Why did feudal fragmentation take place in Western Europe? Western Europe and Kievan Rus during the period of feudal fragmentation
Epoch feudal fragmentation in Europe, distinctive features feudalism in the Russian lands.
The period of feudal fragmentation is a natural stage in progressive development feudalism. Dismemberment of the early feudal grandiose empires (Kievan Rus or the Carolingian empire in Central Europe) for a number of virtually sovereign states was an inevitable stage in the development of feudal society.
Back in the IV century. (395 ᴦ.) The Roman Empire split into two independent parts - Western and Eastern. The capital of the Eastern part was Constantinople, founded by Emperor Constantine on the site of the former Greek colony Byzantium. Byzantium was able to withstand the storms of the so-called "Great Migration of Nations" and survived after the fall of Rome (in 1410 the Visigoths took Rome after a long siege) as the "Empire of the Romans". In the VI century. Byzantium occupied vast territories of the European continent (even Italy was unnecessarily conquered). Throughout the Middle Ages, Byzantium maintained a strong centralized state.
The overthrow of Romulus Augustine (1476 ᴦ.) Is considered to be the end of the Western Roman Empire. On its ruins numerous "barbaric" states arose: the Ostrogothic (and then Lombard) in the Apennines, the Visigoth kingdom in the Iberian Peninsula, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Britain, the Franks state on the Rhine, etc.
The Frankish leader Clovis and his successors expanded the borders of the state, pushed back the Visigoths and soon became hegemon in Western Europe. The position of the empire strengthened even more under the Carolingians (VIII-IX centuries). At the same time, behind the external centralization of Charlemagne's empire, its internal weakness and fragility was hidden. Created by conquest, she was very variegated in her own way. ethnic composition: it included the Saxons, Frisians, Alamans, Thuringians, Lombards, Bavars, Celts and many other peoples. Each of the lands of the empire was little connected with the others and, without constant military and administrative coercion, did not want to submit to the authority of the conquerors.
This form of empire - an outwardly centralized, but internally amorphous and fragile political association that gravitated towards universalism - was characteristic of many of the largest early feudal states in Europe.
The collapse of the empire of Charlemagne (after the death of his son Louis the Pious) in the 40s of the 9th century. and the formation of France, Germany and Italy on its basis meant the beginning of a new era in the development of Western Europe.
X-XII centuries are a period of feudal fragmentation in Western Europe. There is an avalanche-like process of fragmentation of states: the feudal state in Western Europe in the X-XII centuries. exists in the form of small political entities - principalities, duchies, counties, etc., political power over their subjects, sometimes completely independent, sometimes only nominally united under the rule of a weak king.
Many cities in Northern and Central Italy - Venice, Genoa, Siena, Bologna, Ravenna, Lucca, etc.
Posted on ref.rf
- in the IX-XII centuries. became city-states. Many cities in Northern France (Amiens, Soussan, Lahn, etc.) and Flanders also became self-governing communal states. Οʜᴎ elected the council, its head - the mayor, had their own court and militia, their own finances and taxes. Often the city-communes themselves acted as a collective lord in relation to the peasants who lived in the territory surrounding the city.
In Germany, a similar position was taken in the XII-XIII centuries. the largest of the so-called imperial cities. Formally, they obeyed the emperor, but in reality they were independent city republics (Lubeck, Nuremberg, Frankfurt am Main, etc.). Οʜᴎ ruled by city councils, had the right to independently declare war, conclude peace and alliances, mint coins, etc.
Distinctive feature development of Germany during the period of feudal fragmentation was the predominance in its political organization territorial principle over tribal. In place of the old tribal duchies, about 100 principalities appeared, of which over 80 were spiritual. Territorial princes took the place of tribal dukes in the feudal hierarchy, forming the estate of imperial princes - the immediate fiefs of the crown. Many German imperial princes in the XII century. found themselves in vassal dependence on foreign sovereigns (sometimes even from several states).
In general, the period of feudal fragmentation was a period of economic growth in Europe. In the X-XII centuries. the feudal system in Western Europe took on a pan-European character and was experiencing a time of take-off: the growth of cities, commodity production, and an in-depth division of labor turned commodity-money relations into the most important factor public life... Clearing for arable land was accompanied by deforestation and land reclamation (Lombardy, Holland). The secondary landscape has grown; the area of swamps has decreased. Mining and metallurgical production experienced a qualitative leap: in Germany, Spain, Sweden, England, mining and metallurgical industries grew into independent, special industries. Construction is also on the rise. In the XII century. the first plumbing with sewerage elements is being built in Troyes. The production of mirrors begins (Venice). New mechanisms are being created in weaving, mining, construction, metallurgy and other crafts. So, in Flanders at 1131 ᴦ. the first modern loom appeared, etc. There was an increase in foreign and domestic trade.
On the other hand, the increase in the needs of the feudal lords in connection with the development of the market not only led to the growth of exploitation of the peasantry, but also intensified the desire of the feudal lords to seize foreign lands and wealth. This gave rise to many wars, conflicts, clashes. Many feudal lords and states were drawn into them (due to the entanglement and intertwining of vassal ties). The borders of states were constantly changing. More powerful sovereigns sought to subjugate others, making claims to world domination, tried to create a universalist (all-embracing) state under their hegemony. The main bearers of universalist tendencies were the popes, Byzantine and German emperors.
Only in the XIII-XV centuries. in the countries of Western Europe, the process of centralization of the state begins, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ gradually takes the form of an estate monarchy. Here, a relatively strong royal power is combined with the presence of estate-representative assemblies. The most rapidly centralization process took place in the following Western European states: England, France, Castile, Aragon.
In Russia, the period of feudal fragmentation begins in the 30s of the XII century. (at 1132 ᴦ. dies Grand Duke Kiev Mstislav, son of Vladimir Monomakh; under 1132 ᴦ. the chronicler wrote: ʼʼAnd the whole Russian land was irritated ... ʼʼ). In the place of a single state, sovereign principalities began to live an independent life, in scale equal to the Western European kingdoms. Novgorod and Polotsk stood out earlier than others; followed by Galich, Volyn and Chernigov, etc. The period of feudal fragmentation in Russia continued until the end of the 15th century.
Within this more than three-century period of time, there was a clear and difficult boundary - the Tatar invasion of 1237-1241, after which the foreign yoke sharply disrupted the natural course of the Russian historical process, greatly slowing it down.
Feudal fragmentation became new form statehood in the context of the rapid growth of productive forces and was largely due to this development. The tools of labor were improved (scientists have more than 40 types of them only made of metal); plowed agriculture was established. Cities became a major economic force (there were about 300 of them in Russia at that time). The links with the market of individual feudal estates and peasant communities were very weak. Οʜᴎ strove to satisfy their needs as much as possible at the expense of internal resources. Under the conditions of the dominance of natural economy, there was an opportunity for each region to separate from the center and exist as independent lands.
In the last years of the existence of Kievan Rus, the local boyars of many thousands received the Extensive Russian Truth, which determined the norms of feudal law. But the book on parchment, kept in the grand ducal archives in Kiev, did not contribute to the real exercise of boyar rights. Even the power of the grand-ducal virniks, swordsmen, and governors could not really help the distant provincial boyars of the outskirts of Kievan Rus. Zemsky boyars of the XII century. I needed my own, close, local authority, which would be able to quickly implement the legal norms of Pravda, help in clashes with the peasants, quickly overcome their resistance.
Feudal fragmentation was (paradoxical at first glance!) The result not so much of differentiation as of historical integration. Feudalism was growing in breadth and strengthening in the localities (under the dominance of natural economy), feudal relations took shape (vassal relations, immunity, the right of inheritance, etc.).
The optimal scales for feudal integration of that time, geographical limits were worked out by life itself, even on the eve of the formation of Kievan Rus - the "unions of tribes": glade, Drevlyans, Krivichi, Vyatichi, etc. - Kievan Rus disintegrated in the 30s. XII century on one and a half dozen independent principalities, more or less similar to one and a half dozen ancient tribal unions. The capitals of many principalities were at one time the centers of tribal unions (Kiev at the glades, Smolensk at the Krivichi, etc.). Tribal alliances were a stable community that had developed over the centuries; their geographical limits were determined by natural boundaries. During the existence of Kievan Rus, cities that competed with Kiev developed here; the clan and tribal nobility turned into boyars.
The order of occupation of the throne, which existed in Kievan Rus, based on seniority in the princely family, gave rise to an atmosphere of instability and uncertainty. The transfer of the prince in seniority from one city to another was accompanied by the transfer of his entire domain apparatus. The princes invited foreigners (Poles, Polovtsians, etc.) to resolve personal conflicts. The temporary stay in any land of the prince and his boyars gave rise to intensified, "haste" exploitation of peasants and artisans. New forms of political organization of the state were needed, taking into account the existing correlation of economic and political forces. Feudal fragmentation became such a new form of state-political organization. In the centers of each of the principalities, their own local dynasties were formed: the Olgovichi - in Chernigov, the Izyaslavichi - in Volyn, Yurievich - in the Vladimir-Suzdal land, etc. Each of the new principalities fully satisfied the needs of the feudal lords: from any capital of the XII century. one could gallop to the border of this principality in three days. Under these conditions, the norms of Russkaya Pravda could be confirmed by the sword of the ruler in a timely manner. The calculation was made on the prince's interest - to transfer his reign to children in good economic condition, to help the boyars, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ helped to settle here.
Each of the principalities had its own chronicle; the princes issued their charter letters. Generally initial phase feudal fragmentation (before the factor of conquest intervened in normal development) is characterized by the rapid growth of cities and a bright flourishing of culture in the 12th - early 13th centuries. in all its manifestations. The new political form promoted progressive development, created conditions for the expression of local creative forces (each principality has its own architectural style, their artistic and literary trends).
Let's pay attention to the negative aspects of the era of feudal fragmentation:
A clear weakening of overall military capability, facilitating foreign conquest. At the same time, here, too, a reservation is needed. Authors of the book ʼʼHistory of the Russian State. Historical and bibliographic essays raise the question: “Could the Russian early feudal state have resisted the Tatars? Who dares to answer in the affirmative? ʼʼ. The forces of only one of the Russian lands - Novgorod - a little later turned out to be enough to defeat the German, Swedish and Danish invaders by Alexander Nevsky. In the face of the Mongol-Tatars, there was a clash with a qualitatively different enemy.
Internecine wars. But even in a single state (when it came to the struggle for power, for the grand prince's throne, etc.), princely strife were at times more bloody than during the period of feudal fragmentation. The goal of strife in the era of fragmentation was already different from that in a single state: not the seizure of power in the whole country, but the strengthening of their principality, the expansion of its borders at the expense of neighbors.
Increasing fragmentation of princely possessions: in the middle of the XII century. there were 15 principalities; at the beginning of the XIII century. (on the eve of the invasion of Batu) - about 50, and in the XIV century. (when the unification process of the Russian lands had already begun) the number of great and appanage principalities reached about 250. The reason for this fragmentation was the division of the princes' possessions between their sons: as a result, the principality became smaller, weakened, and the results of this spontaneous process gave rise to ironic sayings among contemporaries (ʼʼIn the Rostov land - a prince in every village; "In the Rostov land, seven princes have one warrior", etc.). Tatar-Mongol invasion 1237-1241 gᴦ. found Russia flourishing, rich and cultural country, but already affected by the "rust" of feudal specific fragmentation.
In each of the separated principalities-lands at the initial stage of feudal fragmentation, similar processes took place:
the growth of the nobility ("children", "children", etc.), palace servants;
strengthening the positions of the old boyars;
urban growth - complex social organism the middle ages. Association of artisans, merchants in cities in "brotherhoods", "communities", corporations close to craft workshops and merchant guilds in Western European cities;
the development of the church as an organization (dioceses in the XII century geographically coincided with the borders of principalities);
intensification of contradictions between the princes (the title “Grand Duke” was borne by the princes of all Russian lands) and the local boyars, the struggle between them for influence and power.
In each principality, due to the peculiarities of its historical development, its own correlation of forces took shape; its own, special, combination of the above elements appeared on the surface.
Thus, the history of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus is characterized by the victory of the grand ducal power over the landed aristocracy by the end of the 12th century. The princes here were able to suppress the separatism of the boyars, power was established in the form of a monarchy.
In Novgorod (and later in Pskov) the boyars were able to subjugate the princes and established boyar feudal republics.
In the Galicia-Volyn land, there was an extremely heightened rivalry between princes and local boyars, there was a kind of "balance of forces". The boyar opposition (besides, constantly relying on either Hungary or Poland) failed to turn the land into a boyar republic, but significantly weakened the grand ducal power.
A special situation has developed in Kiev. On the one hand, he became the first among equals. Soon, some Russian lands caught up with and even outstripped him in their development. On the other hand, Kiev remained an "apple of discord" (they joked that there was not a single prince in Russia who did not seek to "sit" in Kiev). Kiev “conquered”, for example, Yuri Dolgoruky - the Vladimir-Suzdal prince; at 1154 ᴦ. he achieved the Kiev throne and sat on it until 1157 ᴦ. His son, Andrei Bogolyubsky, also sent regiments to Kiev, etc. In such conditions, the Kiev boyars introduced an interesting system of "duumvirate" (co-government), which lasted the entire second half of the 12th century. The meaning of this original measure was as follows: at the same time representatives of two warring branches were invited to the Kiev land (a contract was concluded with them - ʼʼryadʼʼ); thus, a relative equilibrium was established and strife was partly eliminated. One of the princes lived in Kiev, the other in Belgorod (or Vyshgorod). On military campaigns, they acted together and conducted diplomatic correspondence in concert. So, the duumvir-co-rulers were Izyaslav Mstislavich and his uncle - Vyacheslav Vladimirovich; Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich and Rurik Mstislavich.
The era of feudal fragmentation in Europe, the distinctive features of feudalism in the Russian lands. - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "The era of feudal fragmentation in Europe, the distinctive features of feudalism in the Russian lands." 2017, 2018.
Over time, large feudal lords, who received lands from the kings into conditional possession, secured them to themselves. Now they could transfer land by inheritance of their own free will and not obey their lords. At the same time, the feudal lords relied on their own vassals and became complete rulers in their lands. The book of medieval laws said:
“In the most distant time, it depended on the power of the masters, when they would like to take away the feud given by them. After that, they came to the conclusion that the feud was an integral part of the year. Then it was established that the feud held out throughout the life of the vassal. But since the feud did not pass to the sons by right of inheritance, then they came to the conclusion that he began to pass to the sons. "
The power of the kings gradually weakened. They were no longer able to cope with all the rebel vassals striving for independence. Isolation separate parts the state was also facilitated by the domination of natural economy. It made every large feudal possession independent and independent from the rest of the state, since everything that was needed was produced within itself. A long period began feudal fragmentation.Material from the site
The changes that took place in Western Europe testified to the fact that by the 10th century feudal relations were taking shape in it. Their distinctive features were: the formation of the estates of medieval society - feudal lords and peasants; the formation of a "feudal ladder"; domination of natural economy.
On this page material on topics:
Causes of Feudal Fragmentation in Western Europe in the Middle Ages
Abstract barbarian world
An abstract of the reasons for feudal fragmentation.
A synopsis on the topic of states remaining fragmented
What reasons led to feudal fragmentation in Western Europe
Questions about this material:
2.1. The period of feudal fragmentation in Western Europe and Russia: essence and reasons
2.2. Mongol-Tatars and Russia
The period of feudal fragmentation is a natural stage in the progressive development of feudalism. The dismemberment of the early feudal grandiose empires (Kievan Rus or the Carolingian empire in Central Europe) into a number of actually (and sometimes legally) sovereign states was an inevitable stage in the development of feudal society.
Back in the IV century. (395) The Roman Empire split into two independent parts - Western and Eastern. Constantinople, founded by Emperor Constantine on the site of the former Greek colony of Byzantium, became the capital of the Eastern part. Byzantium was able to withstand the storms of the so-called “great migration of peoples” and survived after the fall of Rome (in 1410 the Visigoths took Rome after a long siege) as “the empire of the Romans”. In the VI century. Byzantium occupied vast territories of the European continent (even Italy was conquered for a short time). Throughout the Middle Ages, a strong centralized state remained in Byzantium.
The Mongol state arose thanks to the military-diplomatic activities of Temujin, in the future Chinggis Khan, aimed at rallying the Mongol tribes. The latter included the Mongols proper, to whom belonged also Temujin, Merkits, Kerait, Oira-ty, Naiman, Tatars. The largest and most belligerent of the Mongol tribes was the Tatars. The Tanguts, Chzhurzheni, the Chinese, who bordered on the Mongols, often transferred the name "Tatars" in general to all Mongolian tribes of the 11th-12th centuries.
The future Genghis Khan was born, according to some sources, in 1162, according to others - in 1155. He received the name Temujin at birth, because his father, grandson Yesugei-Bagatur, who was at enmity with the Tatars, took the Tatar leader prisoner the day before.
In his struggle for power over other tribes, Temujin achieved significant success. Around 1180 he was elected khan of the Mongol tribal union proper. The decisive factor was the real strength that Temujin gained through his abilities. Representatives of the Mongolian steppe aristocracy, having elected Temujin Khan, gave him the title of Chiigis Khan.
In 1185. Temujin, in alliance with the head of the Kereite tribe, Wang Khan, defeated the Merkit alliance of tribes. This victory strengthened his position.
In the spring of 1202, Genghis Khan utterly defeated the Tatars. All captured Tatar men were killed, and women and children were distributed among different tribes. The khan himself took two Tatars as his wife.
Sooner or later, the logic of the struggle was to lead Chiigis Khan to a clash with the Kereite Wan Khan, from which he ultimately emerged victorious. Having crushed in 1204 the last strong rival of Tayan Khan, the head of the Naiman alliance of tribes, Genghis Khan became the only powerful leader in the Mongol steppes.
In 1206, at the congress (kurultai) of the Mongol nobility in the upper reaches of the Onon River, Chinggis Khan was again proclaimed a khan, but already of a united Mongolian state.
The Mongolian state was built on a military model. The entire territory and population were divided into three parts: the center, the right and the left wing. Each part, in turn, was subdivided into "darkness" (10 thousand people), "thousands", "hundreds", "tens", headed by temniks, thousanders, centurions, foremen. At the head of these military-administrative formations were associates Genghis Khan - his noyons and nukers.
Each military-administrative unit, starting from the lowest echelon, was supposed not only to exhibit a set number of soldiers with horses, equipment, provisions, but also to carry various feudal duties.
Having created a strong power, the device of which contributed to the rapid deployment of military forces, Genghis Khan began to implement plans to conquer neighboring states.
The news of the defeat and seizure by the Mongol-Tatars that reached the north-east of Russia served as a terrible warning. major states Asia, the devastation of vast territories with flourishing cities and populous villages.
It is quite admissible to assume that Vladimir and the Vladimir-Suzdal principality were one of the most informed regions of Europe. The closeness and constant connection with the Volga made it possible to obtain reliable and varied information about the East, Asia, and the Tatars.
Apparently, in Russia they knew about the Mongol campaign of 1219-1224. to Central Asia, about its enormous destructive consequences for agricultural areas and urban life Central Asia... They knew what to expect the civilian population in the event of an invasion of nomadic conquerors.
It should be noted that under Genghis Khan, organized robbery and division of military booty, the devastation of entire regions and the extermination of civilians were used. A whole system of mass organized terror was formed, which was carried out from above (and not from below, by ordinary soldiers, as before, during the invasions of nomads), aimed at destroying elements of the population capable of resisting, intimidating civilians.
During the siege of the city, the inhabitants received mercy only on condition of immediate surrender, although this rule was sometimes not observed if the Mongols considered it unprofitable. If the city surrendered only after a long resistance, its inhabitants were driven out into the field, where they were left for five to ten days or more under the supervision of Mongol soldiers. After the robbery of the city and the division of the booty, they were mistaken for the townspeople. The soldiers were killed, their families were enslaved. Girls and young women also became slaves and were divided between the nobility and the warriors. According to a contemporary, the Arab historian Ibn al-Athir, after the capture of Bukhara, the inhabitants were driven out into the field and then were divided by order of Genghis Khan among the soldiers. According to Ibn al-Athir, the Tatars raped the women they had inherited right there in front of the townspeople, who “looked and cried,” unable to do anything.
Artisans and skilled craftsmen were distributed as slaves between the Mongol princes and the nobility, but their fate was somewhat better, since they were often not separated from their families. Healthy male youth climbed into the “crowd”, that is, was used for heavy siege work and transport service, and during the battles "people of the crowd" were in front of the troops, serving as a target for the shots of their own compatriots. The rest of the inhabitants were allowed to return to their ruined homes.
If the city was taken only by storm after stubborn resistance, or if an uprising began in an already conquered city, the Mongols carried out a general massacre. The surviving inhabitants, previously driven out into the field, were distributed among the soldiers, who were to kill the survivors. Sometimes, along with the cities, their rural districts were slaughtered. After the massacre, the captured scribes were forced to count the number of those killed.
After the defeat on the Kalka River in 1223, Russia began to closely monitor the actions of the Mongol-Tatars. Let's pay attention to the fact that the chronicle of the Vladimir principality contains records about the victory of the Mongols over the Saxins and the Eastern Cumans in 1229, about the wintering of the Mongol-Tatars near the borders of the Volga Bulgaria in 1232.Under 1236, the chronicle contains a message about the conquest of the Volga Bulgaria by the Mongols ... The chronicler describes the defeat of the capital of Bulgaria - the Great City. This message from the Vladimir chronicler carried a frank warning of an impending catastrophe. A year later, it erupted.
Note that in 1235, at the kurultai, a decision was made about an all-Mongol campaign to the West. According to the Persian author Juweini (died in 1283), at the kurultai of 1235 "a decision was made to take possession of the Bulgar, Ases and Rus countries, which were in the vicinity of the Batu encampment, but were not yet completely subdued and were proud of their large numbers."
Having defeated the Volga Bulgaria in 1236, having launched in 1237 a broad offensive against the Polovtsians in the Caspian steppes, in the North Caucasus, by the fall of 1237 the Mongol-Tatars concentrated their forces at the borders of North-Eastern Russia. The Ryazan principality was the first to experience the strength of the Mongol-Tatar army. Having taken Ryazan in December 1237, Batu headed for Kolomna along the ice of the Oka. Near Kolomna, the Mongol-Tatars were waiting for the Vladimir-Suzdal regiments led by the son of the great Vladimir prince Vsevolod. The battle at Kolomna, which took place in January 1238, was distinguished by stubbornness and fierceness. It is known that the prince Kulkan was mortally wounded in the battle (the only prince who died during western campaign Mongols). This allows us to conclude that the battle was extremely intense (like all Chinggisids, the youngest son of Chinggis Khan Kulkan, in accordance with the Mongol rules of war, was located in the rear of the troops). In spite of the fact that, according to the chronicler, the Vladimir-Suzdal and Ryazan warriors were "beating hard" near Kolomna, it was not possible to stop the Mongol-Tatars. Having defeated Moscow in January 1238, the Mongols approached Vladimir in early February. In view of the significant losses suffered by the Vladimir-Suzdal army near Kolomna, Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich went north to gather forces, leaving his sons Vsevolod and Mstislav in Vladimir. Despite the fact that the city had quite powerful fortifications, the defenders of Vladimir, with all their heroism and courage, were able to resist the Mongols, who used siege and battering weapons, only for several days, until February 8. And then followed the terrible defeat of the capital of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir. On March 4, 1238, the Mongolian commander Burundai caught the Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich by surprise, who camped on the City River. Together with the Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich, many Russian waves died. Mongolian troops captured Tver, appeared within Novgorod land... Not reaching 100 versts to Novgorod, the Mongol-Tatars turned south and, having passed the "raid" through the Russian lands (including the outskirts of the Smolensk and Chernigov principalities), returned to the steppe.
After spending the summer of 1238 in the Don steppes, Baty again invaded Ryazan in the fall. In 1239, the main blow of the Mongol-Tatars fell on the southern Russian lands. In the spring of 1239, the Pereyaslavl principality was defeated, in the fall it was Chernigov's turn, which was besieged on October 18, 1239. The city was defended to the last opportunity. Many of its defenders perished on the walls. At the end of 1240 Kiev fell. In 1241 Batu invaded the Galicia-Volyn principality.
Reporting about the Mongol invasion, the chronicler noticed that an innumerable number of Tatars appeared, “like the pruses, devouring the grass.” The question of the number of Batu's troops has attracted the attention of historians for about 200 years. Starting with N.M. Karamzin, most of the pre-revolutionary researchers (D.I. Ilovaisky and others) arbitrarily estimated the number of the Mongolian army at 300 thousand people, or, uncritically using the data of the chroniclers, wrote about 400, 500, and even 600 thousand army.
Such figures are undoubtedly a clear exaggeration, for this is much more than there were men in Mongolia in the thirteenth century.
Historian V.V. Kargalov, as a result of studying the problem, came to the conclusion that the size of Batu's army was 120-140 thousand people. However, this figure should be considered too high.
After all, each Mongolian warrior needed to have at least three horses: riding, pack and fighting, which were not loaded so that it retained its strength at the decisive moment of the battle. Providing food for half a million horses concentrated in one place is an extremely difficult task. Horses died, they were used as food for the soldiers. It is no accident that the Mongols demanded fresh horses from all the cities that entered into negotiations with them.
The famous researcher N. Veselovsky determined the number of the Mongolian army at 30 thousand people. The same assessment was adhered to by L.N. Gumilyov. A similar position (the number of Batu's army is 30-40 thousand people) is characteristic of historians
According to the most recent estimates, which can be considered quite convincing, the number of Mongolian troops at Batu's disposal was 50-60 thousand people.
The widespread notion that every Mongol was a warrior cannot be considered reliable. How was the Mongol army recruited? A certain number of wagons exhibited one or two soldiers and supplied them with everything necessary for the campaign.
An opinion is expressed that in addition to the Mongolian troops proper, of 50-60 thousand people, the army of Batu included auxiliary corps from the conquered peoples. However, in reality, Batu did not have such buildings. Usually the Mongols did this. Prisoners captured in battle and civilians were herded into an assault crowd, which they drove into battle in front of the Mongolian units. Units of allies and vassals were also used. Behind this "assault crowd", doomed to perish in the vanguard battle, were placed Mongolian barrage detachments.
By the way, an approximation to the real number of the Mongolian troops helps to understand the nature of military operations in 1237-1238. Suffering sensitive losses in the battles with the Ryazan and Vladimir people, the Mongols then with difficulty took the small cities of Torzhok and Kozelsk and were forced to abandon the campaign against the crowded (about 30 thousand inhabitants) Novgorod.
When figuring out the real size of Batu's army, it is necessary to take into account the following. Military equipment the Mongol-Tatars were superior to the European one. They did not wear heavy armor, but robes with several layers of felt protected them from arrows better than iron. The arrow flight range for English archers, the best in Europe, was 450 m, and for the Mongols - up to 700 m. This advantage was achieved due to the complex design of their bow, the fact that certain muscle groups were trained from childhood by Mongolian archers. Mongolian boys, from the age of six, mounting a horse and taking up arms, growing up, became a kind of perfect war machines.
As a rule, Russian cities withstood no more than one or two weeks of siege, since the Mongols at the same time conducted continuous exhausting attacks, replacing detachments. For example, Ryazan was subjected to a similar continuous assault from December 16 to 21, 1237, after which the city was plundered and burned, and the inhabitants were killed.
What military forces did Russia have? Russian and Soviet historians since the time of S.M. Solovyov, following the message of the chronicler, it was believed that Vladimir-Suzdal Russia, together with Novgorod and Ryazan, could exhibit 50 thousand people and the same amount of Southern Russia. There is reason to doubt the reality of such numbers.
It would be unreasonable to reduce the essence of the problem to an examination of this specific figure. It can be assumed that all Russian principalities could potentially put together an army of a similar size. But the whole point is that the Russian princes were unable to unite their efforts even in the hour of formidable danger.
Unsuccessfully, the Ryazan prince Yuri Igorevich appealed for help to Vladimir and Chernigov. Why did the Grand Duke of Vladimir and the suzerain of the Ryazan princes Yuri Vsevolodovich not send help? It is even difficult to assume that Yuri Vsevolodovich wanted the defeat of the vassals, which deprived him of a buffer between the steppe and the borders of his own principality. The defeat of the Volga Bulgaria, the death of the population, about which the Grand Duke was aware, left no doubt that a life-and-death struggle was ahead.
Of course, the explanation can be found in the fact that help did not have time to reach. However, this is what the chronicler writes: "Prince Yurya himself is not an ideal, not obeying the princes of Ryazan 's prayers, but even though the individual himself will scold ...". That is, in essence, the same situation arose as in the Battle of Kalka in 1223. Each prince wanted to fight alone, without allies.
Is it just a simple pursuit of individual action? It seems that we are faced with the manifestation of one of the features of social psychology characteristic of the chivalry of the period of feudal fragmentation, when every knight, every commander, every feudal army pursued the goal of their own personal participation in the battle, often without taking into account common actions at all, which predetermined the unfavorable outcome of the battle. ... So it was in the West, and so it happened in Russia.
Strife continued. The chronicler, next to the story of the defeat of Pereyaslavl and Chernigov by the Mongols, calmly narrates about the campaign of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, during which he took the city of Kamenets, in which the family of his rival Mikhail Vsevolodovich Chernigovsky was located, and captured many prisoners.
Disputes over the Kiev table did not stop. Occupying the Kiev reign, Mikhail Vsevolodovich, not hoping to defend the city, fled to Hungary. Freed Kiev throne hastened to occupy the Smolensk prince Rostislav Mstislavich, but he was soon expelled by Daniel Galitsky, who did not prepare the city for defense, leaving Kiev, Daniel left a thousand
According to the Mongolian rules of war, those cities that submitted voluntarily were called "gobalyk" - a good city. From such cities, a moderate contribution was taken by horses for the cavalry and food supplies. But it is quite natural that the Russian people in the face of ruthless conquerors tried with all their might to protect native land and discarded the thought of surrender. Evidence of this, for example, is the prolonged defense of Kiev (according to the Pskov Third Chronicle, for 10 weeks and four days, from September 5 to November 19! 1240). Excavations of other cities of the Kiev land (Vyshgorod, Belgorod, etc.) also indicate heroic defense these centers. Archaeologists have discovered powerful layers of conflagrations; hundreds of human bones have been found under burnt houses, fortress walls, in streets and squares.
Yes, you can cite facts of frank cooperation with the Tatars. So, the small princes of the Bolokhov land (Upper Bug region), who supported the Galician boyars in the fight against Daniil Romanovich, quickly came to an agreement with the Mongol-Tatars. The latter freed them from being recruited into their army, on condition that they would be supplied with wheat and millet.
The Mongolian army was in need of replenishment, so the Mongols offered captured prisoners to buy freedom at the cost of joining their army. In the chronicle of Matthew of Paris there is a letter from two monks, in which it was reported that in the Mongolian army "there are many Cumans and pseudo-Christians" (ie, Orthodox). The first set among the Russians was made in 1238-1241. Note that in this case we are again talking, apparently, about the "assault crowd".
Similar took place in real life, but the accents should be placed in a different way.
The consequences of the Mongol invasion were extremely dire. In the cultural deposits of the cities that took the blow of the Mongol-Tatars, layers of continuous fires and hundreds of skeletons with traces of wounds were found. There was no one to collect and bury the bodies of the dead. When Daniil Romanovich returned to Volodymyr-Volynsky, a terrible sight was presented to him. In a deserted city, as noted by N.I. Kostomarov, the churches were filled with heaps of corpses. In church buildings, residents sought refuge and died there.
The Italian monk Plano Carpini, who visited Russia in 1246, wrote that "when we drove through their land, we found countless heads and bones of dead people lying in the field." In Kiev, according to Plano Carpini, there are only 200 houses left.
The border of agriculture moved to the north, the southern fertile lands were called "Wild Field". The Russian people, who were driven into the Horde, partly remained there as servants and slaves, partly they were sold to other countries. In the slave trade of the Golden Horde with Egypt, Syria, France, Italy, the main commodity was women. In the Western European market, the most significant amount (15 times the usual price) was paid for a seventeen-year-old Russian girl.
Despite the dire consequences of the Mongol-Tatar campaign against the Russian lands, life went on. The Mongols did not leave garrisons anywhere, and after the departure of the Mongol army, the inhabitants returned to their ruined houses and cities. Survived such major centers like Novgorod, Pskov, Polotsk, Smolensk. Often the population, when the Tatars approached, went into the forest. Forests, ravines, rivers, swamps sheltered both villages and people from the Tatar cavalry. Ukrainian archaeologist
Feudal fragmentation in Europe occurred during the early Middle Ages. The king's power became formal, he retained it only within the limits of his dominions.
- Feudal feudal wars
- What have we learned?
- Assessment of the report
Bonus
- Test by topic
The relationship between the king and the feudal lords during the period of fragmentation
The duties of the feudal lords included military service for the good of the king and the state, payment of monetary contributions in some cases, as well as submission to the decisions of the king. However, starting from the 9th century, the fulfillment of these duties began to depend solely on the goodwill of the vassals, who often did not show it.
Causes of feudal fragmentation
The preconditions for this process were the death of Charlemagne and the division of the possessions under his hand between the sons, who could not retain power.
As for the reasons for the feudal fragmentation of European countries, they consisted in weak trade ties between the lands - they could not develop in a natural economy. Each estate, owned by a feudal lord, fully provided itself with everything necessary - there was simply no need to go to the neighbors for anything. Gradually the estates became more and more isolated, so that each feudal possession became almost a state.
Rice. 1. Feudal estate.
Gradually, large feudal lords, dukes and earls, ceased to reckon with the king, who often had less land and property. An expression appears stating that the king is only the first among equals.
TOP-4 articleswho read along with this
The second reason was that each feudal lord had his own army, which means that he did not need the protection of the king. Moreover, this king called vassals under his banners when he needed protection.
Feudal feudal wars
The formation of feudal relations took place in the conditions of constant wars between the nobles, because whoever had land, he had more power. In an effort to take away from each other both the land and the peasants in order to become stronger and richer, the feudal lords were in a state of permanent war. Its essence was to capture as much as possible large territory and at the same time, prevent another feudal lord from seizing his.
Rice. 2. Taking a medieval castle.
Gradually, this led to the fact that small feudal estates became more and more - there was even a comic expression about land-poor nobles. It was said that such a feudal lord, when he goes to bed, touches the borders of his possessions with his head and feet. And if it turns over, it can get to a neighbor.
Results of feudal fragmentation
It was a difficult period in the history of Western Europe. On the one hand, thanks to the weakening of the power of the center, all lands began to develop, on the other, there were numerous negative consequences.
So, wanting to weaken a neighbor, every feudal lord who started an internecine war, first of all burned out crops and killed the peasants, which did not contribute to economic growth - the estates gradually fell into decay. Even more sad results of feudal fragmentation in Europe were observed from the point of view of the state: the endless fragmentation of lands and civil strife weakened the country as a whole and made it easy prey.
Rice. 3. Map of Europe in the period of feudal fragmentation.
Name the exact year when this period European history ended, it is impossible, but approximately in the 12-13th centuries the process of centralization of states started again.
What have we learned?
What were the reasons for the feudal fragmentation and what results did it lead to. What was the essence of this phenomenon, what relations were connected during this period between the king and the feudal lords, as well as for what reasons were constantly conducted internecine wars... The main results of this period are the economic decline of the feudal possessions and the weakening European countries generally.
Test by topic
Assessment of the report
Average rating: 4.7. Total ratings received: 165.