Main stages of Russian history. Features of Russian history. Ivan IV the Terrible

The periodization of Russian history contains such time periods of the country's development that differ from each other in political, economic, social, cultural and other fundamental criteria.

Initial periodization. Dozens of periodizations of Russian history are known. Let's take for example those proposed by the patriarchs of Russian history: N.M. Karamzin (main work “History of the Russian State”), S.M. Soloviev (main work “History of Russia since ancient times”), V.O. Klyuchevsky (main work “Course of Russian History”).

N.M. Karamzin identifies three periods in the history of Russia (Table 1):

Table 1

As we can see, N.M. based his periodization. Karamzin laid down the concept: “The history of the people belongs to the king.”

CM. Soloviev identified four periods in Russian history (Table 2):

table 2

Period	Personalized or chronological framework
	From Rurik to Andrey Bogolyubsky	Period of tribal dominance relations in political
	From Andrey Bogolyubsky until the beginning of the 17th century.	Period of tribal struggle and government principles, completed triumph state principle
	a) from Andrei Bogolyubsky to Ivan Kalita	The beginning of the struggle between tribal and state relations
	b) from Ivan Kalita to	Time for the unification of Rus' around Moscow
	c) from Ivan III to the beginning	The period of struggle for complete triumph of the state
	From the beginning of the 17th to the middle of the 18th centuries.	Entry period Russia into the system European countries
	From the middle of the 18th century to the reforms of the 60s of the 19th century.	New period of Russian

Periodization S.M. Solovyov reflects, first of all, the history of the state.

IN. Klyuchevsky also identified four periods in the history of Russia (Table 3):

Table 3

period	Chronological framework
	From the 7th to the 13th centuries.	Rus' Dnieper, city, shopping
	From the XIII to the middle of the XV century.	Upper Volga Rus', appanage princely, free agricultural
	From the half of the 15th to the second decade of the 17th century.	Great Rus', Moscow, royal-boyar, military-agricultural
	From the beginning of the 17th to the half of the 19th century.	All-Russian period imperial-noble, serf period economy, agricultural and factory

The basis for the periodization of the historical development of Russia V.O. Klyuchevsky put more emphasis on economic development, focusing considerable attention on the factor of colonization.

Meanwhile, we believe that the periodization of N.M. Karamzina, S.M. Solovyova, V.O. Klyuchevsky were acceptable for their time (the level of scientific development of historiography and source studies), today it is enough to know them, and not to use them as the basis for teaching a university history course - too much time has passed since then.

The time of obvious active searches for the periodization of history was the end of the 19th and 20th centuries. At the same time, the greatest controversy has always been caused by the first period of development of the Russian state.

In textbooks pre-revolutionary (D.I. Ilovaisky and others) and post-revolutionary (M.V. Nechkina and A.V. Fadeev, B.A. Rybakov, etc.), including modern times (late 90s. XX century - A.N. Sakharov and V.I. Buganov, Sh.M. Munchaev and V.M. Ustinov, etc.), it is easy to notice that, for example, the concepts of Kievan Rus and Novgorod are used either sporadically or not used at all. It must be assumed that the textbooks reflect different concepts of the origin of Rus'. There are many of them, but in modern conditions the most common are the Norman, Kiev and theories of the heterogeneous origin of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples (at the same time, we do not accept the “theories” of Fomenko, Koder, Kondyba and Zolin with their “exotic” concepts of the history of Rus', far from scientific justification and openly Russophobic-falsified). Textbooks most often discuss the Norman, or “Kievan” version of the origin of Rus'.

According to the “Kyiv” concept, Kyiv and only Kyiv is the beginning of Russian statehood. At the same time, Novgorod is not assigned any role; Vladimir and Moscow are considered a continuation of development Kievan Rus.

The Norman theory to a certain extent confirms the Novgorod beginning of Rus', but at the same time it seems to infringe on the pride of the Russians: after all, according to the chronicle, the Varangians began to reign in the Novgorod land - the brothers Rurik (in Novgorod), Sineus (in Beloozero) and Truvor (in Izborsk). 1

And if these lands are considered the fundamental basis of the Russian state, then such an assumption seems to strengthen the Norman theory. Based on this, apparently, the emphasis was placed on “Kievan Rus” as the only beginning of the Russian state.

I would like to give some thoughts regarding the Norman roots of Russian statehood. Of the three princes mentioned in the chronicle (PVL), only Rurik was proven to be a real person. As for Sineus and Truvor, their appearance on the historical stage, according to A.M. Kuznetsova, nothing more than a “curiosity of historiography.” Academician B.A. Rybakov in his work “Early Centuries of Russian History” writes: “Historians have long paid attention to the anecdotal nature of Rurik’s “brothers”..., “brothers” turned out to be a Russian translation of Swedish words. It is said about Rurik that he came “with his family” (“Sineuse” - “his relatives” - Sineus) and his faithful squad (“Truwar” - “faithful squad” - Truvor) ... In other words, the chronicle included a retelling of some Scandinavian legend about the activities of Rurik (the author of the chronicle, a Novgorodian, who did not know Swedish well, mistook the mention in the oral care (presentation - I.P.) of the king’s traditional entourage for the names of his brothers). The reliability of the legend as a whole... is not great.” 2

Regarding the beginning of Russian statehood, we will make the following assumption. Many detachments (teams) of the Varangians (Normans, Scandinavians) rushed (for various reasons, in our opinion, the main one was material and economic) to the West, South and East for plunder, seizure of lands, with the aim of settling on them, etc. One of these detachments, led by the military leader Rurik, who was looking for land for plunder, ended up in the Novgorod land, and on a short time captured Novgorod, becoming its ruler (according to another version, the Ilmen Slavs called him to reign together with the “brothers” Sineus and Truvor in Novgorod; the fact of inviting the Varangians to reign in the Russian land has not been established). Meanwhile, the Varangians were soon expelled from Novgorod. N.M. Karamzin writes: “The Slavic boyars (led by the elder, Prince Gostomysl - I.P.), dissatisfied with the power of the conquerors, which destroyed their own..., armed (the Novgorodians - I.P.) against the Normans, and drove them out...". 3 Consequently, in Novgorod there was a princely power headed by Prince Gostomysl (the first half of the 9th century). Moreover, in the “Life of St. Stephen of Sourozh,” who was for a long time an archbishop in the Byzantine colony in Crimea in the city of Sourozh (present-day Sudak) and died in 787, talks about the Novgorod prince Bravlin: “The warlike and strong prince of Russian Novgorod... Bravlin... with a large army he devastated the places from Korsun to Kerch, approached Surozh with great force... broke the iron gates, entered the city...". 4 And thus, “Life...” testifies that Novgorod already existed in the 8th century. and Bravlin reigned in it. Since the reign of Bravlin (second half of the 8th century) and Gostomysl (first half of the 9th century) already presupposes statehood, we consider the second half of the 8th century to be the beginning of Rus' as a state formation. (Novgorod), and not the end of the 9th century. (connected with the “calling” of the Varangians to reign in Kyiv.) It can be assumed that on this basis A.T. Stepanishchev considers Novgorod the first capital of the Old Russian state and therefore the “Norman theory” of the origin of the Russian state is untenable from his point of view. Taking into account the arguments of A.T. Stepanishchev about Novgorod - the first capital of the Old Russian state - the periodization of the last two centuries of the first millennium and the first three centuries of the second millennium could have the following specific form, coinciding with the time of the transfer of the capital of the Russian lands: Novgorod period - until 882 G.; Kyiv period - until 1157; Vladimir-Suzdal period - until 1326; Moscow period - after 1326 5

To a certain extent, one could agree with the reasoning of A.T. Stepanishchev. But still, I would like to clarify the situation regarding the “first capital” and the beginning of Russian statehood. According to the research of academician B.A. Rybakov “... who in Kyiv began first than the principality...”, he refers to the 6th century. (during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Justinian (527-565), which is also dated by Byzantine coins). In all likelihood, it was at this time that several forest-steppe Slavic tribes merged into one large union. The union of the Middle Dnieper Slavic tribes was called Russia (primacy in the new union, one might think, originally belonged to the Rus, but Polyansky Kyiv became the capital). At the turn of the VIII-IX centuries. The Dnieper Union is growing into a super-union, uniting several unions of Slavic tribes. Such an association was already a real state or was becoming one. This is yet another evidence of the inconsistency of the “Norman theory” of the origin of the Russian state.

In our opinion, Novgorod statehood took shape already at the beginning of the 8th century, in the form of an early feudal republic, administratively divided into pyatinas, headed by elected governing bodies - posadnik, tysyatsky and veche - which carried out direct democracy (rule of people) and survived until the end of the 15th century. - early 16th centuries Kiev statehood began to take shape in the 9th century, in the form of an early feudal monarchy, administratively and territorially divided into volosts and appanages, with the Grand Duke and a feudal assembly of nobility at the head. It can be assumed that two centers were formed with various types(republic and monarchy) of Russian statehood. The interaction of these two centers, as well as international interaction with other states (Novgorod with the Hanseatic League, Scandinavian countries, etc.; Kiev with Byzantium, Western European countries, etc.) formed the Old Russian state (the specifics of Novgorod statehood remained until the 15th and even the 18th centuries). 6

After 1917, the Norman theory became unacceptable for Soviet historiography and source research for political, ideological and patriotic reasons. Therefore, along with the Norman theory, Novgorod was also pushed aside as part of it. At the same time, the concept of “Kievan Rus” was not particularly advertised, and the development of the theory and heterogeneity of the origin of Russia and Ukraine was hampered.

Another relevant point in developing a periodization of Russian history is the abolition of serfdom as a main milestone in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Many authors argue that the Manifesto of February 19, 1861 gave practically nothing to Russia and the situation of the peasants worsened even more, etc., although they mark this act as a turning point in the movement towards capitalism. There are also supporters of another concept, who propose to consider the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905-1907 as the beginning of the development of capitalism in Russia. and the subsequent Stolypin agrarian reform. Moreover, parliamentarism as a sign of bourgeoisism arose precisely in these years. There is something to think about here, since Stolypin’s agrarian reform also gave Russia little, it even caused protests from the peasantry, which even led to clashes with the police.

Along with the uncertainty of certain provisions of the periodization of Russian history until October 1917, there are difficulties in assessing the time from 1917 to 1991, etc. Based on an analysis of the concepts of many modern historians, we can propose the use of the following periodization in a university course on the history of Russia (Table 4):

Table 4

	Chronological framework
	From the turn of the 7th-9th centuries. until the 13th century	Education and formation Old Russian states
	From the 13th century until the middle of the 15th century.	Specific fragmentation
	XV – XVIII centuries	United Russians principalities into one centralized state, expansion Russian lands
	XVIII – early XX centuries.	Russian empire
	Late 10's - end 80s of XX century.	Soviet state
	Since the beginning of the 90s.	New Russia (conditional name)

It should be noted that this periodization of Russian history is not indisputable, but it absorbs the diversity of points of view of different authors and specialists. In educational work, one should also consider the re-odization given in the textbooks that students use.

The oldest traces of human habitation on the territory of Russia were found in Siberia, the North Caucasus and the Kuban region and date back to a period of approximately 3-2 million years BC. In the VI-V centuries BC. e. Greek colonies appeared on the Black Sea coast, which later turned into the Scythian and Bosporan kingdoms.

Slavs and their neighbors

By the 5th century AD Slavic tribes occupy lands on the shores of the Baltic Sea, along the Dnieper and Danube, and in the upper reaches of the Oka and Volga. In addition to hunting, the Slavs are engaged in agriculture, and trade is gradually developing. The main trade routes are rivers. By the 9th century, several Slavic principalities had formed, the main ones being Kyiv and Novgorod.

Russian state

In 882, the Novgorod prince Oleg captured Kyiv, and, uniting the Slavic north and south, created the Old Russian state. Kievan Rus is considered both in Byzantium and in neighboring Western states. Under Oleg's successor, Igor, the son of Rurik, an agreement was concluded with Byzantium to protect its borders from nomads. In 988, under Prince Vladimir, the Baptism of pagan Rus' took place. The adoption of Orthodoxy strengthens ties with Byzantium; along with the new faith, Greek culture, science and art spread among the Slavs. In Rus' they use a new Slavic alphabet, chronicles are being written. Under Prince Yaroslav the Wise, the first set of laws of the Kyiv state was compiled - “Russian Truth”. From the 30s of the 12th century, the division of the united state into a number of independent principalities began.

Yoke

From the beginning of the 13th century, the huge army of Genghis Khan Temujin devastated Asia and Transcaucasia. Having conquered and imposed tribute on the peoples of the Caucasus, the Mongol army first appeared in Russian history, defeating the combined forces of the Slavic princes and Polovtsians on the Kalka River in 1223. After 13 years, the grandson of Genghis Khan Batu comes to Rus' from the east and one by one defeats the troops of the Russian princes, in 1240 he takes Kiev, goes to Western Europe and, returning, founds his own state in the lower reaches of the Volga - the Golden Horde, and imposes tribute on the Russian lands. From now on, princes receive power over their lands only with the sanction of the khans of the Golden Horde. This period went down in Russian history as the Mongol-Tatar yoke.

Grand Duchy of Moscow

From the beginning of the 14th century, largely through the efforts of Ivan Kalita and his heirs, a new center of Russian principalities was gradually formed - Moscow. By the end of the 14th century, Moscow had become strong enough to openly oppose the Horde. In 1380, Prince Dimitri defeated the army of Khan Mamai on the Kulikovo field. Under Ivan III, Moscow stopped paying tribute to the Horde: Khan Akhmat, during the “standing on the Ugra River” in 1480, did not dare to fight and retreated. The Mongol-Tatar yoke ends.

Time of Ivan the Terrible

Under Ivan IV the Terrible, (officially the first Russian Tsar since 1547), the collection of lands lost as a result of the Tatar-Mongol yoke and Polish-Lithuanian expansion is being actively carried out, and a policy of further expansion of state borders is also being pursued. The Russian state includes the Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberian khanates. At the end of the XVI - mid-17th century centuries, with a strong delay compared to the countries of Central Europe, is being formalized serfdom.
In 1571 Moscow was burned by troops Crimean Khan Devlet-Gireya. The following year, 1572, the 120,000-strong Crimean-Turkish army marching against Rus' was destroyed, which effectively put an end to the centuries-long struggle of Rus' with the steppe.

Time of Troubles and the first Romanovs

With the death of Ivan the Terrible's son Fyodor in 1598, the Rurik dynasty was interrupted. The Time of Troubles begins, a time of struggle for the throne and Polish-Swedish intervention. The Time of Troubles ends with the convening of a national militia, the expulsion of the Poles and the election of Mikhail Fedorovich, the first representative of the Romanov dynasty, to the kingdom (February 21, 1613). During his reign, Russian expeditions began to explore Eastern Siberia, Russia reached the Pacific Ocean. In 1654, Ukraine became part of the Russian state with the rights of autonomy. Under Alexei Mikhailovich, the influence of the West is increasing.

Russian empire

Tsar Peter I radically reformed the Russian state, establishing an absolute monarchy headed by the emperor, to whom even the church was subordinate. The boyars turn into the nobility. The army and education system are being modernized, and many things are being arranged according to Western models. As a result of the Northern War, Russian lands captured by Sweden at the end of the 16th century were returned to Russia. The port city of St. Petersburg was founded at the mouth of the Neva, where the capital of Russia was moved in 1712. Under Peter, the first newspaper in Russia, Vedomosti, was published and a new calendar was introduced on January 1, 1700, where the new year begins in January (before that, the year was counted from September 1).
After Peter I, the Age of palace coups began, a time of noble conspiracies and frequent overthrows of unwanted emperors. Anna Ivanovna and Elizaveta Petrovna reigned longer than others. Under Elizaveta Petrovna, Moscow University was founded. Under Empress Catherine the Great, the development of America begins, Russia wins access to the Black Sea from Turkey.

Napoleonic Wars

In 1805, Alexander I went to war with Napoleon I, who declared himself Emperor of France. Napoleon wins, one of the conditions of the peace agreement is the cessation of trade with England, to which Alexander I has to agree. In 1809, Russia captured Finland, which belonged to the Swedes, which was part of the Russian Empire. A few years later, Russia resumes trade with England, and in the summer of 1812, Napoleon invades Russia with an army of more than 500 thousand people. The Russian army, outnumbered by more than two times, retreats to Moscow. The people rise to fight the invaders, numerous partisan detachments arise, and the War of 1812 is called the Patriotic War.
At the end of August, the largest battle of the war took place near Moscow near the village of Borodino. The losses on both sides were enormous, but the numerical superiority remained on the side of the French. The head of the Russian army, Field Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov, decides to surrender Moscow to Napoleon without a fight and retreat to save the army. Moscow, occupied by the French, was almost completely destroyed by fires. While retreating to the borders of Russia, Napoleon's army gradually melts away, the Russians pursue the retreating French, and in 1814 the Russian army enters Paris.

The emergence of civil society

In the 19th century, under the influence of the liberal ideas of the West, a stable heterogeneous group of educated people emerged, themselves creating liberal and democratic values, later called the intelligentsia. Its most famous representatives were Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov.
After the end of the war, the revolutionary ideas that penetrated Russia resulted in the failed Decembrist Uprising in 1825. Fearing new uprisings, the state is tightening control over the political, economic and cultural life of the country.
During the long wars with the mountaineers in the first half of the 19th century, Russia annexed the Caucasus, and - partly peacefully, partly through military means - the territories Central Asia(Bukhara and Khiva Khanates, Kazakh zhuzes).

2nd half of the 19th century

In 1861, under Emperor Alexander II, serfdom was abolished in Russia. A number of liberal reforms were also carried out, accelerating the modernization of the country.

Late 19th - early 20th century

At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. Russia is actively developing the Far East, which worries Japan; the government of the Russian Empire believes that a “small victorious war” against the backdrop of growing revolutionary sentiment will improve the internal situation. Japan, however, destroyed part of the Russian ships with a pre-emptive strike, the lack of modern technical equipment Russian army and the incompetence of senior officers completed Russia's defeat in the war. Russia's position in the international arena turns out to be extremely difficult.
In 1914, Russia enters the First World War. The February Revolution of 1917 put an end to the monarchy: Tsar Nicholas II abdicated the throne and power passed to the Provisional Government. In September 1917, the Russian Empire was transformed into the Russian Republic.

Soviet state

However, even after the revolution, it is not possible to restore order in the country; taking advantage of the political chaos, the Bolshevik Party under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin, in alliance with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries and anarchists, seizes power. After the October Revolution, on October 25 (November 7), 1917, the Russian Soviet Republic was proclaimed in the country. The Soviet Republic begins the liquidation of private property and its nationalization. In their desire to establish control, the Bolsheviks did not shy away from extreme measures, subjecting religion, Cossacks and other forms of social organization to repression.
The peace concluded with Germany cost the Soviet state Ukraine, the Baltic states, Poland, part of Belarus and 90 tons of gold, and served as one of the causes of the civil war. In March 1918, the Soviet government moved from Petrograd to Moscow, fearing the capture of the city by the Germans. On the night of July 16-17, 1918, the royal family was shot in Yekaterinburg, their bodies were thrown into the shaft of a collapsed mine.

Civil War

During 1918-1922, Bolshevik supporters fought against their opponents. During the war, Poland, the Baltic republics (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) and Finland seceded from Russia.

USSR, 1920-1930s

On December 30, 1922, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Transcaucasian Federation) was formed. In 1921-1929, the New Economic Policy (NEP) was carried out. Joseph Stalin (Dzhugashvili) becomes the winner in the internal political struggle that flared up after Lenin's death in 1924. In the 1930s, Stalin carried out a “cleansing” of the party apparatus. A system of forced labor camps (GULag) is being created. In 1939-1940, the USSR was annexed Western Belarus, Western Ukraine, Moldova, Western Karelia, Baltic states.

The Great Patriotic War

On June 22, 1941, the Great Patriotic War began with a surprise attack by Nazi Germany. In a relatively short time, German troops were able to advance far into the Soviet state, but were never able to capture Moscow and Leningrad, as a result of which the war, instead of the blitzkrieg planned by Hitler, turned into a protracted one. The battles of Stalingrad and Kursk turned the tide of the war, and Soviet troops went on a strategic offensive. The war ended with the capture of Berlin in May 1945 and the surrender of Germany. According to historians, the number of deaths during military operations and as a result of occupation in the USSR reaches 26 million people.

Soviet-Japanese War

As a result of the war with Japan in 1945, Southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands became part of Russia.

Cold War and Stagnation

As a result of the war, the countries of Eastern Europe (Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany) fell into the Soviet zone of influence. Relations with the West are sharply deteriorating. The so-called Cold War begins - the confrontation between the West and the countries of the socialist camp, which reached its peak in 1962, when a nuclear war almost broke out between the USSR and the USA (the Caribbean crisis). Then the intensity of the conflict gradually subsides, and some progress has been made in relations with the West, in particular, an agreement on economic cooperation with France is signed.
In the 70s, the confrontation between the USSR and the USA weakened. Treaties on the limitation of strategic nuclear weapons (SALT-1 and SALT-2) are concluded. The second half of the 70s is called the “era of stagnation,” when, despite relative stability, the USSR gradually lags behind the advanced Western countries in technological terms.

Perestroika and collapse of the USSR

With Mikhail Gorbachev coming to power in 1985, a policy of perestroika was announced in the USSR, with the aim of solving problems in the social sphere and social production, as well as avoiding the impending economic crisis caused by the arms race. However, this policy leads to a worsening crisis, the collapse of the USSR and the transition to capitalism. In 1991, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was created, which included the RSFSR, Ukraine and Belarus.

A country of remarkable and dramatic history - this is what historians say about it. And indeed, during the 12th centuries of its existence, it went through a lot - the search for religion, invasion, war, unrest, palace coups, perestroika... Each of these stages left a scar, first of all, on the life of the people...

Below are the conventional names of the periods:

1. Ancient Rus', IX-XIII centuries. It is often called the period of Kievan Rus.
2. Tatar-Mongol yoke, XIII-XV centuries.
3. Moscow kingdom, XVI-XVI centuries.
4. Russian Empire, XVIII - early XX centuries.
5. USSR, beginning - end of XX centuries.
6. Since 1991, the period of the Russian Federation began, in which we now live.

And now about everything in more detail. Let us examine in detail, but briefly, the main periods of Russian history.

It all started like this...

No, this is not the first period of Russian history, but only the prerequisites for it. So...

In the 6th and 7th centuries, from the vast plains of Eastern Europe, Slavic tribes moved to the Northern Black Sea region. In the valleys of the Don and Dnieper. These were pagan farmers who worshiped the sun, lightning, and wind.

Gradually, cities began to form: Kyiv, Chernigov, Novgorod, Yaroslavl. Tribal leaders and princes were engaged in the usual activities of that period: they fought with their neighbors - the nomadic tribes of the Pechenegs and Khazars, fought with each other and mercilessly oppressed and robbed their subjects. Gradually, the level of discord and civil strife became more and more noticeable, and the Novgorod elders turned to the Varangians - as the Slavs then called the Scandinavian Vikings - with the words: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us."

Three Varangian princes undertook to restore order: Sineus, Truvor and Rurik. The new princes founded, in essence, the state of Rus'. And the Varangian-Slavic people who inhabited these lands began to be called Russian.

This is where the first period of Russian history begins.

Rurik's reign

Rurik became the founder of the Rurik dynasty, which ruled Russia for several centuries. He himself headed the newly created state from 862 to 879.

After Rurik's death, power passed to his son's guardian, Oleg, for some time. During his short reign (from 879 to 912) he managed to capture Kyiv and make it the capital of Rus'. After which the Russian state began to be called Kievan Rus. This state became so strong that Oleg’s squad captured the capital of Byzantium, Constantinople, or, as the Russians called it, Constantinople.

After Oleg's death, Rurik's son, Igor, ruled for a short time (from 912 to 945). He was killed by the Drevlyans, a neighboring vassal tribe, who rebelled from unimaginable extortions. Olga, Igor's wife, brutally took revenge on the Drevlyans for the death of her husband. But in general, she was a very enlightened ruler. Olga sat on the throne from 945 to 957 and even converted to Christianity, for which she was later canonized as the most revered saint.

New religion

Paganism was no longer suitable for Kievan Rus, a fairly strong and modern state. It was necessary to choose a monotheistic religion. And Prince Vladimir of Kyiv (980-1015), Olga’s grandson, was given a choice of 3 religions:

• Christianity in Roman and Orthodox traditions.
• Islam.
• Judaism, which was professed by the rulers of the then powerful Khazar kingdom.

Prince Vladimir made a historic decision. He chose Orthodoxy - the religion of Byzantium. And this choice became fateful for Russia throughout its subsequent history.

The Baptism of Rus' is one of the most significant events in the first period of Russian history: starting in 988, it was not easy. The most stubborn guardians of the pagan faith were mercilessly destroyed. Many had to be baptized, as they say, “with fire and sword.” However, most of the population calmly accepted the new faith.

The reign of Vladimir in Russian history is considered a bright and joyful page - the best time of Kievan Rus.

New laws

After the death of Vladimir, the throne was occupied for some time by his son Yaroslav (1019-1054), nicknamed, and not without reason, the Wise. He created the first set of laws “Russian Truth”. He patronized scientists, architects and icon painters. He pursued a well-thought-out economic policy.

After Yaroslav, one after another, his sons and grandsons became rulers, at odds with each other. The country split into many principalities.

Historians believe that Kievan Rus ceased to exist in the 12th century - from that moment the 2nd period of Russian history begins.

Life under the yoke

At this time, a powerful military power was formed in the territory of Mongolia, Siberia and Northern China, led by the outstanding commander Genghis Khan. From the nomadic tribes of the Mongols and Tatars, he created an army with a rigid organization, iron discipline and armed with unprecedented siege technology. This army swept across the expanses of Asia like a deadly wave and moved towards Europe. Despite the desperate resistance of some Russian princes, the Mongol-Tatar hordes captured the entire space of Ancient Rus', spreading death, smoke from conflagrations, and violence everywhere. However, the Tatar-Mongol conquerors retained the power of princes loyal to themselves and did not persecute the Orthodox Church, which remained the guardian of culture and the main unifying factor for the Russian people.

Gradually, the Tatar-Mongol conquerors and the Russian principalities established some kind of balance of power and interests. The second period in the development of Russian history lasted about two centuries.

Liberation victories

The Novgorod prince Alexander Nevsky (1252-1264), being in vassal dependence on the conquerors and continuing to pay them tribute, managed to defeat the troops of the knightly Catholic order twice - on the banks of the Neva and on the ice Lake Peipsi.

Prince Alexander Nevsky (Prince of Novgorod, Grand Duke of Kiev, Grand Duke of Vladimir, commander, saint of the Russian Orthodox Church) was then canonized and became, as it were, a symbol of the victory of the Orthodox Russian army over the Catholic knightly orders. Considered one of the patron saints of Russia.

The new capital of Kievan Rus

And so, the initially inconspicuous small Principality of Moscow (originally the inheritance of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir), under the control of smart and prudent rulers, gradually becomes the center of attraction for the rest of the Russian lands. In general, from the day of its foundation, the Moscow state constantly expanded for many centuries, annexing more and more new lands. And do you know what period of Russian history this time belongs to? To the Moscow kingdom of the 16th - 16th centuries, which over the years became so strong that the grandson of the first Moscow prince Ivan Kalita - Prince Dmitry (1359-1389) - managed to gather an army of thousands and move it towards a detachment of Tatars led by commander Mamai.

The battle on the banks of the Don - on the Kulikovo Field - turned into a terrible bloody massacre. And it ended with the victory of the Russian army. And although for many years after this Rus' paid tribute to the Tatar conquerors and was in vassal dependence on them, the victory on the Kulikovo Field had the deepest historical significance. It showed the increased power of Russia and the ability to defeat the enemy in open battle.

But in general, over 2 centuries of the yoke - as the Tatar-Mongol occupation was later called - Russia largely lost various connections with the West. It’s as if frozen on the historical path.

So in Russian history, “East - West” swung towards the East.

Freedom!

In the 15th century, Ivan III (1462-1505), nicknamed the Great by his contemporaries, became the Prince of Moscow. Under him, Rus' stopped paying tribute to the Tatar conquerors. The reign of Ivan the Great was a happy time for Rus'.

He married the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Sophia Paleologus, and received a double-headed eagle as the state emblem of Russia. Under him, connections with Europe were established. Foreign architects and builders came to Russia. In particular, the Italian masters who, together with Russian architects, rebuilt the Russian Kremlin.

Under him, the idea of ​​a Russian state finally appeared. It was confirmed by historical reality, and also reflected in the minds of the country's citizens, who began to understand that their country is Russia. And this is not only the country of the Russians, but also, after the fall in 1453, the center of world Orthodoxy.

Bloody time of Ivan the Terrible

The years of the reign of Ivan IV (1533-1584), who ascended the throne in 1547, became one of the most controversial and bloody pages in the history of Russia. The king carried out the necessary reforms:

• Issued a new set of laws (Code of 1550).
• Streamlined the tax system.
• Created a well-trained rifle army.

As a result of successful wars, he annexed the Kazan, Astrakhan, and then the Siberian kingdoms to Russia. But he went down in world history as Ivan the Terrible - a bloody tyrant, distinguished by extreme cruelty. The atmosphere of palace intrigue, murder and treachery, combined with mental abnormalities (this is the point of view of historians), made the king, as is often the case with tyrants, obsessed with persecution mania. Enemies and traitors seemed to him everywhere, and he executed these subjects, and for the most part imaginary enemies, in the most sophisticated ways.

Ivan the Terrible created a personal army - the so-called guardsmen. These were young people dressed all in black and boundlessly devoted to the king. During the day they chopped off the heads of the Tsar's enemies, terrifying the people, and at night they feasted in close company with Ivan the Terrible. The victims of the guardsmen were primarily boyar families - descendants of many ancient families. The cruelty of the formidable king knew no bounds. The whole country, drenched in blood, lived in constant fear. In a fit of furious anger, the king killed his eldest son with a blow from his staff.

After the death of Ivan IV, his weak-willed and indecisive son Fyodor ascended the throne (reigned 1584-1598). In fact, the country was ruled by Boris Godunov, a boyar and close adviser to the last Russian tsars from the Rurik dynasty, which ended with the death of Fedor.

Since 1598, Boris Godunov, who ascended the throne at the end of the 16th century, became the official tsar in Rus'. He ruled fairly until 1605 and tried to reform life in Russia and strengthen statehood. This was a historic chance for Russia to make a decisive breakthrough in its development. But reformers were never loved in Rus'...

Invasion of the Liars

There were various rumors among the people, sometimes the most incredible. Some of them concerned the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible, Dmitry, who died in infancy from an accident. The Poles, who had long dreamed of seizing part of the Russian lands and expanding their influence in the east, decided to take advantage of this. A man appeared in Poland posing as the miraculously surviving Tsarevich Dmitry. On his way from Poland to Moscow, False Dmitry received jubilation and support from the people dissatisfied with Godunov's rule. The so-called Time of Troubles began. A time of anarchy and lawlessness, which was almost worse than the time of despotism of Ivan the Terrible.

Moscow was flooded with Poles, who eventually outraged the people. Without sitting on the throne for even a year, False Dmitry was overthrown and executed.

A representative of the famous boyar family Vasily Shuisky (1606-1610) was declared tsar - and immediately the country was swept by a peasant uprising.

The weak power of the new king gave rise to many contenders for the throne, supported by various forces. Cossack detachments came to Moscow, called upon to guard the country's borders, and joined the struggle for power.

Poles, Kazakhs, Swedes - whoever tried to establish their control over Muscovy. The patience of the Russian people finally ran out. He was able to unite in the face of external and internal threats. The headman of Nizhny Novgorod Kuzma Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky convened a people's militia. We moved from Novgorod to Moscow. All interventionists were expelled. This time marked the end of the period in Russian history known as the “Moscow State.”

Romanovs, off to the start!

A new Russian Tsar, Mikhail, was elected from the family of Romanov boyars (1613-1645). Thus a new dynasty of Russian monarchs was born, and a new period in the history of Russia began. However, we have not yet reached the empire... After all, this was under Peter I. In the meantime...

During the reign of Mikhail Romanov and his son, Tsar Alexei (1645-1676), the Russian people received a peaceful respite. In the last third of the 17th century, Russia achieved political stability, a certain economic prosperity, and even expanded its borders.

To survive and take its place in the world, Russia in the 17th century needed urgent modernization. As if obeying the call of history, a man appeared who can safely be called a genius - it was Tsar Peter I (1682-1725). He set the goal of his life to promote Russia among the leading European powers.

But let's go back a few years. After the death of her father, Tsar Alexei, her sister Sophia sat on the throne, whose main support was the detachments of archers. A kind of guard that defended traditional foundations.

Peter dealt with them very harshly and even cut off the heads of the archers himself on Red Square near the Moscow Kremlin. In the fight against the conservative boyar opposition, clinging to old traditions, he did not even spare his own son Alexei, sending him to execution. However, Peter was cruel only to those who were an obstacle to the fulfillment of his super-ideas - to put Russia among the leading European countries.

He completely changed life in the country:

• He went to Europe with a large retinue, whom he forced to study crafts, engineering, economics, and morals.
• He sent the sons of nobles to study in Europe.
• He ordered the boyars to shave their beards, dress the ladies in low-cut dresses and hold balls according to the European model. The elite of society - the ruling class - has completely changed, even externally. The social history of Russia during the imperial period was incredibly rich.
• He himself, however, under a false name, worked for some time as a carpenter in order to master shipbuilding.
• With the help of young merchants, he created a new industry that provided the army with weapons.
• He waged wars with the Swedes, the Turks, and again with the Swedes, in order to annex new territories, and most importantly, to provide the country with access to the sea. After all, until now the Russian state did not have its ports either on the Black or Baltic Seas.

Moreover, on the shores of the Baltic, in wild places where there were only forests and swamps, he built the new capital of the Russian Empire - the city of St. Petersburg, which became a “window to Europe” for Russia.

Peter occupies a special place in Russian history. He left behind absolutely new country. History itself is now divided into 2 periods: pre-Petrine Russia and post-Petrine Russia.

Palace coups

After the death of Peter in 1725, the so-called era of palace coups begins in the history of Russia. The periods of reign of emperors are limited to the time convenient to the guard.

First, Catherine I Alekseevna, Peter’s wife, became empress for 2 years (1725-1727). Then power for 3 years (1727-1730) passed to Peter's grandson - Peter II Alekseevich. And then for 10 years (1730-1740) the guards placed Peter’s niece, Anna Ioanovna, on the throne. In fact, during this period the country was ruled by its favorite, the cruel Ernst Biron.

After Anna's death, for a short time (1740-1741), the infant Ivan VI Antonovich was declared emperor, whose regency was carried out by his mother Anna Leopoldovna, Anna Ioanovna's niece. She was successfully overthrown by the Guard and installed on the throne by Peter's daughter, Elizabeth (1741-1761), who had no children. After her death, the throne passed to her nephew, Peter III Fedorovich (1761-1702). He married the German princess Sophia August Frederica of Anhalt-Zerbt, who received the name Catherine in Russia. In the end, the guards overthrew Peter III and placed Catherine on the throne.

As a result, in 75 years after Peter there were 7 rulers in Russia.

Golden Age of the Russian Empire

The years of Catherine II's reign are called the Golden Age. Under her, Russia continued the path outlined by Peter - the country fought both in the West and in the South. A series of Russian-Turkish wars eventually annexed Crimea and the Northern Black Sea region to Russia, opening access to the warm waters of the Mediterranean Sea.

After several divisions of Poland, Russia included: Lithuania, Belarus, and the western regions of Ukraine.

Following Moscow University, opened under Elizabeth, thanks to Catherine the Great, several educational institutions appeared in the capital St. Petersburg.

Catherine II was liberal-minded. She called her subjects not slaves, but free people. True, the peasant uprising (1773-1775) led by Stepan Pugachev frightened the empress so much that she curtailed her liberal projects. In particular, a new set of laws.

Catherine, considering her son Paul (1796-1801) not a very smart young man, during her reign did not even let him come close to the throne. Therefore, having seized power, he began to eradicate all “freethinking”. He introduced strict censorship, prohibited Russian citizens from studying abroad, and foreigners from freely entering Russia. He broke off diplomatic relations with England and sent 40 regiments of Don Cossacks to conquer India. However, they had neither maps nor an action plan. As a result of a conspiracy in which Paul's son Alexander participated, he was overthrown and killed.

Alexander I (1801-1825) became the new emperor. He began his reign by repealing his father's decrees. He brought back innocent victims from exile. And in general he was determined to carry out various liberal reforms. Under him, for the first time, imperial Russia began to wage a defensive war against France.

Not far from Moscow, near the village of Borodino (1812), a famous battle took place, as a result of which neither side managed to win a decisive victory.

Emperor Nicholas I Pavlovich (1825-1855) struggled intensely with the ideas of change that had penetrated the country. During the 30 years of his reign, he created an ideal, absolute monarchy. Authoritarian thinking also affected foreign policy. Starting another Russian-Turkish war, Nicholas faced opposition from European powers. Bound by allied obligations with Turkey and the Ottoman Empire, England and France moved their troops into the Black Sea, as a result of which they inflicted a humiliating defeat on Russia. This dragged Russia into another crisis.

Nicholas I is succeeded on the throne by his son Alexander II (1855-1881). His reign was associated with the abolition of serfdom in the country (1861). This event became one of the most important in the social history of Russia during the imperial period. That is why Alexander II went down in history as the “tsar-liberator.”

The new monarch actively implemented reforms:

• Judicial.
• Military.
• Zemskaya.

However, some found them too serious, while others found them insufficient. The Tsar found himself in the crossfire of conservatives and liberals. In 1881, as a result of an assassination attempt on the banks of the Catherine Canal, he was killed.

Threats of terrorism forced Alexander III (1881-1894) to settle away from St. Petersburg, in the well-guarded Gatchina Palace. His reign can be described as a victory for conservatism - reforms ceased, the effect of some liberal laws was limited.

On the eve of the USSR

The change of the 19th and 20th centuries is a transitional time between the main periods in the history of Russia. The Empire will be replaced by the Union... Soon...

Perhaps the most unfortunate Russian Tsar was the son of Alexander III - Nicholas II (1894-1917). He was burdened by the fact that he was born an heir. He was frightened by the prospect of becoming an emperor.

Society longed for change, and after the lost war with Japan, the first workers' revolt occurred in the Far East, which turned into a revolution. The uprising was suppressed. The frightened king went to extremes.

The country, uneducated, poor and hungry for the most part, entered the war in 1914 on the side of England and France with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The soldiers - yesterday's peasants - did not understand what they were fighting for. Plus, the poor equipment of the army, discontent, and hunger did their job - they gave rise to an uprising in St. Petersburg.

As a result, the last Russian tsar from the Romanov dynasty abdicates the throne. We can say that from this moment the Soviet period in the history of Russia begins.

A provisional government formed from representatives of different parties came to power. The war-weary population accepted revolutionary views. Representatives of extremist and terrorist organizations who were previously underground have returned from abroad.

One of these was the “Marxist group of communist-bolsheviks”, led by Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin). They boldly seized power in St. Petersburg. They occupied, almost without firing a single shot, the Winter Palace, where the provisional government was located, and arrested its members.

Civil War

From 1917 to 1920 there was a Civil War in the country. As a result, the Bolsheviks won. Since 1920, they begin to build a “society of happiness” - communism - in a country lying in ruins. This ideology will become the main one for the Soviet period of Russian history.

Lenin takes a decisive step and introduces a new economic policy (NEP), which allowed the state to transform in a couple of years - food, clothing and even luxury goods appeared. This irritated the cardinal Bolsheviks.

After Lenin's death in 1924, Joseph Dzhugashvili, better known under the pseudonym Stalin (1924-1953), increasingly seized power. He took control of the Cheka secret police. He started a series of high-profile trials against almost all the Bolshevik leaders who led the revolution. Since 1929, it has completely controlled the country. Destroys kulaks, seizes land and creates collective farms.

The Second Great Patriotic War (1941-1945) fell during the Stalin era. This is one of the darkest pages of this period in Russian history.

As a result of a short struggle for power, after the liquidation of the Minister of State Security Lavrentiy Beria, the pragmatist Nikita Khrushchev came to power in 1953. He was a controversial leader - he proposed to sow fields with corn, at a meeting of the UN Security Council he knocked on the podium with his shoe; however, it was during his time that the first satellite was launched, and cosmonaut Gagarin also made the world's first flight into outer space. The first Soviet leader to visit America. Under him, the “Khrushchev Thaw” occurred, which allowed liberal views in art. He promised to destroy and bury America, and he, in moments of enlightenment, decided to get rid of the dominance of the party nomenklatura. For which he was removed from power by this very nomenklatura in 1964.

A group of conspirators led by Leonid Brezhnev (1964-1982) took the reins of government of the country into their hands. The years of his reign are usually called the era of stagnation. The confrontation with the West continued. The Cold War waxed and waned. The economy was focused on the sale of raw materials, which led it to a crisis. Brezhnev died in 1982.

The government nominated to replace him the former head of the security service, the influential Yuri Andropov (1982-1984), and then, after his death, another elderly leader, Konstantin Chernenko (1984-1985), who also died soon after.

A younger ruler came to power - Mikhail Gorbachev (1985-1991), who energetically took up the matter. He quickly changed the leadership of the party and state and began to carry out reforms. The so-called course for restructuring the social and state life of the country was announced.

Gorbachev's liberal reforms caused discontent among conservative circles. In 1991, they planned to carry out a coup. However, the putsch was defeated, because the conspirators did not have any action plan to change the life of the country for the better. Nevertheless, the coup actually left the country without a government, which was taken advantage of by the emboldened heads of the national republics - who separated and gained independence from Russia.

The paradox is that Gorbachev, who returned in triumph to Moscow, remained the president of the collapsed Union, and Boris Yeltsin (1991-1999) became the new president of Russia.

Our time - New time

Everything that has happened in our country since 1991 is attributed to the period modern history Russia.

Now let’s return to Yeltsin... The advantages of his policy are attributed to the lack of confrontation with the collapsed republics and conservative political oppositions. As well as a democratic style of government, freedom of speech. However, conservatives opposed it. This led to an armed rebellion in 1993. Nevertheless, the first president managed to cope with the situation without reprisals.

When it seemed that all the bad things were behind us, a financial crisis erupted in the country, ending in default - bankruptcy, loss of bank deposits, shutdown of enterprises... All this could lead to a new revolution. But history has its own plans.

Yeltsin appoints as his successor former Security Committee officer Vladimir Putin (2000-2008, 2012 - today). At first, Putin continued Yeltsin's policies, but over time he began to show increasing independence. It was he who resolved the conflict in Chechnya.

In 2008, according to the constitution, Putin transferred powers to the newly elected president Dmitry Medvedev, and he himself took the post of prime minister. However, in 2012 everything changed again... Today, the post of President of the Russian Federation is occupied by V.V. Putin.

These are, to be brief, calm and exciting historical periods in the history of Russia.

Topic: Stages of study and periodization Russian history

Type: Test | Size: 47.06K | Downloads: 23 | Added 12/14/14 at 01:08 pm | Rating: 0 | More Tests

Test theoretical question

Stages of studying and periodization of Russian history.

Stages of studying Russian history. Chronicle period. Nestor. The origins of historical science. V.N. Tatishchev. Norman theory and its criticism M.V. Lomonosov. The heyday of history in the 19th century. N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Soloviev, V.O. Klyuchevsky. Soviet historical science and its outstanding names. Periodization of Russian history.

Stages of studying Russian history.

Historiography is divided into several periods. The first of them is pre-scientific. In this period, it is worth studying medieval philosophy, human perception of time, traditions, and the functions of history. Note that during this period, which lasted until the beginning of the 18th century, the main forms of historical narration were formed, such as chronicles - keeping records by year. It was this source that became the main one; it was this source that was studied by the historiography of Russian history. When studying chronicles, it is necessary to pay attention to the principles by which they were written, the forms and style in which the works were written. The principle of chronography is especially important, which allows you to compare events, attribute them to certain dates, and connect them in the concept of “earlier” - “later”. The second source during this period that historiographers studied was the lives of saints. It is important to note here that the lives of saints have stronger subjective shades than chronicles - they turn into a kind of legends and stories. Another form of expression of historical consciousness that scientists are interested in is folklore. It is from it that you can learn about people’s ideas about their heroes and enemies.

The second period of historiography of Russian history begins in the eighteenth century and lasts until the beginning of the twentieth century. This time had a qualitative impact on the development of history as a science and the study of the source base. This should include such changes as the secularization of science and the development of secular rather than church education. For the first time, translation sources imported from Europe are beginning to be processed, historical research as such, they stand out independently, and at the same time, auxiliary disciplines are formed that help to study history. Qualitatively new stage in this period - the beginning of the publication of primary sources, which largely changed the attitude towards the history of their country, and primarily for the Russian intelligentsia. It is she, the intelligentsia, who initiates historical expeditions and research. The third stage is the development of historiography in the second third of the nineteenth century. Here, problems such as relations between the Russian state and Western countries are studied, and the first concepts of the development of national history arise.

The fourth stage is the second half of the nineteenth - the beginning of the twentieth century. At this time, the methodological foundations of historiography were being formed. The historiography of Russian history is influenced by positivism, materialism, and neo-Kantianism. The range of research is expanding, with particular attention paid to socio-economic problems in history. At the fourth stage, the question arises about the professional training of historical personnel.

The fifth stage is the Soviet historiography of national history, which is based on the class approach to the development of society, which, in turn, was reflected in the scientific approach.

Chronicle period.

The most remarkable phenomenon ancient Russian literature there were chronicles. The first weather records date back to the 9th century, they were extracted from later sources of the 16th century. They are very brief: notes in one or two lines.

As a national phenomenon, chronicle writing appeared in the 11th century. People of different ages became chroniclers, and not only monks. A very significant contribution to the restoration of the history of chronicle writing was made by such researchers as A.A. Shakhmatov (1864-1920) and A.N. Nasonov (1898 - 1965). The first major historical work was the Code, completed in 997. Its compilers described the events of the 9th-10th centuries, ancient legends. It even includes court epic poetry praising Olga, Svyatoslav, and especially Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, during whose reign this Code was created.

One of the figures of European scale must include the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor, who by 1113 completed his work “The Tale of Bygone Years” and compiled an extensive historical introduction to it. Nestor knew Russian, Bulgarian and Greek literature very well, being a very educated man. He used in his work the earlier Codes of 997, 1073 and 1093, and the events of the turn of the 11th-12th centuries. covered as an eyewitness. This chronicle provided the most complete picture of early Russian history and was copied for 500 years. It must be borne in mind that the ancient Russian chronicles covered not only the history of Rus', but also the history of other peoples.

Secular people were also involved in chronicle writing. For example, Grand Duke Vladimir Monomakh. It was as part of the chronicle that such wonderful works of his as “Instruction to Children” (c. 1099; later supplemented, preserved in the list of 1377) have reached us. In particular, in the “Instructions” Vladimir Monomakh pursues the idea of ​​​​the need to repel external enemies. There were 83 “paths” - campaigns in which he participated.

In the 12th century. the chronicles become very detailed, and since they are written by contemporaries, the class and political sympathies of the chroniclers are very clearly expressed in them. The social order of their patrons can be traced. Among the most prominent chroniclers who wrote after Nestor, one can single out the Kiev resident Peter Borislavich. The most mysterious author in the XII-XIII centuries. was Daniil Sharpener. It is believed that he owned two works - “The Word” and “Prayer”.

“Hagiographic” literature is very interesting, since in it, in addition to describing the life of canonized persons, it gave a true picture of life in monasteries. For example, cases of bribery for obtaining one or another church rank or place, etc. were described. Here we can highlight the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, which is a collection of stories about the monks of this monastery.

The world-famous work of ancient Russian literature was “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” the date of writing of which dates back to 1185. This poem was imitated by contemporaries, it was quoted by the Pskovites already at the beginning of the 14th century, and after the victory on the Kulikovo Field (1380) in imitation of “The Tale. ..” was written “Zadonshchina”. “The Word...” was created in connection with the campaign of the Seversk prince Igor against the Polovtsian khan Konchak. Igor, overwhelmed by ambitious plans, did not unite with the Grand Duke Vsevolod the Big Nest and was defeated. The idea of ​​unification on the eve of the Tatar-Mongol invasion runs through the entire work. And again, as in the epics, here we are talking about defense, and not about aggression and expansion.

From the second half of the 14th century. Moscow chronicles are becoming increasingly important. In 1392 and 1408 Moscow chronicles are created, which are of an all-Russian nature. And in the middle of the 15th century. “Chronograph” appears, representing, in fact, the first experience of writing world history by our ancestors, and in “Chronograph” an attempt was made to show the place and role of Ancient Rus' in the world historical process.

Chronicle writing as a leading genre of historical literature existed in Russia until the end of the 17th century. early XVIII centuries It could not help but be influenced by certain aspects of European social thought. In Russian chronicles of the 15th - 17th centuries. increased attention to the human personality, the motives of people’s activities, appear historical works, not related to the form of presentation by year. There are attempts to go beyond literary etiquette.

Nestor

The Monk Nestor the Chronicler was born in the 50s of the 11th century in Kyiv. As a young man he came to the Monk Theodosius and became a novice. The Monk Nestor was tonsured by the successor of the Monk Theodosius, Abbot Stefan. Under him, he was ordained a hierodeacon. His high spiritual life is evidenced by the fact that he, along with other reverend fathers, participated in the exorcism of the demon from Nikita the recluse (later the Novgorod saint), who was seduced into Jewish wisdom.

The monk deeply valued true knowledge, combined with humility and repentance. “There is great benefit from book learning,” said he - books punish and teach us the path to repentance, for from book words we gain wisdom and self-control. These are the rivers that water the universe, from which wisdom emanates. Books have innumerable depth, we console ourselves with them in sorrow, they are the bridle of abstinence. If you diligently search for wisdom in the books, you will gain great benefit for your soul. For he who reads books converses with God or holy men."

In the monastery, the Monk Nestor bore the obedience of a chronicler. In the 80s, he wrote “Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearers Boris and Gleb” in connection with the transfer of their holy relics to Vyshgorod in 1072 (May 2). In the 80s, the Monk Nestor compiled the life of the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk, and in 1091, on the eve of the patronal feast of the Pechersk monastery, Abbot John instructed him to dig up the holy relics of the Monk Theodosius from the ground for transfer to the temple (the discovery was commemorated on August 14).

The main feat of the life of the Monk Nestor was the compilation of the “Tale of Bygone Years” by 1112-1113.

“This is the story of bygone years, where the Russian land came from, who began the reign in Kyiv, and where the Russian land came from” - this is how the Monk Nestor defined the purpose of his work from the first lines. An unusually wide range of sources (previous Russian chronicles and legends, monastic records, Byzantine chronicles of John Malala and George Amartol, various historical collections, stories of the elder boyar Jan Vyshatich, traders, warriors, travelers), interpreted from a single, strictly ecclesiastical point of view, allowed the Monk Nestor to write the history of Russia as an integral part of world history, the history of the salvation of the human race.

The patriotic monk sets out the history of the Russian Church in the main moments of its historical formation. He talks about the first mention of the Russian people in church sources - in 866, under the holy Patriarch Photius of Constantinople; tells about the creation of the Slavic charter by Saints Cyril and Methodius, Equal-to-the-Apostles, and the Baptism of Saint Olga, Equal-to-the-Apostles in Constantinople.

The chronicle of St. Nestor has preserved for us a story about the first Orthodox church in Kiev (under 945), about the confessional feat of the holy Varangian martyrs (under 983), about the “test of faith” by Saint Vladimir, Equal-to-the-Apostles (986) and the Baptism of Rus' (988). We owe information about the first metropolitans of the Russian Church, about the emergence of the Pechersk monastery, about its founders and devotees to the first Russian church historian. The time of St. Nestor was not easy for the Russian land and the Russian Church. Rus' was tormented by princely civil strife, the steppe nomadic Cumans ravaged cities and villages with predatory raids, drove Russian people into slavery, burned temples and monasteries.

The Monk Nestor died around 1114, bequeathing to the Pechersk monks-chroniclers the continuation of his great work. His successors in chronicling were Abbot Sylvester, who gave a modern look to the “Tale of Bygone Years”, Abbot Moisei Vydubitsky, who extended it until 1200, and finally, Abbot Lavrenty, who in 1377 wrote the oldest copy that has come down to us, preserving the “Tale” of St. Nestor ( "Laurentian Chronicle").

Saint Nestor was buried in the Near Caves St. Anthony Pechersky. The Church also honors his memory together with the Council of Fathers, who rest in the Near Caves, on September 28 and on the 2nd Week of Great Lent, when the Council of all Kiev-Pechersk Fathers is celebrated.

The origins of historical science.

History as a science began to emerge in Russia, as well as in Europe, in the 18th century. But in Russia it found its feet in more difficult conditions: for a very long time, in comparison with Europe, the country did not have secular higher educational institutions that would train scientific personnel. In Europe, the first secular university appeared in the 12th century, and in Russia the Academy of Sciences opened only in 1725, the first university (Moscow) in 1755. The first Russian researchers had to face the virtual absence of a source base, which is the foundation of historical science . When Peter 1 issued a decree on the need to write the history of Russia and ordered the Synod to collect manuscripts from dioceses, only 40 of them were submitted, and only 8 of them were of a historical nature.

The first attempt to write a systematic review did not belong to academics, or even to a historian by training. Its author was V.N. Tatishchev (1686-1750), who was a civil servant and a widely educated person. This was the first systematic work on Russian history. In addition, Tatishchev created instructions for collecting geographical and archaeological information about Russia, adopted by the Academy of Sciences. At the same time, assessing Tatishchev’s contribution to the formation of historical science, we note that he failed to comprehend the collected material and connect it with a conceptual idea. His history of Russia was a collection of chronicle data. The lack of literary treatment and heavy language made Tatishchev’s work difficult to perceive even by his contemporaries.

Tatishchev V.N.

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750) was not a professional historian. He did not receive a historical education, because such a thing did not yet exist in Russia. As V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote, “he became a professor of history for himself.” Tatishchev was born into the family of a Pskov landowner. Among his relatives was Tsarina Praskovya, the wife of Ivan V. He graduated from the Engineering and Artillery School in Moscow. “The chick of Petrov’s nest,” he was a participant in the Great Northern War and carried out a variety of assignments for the emperor. He visited Germany and Sweden on his assignments, twice (1720-1722 and 1734-1737) managed state-owned factories in the Urals, founded Yekaterinburg there, actively participated in the palace struggle during the accession of Anna Ioannovna in 1730, was the Astrakhan governor (1741 -1745 ).

Tatishchev in 1719 received the task of Peter I to compile a geographical description of Russia. Since then, he began collecting materials on Russian history. He compiled the first encyclopedic Dictionary- "Russian Lexicon", brought to the letter "k". Tatishchev also wrote the first scientific generalizing work on the history of our country - “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times.” He began writing it in the 20s of the 18th century. The presentation was brought up to 1577. Tatishchev took the position of a rationalistic explanation of history. He was the first to attempt to identify, from a scientific point of view, the patterns of the Russian historical process. “The main thing in science is for a person to know himself,” wrote Tatishchev. He believed that knowledge and enlightenment determine the course of history.

Tatishchev was the first to propose a periodization of Russian history from the point of view of the development of the state: 1) “perfect autocracy” (862-1132); 2) “aristocracy, but disorderly” (1132-1462); 3) “restoration of autocracy” (from 1462).

Tatishchev's ideal was an absolute monarchy. He tried to explain the causes of events through the activities of outstanding people. Tatishchev’s work in many ways still resembles a chronicle; the material in it is arranged in accordance with the reigns of the princes. Tatishchev’s attempts to be critical of sources still retain value, many of which, subsequently lost, were preserved only in the historian’s presentation. The debate about their authenticity continues today.

Norman theory and its criticism by M.V. Lomonosov

Norman theory (Normanism) is a direction in historiography that develops the concept that the people-tribe of Rus' comes from Scandinavia during the period of expansion of the Vikings, who were called Normans in Western Europe.

Supporters of Normanism attribute the Normans (Varangians of Scandinavian origin) to the founders of the first states of the Eastern Slavs: Novgorod and then Kievan Rus. In fact, this is a follow-up to the historiographical concept of the Tale of Bygone Years (early 12th century), supplemented by the identification of the chronicle Varangians as Scandinavian-Normans. The main controversy flared up around the ethnicity of the Varangians, at times reinforced by political ideologization.

The Norman theory became widely known in Russia in the 1st half of the 18th century thanks to the activities of German historians in Russian Academy scientists Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738), later Gerard Friedrich Miller, Strube de Pyrmont and August Ludwig Schlözer.

M.V. Lomonosov actively opposed the Norman theory, seeing in it a thesis about the backwardness of the Slavs and their unpreparedness to form a state, proposing a different, non-Scandinavian identification of the Varangians. Lomonosov, in particular, argued that Rurik was from the Polabian Slavs, who had dynastic ties with the princes of the Ilmen Slovenes (this was the reason for his invitation to reign). One of the first Russian historians of the mid-18th century, V.N. Tatishchev, having studied the “Varangian question”, did not come to a definite conclusion regarding the ethnicity of the Varangians called to Rus', but made an attempt to unite opposing views. In his opinion, based on the “Joachim Chronicle,” the Varangian Rurik was descended from a Norman prince ruling in Finland and the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl.

The flourishing of history in the 19th century N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Solovyov, V.O. Klyuchevsky.

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766-1826) is rightfully recognized as the largest Russian noble historian. The son of a landowner in the Simbirsk province, Karamzin studied at home, then at a private boarding school in Moscow, and attended lectures at Moscow University. After traveling around Europe, he published the “Moscow Journal” (1791-1792), “Bulletin of Europe” (1802-1809), where he acted as a sentimentalist writer.

In 1801, he received one official order from Alexander - to write the history of Russia and the position of historiographer. The remarkable writer “took his hair as a historian” for the rest of his life. Once in public service, Karamzin gained access to state archives, repositories of chronicles and other sources on Russian history. Based on the works of his predecessors (V.N. Tatishchev, M.V. Lomonosov, M.M. Shcherbatov, etc.), N.M. Karamzin created the 12-volume “History of the Russian State.” The presentation in it was brought up to 1612.

“The appearance of the “History of the Russian State”...,” wrote A.S. Pushkin, “caused a lot of noise and made a strong impression... Secular people rushed to read the history of their fatherland. Ancient Russia, it seemed, was found by Karamzin, like America by Columbus "They didn't talk about anything else for a while."

"The History of the Russian State" was written for a wide range of readers. Actions and deeds of real people historical figures Karamzin assessed them from the standpoint of common sense, explaining them by the psychology and character of each character.

As a rule, the material in Karamzin’s work is arranged according to reigns and reigns. The periodization of Russian history was new. According to Karamzin, it was divided into the Most Ancient (from Rurik to Ivan III), the characteristic feature of which was the system of appanages. The Middle (from Ivan 111 to Peter I) with autocracy and the New (from Peter I to Alexander I), when civil customs changed dramatically.

This periodization is largely explained by the concept of the historian. the main idea, permeating labor, is a necessity for Russia of a wise autocracy. “Russia was founded by victories and unity of command, perished from discord, but was saved by a wise autocracy,” Karamzin wrote in another of his works, “Note on Ancient and New Russia.” It should be noted that Karamzin did not consider every autocracy to be a good thing for Russia. The people, in his opinion, had the right to rebel against princes and kings who violated the principles of wise autocratic power. Karamzin condemned the tyranny of Ivan the Terrible, the activities of Anna Ioannovna, and Paul I.

"The History of the Russian State" became a reference book on Russian history for many years. Karamzin's work was written at the world level historical knowledge that era.

S.M. Soloviev

Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (1820-1879) is rightfully recognized as the most outstanding Russian historian of the 19th century. He developed as a researcher in the era when the issue of abolishing serfdom was being decided. At the same time, a polemic began between Westerners and Slavophiles about the paths of development of Russia.

According to his convictions and views, S.M. Soloviev belonged to the Westerners. He was born in Moscow into the family of a priest. His whole life was connected with Moscow University, where he went from student to rector. Academician S.M. Soloviev was also the director of the Armory Chamber, chaired the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, and was a history teacher of the future Emperor Alexander III.

According to his convictions, S.M. Soloviev was a moderate liberal. As a scientist, he developed under the influence of Hegelian dialectics and the idea of ​​the “organic,” i.e. the objective and natural nature of the development of the historical process. He believed that the historian must “understand... the gradual course of history, the continuity of phenomena, the natural, legitimate emergence of some phenomena from others, subsequent from previous ones.”

The main work of S.M. Solovyov’s entire life is “History of Russia since ancient times” in 29 volumes.

Based on the ideas of Hegelian dialectics, S.M. Solovyov saw the reasons for the movement of Russian history in the interaction of three objectively existing factors. As such, he put forward “the nature of the country,” “the nature of the tribe,” and “the course of external events.” Adhering to the comparative historical method, S.M. Solovyov saw the uniqueness of the history of Russia and Western Europe, but not their opposite. In his opinion, nature was a mother for the West, and a stepmother for Russia. In the east of Europe there are no natural boundaries in the form of mountain ranges and sea coasts, there is a small population, there is a constant threat of nomadic invasions, and the climate is sharply continental. On the territory of Eastern Europe, a centuries-old struggle between “forest” and “steppe” took place; there was a process of development (colonization) of new territories, a transition from tribal to state principles.

According to S.M. Solovsva, in the history of Russia the state played a huge role - “the highest embodiment of the people.” Objectively operating geographical and ethnic factors led to the emergence of a major power in Eastern Europe. “The huge plain predetermined the formation of this state,” Soloviev wrote. The course of external events was thus dictated by real objective tasks.

S.M. Solovs considered Peter’s reforms to be the most important milestone in the history of Russia. It was with Peter I that he began a new Russian history. The scientist showed the organic connection, vital necessity, regularity and continuity of Peter's transformations with the previous course of the country's development.

S.M. Soloviev, from the perspective of his time, created an expressive, integral and most complete picture of the history of Russia. To this day, “History of Russia from Ancient Times” retains its significance as a generally recognized encyclopedia of Russian history.

V.O.Klyuchevsky

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841-1911) came from the family of a priest in the Penza province.

His whole life, like the life of S.M. Solovyov, was connected with Moscow University, from which he graduated in 1865. Klyuchevsky became Solovyov’s successor at the department of Russian history. His brilliant lectures, full of wit and vivid in form and imagery, gained him enormous popularity.

By his convictions, Klyuchevsky was a moderate liberal. He did not accept revolutionary views and put science in first place, “which endures forever and never falls.”

Along with his lectures, V.O. Klyuchevsky’s fame and glory were brought to him by his historical works, including the result of his research and lecture activities - “The Course of Russian History,” which was extremely popular during the author’s lifetime and has not lost its significance today. The presentation in it is brought to the peasant and zemstvo reforms of the 1860s.

In his philosophical views, V.O. Klyuchsvsky stood on the position of positivism. Positivism (from the Latin positivus - “positive”) sought to identify the entire set of specific knowledge, facts, internal and external factors, the combination of which determines the course of the historical process.

Klyuchevsky believed that world history develops within the framework of the “general laws of the structure of human society.” At the same time, each country, each “local history” is characterized by characteristics determined by a combination of geographical, ethnic, economic, social, and political factors. Moreover, for each period of history, a combination of factors gives rise to a certain amount of ideas. The change in these ideas and worldviews constitutes driving force stories. The starting point of the history of each country is the natural-geographical factor. V.O. Klyuchsvsky believed that the development (colonization) of the territory played a decisive role in the history of Russia.

V. O. Klyuchevsky created a new general concept Russian history, dividing it into periods, each of which represented a certain stage in the life of the country. VIII - XIII centuries. V.O. Klyuchevsky characterized Rus' as Dnieper, city, trade. XIII - first half of the XV centuries. - as Upper Volga Rus', appanage-princely, free-agricultural. Second half of the 15th - beginning of the 17th centuries. - this is Great Rus', Moscow, Tsarist-boyar, military-agricultural Russia. The time after the Time of Troubles and before the great reforms V.O. Klyuchsvsky called the “new period of Russian history,” the all-Russian, imperial-noble period of serfdom, agriculture and factory farming.

V.O. Klyuchevsky and his colleagues gave a bright and multifaceted picture of Russian history. Subsequently, they will be reproached for not understanding the patterns of Russian development. And the last stage in the development of pre-revolutionary historiography (late 19th - early 20th centuries) will be called the era of crisis of bourgeois science, which failed to see in the history of the country the patterns of its socialist transformation.

Soviet historical science and its outstanding names.

Soviet historiography

Soviet historical science, in the difficult conditions for the development of historiography in post-revolutionary Russia, generally successfully fulfilled its social functions. New historical materials were identified and collected, attempts were made to read the past anew, and discussions were held. New archives, museums were created, scientific centers. Social and economic issues and movements of the masses were especially successfully studied.

However, the dominance of only one concept in the theoretical sphere significantly constrained the creativity of scientists. It was easier for those who dealt with the more ancient stages of the country's development. As for Soviet history, the assessments decreed from above could not help but triumph. Historical materialism became the only philosophy of history.

The materialist understanding of history is based on the doctrine of socio-economic formations. The driving force of history was recognized as the class struggle.

Society in its development goes through a consistent, natural change of certain stages and phases that develop on the basis of a certain level of economic development. K. Marx and F. Engls called these stages socio-economic formations. A socio-economic formation is a historically defined type of society, representing a special stage in its development (primitive communal system, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist). The economic basis of each formation is determined by the dominant method of production of material goods. However, there are no absolutely pure formations. In each of them, along with the dominant mode of production relations, remnants of old ones are preserved and the beginnings of new production relations arise. They are usually called structures. For example, under the dominance of feudal production relations, primitive communal and slave-owning relations (structures) are preserved and at a certain stage the capitalist structure of the economy emerges. Socio-economic formations make it possible to trace the progressive development of humanity from stage to stage as a whole.

Periodization of Russian history.

1. Old Russian state (IX-XIII centuries)

2. Appanage Rus' (XII-XVI centuries)

Novgorod Republic (1136—1478)

Principality of Vladimir (1157—1389)

Principality of Lithuania and Russia (1236-1795)

Principality of Moscow (1263—1547)

3. Russian kingdom (1547-1721)

4. Russian Empire (1721-1917)

5. Russian Republic (1917)

6. RSFSR (1917-1922)

7. USSR (1922-1991)

8. Russian Federation (since 1991)

Control test tasks

1. Match the names Russian historians with their main works:

1. V.N. Tatishchev A. Russian History

2. M.V. Lomonosov B. Ancient Russian history

3. N.M. Karamzin V. History of the Russian State

4. S.M. Soloviev G. History of Russia since ancient times

1. The primacy in the collection and critical analysis of historical sources in Russia belongs to historians:

1. V.N. Tatishchev.
2. G.F. Miller.
3. M.V. Lomonosov.
4. N.M. Karamzin.

3. Match the historians with the era in which they lived:

1. V.N. Tatishchev A. The era of revolutionary upheavals

2. S.M. Soloviev B. The Age of Peter the Great

3. M.V. Lomonosov V. The era of “palace coups”

4. M.N. Pokrovsky G. The era of bourgeois reforms

Control analytical task

Comment on the main idea of ​​the text belonging to G. V. Plekhanov:

“When people begin to reflect on their own social system, you can say with confidence that this system has outlived its time and is preparing to give way to a new order, the true nature of which will again become clear to people only after it has played its historical role. Minerva’s owl will fly out again only at night.”

The main idea of ​​the text is that society will learn all the advantages and disadvantages of a social system only when it is replaced by another system and that there is no point in looking for ideal legislation or a social system that will be applicable at all times and for all peoples. Everything has an expiration date. Everything changes and is good in its place at its time.

Literature

1. Vernadsky V.I. Works on the history of science in Russia. M.: Nauka, 1988. 464 p.

2. Vladimirova O.V. History: a complete reference book / O.V. Vladimirova.- M.:AST:Astrel;Vladimir:VKT,2012.-318

3. Ziborov V.K. Russian chronicles of the 11th—18th centuries. - St. Petersburg: Faculty of Philology of St. Petersburg State University, 2002.

4. Kireeva R.A. The study of Russian historiography in pre-revolutionary Russia from the middle. XIX century until 1917. M., 1983

5. Merkulov V.I. Where do the Varangian guests come from? - M., 2005. - P. 33-40. — 119 p.

6. Tikhomirov M. N. Russian chronicle. - M.: Nauka, 1979.

7. Yukht A. I. Government activities V. N. Tatishchev in the 20s and early 30s of the 18th century / Rep. ed. doc. ist. Sciences A. A. Preobrazhensky.. - M.: Nauka, 1985. - 368 p.

In Soviet historiography, periodization was based on a formational approach, according to which in Russian history the following were distinguished: 1) primitive communal system (until the 9th century); 2) feudalism (IX - mid-19th century); 3) capitalism (second half of the 19th century - 1917); 4) socialism (since 1917).

In the modern history of Russian statehood, there are 11 periods. This periodization is determined by the socio-economic structure of society and the factor of state development:

Ancient Rus' (IX-XII).

The period of independent feudal states of Ancient Rus' (XII-XIV).

Russian (Moscow) state (XV-XVII).

The Russian Empire of the period of absolutism (XVIII - mid-XIX).

The Russian Empire of the period of the bourgeois monarchy (mid-XIX - early XX).

Russia during the period of the bourgeois-democratic republic (Feb-Oct 1917).

The period of formation of Soviet statehood (1918-1920).

Transition period and NEP period (1921-1930).

The period of state-party socialism (1930 - early 60s).

The period of crisis of socialism (60-90s).

Modern period of development (since the late 90s).

This periodization is conditional, but it allows us to systematize the training course and consider the main stages of the formation of statehood in Russia, the accumulation and development of management experience and management thought.

Lecture 2. Public administration in Ancient Rus' (IX - XI centuries)

The origins of statehood among the Eastern Slavs

Historical science has reliable information about the Slavs only from the 5th - 6th centuries. AD Their earlier history is very vague. There is no unity among historians on the issue of the origin of the Slavs. Some believe that from ancient times they inhabited the territories between the Danube, Dnieper and Vistula - the “autochthonous” (aboriginal) theory. Others believe that the Slavic ethnicity was formed from the close interaction of many different ethnic groups that inhabited vast areas of Europe. Still others consider the Slavs to come from the Asian part of the mainland.

Whatever the origins of the Slavs, in the V - VI centuries. part of the Slavs, who made up the ancient population of Central and Eastern Europe, begins to move into the territory of the East European Plain, inhabited by Baltic and Finno-Ugric tribes. During the resettlement, the tribal structure of the Slavs disintegrates and is replaced by territorial-ethnic formations - tribal unions (Polyans, Slovenes, Vyatichi, Dregovichi, etc.), which formed an independent branch of the Slavs - the eastern one. The Eastern Slavs lived in neighboring, territorial communities (verv, mir).

The complex hydrography of Eastern Europe determined the settlement of tribes, determined the most important military, trade and communication routes, and did not allow the forest-steppe zone (in the absence of natural geographical barriers to enemy attacks) to separate into separate settlements, which created an objective basis for ethnic and political unity. This, as well as the peculiarities of the climate (cold summer, harsh winter, protracted spring and autumn) over the centuries developed a peculiar arrhythmia of life and work, specific features of the life and psychology of the ancient Russians and other local peoples.

Written sources record the state of East Slavic society at the stage “ military democracy"when it had a three-stage structure: tribe - union of tribes - super-union of tribes.

If the primary unions united related tribes, then the secondary ones constituted super-unions, i.e. united several tribal unions. The super-unions brought to life by external threats were multi-tribal with conflicting and changing interests. Their formation took place in a stubborn inter-tribal struggle for a dominant position in them. The prince of the dominant tribe or alliance of tribes became the main ruler, and the weaker leaders and their fellow tribesmen were subordinate to him. Often such a struggle went on with varying degrees of success, which made super-unions unstable formations. Nevertheless, in the 8th century. in the Middle Dnieper region, the glades, throwing off the Khazar yoke, united around themselves several tribal unions (northerners, Radimichi and, possibly, other tribes), creating one of the centers of ancient Russian statehood. This created the preconditions for the emergence of public power and the emergence of statehood.

Statehood of Kievan Rus

The initial stage in the history of Russian statehood is associated with the formation of the Old Russian state, also known as Kievan Rus. This state, the largest in medieval Europe, existed from the end of the 9th to the middle of the 12th centuries, occupied a vast territory from the Baltic to the Black Sea and from the Western Bug to the Volga. By the time the state was formed, this territory was inhabited by numerous agricultural tribes of the Eastern Slavs, as well as dozens of peoples of Finnish, Baltic, Turkic and Iranian origin. Individual East Slavic tribes united into large political and military alliances, mentioned in the most ancient chronicles: Polyans, Drevlyans, Dregovichi, Slovenes, Radimichi, Vyatichi, etc. Therefore, one of the main features of the worldview of the population of Kievan Rus is the initial, one might say, genetic absence of tribal egoism, wide openness towards other languages ​​and peoples.

In the East Slavic tribes, state power grew in the conditions of territorial communities. The main wealth is land. However, the abundance of forests and infertile lands made farming difficult. The difficult terrain and many swamps made roads impassable and did not contribute to the development of trade. Only the strong power of the clan elders could overcome all these difficulties. Here lie the deep origins of Russian autocracy, despotism and totality, which were vitally necessary at that distant time, but persisted for many centuries.

In the 9th century The Eastern Slavs already had internal prerequisites for the creation of statehood. The tribal system was at the stage of decomposition. Supreme body the tribe still had a veche - a meeting of all its free members. But there already existed a tribal nobility in the person of several privileged clans, which differed from the mass of community members in social and property relations. From among them, the veche elected leaders (princes) and elders. By the time the state was formed, separate tribal kingdoms already existed. The power of the tribal princes was based on a system of strengthening urban settlements, some of which later turned into real feudal cities. Tribal principalities were still pre-state formations, and tribal leaders were not yet princes in the true sense of the word.

There were also external prerequisites that contributed to the creation of a state among the Eastern Slavs. The endless steppes stretching between the Black Sea and the forest belt of the Russian Plain have long been the highway to Europe for warlike nomads, whose hordes were driven out of Asia every one and a half to two centuries. Many nomadic tribes tried to gain a foothold in these lands, but settled Slavic farmers were ready to stubbornly defend the fertile arable land, which yielded huge harvests. The constant struggle with nomads contributed to the unification of the East Slavic tribes into the Old Russian people. In essence, the Kiev state emerged in the fight against external enemies and later became truly a “form of survival” in the constant struggle with the Steppe.

In the fight against the Khazars, the Slavs began to rely on alliances (pacts) with the Scandinavian kings. The “summoned” princes and their squads on the basis of agreements with tribal unions were called “Rus”. Initially, “protorus” was Scandinavian in its ethnicity. According to the inserted legend in the Tale of Bygone Years about the calling of Rurik by the Novgorodians (862), the unification of the two main centers of ancient Russian statehood in 882 after the campaign against Kiev from Novgorod by Prince Oleg is associated with the Varangians. The power created by Oleg was a “federation” of state entities and unions of tribes of the Eastern Slavs. The Rurik dynasty was probably Scandinavian in origin, but quickly became glorified. And already the first princes - the Rurikovichs and their squads swore by the Slavic gods - Perun and Veles. The term “Rus”, which originally had a social meaning, is transferred to the entire state territory and becomes the ethnonym of the Eastern Slavs.

In 882, according to the chronicle, the Novgorod prince Oleg, having previously occupied Smolensk and Lyubech, captured Kiev and proclaimed it the capital of his state. Oleg himself began to be titled Grand Duke. Thus, 882, when Northern Rus' (Novgorod) and Southern Rus' (Kyiv) united under the rule of one prince, became a turning point in the destinies of the Eastern Slavs. The unification of the two most important centers along the great waterway “from the Varangians to the Greeks” gave Oleg the opportunity to begin subjugating other East Slavic lands to his power. Thus began a long process of consolidation of individual tribal principalities of the Eastern Slavs into a single state.

The highest political power in Kievan Rus was represented by the Grand Duke. He acted as legislator, military leader, supreme administrator and supreme judge. Since the time of the first Russian princes, known from the chronicles, Rurik and Oleg, princely power became individually hereditary, and this gave it legitimacy in the eyes of its contemporaries. The idea of ​​the chosenness of people belonging to the princely family was affirmed. Gradually, the power of the prince began to be perceived as state power. By the end of the 10th century, the Kiev state acquired the features of an early feudal monarchy.

The adoption of Christianity by Russia was of great importance. The Church strengthened the authority of the prince, considering his power as God-given. In 996, a council of Russian bishops solemnly declared to Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich: “You have been appointed by God to be executed by the evil, and by the good to mercy.”

The beginning of the formation of the public administration system

Old Russian society in socially can be divided into large groups:

) priests - fortune tellers - soothsayers - magicians - healers - magicians made up a circle of people, according to popular belief, who possessed the art of knowing the will of the gods and transmitting it to people;

) princes - boyars - elders - best men who were the heads of lands, volosts, cities;

) all free community members were called people;

) slaves were called servants.

The source of slavery was military captivity. The Slavs kept slaves only for a certain time, after which the captives were given a choice: either return to their homeland or remain as free people. Captive slaves were called “servants.” They were completely powerless. People who became slaves for reasons such as purchasing or marrying a slave were called serfs.

The slave class was not numerous, and the slave in Rus' was never the main productive force. Thus, the stage of slavery in its pure classical form was absent in Rus'. However, over time, the number of slaves became more and more numerous and they soon became the main productive force of Russian society. This state of affairs lasted almost until the beginning of the twentieth century and went down in history under the name of serfdom.

According to contemporaries, the Slavs governed democratically, discussing and deciding matters in national assemblies, although the people were called “to council” only on the most important state matters.

The permanent authorities were princes, boyars, elders, and elders.

Civil power was not separated from military power.

The power of the elected prince was based on popular trust, and his constant activity was justice based on customs.

The power base of the Kyiv princes was the squad. In a tribal society, the squad did not exist on a permanent basis, but for a one-time raid on neighbors. In the hands of the Kyiv prince, it became a means of coercion and control, collection of tribute, protection of one’s own interests and the country’s population from enemies.

The squad lived at the prince's court in a special room - the gridnitsa - and was fully supported by the prince. There were significant differences in position among the vigilantes. The senior squad, consisting of rich and noble people, was called “boyars”, “husbands”. A boyar is an honored member of the squad who has received special independence. The younger squad was called “gridi”, “grid”, “gridba”, as well as “youths”, “children”, “boyar children”. Age did not matter; a “youth” could be a very old person.

The senior squad participated in meetings with the prince, and its opinion carried great weight with the first princes. They could only convince the squad, but not order it. It was precisely from the members of the squad that the primitive administrative apparatus consisted for a long time.

It is known that of the three forms or branches of government - legislation, management, justice - management is the oldest and most developed form. At the dawn of ancient Russian statehood, the lands of the tribes annexed to Kyiv were ruled primarily by extending tribute collection systems to them and creating local strongholds of central power. Together with his retinue, the prince went “to polyudye” - that was the name of the campaigns to collect tribute. Initially, tribute was collected mainly by furs, and in the 11th century. Money was already dominant. For a long time, tribute remained, as a rule, unregulated. Its size was sometimes used by the prince as a means of economic and political pressure on the rebellious. If the prince did not have enough funds, the population was subject to emergency taxes.

Gradually, tribute acquired the character of a permanent tax obligation throughout the state. For more or less regular collection of taxes, “cemeteries” and “camps” were established, i.e. places where collectors and payers gathered. These were essentially administrative districts. “Charters and lessons” were also introduced, which determined the amount and places for collecting tribute. In the 11th century Special officials for collecting tribute appeared - “tributers.”

The tribute in the hands of the princes and warriors turned into a commodity and went mainly abroad (primarily to Byzantium), and partly for the armament of the squad and other needs of the state.

From among the senior warriors, the prince appointed posadniks to individual centers of your state. The posadnik represented administrative power: he collected tribute, judicial and trade duties, and administered justice. Part of the collected funds was used to support the mayor and his squad. In addition to tribute, the population was also subject to a number of natural duties (military and submarine), and participated in the construction and repair of fortifications.

Vassal relations gradually began to arise between the feudal lords. The prince's vassals were warriors who could move from one prince to another. This was not considered treason. Only in the princely service could one become an aristocratic boyar. The service agreement was accompanied by a number of conditions. Boyars in administrative positions received salaries and food. This is how the so-called practice appeared. “feedings”, when the prince granted his vassal the right to collect tribute in his favor of one or another volost without owning the volost itself.

Boyars from the tribal nobility received immunity for their vassal service - exemption from paying tribute and from the jurisdiction of the princely court.

Many boyars had their own squad. His warriors settled on the ground and turned into second-order vassals (sub-vassals); they were obliged to the boyar for military service.

Under the princes and mayors there were tiuns - agents who performed various functions. Usually tiuns were appointed from among the prince's court servants. They were in charge of the princely household in the villages and at the princely court and, depending on this, were called “rural tiuns” and “court tiuns.” In addition to the duties of clerks, they were present at the court of the prince or mayor. Often they replaced them at the trial, i.e. performed the functions of lower-ranking judges.

There were other officials: mytniks, who collected “wash” (trade duties), virniks, who collected “virs” (court fines for killing a person) and “sales” (fines for other types of crimes). The tax for the sale of horses (“spot”) was collected by the spotters.

BODIES OF AUTHORITY AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE

The activities of the princely authorities and their local representatives have not yet completely replaced the activities of peasant communities-worlds, with ancient times accustomed to performing judicial, administrative and financial functions. Community orders were adapted to the requirements of the state. The community, for example, was obliged to look for murderers and thieves (otherwise it faced heavy fines); court cases were dealt with only in the presence of representatives of the peasants.

The army was recruited from the population as needed. It was collected from all parts of the Kyiv state. The warriors were usually on horseback, the army on foot. The prince was supposed to supply weapons. From among the senior warriors, the prince also appointed military leaders - the governor and the thousand. The prince also had a fleet at his disposal - not only a river one, but also a sea one. The Kiev chronicler reports on sea campaigns on the Black Sea shores of Byzantium and the Caspian Sea.

Russian Truth

In their practice of government and court, the princes relied on common law - unwritten popular law Slavs, the so-called “Russian law”. The oldest text of recorded Russian law, called “Russian Truth,” appeared at the beginning of the 11th century. during the reign of Prince Yaroslav the Wise. This was the first Russian written code of laws. Two editions of this monument have reached us: one short and the other lengthy. The short edition, published in 1017, constitutes the original authentic version of Pravda. The name “Yaroslav’s Truth” was established behind it, because it came out during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise.

It was based on the customs of the Slavic tribes, adapted to the conditions of feudal relations. The lengthy edition is the “Pravda Yaroslavich”, modified and supplemented by subsequent princes. Both of these editions bear the common name “The Court of Yaroslav Vladimirovich.”

“Russian Truth” spread widely throughout all the lands of Ancient Rus' and became the basis of state administration until 1497, when it was replaced by the Code of Laws, published in the Moscow centralized state.

“Russian Truth” included articles of both civil and criminal laws. It established legal proceedings and determined punishments for certain offenses and crimes. Unlike the codes of laws of other countries of the then Christian world, “Russian Truth” did not know the use of torture and corporal punishment, but execution for the most serious crimes existed. For the first time in the history of Rus', the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise, Vladimir Monomakh, spoke out for the abolition of the death penalty as a form of punishment in general, even for the most serious crimes. True, this was not reflected in the legislation of his time. As for the punishments reflected in Russkaya Pravda, these were mainly monetary fines, the size of which depended on the severity of the offense and the social status of the victim.

According to the “Russian Truth”, all Russian lands were divided into patrimonial and local.

Estates were the lands assigned to the boyars and servants of the prince as his gift for public service(benefice). These lands became hereditary for the boyars. The lands that were given under the condition of service were called estates. The princes were large land owners.

Land was also the collective property of the community. The Russian community consisted of residents of a village or village who jointly owned land. Each adult male villager had the right to a plot of land equal to the plots of other residents of the village; land redistribution was practiced.

In "Russkaya Pravda" the inheritance was called the "back" and the remainder; it was opened at the time of the death of the father of the family and passed to the heirs or by will. Among legitimate children, sons were preferred, but the brothers, who excluded sisters from the inheritance, pledged to support them until they got married, and then provide a dowry according to your means.

The marriage was preceded by a betrothal, which was considered indissoluble. The marriage took place through a wedding in a church. Wedding conditions: age - 15 years for the groom, 13 years for the bride, free desire of the bride and groom, parental consent. The Church did not allow third marriage. The Church allowed divorce, but had a specific list of reasons for divorce (death of a husband or wife, adultery, entering a monastery, missing spouse, etc.). The adoption of Christianity brought significant changes to marriage and family relations. Russian paganism allowed polygamy. So Prince Svyatoslav had two wives, and Prince Vladimir had five wives and 800 concubines.

The church, its property and church servants were protected by reinforced punishments.

According to the “Russian Truth”, the court in all worldly matters was concentrated in the hands of the prince, as the supreme legislator, ruler and judge. The prince administered justice personally or through the protection of his governors.

The place of court in the capital and province was the princely court, which was later replaced by the order or voivode's hut. The trial began with a claim (“slander”) from the plaintiff. In addition to the plaintiff, there were witnesses (videos) and (hearsay). At the same time, the community in which the crime was committed had to find the criminal themselves or pay a huge fine. Among the evidence were tests with iron and water, as well as an oath, which was accompanied by kissing the cross. Complaints against the court's decision were submitted to the prince.

Thus, “Russian Truth” is the first ancient Russian code. Its statutes determined changes in financial, family, criminal and administrative law.

Veche system

In the Old Russian state, a veche was preserved - a people's assembly, in which the entire adult population of the city, and sometimes residents of the suburbs and even villages, participated. One of its functions was the recruitment of the people's militia and the election of its leaders - thousand, sotsky, ten. Over time, the thousand was already appointed prince from among his entourage. The entire structure of the Kyiv state, the nature of the power of the prince and the nobility surrounding him excluded the possibility of the systematic functioning of popular assemblies. In the XI-XII centuries. all cases of mentioning veche meetings in chronicles are associated with exceptional situations when, as a result of a military threat, natural disasters or prolonged famine, the administration was unable to control the situation. The only exceptions to this rule were Novgorod with its “suburb” Pskov and, to some extent, Polotsk. Here the veche retained its strength and over time became one of the integral attributes of the feudal republic (Novgorod and Pskov).

The strengthening of the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv took place both in the struggle and in the process of synthesis of tribal systems of government with the emerging central government. Initially, the functions of pagan princes were in one way or another connected with military tasks and diplomatic relations, protection of trade routes, and collection of tribute (polyudye). The power of the Kyiv prince increased as the power of the princes of the tribal unions subject to Kyiv was absorbed.

Subordinate to the Kyiv prince were local tribal princes, who, according to the agreement, were “under the hand” of the Kyiv prince and the tribal nobility, who performed judicial and administrative functions. However, the great Kyiv princes often had to deal with the separatism of local princes, which predetermined the gradual liquidation of this institution (over the entire 10th century).

This also forced them to look for religious and ideological means to strengthen the power of the Kyiv dynasty. Thus, Vladimir I carried out a grandiose religious reform, trying to turn Kyiv into an all-Russian sacred center, gathering in the capital a pantheon of gods led by Perun, but this did not help. More radical means were required to unite Kievan Rus and strengthen the power of the prince.

In 988, Vladimir I adopted Eastern Christianity as the state religion, which was of fateful significance for Rus'. It was this that led to the transformation of the ancient Russian cultural archetype, a change in mentality and entry into the Orthodox Byzantine-Slavic civilization. Evolutionary type social development has been replaced by innovation, and Kyiv is becoming its undisputed source. The gradual establishment of canonical Christian ideas about the nature of power, the state and its goals begins.

The Kiev veche was important for higher and central government and veche meetings in the centers of local principalities for regional government. The evenings differed from previous tribal meetings; all free citizens took part in them; they were a structural element of higher government administration. The veche and the prince entered into an agreement with each other, which was a mutual oath. If it was violated, the veche could refuse the prince to take the throne.

Thus, the form of government in Rus' can be defined as a “druzhina state”, which contained monarchical (prince), oligarchic (senior squad, boyars) and democratic (veche) tendencies. None of them received full embodiment in Kievan Rus.

6. Church

The head of the church was the Metropolitan of Kiev, appointed by the Byzantine patriarch. In the cities, bishops (and in some lands, archbishops) were installed subordinate to the metropolitan. They led vast church-administrative districts - dioceses. The clergy of churches and the brethren of monasteries were subordinate to their bishop, and through him to the metropolitan. Thus, the power of the metropolitan extended over all of Rus' and united all the clergy of the country.

However, the Russian Church was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (until 1448) and was formally subordinate to it. It was the largest metropolis in terms of territory and number of parishioners.

Having recognized Christianity as the state religion, the secular authorities took care of its material support. By order of Prince Vladimir, at the end of the 10th century, a tenth of all princely incomes - tithes - were annually transferred to the church treasury. With the development of feudal land ownership, in exchange for tithes, the state provided the church with a number of permanent sources of income: ownership of vast territories - “patrimonies”, which made it possible to receive taxes and impose certain duties on local peasants; exemption of clergy and their property from taxes and duties.

At the end of the 10th century. The church was granted the right to court and collect court fees in matters of a family and domestic nature. Under the jurisdiction of the church there was a special class of persons who obeyed not the prince, but the church: hierarchs, priests, monks, clergy; persons looked after by the church - old, crippled, sick; outcasts; church slaves who were donated to the church from secular owners, etc.

Thus, secular and spiritual power in Rus' existed autonomously. The government contributed to the spread of Christianity, but also coordinated its activities with the guidelines of the church. Orthodoxy determined the spiritual foundations for the development of ancient Russian government, law and legal consciousness. The church itself becomes by the 12th century. the most important subject of governance, but unlike Catholicism, does not interfere directly in the affairs of secular power, which corresponded to the Eastern Christian legal culture.

Lecture 4. Public administration of Rus' in the appanage period (XII - XIII centuries)

Causes of feudal fragmentation

Already in the 2nd half. XI century New trends in the socio-economic and political development of Russian lands were clearly defined, which a century later ushered in a new stage in the history of Russian statehood - the era of feudal fragmentation.

Let us highlight its main reasons:

) The emergence of estates - private large land holdings, which, as a rule, belonged to the boyars. The votchinniki - boyars - owned arable land, herds of horses, herds of cows, and poultry. Unfree workers (slaves - servants, serfs) were also part of the boyar's property. Free people also became dependent on the boyars. These were, for example, the “ryadovichi”, who entered into an agreement (“row”), on the basis of which they worked for the owner. A type of “ryadovichi” were “purchases”, obliged to work off the owner’s “kupu” - a debt.

From now on, the boyars ceased to depend on the prince. Having received regular income from the estate, they no longer needed tribute, and therefore were in no hurry to go on a campaign for the prince. It was not tribute, but land cultivated by the labor of dependent peasants that became the main value. The boyar did not want to tear his smerds away from the arable land, not only for the sake of long-distance campaigns, but sometimes even for the sake of protecting the country from the invasions of nomads, if they did not directly affect his possessions. The princely squad was not needed to pacify and subjugate dependent people. The boyar had his own “apparatus of suppression”: boyar tiun (household manager), elders, guards, etc.

The younger squad remained with the prince. It was not only a military force, but also part of the state apparatus, personally dependent on the prince. She was entrusted with collecting court fines and taxes. Gathered on behalf of the prince, they were the main source of livelihood for the younger warriors, who needed the prince and “fed” his mercy.

At the turn of the XI-XII centuries. The first contradictions emerged between the boyars and the younger squad. The interests of the boyars, who found themselves connected with their estates, often did not coincide with those of the princes. Landowners, who acquired great political power thanks to their wealth, sought independence from the central government and put pressure on local princes to decide at their own discretion on issues of domestic and even foreign policy.

The very nature of princely power prevented this. At that time, in Rus' there was a system of replacing princely thrones based on the principle of clan eldership. Rus' was conceived as a common ancestral domain of the Rurikovichs, and this meant the right of each family member to temporary possession of a certain part of the land in order of seniority. In conditions of lack of stability in political life and loose land holdings, princes often moved from one volost to another. They were passing figures for the population. The princely squad, who came with the prince, only collected tribute and taxes from the population, without worrying at all about the future. The outstanding Russian historian Klyuchevsky wrote: “The constant movement of princes from table to table and the disputes that accompanied it undermined the prince’s zemstvo authority. The prince was not attached to the place of ownership, to this or that table, either by dynastic or even personal connections. He came and soon went away, was a political accident for the region, a wandering comet.”

) Changes also occurred in the princely environment. The practice of clan eldership when replacing thrones no longer satisfied what had grown by the 12th century. Rurik family. There was no clear order either in the distribution of inheritances or in their inheritance. It became increasingly difficult to establish clan eldership. The “paternal” principle of inheritance from father to son gained strength. Each prince turned from a governor, ready to leave his inheritance, into its permanent and hereditary owner, and Rus' became the territory of the hereditary possessions of the princes.

A complex, slow and contradictory process of the formation of land dynasties began, the integration of transient princes into the social structures of the lands and volosts, whose overlords they became. From this time on, the land interests of local princes and boyars began to coincide. They united in the fight against the central government, and the specific fragmentation of the country became irreversible.

) Socio-economic progress in the 11th-12th centuries, the rise of agriculture, cattle breeding, crafts and trades, the development of domestic and foreign trade contributed to the growth and strengthening of individual lands and principalities of the Old Russian state. Cities grew, veche life became lively, townspeople actively fought for city liberties and played an important role in political affairs. Therefore, for local socio-economic development, the huge scale of the state as a whole was no longer needed.

) Ancient Rus' was united, first of all, thanks to the common desire for predatory campaigns against Byzantium. However, by the end of the 10th century. the benefits in the form of booty and tribute began to be noticeably inferior in importance to the benefits received from the development of ordinary trade, which became possible, firstly, thanks to the conclusion of trade agreements with Byzantium, and secondly, due to the increase in wealth in the hands of the prince (on behalf of which, in fact, was traded by Russian merchants), caused by an increase in tax collection after the stabilization of relations within the state. Thus, military campaigns against Byzantium ceased.

) It was possible to stabilize relations with the “steppe”. Svyatoslav also defeated the Khazars, Vladimir and Yaroslav actually put an end to the Pechenegs, and only the Polovtsians continued to harass Rus' with their raids. However, the Polovtsian forces were small, so there was no need to mobilize the troops of the entire state.

) Internal functions - primarily judicial - were carried out with great success within separate, small territories. The increasing complexity of public life required not the rare appearance of a judge-arbiter from the center, but daily regulation. Local interests increasingly capture the princes sitting in individual lands, who begin to identify them with their own interests.

Thus, by the end of the 11th century. the obvious disappearance of those common, uniting interests that had previously cemented the state quite firmly was revealed. Other connecting threads, say, economic ( natural economy), simply did not exist. Therefore, Rus', having lost most of what connected it, fell apart.

The appanage princes stopped paying tribute to Kyiv and severed ties with their supreme overlord. From the 2nd half. XII century in Rus' there already existed 15 principalities and separate lands: Rostov-Suzdal, Murom-Ryazan, Smolensk, Kiev, Chernigov, Galician, Volyn, Novgorod, etc. The number of independent principalities was not stable due to family sections and combining some of them. If in the middle of the 12th century. there were 15 large and small appanage principalities, then on the eve of the Horde invasion (1230s) - about 50, and in the 14th century. the number of principalities of various ranks exceeded 2.5 hundred.

The political structure and form of government have changed. The weakening of the power of the Kyiv prince required compensation by introducing a different method of governance. Thus a system of collective suzerainty was created. Its essence is that the Kiev prince allocated a share in the southern Russian land to someone who recognized his eldership and power and took upon himself the obligation to protect it from enemies. Such decisions of the Grand Duke were approved at a congress with other South Russian princes. The practice became the obligation of the Kyiv prince to “think about the Russian land” (i.e., govern) together with other co-owners. This system turned out to be viable, ensuring relative stability in the socio-political life of Ancient Rus' almost until the time of the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

Old Russian principalities and lands: specifics of political organization

However, the collapse was not absolute. Along with centrifugal tendencies, centripetal ones also persisted. They were expressed, in particular, in maintaining the prestige of the title of Grand Duke of Kyiv (although it no longer plays a real unifying role). In addition, the princes from time to time found it necessary to gather at their inter-princely congresses to discuss emerging common problems.

By the end of the 12th century, the fall of Kyiv became obvious due to inter-princely strife and Polovtsian raids. The population left Kyiv in two directions: to the west, towards the Carpathian Mountains or to the north, to the upper reaches of the Volga. Then these were the outskirts of Rus', in which, to replace the old Kyiv, 3 centers of state life arose

Galicia-Volyn land;

Vladimir-Suzdal land;

Novgorod and Pskov feudal republics.

Assessing the feudal fragmentation of Rus' in the 12th-15th centuries, it should be emphasized that, being the product of a progressive nature, it was a complex and contradictory phenomenon. Supreme power in each principality came closer to the object of management, which, it would seem, should have contributed to the economic prosperity of individual regions. At the same time, the internal life of Rus' at that time was largely determined by princely strife, during which thousands of people died and the very productive forces were destroyed, the development of which led to a state of fragmentation. In addition, the weakening of the central government and the strife of the princes undermined the country's defense capability and made Rus' an easy prey for foreign conquerors.

During the period of feudal fragmentation, the political structure of individual lands and principalities retained traditional features: in most principalities - in the form of a feudal monarchy, in the Galicia-Volyn land - an oligarchic form of government, and in the Novgorod and Pskov lands - in the form of a feudal republic.

a) Vladimir-Suzdal land.

In the principalities of the monarchical type, the princes adhered to the traditional form of government, although each of the Russian lands had its own characteristic features. An example of this is the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality.

In the 11th century Suzdal or Zalesskaya Rus' was located between the Oka, on the one hand, and the Volga, on the other. Until the end of the 11th century. This eastern outskirts of Kievan Rus was a remote and sparsely populated region. At the end of the 11th century. Suzdal land became a special principality. By agreement of the princes, it was given to Vladimir Monomakh, who began to arrange it for his youngest son Yuri Dolgoruky. From this time on, the construction of cities such as Tver, Kostroma, Balakhna, Nizhny Novgorod and others. The influx of Russian settlers increased here.

The nature of the Vladimir-Suzdal land differed from both Kyiv and Novgorod. There were no rich black soils here, but there was no rocky soil either. Nature allowed for farming and forestry. The Suzdal princes become the most powerful in the entire Russian land.

Yuri Dolgoruky had a strong influence here. Its role in the construction of cities is great. His son Andrei Bogolyubsky develops the city of Vladimir, erects the Assumption Cathedral in it. He strove for autocracy not only in the Suzdal principality, but throughout the entire Russian land.

Under another son of Yuri Dolgoruky, Vsevolod (Big Nest), the Vladimir principality grew and became one of the large feudal states of Europe, widely known outside of Rus'.

The development of feudal relations in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality was subject to the laws of feudal development: a significant increase in large land ownership and the struggle of feudal lords for the land of peasants; the emergence of new groups of feudal-dependent people; strengthening the link between land ownership and political power. Moreover, feudal relations began to develop here later than in other regions of Rus'; princely power arose later, but was strong and had huge land holdings.

Another important factor in the strengthening of princely power is the growth of new cities by the 12th century, such as Moscow, Yaroslavl, Zvenigorod, Dmitrov, etc. Relying on the squad, court and growing cities, the princes suppressed the opposition of the old Rostov-Suzdal boyars and strengthened their power. However, after the death of Vsevolod, the disintegration of the principality began, in the state in which the Tatar-Mongols found him. One of the first was conquered during the Tatar-Mongol invasion. But it was here that the prerequisites for the unification of Rus' began to mature earlier and faster than others.

The Vladimir-Suzdal princes were characterized by: 1. Ownership of princely estates - domains (hereditary land); 2. The supreme power of the prince over large land estates, villages and cities; 3. Creation of palace lands by merging the prince's estates with state lands.

In the 2nd half. XII century In the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, a new class of feudal lords emerges - the nobles. At first, this was a lower social group of the feudal class, which was characterized by the following features: military service with the prince, for which they were rewarded with lands and the right to exploit the peasants. However, this land ownership was conditional and was lost in the event of termination of service. The nobles did not have the right to freely move from prince to prince.

Peasants bore duties in the form of quitrents in kind, labor rent (corvee labor), and state duties. Dependent peasants had the right to move from one feudal lord to another. When they left, they were obliged to pay off the debt.

The urban population of the Vladimir-Suzdal land consisted of artisans, merchants, clergy and boyars.

In the 13th century In connection with the growth of independence, appanage princes turn into heads of feudal estates independent from the Grand Duke. These princes appropriate the title of great princes, and they have their own great princes.

The Grand Duke of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality was the bearer of supreme power. He owned legislative, executive, administrative, judicial and ecclesiastical powers.

The governing bodies of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality were the prince's council, the veche and feudal congresses. The princely council included the most powerful representatives of the service boyars, loyal to the prince. The Veche was convened to resolve the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy, and Feudal Congresses were convened in emergency situations on the initiative of the Grand Duke.

Local government was in the hands of the volost governors, who were the local representatives of the Grand Duke.

The main significance of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality for the history of Russia is that Moscow arose on its territory, which later became the capital of the Russian state. The first mention of Moscow in Russian chronicles dates back to April 4, 1147.

b) Galicia-Volyn land.

Simultaneously with the development of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality in the southwest of Rus', the Volyn and Galician lands began to develop and become richer. At the end of the 12th century. Vladimir Monomakh's grandson Roman Mstislavovich captured the Galician principality adjacent to Volyn, located on the eastern slopes of the Carpathians and laid the foundation for the creation of a single strong Galician-Volyn principality (from 1200). Soon the city of Galich, distinguished by its fertility and richness of land, became its center.

The position of the Galicia-Volyn land was more dangerous than the position of the Suzdal land, because they were not in the center, but on the borders of Russian land and had as their neighbors Poles, Lithuanians, Ugrians, as well as the strong enemies of Russia, the Polovtsians.

In addition, the peculiarity of the social life of Volyn and Galich was that the boyars fought there with the princes, as well as the princely squad.

The effectiveness of the veche in this principality occupied an insignificant place and the princes had to reckon with the boyars. The boyars here acquired destructive power, and their feuds significantly weakened the state.

The urban population of the Galicia-Volyn land was not numerous.

The bulk rural population depended on the boyars. The exploitation of peasants here was much stronger than in other lands.

Feature government system The Galician-Volyn land was that for a long time it was not divided into appanages.

The highest authorities were the prince, the council of boyars and the veche. The boyars played the leading role in political life. The most important body of the boyars was the Boyar Council (Duma). The veche played a formal role.

A system of palace management was created here, and before influential officials appeared in other lands - a butler, an equerry, a printer.

The entire Galicia-Volyn land was divided into voivodeships, headed by voivodes appointed from among the boyars. “Lesser boyars” were appointed as managers in rural areas and volosts. The Prince was called to power by the Boyar Duma.

A single strong state did not emerge from the Galicia-Volyn principality, the main reason for this was the border position of the principality: on the one hand, the influence of Poland and Lithuania. By the 13th century. the Poles occupied Galicia, on the other hand, the Lithuanians captured Volyn. So, by the 13th century. this principality ceased to exist.

c) Novgorod and Pskov republics.

A typical example Novgorod had a feudal-republican system of government, which in the 12th century. became a boyar republic with a unique veche system.

In the period from 1136 to 1478. in the north-west of Rus' there was a Novgorod feudal republic, and from 1348 to 1510. A republican form of government also existed in Pskov.

“Mr. Veliky Novgorod” consisted of five districts, which were called 5 “ends”. Accordingly, the entire Novgorod land was divided into 5 provinces. These 5 provinces made up a huge territory from Lake Onega to the Volga. The Novgorod lands also included lands along the Northern Dvina, Pechora, and Vyatka rivers.

The owner of all these possessions was Veliky Novgorod - as it was called, the “elder city” with all its free population. The Novgorodians called their lands “the land of Hagia Sophia” after the name of the main Novgorod temple.

The cities subordinate to Novgorod were fortresses that were supposed to protect the city in the event of an attack by enemies - Germans, Swedes, Danes. Such fortress cities were Pskov (later separated from Novgorod), Izborsk, Staraya Russa, Ladoga.

The entire Novgorod land was infertile, rocky, and covered with swamps. Therefore, Novgorodians imported most of their goods from their eastern and western neighbors.

It is typical that grain was brought from the Volga region to Novgorod, and in exchange they sold those goods that they purchased from their western neighbors - furs, honey, flax. This mediation made it possible to concentrate capital in the hands of the local nobility.

The state structure and administration of Novgorod took shape under the influence of the people's council. The veche elected the prince, and subsequently the ruler, i.e. archbishop.

The Veche decided on the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy: it declared war and made peace, approved treaties and legislative acts.

The prince was invited to Novgorod by agreement to serve as a military commander and arbitrator in the most important legal proceedings. He was forbidden to acquire possessions in the Novgorod land for himself and his squad, to enjoy income in excess of strictly established amounts and to dispose of the city treasury. The prince did not rule the city, but served it. The Novgorodians “showed the clear path to the obstinate princes,” i.e. they were simply kicked out of the city.

All the levers and threads of government in Novgorod were in the hands of several hundred boyars. This “council of gentlemen” controlled the representative and executive power of Novgorod. The highest secular authority in the city was the mayor from the boyars. He convened the meeting, opened its sessions, and carried out its decisions. He also supervised foreign relations, controlled the actions of the prince, and carried out judicial functions. His closest assistant was Tysyatsky, the leader of the city militia, in Peaceful time exercised police supervision over order in the city. The bishop, in addition to spiritual power, also had temporal power. He was in charge of the city treasury, foreign relations and had the right of court. Low-level officials were elected from local residents and reported to the mayor.

The prince was deprived of the right to acquire land holdings in Novgorod. The Novgorodians allocated him land, as a rule, on the Volga. For his service, the prince received “gifts” or “tribute” in a precisely defined amount.

The prince in Novgorod was the highest government authority. He led the Novgorod army, was the supreme judge and ruler. However, as an outsider to Novgorod, the prince did not live in the city itself, but 3 miles from it, near Lake Ilmen. The prince undertook to rule Novgorod without changing laws and customs, and with the constant participation of the mayor elected by the veche.

The mayor accompanied the prince to the war, was present at the princely court, and together with the prince appointed officials. The mayor in Novgorod was in charge of civil affairs, and the thousand was the leader of the militia. Subordinate to Tysyatsky were the sotsky commanders of 10 hundreds, which amounted to a thousand. Each of the five ends of the city had Konchan elders, who fielded 200 militia.

The Novgorod lord-archbishop not only was in charge of church affairs, but also played a large role in the political life of Novgorod. He headed the government council, consisting of boyars, and monitored the activities of the veche. Every decision of the veche required the blessing of the bishop. The ruler sealed agreements with foreigners with his seal. The Vladyka was the custodian of the state treasury and the state archive. He had his own staff of officials and even his own regiment, separate from the Novgorod militia. The ruler was a large landowner.

The Veche in Novgorod was the body of the highest state power, made decisions, vested powers in officials, and acted in agreements with foreigners on behalf of the feudal republic.

The population of Novgorod and its lands was divided into two groups - “the best people” and “the younger people.” The first group is the boyars, living people and merchants. Boyars are officials and nobility. Less official, but rich people were called zhilii.

The entire poor population was called "lesser". Within the city these were small traders, artisans, and workers. In the provinces, smaller people were called smerds (peasants) and ladles (farmers who worked for the owners from half the harvest). Smerdas lived in graveyards, and ladles, of which there were many in the Novgorod land, were close in their position to serfs.

The history of Novgorod is one of constant civil strife and turmoil. Political power was in the hands of the boyar council, which, putting pressure on the poor, carried out the necessary decisions through the veche. The veche took up arms against the boyars, and then the poor began to beat and rob the “best people.” Internal contradictions led to the fall of the feudal republic.

Novgorodians began to look for allies in order to maintain their independence. This ruined Novgorod, since the nobility wanted an alliance with Lithuania against Moscow, and the poor wanted an alliance with Moscow against Lithuania. The civil strife ended with the Principality of Moscow conquering Novgorod in 1478 and annexing all its lands.

Pskov was the largest suburb of Novgorod. Initially it consisted of a small fortress - "detinets", and then turned into a powerful fortification with 12 fortresses. The main cathedral of Pskov was called the Cathedral of the Holy Trinity and had the same meaning for Pskov as the Hagia Sophia Cathedral for Novgorod. Pskov was divided into six parts, which, like Novgorod, had their own special administration.

A system of fortifications was necessary on the western border of Rus', since Pskov stood on the border of Russia next to Lithuania and the Germans. Having become rich in trade, Pskov left the obedience of Novgorod and in 1348 gained independence.

In Pskov there were the same political bodies as in Novgorod. The main body of power was the "council of gentlemen." Just as in Novgorod, the princes were formally limited in their power, although in fact the boyars led the veil.

The veche in Pskov was more peaceful than in Novgorod. There was no sharp property inequality among residents and therefore no acute contradictions.

An example of the political state structure of Pskov is the “Pskov Judicial Charter”. In this document one can find many articles that regulated the relations between landowners and the feudally dependent population - izorniki - plowmen, gardeners and kochetniks (fishermen). Izorniki worked "half-time", i.e. Half of the harvest was given to the landowner. They had the right to leave the owner only on November 26, having returned the taken help or pokrugu (loan) in silver or goods.

The monument of legislation is the "Pskov Judgment Charter". The development of feudal relations, the growth of class contradictions, and the strengthening of protection of the property of feudal lords and merchants led to increased criminal repression for horse theft and theft of church property, which was punishable by death.

Among the serious crimes, the Pskov Judgment Charter also notes such as perevet (treason), bribery to a judge (secret promise), intrusion into a courthouse, etc. The Pskov Judgment Charter is a monument of legislation. The development of feudal relations, the growth of class contradictions, and the strengthening of protection of the property of feudal lords and merchants led to increased criminal repression for horse theft and theft of church property, which was punishable by death.

The role of the period of feudal fragmentation in the development of Ancient Rus'

In general, inter-princely strife is the main theme of the chronicle stories of the 12th - 13th centuries, which creates a distorted idea of ​​them as the main feature of the appanage period, painting an image of the gradual decline of Rus', becoming a defenseless victim of any strong enemy. Sometimes one gets the impression of the fatal inevitability of the death of the Old Russian state. In fact, the influence of strife on the development of Ancient Rus' is clearly exaggerated.

The appanage period not only was not a time of decline, but, on the contrary, meant the flourishing of the Old Russian state and, above all, in the sphere of culture. Of course, strife weakened unity, and therefore the possibility of joint resistance to a major enemy, but in the foreseeable space such an enemy did not exist in Rus'.

The collapse of the Old Russian state, thus, looks like a natural stage in the development of statehood, forming more developed state structures, laying the foundations for the emergence of a society independent of the state, influencing state policy.

Lecture 5. Ancient Rus' in the management system of the Mongol Empire

1. Formation of statehood among the Mongol-Tatars

At the end of the 12th - beginning of the 13th centuries. Events are taking place in Central Asia that have had a huge impact on the history of Eastern Europe, including Russia. These events are associated with the Mongol-Tatars invasion of Rus'.

There is a pseudoscientific Eurasian theory according to which the Mongol-Tatar invasion was a boon for the Russians. She was especially popular during cold war from the USA. According to this theory, Russia after the conquest turned into an Asian country. Allegedly, having adopted the aggressive, aggressive program of Genghis Khan, she became an enemy of the West. This is where the thesis about the eternal aggressiveness of the Russians, that our country is a source of international tension, an “evil empire”, “the birthplace of terrorism”, etc. originates.

However, most modern researchers refute this theory.

First, let's look at the development of the Tatar-Mongol tribes of that time. Mongol tribes until the end of the 12th century. lived on the territory of modern Mongolia. They did not form a single nationality, did not have their own statehood and spoke different dialects of the Mongolian language. Among them at this time, the large tribe of Tatars who lived in the eastern part of Mongolia especially stood out.

The Mongol-Tatar tribes led a nomadic lifestyle. The most numerous were the steppe Mongols, who were engaged in cattle breeding and hunting. Forest Mongols were mainly engaged in hunting and fishing. The Mongols roamed in large kurens, and each kuren had significant political independence: it waged wars, entered into alliances, etc.

The Mongols were subsistence farmers and produced extremely little food. There was no money circulation, and trade took place in the form of exchange. The development of class relations, the impoverishment of ordinary nomads and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of individual families led to the disintegration of communities - kurens - into smaller economic associations - ails - nomadic camps.

By the beginning of the 13th century. The Mongol-Tatar tribes switched to the early feudal system, although they still retained remnants of tribal relations. In the process of mutual clashes between clans, tribal alliances were formed. The tribes were headed by special leaders or chiefs - from among the most powerful, dexterous, rich, who were called nayons or bogaturs. They had their own detachments of warriors - nukers, who took part in raids, hunts, feasts, and helped with advice in decisions.

The fierce struggle between the tribes ended by the beginning of the 13th century. the formation of the Mongol state, which had a strong military organization. After long, bloody wars, the leader of one of the Mongol tribes, Temujin, conquered the rest of the tribes. In 1206, at the kurultai - a meeting of the Mongolian nomadic aristocracy, Temujin was elected khan of all the Mongols under the name Genghis Khan.

The formation of the Mongolian state contributed to the development of productive forces and played an important role in the unification of all Mongolian tribes. The possibility of economic and political contacts with neighboring peoples appeared. However, this path did not suit the nomadic aristocracy, for whom war for the sake of robbery became the main source of enrichment. With the help of the military-feudal elite, the Mongol state was turned into a military camp. An important reason for the aggressive policy of the Mongols was to muffle the internal contradictions of Mongolian society through military plunder of foreign peoples.

Having become the head of a huge army, Genghis Khan pursued an aggressive policy that fully met the interests and aspirations of the nomadic aristocracy. Genghis Khan and his successors conquered China, Central Asia, the Caucasus and Eastern Europe and Rus'.

The heroic struggle of the Russian and other peoples of Russia weakened the offensive of the Mongol-Tatar invaders and saved European civilization from defeat. The stubborn resistance of Rus' preserved its own statehood, culture, and faith. There was virtually no Horde administration on the territory of the Russian principalities, which was the guarantor of independent government for Rus'.

The fragility of Genghis Khan's empire was revealed quite early. During his lifetime, Genghis Khan divided power between his four sons. In particular, Jochi's eldest son inherited the lands of Rus'.

Genghis Khan's grandson Batu continued aggressive wars. As a result of his conquests over a vast territory from the Irtysh to the Crimea, the Caucasus, and parts of Central Asia in the 30-40s. XIII century a large state was formed. In Russian chronicles it was called Golden Horde. It reached its power under the khans Uzbek and Janibek.

Its state apparatus is taking shape, both military and administrative-judicial. However, the internal and external achievements of the Golden Horde turned out to be fragile. In the 60s of the 14th century. it entered into a period of prolonged strife that threatened its state and political existence. As a result of feudal strife for 20 years from 1360 to 1380. 20 khans were replaced. In 1380 the Battle of Kulikovo took place. The troops of the Golden Horde were defeated, from which they could no longer recover.

Social and state system of the Golden Horde

The Golden Horde was a feudal state. Its economic basis was feudal relations, a characteristic feature of which was feudal ownership of land, pastures and livestock. It was the so-called class property, in which ordinary nomads gave their master a certain part of the product received. Smaller feudal lords depended on larger ones, which determined the nature of the structure of the Golden Horde based on the hierarchy of nomadic land ownership. All the land was the property of the Golden Horde Khan, but each landowner, within the lands granted to him, disposed of the nomads of the people dependent on him, and distributed the best pastures at his own discretion. Feudal relations were combined with numerous remnants of the tribal system.

The first group of feudal lords “white bone” - the top of the Golden Horde society - included the nomadic aristocracy. At the top of the social ladder were the khan and princes (children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc.) from the house of Jochi, the first khan of the Golden Horde. Over time, the Jochi clan grew greatly. With the adoption of Islam, which allowed polygamy, the number of princes increased and the struggle for power between them intensified.

The second group consisted of beks (Turkic title) and nayons (Mongolian title), who were the largest feudal lords. Each major feudal lord received huge income from his possessions - 100-200 thousand dinars per year.

The third group of feudal lords was represented by Tarkhans - people of average income who occupied low positions in the state apparatus.

The fourth group of the ruling class were the nukers. They were part of the master’s inner circle and were dependent on him. The number of nukers depended on the wealth and nobility of their leader.

An important role in the Golden Horde state was played by the church with a complex system of church institutions. The state religion was Islam. Religious tolerance was allowed in the Golden Horde, but with the adoption of Islam the role of the Muslim clergy increased. Its representatives occupied important positions in the state apparatus, and church organizations had large material resources.

The feudal-dependent population was called "black bone" and consisted of nomadic pastoralists, farmers, and city dwellers. The nomadic pastoralists were called Karachu, lived in ails, ran individual households, owned livestock and grazed them on pastures that belonged to the landowner, to whom they regularly paid tribute.

They were also obliged to perform military service, support officials and military units, and provide them with horses and wagons for transportation. When dividing the spoils of war, they received a small part of it.

The peasant population in the settled agricultural regions of Central Asia was called Sobanchi and Urtakchi. Sobanchi are communal peasants, dependent on the landowner. They cultivated the master's land with their own implements, bore duties in the form of work in the vineyards, and paid duties on the irrigation ditches. The Urtakchi are impoverished members of the peasant community, deprived of land and equipment. They worked on the master's land for a share of food.

In the XIII - XIV centuries. in the Golden Horde there is a revival of urban planning. The Golden Horde cities arose as administrative and political settlements, determined by the needs of the state. However, most of them were destroyed as a result of the campaigns of Khan Timur. After this, the urban planning culture of the Golden Horde was completely destroyed and was never revived.

The urban settlements of the Golden Horde consisted mainly of artisans, small traders, merchants and were quite numerous. A number of scientists believe that there were associations of artisans in cities. Officials also lived there. At the very bottom of the social ladder were slaves. Their number was very large. The source of slavery was captivity. The slave trade flourished. Slaves, as a rule, were turned into dependent peasants, shepherds and artisans. Thus, the son of a slave was most often attached to the ground as a sobanchi or urtakchi.

Genghis Khan divided the entire state of the Golden Horde into four uluses or appanages, each of which was headed by one of his sons. At the head of the Golden Horde was a khan from the clan of Genghis, who had strong despotic power. Military structure, to which the administrative division of the country was adapted, permeated it from top to bottom and contributed to the strengthening of the power of the khan. The Khan had complete power over the entire Golden Horde. The khans were surrounded by the top of the nomadic aristocracy, which directed and controlled the activities of the khan's associates. Kurultai - a congress of the Mongol-Tatar nobility - was convened to resolve the most important issues (choosing a khan, planning campaigns, conducting hunts, etc.). The convening of the kurultai was usually timed to coincide with religious holidays. The Kurultai was an advisory body. He made decisions pleasing to the khan. However, in most cases, the khan resolved issues independently in a narrow circle of court nobility. Women (khatuni) from the ruling elite were present at the kurultai and took an active part in its work.

The central apparatus of the Golden Horde consisted of the head of state (khan), court nobility, administrative apparatus, various departments and the judicial apparatus. Diwans (offices) were in charge of the sectoral management. An important official was the vizier - the second head of government after the khan.

Among the senior officials were also four ulus emirs (rulers). The eldest of the emirs was called beklyaribek (commander-in-chief of the troops).

In the central government system, the position of bakol, who was in charge of supplying the troops, was of great importance. B