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 has come in Western Europe feudal fragmentation.
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 a dispute between an approximate king and a count - a large landowner, in which one will prove the need for a single state, and the other will 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. To this, a supporter of the count could cite many examples 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.
In the history of the early feudal states of Europe in the X-XII centuries. are a period of political fragmentation. By this time, the feudal nobility had already turned into a privileged group, belonging to which was determined by birth. The existing monopoly property of the feudal lords on land was reflected in the rules of law. "There is no land without a lord." The peasants found themselves for the most part in personal and land dependence on the feudal lords.
Having received a monopoly on land, the feudal lords also acquired a significant political power: transfer of part of their land to vassals, the right to legal proceedings and the minting of money, the maintenance of their own military force etc. In accordance with the new realities, a different hierarchy of feudal society is now taking shape, which has a legal basis: "The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal." Thus, the internal cohesion of the feudal nobility was achieved, its privileges were protected from encroachments by the central government, which was weakening by this time. For example, in France before the beginning of the XII century. the real power of the king did not extend beyond the domain, which was inferior in size to the possessions of many large feudal lords. The king, in relation to his immediate vassals, had only formal suzerainty, and the big lords behaved completely independently. Thus began to take shape the foundations of feudal fragmentation.
It is known that on the territory that collapsed in the middle of the 9th century. Three new states arose in the empire of Charlemagne: French, German and Italian (Northern Italy), each of which became the base of the emerging territorial-ethnic community - nationality. Then the process of political disintegration embraced each of these new formations. So, in the territory of the French kingdom at the end of the 9th century. there were 29 possessions, and at the end of the tenth century. - about 50. But now they were for the most part not ethnic, but patrimonial seigneurial formations.
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 in 1066 was conquered by the 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 of landed property. 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 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 the transformation of the barons into independent landowners, as it was, for example, in France.
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. 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.
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 enough rapid growth 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.
The collapse of the early feudal territorial organization of state power and the triumph of feudal fragmentation represented the completion of the formation of feudal relations and the flourishing of feudalism in Western Europe. In its content, it was a natural and progressive process, due to the rise of internal colonization, the expansion of the area of cultivated land. Thanks to the improvement of labor tools, the use of animal draft power and the transition to three-field cultivation, land cultivation improved, industrial crops began to be cultivated - flax, hemp; new branches of agriculture appeared - viticulture, etc. As a result, the peasants began to have surplus products that they could exchange for handicrafts, and not make them themselves.
The labor productivity of artisans increased, and the technique and technology of handicraft production improved. The craftsman turned into a small commodity producer working for trade. Ultimately, these circumstances led to the separation of craft from agriculture, the development of commodity-money relations, trade and the emergence of a medieval city. They became centers of crafts and trade.
As a rule, cities in Western Europe arose on the land of the feudal lord and therefore inevitably submitted to him. The townspeople, most of whom were mainly former peasants, remained in the land or personal dependence of the feudal lord. The desire of the townspeople to free themselves from such dependence led to a struggle between cities and lords for their rights and independence. This movement, widely developed in Western Europe in the X-XIII centuries. went down in history under the name of "communal movement". All rights and privileges won or acquired for a ransom were recorded in the charter. By the end of the XIII century. many cities achieved self-government, became commune cities. So, about 50% of English cities had their own self-government, city council, mayor and court. The inhabitants of such cities in England, Italy, France, etc. became free from feudal dependence. A fugitive peasant who lived in the cities of these countries for a year and one day became free. Thus, in the XIII century. a new estate appeared - the townspeople - as an independent political force with its own status, privileges and liberties: personal freedom, jurisdiction of the city court, participation in the city militia. The emergence of estates that achieved significant political and legal rights was an important step towards the formation of estate-representative monarchies in the countries of Western Europe. This became possible thanks to the strengthening of the central government, first in England, then in France.
The development of commodity-money relations and the involvement of the countryside in this process undermined the subsistence economy and created conditions for the development of the domestic market. The feudal lords, seeking to increase their income, began to transfer land to the peasants for hereditary holding, reduced the lord's plowing, encouraged internal colonization, willingly accepted fugitive peasants, populated uncultivated lands with them and provided them with personal freedom. The estates of the feudal lords were also drawn into market relations. These circumstances led to a change in the forms of feudal rent, the weakening, and then the complete elimination of personal feudal dependence. Quite quickly this process took place in England, France, Italy.
Development of public relations in Kievan Rus goes through the same scenario. The onset of a period of feudal fragmentation fits into the framework of the all-European process. As in Western Europe, tendencies towards political fragmentation in Russia appeared early. Already in the tenth century after the death of Prince Vladimir in 1015, a struggle for power breaks out between his children. However, a single ancient Russian state existed until the death of Prince Mstislav (1132). Since that time, historical science has been counting down the feudal fragmentation in Russia.
What are the reasons for this phenomenon? What contributed to the fact that the unified state of the Rurikovich quickly disintegrated into many large and small principalities? There are many such reasons.
Let's highlight the most important of them.
The main reason is the change in the nature of relations between the Grand Duke and his warriors as a result of the settlement of warriors on the ground. In the first century and a half of the existence of Kievan Rus, the squad was completely supported by the prince. The prince, as well as his state apparatus, collected tribute and other requisitions. As the combatants received land and received from the prince the right to collect taxes and duties themselves, they came to the conclusion that the income from military robbery booty is less reliable than fees from peasants and townspeople. In the XI century. the process of "settlement" of the squad on the ground intensified. And from the first half of the XII century. in Kievan Rus, the votchina becomes the predominant form of ownership, the owner of which could dispose of it at his own discretion. And although the possession of a fiefdom imposed on the feudal lord the obligation to perform military service, his economic dependence on the Grand Duke was significantly weakened. The incomes of the former feudal combatants no longer depended on the mercy of the prince. They made their own existence. With the weakening of economic dependence on the Grand Duke, political dependence also weakens.
A significant role in the process of feudal fragmentation in Russia was played by the developing institution feudal immunity, providing for a certain level of sovereignty of the feudal lord within the boundaries of his fiefdom. In this territory, the feudal lord had the rights of the head of state. Grand Duke and its authorities had no right to act in this territory. The feudal lord himself collected taxes, duties, and administered court. As a result, a state apparatus, a squad, courts, prisons, etc., are formed in independent principalities-patrimonies, and specific princes begin to dispose of communal lands, transfer them on their own behalf to boyars and monasteries. Thus, local princely dynasties are formed, and local feudal lords make up the court and squad of this dynasty. Of great importance in this process was the introduction of the institution of heredity on the earth and the people inhabiting it. Under the influence of all these processes, the nature of relations between the local principalities and Kiev changed. Service dependence is being replaced by relations of political partners, sometimes in the form of equal allies, sometimes suzerain and vassal.
All these economic and political processes politically meant fragmentation of power, the collapse of the former centralized statehood of Kievan Rus. This disintegration, as it was in Western Europe, was accompanied by internecine wars. Three most influential states were formed on the territory of Kievan Rus: Vladimir-Suzdal principality (North-Eastern Rus), Galicia-Volyn principality (South-Western Rus) and Novgorod land (North-Western Rus). Both within these principalities and between them, fierce clashes took place for a long time, destructive wars that weakened the power of Russia, led to the destruction of cities and villages.
Foreign conquerors did not fail to take advantage of this circumstance. The uncoordinated actions of the Russian princes, the desire to achieve victory over the enemy at the expense of others, while maintaining their own army, the lack of a unified command led to the first defeat of the Russian army in the battle with the Tatar-Mongols on the Kalka River on May 31, 1223. Serious disagreements between the princes, which did not allow them to act as a united front in the face of the Tatar-Mongol aggression, led to the capture and destruction of Ryazan (1237). In February 1238, the Russian militia on the Sit River was defeated, Vladimir and Suzdal were captured. In October 1239, Chernigov was besieged and taken; in the fall of 1240, Kyiv was captured. Thus, from the beginning of the 40s. 13th century the period of Russian history begins, which is usually called the Tatar-Mongol yoke, which lasted until the second half of the 15th century.
It should be noted that the Tatar-Mongols during this period did not carry out the occupation of Russian lands, since this territory was of little use for the economic activity of nomadic peoples. But this yoke was very real. Russia found itself in vassal dependence on the Tatar-Mongol khans. Each prince, including the Grand Duke, had to receive permission from the khan to rule the "table", the khan's label. The population of the Russian lands was subject to heavy tribute in favor of the Mongols, there were constant raids of the conquerors, which led to the devastation of the lands and the destruction of the population.
At the same time, a new dangerous enemy appeared on the northwestern borders of Russia - in 1240 the Swedes, and then in 1240-1242. German crusaders. It turned out that the Novgorod land had to defend its independence and its type of development under pressure from both the East and the West. The struggle for the independence of the Novgorod land was led by the young prince Alexander Yaroslavich. His tactics were based on the struggle against the Catholic West and concession to the East (Golden Horde). As a result, the Swedish troops that landed in July 1240 at the mouth of the Neva were defeated by the retinue of the Novgorod prince, who received the honorary nickname "Nevsky" for this victory.
Following the Swedes, German knights attacked the Novgorod land, which at the beginning of the 13th century. settled in the Baltics. In 1240 they captured Izborsk, then Pskov. Alexander Nevsky, who led the fight against the crusaders, managed to liberate Pskov in the winter of 1242, and then on the ice of Lake Peipsi in the famous battle on the ice (April 5, 1242) inflicted a decisive defeat on the German knights. After that, they no longer made serious attempts to seize Russian lands.
Thanks to the efforts of Alexander Nevsky and his descendants in the Novgorod land, despite the dependence on the Golden Horde, the traditions of Western orientation were preserved and the features of allegiance began to form.
However, in general, by the end of the XIII century. North-Eastern and Southern Russia fell under the influence of the Golden Horde, lost ties with the West and the previously established features of progressive development. It is difficult to overestimate the negative consequences that the Tatar-Mongol yoke had for Russia. Most historians agree that the Tatar-Mongol yoke significantly delayed the socio-economic, political and spiritual development of the Russian state, changed the nature of statehood, giving it the form of relations characteristic of the nomadic peoples of Asia.
It is known that in the fight against the Tatar-Mongols, the princely squads took the first blow. The vast majority of them died. Together with the old nobility, the traditions of vassal-druzhina relations left. Now, with the formation of the new nobility, the relationship of allegiance was established.
Relations between princes and cities changed. Veche (with the exception of the Novgorod land) has lost its significance. The prince in such conditions acted as the only protector and master.
Thus, Russian statehood begins to acquire the features of oriental despotism with its cruelty, arbitrariness, complete disregard for the people and the individual. As a result, a peculiar type of feudalism was formed in Russia, in which the “Asian element” is quite strongly represented. The formation of this peculiar type of feudalism was facilitated by the fact that, as a result of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, Russia developed for 240 years in isolation from Europe.
topic 5 The formation of the Muscovite state in the XIV-XVI centuries
1 / Unification of Russian lands around Moscow and the formation of a single Russian state
2/ The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the formation and strengthening of the Russian state
3/ Formation of a centralized Russian state
4 / XVII century - the crisis of the Moscow kingdom
Socio-political changes in the Russian lands in the XII-XIII centuries.
Feudal fragmentation is a period of political decentralization of power.
In Europe, royal power becomes elected by feudal lords (the feathers of France, the electors of Germany). The European king, like the Grand Duke in Russia, is only the first among equals. He is not a sovereign with full power, but a suzerain - the supreme lord of large vassals and dukes and counts.
In fact, the fiefs of vassals are a state within a state.
However, the supreme power remains.
in Russia period of feudal fragmentation begin with 12th century. As reasons this phenomenon should be called:
1. Economic reasons:
a) economic independence from Kyiv princes and boyars as a result of the development of feudal estates (boyar villages), cities, individual lands;
b) weak economic ties under the dominance of subsistence farming.
2. Domestic political reason: relative political independence of local feudal lords(i.e., the ability to maintain their squad) as a result of economic independence. Thus, processes similar to the formation of the state were experienced by other lands.
3. foreign policy reason: disappearance of external danger on the part of the Polovtsy, it relieved the princes of the obligation to unite for a joint struggle under the leadership of the Kiev prince.
The fragmentation of Russia into principalities did not mean the collapse of the Russian land. Saved:
Family, contractual, allied and subordinate relations;
Unified law based on Russian truth;
One Church, headed by the Metropolitan of Kiev;
A close system of monetary account and measures and weights;
The commonality of culture and the feeling of belonging of all lands to the Russian land.
However, centrifugal forces were stronger during that period. The main content of the political history of the lands was the struggle for power – war between princes (on "ladder" law brothers were pretenders to the throne. book. by seniority, and then his sons and nephews by seniority of the reign of their fathers, they "walked across the tables") and struggle between princes and boyars. In the 2/2 XII century. there were 15 principalities, in the 30s. 13th century ≈ 50, in the XIV century. - 250 principalities.
most developed regions Russia in the period of fragmentation were:
1. North-Eastern Russia(Rostov-Suzdal land). This is the outskirts Old Russian state with dense forests, sparse settlements, infertile soils (the exception was the Suzdal, Vladimir and Rostov opolye, which gave a steady harvest).
The colonization of these lands began in the XI-XII centuries. Thousands of farmers came there from South Russia because of the invasion of the Polovtsy, extensive agriculture and overpopulation of the Kiev region. The cities of Yaroslavl, Suzdal, Vladimir arose in North-Eastern Russia.
Here the power of the youngest son of Vladimir Monomakh was established - Yuri Dolgoruky (1125-1157).
A feature of North-Eastern Russia was strong princely power opposed to the boyars. Causes this:
a) the lack of opposition to the prince in the person of the boyars as large land owners due to the recent development of the territory and the presence of a large amount of land directly from the prince;
b) the reliance of princely power on the townspeople and princely servants (moving the capital: Yuri Dolgoruky - from Rostov to Suzdal, Andrei Bogolyubsky - from Suzdal to Vladimir).
The political and economic rise of this land is associated with the sons of Yuri Dolgoruky Andrey Bogolyubsky(1157-1174) (fused cervical vertebrae, brutal murder by boyars) and Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176-1212).
After the death of Vsevolod the Big Nest, seven principalities stood out in the territory of North-Eastern Russia, and strife began under his sons. AT 1216 between them took place Lipitskaya battle- the largest battle of the period of feudal fragmentation.
By the end of the XIII - beginning of the XIV centuries. the place of the Grand Duke of Kiev was the Grand Duke of Vladimir.
2. Southwestern Russia(Galicia-Volyn land). The principality was located on fertile soil in the Carpathian region and on the banks of the river. Bug.
A feature of the Galicia-Volyn principality was equal power of boyars and princes. This is explained:
a) the long stay of Galich under the rule of Kyiv and, consequently, the strong influence of the noble boyars;
b) the economic independence of the local nobility (boyars) through trade (crossing trade routes), fertile soils;
c) the proximity of Poland and Hungary, where rivals often turned for help.
The principality reached its highest power under Roman of Galicia(1170-1205), who united the Galician and Volyn principalities. In his struggle with the boyars, the prince relied on the service feudal lords and townspeople and managed to limit the rights of large secular and spiritual feudal lords, exterminated part of the boyars.
The most dramatic was the reign Daniel Romanovich Galitsky(1221-1264), who managed to strengthen the princely power, weaken the influence of the boyars and annex the Kiev lands to the Galicia-Volyn principality. The Principality of Roman of Galicia was one of the largest states in Europe.
3. Northwestern Russia(Novgorod and Pskov land). Novgorod owned land from the Gulf of Finland to the Urals, from the Arctic Ocean to the upper reaches of the Volga. The city arose as a federation of tribes of Slavs, Finno-Ugric peoples and Balts. The climate of Novgorod was more severe than in North-Eastern Russia, crops are unstable, which is why the main occupation of the Novgorodians were crafts, crafts and trade(including with Western Europe - Sweden, Denmark, the German Union of Merchants - the Hansa).
The socio-political system of Novgorod differed from other Russian lands. Played the main role in Novgorod veche.
See diagram: Novgorod land XII-XV centuries.
8 Archbishop- elected at the meeting Head of the Novgorod Church Region. Functions:
▪ carried out church court,
▪ controlled foreign policy,
▪ kept treasury,
▪ was in charge state lands,
▪ controlled measures and weights.
9 Posadnik – head of Novgorod, elected at a veche from the boyars. Functions:
▪ judgment,
▪ monitoring the activities of the prince,
▪ implementation international negotiations,
▪ maintenance all lands,
▪ assignment and displacement officials,
▪ command of an army(together with the prince).
10 Tysyatsky- elected at the meeting assistant posadnik. Functions:
▪ management urban population,
▪ commercial court,
▪ command of the people's militia,
▪ collection of taxes.
11 prince- invited to the evening supreme judge(together with the posadnik) and army commander. Functions:
▪ collection of taxes for the maintenance of their own squad,
▪ had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of Novgorod and own land.
12 Novgorod veche – city assembly of representatives(400-500 people), who resolved issues
▪ war and peace,
▪ calling and exile of the prince.
13 Konchansky vecha – people's meetings of the inhabitants of the ends(districts) of Novgorod: Nerevsky, Lyudin and Zagorodsky (on the Sofia side), Slovenian and Plotnitsky (on the Trade side).
14 street vecha – public meetings of residents of the streets of Novgorod.
Since 1136, the prince was forbidden to interfere in the internal affairs of Novgorod and to have land.
Thus, Novgorod was boyar aristocratic republic.
The period of feudal fragmentation cannot be unambiguously evaluate, because, on the one hand, at this time there is urban growth and cultural flourishing, and, on the other hand, decrease in the country's defense capability than used enemies from the east ( Mongol-Tatars) and from the west ("crusaders").
The Golden Horde stretched from the shores of the Pacific Ocean to the Adriatic and included China, Central Asia, Transcaucasia, and then most of the Russian principalities.
AT 1223 between those who came from the depths of Asia Mongols on the one hand, and the Polovtsy and the Russian troops invited by them, on the other hand, a battle took place on R. Kalka. The battle ended with the complete defeat of the Russian-Polovtsian army.
But the battle on the Kalka did not lead to the unification of the princes in the face of imminent danger. AT 1237-1238. Mongols led by the grandson of Genghis Khan Batu began a campaign against the Russian lands. Northeast Russia was burned and looted. AT 1239-1240. - a new trip to Southern and Southwestern Russia, which ended with the complete subordination of the Russian lands to the Mongols. Russia has become province (ulus) huge empire of the Mongols - the Golden Horde.
The power of the Mongol-Tatar khans was established over Russia - Horde yoke, finalized by the middle of the thirteenth century.
See diagram: Russian lands of the XIV-XV centuries.
15 Grand Duke – senior from the Rurik dynasty, label holder(Khan's permission) for a great reign, tribute collector for the Golden Horde.
16 Specific princes – rulers of specific principalities.
17 Good boyars- the boyars of the Grand Duke, who were in charge of various industries public administration.
18 Coffers- Department of the Grand Duke. Functions:
▪ maintenance archive,
▪ storage printing,
▪ management finance,
▪ control over foreign policy.
19 Volosteli – representatives of the prince in the countryside who exercised power:
▪ administrative,
▪ judicial,
▪ military.
Traveled across Russian lands Basques- Khan's spies, and the Russian princes, the "servants" of the khans, were supposed to:
Receive in the Golden Horde label- the right to reign;
To pay tribute or output(A year, 15 thousand rubles in silver and gold; Rusich gave the 1st skin of a bear, beaver, sable, ferret, black fox, this is the cost of 3 rams or 1/10 of the crop. Those who did not pay tribute became a slave) and emergency khan requests;
An exception was made for the Russian church, for which Orthodox priests and monks publicly prayed for the health of the khans and blessed them.
contemporaries about the Horde: Northwestern Russia opposed the Horde. Strong rich cities, not ruined by the Mongols - Novgorod, Pskov, Polotsk - actively resisted the penetration of the Tatar Baskaks, the census and the collection of tribute.
Southwestern Russia opposed the Horde. Daniil Galitsky, in order to fight against the Khan, entered into an alliance with the head of the Western Christian Church - the Pope, who promised help in exchange for the spread of Catholicism in Russia. But there was no real help from the West.
Rostov and Vladimir princes, who were supported by the church, advocated peace with the Horde. Realizing that Russia did not have the strength and means to fight, Alexander Nevsky (1252-1263), who became the Grand Duke of Vladimir, suppressed popular uprisings against the collection of tribute in the Novgorod land, Rostov, Suzdal, Yaroslavl and repeatedly traveled to the Horde.
The reasons for the defeat Russians were:
1. dispersion of forces due to the feudal fragmentation of Russia,
2. numerical superiority of the enemy and his training,
3. use of Chinese siege equipment(ramming machines, stone throwers, gunpowder, etc.)
Consequences Mongol invasion were:
1. reduction in the country's population,
2. destruction of cities(out of 74 cities, 49 were ruined, including 14 - completely, 15 - turned into villages), the decline of the craft,
3. relocation of the center of political life from Kyiv, which lost its significance due to the defeat, to Vladimir,
4. weakening the power of the feudal nobility and the prince due to the death of many combatants and boyars,
5. termination of international trade relations.
The historian L.N. does not agree with this opinion. Gumilyov, who considered Batu’s campaign not a systematic conquest, but only a big raid, since the Mongols did not leave garrisons, did not tax the population with a constant tax, and did not conclude unequal treaties with the princes. Gumilyov considered the crusaders to be a more serious danger to Russia.
Decided to attack Russia, weakened as a result of the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars Western European feudal lords, continuing "onslaught to the East"- the conquest of the eastern lands under the banner of the "crusades". Their goal was spread of Catholicism.
AT 1240- took place Neva battle where is the prince of novgorod Alexander defeated the Swedish feudal lords, who went on a reconnaissance campaign against Russia. For the victory in the battle, Alexander received the nickname Nevsky.
The threat from the West, however, was not eliminated. AT 1242 the Germans attacked North-Western Russia, capturing Pskov and Izoborsk. Alexander Nevsky on ice Lake Peipus defeated the crusaders. "Onslaught to the East" was stopped.
So, despite the difficult conditions of the Horde yoke, the ruin of the economy, the death of people, Russia, nevertheless, retained its cultural and historical originality.
Multiple factors in the historical development of Russia, including princely strife, economic changes, a new way of land ownership, led to the beginning of feudal fragmentation. This long period left an indelible imprint on the future development of the entire state and society. But one cannot deny some facts of the positive impact of the fragmentation of territories. The independent and uneven development of the old urban centers has led to many cultural and foreign policy achievements.
Formal | Genuine |
External | Internal |
The Polovtsian danger significantly reduced the attractiveness of the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks." The centers through which the trade relations of Europe with the East were carried out, thanks to the Crusades, are gradually moving to Southern Europe and the Mediterranean, and the rapidly growing northern Italian cities establish control over this trade. | Political prerequisites: endless inter-princely feuds and a long bitter internecine struggle among the Rurikovich. |
The pressure of the steppe nomads. | Strengthening of local princes. |
The boyars are turning into feudal landowners, for whom the income received from the estates becomes the main means of subsistence. |
|
Low level of PS development, subsistence economy. Land is the main value. |
Causes:
1) The decline of the Kiev principality (the loss of a central position, the movement of world trade routes away from Kyiv).
It was associated with the loss of the significance of the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks."
Ancient Russia is losing its role as a participant and mediator in trade relations between the Byzantine, Western European and Eastern worlds.
2) Land is the main value. Land is the main means of payment for service.
3) One of the reasons for the beginning of feudal fragmentation in Russia was a significant increase in the country's productive forces.
4) The most important sign of feudal fragmentation of the XII-XIII centuries. was subsistence farming.
5) Strengthening of local princes.
6) The boyars turn into feudal landowners, for whom the income received from the estates becomes. main means of subsistence.
7) Weakening of defense capability.
8) The weakening of Kyiv and the movement of centers to the outskirts was caused by the pressure of the steppe nomads.
Effects:
- strengthening of local princes.
- the boyars turn into feudal landowners, for whom the income received from the estates becomes the main means of subsistence.
- weakening of the defense.
Characteristics:
2nd half of the XII - XIV centuries. - period
- state fragmentation of ancient Russia
- specific principalities
- formation of Russian feudalism
The legalization of the principle of feudal fragmentation was fixed: by the Lubeck princely congress of 1097, “each one keeps his fatherland”
Along with Kiev, new centers of crafts and trade appeared, more and more independent from the capital of the Russian state. | The state became vulnerable, since not all the principalities that formed were on good terms with each other, and there was no unity that later saved our country more than once. |
Old cities developed. | Constant bloody civil strife weakened the military and economic power of the country. |
Large and powerful principalities were formed. | Kyiv - the former capital of the Old Russian state - lost its power sung in legends and epics and itself became the cause of contention. |
In large Russian principalities, strong princely dynasties were created, a tradition of transferring power from father to son was taking shape, cities were growing rapidly, peasant farming was steadily developing, and new arable lands and forest lands were being developed. Wonderful cultural monuments were created there. The Russian Orthodox Church was gaining strength there. | Many princes sought to occupy the grand prince's table in Kyiv. Power in the city often changed - some princes were expelled, others died in battles, others left, unable to resist new applicants. |
The Significance of the Age of Fragmentation
The period of feudal fragmentation is a natural stage in the development of any medieval society. In Russia, it coincided with the activation of the nomadic tribes neighboring Russia and the Mongol-Tatar invasion. The internecine struggle of dozens of princes for a great reign and the factor of dependence on the Horde slowed down the process of unification of Russian lands. Also, unlike similar processes in France, England or Spain, two centers of land unification were formed in Russia: in the northeast and in the northwest. Accordingly, already in the 15th century, two great principalities claimed the heritage of Kievan Rus: Moscow and Lithuania.
The combination of external and internal factors led to the fact that the era of feudal fragmentation in Russia lasted longer than in France, Hungary or England. On the other hand, after the weakening of the Horde yoke, the enlargement of the principalities accelerated. Under Ivan III the Great, fragmentation was virtually eliminated, and a hundred years later the remnants of the appanage system in the centralized Russian state disappeared.
| causes | process | manifestation | result |
| 1. Development of private land tenure | The transformation of land grants for military service into hereditary property. | "The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal." The power of the king extended to the territory of his own possessions - the royal domain. | The dependence of the feudal nobility on the central government weakened. |
| 2. Growth of dependence of peasants on feudal lords | Instead of a foot militia of communal peasants, under Charles Martell, a heavily armed knightly cavalry was created. | The fall of the role of assemblies of tribal nobility and free community members. distribution to knights (feudal lords) of land with peasants for life. | Reinforcement of the peasants. Weakened support for the power of the monarch on the part of the once free community members. |
| 3. The dominance of subsistence farming | Weak economic ties between parts of the feudal state. | "In my own territory, I am the king." In the structure of medieval society, the townspeople did not stand out as a separate estate. | Feudal farms were economically self-sufficient. Trade was underdeveloped. |
| 4.Cultural and ethnic differences | The peoples that were part of the Carolingian Empire spoke different languages, had different customs and traditions. | The desire for secession, speaking out against the central government in the person of the monarch (separatism). | Verdun section 843 and the rise of the kingdoms that gave rise to modern European states: France, Italy, and Germany. |
Feudal Society in the Middle Ages
Questions and tasks
1. Define the concepts:
- “dynasty” [a number of monarchs descended from a common ancestor, succeeding each other on the throne by right of kinship];
- "feudal fragmentation" [a period in the history of medieval Europe, which is characterized by the fragmentation of the state into large and small feudal possessions];
- "hierarchy" [successive arrangement of social strata or service ranks from lowest to highest, in order of subordination];
- "feudal lord" [land owner, owner of a feud];
- "vassal" [a feudal lord who received land ownership (feud) from a lord and was obliged to perform military service];
- "estates" [social groups endowed with certain rights and obligations on the basis of the laws of the state];
- "feudal society" [an agrarian (pre-industrial) society of the Middle Ages, which is characterized by: a combination of land ownership of feudal lords with a peasant economy subordinate to them, corporatism, the dominance of religion in the spiritual sphere].
2. What influence did antiquity and barbarian peoples have on medieval civilization?
3. Prove that it was Christianity that became the basis of the medieval civilization formed in Europe.
4. Name the forms of interaction between the civilizations of East and West in the Middle Ages.
5. If you had the opportunity to make a historical film about one of the famous battles in which representatives of different civilizations came together, which one would you choose? Justify your choice.
historical figures
Hugo Capet
French king, who lived around 940-996, founder of the Capetian dynasty.
Ancient Greek historian who lived around 484-425. BC. founder of European historical science.
Homer
Ancient Greek philosopher who lived around 427-347. BC, the creator of the project of an ideal state, a student of Socrates.
Gladiator, leader of the largest slave revolt in Roman history; died in 701 BC
Roman general, statesman and a writer who lived 100-44 years. BC.; conqueror of Gaul, established his own dictatorship in Rome.
Aeschylus
Ancient Greek poet-dramatist, who lived in 525-456. BC, one of the main representatives of ancient tragedy.
An ancient Greek physician who lived around 460-370 B.C. BC, reformer of ancient and founder of European medicine.
King of the Franks, emperor (since 800), who lived in 742-814, the creator of a vast empire in Western Europe.
Karl Martel
The Frankish majordomo, who lived in 686-741, defeated the Arabs at the Battle of Poitiers, which put an end to their expansion into Europe.
Italian political thinker who lived in 1469-1527, historian, author of the books History of Florence, Sovereign.
Ancient Chinese sage, founder of Confucianism, who lived ca. 551-479 BC; his teachings had a huge impact on Chinese civilization, the formation of the national character and value system of the Chinese.
Ancient Chinese sage, founder of Taoism, who lived in the VI century. BC.; his teachings had a huge impact on Chinese civilization, the formation of the national character and value system of the Chinese.