Causes of the collapse of ancient Russia. The collapse of Kievan Rus

In the XII century, Kievan Rus broke up into independent principalities. The era of the XII-XVI centuries is usually called the specific period or feudal fragmentation. 1132, the year of the death of the last powerful prince of Kyiv, Mstislav the Great, is considered to be the turn of the collapse. The result of the collapse was the emergence of new political formations on the site of the Old Russian state, a distant consequence - the formation of modern peoples: Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians.

Reasons for the collapse

Kievan Rus was not a centralized state. Like most early medieval powers, its collapse was natural. The period of disintegration is usually interpreted not simply as strife from the overgrown offspring of Rurik, but as an objective and even progressive process associated with an increase in boyar land ownership. In the principalities, their own nobility arose, which was more profitable to have its own prince protecting its rights than to support the Grand Duke of Kyiv.

Crisis brewing

The first threat to the integrity of the country arose immediately after the death of Vladimir I Svyatoslavich. Vladimir ruled the country, seating his 12 sons in the main cities. The eldest son Yaroslav, planted in Novgorod, already during the life of his father refused to send tribute to Kyiv. When Vladimir died (1015), a fratricidal massacre began, ending in the death of all children except Yaroslav and Mstislav of Tmutarakan. The two brothers divided the "Russian Land", which was the core of the Rurikovich's possessions, along the Dnieper. Only in 1036, after the death of Mstislav, Yaroslav began to rule single-handedly over the entire territory of Russia, except for the isolated principality of Polotsk, where, from the end of the 10th century, the descendants of another son of Vladimir, Izyaslav, established themselves.

After the death of Yaroslav in 1054, Russia was divided in accordance with his will among five sons. The elder Izyaslav was given Kyiv and Novgorod, Svyatoslav - Chernigov, Ryazan, Murom and Tmutarakan, Vsevolod - Pereyaslavl and Rostov, the younger ones, Vyacheslav and Igor - Smolensk and Volyn. The established procedure for replacing princely tables has received the name "ladder" in modern historiography. The princes moved in turn from table to table in accordance with their seniority. With the death of one of the princes, the lower ones moved up a step. But, if one of the sons died before his parent and did not have time to visit his table, then his descendants were deprived of the rights to this table and became “outcasts”. On the one hand, such an order prevented the isolation of the lands, since the princes constantly moved from one table to another, but on the other hand, it gave rise to constant conflicts between uncles and nephews. In 1097, at the initiative of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, the next generation of princes gathered for a congress in Lyubech, where a decision was made to end the strife and a new principle was proclaimed: “everyone keeps his fatherland.” Thus, the process of creating regional dynasties was opened.

Kyiv, by decision of the Lyubech Congress, was recognized as the fatherland of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich (1093-1113), which meant the preservation of the tradition of inheriting the capital by the genealogical senior prince. The reign of Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125) and his son Mstislav (1125-1132) became a period of political stabilization, and almost all parts of Russia, including the Principality of Polotsk, again found themselves in the orbit of Kyiv.

Mstislav transferred the reign of Kiev to his brother Yaropolk. The intention of the latter to fulfill the plan of Vladimir Monomakh and make his son Mstislav, Vsevolod, his successor, bypassing the younger Monomashichs - the Rostov prince Yuri Dolgoruky and the Volyn prince Andrei, led to a general internecine war, characterizing which the Novgorod chronicler wrote in 1134: "And the whole Russian land was torn apart."

Rise of sovereign principalities

By the middle of the XII century, Kievan Rus was actually divided into 13 principalities (according to chronicle terminology "lands"), each of which pursued an independent policy. The principalities differed both in the size of the territory and the degree of consolidation, and in the balance of power between the prince, the boyars, the emerging service nobility and the ordinary population.

The nine principalities were ruled by their own dynasties. Their structure reproduced in miniature the system that previously existed on the scale of the whole of Russia: local tables were distributed among the members of the dynasty according to the ladder principle, the main table went to the eldest in the family. The princes did not seek to occupy tables in foreign lands, and the external borders of this group of principalities were distinguished by stability.

At the end of the 11th century, the sons of the eldest grandson of Yaroslav the Wise, Rostislav Vladimirovich, were assigned to the Przemysl and Terebovalsky volosts, later united into the Galician principality (which flourished during the reign of Yaroslav Osmomysl). From 1127, the sons of Davyd and Oleg Svyatoslavich ruled in the Chernigov principality (later only the Olgovichi). In the Principality of Murom that separated from him, their uncle Yaroslav Svyatoslavich ruled. Later, the Principality of Ryazan separated from the Murom Principality. The descendants of the son of Vladimir Monomakh, Yuri Dolgoruky, settled in the Rostov-Suzdal land. Since the 1120s, the principality of Smolensk has been assigned to the line of the grandson of Vladimir Monomakh, Rostislav Mstislavich. In the Volyn principality, the descendants of another grandson of Monomakh, Izyaslav Mstislavich, began to rule. In the second half of the 12th century, the Turov-Pinsk principality was assigned to the descendants of Prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich. From the 2nd third of the 12th century, the Gorodensky principality was assigned to the descendants of Vsevolodk (his patronymic is not given in the annals, presumably he was the grandson of Yaropolk Izyaslavich). The enclaved Principality of Tmutarakan and the city of Belaya Vezha ceased to exist at the beginning of the 12th century, having fallen under the blows of the Polovtsians.

The three principalities were not attached to any one dynasty. The Principality of Pereyaslav did not become a fatherland, which during the XII century - XIII centuries was owned by younger representatives of different branches of the Monomakhovichi, who came from other lands.

Kyiv remained a constant bone of contention. In the second half of the 12th century, the struggle for it was mainly between the Monomakhoviches and the Olgoviches. At the same time, the area around Kyiv - the so-called "Russian land" in the narrow sense of the word - continued to be considered as a common domain of the entire princely family, and representatives of several dynasties could occupy tables in it at once. For example, in 1181-1194 Kyiv was in the hands of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich of Chernigov, and the rest of the principality was ruled by Rurik Rostislavich Smolensky.

Novgorod also remained the all-Russian table. An extremely strong boyar class developed here, which did not allow a single princely branch to gain a foothold in the city. In 1136, Monomakhovich Vsevolod Mstislavich was expelled, and power passed to the veche. Novgorod became an aristocratic republic. The boyars themselves invited the princes. Their role was limited to the performance of some executive functions, and the strengthening of the Novgorod militia by princely combatants. A similar order was established in Pskov, which by the middle of the 13th century had become autonomous from Novgorod.

After the suppression of the dynasty of the Galician Rostislavichs (1199), Galich temporarily turned out to be among the "no man's" tables. Roman Mstislavich of Volyn took possession of it, and as a result of the unification of two neighboring lands, the Galicia-Volyn principality arose. However, after the death of Roman (1205), the Galician boyars refused to recognize the power of his young children, and a struggle broke out for the Galician land between all the main princely branches, the winner of which was Roman's son Daniel.

Decline of Kyiv

For the Kyiv land, which turned from a metropolis into a "simple" principality, a steady decrease in its political role was characteristic. The territory of the land itself, which remained under the control of the Kyiv prince, was also constantly decreasing. One of the economic factors that undermined the power of the city was the change in international trade communications. "The path from the Varangians to the Greeks", which was the core of the Old Russian state, lost its relevance after the Crusades. Europe and the East were now connected bypassing Kyiv (through the Mediterranean Sea and through the Volga trade route).

In 1169, as a result of a campaign of a coalition of 10 princes, acting on the initiative of the Vladimir-Suzdal prince Andrei Bogolyubsky, Kyiv for the first time in the practice of princely strife was taken by storm and plundered, and for the first time the prince who took possession of the city did not remain to reign in it, putting his protege on the reign . Andrei was recognized as the oldest and bore the title of Grand Duke, but did not attempt to sit down in Kyiv. Thus, the traditional connection between the reign of Kyiv and the recognition of seniority in the princely family became optional. In 1203, Kyiv was subjected to a second defeat, this time at the hands of the Smolensk Rurik Rostislavich, who had already reigned in the city three times before.

A terrible blow was dealt to Kyiv during the Mongol invasion in 1240. At that moment, the city was ruled only by the princely governor, since the beginning of the invasion, 5 princes have changed in it. According to Plano Carpini, who visited the city six years later, the capital of Russia turned into a town with no more than 200 houses. There is an opinion that a significant part of the population of the Kiev region went to the western and northern regions. In the 2nd floor. In the 13th century, Kyiv was ruled by the governors of Vladimir, and later by the Horde Baskaks and local provincial princes, the names of most of whom are unknown. In 1299 Kyiv lost its last attribute of the capital - the residence of the metropolitan. In 1321, in the battle on the Irpen River, the Kyiv prince Sudislav, a descendant of the Olgoviches, was defeated by the Lithuanians and recognized himself as a vassal of the Lithuanian prince Gediminas, while remaining dependent on the Horde. In 1362 the city was finally annexed to Lithuania.

Unity Factors

Despite the political disintegration, the idea of ​​the unity of the Russian land was preserved. The most important unifying factors that testified to the commonality of Russian lands and at the same time distinguished Russia from other Orthodox countries were:

• Kyiv and the title of the Kyiv prince as the eldest. The city of Kyiv, even after 1169, formally remained the capital, that is, the oldest table of Russia. It was called the "aging city" and the "mother of cities". It was perceived as the sacred center of the Orthodox land. It is to the Kyiv rulers (regardless of their dynastic affiliation) that the title is used in the sources of the pre-Mongolian time "princes of all Russia". As for the title "Grand Duke", then in the same period it was applied to both the Kievan and Vladimir princes. And with respect to the second more consistently. But in the South Russian annals, its use was necessarily accompanied by a restrictive clarification, the Grand Duke of Suzdal.
• princely family. Before the conquest of the South Russian lands by Lithuania, absolutely all local thrones were occupied only by the descendants of Rurik. Russia was in the collective possession of the clan. Active princes during their lives constantly moved from table to table. A visible echo of the tradition of common clan ownership was the conviction that the defense of the "Russian Land" (in the narrow sense), that is, the Principality of Kyiv, is a common Russian affair. The princes of almost all Russian lands took part in major campaigns against the Polovtsy in 1183 and the Mongols in 1223.
• Church. The entire Old Russian territory constituted a single metropolis, ruled by the Kyiv metropolitan. From the 1160s he began to bear the title of "All Russia". Cases of violation of church unity under the influence of political struggle periodically arose, but were of a short-term nature. Their services include the establishment of a titular metropolis in Chernigov and Pereyaslavl during the triumvirate of the Yaroslavichs of the 11th century, the project of Andrei Bogolyubsky to create a separate metropolis for the Vladimir-Suzdal land, the existence of the Galician metropolis (in 1303-1347, with interruptions, etc.). In 1299 the residence of the metropolitan was transferred from Kyiv to Vladimir, and from 1325 to Moscow. The final division of the metropolis into Moscow and Kyiv took place only in the 15th century.
• Unified historical memory. The countdown of history in all Russian chronicles always began with the Primary Chronicle of the Kyiv cycle and the activities of the first Kyiv princes.
• Awareness of ethnic community. The question of the existence of a single ancient Russian people in the era of the formation of Kievan Rus is debatable. However, the folding of such a period of fragmentation raises no serious doubts. Tribal identification among the Eastern Slavs gave way to territorial. The inhabitants of all the principalities called themselves Russians and their language Russian. A vivid embodiment of the idea of ​​“great Russia” from the Arctic Ocean to the Carpathians is the “Word about the destruction of the Russian land”, written in the first years after the invasion, and the “List of Russian cities far and near” (end of the 14th century)

Consequences of the breakup

Being a natural phenomenon, fragmentation contributed to the dynamic economic development of Russian lands: the growth of cities, the flourishing of culture. On the other hand, fragmentation led to a decrease in the defense potential, which coincided in time with the unfavorable foreign policy situation. By the beginning of the 13th century, in addition to the Polovtsian danger (which was decreasing, since after 1185 the Polovtsians did not undertake invasions of Russia outside the framework of Russian civil strife), Russia was faced with aggression from two other directions. Enemies appeared in the northwest: Catholic German Orders and Lithuanian tribes, which entered the stage of decomposition of the tribal system, threatened Polotsk, Pskov, Novgorod and Smolensk. In 1237-1240 there was a Mongol-Tatar invasion from the southeast, after which the Russian lands fell under the rule of the Golden Horde.

Merging trends

At the beginning of the 13th century, the total number of principalities (including specific ones) reached 50. At the same time, several potential centers of unification were maturing. The most powerful Russian principalities in the northeast were Vladimir-Suzdal and Smolensk. To the beginning XIII century, the nominal supremacy of the Grand Duke of Vladimir Vsevolod Yuryevich the Big Nest was recognized by all Russian lands, except for Chernigov and Polotsk, and he acted as an arbiter in the dispute between the southern princes over Kyiv. In the 1st third of the 13th century, the leading positions were occupied by the house of the Smolensk Rostislavichs, who, unlike other princes, did not split their principality into destinies, but sought to occupy tables outside it. With the arrival in Galich of the representative of the Monomakhoviches, Roman Mstislavich, Galicia-Volyn became the most powerful principality in the southwest. In the latter case, a multi-ethnic center was formed, open to contacts with Central Europe.

However, the natural course of centralization was crossed out by the Mongol invasion. Further gathering of Russian lands took place in difficult foreign policy conditions and was dictated primarily by political prerequisites. The principalities of northeastern Russia during the XIV-XV centuries consolidated around Moscow. The southern and western Russian lands became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Any large state in its history goes through stages of formation, expansion, weakening and disintegration. The collapse of the 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 a struggle with an external enemy. It began in the 11th century and ended by the end of the 13th century.

The consequences of the collapse of Russia

The collapse of Russia and world history

Representatives of academic science unanimously agree that the stage of feudal fragmentation is a natural and inevitable part of the history of any feudal state. The collapse of Russia 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 the three East Slavic peoples clearly stood out from the previously single Old Russian people. Although centralized states began to form on the territory of Russia already in the 14th century, the last specific principalities were liquidated only at the end of the 15th century.

The collapse of Kievan Rus

In the middle 12th century Kievan Rus broke up into independent principalities, however, formally limited existed until Mongol-Tatar invasion(1237-1240) and Kyiv continued to be considered the main table of Russia. Epoch XII-XVI centuries called specific period or political fragmentation(in Soviet Marxist historiography - feudal fragmentation). The breakup is considered 1132 - the year of death of the last powerful Kyiv prince Mstislav the Great. The result of the collapse was the emergence of new political formations on the site of the Old Russian state, a distant consequence - the formation of modern peoples: Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians.

Reasons for the collapse

Like most of the early medieval powers, the collapse of Kievan Rus was natural. The period of disintegration is usually interpreted not simply as strife of overgrown offspring Rurik, but as an objective and even progressive process associated with an increase in boyar land ownership . In the principalities, their own nobility arose, which was more profitable to have its own prince protecting its rights than to support Grand Duke Kyiv.

Causes of the collapse of the Old Russian state. Mongol-Tatar invasion and its consequences

The collapse of the Old Russian state is a completely natural phenomenon in the context of the development of medieval Europe. It was primarily due to the development of feudal relations and the system of feudal immunities. However, some researchers consider the main reason for the fragmentation of Kievan Rus to be changes in princely inheritance law, when each princely son received a certain part of his father's reign - an inheritance - for independent control. The specific system progressed rapidly in the 12th-13th centuries. Sovereign principalities arose, fighting for political leadership. At the same time, Kyiv gradually lost its role as an all-Russian center, and the economic potential of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, located in the north-east of Russia, increased. The rulers of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, as well as the princes of Kyiv, began to call themselves grand dukes.

The sovereignization of individual lands, on the one hand, had positive consequences. The movements of princes in search of a richer and more honorable throne almost ceased, and, consequently, power became more efficient.

On the other hand, each of the lands, taken separately, did not have sufficient human and material resources to protect its sovereignty. Therefore, the Russian principalities were conquered by the Mongol-Tatars during the campaign against Russia Batu Khan in 1237-1240.

The forcible inclusion of the Russian principalities into the world of political relations that had developed in the nomadic empire of the Mongols had a negative impact on the internal development of the Russian lands, led to significant differences between local state-political traditions and European ones. In Mongolian society, the power of the supreme ruler was absolute and demanded unquestioning obedience from his subjects. Having become vassals of the khans, the Russian princes borrowed the political traditions of allegiance in their relations with the feudal lords. This remark concerns, first of all, the lands of North-Eastern Russia, which formed the core of the future Muscovy.

REASONS FOR THE DECLINE OF KIEVAN RUSSIA.

Many have the wrong idea that the fall of Kievan Rus is connected with the invasion of the Tatars. A hundred years before them, Kyiv tends to decline. The reasons were internal and external. Firstly, the ancient Kievan Rus was a rich and European cultured country, a European country. This is the front side of life. But he also had a downside. The economic condition was bought at the cost of enslaving the lower classes: serfs, purchases. Not even a Marxist thinks so, but V. O. Klyuchevsky. The discontent of the oppressed classes oppressed the social order and well-being of Kievan Rus. Secondly, princely strife ravaged the Russian land. They were preoccupied with the desire to rob and burn a hostile country, to take the population in full. The captives were turned into slaves. Even Vladimir Monomakh, the kindest and most intelligent of the princes, was no stranger to this predation. In his "Instruction for Children" he tells how, having attacked Minsk (Mensk), "he did not leave a servant or a cattle there." He took everything with him. After the unsuccessful attack of the troops of Andrei Bogolyubsky on Novgorod in 1169, a prisoner was sold in Novgorod at a price lower than the price of a ram. So many have been taken! (“two legs” is a monetary unit) The Russian princes were not ashamed to bring Polovtsy to Russia to ruin their neighbors. Princely strife further exacerbated the position of the lower classes. Thirdly, the external reason, the Polovtsian invasions. Russia lived on the edge of European civilization, further extended the Wild Field, which, according to Klyuchevsky, was "the historical scourge of ancient Russia." Since 1061, continuous attacks of the Polovtsy (Kuman) began. In 1096, Khan Bonyak Sheludivy almost entered Kyiv, broke into the Caves Monastery when the monks were sleeping after matins. Bonyak robbed and set fire to the monastery. The Pereyaslav principality was gradually emptying from the raids of the Polovtsy. In Kievan Rus, there was even a doubt: is it possible to live next door to the Polovtsians. In 1069, Izyaslav Yaroslavich was expelled from Kyiv due to indecision in the fight against the Polovtsy. He went to Kyiv with the Polish army. The Kievans asked the brothers to protect the city, and in case of refusal, they said that they would set fire to their city and leave for the Greek land. So the attacks of the Polovtsians were continuous, like the Germanic tribes on Rome. Only Vladimir Monomakh concluded 19 contracts with them, but it was all in vain. To prevent attacks, Russian princes married khan's daughters. And the father-in-law continued to plunder the Russian land. A very interesting speech by Prince Vladimir Monomakh at the princely congress in 1103. He said: “In the spring, the smerd will go to the field to plow on a horse – the Polovchin will come, hit the smerd with an arrow and take his horse. Then he will come to the village, take his wife, children, and all his property, and set it on fire in the threshing floor. "Russia has a historical mission to defend Europe from the steppe, from nomads; protection of the left flank of the European offensive to the East. This is how Klyuchevsky and Solovyov think. This the time of the beginning of the crusades, which began in 1096. This is the beginning of the movement Reconquest on the Iberian Peninsula. This is a movement against Muslims and Arabs in Europe. The defense of Russia cost her dearly. The ebb of the Russian population to new places began. From the middle of the 12th century, traces of desolation are noticeable in the Middle Dnieper. In 1159, according to the chronicle, psari and Polovtsy (peaceful Polovtsy who came to Russia) live in Chernigov and its younger cities. Lubech, once rich, also became deserted. There is also an economic downturn. This is evidenced by the devaluation of the hryvnia. At the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th century, the hryvnia weighed 1/2 pound, and at the end of the 12th century - 1/4 pound, and in the 13th - even lighter. The reason for the decline is this. One prince in 1167 invited to a campaign against the steppes. "Take pity on the Russian land, on your fatherland. Every summer, the filthy ones take Christians to their tents (tents. Hence the White Towers, the capital of the Khazars). But the paths are taken away from us (trade routes)," and lists the Black Sea routes of Russian trade. At the end of the 12th century, the Russian princes could no longer restrain the pressure of the Polovtsy and the exodus of the Russian population began. But Grushevsky saw the reasons for the decline of Kievan Rus in the intrigues and evil intentions of Vladimir-Suzdal princes. He writes: "The Suzdal princes deliberately wanted to weaken the Kyiv land. The Suzdal prince made a campaign in 1169 against Kyiv. And the army, having taken Kyiv, mercilessly devastated it. For several days they plundered the city, monasteries, churches sparing nothing. They took away icons, books, robes from churches, even the bells were removed and taken to their northern regions; people were beaten and taken prisoner "This is the first invasion in 1169. "Then Andrei's brother, Vsevolod the Big Nest, deliberately quarreled with the Ukrainian princes. Kyiv was again mercilessly plundered and devastated in 1203. Such a struggle ensued around it that it was very difficult for anyone to sit." Then the migration began. Grushevsky finishes: "After this, the complete decline of Kyiv begins and the later Tatar pogrom added a little to the previous pogroms. Vernadsky writes:" The importance of Kyiv was shaken in 1169 (recognizes the significance of the campaign of Andrei Bogolyubsky). The second reason is that the city suffered from the termination of trade relations with Constantinople after it was sacked by the crusaders in 1204. Shmurlo’s book says: “They robbed together with the Polovtsy in order to increase the disaster. All the youth of the city, men and women, were taken captive, nuns and monks were driven into the steppe for hard, and even shameful work. Only foreign merchants survived. They locked themselves in stone churches and bought life and freedom for themselves by giving half of the goods to the Polovtsy.Since then, dishonored, broken and frail, Kyiv sadly eked out its days in anticipation of the third even bitterer defeat of the Tatars in 1240. So the exodus of the people of Kiev begins. All historical schools agree on this. But where do they come from? Grushevsky points out the path of the people of Kiev to the West and only there, through Galicia to Poland, to the south-east of Poland. This is generally recognized. Klyuchevsky, on the other hand, writes that the outflow of the population went in two directions, in two streams. One jet was directed beyond the Western Buk, to the West, to the region of the upper Dniester and upper Vistula, deep into Galicia and Poland. So the Slavs returned to their historical homeland - the northern slopes of the Carpathians, abandoned in the 7th century. Another stream of colonization was directed in the other direction - to the northeast in the interfluve of the Oka and Volga. Thus, we are at the source of the division of a single ancient Russian people into two tribes - Little Russian and Russian.

Let us turn to the first vector - the ebb to the West. In the second half of the 12th century, the Galician principality was greatly strengthened. At the end of the century, Roman Mstislavich annexed Volyn to Galich. Chronicle calls him the autocrat of the whole Russian land. Not in vain. Under his son Daniil Romanovich, the principality grew noticeably, densely populated. The princes manage the affairs of the Kyiv land and Kyiv. Klyuchevsky writes: “Historical documents mention temples in the Krakow region and other places in Poland. The Tatars gave a new impetus to the exodus. Kyiv was burned by the Tatars in 1240 and about 200 houses remained there. In 1246, the missionary Plano Carpini passed through these lands. went to Tarataria. The Europeans called the Tatars the fiends of hell (the name of the Tatars comes from the Chinese "ta-ta"). Plano writes: "There is very little Russia left here. Most of them were killed or taken prisoner. (In Kyiv and Pereyaslav land, he met countless human skulls and bones scattered across the fields) ". The second blow to Kyiv was inflicted by the Tatars in 1299, after which its inhabitants fled again. The city was deserted. In the 14th century, Galicia was captured by Poland ( c. 1340), and the rest of the Dnieper region was captured by Lithuania. There are different opinions about the latter. Grushevsky avoids the idea that Kyiv was captured by Lithuania in the 60s of the 14th century. He writes: "After that, the Dnieper deserts became southeastern Ukraine the united Polish-Lithuanian state (1386, the year of the marriage of Jogaila and Jadwiga)". In the documents of the 14th century, and according to Fassmer - from 1292, a new name appears for southwestern Russia - Little Russia. These are documents of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Grushevsky and Evfimenko (a woman who married a Ukrainian) hold the view that: "The historical tradition of ancient Kiev region was not interrupted, but continued to live among the Ukrainian people and in the institutions of the Grand Duke gestures of Lithuanian. Therefore, it was a continuation of Kievan Rus. "In their opinion, the Ukrainian princes of the Lithuanian dynasty ruled in this region. All of them are Rurikovich. This is the concept of all Ukrainian nationalists. raids after the overthrow of the yoke of the Golden Horde (after 1480). On the other hand, the Polish magnates acquired huge estates in the Ukraine of the Polish state and populated them with their people, taking them out of the depths of Poland. yoke. The re-emigrants retained their language, their nationality and met with the remnants of the former nomads. There was assimilation with Torks, Berendeys, Pechenegs and others. This is how the Little Russian people is formed. That is why many Ukrainians have black eyes and black hair.

The inhabitants of Kyiv leave under the threat of Polovtsian robberies, and then the Mongol-Tatars. One direction of the outflow of the Kyiv population to the east, to Galicia, to Poland. Then the return and mixing of the Kyivans with the remnants of the ancient nomads took place: with Torks, Berendeys, Pechenegs. This is how Klyuchevsky talks about the formation of the Little Russian people by the 14th-15th centuries. Hrushevsky, on the other hand, begins the history of the Ukrainian people from the 4th century of the Christian era. He believes that Ukrainians, Belarusians and Great Russians, leaving their ancestral home, which was located on the northern slopes of the Carpathians, ended up in different physical, cultural and economic conditions, in a different ethnic environment. The Great Russians were formed mainly on Finnish soil. Belarusians are in close contact with Lithuanians, Ukrainians are in eternal neighborhood with the Turks. These peoples have more differences than similarities. This is Grushevsky's opinion. As a result, "people's well-being was formed, which now quite instinctively distinguishes Ukrainians, Belarusians and Great Russians. Or, in common parlance, Ukrainians, Litvins and Katsaps." The origin of the word crest according to Grushevsky (Russian historians agree with him). Khokhol is a derisive name for a Ukrainian among the Great Russians. It originates from the hairstyle of the Ukrainians of the 17th century, when they shaved their hair and left their heads in the middle. The name Litvin originated from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, when Belarus was within the boundaries of the Lithuanian Principality. The origin of the word "katsap" is not so clear. Velikorosy produces from the derisive "like a goat" because of the beard. Grushevsky writes: "it is now produced quite plausibly from the Turkic word kasap, which means a butcher, a cutter, an executioner."

According to Grushevsky, the Little Russian differs from the Great Russian and Belarusian in anthropological features, external physical appearance: the shape of the skull, height, and the ratio of body parts. It is distinguished by psychophysical features, manifested in the national character, psychology, in the warehouse of family and social relations. In our opinion, Grushevsky somewhat exaggerates the anthropological features of related tribes. In addition, the Ukrainian people are heterogeneous in their anthropological composition. Without denying the influence of the neighbors: the Turks, Finns, Litvins, we note that the formation of these peoples took place on a common Old Russian basis, that is, Kievan Rus is the cradle of the Great Russians, Little Russians, and Belarusians. Grushevsky considered. That Kievan Rus and its culture belongs only to the history of Ukraine. The period of Proto-Slavic unity lasted until the 6th century.

The second flow of the people from Kievan Rus was to the northeast in the interfluve of the Oka and Volga. This vector, according to Klyuchevsky, is poorly noted in the literature and contemporary observers of that period. Therefore, Klyuchevsky, in order to prove that there was an ebb of the population in this direction, resorts to indirect evidence: the most obvious argument is toponymy, geographical names, the toponymic similarity of the northeast with southern Russia. Klyuchevsky writes: “You need to listen carefully to the names of the new Suzdal cities: Pereyaslavl, Zvenigorod, Starodub, Vyshgorod, Galich. All these are South Russian names that flash almost on every page of the chronicle. There were several Zvenigorods in the land of Kyiv and Galicia. Names of Kyiv rivers Lybyadi and Pochainy are found in Ryazan, in Nizhny Novgorod, in Vladimir on the Klyazma.The name of Kyiv is not forgotten in Suzdal land, for example, the village of Kievo in the Moscow district, Kievka - a tributary of the Oka in the Kaluga district, the village of Kievtsy in the Tula Province.Three Pereyaslavl are known to ancient Russia : southern, Ryazan - this is the current Ryazan (the inhabitants of the old, pre-Mongol, Ryazan burned by the Tatars moved here), Pereyaslavl-Zalessky. Each of them stands on the Trubezh River, as well as in Kievan Rus. It is easy to guess that this is the work of settlers.

Until the middle of the 12th century, there was no direct communication between Kyiv and the Rostov-Suzdal Territory. They were separated by dense forests. There is a legend about this. The Bryn robbers are known (a village on the Bryn River). The name of the city of Bryansk comes from debryansk (wilds). And the Suzdal land was called Zalesskaya. This name belongs to Kievan Rus. The jungle began to be cleared and cut through the middle of the 12th century. If Vladimir Monomakh still had difficulty driving here to Rostov even with a small retinue, then his son Yuri Dolgoruky led entire regiments from the middle of the 12th century on a direct road from Rostov to Kyiv. From this we can assume that there was some kind of colonization, some kind of movement of grain growers. Peasants pierced this road. This is a quiet but spontaneous colonization, so the writers did not notice it.

While the desolation of the land is noted in the south, in the northeast there is the construction of cities by Yuri Dolgoruky and his son Andrei Bogolyubsky: Moscow (1147), Yuryev-Polskaya (1180), Pereyaslavl Zalessky (1150-1152), Dmitrov (1154), Bogolyubov (1155), Gorodets on the Volga (1152), Kostroma (1152), Starodub on the Klyazma, Galich, Zvenigorod, Vyshgorod, Kolomna (1177). Andrei Bogolyubsky was proud of his colonial activities. Thinking of founding a metropolis independent of Kyiv, he said: "I have populated the whole of Russia with great cities and villages and made them populous." The Kievan people in the second half of the 12th century was torn in two, and the main mass of the people went to the northeast, where, according to Klyuchevsky, "gathered their defeated forces, strengthened in the forests of central Russia, saved their people and armed them with the power of a cohesive state, again came to the south West, in order to save the weakest part of the Russian people who remained there from the foreign yoke. Klyuchevsky rapped out: “With centuries of efforts and sacrifices, Russia has formed a state similar to which in composition, size and world position we have not seen since the fall of the Roman Empire.

Historians have long pondered the reasons why the Kievan state, indestructible to external enemies, suddenly crumbled like a house of cards. Of course, much, as always, was explained by ordinary human egoism. Each prince thought only of increasing his power and property, covering his greed with arguments about "truth" and "justice." Everyone wanted to be freed from the unpleasant need to obey the supreme authority of the Kyiv Grand Duke and pay him the established tribute. (The fact that Kyiv, thanks to this tribute and this power, ensures internal order and security from external enemies, is it preferable not to remember.)

However, it was not only a matter of blind selfishness, which is inherent in the rulers of all times. There were also deeper reasons for the collapse.

Grand Dukes of Kyiv

The unity of Russia was very fragile. It rested mainly on the personal authority and military superiority of the Grand Duke of Kyiv. However, the authority quickly melted away, if only because the more Rurikovich appeared on the political stage, the more difficult it was for one of them to prove his dynastic primacy. The military power of the owner of the "golden table" became more and more doubtful. In the XI - the beginning of the XII century. the growth of many provincial centers continued. Their population is rapidly increasing both due to natural growth and due to the relocation of residents from the outskirts of Kyiv, who were often subjected to raids by nomads.

Economic decentralization

An important prerequisite for political separatism was the fact that in the conditions of a subsistence economy, when almost everything necessary for life was produced on the spot, the rulers of the regions did not particularly need economic interaction with the central government.

No external threat

The collapse of the Kievan state was also facilitated by the absence in the middle of the 12th century. serious external threat. Contradictions with the Western neighbors (Poland and Hungary) did not go beyond border disputes. After the crushing blows inflicted on them by the Russian princes in the first quarter of the 12th century, the Polovtsy cease to be the mortal danger to Russia that they were before. The princes of Southern Russia learned to jointly defend the steppe border. If necessary, they met at congresses and worked out common measures to fight the enemy. In general, Southern Russia managed to repel the Polovtsian threat. The Polovtsy themselves have also changed. They began to gradually move to a settled way of life. This made them more vulnerable to retaliatory strikes by Russian troops, and therefore more peaceful.

The path "from the Varangians to the Greeks"

A kind of core of the entire state territory of Kievan Rus was the path "from the Varangians to the Greeks." Trade along this route, ensuring the safety of merchants and collecting trade duties strengthened the supreme power of the Kievan princes. However, in the XII century. in connection with the movement of world trade routes, it is rapidly losing its significance. Accordingly, the national significance of Kyiv as the main "caretaker" of this ancient path also falls.

Fragmentation, like any political system, had its pros and cons.

Development of feudal relations

The main plus of the collapse of the Old Russian state was that it opened up new opportunities for the development of feudal relations. This was a forward movement along the path of historical progress.

The specific mechanics of the process was as follows. In Kievan Rus there was no permanent and strong local power. The princes often moved from one princely table to another. The real power was in the hands of the local aristocracy (boyars), which, however, did not have a developed system of control over the population in their hands. Meanwhile, such a system became more and more indispensable with the development of patrimonial land tenure. Capturing the lands of peasant communities, turning free community members into dependent people, obliged to bear the burden of duties, the nobility faced fierce resistance from the rural population. To suppress it, the iron hand of the monarchy was needed. Only the prince, with his indisputable authority, with his numerous retinue and quick trial, could ensure the obedience of the people and stop the strife within the ruling class.

The local aristocracy needed "their" princes, who permanently lived in the region, linking their personal interests with its prosperity. But the princes, in turn, were drawn to the earth. They willingly arranged their own princely patrimony (domain) and preferred a peaceful life in a castle to eternal wanderings around Russia in pursuit of the ghost of unprecedented luck.

Thus, the interests of the parties coincided. The princes "settle on the ground", forming permanent local dynasties. The Kievan monarchy seems to be reborn in numerous regional monarchies. Having united their efforts, the monarchy and the aristocracy harness the people to the cart of feudalism. However, very soon the aristocracy will groan from the heavy grip of the iron hand of their new ally... material from the site

Princely strife

The main disadvantage of the new system after the collapse of the Old Russian state was princely strife. Of course, they have happened before. However, now their number has increased in direct proportion to the number of independent rulers. The strife was accompanied by the death of people, the ruin of cities and villages, the capture of prisoners, who were then turned into slaves.

Until now, historians put forward various theories about the emergence of Kievan Rus as a state. For a long time, the official version has been taken as the basis, according to which the year 862 is called the date of birth. But after all, the state does not appear “from scratch”! It is impossible to imagine that before this date there were only savages in the territory where the Slavs lived, who could not create their own state without help from “outsiders”. After all, as you know, history moves along an evolutionary path. For the emergence of the state must be certain prerequisites. Let's try to understand the history of Kievan Rus. How was this state created? Why has it fallen into disrepair?

The emergence of Kievan Rus

At the moment, domestic historians adhere to 2 main versions of the emergence of Kievan Rus.

1. Norman. It relies on one weighty historical document, namely the Tale of Bygone Years. According to this theory, the ancient tribes called on the Varangians (Rurik, Sineus and Truvor) to create and manage their state. Thus, they could not create their own state formation on their own. They needed outside help.
2. Russian (anti-Norman). For the first time, the rudiments of the theory were formulated by the famous Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov. He argued that the entire history of the ancient Russian state was written by foreigners. Lomonosov was sure that there was no logic in this story, the important question of the nationality of the Varangians was not revealed.

Unfortunately, until the end of the 9th century, there are no mentions of the Slavs in the annals. It is suspicious that Rurik "came to rule the Russian state" when it already had its own traditions, customs, its own language, cities and ships. That is, Russia did not arise from scratch. Old Russian cities were very well developed (including from a military point of view).

According to generally accepted sources, the year 862 is considered the date of foundation of the ancient Russian state. It was then that Rurik began to rule in Novgorod. In 864, his associates Askold and Dir seized the princely power in Kyiv. Eighteen years later, in 882, Oleg, who is usually called the Prophet, captured Kyiv and became the Grand Duke. He managed to unite the scattered Slavic lands, and it was during his reign that a campaign against Byzantium was made. More and more new territories and cities joined the grand ducal lands. During the reign of Oleg, there were no major clashes between Novgorod and Kyiv. This was largely due to blood ties and kinship.

The formation and flourishing of Kievan Rus

Kievan Rus was a powerful and developed state. Its capital was a fortified outpost located on the banks of the Dnieper. Taking power in Kyiv meant becoming the head of vast territories. It was Kyiv that was compared with the “mother of Russian cities” (although Novgorod, from where Askold and Dir arrived in Kyiv, was quite worthy of such a title). The city retained the status of the capital of the ancient Russian lands until the period of the Tatar-Mongol invasion.

• Among the key events of the heyday of Kievan Rus can be called Baptism in 988, when the country abandoned idolatry in favor of Christianity.
• The reign of Prince Yaroslav the Wise led to the fact that at the beginning of the 11th century the first Russian code of laws appeared under the name "Russian Truth".
• The Kyiv prince intermarried with many famous ruling European dynasties. Also, under Yaroslav the Wise, the raids of the Pechenegs forever turned, which brought Kievan Rus a lot of trouble and suffering.
• Also from the end of the X century on the territory of Kievan Rus began its own coin production. Silver and gold coins appeared.

The period of civil strife and the collapse of Kievan Rus

Unfortunately, an understandable and uniform system of succession to the throne was not developed in Kievan Rus. Various grand-princely lands for military and other merits were distributed among combatants.

Only after the end of the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, such a principle of inheritance was established, which involved the transfer of power over Kyiv to the eldest in the family. All other lands were divided among members of the Rurik dynasty in accordance with the principle of seniority (but this could not remove all the contradictions and problems). After the death of the ruler, there were dozens of heirs claiming the "throne" (starting from brothers, sons, and ending with nephews). Despite certain rules of inheritance, the supreme power was often established by force: through bloody clashes and wars. Only a few independently abandoned the control of Kievan Rus.

Applicants for the title of the Grand Duke of Kyiv did not shy away from the most terrible deeds. Literature and history describe a terrible example with Svyatopolk the Accursed. He went to fratricide only in order to gain power over Kyiv.

Many historians come to the conclusion that it was internecine wars that became the factor that led to the collapse of Kievan Rus. The situation was also complicated by the fact that the Tatar-Mongols began to actively attack in the 13th century. "Small rulers with big ambitions" could unite against the enemy, but no. The princes dealt with internal problems "in their own area", did not compromise and desperately defended their own interests to the detriment of others. As a result, Russia became completely dependent on the Golden Horde for a couple of centuries, and the rulers were forced to pay tribute to the Tatar-Mongols.

The prerequisites for the coming collapse of Kievan Rus were formed under Vladimir the Great, who decided to give each of his 12 sons his own city. The beginning of the collapse of Kievan Rus is called 1132, when Mstislav the Great died. Then immediately 2 powerful centers refused to recognize the grand ducal power in Kyiv (Polotsk and Novgorod).

In the XII century. there was a rivalry of 4 main lands: Volyn, Suzdal, Chernigov and Smolensk. As a result of internecine clashes, Kyiv was periodically looted and churches burned. In 1240 the city was burned by the Tatar-Mongols. The influence gradually weakened, in 1299 the residence of the metropolitan was transferred to Vladimir. To manage the Russian lands, it was no longer necessary to occupy Kyiv