Feudal fragmentation in the countries of Western Europe. Feudal fragmentation is a natural historical process

The states of Western Europe in the Middle Ages were not integral. Each represented several large feudal estates, which, in turn, were divided into smaller ones. For example, in Germany there were about two hundred small states. Most of them were too small, and they were said in jest that the head of the sleeping ruler was on his land, and his outstretched legs were in the possessions of his neighbor. It was an era of feudal fragmentation that captured

This topic will be of great interest not only to students, for whom it is summarized in the textbook “General History. Grade 6, as well as adults, who may have forgotten a little schoolwork.

Definition of the term

Feudalism is a political system that arose in the Middle Ages and operated on the territory of the then European states. Countries under this order of government were divided into areas called fiefs. These lands were distributed by monarchs-suzerains for long-term use to noble subjects - vassals. The owners, in whose administration the territories fell, were obliged to pay tribute to the state treasury every year, and also to send a certain number of knights and other armed warriors to the ruler's army. And for this, the vassals, in turn, not only received all the rights to use the land, but also could manage the labor and destinies of people who were considered their subjects.

The collapse of the empire

After the death of Charlemagne in 814, his successors failed to save the state he created from disintegration. And all the prerequisites and causes of feudal fragmentation began to appear precisely from the very moment when the Frankish nobles, or rather, the counts, who were officials of the empire, began to seize lands. At the same time, they turned the free population living there into their vassals and forced peasants.

The feudal lords owned estates, called seigneuries, which were actually closed farms. All the goods necessary for life were produced on their territories, from food to materials for the construction of castles - well-fortified structures where the owners of these lands themselves lived. It can be said that feudal fragmentation in Europe also arose thanks to such a subsistence economy, which contributes to the complete independence of the nobles.

Over time, the position of the count began to be inherited and was assigned to the largest landowners. They ceased to obey the emperor, and turned medium and small feudal lords into their vassals.

Treaty of Verdun

With the death of Charlemagne, quarrels begin in his family, which lead to real wars. At this time, the largest feudal lords begin to support them. But, finally tired of constant hostilities, in 843 the grandchildren of Charlemagne decided to meet in the city of Verdun, where they signed an agreement according to which the empire was divided into three parts.

In accordance with the agreement, one part of the land passed into the possession of Louis the German. He began to rule over the territory north of the Alps and east of the Rhine. This state was called East Frankish. German dialects were spoken here.

The second part was taken over by Karl, who bore the nickname Bald. These were lands located to the west of the rivers Rhone, Scheldt and Meuse. They became known as the West Frankish Kingdom. Languages were spoken here that later formed the basis of modern French.

The third part of the land, along with the title of emperor, went to the eldest of the brothers - Lothair. He owned the territory located along as well as Italy. But soon the brothers quarreled, and war broke out between them again. Louis and Charles united against Lothair, took away his lands and divided them among themselves. At this time, the title of emperor meant almost nothing.

It was after the division of the former state of Charlemagne in Western Europe that the period of feudal fragmentation began. Subsequently, the possessions of the three brothers turned into countries that exist to this day - these are Italy, Germany and France.

Medieval European states

In addition to the empire of Charlemagne, there was another large European state. In 1066, the Duke of Normandy (a region located in northern France), who subjugated the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, united them and became the king of England. His name was William the Conqueror.

To the east of the German lands, such as the Czech Republic, Poland and Kievan Rus. And where the nomads who came here dominated, over time, the Kingdom of Hungary appeared. In addition, Sweden, Denmark and Norway emerged in the northern part of Europe. All these states were united for some time.

The collapse of medieval states

So what were the reasons for feudal fragmentation here? The reason for the collapse of the empires of that time was not only the civil strife of the rulers. As you know, the lands that were part of the state of Charlemagne were united by force of arms. Therefore, the reasons for feudal fragmentation also lie in the fact that there was an attempt to collect completely different nations who did not want to live together. For example, the population of the West Frankish kingdom was called French, the East Frankish kingdom was called Germans, and the peoples living in Italy were called Italians. An interesting fact is that the very first documents compiled in the languages of the peoples living here appeared precisely during the struggle for power of the grandchildren of Emperor Charlemagne. So, Louis the German signed a treaty, which stated that they vowed to oppose their elder brother Lothair together. These papers were drawn up in French and German.

The power of the nobles

The causes of feudal fragmentation in Europe largely depended on the actions of the counts and dukes, who were a kind of governors in various parts of the country. But over time, when they began to feel almost unlimited power, the feudal lords ceased to obey the main ruler. Now they served only the owners of the lands on whose territory their estates were located. At the same time, they reported directly to the duke or count, and even then only during hostilities, when they went on a campaign at the head of their own troops. When peace came, they were completely independent and ruled their lands and the people who inhabited them as they saw fit.

feudal stairs

In order to create their own army, dukes and earls gave away part of their territories to smaller landowners. Thus, some became seigneurs (chief), while others became their vassals (military servants). Entering into the rights of ownership of the feud, the vassal knelt before his liege and swore allegiance to him. In return, the master gave his subject a branch of a tree and a handful of earth.

The main feudal lord in the state was the king. He was considered a seigneur for counts and dukes. Their possessions included hundreds of villages and a large number of military units. One step below were the barons, who were vassals of counts and dukes. They usually owned no more than three dozen villages and a detachment of warriors. The small feudal lords-knights were subordinate to the barons.

As a result of the resulting hierarchy, a feudal lord with an average income was a lord for a small one, but at the same time he himself was a vassal for a larger noble. Therefore, a rather interesting situation developed. Those nobles who were not vassals of the king were not obliged to obey him and carry out his orders. There was even a special rule. It read: "The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal."

Relations between the estates resembled a ladder, where on the lower steps were small feudal lords, and on the upper steps were larger ones headed by the king. It was this division that later became known as the feudal ladder. The peasants were not included in it, since all the lords and vassals lived off their labor.

Natural economy

The reasons for the feudal fragmentation of Western Europe also consisted in the fact that the inhabitants of not only individual regions, but also villages, practically did not need any connections with other settlements. They could make all the necessary things, food and tools themselves or simply barter from their neighbors. At that time, there was just the heyday of subsistence farming, when trade itself ceased to exist.

Military policy

Feudal fragmentation, the causes and consequences of which had a significant impact on the military power of the royal army itself, could not only strengthen it, but also increase the authority of the central government in the eyes of large landowners. The feudal lords already by the tenth century managed to acquire their own squads. Therefore, the personal army of the king could not fully resist such vassals. In those days, the ruler of the state was only a conditional head of the entire then hierarchical system. In fact, the country was under the rule of nobles - dukes, barons and princes.

Causes of the collapse of European states

So, all the main causes of feudal fragmentation were identified in the process of studying the cultural and socio-economic development of the countries of Western Europe in the Middle Ages. Such a political system led to an upsurge in terms of material well-being, as well as a flourishing in the spiritual direction. Historians have come to the conclusion that feudal fragmentation was a completely natural and objective process. But this applies only to European countries.

Here are the causes of feudal fragmentation common to all states, without exception, briefly formulated in two paragraphs:

● Presence of subsistence farming. On the one hand, it ensured a rather sharp rise in prosperity and trade, as well as the rapid development of land ownership, and on the other, the complete absence of any specialization of individual regions and extremely limited economic ties with other lands.

● Settled way of life of the squad. In other words, the transformation of its members into feudal lords, whose privilege was the right to own land. In addition, their power over the peasant class was unlimited. They had the opportunity to judge people and punish them for various offenses. This caused some weakening of the influence of the policy of the central government on certain territories. There were also prerequisites for the successful solution of military tasks by the forces of the local population.

Feudal fragmentation of Russian lands

The processes taking place in Western Europe since the 10th century could not bypass the principality where East Slavs. But it should be noted that the causes of feudal fragmentation in Rus' were of a special nature. This can be explained by other socio-economic trends, as well as local customs of succession to the throne.

The division of the state into principalities was due to the great influence enjoyed by the local nobility, called the boyars. In addition, they owned huge land plots and supported the local princes. And instead of submitting to the Kyiv authorities, they agreed among themselves.

Succession of thrones

As in Europe, feudal fragmentation began with the fact that the numerous heirs of the rulers could not share power. If in Western countries the Salic right of succession to the throne was in effect, requiring the transfer of the throne from father to eldest son, then in Russian lands the Lestviche right was in effect. It provided for the transfer of power from an older brother to a younger one, etc.

Numerous offspring of all the brothers grew up, and each of them wanted to rule. Over time, the situation became more complicated, and the pretenders to the throne constantly and tirelessly weaved intrigues against each other.

The first serious contention was a military conflict between the heirs of Prince Svyatoslav, who died in 972. The winner of it was his son Vladimir, who later baptized Rus'. The collapse of the state began after the reign of Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich, who died in 1132. After that, feudal fragmentation continued until the lands began to unite around Moscow.

Reasons for the fragmentation of Russian lands

The process of fragmentation of Kievan Rus covers the period from the XII to the beginning of the XIV century. In this era, the princes waged long and bloody internecine wars for the expansion of land ownership.

Here are the most important reasons for feudal fragmentation, briefly and clearly formulated in four points, acting only in Rus':

● Strengthening internecine struggle due to two trends that existed in the rules of succession to the throne of Kyiv. One of them is Byzantine law, which allows the transfer of power from father to eldest son, the second is Russian custom, according to which the eldest in the family should become the heir.

● Significant weakening of the role of Kyiv as a central authority. This happened because of the raids of the Polovtsians, who made the journey along the Dnieper dangerous, as a result of which the outflow of the population from Kyiv to the northwest began.

● Significant weakening of the threat from the Pechenegs and Varangians, as well as the defeat and establishment of relations with the rulers Byzantine Empire.

● Creation of specific system by Yaroslav the Wise. After his death in 1054, the Russian lands were swallowed up by a whole series of internecine wars. The ancient Russian integral state was transformed from a one-man monarchy into a federal one, which began to be headed by several authoritative princes of Yaroslavich at once.

We hope that this article has helped to supplement the knowledge of not only schoolchildren who are now studying the topic “Causes of feudal fragmentation” in the textbook “General History. 6th grade". It will refresh in the memory of university students the events that took place in the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, such a topic as feudal fragmentation, the causes and consequences of which we have described in sufficient detail, you see, is quite interesting.

Feudal fragmentation in England

The process of feudal fragmentation in the X-XII centuries. began to develop in England. This was facilitated by the transfer by the royal power to the nobility of the right to collect feudal duties from the peasants and their lands. As a result of this, the feudal lord (secular or ecclesiastical), who received such an award, becomes the full owner of the land occupied by the peasants and their personal master. The private property of the feudal lords grew, they became economically stronger and sought greater independence from the king.
The situation changed after England was conquered in 1066 Duke of Normandy William the Conqueror. As a result, the country, moving towards feudal fragmentation, turned into a cohesive state with strong monarchical power. This is the only example on the European continent in this period.

The point was that the conquerors deprived many representatives of the former nobility of their possessions, carrying out mass confiscation land ownership. The king became the actual owner of the land, who transferred part of it as fiefs to his warriors and part of the local feudal lords who expressed their readiness to serve him. But these possessions were now in different parts of England. The only exceptions were a few counties, which were located on the outskirts of the country and were intended for the defense of the border areas. The dispersion of feudal estates (130 large vassals had land in 2-5 counties, 29 - in 6-10 counties, 12 - in 10-21 counties), their private return to the king served as an obstacle to turning the barons into independent landowners, as it was, for example in France

Development of medieval Germany

The development of medieval Germany was characterized by a certain originality. Until the 13th century it was one of the most powerful states in Europe. And then the process of internal political fragmentation begins to develop rapidly here, the country breaks up into a number of independent associations, while other Western European countries embarked on the path of state consolidation. The fact is that the German emperors, in order to maintain their power over dependent countries, needed the military assistance of the princes and were forced to make concessions to them. Thus, if in other countries of Europe the royal power deprived the feudal nobility of its political privileges, then in Germany the process of legislative consolidation of the highest state rights for the princes developed. As a result, the imperial power gradually lost its positions and became dependent on large secular and church feudal lords. .
In addition, in Germany, despite the rapid development already in the tenth century. cities (the result of the separation of craft from Agriculture), did not develop, as was the case in England, France and other countries, an alliance between the royal power and the cities. Therefore, the German cities were unable to play an active role in the political centralization of the country. And, finally, Germany has not formed, like England or France, a single economic center that could become the core of political unification. Each principality lived separately. As the princely power strengthened, the political and economic fragmentation of Germany intensified.

Growth of Byzantine cities

In Byzantium at the beginning of the XII century. the formation of the main institutions of feudal society was completed, a feudal estate was formed, and the bulk of the peasants were already in land or personal dependence. The imperial power, presenting wide privileges to secular and church feudal lords, contributed to their transformation into all-powerful patrimonials, who had an apparatus of judicial and administrative power and armed squads. It was the payment of the emperors to the feudal lords for their support and service.
The development of crafts and trade led at the beginning of the XII century. to the fairly rapid growth of Byzantine cities. But unlike Western Europe, they did not belong to individual feudal lords, but were under the rule of the state, which did not seek an alliance with the townspeople. Byzantine cities did not achieve self-government, like Western European cities. The townspeople, subjected to cruel fiscal exploitation, were thus forced to fight not with the feudal lords, but with the state. Strengthening the positions of feudal lords in the cities, establishing their control over trade and marketing of their products, undermined the well-being of merchants and artisans. With the weakening of imperial power, the feudal lords became sovereign masters in the cities. .
Increasing tax oppression led to frequent uprisings that weakened the state. At the end of the XII century. the empire began to fall apart. This process accelerated after the capture of Constantinople in 1204 by the crusaders. The empire fell, and the Latin Empire and several other states were formed on its ruins. And although in 1261 the Byzantine state was restored again (it happened after the fall of the Latin Empire), but the former power was no longer there. This continued until the fall of Byzantium under the blows of the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

About the Verdun division of 843, when the empire of Charlemagne was divided among his grandsons, however, the title of emperor was preserved.

Compare the first and second information: what question do you have? Compare with the authors' version (p. 273).

Question: Why is the time from the 9th century called the period of fragmentation, if the empire was restored in the 10th century?

Answer: Formally, the empire was restored, but the feudal lords gained more and more power and ceased to obey their lords. At first, this happened with large feudal lords, and then even with many middlemen. Kings and emperors actually controlled only small territories, the rest of the lands were divided among smaller lords who constantly fought with each other.

Prove that a period of state fragmentation has begun in Western Europe. Have there been changes in other areas of society?

In 843, at Verdun, the empire was divided between the grandsons of Charlemagne into three parts. But the new rulers tried to leave the management system and other aspects of life unchanged. All these features of the state underwent changes slowly, being separated by state borders over the centuries of history.

Starting with the grandchildren of Charlemagne, his empire begins to disintegrate. But it was still a division into rather large parts, because it is not quite fragmentation. In addition, the owners of the beneficiaries had not yet turned into feudal lords - the kings or the emperor could still take away their lands for improper service.

What parts did the empire of Charlemagne break up into?

The empire broke up into the possessions of Lothair I, Louis (Ludwig) II of Germany and Charles II the Bald.

Compare with the map on p. 37, what states were formed on the site of the empire?

Considering that Lothair's possessions were soon divided between two other kingdoms, the West Frankish Kingdom (the future France) and the East Frankish Kingdom (the future Holy Roman Empire) arose on the site of the empire of Charlemagne.

Prove that a period of feudal fragmentation has begun in Western Europe.

The feudal lords received full power in their possessions: to judge subject people, to transfer land by inheritance, to transfer it to their own vassals. The right of kings and emperors to take land was usually only a sham. Most importantly, the feudal lords did not openly obey the monarchs and even went to war against them and against each other. In these wars, feudal fragmentation is most manifest.

Name her reasons.

Wars between pretenders to the throne. For example, in the West Frankish kingdom, there was a long struggle between two dynasties that claimed the royal title - the Carolingians and the Capetians. At the same time, the applicants bought the help of the feudal lords with more and more privileges.

Viking and Hungarian raids. The royal army often did not have time to come to repel the raid (and sometimes it was simply not up to the pretenders to the throne). Troops were needed on the ground, which could gather quickly and repel the attack. Gradually more and more rights flowed into the hands of those who could organize such a defense.

Make a conclusion about the problem of the lesson.

The combination of wars for the throne and barbarian raids strengthened the feudal lords so much that they were able to go against the power of the monarchs.

Try to find a European country where you could live safely from the raids of barbarian tribes.

Only the Caliphate of Cordoba was safe. The Vikings sometimes attacked its coasts, but received a worthy rebuff, therefore they rarely attacked and did not go deep into the mainland. The lands from which the raids came were not attacked - Scandinavia and Hungary. The map shows that no one attacked Poland, Croatia and Serbia, but information about these countries in the 10th century is so scarce that, perhaps, information about such raids has not been preserved. Otherwise, there is no reason why the Vikings and Hungarians could avoid them. All other countries were subjected to raids, and even conquests, either by the Vikings, or their descendants (I remember, first of all, the campaign of Svyatoslav Igorevich against Bulgaria), or by the Hungarians.

Which parts of Charlemagne's empire became an empire again in 962?

The empire united the lands of many Germanic tribes, as well as the kingdoms of Burgundy and Lombard.

Can the formation of the Holy Roman Empire be considered the re-creation of a single imperial state of the West?

You can't count like that. Firstly, it did not unite all the territories that were part of the empire of Charlemagne. Secondly, it pretty quickly actually broke up into the possessions of large feudal lords, the power of the emperor was weak and weakened even more by rivalry with the popes.

Make a conclusion about the problem of the lesson.

The proclamation of the restoration of the empire did not stop feudal fragmentation even in the empire itself.

Try to describe the dispute between the approximate king and the count - big landowner in which one will prove the necessity united state, and the other - to object to him.

Such a dispute could be started by a supporter of the king with accusations against the count, who violated the feudal oath. To this, the supporter of the count would begin to say that the king was the first to violate the duties of a sovereign and therefore lost the right to the allegiance of his vassal.

After this, an argument from a supporter of the king about the raids of the Vikings and Hungarians could follow. In his opinion, as long as the kingdom was united, there were no such raids. A supporter of the count could cite many examples of this, when the royal troops went too slowly and it was the local counts who had to repel the raids.

A weak argument for a supporter of the king could be the benefits for trade, which was difficult to conduct when new borders had to be crossed every few kilometers. But he himself had to understand that a truly noble person, as participants in this dispute, did not care about trade, he cared about feats of arms and glory.

At that time, only the first pair of arguments were truly worthwhile. Because feudal law was relevant then. It painted when a vassal has the right to consider himself free from the oath, and when for its violation he is worthy of losing his fief.

Try to explain the difference in the concepts of state and feudal fragmentation. Check yourself in a dictionary.

With state fragmentation, a single state is divided into several, the ruler of each of them becomes a monarch. With feudal fragmentation, the state formally remains united, the feudal lords recognize the power of the monarch over themselves, again, formally, but in reality they do not obey him and even fight against him.

The period of feudal fragmentation is a natural stage in the progressive development of feudalism. The dismemberment of the early feudal grandiose empires (Kievan Rus or the Carolingian empire in Central Europe) into a number of de facto (and sometimes legally) sovereign states was an inevitable stage in the development of feudal society.

Even in the IV century. (395) The Roman Empire broke up into two independent parts - Western and Eastern. The capital of the Eastern part was Constantinople, founded by Emperor Constantine on the site of the former Greek colony of Byzantium. Byzantium was able to withstand the storms of the so-called "great migration of peoples" and survived after the fall of Rome (in 1410, the Visigoths took Rome after a long siege) as the "empire of the Romans." In the VI century. Byzantium occupied vast territories of the European continent (even Italy was conquered for a short time). Throughout the Middle Ages, Byzantium maintained a strong centralized state.

The overthrow of Romulus Augustine (1476) is generally considered to be the end of the Western Roman Empire. Numerous “barbarian” states arose on its ruins: the Ostrogothic (and then Lombard) in the Apennines, the kingdom of the Visigoths in the Iberian Peninsula, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Britain, the state of the Franks on the Rhine, etc.

The Frankish leader Clovis and his successors (the Merovingian dynasty, late V-VII centuries) expanded the borders of the state, pushed back the Visigoths and soon became hegemons in Western Europe. The position of the empire was strengthened even more under the Carolingians (VIII-IX centuries). However, behind the external centralization of the empire of Charlemagne, its internal weakness and fragility were hidden. Created by conquest, it was very colorful in its own way. ethnic composition: it included Saxons, Frisians, Alamans, Thuringians, Lombards, Bavarians, Celts and many other peoples. Each of the lands of the empire had little connection with the others and, without constant military and administrative coercion, did not want to submit to the power of the conquerors.

This form of empire - an outwardly centralized, but internally amorphous and fragile political association, gravitating towards universalism - was characteristic of many of the largest early feudal states in Europe (the Great Moravian state in the 9th century; the empire of the Othos in the 10th century; , which united England and the Scandinavian countries at the beginning of the 11th century, etc.).

The collapse of the empire of Charlemagne (after the death of his son Louis the Pious) in the 40s of the IX century. and the formation of France, Germany and Italy on its basis meant the beginning of a new era in the development of Western Europe.

X-XII centuries are a period of feudal fragmentation in Western Europe. There is an avalanche-like process of fragmentation of states: The feudal state in Western Europe in the X-XN centuries. exists in the form of small political formations - principalities, duchies, counties, etc., which had significant political power over their subjects, sometimes completely independent, sometimes only nominally united under the rule of a weak king.

Many cities of Northern and Central Italy - Venice, Genoa, Siena, Bologna, Ravenna, Lucca, etc. - in the IX-XII centuries. became city-states. Many cities in northern France (Amiens, Sussan, Laon, etc.) and Flanders also became self-governing commune states. They elected the council, its head - the mayor, had their own court and militia, their own finances and taxes. Often, commune cities themselves acted as a collective lord in relation to the peasants who lived in the territory surrounding the city.

In Germany, a similar position was occupied in the XII-XIII centuries. the largest of the so-called imperial cities. Formally, they were subordinate to the emperor, but in reality they were independent city republics (Lübeck, Nuremberg, Frankfurt am Main, etc.). They were governed by city councils, had the right to independently declare war, conclude peace and alliances, mint coins, etc.

A distinctive feature of the development of Germany during the period of feudal fragmentation was the predominance of the territorial principle over the tribal principle in its political organization. In place of the old tribal duchies, about 100 principalities appeared, of which over 80 were spiritual. The territorial princes took the place of the tribal dukes in the feudal hierarchy as well, forming an estate of imperial princes, the direct feudal lords of the crown. Many German imperial princes in the XII century. found themselves in vassalage from foreign sovereigns (sometimes even from several states).

In general, the period of feudal fragmentation was a period of economic growth in Europe. In the X-XII centuries. The feudal system in Western Europe took on a pan-European character and experienced a rise: the growth of cities, commodity production, and a deep division of labor turned commodity-money relations into the most important factor in social life. Clearing for arable land was accompanied by deforestation and reclamation work (Lombardy, Holland). The secondary landscape has risen; swamp area has been reduced. A qualitative leap was experienced by mining and metallurgical production: in Germany, Spain, Sweden, and England, mining and metallurgical industries grew into independent, separate industries. Construction is also on the rise. In the XII century. the first water pipeline with sewage elements is being built in Troyes. Mirror production begins (Venice). New mechanisms are created in weaving, mining, construction, metallurgy and other crafts. So, in Flanders in 1131, the first loom of a modern type appeared, etc. There was an increase in foreign and domestic trade.

On the other hand, the increase in the needs of the feudal lords in connection with the development of the market not only led to an increase in the exploitation of the peasantry, but also increased the desire of the feudal lords to seize other people's lands and wealth. This gave rise to many wars, conflicts, clashes. Many feudal lords and states were drawn into them (due to the intricacy and interweaving of vassal ties). State borders are constantly changing. More powerful sovereigns sought to subjugate others, making claims to world domination, trying to create a universalist (comprehensive) state under their hegemony. The main bearers of universalist tendencies were the Roman popes, Byzantine and German emperors.

Only in the XIII-XV centuries. in the countries of Western Europe, the process of centralization of the state begins, which gradually takes the form of a class monarchy. Here, already relatively strong royal power is combined with the presence of class-representative assemblies. The most rapid process of centralization took place in the following Western European states: England, France, Castile, Aragon.

In Rus', the period of feudal fragmentation begins in the 30s of the XII century. (In 1132, the Grand Duke of Kiev Mstislav, the son of Vladimir Monomakh, died; under 1132, the chronicler wrote: “And the whole Russian land was torn apart ...”). In place of a single state, sovereign principalities began to live an independent life, equal in scale to Western European kingdoms. Novgorod and Polotsk separated themselves earlier than others; after them - Galich, Volyn and Chernihiv, etc. The period of feudal fragmentation in Rus' continued until the end of the 15th century.

Within this more than three centuries of time there was a clear and difficult milestone - the Tatar invasion of 1237-1241, after which the foreign yoke sharply disrupted the natural course of the Russian historical process, greatly slowing it down.

Feudal fragmentation became a new form of statehood in the conditions of the rapid growth of productive forces and was largely due to this development. Tools of labor were improved (scientists count more than 40 types of them only from metal); plowed agriculture was established. Cities became a major economic force (in Rus' there were then about 300 of them). Ties with the market of individual feudal estates and peasant communities were very weak. They sought to satisfy their needs as much as possible at the expense of internal resources. Under the dominance of natural economy, it was possible for each region to separate from the center and exist as independent lands.

In the last years of the existence of Kievan Rus, the many thousands of local boyars received the Long Russian Pravda, which determined the norms of feudal law. But the book on parchment, kept in the Grand Duke's archive in Kyiv, did not contribute to the real implementation of the boyars' rights. Even the strength of the grand-princely virniki, swordsmen, and governor could not really help the distant provincial boyars on the outskirts of Kievan Rus. Zemsky boyars of the XII century. they needed their own, close, local authorities, which would be able to quickly implement the legal norms of Pravda, help in clashes with the peasants, and quickly overcome their resistance.

Feudal fragmentation was (however paradoxical at first glance!) the result not so much of differentiation as of historical integration. There was a growth of feudalism in breadth and its strengthening on the ground (under the dominance of subsistence farming), feudal relations took shape (vassal relations, immunity, the right to inherit, etc.).

The optimal scales for the feudal integration of that time, the geographical limits were worked out by life itself, even on the eve of the formation of Kievan Rus - "unions of tribes": glades, drevlyans, krivichi, vyatichi, etc. - Kievan Rus collapsed in the 30s. 12th century into one and a half dozen independent principalities, more or less similar to one and a half dozen ancient tribal unions. The capitals of many principalities were at one time the centers of tribal unions (Kyiv near the glades, Smolensk near the Krivichi, etc.). The unions of tribes were a stable community that took shape over the centuries; their geographical limits were determined by natural boundaries. During the existence of Kievan Rus, cities developed here that competed with Kiev; tribal and tribal nobility turned into boyars.

The order of taking the throne that existed in Kievan Rus, depending on seniority in the princely family (the so-called “ladder law”) created an atmosphere of instability and uncertainty. The transition of the prince in seniority from one city to another was accompanied by the movement of the entire domain apparatus. Foreigners (Poles, Polovtsy, etc.) were invited by the princes to resolve personal strife. Temporary stay in this or that land of the prince and his boyars gave rise to increased, "hurried" exploitation of the peasants and artisans. New forms of political organization of the state were needed, taking into account the prevailing correlation of economic and political forces. Feudal fragmentation became such a new form of state-political organization. In the centers of each of the principalities, their own, local dynasties developed: Olgovichi - in Chernigov, Izyaslavichi - in Volyn, Yuryevichi - in the Vladimir-Suzdal land, etc. Each of the new principalities fully satisfied the needs of the feudal lords: from any capital of the XII century. it was possible to ride to the border of this principality in three days. Under these conditions, the norms of Russian Truth could be confirmed by the ruler's sword in a timely manner. The calculation was also made on the interest of the prince - to transfer his reign to children in good economic condition, to help the boyars, who helped to settle here.

It is necessary to abandon the understanding of the entire era of feudal fragmentation as a time of regression, a movement backwards. Academician B. A. Rybakov proposes to abandon the usual, not very successful scientific and educational terminology (“Kievan Rus collapsed ...”, “a single state was split into a number of principalities ...”), to prefer other designations (for example, “Kievan Rus was a grain from which an ear grew, numbering several new grains-principalities").

Each of the principalities kept its own chronicle; princes issued their statutory charters. In general, the initial phase of feudal fragmentation (before the factor of conquest intervened in normal development) is characterized by the rapid growth of cities and the bright flowering of the culture of the 12th - early 13th centuries. in all its manifestations. The new political form contributed to progressive development, created conditions for the expression of local creative forces (each principality has its own architectural style, its own artistic and literary trends).

Let us also pay attention to negative sides era of feudal fragmentation:

1. A clear weakening of the overall military potential, facilitating foreign conquest. However, a caveat is needed here as well. Authors of the book “History of the Russian State. Historical and bibliographic essays” raises the question: “Would the Russian early feudal state be able to resist the Tatars? Who dares to answer in the affirmative? The forces of only one of the Russian lands - Novgorod - a little later turned out to be enough to defeat the German, Swedish and Danish invaders by Alexander Nevsky. In the face of the Mongol-Tatars, there was a collision with a qualitatively different enemy.

3. Increasing fragmentation of princely possessions: in the middle of the XII century. there were 15 principalities; at the beginning of the thirteenth century. (on the eve of the invasion of Batu) - about 50, and in the XIV century. (when the unification process of the Russian lands had already begun) the number of great and specific principalities reached approximately 250. The reason for this fragmentation was the division of the possessions of the princes between their sons: as a result, the principalities became smaller, weakened, and the results of this spontaneous process gave rise to ironic sayings among contemporaries (“In the Rostov land - a prince in every village ";" In the Rostov land, seven princes have one warrior ", etc.). Tatar-Mongol invasion 1237-1241 Rus' found itself a flourishing, rich and cultured country, but already affected by the “rust” of feudal specific fragmentation.

In each of the separated principalities-lands, at the initial stage of feudal fragmentation, similar processes took place:

1) the growth of the nobility (“lads”, “children”, etc.), palace servants;

2) strengthening the positions of the old boyars;

3) the growth of cities - a complex social organism of the Middle Ages. The association of artisans, merchants in cities into “brotherhoods”, “communities”, corporations close to craft workshops and merchant guilds of cities in Western Europe;

4) the development of the church as an organization (dioceses in the 12th century coincided geographically with the borders of principalities);

5) strengthening of the contradictions between the princes (the title "grand prince" was worn by the princes of all Russian lands) and the local boyars, the struggle between them for influence and power.

In each principality, due to the peculiarities of its historical development, its own balance of forces developed; its own, special, combination of the above elements came to the surface.

Thus, the history of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' is characterized by the victory of the grand ducal power over the landed aristocracy by the end of the 12th century. The princes here were able to suppress the separatism of the boyars, the power was established in the form of a monarchy.

In Novgorod (and later in Pskov), the boyars were able to subjugate the princes and established boyar feudal republics.

In the Galicia-Volyn land, there was an extremely heightened rivalry between the princes and local boyars, there was a kind of "balance of power". The boyar opposition (besides, constantly relying on either Hungary or Poland) failed to turn the land into a boyar republic, but significantly weakened the grand ducal power.

A special situation has developed in Kyiv. On the one hand, he became the first among equals. Soon, some Russian lands caught up and even outstripped him in their development. On the other hand, Kyiv remained an "apple of discord" (they joked that there was not a single prince in Rus' who did not seek to "sit" in Kyiv). Kyiv was "recaptured", for example, by Yuri Dolgoruky, Prince of Vladimir and Suzdal; in 1154 he achieved the throne of Kyiv and sat on it until 1157. His son Andrei Bogolyubsky sent regiments to Kyiv, and so on. Under such conditions, the Kiev boyars introduced a curious system of "duumvirate" (co-government), which lasted the entire second half of the 12th century. The meaning of this original measure was as follows: at the same time, representatives of two warring branches were invited to Kyiv land (an agreement was concluded with them - a “row”); thus, a relative balance was established and strife was partly eliminated. One of the princes lived in Kyiv, the other - in Belgorod (or Vyshgorod). They acted jointly on military campaigns and carried out diplomatic correspondence in concert. So, co-rulers duumvirs were Izyaslav Mstislavich and his uncle - Vyacheslav Vladimirovich; Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich and Rurik Mstislavich.

Question 4. The political system of Russia in the Time of Troubles. The essence and consequences of the evolution of the political role of law. Justify your answer, give examples.

The impoverishment and ruin of Russia under Ivan the Terrible meanwhile did not pass in vain. Masses of peasants left for new lands from fortresses and state burdens. The exploitation of the rest intensified. The farmers were entangled in debts and duties. The transition from one landowner to another became more and more difficult. Under Boris Godunov, several more decrees were issued that strengthened serfdom. In 1597, about a five-year term for the search for fugitives, in 1601-02, about limiting the transfer of peasants by some landowners from others. The desires of the nobility were fulfilled. But social tension from this did not weaken, but only grew.

The main reason for the aggravation of contradictions in the late XVI - early XVII centuries. there was an increase in serf burden and state duties of peasants and townspeople (posad people). There were great contradictions between the Moscow privileged and the outlying, especially the southern, nobility. Made up of fugitive peasants and other free people, the Cossacks were a combustible material in society: firstly, many had blood grievances against the state and the boyars-nobles, and secondly, they were people whose main occupation was war and robbery. There were strong intrigues between various groups of boyars.

In 1601-03. an unprecedented famine broke out in the country. First there were heavy rains for 10 weeks, then, at the end of summer, frost damaged the bread. Another crop failure next year. Although the king did a lot to alleviate the situation of the hungry: he distributed money and bread, brought down the price of it, arranged public works, etc., but the consequences were severe. About 130,000 people died in Moscow alone from the diseases that followed the famine. Many, from hunger, gave themselves up as slaves, and, finally, often the masters, unable to feed the servants, expelled the servants. Robbery and unrest of runaway and walking people began (the leader of Khlopko Kosolap), who operated near Moscow itself and even killed governor Basmanov in a battle with the tsarist troops. The rebellion was crushed, and its participants fled to the south, where they joined the troops of the impostor, Bolotnikov and others.

Hunger and other misfortunes exacerbated all contradictions. The people associated the disasters of the country with the murder of Dmitry and the unrighteous accession of Godunov.

Yuri Otrepiev came from a noble family, whose representatives owned estates in the Galician district. Most likely, he was born around 1581, i.e. was a year older than Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich. Yuri's father, the archer centurion Bogdan Ivanovich, was stabbed to death with a drunken Litvin in the German settlement in Moscow. The boy grew up under the supervision of his mother and learned to read and write from her, showing rare abilities. Then he moved to Moscow, where he continued his education, learning the art of writing beautifully. Then, Otrepiev entered the service of the devious Mikhail Nikitich Romanov as a combat serf. It is possible that it was during the service of the Romanovs that Otrepyev had (or was inspired by) the idea to take the name of Tsarevich Dmitry. The defeat of the Romanov dynasty in 1600 forced Otrepiev to flee from the tsar's wrath. The young man left the capital and took the vows as a monk with the name Gregory in one of the provincial monasteries.

For Russia in the 17th century. became a time of difficult trials, great social upheavals, a "rebellious age". The strengthening of the feudal state was accompanied by the strengthening of serfdom, fixed by the Council Code of 1649, the aggravation of the political and class struggle, a vivid expression of which was the Time of Troubles - the civil war of the beginning of the century, urban uprisings in the middle of the century and the peasant war of 1670-1671. under the leadership of S. Razin. Wars with Poland, Sweden, Turkey and the Crimean Khanate cost a lot of money and human losses. The crisis of the autocracy, which caused the change of the ruling dynasty, the split of the church and many other events testify to the difficult path of development of Russia in the 17th century, which began with the famine years of 1601-1603. and ended with a fierce struggle of Peter I with opponents of his transformations, in the blood that drowned the last streltsy rebellion of 1698.

As for Western Europe, the XVII century. was in many ways a turning point for Russia. It was during this period that the foundation was laid for the future reforms of Peter the Great, which contributed to the rapprochement of Russia with Europe. Historically, the Old Russian state developed much later than the states of Western Europe. The era of Kievan Rus was a time when Russia quickly carried out its development. In the field of economy and culture, Rus' was in no way inferior to the leading European states. By the beginning of the XII century. Ancient Rus' became one of the most powerful states of the then world. All the leading European royal families were connected with the Kyiv Grand Duke's house by dynastic marriages.

The Mongol-Tatar invasion delayed the socio-economic and political development of our country for a long time, interrupted, in particular, the development that had been outlined at the turn of the 12th-13th centuries. the process of rapid development of commodity-money relations, which unfolded in Western Europe. This contributed to the conservation and deepening of feudal-serf relations in Russia. While Russia fought heroically against the Mongol invaders for 240 years, thereby saving Europe, the West was moving forward. Russia found itself in a long isolation from the progressive trends in the socio-economic and political development of Europe. The liquidation of the Mongol-Tatar yoke and the formation of a single state in the XV-XVI centuries. became the basis for Russia's gradual exit from isolation.

The main direction of this was the struggle for access to the Baltic Sea. In Europe itself, this desire of Russia to catch up with it has given rise to serious opponents. At the very beginning of the XVII century. the country experienced one of the most tragic pages of its history. Taking advantage of the aggravation of the socio-economic and political situation in Russia, Poland and Sweden undertook an intervention, the purpose of which was ultimately not only to throw Russia off the shores of the Baltic, but also to seize a significant part of its territory. In this intervention, the Swedes implemented the historical testament of King Gustavus Adolf II: “Now this enemy cannot launch a single vessel into the Baltic Sea without our permission. Large lakes - Ladoga and Peydus - Narva region, thirty miles of vast swamps and strong fortresses separate us from it; the sea has been taken away from Russia, and, God willing, it will now be difficult for the Russians to swim across this stream.

In this respect, the Polish-Swedish intervention was a success for the Swedes in the Baltics. However, the consequences of this Swedish victory will be unexpected for Europe. Noting this circumstance, one of the greatest English historians A. Toynbee wrote the following: “According to the agreement of 1617 concluded between Sweden and Muscovy, Russia was deprived of access to the Baltic Sea. However, pressure on Russia from Poland and Sweden in the 17th century. was so furious that it was bound to evoke a response. The temporary presence of the Polish garrison in Moscow and the permanent presence of the Swedish army on the banks of the Narva and Neva deeply traumatized the Russians, and this internal shock pushed them to practical action, which was expressed in the process of "Westernization" led by Peter the Great.

The trend of gradual rapprochement between Russia and the West was outlined precisely in the process of overcoming the troubled times, from the reign of the first Romanovs. One of the leading Russian historians, V. O. Klyuchevsky, emphasized that the reforms were started by Peter's predecessors, and they only continued them. Describing the era of the reign of the first of the Romanovs - Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, another great Russian historian S. M. Solovyov wrote: “The old customs were still observed in all severity in relations with alien peoples and their representatives who came to Moscow; but the admission of more and more foreigners into the state, the clearly expressed need for them, their clearly expressed superiority in science, the need to learn from them, foreshadowed the imminent revolution of Russian society, the imminent rapprochement with Western Europe. It was under Mikhail Fedorovich, Solovyov noted, that an intensified process of inviting military leaders, artisans, factory owners, scientists, etc. from abroad began.

2.1. The period of feudal fragmentation in Western Europe and in Rus': the essence and causes

2.2. Mongol-Tatars and Rus'

The Mongolian state arose thanks to the military and diplomatic activities of Temujin, in the future Genghis Khan, aimed at uniting the Mongol tribes. The latter included the Mongols proper, to which Temujin belonged, the Merkits, Keraits, Oira-ty, Naimans, Tatars. The largest and most warlike of the Mongol tribes was the Tatar tribe. Tanguts, Jurchens, Chinese, who bordered on the Mongols, often transferred the name "Tatars" in general to all Mongolian tribes of the 11th-12th centuries.

The future Genghis Khan was born, according to some sources, in 1162, according to others - in 1155. He received the name Temujin at birth, because his father, the grandson of Yesugei Bagatur, who was at enmity with the Tatars, captured the Tatar leader the day before

In his struggle for power over other tribes, Temujin achieved significant success. Around 1180, he was elected khan of the Mongol tribal union proper. The decisive factor was the real power that Temujin gained thanks to his abilities. Representatives of the Mongolian steppe aristocracy, having elected Temujin Khan, gave him the title of Chiigis Khan.

In 1185 Temujin, in alliance with the head of the Kereit tribe, Van Khan, defeated the Merkit union of tribes. This victory strengthened his position.

In the spring of 1202, Genghis Khan utterly defeated the Tatars. All captured Tatar men were killed, and women and children were distributed among different tribes. The khan himself took two Tatars as his wife.

Sooner or later, the logic of the struggle had to lead Chiygis Khan to a clash with the Kereit Van Khan, from which he ultimately emerged victorious. Having crushed in 1204 the last strong rival of Tayan Khan, the head of the Naiman union of tribes, Genghis Khan became the only powerful leader in the Mongolian steppes.

In 1206, at a congress (kurultai) of the Mongol nobility in the upper reaches of the Onon River, Genghis Khan was again proclaimed khan, but already of a single Mongol state.

The Mongolian state was built on a military model. The entire territory and population were divided into three parts: the center, the right and left wings. Each part, in turn, was subdivided into "darkness" (10 thousand people), "thousands", "hundreds", "tens" headed by temniks, thousanders, centurions, tenants. Companions were at the head of these military-administrative formations Genghis Khan - his noyons and nukers.

Each military-administrative unit, starting from the lowest level, had not only to put up a fixed number of soldiers with horses, equipment, provisions, but also to bear various feudal duties.

Having created a strong state, the structure of which contributed to the rapid deployment of military forces, Genghis Khan began to implement plans to conquer neighboring states.

The news that reached the northeast of Rus' about the defeat and capture by the Mongol-Tatars of the largest states of Asia, the devastation of vast territories with flourishing cities and populous villages served as a terrible warning.

It is quite possible to assume that Vladimir and the Vladimir-Suzdal principality were one of the most informed regions of Europe. Proximity and constant communication with the Volga made it possible to obtain reliable and varied information about the East, Asia, and the Tatars.

Apparently, in Rus' they also knew about the Mongol campaign of 1219-1224. to Central Asia, about its enormous devastating consequences for the agricultural regions and urban life of Central Asia. They knew what the civilian population expected in the event of an invasion by nomadic conquerors.

It should be noted that under Genghis Khan organized robbery and division of military booty, the devastation of entire regions and the extermination of the civilian population were used. A whole system of mass organized terror has developed, which was carried out from above (and not from below, by ordinary soldiers, as before, during nomadic invasions), aimed at destroying elements of the population capable of resistance, intimidating civilians.

During the siege of the city, the inhabitants received mercy only on condition of immediate surrender, although this rule was sometimes not respected if it seemed unprofitable to the Mongols. If the city surrendered only after a long resistance, its inhabitants were driven out into the field, where they were left for five to ten days or more under the supervision of the Mongol warriors. After the robbery of the city and the division of the booty, they were mistaken for the townspeople. Soldiers were killed, their families were turned into slavery. Girls and young women also became slaves and were divided between the nobility and warriors. According to a contemporary, the Arab historian Ibn al-Asir, after the capture of Bukhara, the inhabitants were driven out into the field and then were divided among the warriors by order of Genghis Khan. According to Ibn al-Asir, the Tatars raped the women they inherited right there in front of the townspeople, who “looked and cried,” unable to do anything.

Craftsmen and skilled craftsmen were distributed as slaves between the Mongol princes and the nobility, but their fate was somewhat better, since they were often not separated from their families. Healthy male youth climbed into the "crowd", i.e. it was used for heavy siege work and convoy service, and during the battles the “crowd people” were in front of the troops, serving as a target for shots from their own compatriots. The rest of the inhabitants were allowed to return to their ruined dwellings.

If the city was taken only by storm after stubborn resistance, or if an uprising began in an already conquered city, the Mongols carried out a general massacre. The surviving inhabitants, previously expelled into the field, were distributed among the soldiers, who were to kill the survivors. Sometimes, along with the cities, their rural districts were also cut out. After the massacre, the captured scribes were forced to count the number of those killed.

After the defeat on the Kalka River in 1223, Rus' began to closely monitor the actions of the Mongol-Tatars. Let us pay attention to the fact that the chronicle of the Vladimir principality contains records of the victory of the Mongols over the Saksins and Eastern Polovtsy in 1229, about the wintering of the Mongol-Tatars near the borders of the Volga Bulgaria in 1232. Under 1236, the annals contain a message about the conquest of the Volga Bulgaria by the Mongols . The chronicler describes the defeat of the capital of Bulgaria - the Great City. This message of the Vladimir chronicler carried a frank warning of impending catastrophe. She broke out a year later.

It should be noted that in 1235 a decision was made at the kurultai on a general Mongol campaign to the West. According to the Persian author Juvayni (died in 1283), at the kurultai of 1235 “the decision was made to take possession of the countries of Bulgar, Ases and Rus, which were in the neighborhood of the Batu camp, but were not yet completely conquered and were proud of their large numbers.”

Having defeated the Volga Bulgaria in 1236, and in 1237 launched a broad offensive against the Polovtsy in the Caspian steppes, in the North Caucasus, by the autumn of 1237 the Mongol-Tatars concentrated their forces near the borders of North-Eastern Rus'. The Ryazan Principality was the first to experience the strength of the Mongol-Tatar army. Having taken Ryazan in December 1237, Batu set off on the ice of the Oka towards Kolomna. Near Kolomna, the Mongol-Tatars were waiting for the Vladimir-Suzdal regiments, led by the son of the great Vladimir prince Vsevolod. The battle that took place in January 1238 near Kolomna was distinguished by stubbornness and bitterness. It is known that Prince Kyulkan (the only prince who died during the western campaign of the Mongols) was mortally wounded in the battle. This gives grounds to conclude that the battle was of an exceptionally tense character (like all Chinggisids, the youngest son of Chinggis Khan Kulkan, in accordance with the Mongol rules of war, was located in the rear of the troops). Despite the fact that, according to the chronicler, the Vladimir-Suzdal and Ryazan warriors "strongly fought" near Kolomna, they failed to stop the Mongol-Tatars. Having crushed Moscow in January 1238, the Mongols approached Vladimir in early February. In view of the significant losses suffered by the Vladimir-Suzdal army near Kolomna, Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich went north to gather forces, leaving his sons Vsevolod and Mstislav in Vladimir. Despite the fact that the city had quite powerful fortifications, the defenders of Vladimir, with all their heroism and courage, were able to resist the Mongols, who used siege, wall-beating guns, only for a few days, until February 8th. And then followed the horrific defeat of the capital of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir. On March 4, 1238, the Mongol commander Burundai surprised Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich, who was encamped on the City River. Together with the Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich, many Russian waves died. Mongolian detachments captured Tver, appeared within the Novgorod land. Before reaching 100 versts to Novgorod, the Mongol-Tatars turned south and, having passed the "raid" through the Russian lands (including the outskirts of the Smolensk and Chernigov principalities), returned to the steppe.

After spending the summer of 1238 in the Don steppes, Batu again invaded the Ryazan land in the autumn. In 1239, the main blow of the Mongols-Tatars fell on the southern Russian lands. In the spring of 1239, the Principality of Pereyaslavl was defeated, in the autumn it was the turn of Chernigov, which was besieged on October 18, 1239. The city was defended to the last opportunity. Many of its defenders perished on the walls. At the end of 1240 Kyiv fell. In 1241, Batu invaded the Galicia-Volyn principality.

Reporting on the Mongol invasion, the chronicler noted that the Tatars appeared innumerable, "like a pruzi, eating grass." The question of the number of Batu's troops has attracted the attention of historians for about 200 years. Starting from N.M. Karamzin, most pre-revolutionary researchers (D.I. Ilovaisky and others) arbitrarily estimated the size of the Mongol army at 300 thousand people, or, uncritically using the data of chroniclers, wrote about 400, 500, and even 600 thousand army.

Such figures are, of course, a clear exaggeration, because it is much more than there were men in Mongolia in the thirteenth century.

Historian V.V. Kargalov, as a result of studying the problem, came to the conclusion that the strength of Batu's army was 120-140 thousand people. However, this figure should be recognized as overestimated.

After all, each Mongol warrior needed to have at least three horses: riding, pack and fighting, which was not loaded, so that she retained her strength by the decisive moment of the battle. Providing food for half a million horses concentrated in one place is an extremely difficult task. The horses died, went to the food of the soldiers. It is no coincidence that the Mongols demanded fresh horses from all the cities that entered into negotiations with them.

The well-known researcher N. Veselovsky determined the number of the Mongolian army at 30 thousand people. L.N. adhered to the same assessment. Gumilev. A similar position (the number of Batu's army is 30-40 thousand people) is characteristic of historians

According to the most recent estimates, which can be considered quite convincing, the number of Mongol troops proper, which were at the disposal of Batu, was 50-60 thousand people.

The widespread opinion that every Mongol was a warrior cannot be considered reliable. How was the Mongol army recruited? A certain number of wagons put up one or two warriors and supplied them with everything necessary for the campaign.

An opinion is expressed that in addition to the Mongol troops proper, 50-60 thousand people, Batu's army included auxiliary corps from the conquered peoples. However, in reality, Batu did not have such corps. Usually the Mongols did this. Prisoners captured in battle and civilians were herded into an assault crowd, which was driven into battle in front of the Mongol units. Detachments of allies and vassals were also used. Behind this "assault crowd", doomed to die in the vanguard battle, the Mongolian barrage detachments were placed.

By the way, approaching the real figure of the number of Mongolian troops helps to understand the nature of hostilities in 1237-1238. Having suffered significant losses in battles with the Ryazan and Vladimir residents, the Mongols then hardly took the small cities of Torzhok and Kozelsk and were forced to abandon the campaign against the populous (about 30 thousand inhabitants) Novgorod.

When determining the real size of Batu's army, the following must be taken into account. The military equipment of the Mongol-Tatars was superior to the European one. They did not wear heavy armor, but robes with several layers of felt protected them better than iron from arrows. The range of the arrow flight for English archers, the best in Europe, was 450 m, and for the Mongols - up to 700 m. This advantage was achieved due to the complex design of their bow, the fact that certain muscle groups were trained in Mongolian archers from childhood. Mongolian boys, from the age of six, mounting a horse and taking up arms, growing up, became a kind of perfect war machines.

As a rule, Russian cities withstood no more than one or two weeks of siege, since the Mongols at the same time carried out continuous exhausting attacks, changing units. For example, from December 16 to December 21, 1237, Ryazan was subjected to a similar continuous assault, after which the city was plundered and burned, and the inhabitants were killed.

What military forces did Rus' have? Russian and Soviet historians since the time of S.M. Solovyov, following the chronicler's report, believed that Vladimir-Suzdal Rus', together with Novgorod and Ryazan, could put up 50 thousand people and the same number of Southern Rus'. There are reasons to doubt the reality of such figures.

It would be unreasonable to reduce the essence of the problem to this particular figure. It can be assumed that all the Russian principalities could potentially put together an army of similar numbers. But the whole point is that the Russian princes were unable to unite their efforts even in the hour of formidable danger.

Unsuccessfully, the Ryazan prince Yuri Igorevich turned to Vladimir and Chernigov for help. Why did the Grand Duke of Vladimir and the supreme overlord of the Ryazan princes Yuri Vsevolodovich not send help? It is even difficult to assume that Yuri Vsevolodovich wanted to defeat the vassals, which deprived him of a buffer between the steppe and the borders of his own principality. The defeat of the Volga Bulgaria, the death of the population, which the Grand Duke was aware of, left no doubt that there would be a life-and-death struggle.

Of course, the explanation can be sought in the fact that help did not have time to reach. However, this is what the chronicler writes: “Prince Yury himself does not go, he does not listen to the prayers of the princes of Ryazan, but he wants to create abuse himself ...”. That is, in essence, the same situation arose as in the battle on the Kalka in 1223. Each prince wanted to fight alone, without allies.

Is it just a simple desire for individual action? It seems that we are faced with the manifestation of one of the traits social psychology, characteristic of chivalry during the period of feudal fragmentation, when each knight, each commander, each feudal army pursued the goal of their own personal participation in the battle, often not at all taking into account the general actions, which predetermined the unfavorable outcome of the battle. So it was in the West, so it happened in Rus'.

The strife continued. The chronicler, next to the story of the defeat of Pereyaslavl and Chernigov by the Mongols, calmly tells about the campaign of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, during which he took the city of Kamenets, in which the family of his rival Mikhail Vsevolodovich Chernigov was located, captured many prisoners.

Discord over the Kyiv table did not stop. Occupying the reign of Kiev, Mikhail Vsevolodovich, not hoping to protect the city, fled to Hungary. The vacated Kiev throne was hurried to take the Smolensk prince Rostislav Mstislavich, but he was soon expelled by Daniel of Galicia, who did not prepare the city for defense.

According to the Mongolian rules of war, those cities that submitted voluntarily were called "gobalyk" - a good city. From such cities, a moderate contribution was taken in horses for the cavalry and food supplies. But after all, it is quite natural that the Russian people, in the face of ruthless conquerors, tried with all their might to defend their native land and rejected the idea of capitulation. Evidence of this, for example, is the prolonged defense of Kyiv (according to the Pskov Third Chronicle, for 10 weeks and four days, from September 5 to November 19! 1240). Excavations of other cities of the Kyiv land (Vyshgorod, Belgorod, etc.) also point to the heroic defense of these centers. Archaeologists have discovered thick layers of conflagrations, hundreds of human skeletons have been found under burnt houses, fortress walls, in the streets and squares.

Yes, one can cite facts of open cooperation with the Tatars. So, the petty princes of the Bolokhov land (Upper Bug region), who supported the Galician boyars in the fight against Daniil Romanovich, quickly agreed with the Mongol-Tatars. The latter freed them from recruitment into their army, on the condition that they be supplied with wheat and millet.

The Mongol army needed to be replenished, so the Mongols offered those captured to buy freedom at the price of joining their army. In the chronicle of Matthew of Paris, there is a letter from two monks, in which it was reported that there were “many Cumans and pseudo-Christians” (i.e., Orthodox) in the Mongol army. The first recruitment among Russians was made in 1238-1241. Note that in this case we are again talking, apparently, about the "assault crowd".

This took place in real life, but the emphasis should be placed differently.

The consequences of the Mongol invasion were extremely severe. In the cultural deposits of the cities that took the blow of the Mongol-Tatars, layers of continuous conflagrations and hundreds of skeletons with traces of wounds were found. There was no one to collect and bury the bodies of the dead. When Daniil Romanovich returned to Vladimir-Volynsky, a terrible sight appeared before his eyes. In the deserted city, as noted by N.I. Kostomarov, the churches were filled with piles of corpses. In church buildings, residents sought refuge and died there.

The Italian monk Plano Carpini, who visited Rus' in 1246, wrote that "when we rode through their land, we found countless heads and bones of dead people lying on the field." In Kyiv, according to Plano Carpini, there are only 200 houses left.

The border of agriculture moved to the north, the southern fertile lands were called the "Wild Field". Russian people who were driven to the Horde, partly remained there as servants and slaves, partly were sold to other countries. In the slave trade of the Golden Horde with Egypt, Syria, France, Italy, women were the main commodity. In the Western European market, the most significant amount (15 times more than the usual price) was paid for a seventeen-year-old Russian girl.

Despite the dire consequences of the Mongol-Tatar campaign against Russian lands, life went on. The Mongols did not leave garrisons anywhere, and after the departure of the Mongol army, the inhabitants returned to their ruined homes and cities. Survived such large centers as Novgorod, Pskov, Polotsk, Smolensk. Often, when the Tatars approached, the population went into the forest. Forests, ravines, rivers, swamps sheltered both villages and people from the Tatar cavalry. Ukrainian archaeologist