, and the voice of the people's assembly in these matters was decisive.
The power of the veche, its composition and competence were not determined by any legal norms. The veche was an open meeting, a national gathering, and all free people could take part in it. It was only required that those participating not be under paternal authority (the fathers decided the veche for the children) or in any kind of private dependence. In fact, the veche was a meeting of the townspeople of the main city; residents of small towns or “suburbs” had the right to attend the meeting, but rarely had the actual opportunity to do so. The decision of the veche meeting of the senior city was considered binding for residents of the suburbs and for the entire volost. No law defined or limited competencies of the evening. The veche could discuss and resolve any issue that interested it.
The most important and common subject of competence of veche meetings was the calling, or acceptance, of princes and the expulsion of princes who were not pleasing to the people. The calling and change of princes were not only political facts, stemming from the real balance of forces, but were generally recognized right population. This right was recognized by the princes themselves and their squads.
The second - extremely important - range of issues to be resolved by the veche were questions about war and peace in general, as well as the continuation or cessation of hostilities. For a war with his own means, with the help of his squad and hunters from the people, the prince did not need the consent of the veche, but for a war with the means of the volost, when the convening of the people's militia was required, the consent of the veche was needed.
Development of political freedom and independence of the Great
Novgorod. Veche and princely power of Novgorod Rus'.
.
| IN |
X-XI centuries Novgorod was under the rule of the great princes of Kyiv, who kept their governor in it (usually one or their sons) and to whom Novgorod, until the time of Yaroslavl I, paid tribute on an equal basis with other Russian lands. However, already under Yaroslavl, a significant change occurred in Novgorod’s relations with the Grand Duke of Kyiv. Yaroslav “sat” in Novgorod in 1015, when his father, Vladimir the Holy, and his brother Svyatopolk died and began to beat their brothers in order to seize power over all Russian lands. Only thanks to the active and energetic support of the Novgorodians did Yaroslav manage to defeat Svyatopolk and take possession of the Grand Duchy of Kyiv.
The division of Rus' into several separate principalities weakened the power and influence of the Grand Duke of Kiev, and discord and civil strife in the princely family provided Novgorod with the opportunity to invite to reign among the rival princes who were “loved” to him.
The right of Novgorod to choose any prince among all the Russian princes was indisputable and generally recognized. In the Novgorod Chronicle we read: “And Novgorod set all the princes free: wherever they can, they can capture the same prince for themselves.” In addition to the prince, at the head of the Novgorod administration was the mayor, who in the X-XI centuries. was appointed by the prince, but in the 30s. XII centuries the important position of mayor in Novgorod becomes electoral, and the right to change the mayor belongs only to the veche.
The important position of tysyatsky (“tysyachsky”) also becomes electoral, and the Novgorod veche “gives” and “takes away” it at its own discretion. Finally, from the second half of the 12th century. upon election of the veche, the high post of the head of the Novgorod church, the lord of the Archbishop of Novgorod, is filled. In 1156, after the death of Archbishop Nifont, “the whole city of people gathered and deigned to install a bishop for themselves, the man chosen by God was Arkady”; Of course, the chosen one of the veche was then supposed to receive a “decree” for the episcopal see from the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus'.
Thus, during the XI–XII centuries. the entire highest Novgorod administration becomes elected, and the veche of the Lord of the Great Novgorod becomes the sovereign administrator of the destinies of the Novgorod state.
Government structure and administration:
Prince.
The Novgorodians were “free men,” they lived and governed “at their own free will,” but they did not consider it possible to do without a prince. Novgorod needed the prince mainly as the leader of the army. That is why the Novgorodians valued and respected their warlike princes so much. However, while giving the prince command of the armed forces, the Novgorodians did not at all allow him to independently conduct foreign policy affairs and start a war without the consent of the veche. The Novgorodians demanded an oath from their prince that he would inviolably observe all their rights and liberties.
Inviting a new prince, Novgorod entered into a formal agreement with him, which precisely defined his rights and obligations. Each newly invited prince undertakes to observe inviolably: “For this prince, kiss the cross to all Novgorod, on which grandfathers and fathers kissed, - keep Novgorod in the old days, according to the duty, without offense.” All judicial and government activities of the prince must proceed in agreement with the Novgorod mayor and under his constant supervision: “And the devil of the mayor, prince, do not judge the court, nor distribute volosts, nor give letters”; and without guilt the husband cannot be deprived of his parish. And in the Novgorod volost, you, prince, and your judges should not judge (that is, do not betray), and do not plot lynching.” The entire local administration should be appointed from Novgorodians, and not from princely men: “that the volosts of all Novgorod, you, prince, should not be held by your own men, but by the men of Novgorod; You will have a gift from those volosts.” This “gift” from the volosts, the size of which is precisely determined in the contracts, constitutes the prince’s remuneration for his government activities. A number of resolutions ensured the trade rights and interests of Novgorod from violations. While ensuring freedom of trade between Novgorod and the Russian lands, the agreements also required that the prince not interfere with Novgorod trade with the Germans and that he himself not take direct part in it.
Novgorod took care that the prince and his retinue did not enter too closely and deeply into the inner life of Novgorod society and did not become an influential social force in it. The prince and his court had to live outside the city, on Gorodishche. He and his people were forbidden to accept any of the Novgorodians as personal dependence, as well as to acquire land property in the possessions of Veliky Novgorod - “and you, prince, nor your princess, nor your boyars, nor your nobles should hold villages, nor buy, nor accepted freely throughout the Novgorod volost.”
Thus, “the prince had to stand near Novgorod, serving him. And not at the head of it, they have rights,” says Klyuchevsky, who points to the political contradiction in the structure of Novgorod: he needed a prince, but “at the same time treated him with extreme distrust” and tried in every possible way to constrain and limit his power.
Veche.
Mr. Veliky Novgorod was divided into “ends”, “hundreds” and “streets”, and all these divisions were represented by self-governing communities, they had their own local councils and elected sotsky, as well as Konchansky and street elders for governance and representation. The union of these local communities constituted Veliky Novgorod, and “the combined will of all these union worlds was expressed in the general council of the city” (Klyuchevsky). The veche was not convened periodically, at certain times, but only when there was a need. And the prince, and the mayor, and any group of citizens could convene (or “call”) a veche. All free and full-fledged Novgorodians gathered at the veche square, and everyone had the same right to vote. Sometimes residents of the Novgorod suburbs (Pskovites and Ladoga residents) took part in the veche, but usually the veche consisted of citizens of one older city.
The competence of the Novgorod veche was comprehensive. It adopted laws and rules (in particular, the Novgorod Code of Law, or the so-called “judgment charter”, was adopted and approved in 1471); it invited the prince and concluded an agreement with him, and in case of dissatisfaction with him, expelled him; the veche chose, replaced and judged the mayor and the thousand and sorted out their disputes with the prince; it chose a candidate for the post of Archbishop of Novgorod, sometimes it established churches and monasteries as “peace”; the veche granted the state lands of Veliky Novgorod to church institutions or private individuals, and also granted some suburbs and lands “for feeding” to the invited princes; it was the highest court of justice for the suburbs and for private citizens; was in charge of the court for political and other major crimes, associated with the most severe punishments - deprivation of life or confiscation of property and exile; finally, the veche was in charge of the entire area of foreign policy: it made a resolution on the collection of troops, the construction of fortresses on the borders of the country and, in general, on measures of defense of the state; declared war and made peace, and also concluded trade treaties with foreign countries.
The veche had its own office (or veche hut, headed by an “eternal clerk” (secretary). The decisions or verdicts of the veche were written down and sealed with the seals of the Lord of Veliky Novgorod (the so-called “eternal letters”). The letters were written on behalf of all Novgorod, its government and people. In the Novgorod charter given to the Solovetsky Monastery, we read: “And with the blessing of the Lord, the Most Reverend Archbishop of Veliky Novgorod and the Pskov Bishop Jonah, Mr. Posadnik of Veliky Novgorod, sedate Ivan Lukinich and the old posadniks, and Mr. Tysyatsky of Veliky Novgorod, sedate Trufan Yuryevich and the old thousand, and the boyars, and the living people, and the merchants, and the black people, and the entire lord sovereign of Veliky Novgorod, all five ends, at the veche, in the Yaroslavl courtyard, granted the abbot... and all the elders... these islands "...
The large Novgorod veche usually met on the trading side, in the Yaroslavl courtyard (or “courtyard”). The huge crowd of thousands of “free men” gathered here, of course, did not always maintain order and decorum: “At the meeting, by its very composition, there could be neither a correct discussion of the issue, nor a correct vote. The decision was made by eye, or better yet by ear, based more on the strength of the shouts than on the majority of votes” (Klyuchevsky). In case of disagreement at the veche, noisy disputes arose, sometimes fights, and “the side that prevailed was recognized by the majority” (Klyuchevsky). Sometimes two parties would gather at the same time: one on the shopping side, the other on the Sofia side; some participants appeared “in armor” (i.e., armed), and disputes between hostile parties sometimes reached armed clashes on the Volkhov Bridge.
Administration and court.
Council of gentlemen At the head of the Novgorod administration were the “sedate posadnik” and the “sedate thousand.”
The court was distributed among different authorities: the ruler of Novgorod, the princely governor, the mayor and the thousand; in particular, the thousand, together with a board of three elders from living people and two elders from merchants, was supposed to “manage all the affairs” of the merchants and the “commercial court.” In appropriate cases, a joint court of different instances acted. For “gossip”, i.e. To review cases decided in the first instance, there was a board of 10 “rapporteurs”, one boyar and one “zhitey” from each end. For executive judicial and administrative-police actions, the highest administration had at its disposal a number of lower agents, who bore various names: bailiffs, subvoys, pozovniks, izvetniki, birichi.
The crowded veche crowd, of course, could not intelligently and thoroughly discuss the details of government events or individual articles of laws and treaties; she could only accept or reject ready-made reports from the senior administration. For the preliminary development of necessary measures and for the preparation of reports in Novgorod, there was a special government council, or council of gentlemen, it consisted of the sedate mayor and thousand, Konchansky elders, sotsky and old (i.e. former) mayors and thousand. This council, which included the top of the Novgorod boyars, had great influence in the political life of Novgorod and often predetermined issues that were subject to resolution by the veche - “‘this was the hidden, but very active spring of the Novgorod government’” (Klyuchevsky).
In the regional administration of the Novgorod state we find a duality of principles - centralization and local autonomy. Posadniks were appointed from Novgorod to the suburbs, and the judicial institutions of the older city served as the highest authority for the townspeople. The suburbs and all Novgorod volosts had to pay tribute to Mr. Veliky Novgorod. Troubles and abuses in the field of governance caused centrifugal forces in the Novgorod regions, and some of them sought to break away from their center.
Historical destinies of Ancient Rus'
The Russian land as an indivisible whole, which was in the common possession of the princes-relatives, from the turn of the 11th to the 13th centuries. ceases to be actually political reality.
Despite the differences between Kievan and Novgorod Rus, they had some common features. Everywhere we see as the main political institutions three forces: the prince, the squad (boyars), the city council.
At the same time, these principalities can be divided into two types: early feudal monarchy and feudal republic. They differed in which of the listed political bodies played a decisive role in them. At the same time, other power structures could continue to exist, although in everyday life they often remained beyond the attention of contemporaries. Only in extreme situations did society “remember” such traditional state institutions.
An example of the first type of state is the Principality of Kiev. The princes are fighting for the Kyiv throne. Possession of it gave the right to be titled Grand Duke, who formally stood above all other appanage princes.
In Kyiv (and subsequently in Galich and Volyn) the princely power was strong, relying on the squad. One of the first mentions of a direct attempt by the squad of the Kiev prince to independently resolve the issue of who would sit on the Kiev table dates back to 1015. Having learned about the death of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, his squad offered to become the prince of Kiev youngest son Boris. And only his reluctance to break the tradition of subordination to the eldest in the family (this is how the chronicler interprets this episode, in any case) did not allow the squad to insist on its own. By the way, immediately after Boris refused to fight for power in Kyiv, his father’s warriors left him. Another example of this kind could be the meeting with his “husbands” in 1187 of the dying Galician prince Yaroslav Osmomysl about transferring power in Galich to his youngest son, bypassing the eldest - the legal heir.
.
The southern princes consulted with their squads when resolving issues of war and peace. So, in 1093, the princes Svyatopolk, Vladimir and Rostislav, before the start of hostilities, held a council with their “sensible men”: “Should we attack the Polovtsians or is it more profitable to make peace with them?” The question of the timing of the attack on the Polovtsians during the princely congresses of 1103 and 1111 was also discussed with the squads. At the same time, the prince’s voice turned out to be decisive, but only after he convinced the warriors of the correctness of his decision.
At the same time, in critical situations, when the prince for some reason could not fulfill his functions, the city council took real power into its own hands. This happened in 1068, when the Kiev prince Izyaslav could not resist the Polovtsians and fled from the battlefield. The consequence of this was the veche decision of the people of Kiev to remove the “legitimate” prince and install Vseslav Bryachislavich of Polotsk in his place. Only as a result of the most stringent measures did the former prince manage to regain the Kiev throne.
Another example is the situation when the Kiev veche in 1113, contrary to the existing order of succession to the throne (Kyiv was not his “patrimony” invited to the grand-ducal throne of Vladimir Monomakh. In 1125, the eldest Monomashich Mstislav was placed on the Kiev throne, and after his death in 1132, the people of Kiev transferred power to his brother Yaropolk. In 1146, the people of Kiev summoned Prince Igor Olgovich to the assembly, who, according to the will of his brother Vsevolod, was to ascend the Kiev throne. It is characteristic that Igor was afraid to appear at the meeting himself, and did not dare to ignore the “invitation”. As his plenipotentiary representative (while the pretender to the throne and his retinue sat in ambush), he sent Svyatoslav Olgovich to the meeting of townspeople, who had to listen to the complaints of the residents of Kiev and promise to stop the abuses of the princely people.
The situation in Kyiv changed with the coming to power of Grand Duke Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky (1157-1174). If his father Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky spent his whole life seeking the Kiev throne, then Andrei twice left the Kyiv suburb, where the Grand Duke put him in the North-East of Rus'. There he eventually settled. Having become the Grand Duke, Andrei moved his “table” to the former suburb of Suzdal - Vladimir-on-Klyazma. Moreover, in 1169, the united troops of the Russian lands under the leadership of Andrei attacked Kyiv, which tried to get out from under its influence, and plundered it. After this, the importance of the southern capital of the Russian land began to decline rapidly. Despite the fact that the second all-Russian campaign against Kyiv in 1173 turned out to be a failure, the former capital never recovered from the blow. In 1203, Kyiv was again plundered in a joint campaign of Rurik Rostislavich, the Olgovichi and the Polovtsians. The invasion of Mongol troops in 1240 only completed what the Russian princes had begun. Nevertheless, it was the southern Russian lands that for a long time continued to preserve the traditions of governance that had developed in Kievan Rus: the prince's power rested there on the strength of the squad and was controlled by the city council. Conventionally, this form of government is usually called early feudal monarchy.
Its own type of state power has developed in the North-West of Rus'. Here, princely power as an independent political force ceased to exist as a result of the events of 1136 (the so-called Novgorod “revolution”). On May 28, the Novgorodians placed their prince, the protege of the Prince of Kyiv, Vsevolod Mstislavich, under arrest, and then expelled him from the city. From that time on, the order was finally established to elect the Novgorod prince, like all other government positions of Novgorod the Great, at the veche. He became part of the city administrative apparatus. Now his functions were limited to military issues. The voivode was responsible for maintaining law and order in the city, and all power during the periods between veche gatherings was concentrated in the hands of the Novgorod mayors and the bishop (from 1165 archbishop). Complex issues could be resolved at the so-called mixed court, which included representatives of all power structures of Novgorod.
This type of government can be defined as feudal Republic, and the republic "boyar", "aristocratic".
On the one hand, only members of influential (aristocratic) boyar families were elected to the highest government positions (primarily posadniks, who apparently had full power during the breaks between meetings of the veche) in Novgorod.
On the other hand, the characteristics of the Novgorod state are associated with the aristocratic composition of the veche - the highest state body of Novgorod. According to V.L. Yanina, from 300 to 500 people gathered at the veche - people from the largest boyar "families" (as we remember, M.Kh. Aleshkovsky believed that the vechniks from the 13th century also included the richest Novgorod merchants). There is, however, another point of view, according to which not only all adult residents of Novgorod, regardless of their social status, but possibly also residents of the Novgorod suburbs, including rural ones, took part in the Novgorod veche (I.Ya. Froyanov, V .F. Andreev and others). The most important issues in the political life of the republic were decided at the meeting. The main one is elections. officials who performed power functions: mayors, thousand, bishop (archbishop), archimandrite, prince.
Further development of the Russian lands could have followed any of the outlined paths, but the invasion in the second third of the 13th century. Mongolian troops significantly changed the political situation in the country. But this is a topic for a separate conversation.
Kievan Rus represented an entire era in the history of the Slavic peoples. It was the only Slavic state that could compete in its level of development with the leading countries of the world.
The first reason for feudal fragmentation was the growth of boyar estates and the number of smerds dependent on them. The 12th - early 13th centuries were characterized by the further development of boyar land ownership in various principalities of Rus'. The boyars expanded their possessions by seizing the lands of free community members, enslaving them, and buying lands. In an effort to obtain a larger surplus product, they increased the natural rent and labor that the dependent smerds performed. The increase in surplus product received by the boyars due to this made them economically powerful and independent. In various lands of Rus', economically powerful boyar corporations began to take shape, striving to become sovereign masters of the lands where their estates were located. They wanted to administer justice to their peasants themselves and receive fines from them. Many boyars had feudal immunity (the right of non-interference in the affairs of the estate), "Russian Truth" determined the rights of the boyars. However, the Grand Duke (and such is the nature of princely power) sought to retain full power in his hands. He interfered in the affairs of the boyar estates, sought to retain the right to judge the peasants and receive vir from them in all the lands of Rus'.
The Grand Duke, considered the supreme owner of all the lands of Rus', and their supreme ruler, continued to consider all the princes and boyars as his service people, and therefore forced them to participate in the numerous campaigns he organized. These campaigns often did not coincide with the interests of the boyars and tore them away from their estates. The boyars began to feel burdened by serving the Grand Duke and tried to evade it, which led to numerous conflicts. The contradictions between the local boyars and the Grand Duke of Kyiv led to the former’s increased desire for political independence. The boyars were also driven to this by the need for their own, close princely power, which could quickly implement the norms of the “Russian Truth”, since the power of the grand ducal virniks, governors, and warriors could not provide quick real assistance to the boyars of lands remote from Kiev. The strong power of the local prince was also necessary for the boyars in connection with the growing resistance of the townspeople, the Smerds, to the seizure of their lands, enslavement, and increased extortions. The consequence of this was an increase in clashes between the Smerds and the townspeople and the boyars.
The need for local princely power and the creation of a state apparatus forced local boyars to invite the prince and his retinue to their lands. But when inviting the prince, the boyars were inclined to see in him only a police and military force that did not interfere in boyar affairs. The princes and squad also benefited from such an invitation. The prince received a permanent reign, his land patrimony, and stopped rushing from one princely table to another. The squad, which was also tired of following from table to table with the prince, was also pleased. Princes and warriors had the opportunity to receive a stable rent-tax. At the same time, the prince, having settled in one land or another, as a rule, was not satisfied with the role assigned to him by the boyars, but sought to concentrate all power in his hands, limiting the rights and privileges of the boyars. This inevitably led to a struggle between the prince and the boyars.
The growth and strengthening of cities as new political and cultural centers
During the period of feudal fragmentation, the number of cities in Russian lands reached 224. Their economic and political role as centers of a particular land increased. It was on the cities that the local boyars and the prince relied in the fight against the Grand Duke of Kyiv. The increasing role of the boyars and local princes led to the revival of city veche meetings. The veche, a unique form of feudal democracy, was a political body. In fact, it was in the hands of the boyars, which excluded real decisive participation in the government of ordinary townspeople. The boyars, controlling the veche, tried to use the political activity of the townspeople to their advantage. Very often the veche was used as an instrument of pressure not only on the great, but also on the local prince, forcing him to act in the interests of local nobility. Thus, cities, as local political and economic centers that gravitated towards their lands, were a stronghold for the decentralization aspirations of local princes and nobility.
The first strife.
After the death of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich in 1015, a long war began between his numerous sons, who ruled separate parts of Rus'. The instigator of the strife was Svyatopolk the Accursed, who killed his brothers Boris and Gleb. IN internecine wars Prince-brothers brought to Rus' either the Pechenegs, or the Poles, or mercenary detachments of the Varangians. In the end, the winner was Yaroslav the Wise, who divided Rus' (along the Dnieper) with his brother Mstislav of Tmutarakan from 1024 to 1036, and then, after the death of Mstislav, became an “autocrat”.
After the death of Yaroslav the Wise in 1054, a significant number of sons, relatives and cousins of the Grand Duke ended up in Rus'.
Each of them had one or another “fatherland”, their own domain, and each, to the best of their ability, sought to increase the domain or exchange it for a richer one. This created a tense situation in all the princely centers and in Kyiv itself. Researchers sometimes call the time after the death of Yaroslav the time of feudal fragmentation, but this cannot be considered correct, since real feudal fragmentation occurs when individual lands crystallize, large cities grow, leading these lands, when each sovereign principality establishes its own princely dynasty. All this appeared in Rus' only after 1132, and in the second half of the 11th century. everything was changeable, fragile and unstable. Princely strife ruined the people and the squad, undermined Russian statehood, but did not introduce any new political form.
In the last quarter of the 11th century. In the difficult conditions of the internal crisis and the constant threat of external danger from the Polovtsian khans, the princely strife acquired the character of a nationwide disaster. The grand-ducal throne became the object of contention: Svyatoslav Yaroslavich expelled his elder brother Izyaslav from Kyiv, “labelling the beginning of the expulsion of the brothers.”
The strife became especially terrible after Svyatoslav’s son Oleg entered into allied relations with the Polovtsians and repeatedly brought the Polovtsian hordes to Rus' for a selfish solution to the princely quarrels.
Oleg’s enemy was the young Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, who reigned in border Pereyaslavl. Monomakh managed to assemble a princely congress in Lyubech in 1097, the task of which was to assign “fatherland” to the princes, condemn the instigator of the strife Oleg and, if possible, eliminate future strife in order to resist the Polovtsians with united forces.
However, the princes were powerless to establish order not only throughout the Russian land, but even within their princely circle of relatives, cousins, and nephews. Immediately after the congress, a new strife broke out in Lyubech, which lasted for several years. The only force that, in those conditions, could really stop the rotation of princes and princely squabbles was the boyars - the main part of the then young and progressive feudal class. Boyar program at the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th centuries. consisted of limiting princely tyranny and excesses of princely officials, eliminating strife and the general defense of Rus' from the Polovtsians. Coinciding in these points with the aspirations of the townspeople, this program reflected the general interests of the people and was certainly progressive.
In 1093, after the death of Vsevolod Yaroslavich, the people of Kiev invited the insignificant Turov prince Svyatopolk to the throne, but they miscalculated significantly, since he turned out to be a bad commander and a greedy ruler.
Svyatopolk died in 1113; his death served as a signal for a widespread uprising in Kyiv. The people attacked the courts of princely rulers and moneylenders. The Kiev boyars, bypassing the princely seniority, chose Vladimir Monomakh as the Grand Duke, who reigned successfully until his death in 1125. After him, the unity of Rus' was still maintained under his son Mstislav (1125-1132), and then, in the words of the chronicler, “everyone fell apart Russian land" into separate independent reigns.
Essence
The loss of state unity of Rus' weakened and separated its forces in the face of the growing threat of foreign aggression and, above all, steppe nomads. All this predetermined the gradual decline of the Kyiv land from the 13th century. For some time, under Monamakh and Mstislav, Kyiv rose again. These princes were able to repel the nomadic Polovtsians.
Rus' broke up into 14 principalities, and a republican form of government was established in Novgorod. In each principality, the princes, together with the boyars, “thought about the land system and the rath.” Princes declared wars, made peace and various alliances. The Grand Duke was the first (senior) among equal princes. Princely congresses have been preserved, where issues of all-Russian politics were discussed. The princes were bound by a system of vassal relations. It should be noted that for all the progressiveness of feudal fragmentation, it had one significant negative aspect. Constant strife between the princes, which either subsided or flared up with renewed vigor, exhausted the strength of the Russian lands and weakened their defense capability in the face of external danger. The collapse of Rus' did not, however, lead to the collapse of the Old Russian people, a historically established linguistic, territorial, economic and cultural community. In the Russian lands, a single concept of Rus', the Russian land, continued to exist. “Oh, Russian land, you are already over the hill!” - proclaimed the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” During the period of feudal fragmentation, three centers emerged in the Russian lands: the Vladimir-Suzdal, Galician-Volyn principalities and the Novgorod feudal republic.
Prince's power
Princely power.
The political system of the Russian lands and principalities had local features due to differences in the level and pace of development of the productive forces, feudal land ownership, and the maturity of feudal production relations. In some lands, princely power, as a result of a stubborn struggle that continued with varying success, was able to subjugate the local nobility and strengthen itself. In the Novgorod land, on the contrary, a feudal republic was established, in which the princely power lost the role of the head of state and began to play a subordinate, predominantly military-service role.
With the triumph of feudal fragmentation, the all-Russian significance of the power of the Kyiv Grand Dukes was gradually reduced to a nominal "eldership" among other princes. Connected to each other by a complex system of suzerainty and vassalage (due to the complex hierarchical structure of land ownership), the rulers and feudal nobility of the principalities, with all their local independence, were forced to recognize the eldership of the strongest among them, who united their efforts to resolve issues that could not be decided by the forces of one principality or affect the interests of a number of principalities.
Already from the second half of the 12th century, the strongest principalities stood out, the rulers of which became “great”, “eldest” in their lands, representing in them the top of the entire feudal hierarchy, the supreme head, without whom the vassals could not do and in relation to whom they were at the same time in a state of continuous rebellion.
Political centers.
Until the middle of the 12th century, such a head in the feudal hierarchy throughout Rus' was the Kiev prince. From the second half of the 12th century. his role passed to the local great princes, who in the eyes of contemporaries, as the “eldest” princes, were responsible for the historical destinies of Rus' (the idea of \u200b\u200bthe ethnic-state unity of which continued to be preserved).
At the end of the XII - beginning of the XIII century. In Rus', three main political centers were identified, each of which had a decisive influence on the political life in their neighboring lands and principalities: for North-Eastern and Western (and to a large extent for North-Western and Southern) Rus' - the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality ; for Southern and Southwestern Rus' - the Galician-Volyn principality; for North-Western Rus' - Novgorod feudal republic.
In conditions of feudal fragmentation, the role of all-Russian and land congresses (sejms) of princes and vassals sharply increased, at which issues of inter-princely relations were considered and relevant agreements were concluded, issues of organizing the fight against the Polovtsians and carrying out other joint events were discussed. But the attempts of the princes by convening such congresses to smooth out the most negative consequences of the loss of state unity of Rus', to connect their local interests with the problems facing them on an all-Russian (or all-land) scale ultimately failed due to the incessant strife between them.
Vassals and overlords
Causes and consequences of feudal fragmentation.
I. Periods of development of the feudal state:
1. Early feudal state.
2. Feudal fragmentation.
II. Feudal fragmentation- a natural stage in the development of a feudal state, the process of fragmenting the state into small parts under the weak power of the Grand Duke.
III. Reasons for F.R.
1097 1132
1. Remnants of tribal isolation. 1. Development of feudal relations:
2. The struggle of princes for the best principalities, the formation of a princely-boyar
and territories. land ownership - seizure of communal lands,
3. The dominance of subsistence farming and the organization of the coercive apparatus
isolation, self-sufficiency, independence from the center
weak economic ties. 2. Strengthening economic and
political power of cities as
centers of independent principalities.
3. Weakening of Kyiv (non-payment of tribute by cities,
raids of nomads, decline in trade along the Dnieper).
4. Elimination of external danger (?)
IV. Consequences of F.R.:
| Positive consequences | Negative consequences |
| 1. The cessation of the movements of princes in search of a richer and more honorable throne; appanage princes ceased to perceive their cities as temporary appanages and strengthened individual principalities; growth and strengthening of cities. 2. Economic and cultural upsurge: * development of agriculture, crafts, development of internal trade * construction, laying roads * local chronicles... 3. Preservation of ethnic unity: * single language, * Orthodox religion, * legislation - Russian Pravda, * national consciousness of unity. | 1. Weak central government. 2. Weakening of Rus'’s defenses – vulnerability to external enemies. 3. Continuation of strife and discord between the princes. 4. Fragmentation of individual principalities into smaller parts between the heirs. 5. Conflicts between princes and boyars. |
V. The struggle for power between princes and boyars.
Boyars Prince Veche
Descendants of the tribal nobility, formerly the supreme body of the city
senior warriors, ruler of the state, self-government,
large landowners. now the ruler is the people's assembly.
Boyar Duma- Council of the boyars of the principality.
with the prince.
4. Support - service people (for service - land, nobility).Prerequisites for political fragmentation in Rus':
1.Social:
a) The social structure of Russian society has become more complex, its layers in individual lands and cities have become more defined: large boyars, clergy, merchants, artisans, the lower parts of the city, including serfs. Rural residents developed dependence on landowners. All this new Rus' no longer needed the previous early medieval centralization. The new economic structure required a different scale of state than before. Huge Rus', with its very superficial political cohesion, necessary primarily for defense against an external enemy, for organizing long-distance campaigns of conquest, now no longer met the needs of large cities with their branched feudal hierarchy, developed trade-crafts layers, needs patrimonial owners, striving to have power close to their interests - and not in Kiev, and not even in the form of a Kiev governor, but their own close one, here on the spot, which could fully and decisively defend their interests.
b) The transition to arable farming contributed to the sedentary lifestyle of the rural population and increased the desire vigilantes to land ownership. Therefore, the transformation of vigilantes into landowners began (based on princely awards). The squad became less mobile. The warriors were now interested in permanently staying near their estates and strived for political independence.
In this regard, in the 12-13th centuries. The system of immunities has become widespread - a system that liberates boyars- landowners from princely administration and court and gave them the rights to independent action in their domains.
That is, the main reason for fragmentation was the natural process of the emergence of private land ownership and subsidence squads to the ground.
2. Economic:
Gradually, individual fiefs are strengthened and begin to produce all products only for their own consumption, and not for the market ( natural economy). Commodity exchange between individual economic units practically ceases. Those. folding system subsistence farming contributes to the isolation of individual economic units.
3. Political:
The main role in the collapse of the state was played by local boyars; local princes did not want to share their income with Great The Kyiv prince, and in this they were actively supported by the local boyars, who needed strong princely power locally.
4. Foreign policy:
Weakening Byzantium due to attacks Normans and the Seljuks reduced trade on the “route from the Varangians to the Greeks.” The Crusaders' campaigns opened up a more direct route of communication between Asia and Europe through East Coast Mediterranean Sea. Trade routes moved to central Europe. Rus' lost the status of a world trade intermediary and the factor that united Slavic tribes. This completed the collapse of the unified state and contributed to the movement of the political center from the southwest to the northeast to Vladimir-Suzdal land.
Kyiv finds itself away from the main trade routes. The most active traders are: Novgorod with Europe and German cities; Galicia (safer here) - with northern Italian cities; Kyiv is turning into an outpost in the fight against Polovtsians. The population is leaving for safer places: the northeast ( Vladimir-Suzdal Principality and southwest ( Galicia-Volyn Principality)
Consequences of political fragmentation.
1. In the conditions of the formation of new economic regions and the formation of new political entities, there was a steady development peasant farms, new arable lands were developed, there was an expansion and quantitative multiplication of estates, which for their time became the most progressive form of farming, although this happened due to the labor of dependent peasant population.
2. Within the framework of princely states, it gained strength Russian church, which had a strong influence on culture.
3. The political collapse of Rus' was never complete:
a) The power of the great Kyiv princes, although sometimes illusory, existed. The Principality of Kiev, although formally, cemented all of Rus'
b) The all-Russian church retained its influence. Kyiv metropolitans led the entire church organization. The Church opposed civil strife, and the oath on the cross was one of the forms of peace agreements between warring princes.
c) The counterbalance to the final collapse was the constantly existing external danger to the Russian lands from Polovtsians, accordingly, the Kiev prince acted as the defender of Rus'.
4. However, fragmentation contributed to the decline of the military power of the Russian lands. This had the most painful effect in the 13th century, during the Mongol-Tatar invasion.
