Any large state in its history goes through stages of formation, expansion, weakening and collapse. The collapse of a state is almost always painful and is considered by descendants as a tragic page in history. Kievan Rus was no exception. Its collapse was accompanied by internecine wars and struggle with external enemies. It began in the 11th century and ended by the end of the 13th century.
Feudal structure of Rus' | According to established tradition, each prince did not bequeath his possessions to one son, but distributed the possessions among all his sons. A similar phenomenon led to the fragmentation of not only Rus', but also dozens of other feudal monarchies in Eurasia. |
Transformation of estates into fiefdoms. Formation of dynasties | Often, after the death of an appanage prince, his son became the next prince, although formally the Grand Duke of Kiev could appoint any of his relatives to the appanage. Without feeling dependent on Kyiv, the appanage princes pursued an increasingly independent policy. |
Economic independence | Due to the predominance of subsistence farming, the estates, especially on the outskirts of Rus', had little need for the development of a national transport and trade infrastructure. |
Weakening of the capital | The struggle of appanage princes for the right to own Kiev harmed the city itself and weakened its power. Over time, possession of the ancient capital of Rus' ceased to be the priority of the princes. |
Global changes in the world | By the end of the 12th century, against the background of the weakening of Byzantium and the activation of nomads in the Great Steppe and Asia Minor, the “Road from the Varangians to the Greeks” lost its former significance. At one time, he played an important role in the unification of the Kyiv and Novgorod lands. The decline of the Path led to a weakening of ties between the ancient centers of Rus'. |
Mongolian factor | After the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the title of Grand Duke lost its former meaning, since the appointment of each appanage prince depended not on the grand-ducal will, but on the Horde label. |
Consequences of the collapse of Rus'
Formation of individual East Slavic peoples | Although in the era of the unity of Rus' there were differences in the traditions, social structure and speech of different East Slavic tribes, during the years of feudal fragmentation these differences became much more pronounced. |
Strengthening regional centers | Against the backdrop of the weakening of Kyiv, some appanage principalities strengthened. Some of them (Polotsk, Novgorod) were important centers before, while others (Vladimir-on-Klyazma, Turov, Vladimir-Volynsky) began to play an important role at the turn of the 12th - 13th centuries. |
Urban decline | Unlike rural subsistence farms, cities needed the supply of many goods. The emergence of new borders and the loss of uniform laws led to the decline of urban crafts and trade. |
Political decline | Fractured Rus' could not resist the Mongol invasion. The expansion of Russian lands stopped, and some of them came under the control of neighboring states (Poland, knightly states, the Horde). |
Formation and rise of new states. | In the northeastern and northwestern parts of Rus', new centers arose, which began to reassemble the East Slavic lands around themselves. The Principality of Lithuania was born in Novogrudok, the capital of which was later moved to Vilna. In the northeastern part of Rus' it formed Muscovy. It was these two entities that began the successful process of unifying the East Slavic lands. The Lithuanian principality eventually turned into a unitary class-representative monarchy, and the Moscow principality into an absolute one. |
The collapse of Rus' and world history
Representatives of academic science are unanimous that the stage of feudal fragmentation is a natural and inevitable part of the history of any feudal state. The collapse of Rus' was accompanied by the complete loss of a single all-Russian center and powerful foreign policy upheavals. Many believe that it was during this period that three East Slavic nationalities clearly stood out from the previously unified Old Russian nationality. Although centralized states on the territory of Rus' began to form already in the 14th century; the last appanage principalities were liquidated only at the end of the 15th century.
Closer to the middle of the 12th century, Ancient Rus' actually broke up into 13 lands of heterogeneous area and population composition.
Nine princely “fatherlands” remained the backbone of the state.
The Principality of Goroden (city of Gorodno), which later disintegrated into volosts and came under the rule of Lithuania.
The Turov-Pinsk principality, located in Polesie and in the lower reaches of the Pripyat River, with the cities of Turov and Pinsk. Two centuries later it came under the rule of the Lithuanian princes.
The Volyn-Vladimir principality was headed by the city of Vladimir, which included the smaller cities of Lutsk, Izyaslavl, Dorogobuzh, Shumsk and others.
The Smolensk Principality with its center in Smolensk, which was located in the upper reaches of the Volga and Northern Dvina rivers and included at least 18 cities and settlements, including Mozhaisk, Orsha, Rzhev, Toropets and Rostislavl.
The Principality of Suzdal (Rostov-Suzdal, and in the 12th century - Vladimir-Suzdal), which was located in the northeast of Rus' and extended far to the north.
The Principality of Murom, headed by the city of Murom, was for a long time part of the Kyiv fiefdom, but separated at the beginning of the 13th century and existed until the invasion of the Horde.
Around 1160, the Ryazan Principality with its center in Ryazan separated from the Principality of Murom. True, historians often consider these lands as one whole.
In the south of Rus', the Principality of Chernigov and the Principality of Galicia continued to exist.
The Principality of Kiev was still considered the center of the Old Russian land, although the power of Kyiv was nominal and rested on the authority of ancestors and tradition.
Another four “lands” did not have princely power over them. This was Novgorod with the surrounding territories, in which a strong local elite was formed and power belonged to the veche. Later, Pskov broke away from the Novgorod lands, which was also governed by the people's assembly. The Pereyaslav lands did not have their own princes, but invited rulers from outside to reign. For a long time, the city of Galich remained unoccupied (later it became part of the Galicia-Volyn principality).
Internal and foreign policy states were ahead of the four most powerful principalities - Suzdal, Volyn, Smolensk and Chernigov.
The principality of Tmutarkan and the city of Belaya Vezha, known until the 12th century, fell under the onslaught of the Kipchaks (Polovtsians) at the very beginning of the century and ceased to exist.
The first large state association in Rus' was Kievan Rus, which was formed from 15 tribal unions. After the death of the Kyiv prince Mstislav the Great, the unified state fell apart. Phenomena of future fragmentation appeared even during the reign of the Yaroslavichs, princely strife grew, especially in connection with the imperfection of the system of “ladder ascension” to the Kiev throne.
In 1097, a congress of princes was held in Lyubech. At the suggestion of V. Monomakh, a new political system was established. It was decided to create a federation of individual princely domains: “let each one maintain his fatherland.” The Russian land was no longer considered a single possession of the entire princely house, but became the hereditary inheritance of the Rurikovichs. This is how the division of Rus' into separate principalities was legally formalized, and although subsequently V. Monomakh and his son Mstislav were able to restore the unity of the state, Rus' still broke up into 14 principalities and the Novgorod Feudal Republic.
Feudal fragmentation became a new form of state-political organization of society. The dependence of the principalities and lands on Kyiv was of a formal nature. However, the political collapse of Russia was never complete, because The influence of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose activities were led by the Kiev Metropolitan, remained.
The reasons for the collapse were political and socio-economic in nature. Since the end of the 11th century in Rus' there has been a rapid economic boom associated with the development of agriculture, crafts and trade. This contributed to the growth of income of all feudal lords and the strengthening of the power of local princely dynasties, which began to create regional military forces and administrative apparatuses. The interests of the appanage princes were also supported by the local boyars, who sought to free themselves from the grand-ducal power and stop paying polyudie to Kyiv. It is worth noting that at this time cities, the number of which exceeded 300, began to play a significant role in the economic and political life of Rus'. They became administrative and military centers for the surrounding lands, had their own administrative apparatus and no longer needed power from Kiev.
The cradle of the Russian people is northeast of Rus'. The North-Eastern lands were originally called the Rostov-Suzdal land. This territory separated from Kyiv in the first half of the 12th century. The social organization was similar to other lands: the veche, the traditions of communal democracy, the significant role of the boyars, who symbolized the autonomy of society from the power of the princes. The princes of North-Eastern Rus' sought to expand their influence. Campaigns were repeatedly undertaken against Novgorod, Kyiv, and Volga Bulgaria. Yuri Dolgoruky (1155-1157) and Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157-1174) became famous for their especially active politics. Yuri Dolgoruky is credited with laying the foundation of the fortress (Kremlin) in Moscow in 1152. It was under him that the last threads of dependence on Kiev were severed: the traditional tribute of the Zalesskaya (that is, Rostov-Suzdal) land to the Kiev Grand Duke was abolished.
In 1157, the capital of the principality became the city of Vladimir. From the middle of the 12th century. here a tradition of local chronicle writing developed with the inclusion of news from other lands (Vladimir Chronicles). North-Eastern Rus' sought to become a base for the unification of fragmented Rus'. The Vladimir princes were considered great, that is, the main ones in the northeast, as “elders in the family” among local princes, they were prone to authoritarianism and sought to subjugate other lands, limiting their liberties. Andrei Bogolyubsky was especially distinguished by this. Striving to become the “auto-ruler” of the entire Suzdal land in church and secular affairs, he fought against the separatism of the boyars, wanted to establish a special metropolis in Vladimir and thereby raise the importance of the Vladimir land (the metropolitan’s headquarters, in conditions of fragmentation, was still in Kiev, and speech was about leaving the jurisdiction of the Kiev Metropolitan). Andrei Bogolyubsky paid for this desire with his life. In 1174 he was killed.
His brother Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176-1212), who replaced him after lengthy strife, feared a new outbreak of internal struggle, preserved the traditions of significant autonomy of the boyars and communities from the authorities, but continued the trend towards centralization of power. He expanded the possessions of the Vladimir principality and had a significant influence on the situation in other principalities (Kiev, Chernigov, Ryazan, etc.). Thanks to his smart policies, Vsevolod had great authority (his activities are glorified in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”) and was recognized as an elder of the Monomakhovichs (descendants of Vladimir Monomakh). However, at the end of his life, Vsevolod divided the principality into fiefs between his six sons (this was in accordance with the ancient Russian tradition), which after his death led to the weakening of the principality, to new long-term civil strife and the separation of the Rostov, Pereyaslavl, Yuryevsky, Starodubsky, Suzdal, Yaroslavl principalities.
The trends towards strengthening the Principality of Vladimir and strengthening its influence were continued by Alexander Nevsky (Grand Duke of Vladimir in 1252-1263). Under him, only Vladimir princes were invited to Novgorod. As you can see, the origins of the history of the Russian people showed significant features in public organization and political culture.
Thus, in conditions of fragmentation, the prerequisites for unity on a new economic, cultural, and political basis were maturing. Here, in the future, a national state could emerge, a single people could be formed. However, this did not happen. The development of Rus' went differently. The turning point in its history, as in Europe, was the 13th century, but if from that time Europe was actively moving along the path of introducing a progressive type of development, then Russia faced another problem. In 1237, Mongol-Tatars appeared within Russian borders. However, the danger came not only from the East, but also from the West. The strengthening Lithuania, as well as the Swedes, Germans and Livonian knights, were advancing on Russian lands. The fragmented Ancient Rus' was faced with a difficult problem: how to preserve itself, how to survive. It found itself, as it were, between the millstones of the East and the West, and ruin came from the East, from the Tatars, and the West demanded a change of faith, the adoption of Catholicism. In this regard, the Russian princes, in order to save the population, could bow to the Tatars, agree to heavy tribute and humiliation, but resist the invasion from the West.
Large center of Russian Slavs – Novgorod, which arose in the 9th century, existed relatively independently and especially clearly demonstrated its closeness to the medieval European type of civilization during the period of the Novgorod Republic (late 11th-15th centuries). It developed at the same pace as Western Europe at that time and was an analogue to the city-republics of the Hanseatic League, the city-republics of Italy: Venice, Genoa, Florence. Novgorod already in the 12th century. was a huge trading city, known throughout Europe; the permanent fair here, in terms of its international significance, had no rivals not only in Russian lands, but also in many Western European countries. Novgorod goods circulated over a vast territory from London to the Ural Mountains. The city minted its own coins, issued its own laws, waged wars and made peace.
Novgorod experienced powerful pressure from the medieval European civilization, which was experiencing a crisis, but managed to defend its independence. The Swedes, Germans, knights of the Livonian and Teutonic orders joined forces for a campaign against Novgorod. They ended with the defeat of the knights (Battle of the Neva in 1240, Battle of the Ice in 1242). But fate saved us from danger from the east: Novgorod was not subjected to the Mongol-Tatar invasion. Under pressure from both the West and the East, the republic sought to maintain independence and defend its type of development. Prince Alexander Nevsky became especially famous in the struggle for the independence of Novgorod. He pursued a flexible policy, making concessions to the Golden Horde and organizing resistance to the advance of Catholicism from the west.
Novgorod had developed forms of republican democracy for its time. The principles of Novgorod democracy gave advantages to the owners: the nobility, owners of estates, city yards and estates, but the city plebs (black people) also had the opportunity to participate in the life of the republic. The highest authority was the people's assembly (veche). The veche had broad rights. The elected senior officials included: the mayor, who was in charge of administration and court; thousand, who led the militia in case of war, and in peacetime performed police functions. The veche also elected a commercial court, which was of particular importance for Novgorod. It was also the supreme court of the republic. The administrative parts of Novgorod had self-government based on the community principle.
The princes had no power and were invited to Novgorod to perform certain functions. Their tasks were to protect Novgorod from enemies (but they could not start a war without the permission of the veche), to perform representative functions - the princes represented Novgorod in relations with other lands. Tribute was paid to the prince. The change of princely power over 200 years from 1095 to 1304 occurred 58 times.
The church in Novgorod was also independent and differed in position from other Russian lands. At a time when Novgorod was part of the Kiev state, the Metropolitan of Kiev sent a bishop, the head of the church, to Novgorod. However, having strengthened themselves, the Novgorodians also isolated themselves in church affairs. From 1156 they began to elect a spiritual shepherd - an archbishop.
Never - neither before the Novgorod Republic, nor after - Orthodox Church I did not know such a democratic order in which the believers themselves chose their spiritual shepherd. This order was close to Protestant tradition. The clergy enjoyed great influence, the monasteries had huge land holdings. The archbishop and abbots of large monasteries maintained their own squads, which went to war under their own banners ("banners").
In Novgorod land, the process of forming a class of owners was actively underway. In the legal code of the republic - the Novgorod Judicial Charter - private property was legally enshrined. The main population of the city are artisans of various specialties: blacksmiths, potters, gold and silversmiths, shield makers, archers, etc. Craftsmen were largely tied to the market. Novgorod was actively acquiring colonies, turning into a metropolis of the Western type. Located at the beginning of trade routes important for Eastern Europe, connecting the Baltic Sea with the Black and Caspian Seas, Novgorod played an intermediary role in trade. Militarily, the Novgorod Republic was weak. The prince, boyars, and large monasteries had military squads, but there was no standing army in the republic. The main military force is a militia of peasants and artisans. However, the Novgorod Republic existed almost until the end of the 15th century.
In accordance with the point of view widespread among Russian historians, with the collapse of the Kiev state, and then the loss of independence by many principalities under the conditions of the Mongol-Tatar invasion, history here seemed to freeze and moved to the northeast, where new centers of historical development arose. This is a pro-Moscow tradition that has become established in historiography. However, in fact, history in the South-Western Lands was not interrupted. It developed in its own direction. The main task of these territories - to protect the population from the Mongol-Tatar threat in any form, to provide conditions for self-preservation.
The lands dealt with this problem in different ways. The Galician prince Daniel sought help from Europe, which welcomed the opportunity to advance Catholicism to Eastern European lands. In 1253 he took the title of king and was crowned ambassador of the Pope. However, these plans were not destined to come true. Galich eventually became part of Poland. Minsk, Gomel, and then Kyiv and other cities, in order to save themselves from the Mongol-Tatar devastation and preserve their type of development, were drawn under the rule of pagan Lithuania.
In the 40s XIII century The Principality of Lithuania appeared and quickly increased in size. Little information has been preserved about him, but it is known that already in the 14th century. it combined three elements in its name: Lithuania, Zhmud, Russian lands - Rus'. In its heyday, this principality extended from the Baltic to the Black Sea (the mouth of the Dnieper and the mouth of the Dniester), from the borders of Poland and Hungary to the Moscow region (Mozhaisk). Ancient Russian lands made up 9/10 of the territory of Lithuania. In many cases, the annexation of these lands took place on the basis of an agreement - a “row”, which stipulated the conditions for joining Lithuania. The Russian population of Lithuania considered it the heir of the Old Russian state and called their state “Rus”. Within Lithuania, the Russian principalities developed in accordance with their traditions (the veche ideal here can be traced back to the second half of the 15th century).
The political and financial situation of Rus' within Lithuania was favorable. It is interesting that residents of the border territories who lived in the “risk” zone under the threat of invasion by the Mongol-Tatars or Muscovites received additional privileges (for example, residents of Bila Tserkva, subjected to a Tatar raid, were exempt from taxes for 9 years). Russian aristocrats enjoyed significant rights and had great influence at the court of the Lithuanian prince. In Lithuania, Old Russian laws and the Old Russian language dominated for a long time.
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania emerged as a federation of individual lands and principalities. To a greater or lesser extent, the lands were provided with significant autonomy and inviolability of socio-economic and political structures. The Principality of Lithuania was built on the principles of vassalage, and the corporate structure of society was destroyed.
Thus, in the West, under the auspices of first pagan, and then from the end of the 14th century. Catholic Lithuania, the development of Russian lands continued in accordance with progressive trends. In the ancient Russian lands, which were part of Lithuania, the formation of the Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples unfolded.
Feudal fragmentation is an obligatory historical period in the development of medieval statehood. Rus' did not escape it either, and this phenomenon developed here for the same reasons and in the same ways as in other countries.
Shifted deadlines
Like everything in ancient Russian history, the period of fragmentation in our lands begins somewhat later than in Western Europe. If on average such a period dates back to the X-XIII centuries, then in Rus' fragmentation begins in the XI and actually continues until the middle of the XV century. But this difference is not fundamental.
It is also not important that all the main local rulers in the era of fragmentation of Rus' had some reason to be considered Rurikovich. In the west, too, all the major feudal lords were relatives.
Mistake of the Wise
By the time the Mongol conquests began (that is, already by) Rus' was already completely fragmented, the prestige of the “Kyiv table” was purely formal. The process of decay was not linear; periods of short-term centralization were observed. Several events can be identified that can serve as landmarks in the study of this process.
Death (1054). This ruler made a not very wise decision - he officially divided his empire between his five sons. A power struggle immediately began between them and their heirs.
The Lyubech Congress (1097) (read about it) was called upon to put an end to civil strife. But instead, he officially consolidated the claims of one or another branch of the Yaroslavichs to certain territories: “... let everyone keep his fatherland.”
Separatist actions of the Galician and Vladimir-Suzdal princes (second half of the 12th century). They not only demonstratively made efforts to prevent the strengthening of the Kiev principality through an alliance with other rulers, but also inflicted direct military defeats on it (for example, Andrei Bogolyubsky in 1169 or Roman Mstislavovich of Galicia-Volyn in 1202).
Temporary centralization of power was observed during the reign (1112-1125), but it was just that temporary, due to the personal qualities of this ruler.
The inevitability of collapse
One can regret the collapse of the ancient Russian state, which led to defeat by the Mongols, long-term dependence on them, and economic lag. But medieval empires were doomed to collapse from the very beginning.
It was almost impossible to manage a large territory from one center with an almost complete absence of passable roads. In Rus', the situation was aggravated by winter cold and prolonged mud, when it was impossible to travel at all (it’s worth thinking: this is not the 19th century with yam stations and shift coachmen, what is it like to carry around a supply of provisions and fodder for a trip of several weeks?). Accordingly, the state in Rus' was initially centralized only conditionally, the governors and relatives of the prince exercised full power locally. Naturally, the question quickly arose in their minds: why should they, at least formally, obey someone?
Trade was poorly developed, and subsistence farming predominated. Therefore, economic life did not cement the unity of the country. Culture, in conditions of limited mobility of the majority of the population (well, where and for how long could a peasant go?) could not be such a force, although as a result it preserved ethnic unity, which then facilitated a new unification.
In 1097, princes from different lands of Kievan Rus came to the city of Lyubech and proclaimed new principle relationships among themselves: “Let everyone keep his homeland.” Its adoption meant that the princes abandoned the laddered system of inheritance of princely thrones (it went to the eldest in the entire grand-ducal family) and moved to inheriting the throne from father to eldest son within individual lands. By the middle of the 12th century. the political fragmentation of the Old Russian state with its center in Kyiv was already a fait accompli. It is believed that the implementation of the principle adopted in Lyubech was a factor in the collapse of Kievan Rus. However, not the only one and not the most important one.
Political fragmentation was an inevitable phenomenon. Throughout the 11th century. Russian lands developed along an ascending line: the population grew, the economy grew stronger, large princely and boyar land ownership strengthened, and the cities became richer. They became less and less dependent on Kyiv and were burdened by its tutelage. To maintain order within his “fatherland,” the prince had enough strength and power. Local boyars and cities supported their princes in their quest for independence: they were closer, more closely connected with them, and were better able to protect their interests. External reasons were added to internal reasons. The Polovtsian raids weakened the southern Russian lands, the population left the restless lands to the northeastern (Vladimir, Suzdal) and southwestern (Galich, Volyn) outskirts. The Kyiv princes weakened in a military and economic sense, their authority and influence in solving all-Russian affairs fell.
The negative consequences of the political fragmentation of Rus' are concentrated in the military-strategic area: the defense capability in the face of external threats has weakened, and inter-princely feuds have intensified. But fragmentation also had positive aspects. The separation of lands contributed to their economic and cultural development. The collapse of a single state did not mean a complete loss of the principles that united the Russian lands. The seniority of the great was formally recognized Prince of Kyiv; Church and linguistic unity was preserved; The legislation of the appanages was based on the norms of Russian Pravda. In the popular consciousness until the XIII-XIV centuries. there were ideas about the unity of the lands that were part of Kievan Rus.
At the end of the 12th century. 15 independent lands, essentially independent states, emerged. The largest were: in the southwest - the Galician-Volyn principality; in the northeast - the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality; in the north-west - the Novgorod Republic.
Reasons for fragmentation:
External: no external threat
Economic:
Dominance of subsistence farming
Shifting trade routes
· The economy of individual lands is developing, the principalities are turning into powerful states. Education
Socio-political:
· Multinational composition
· Kyiv is losing its historical role
· The strife of the princes does not stop
· The boyars begin to fight the princes
· Mechanism of inheritance of supreme power
Consequences of the collapse of Rus':
Economic development of each principality
Easier to govern the principality
Development of cities, crafts, trade
+Emergence of new centers of chronicle writing
Development of culture
Development of peasant farming, development of new arable land;
Weakening the country's defense capabilities
Increased danger of external invasion
Principalities are being fragmented
Civil strife
The collapse of Rus' was not complete:
· Kyiv's influence remains
· United Church
The main political centers of Rus' during the period of fragmentation: common features and differences.
During the period of fragmentation, 12 principality states were formed on the territory of Rus': Rostov-Suzdal, Murmansk, Ryazan, Smolensk, Kiev, Pereyaslavl, Galicia-Volinsky, Chernigov, Polotsk-Minsk, Turovo-Pinsk, Tmutarakan, Novgorod land. Within some of them, the process of division into smaller principalities continued.
In the Old Russian lands there are 3 ways of forming feudal property: the land of the prince and his relatives; lands of "placed" warriors (feudal nobility); lands of the “best people” of the community (tribal nobility). Due to the underdevelopment of socio-economic relations and the primacy of external causes during the formation of the Old Russian state, the third method was preferable. In Soviet historiography, the economic option for the development of feudal relations in the Old Russian lands was considered a priority, i.e. feudal fragmentation is a natural stage in the development of society. The development of a natural economy ultimately leads to the fact that individual property subjects are able to maintain their own property apparatus.
In the 11th century The unified Old Russian state collapsed into 13-15 principalities. The most prominent in their development features were: the Vladimir-Suzdal, Galician-Volyn and Novgorod principalities. Kiev lost its authority. For the princes, the occupation of the Kyiv throne became a purely symbolic event, however, this very fact gave rise to strife and civil strife.
Novgorod Principality.
The geopolitical position of the Novgorod land was determined by the conditions of its socio-economic and political development. There are no enemies. Trade with Europe and the Scandinavian countries.
vast territory; the climate and soils are unsuitable for agriculture; distance from the steppe; proximity to the Baltic Sea and many lakes.
Compared to other Slavic lands, the conditions for agriculture here were unfavorable. But there was a lot of furs and salt. Novgorod imported fabrics, metal products, raw materials for handicraft production, exported furs and handicrafts. The Novgorod land was on the way “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” And it was trade that determined the social differentiation of the population. There is an opinion among historians that Novgorod and Staraya Ladoga arose as Varangian tax collection centers, where Slovenians, Krivichi and representatives of the Finno-Ugric people (Merya) then began to settle. Novgorod played a significant role in political history Ancient Rus'. Oleg, Vladimir, Yaroslav began their ascension to the Kiev throne from Novgorod, recruiting Varangians into their squad. These facts indicate that even during the period of statehood, Novgorod was not a mononational center of the Slavic lands, but was a kind of link between Russia and Europe.
Traders and craftsmen predominated. But still, the social elite of Novgorod society consisted, first of all, of the landowner boyars. The class of boyars was formed here differently than in other regions: they were not the prince’s warriors, but local tribal nobility, therefore, independent of the prince (they did not owe him anything). The intermediaries between the Novgorod boyars and the outside world were merchants (guests) who conducted trade on their behalf. Since the raw materials belonged to the boyars, they owned the majority of the profits from trade. The main partners of the Novgorodians were the German city of Lübeck (the Gondze Union between independent cities of Germany) and Swedish merchants from the island of Gotland. The Novgorodians themselves made only sporadic trips to Europe, because... ships in the X-XIII centuries. could not make long voyages.
Craftsmen in Novgorod were largely dependent on the nobility. Very often, the workshops of the artisans themselves were located on the territory of the boyar estates. Despite the craft and trade nature of the bulk of the population of Novgorod, real power in the city belonged to the boyar landowners, whose estates were located both within the Novgorod “hundreds” and in distant colonies. Due to the characteristics of the Novgorod land, the boyars were firmly connected with the foreign fur trade, and this gave them great economic strength and corporate cohesion.
The history of the Novgorod Republic begins with 1136, when Vladimir Monomakh’s grandson Vsevolod Mstislavich was expelled from Novgorod. From this period, a unique political system was established in Novgorod, called the Novgorod feudal or aristocratic republic (slide 8). In reality, political power was concentrated in the hands of 300-400 families (usually boyars), who were the subjects of political law, i.e. participants of local government bodies - Veche. Rich merchants could also take part in its work. The veche elected the head of local government - mayor and Tysyatsky. In modern historical literature, opinions about the functions of Tysyatsky differ. Classically: thousand led the people's militia. However, they now believe that if this was its function, it was a secondary one. Primarily, Tysyatsky was responsible for collecting taxes, because By profession, Novgorod artisans and merchants were divided into hundreds, which united into thousands. The Veche also elected the Novgorod archbishop. This was a unique phenomenon, because... in all other lands, the bishop was appointed by the Kyiv Metropolitan, and then confirmed by the Kyiv Metropolis. The archbishop was responsible for foreign policy, sealed all international treaties of the Novgorodians, and was in charge of the Novgorod treasury
: limited monarchy
Loading...