Topic: Socio-economic development of the states of Europe and Asia during the heyday of the Middle Ages. Causes and consequences of social contradictions. Countries of foreign Asia: general characteristics and zoning Social structure of the states of Europe and Asia
The origin and formation of feudal relations in Europe and Asia.
The term "feudalism" appeared in France in the 17th century and originally
was used in the field of law: it was introduced into historical science in the XIX
century by the famous French historian Francois Guizot.
Feudalism arose as a result of the decomposition of the slave system
only in a few countries whose peoples have created high civilizations in
antiquity (China, India, Greece, Rome). Most other nations
feudal relations arose as a result of the decay
primitive communal formation (in Germany, among many Slavic peoples, in
Scandinavia, in Japan, among the Mongols, in a number of African countries). Known and
the path of the formation of feudalism, which is characterized by the interaction
the named processes (an example is the Frankish state, which
arose in the 5th century. AD to the king Clovis).
In many countries, feudal relations developed during
long time, which was determined by the nature and slow pace
development of productive forces.
Defining the medieval era as the time of the reign of the feudal
relations, it should be borne in mind that the concept of "Middle Ages" and "feudalism"
are not entirely identical even for Europe, where during the early Middle Ages
feudal relations to a certain extent coexisted with patriarchal
way of life, and later with the capitalist. In Russia, the feudal period
falls on the IX-XIX centuries.
Feudalism is viewed as a progressive social system according to
compared with the slave. The transition to
feudalism from the primitive communal system, since the established
individual production was more consistent with the level of development
the productive forces, and therefore, was more efficient.
The progressive features of feudalism were most consistently manifested in
its Western European version. The economy of feudalism was based on
practically monopoly property of the landlord-feudal class on land
and had a natural character.
In the conditions of the agrarian economy, land was the main means
production, and feudal property made it possible
exploit direct producers-peasants, determined
the social structure of society, its political structure. Feudal lords
part of their land was distributed to the holding of the peasants who led on it
independent small-scale farming with its own tools. giving labor
part of the product produced to landlords in the form of rent or tax. Rent
for the farmer was the only way to obtain income from his
land ownership, and for the peasants - for the use of
earth. Historically, she performed in three forms: labor (corvee),
product (natural quitrent) and monetary.
Collecting payments on land on which peasants toiled for centuries, but
did not have the right to freely dispose of either it or the products of their labor,
accompanied by coercive measures (non-economic coercion). V
Western Europe, the dependence of the peasants was of a personal nature - the peasant
was considered attached to the lord, not to the ground. The attachment of the peasants
to the ground existed in Eastern and some countries of Central Europe
(for example, in Russia, Poland, Czech Republic, some regions of Northern Germany).
Commodity production (simple) and trade under feudalism
predominantly associated with urban development. European cities are becoming
the center of handicraft production and trade since the XI century. Development of commodity
money relations and exchange between town and country developed a natural
the nature of the economy.
The need, mainly of the nobility, was increasingly satisfied with
through trade, but reproduction was still carried out on
natural basis.
In the cities, besides artisans, there were other social groups:
merchants, bankers, officials, intellectuals. During the decay of feudalism and
the emergence of capitalist relations was the formation of new classes -
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Feudal society was divided into estates,
each of which had its own rights and obligations and performed certain
functions. These are the clergy (praying), nobility (warring), peasants and
artisans who were part of the third estate (who produced material
Estate rights and obligations existed in unity: the existence of rights
presupposed obligations, failure to fulfill the latter led to the deprivation of rights. So,
vossal, ignoring military service, was deprived of the rights to allotments
land: those who enjoyed the "market right" had to observe their
commitment to the workshop or guild.
The estates also had their own special system of relations. V
clergy, it corresponded to the hierarchical structure of the Catholic
churches. The military class was subordinate to the vassalage, which bound the vossal and
Senora personal relationship of service and compulsory patronage.
Corporate ties played a significant role in social relations.
Medieval man obeyed the ethical and legal norms of the corporation,
her traditions. Gradually, a special psychological type of knight developed,
clergyman, merchant, guild craftsman, etc., that is, the mentality
medieval man.
Such was feudalism, which manifested itself in different forms and
at the same time in different countries of the world.
Having formed on the local “Homeric” basis, but borrowing something from outside (in particular, focusing on the Phoenician standard), the ancient society was formed primarily on the basis of developed trade relations and Mediterranean navigation. Both, coupled with favorable geographic conditions, apparently played their role in the archaic revolution, which led to the transformation of the pre-antique (in principle, close to a typical ancient Eastern) structure into a fundamentally different ancient structure. It is difficult to say what caused the archaic revolution, which can be easily likened to a kind of social mutation, for in the entire history of mankind it was the only one and therefore unique in nature and results. One thing is certain: the main result of the transformation of the structure was the emergence of private property relations that were almost unknown or at least underdeveloped at that time in the rest of the world, especially in combination with the domination of private commodity production, mainly oriented to the market, with the exploitation of private slaves in the absence of a strong centralized power and self-government of the community, city-state (polis). After the reforms of Solon (beginning of the 6th century BC), a structure based on private property arose in ancient Greece, which was not found anywhere else in the world. The domination of private property gave rise to its inherent and serving its needs political, legal and other institutions - a system of democratic self-government with the right and duty of every full citizen, member of the polis, to take part in public affairs (the Roman term res publica just means “public affairs »), In the management of the policy; a system of private law guarantees with the protection of the interests of each citizen, with the recognition of his personal dignity, rights and freedoms, as well as a system of socio-cultural principles that contributed to the flourishing of the individual, the development of the individual's creative potential, not to mention his energy, initiative, enterprise, etc. , in the ancient world, the foundations of the so-called civil society were laid, which served as the ideological and institutional foundation for the rapid development of the ancient market-private property structure. In all of this, ancient society began to fundamentally differ from all others, primarily eastern ones, including the Phoenician one, where there was never anything similar, at least in any noticeable volume.
So, starting with ancient Greece, two different social structures arose in the civilized world - European and non-European, and the second (by the time of appearance - the first) was represented by many options that differed in different parts of the world, but fundamentally similar, the same type in the main: it did not neither the dominant role of private property, nor the ancient "civil society" were familiar. But is it really that important? Shouldn't ancient Greece be considered only somewhat different from other modifications of a single common path, as experts sometimes insist on?
It is important to note here that this is not only about different types of social structure. Much more important from the point of view of the historical process, the much more important result of the mutation revolution that took place in ancient Greek society was that the ancient structure followed a different path of development than all the others. In a way that is faster, more dynamic and more efficient. It was on the basis of Greek antiquity that impressive successes were achieved in the field of economics, political administration, and culture in Ancient Rome. And when the era of a prolonged crisis, associated with the fall of Rome and the barbaric conquests, which then led, as you know, to the emergence of medieval feudalism, came by no means all these achievements were in vain. Quite the opposite: after going through a period of crisis, which took several long centuries, medieval Europe began to quickly and energetically revive ancient norms, principles and institutions (recall the trading republics such as Venice or Genoa, cities in medieval Europe with all their privileges and norms of self-government in period of dominance of feudal orders), which laid the socio-economic foundation of the Renaissance, which, in turn, meant the creation of conditions for the rapid and energetic restoration of some ancient orders, elements of the ancient structure. And it was precisely the initial accumulation of capital that followed soon after this, after the Great Geographical Discoveries, that created the material basis for the maturation of capitalism in Europe. Capitalism in this sense is the brainchild of a European city and the Renaissance, a direct heir to antiquity (and not feudalism, as some people sometimes imagine by inertia).
So, the European path of development is an alternation of structural modifications (antique, feudal, capitalist), in which private property activity, although at times, in the first centuries of feudalism, and retreated, ultimately was leading and structure-forming. It was the domination of private property, fenced off by a system of relevant political, legal and socio-cultural institutions that gave birth to capitalism and thus laid the foundation for the rapid economic development of not only Europe, but the rest of the world. Without the domination of private property relations, capitalism could not have arisen - and this is the fundamental difference between the historical path of all non-European societies from the European one, at least until the era of colonialism, when non-European countries, one after another, were drawn by capitalist Europe into a single world market economy with all the ensuing consequences.
So what, in the light of what has been said, should be considered the path of development of non-European countries? And what should be considered the East in this regard?
If one structure leads to capitalist development due to the potentialities of evolution inherent in it, and another, different from it, due to the same circumstances (different potentials) cannot lead to capitalism, then this creates not just a dissimilarity of structures and development paths, but exactly the same dichotomy that has already been mentioned. In other words, the East-West opposition at the same time increases to the level of the Symbol. And from this point of view, the East is no longer just a geographical East, as the ancient Greeks and Romans perceived it, but, in a sense, a different world based on other orders, which, incidentally, was also well known already to the ancient Greeks - it is enough to recall their attitude towards the Persians during the long period of the Greco-Persian wars, described in detail, in particular, by Herodotus.
Thus, from antiquity, the difference between the European ancient society and the non-European world, personified at that time by the East well-known to the Greeks, be it Egypt, Babylon or Persia, was already known from antiquity. It is noteworthy that this difference, which later laid the foundations of oriental studies, was felt and analyzed by the Europeans, the ancient Greeks and their heirs, who broke with the traditional eastern type of structure and lived within the framework of a new, fundamentally different structure, but not the inhabitants of the countries of the East, whose culture in those times, and even later, was not noticeably lower than the European one, it was often equal to it, and sometimes surpassed it in some ways. And although this formula is not absolute (it is known that the Chinese tradition, which was addicted to historical writing, sought to characterize distant peoples, even European ones, but at the same time it usually did not go beyond the scanty description), the fact remains: the analysis of the difference between European and non-European societies was the first It was the Europeans who gave and subsequently sought to deepen it, which over time, as mentioned, became the foundation of modern oriental studies.
Overseas Asia is a region that leads the world not only in terms of area, but also in terms of population. Moreover, he has been holding this primacy for more than one millennium. The countries of foreign Asia, despite their many differences, have a number of common features. They will be discussed in this article.
General characteristics of the countries of foreign Asia
Foreign Asia is the cradle of many civilizations and the birthplace of agriculture. The world's first cities were built here and a number of great scientific discoveries were made.
All the countries of foreign Asia (and there are 48 in total) occupy an area of 32 million square kilometers. Large states prevail among them. There are also giant countries, the area of each of which exceeds 3 million km 2 (India, China).
Experts classify most of the states in this region as developing states. Only four countries out of 48 can be called economically developed. These are Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Israel.
There are 13 monarchies on the political map of foreign Asia (half of them are located in the Middle East). The rest of the region's countries are republics.
According to the peculiarities of the geographical location, all countries of foreign Asia are divided into:
- island (Japan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, etc.);
- seaside (India, South Korea, Israel, etc.);
- inland (Nepal, Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, etc.).
It is obvious that countries from the latter group are experiencing great difficulties in terms of bringing their goods to world markets.
Regions and countries of overseas Asia
Geographers divide overseas Asia into five sub-regions:
- Southwest Asia - includes all countries on the territory of the Arabian Peninsula, the Republic of Transcaucasia, Turkey, Cyprus, Iran and Afghanistan (20 states in total);
- South Asia - includes 7 states, the largest of which are India and Pakistan;
- Southeast Asia is 11 countries, ten of which are developing countries (all except Singapore);
- East Asia - includes only five powers (China, Mongolia, Japan, South Korea and North Korea);
- Central Asia is comprised of five post-Soviet republics (Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan).
How do the countries of foreign Asia border? The map below will help you navigate this issue.
Population and natural resources
This region, due to its tectonic structure, is distinguished by a huge diversity. So, India and China can boast of significant reserves of coal, iron and However, the most important wealth here is black gold. The largest oil fields are concentrated in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait.
As for the conditions for the development of agriculture, in this regard, some states are more fortunate, while others are much less fortunate. Many of the countries of South and Southeast Asia are excellent. But states such as Syria or Mongolia are practically a continuous lifeless desert, where only certain branches of animal husbandry can be developed.
The region is home to, according to various estimates, from 3.5 to 3.8 billion people. This is more than half of the entire population of the Earth. Almost all countries of Asia Abroad are distinguished by high birth rates (the so-called second type of reproduction). Many states in the region are currently experiencing what entails food and other problems.
The ethnic structure of the population in this region is also very complex. It is home to at least a thousand different nationalities, the most numerous of which are the Chinese, Japanese and Bengalis. In terms of linguistic diversity, this region also has no equal on the entire planet.
Most of the population of overseas Asia (about 66%) lives in rural areas. Nevertheless, the pace and nature of urbanization processes in this region are so great that the situation has already begun to be called an "urban explosion".
Foreign Asia: features of the economy
What is the role of the modern countries of the region in the world economy? All states of overseas Asia can be grouped into several groups. There are so-called (Singapore, Korea, Taiwan and others), which in a short period of time were able to rebuild their national economy and achieve certain success in development. A separate group in the region is the oil-producing countries (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, etc.), the economy of which is entirely based on this natural wealth.
Japan (the most developed country in Asia), China and India cannot be attributed to any of these categories. All other states remain underdeveloped, in some of them industry is completely absent.
Conclusion
Foreign Asia is the largest historical and geographical region of the planet, within which more than one civilization has originated. Today there are 48 independent states here. They differ in size, population, state structure, but they also have several common features.
Most of the states of Foreign Asia are developing countries with a rather backward economy. Only four of them can be classified as economically developed countries.
The origin and formation of feudal relations in Europe and Asia.
The term "feudalism" appeared in France in the 17th century and originally
was used in the field of law: it was introduced into historical science in the XIX
century by the famous French historian Francois Guizot.
Feudalism arose as a result of the decomposition of the slave system
only in a few countries whose peoples have created high civilizations in
antiquity (China, India, Greece, Rome). Most other nations
feudal relations arose as a result of the decay
primitive communal formation (in Germany, among many Slavic peoples, in
Scandinavia, in Japan, among the Mongols, in a number of African countries). Known and
the path of the formation of feudalism, which is characterized by the interaction
the named processes (an example is the Frankish state, which
arose in the 5th century. AD to the king Clovis).
In many countries, feudal relations developed during
long time, which was determined by the nature and slow pace
development of productive forces.
Defining the medieval era as the time of the reign of the feudal
relations, it should be borne in mind that the concept of "Middle Ages" and "feudalism"
are not entirely identical even for Europe, where during the early Middle Ages
feudal relations to a certain extent coexisted with patriarchal
way of life, and later with the capitalist. In Russia, the feudal period
falls on the IX-XIX centuries.
Feudalism is viewed as a progressive social system according to
compared with the slave. The transition to
feudalism from the primitive communal system, since the established
individual production was more consistent with the level of development
the productive forces, and therefore, was more efficient.
The progressive features of feudalism were most consistently manifested in
its Western European version. The economy of feudalism was based on
practically monopoly property of the landlord-feudal class on land
and had a natural character.
In the conditions of the agrarian economy, land was the main means
production, and feudal property made it possible
exploit direct producers-peasants, determined
the social structure of society, its political structure. Feudal lords
part of their land was distributed to the holding of the peasants who led on it
independent small-scale farming with its own tools. giving labor
part of the product produced to landlords in the form of rent or tax. Rent
for the farmer was the only way to obtain income from his
land ownership, and for the peasants - for the use of
earth. Historically, she performed in three forms: labor (corvee),
product (natural quitrent) and monetary.
Collecting payments on land on which peasants toiled for centuries, but
did not have the right to freely dispose of either it or the products of their labor,
accompanied by coercive measures (non-economic coercion). V
Western Europe, the dependence of the peasants was of a personal nature - the peasant
was considered attached to the lord, not to the ground. The attachment of the peasants
to the ground existed in Eastern and some countries of Central Europe
(for example, in Russia, Poland, Czech Republic, some regions of Northern Germany).
Commodity production (simple) and trade under feudalism
predominantly associated with urban development. European cities are becoming
the center of handicraft production and trade since the XI century. Development of commodity
money relations and exchange between town and country developed a natural
the nature of the economy.
The need, mainly of the nobility, was increasingly satisfied with
through trade, but reproduction was still carried out on
natural basis.
In the cities, besides artisans, there were other social groups:
merchants, bankers, officials, intellectuals. During the decay of feudalism and
the emergence of capitalist relations was the formation of new classes -
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Feudal society was divided into estates,
each of which had its own rights and obligations and performed certain
functions. These are the clergy (praying), nobility (warring), peasants and
artisans who were part of the third estate (who produced material
Estate rights and obligations existed in unity: the existence of rights
presupposed obligations, failure to fulfill the latter led to the deprivation of rights. So,
vossal, ignoring military service, was deprived of the rights to allotments
land: those who enjoyed the "market right" had to observe their
commitment to the workshop or guild.
The estates also had their own special system of relations. V
clergy, it corresponded to the hierarchical structure of the Catholic
churches. The military class was subordinate to the vassalage, which bound the vossal and
Senora personal relationship of service and compulsory patronage.
Corporate ties played a significant role in social relations.
Medieval man obeyed the ethical and legal norms of the corporation,
her traditions. Gradually, a special psychological type of knight developed,
clergyman, merchant, guild craftsman, etc., that is, the mentality
medieval man.
Such was feudalism, which manifested itself in different forms and
at the same time in different countries of the world.
Answer to question 10: Russia under Ivan 4. The revolutions of the elected Rada and Oprichnina.
Young Ivan IV, nicknamed the Terrible, was anointed as king in January 1547 at the Cathedral of the Dormition by Metropolitan Macarius. A circle of like-minded people formed around the tsar, who set as their goal the development and implementation of reforms (Selected Rada). In 1549, the Zemsky Sobor was convened for the first time - a representative body under the tsar, which approved the planned reform program.
By the end of the 40s, a small circle of people close to him had formed around the tsar, later named by Prince Andrei Kurbsky of the Chosen Rada. In fact, it was the Near Sovereign Duma, which reflected the compromise nature of the domestic policy pursued by Ivan IV at that time. It included: Alexey Adashev, a representative of small but large landowners, Prince Andrei Kurbsky, Priest Sylvester, Metropolitan Macarius, clerk Ivan Viskovaty. As the historian wrote, these were “men reasonable and perfect.” The elected Council was not an official state body, but in fact for 13 years was the government and ruled the state on behalf of the king.
3. In 1549, the first Zemsky Sobor was convened - an advisory body, a meeting of estate representatives from the boyars, nobles, clergy, merchants, townspeople and black-haired peasants. At the Council, measures were taken that expanded the rights of nobles and limited the rights of large feudal lords - boyars-governors. Councils did not restrict the power of the tsar, but facilitated local political events of the central government. They did not become permanent, but were subsequently assembled several times as needed. Based on the decisions of the Zemsky Sobor in the 50s of the 16th century. the following reforms were carried out:
> military; We started with the transformation of the military. Partial disputes between the voivods during the campaigns were prohibited; they all obeyed the first voivode of a large regiment, that is, the commander-in-chief. At the same time, it was decided to "place" in the Moscow district "the chosen thousand", that is, from 1070 noblemen to create the nucleus of the noble militia, which would be the support of the autocratic power. A new procedure for manning the army was introduced. Each landowner was obliged to put out one armed warrior on horseback for every 150 acres of land. A nobleman could serve from the age of 15, the service was inherited. For service, a nobleman received from 150 to 450 acres of land. A new permanent army was created from archers, armed with squeaks. Streltsy received uniforms, money and bread salaries, and in peacetime they lived as townspeople. At first, 3,000 people were recruited into the streltsy army. They were divided into 6 "orders" (regiments) of 500 people each and constituted the personal guard of the tsar.By the end of the 16th century, there were already 25,000 archers in Russia.The rifle army was a powerful fighting force of the Russian state.
> judicial - a new all-Russian Code of Law of 1550 was adopted.The judicial functions of governors and volostels were limited, on the ground, the royal clerks watched the court. Bribery was punishable by monetary fines. The "judgment of God" (a duel between disputants, "for the power of the right") was also preserved. The death penalty was introduced “for robbery.” When considering cases in the localities, it became mandatory for the presence of land elders, chosen from among the local service people and “kissing men”, who were elected from the townspeople and the black peasantry. The norm of the 1497 Code of Law on St. George's Day was confirmed: peasants could leave the feudal lord only once a year, and even the size of the “elderly” was somewhat increased. year.;
> church; In 1551, on the initiative of Ivan IV, a church council took place, which went down in history as Stoglavy, since the final document contained exactly 100 chapters. He designed a pantheon (list) of all Russian saints, checked church books, unified divine services and all church rituals, and decided to open schools for training priests and deacons. The council set the task of improving the morals of the clergy: the monks were forbidden to drink vodka, they were allowed to drink kvass and grape wines, and shaving of their beards was condemned.
The council did not allow the tsar to confiscate church land, but the monasteries themselves could sell or acquire land only with the tsar's permission, they were also prohibited from usurious activities.
> central and local government reforms. In the mid-50s, a lip reform was carried out. Power in the districts passed to the laborer and zemstvo elders. They obeyed Rogue Order. The system of "feeding" the governors was abolished (1555), it was replaced by a state tax, from which salaries were paid to servicemen. Restrictions on parochialism were introduced. Reforms strengthened state administration, the military system, significantly contributed to centralization. All reforms were aimed primarily at strengthening the power of the state. and royal power.
A. On the eve of the oprichnina
1. Reforms of government in the 1950s strengthened the central government and undermined the political strength of the boyars. The highest power was possessed by the tsar, who was assisted by the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor, which limited the autocracy. In 1560 Ivan IV got rid of the Chosen Rada. But long and difficult wars, new taxes ruined the country, there were many disaffected among the nobles, priests and townspeople. The heretics called for the destruction of icons, the church itself, preached the equality of all people, the community of property. Ivan Vasilyevich himself saw only serfs in all his subjects. Their duty, according to the king, was unquestioning obedience to his will. In 1553 Ivan IV fell seriously ill and made a will in favor of the infant Dmitry (the first son born to Anastasia). However, close boyars and many appanage princes did not want to support his heir Dmitry. According to rumors, they wanted the old prince Vladimir Andreevich, the cousin of Ivan IV, "for the state." , retained economic independence, In 1564, fearing execution, a former friend of Ivan IV, Prince Andrei Kurbsky, fled to Lithuania. voluntarily leave the throne and leave the reigning city of Moscow.
B. Events of early January 1565
1. In early December 1564, the tsar and his family, guarded and accompanied by a huge convoy, left Moscow for the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. In January 1565 Ivan sent two letters: the first, “angry”, was addressed to Metropolitan Athanasius, the second, “tearful”, - “I will put, to all people” and was read “in the assembly of the people by voice”. In the first message, the tsar accused the boyars, the bailiffs, of treason, and the metropolitan and the clergy of the malevolent complicity of the boyars; in another message, he assured the townspeople that he would not be angry with them and would not expose them to disgrace. The boyars found themselves, as it were, between two fires - the king and the people. The people unanimously supported the sovereign. Boyars, clergy, nobles, clerks, merchants and townspeople sent a delegation to the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda to ask the sovereign to return to the throne. Ivan IV agreed to return to Moscow, but on certain conditions. In general terms, they boiled down to the fact that from now on the tsar will, at his discretion, execute the traitors "by disgrace, death, deprivation of dignity" ...
B. Oprichnaya policy 1565-1572
1. On February 2, 1565, Ivan Vasilyevich solemnly returned to Moscow and the next day announced to the clergy and noble boyars about the establishment of the oprichnina. Voprichnina (from the word "oprich" - except, especially), subject to the tsar (royal inheritance), included the lands, which included 20 cities in the central and richest regions of the country. Here there was a Boyar Duma, orders, oprichnina army. The rest of the territory was called Zemshchina Even Moscow was divided into oprichnina (Arbat, Prechistenka, Znamenka) and zemstvo. Oprichnina's opponents were destroyed: 200 deputies of the Zemsky Sobor in 1566, Metropolitan Efim Kolychev, the richest boyar Ivan Fedorov, the famous diplomat Ivan Viskovaty, poisoned Prince Vladimir Staritsky and many, many others.
2. The lands confiscated from the boyars were distributed to the guardsmen-nobles and the feudal nobility, loyal to the king. A special oprichnina army was created, at first from one thousand, then it was brought to five thousand people. When the first thousand oprichniks were selected, in the presence of the Metropolitan, all the Kremlin clergy and boyars, they swore an oath to be loyal to the sovereign, the Grand Duke and his state, to eradicate "sedition" and report all the bad things that were plotted against the tsar and his state. horses, dog heads and brooms, which symbolized their canine loyalty to the king and determination to take out any treason.The guardsmen turned into a police force of the state, suspected of treason were tortured and executed.
3. Fratricide in the country caused discontent and vague rumors among the people. At this time, there appeared an "anonymous" denunciation that the Novgorodians were plotting treason and wanted to "surrender" to the rule of the Lithuanian principality. In 1570, under the pretext of combating treason, a punitive expedition was carried out against
In 1572 Ivan the Terrible canceled the oprichnina and forbade even mentioning this word, hated by the people. The oprichnina and zemstvo territories, oprichnina and zemstvo troops, oprichnina and zemstvo service people were again united. The unity of the Boyar Duma was restored. Some zemstvo boyars received back their estates, but the executions continued for a long time even after the abolition of the oprichnina.
the reason contributed to the formation of the despotic nature of the Russian autocracy, in fact, it turned both feudal lords and peasants into slaves;
> the country's economy was undermined, many lands were ruined, peasants fled from estates and estates. In 1581 Ivan the Terrible introduced the "reserved years" - temporarily forbade the peasants to leave the feudal lord even on St. George's Day, that is, serfdom was temporarily introduced in Russia;
> oprichnina policy led to a deterioration in the position of Russia in the Livonian War
Answer to question 11: Troubles: 16th - early 17th century. Reasons. Main stages. Consequences.
The origin of the Troubles is associated with the extinction of the Rurik dynasty. The son of Ivan IV Fedor (1584-1598) was incapable of governing the state. He died childless, his younger brother, young Dmitry, died under very mysterious circumstances in Uglich in 1591. The dynasty of Ivan Kalita's descendants was cut short. The issue of succession to the throne was decided by the Zemsky Sobor, which elected the brother-in-law of the deceased tsar, boyar Boris Godunov (1598–1605), to the throne. This was the first time in the history of the Muscovy. Before Godunov, not a single tsar was elected, so the desire of the new tsar to emphasize in every possible way his connection with the previous dynasty seems natural. He even set in motion an explicit fiction about the will of Ivan IV, who allegedly "denied" Godunov the Moscow throne.
An improvement in the economic situation was only outlined, but the way out of the crisis was a feudal way. To keep the peasants on the lands of the former owners, according to the assumption of a number of researchers, in 1592 a decree was issued prohibiting peasant transitions, in 1597 - a decree “on lesson years”: the owner's right to search for fugitives for five years. All this intensified discontent among the peasantry. And then came crop failures and a terrible famine of 1601–1603.
Intra-class disagreements intensified between different layers of the boyars, between the Moscow and provincial nobility, since the latter was denied access to the real government of the country. In the struggle for influence in the army, the interests of the nobility and the Cossacks clashed. As a result, everyone was unhappy. Added to this was the idea of the people that power in the country should belong to the "natural king", a representative of the Rurik dynasty. Thus, the dynastic crisis with iron necessity gave rise to imposture. The impostor turned into an expected hero capable of saving the people from oppression and social injustice. The impostors will be used for their own purposes by various socio-political forces of the country. Imposture will become a convenient form of organizing a mass anti-government movement. The first of the impostors "the fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery, the" defrocked "Grishka Otrepiev" will declare himself the son of Ivan IV, Dmitry, who supposedly survived by a miracle. The impostor was also helped by the death of Boris Godunov in April 1605. Already in May, the governors recognized the impostor as the legitimate tsar, their example was followed by a significant part of the army, then - the Moscow boyars. On June 20, 1605, he solemnly entered Moscow. Even before that, all the relatives of Boris Godunov were killed, including the son of Fyodor, who succeeded him.
Why did the man who came to the Russian state, surrounded by foreigners and infidels - "Latins" and unpopular Cossacks in the Moscow possessions, win?
The main reasons for the victory of False Dmitry I are as follows:
1. A social crisis from which a way out has not been found.
2. Weak legitimization of Godunov's power, which led to the unpopularity of himself and his family, doubts about the legality of his son Fyodor to the throne.
3. The people's belief in a "good king", including the belief in the story of the miraculous salvation of the tsarevich, which eventually turned into a popular utopia, into a political intrigue.
4. Anti-Godunov moods of some of the Moscow boyars, most of the capital's merchants and townspeople.
At the impromptu Zemsky Sobor, Prince Vasily Shuisky was "called out" by the tsar. For the first time in the history of Russia, he swore allegiance to his subjects - he gave a "note" (obligation), the observance of which he secured by kissing the cross. Obligations were recorded in the "cross-reference" that gave the subjects certain guarantees against arbitrariness. Of course, it should be borne in mind that this intriguer, who repaid the False Dmitry who had pardoned him with a conspiracy, was guided by politicking considerations, nevertheless it was "the first experience of building a state order on the basis of a formally limited supreme power." When False Dmitry II appeared within the Moscow kingdom, the country was divided: some were for Tsar Vasily, others for a new pretender to the throne, which was located far from Moscow, in Tushino. Seeing no other way to deal with the Tushins, who were secretly supported by the Polish king Sigismund III, Vasily Shuisky turned to the Swedish king for help. He sent an auxiliary detachment. This became a convenient pretext for Poland to interfere in Russian affairs. In September 1609 Sigismund III laid siege to Smolensk. In December, False Dmitry II fled from the Tushino camp to Kaluga (where he would be killed by Prince Peter Urusov). In February 1610, the embassy headed by the boyar Mikhail Saltykov, disappointed in the "Tushino tsarka", concluded an agreement with the Polish king on the terms of his son Vladislav's accession to the Moscow throne. The document provided for guarantees of Russia against absorption by the Commonwealth, reflected the personal rights of subjects.
The idea of calling the prince Vladislav to the Russian throne found its supporters in Moscow. Boyars and nobles in July 1610 overthrew Shuisky and forced him to take the monastic vows. Power temporarily passed into the hands of a government of seven boyars ("seven-boyars"), which decided to put Vladislav on the Russian throne. Some historians believe that in this way an opportunity arose to strengthen ties between Russia and Europe, which was not realized due to the Catholic faith of the prince. Another point of view boils down to the fact that those boyars who swore allegiance to Vladislav and let the Polish troops led by Hetman Gonsevsky into Moscow on the night of September 21, 1610, who committed an act of national treason. the state. The first, immediate and most serious consequence of it was the terrible ruin and desolation of the country; In the inventory of rural areas under Tsar Mikhail, there are mentioned many empty villages, from which the peasants "fled" or "descended obscurely kudas", or were beaten by "Lithuanian people" and "thieves' people". In the social composition of society, the Troubles produced a further weakening of the strength and influence of the old noble boyars, which in the storms
The Time of Troubles partly perished or was ruined, and partly it degraded morally and discredited itself with its intrigues, "prank" and its alliance with the enemies of the state. Politically, the Time of Troubles - when Russia, having gathered by force, itself restored the destroyed state, showed firsthand that the state of Moscow was not the creation and "patrimony" of its
"master" - the sovereign, but it was a common cause and common creation of "all cities and all ranks of people of the entire great Russian Kingdom."
Answer to question 12: The first Romanovs on the Russian throne: Mikhail and Alexei Romanovs.
For 304 years the Romanov dynasty ruled Russia. During this time, one of the most powerful and powerful states in the world arose - the Russian Empire. It was great not only for its territory, its natural and economic potential, but above all its spiritual power, the highest culture and a remarkable rise of scientific thought. Representatives of the Romanov family made a huge contribution to the creation of this unique civilization. The election of a new tsar by the Zemsky Sobor was very stormy. Seventeen-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich was married to the kingdom in the summer of 1613. Metropolitan Ephraim of Kazan crowned him with a royal crown. The gentleness and kindness of the new king, noted by the sources of that time, gave ordinary people hope, made a good impression on them. True, everyone knew that without the boyars, their advice, Tsar Mikhail would not be able to take a step. Indeed, Tsar Mikhail entrusted all affairs to the Romanovs, Cherkassky, Saltykov, Sheremetev, Lykov, Repnin. They disposed of everything, even "disdained" the tsar, and he looked at all their tricks, tricks, untrue deeds through his fingers. At the court liveliness, covetousness, greed reigned. In the summer of 1619, Mikhail Fedorovich's father, Filaret, returned from Polish captivity. Upon arrival in the capital, a week and a half later, the Jerusalem patriarch Theophanes, who arrived in Russia for alms, and the Russian hierarchs offered Philaret the patriarchal throne - “he is worthy of such a dignity, especially because he was a royal father in the flesh; let the kingdom be a helper and builder, a sire defender and an offended representative ”1. A dual power began - a young tsar and wise by life, the experience of the patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, two "great sovereigns", as they were called by the official letters. Together with them, the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor took part in governing the state. Contemporaries report that the “great sovereigns” together listened to reports on affairs, made decisions on them, received ambassadors, gave double letters, double gifts.
After the death of Filaret in 1633, Mikhail Fedorovich began to rule independently, relying on a narrow circle of confidential in-laws, in whose hands the leadership of the main orders was concentrated (Prince I.B. Cherkassky, boyar F.I.Sheremetev).
A military alliance with Sweden did not take place, the very idea of a war with Poland was unpopular in society. In June 1634, the Peace of Polyanovsk was concluded; the former border was declared "eternal", and King Vladislav IV renounced his rights to the Russian throne. In the few sources that have come down to it, Mikhail Fedorovich appears as a complacent, deeply religious man inclined to pious trips to monasteries. His favorite pastime is hunting, "animal catching". His state activities were limited to poor health.
ALEXEY MIKHAILOVICH, Russian tsar from the Romanov dynasty. He took the throne in 1645 after the death of his father, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich.
In the first years of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, the power was actually controlled by the boyar B. I. Morozov ("uncle", the tsar's educator). In 1646, duties were imposed on salt, as a result, products rose in price, became inaccessible to the population, and merchants rotted stale goods. In 1647, the tax was abolished, but in order to compensate for the losses, they decided to reduce the salaries of servicemen. This caused the Salt Riot in 1648, during which the relatives of the tsar, L. S. Pleshcheev and P. T. Trakhaniotov, died, and Morozov miraculously survived. The government was forced to make concessions, and the collection of arrears was stopped. In fulfillment of the wishes of the nobility and merchants, in September 1649 the Zemsky Sobor approved a code of laws - the Code, prepared by the commission of Prince N.I. Odoevsky, it is believed, with the participation of Alexei Mikhailovich. The Code, which represented a new level of legislative practice for Russia, included special articles regulating the legal status of certain social groups of the population. The local salary of service people was increased, additional allotments were introduced for impoverished landowners. The serfdom of the peasants, according to the Code, was affirmed as hereditary, and the period for detecting fugitive peasants was indefinite. Thus, the process of legislative registration of serfdom was completed. The forcible conversion of peasants into slaves was prohibited. The demands of the townspeople, who were dissatisfied with the existence of "white" settlements, were also satisfied, since they were included in the tax, which made life easier for the settlement as a whole. The Code consolidated the concept of a state crime, which was considered treason, a conspiracy against the sovereign and a criminal intent for "state health". Separate legal norms of the Cathedral Code of 1649 continued to operate until the beginning of the 19th century.
Under Alexei Mikhailovich, the strengthening of the autocratic, unlimited power of the tsar continued in the second half of the 17th century. Zemstvo councils were not convened, but the order management system reached its peak, and the process of its bureaucratization was intensively going on. A special role was played by the Secret Order established in 1654, subordinate directly to Alexei Mikhailovich and allowing him to lead other central and local institutions. Important changes took place in the social sphere: the process of convergence of estates and estates took place, and the disintegration of the "service city" system began. The government of Alexei Mikhailovich supported the interests of the Russian merchants, the Customs (1653) and Novotorgovy (1667) Statutes protected merchants from foreign competitors. A reflection of new trends in Russian life was the invitation to serve in Russia of foreign specialists, the creation of regiments of the "foreign system".
1. The origin and formation of feudal relations in Europe and Asia ... .p.2
2. Specificity of the formation of a unified Russian state …………… p. 4
3. The rise of Moscow …………………………………………………… .page 9
The origin and formation of feudal relations in Europe and Asia.
The term "feudalism" appeared in France in Xvii century and was originally used in the field of law: it was introduced into the historical science in XIX century by the famous French historian Francois Guizot.
Feudalism arose as a result of the disintegration of slaveholding systems in only a few countries whose peoples created high civilizations in antiquity (China, India, Greece, Rome). For most other peoples, feudal relations arose as a result of the decomposition of the primitive communal formation (in Germany, among many Slavic peoples, in Scandinavia, in Japan, among the Mongols, in a number of African countries). The path of the formation of feudalism is also known, which is characterized by the interaction of the named processes (an example is the Frankish state, which arose in the 5th century AD under King Clovis).
In many countries, feudal relations took shape for a long time, which was determined by the nature and slow pace of development of the productive forces.
Defining the medieval era as the time of the dominance of feudal relations, it should be borne in mind that the concept of "Middle Ages" and "feudalism" are not entirely identical even for Europe, where during the early Middle Ages feudal relations to a certain extent coexisted with the patriarchal order, and later with the capitalist ... In Russia, the feudal period falls on IX-XIX century.
Feudalism is viewed as a progressive social system in comparison with slaveholding. The transition to feudalism from the primitive communal system was also progressive, since the established individual production was more consistent with the level of development of the productive forces, and therefore, it was more effective.
The progressive features of feudalism were most consistently manifested in its Western European version. The economy of feudalism was based on the practically monopoly property of the class of feudal landowners on land and was of a natural nature.
In the conditions of the agrarian economy, land was the main means of production, and feudal property made it possible to exploit direct producers-peasants, determined the social structure of society, its political structure. The feudal lords distributed most of their land to the peasants, who conducted independent small-scale farming on it with their own implements. labor giving part of the product produced to the landlords in the form of rent or tax. For the farmer, rent was the only way to receive income from his land ownership, and for peasants, it was a liability for the use of land. Historically, it appeared in three forms: labor (corvee), produt (natural quitrent) and monetary.
The collection of payments on the land, on which the peasants worked for centuries, but did not have the right to freely dispose of either it or the products of their labor, was accompanied by coercive measures (non-economic coercion). In Western Europe, the dependence of the peasants was of a personal nature - the peasant was considered attached to the lord, and not to the land. The attachment of peasants to the land existed in Eastern and some countries of Central Europe (for example, in Russia, Poland, Czech Republic, some regions of Northern Germany).
Commodity production (simple) and trade under feudalism are mainly associated with the development of cities. European cities become centers of handicraft production and trade with XI century. The development of commodity-money relations and exchange between town and country developed the natural character of the economy.
The need, mainly of the nobility, was more and more satisfied with the help of trade, but reproduction was still carried out on a natural basis.
In the cities, besides artisans, there were other social groups: merchants, bankers, officials, and the intelligentsia. In the period of the disintegration of feudalism and the emergence of capitalist relations, the formation of new classes took place - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Feudal society was divided into estates, each of which had its own rights and obligations and performed certain functions. These are the clergy (worshipers), the nobility (warriors), peasants and artisans who were part of the third estate (who produced material goods).
Estate rights and obligations existed in unity: the existence of rights presupposed obligations, failure to fulfill the latter led to the deprivation of rights. So, vossal, ignoring military service, was deprived of the rights to allotments of land: those who used the "market right" had to comply with their obligations to the workshop or guild.
The estates also had their own special system of relations. In the clergy, it corresponded to the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church. The military estate was subordinate to the vassalage, which connected the vossal and the seigneur with personal relations of service and obligatory patronage.
Corporate ties played a significant role in social relations. Medieval man obeyed the ethical and legal norms of the corporation and its traditions. Gradually, a special psychological type of a knight, a clergyman, a merchant, a guild craftsman, etc., that is, the mentality of a medieval man, took shape.
Such was feudalism, which manifested itself in different forms and at the same time in different countries of the world.
The specifics of the formation of the Moscow state.
The Moscow state was still an early feudal monarchy. Because of this, the relationship between the center and the places was originally built on the basis of supremacy - vassalage. However, over time, the situation gradually changed. Moscow princes, like all others, divided their lands among the heirs. The latter received the usual destinies and were formally independent in them. However, in fact, the eldest son, who acquired the "table" of the grand duke, retained the position of the eldest prince. From the second half XIV v. the order is introduced according to which the senior heir received a larger share of the inheritance than the rest. This gave him a decisive economic advantage. In addition, he, along with the grand-princely "table", necessarily received the entire Vladimir land.
The legal nature of relations between the grand and appanage princes also gradually changed. This relationship was based on letters of immunity and contracts concluded in large numbers. Initially, such agreements provided for the service of the appanage prince to the grand duke for a fee. then she began to associate with the possession of vassals or estates. It was believed that appanage princes receive their lands from the Grand Duke for service. And already the beginning Xv v. the order was established according to which the appanage princes were obliged to obey the grand duke simply by virtue of his position.
Grand Duke. The head of the Russian state was the Grand Duke, who had a wide range of rights. He issued laws, exercised leadership of state administration, and had judicial powers.
The real content of princely power over time changes towards more and more completeness. These changes went in two directions - internal and external. Initially, the Grand Duke could exercise his legislative, administrative and judicial powers only within his own domain. Even Moscow was divided in financial, administrative and judicial relations between the princes-brothers. V XIV - X centuries the grand dukes usually left it to their heirs as common property. With the fall of power, the appanage princes, the Grand Duke became the true ruler of the entire territory of the state. Ivan III and Vasily III did not hesitate to throw in prison their closest relatives - appanage princes who tried to contradict their will.
F. Engels considered the power of the head of a centralized state to be a progressive phenomenon, "a representative of order in disorder, a representative of an emerging nation as opposed to fragmentation into rebellious vassal states." Thus, the centralization of the state was an internal source of strengthening of the grand ducal power. The external source of its strengthening was the fall of the power of the Golden Horde. In the beginning, the Moscow grand dukes were vassals of the Horde khans, from whose hands they received the right to the grand-princely "table". After the Battle of Kulikovo, this dependence became only formal, and after 1480 d. Moscow princes became not only de facto, but also legally independent, sovereign sovereigns. New forms were given to the new content of the grand ducal power. Starting with Ivan III the Moscow grand dukes called themselves "the sovereigns of weighing Russia." Ivan III and his successor tried to appropriate the royal title to themselves.
In order to strengthen the international prestige Ivan III married the niece of the last Byzantine emperor Sophia Palaeologus - the only heiress of the no longer existing throne of Constantinople. Attempts were made to ideologically substantiate Ivan's claims III for autocracy. In addition to marriage ties with Sophia Palaeologus, they are trying to establish, of course, mythical, the origin of the Russian princes from the Roman emperors. The theory of the origin of princely power was created.
Noble historians, starting with N.M. Karamzin, believed that from Ivan III autocracy is established in Russia. This is true in the sense that Ivan III, who completed the liberation of Rus from the Tatars, "himself held" his princely table, regardless of the Horde. However, to talk about autocracy in the full sense of the word, that is, about an unlimited monarchy in Xv and even Xvi v. Not necessary yet. The power of the monarch was limited by other organs of the early feudal state, primarily by the Boyar Duma. Boyar Duma. The Boyar Duma was an important "organ of the state. It grew out of the council under the prince, which existed in the ancient Russian state.
The design of the Duma should be attributed (... Xv v. The Boyar Duma differed from the previous council in its larger legal and organizational structure. It was an organ that was not assembled sporadically, but constantly acting. The Duma had a relatively stable composition. It included the so-called "dumnye ranks" - introduced by boyars and okolnichy. The competence of the Duma coincided with the powers of the Grand Duke, although formally this was not recorded anywhere. The Grand Duke was not legally obliged to reckon with the opinion of the Duma, but in fact he could not act arbitrarily, for any of his decisions were not implemented if they were not approved by the boyars. Through the Duma, the boyars carried out a policy that was pleasing and beneficial to him. True, over time, the grand dukes increasingly subordinate the Boyar Duma to themselves, which is associated with the general process of centralization of power. This especially applies to the princes of Ivan. III and Vasily III... The significant role of the Boyar Duma in the system of state bodies and the dominance of large feudal lords in it are one of the characteristic features of the early feudal monarchy. Feudal conventions. They had the same character as in the times of Kievan Rus, but as the centralization of the state was strengthened, they gradually wither away.
The palace-patrimonial system of government continued to be an early feudal monarchy. The Muscovite state inherited from the previous period also the central government bodies, built according to the palace-patrimonial system. However, the expansion of the territory of the state and the complication of its activities come into collision with the old forms of government, prepare the gradual withering away of the palace-patrimonial system and the emergence of a new, commanding government. The transformation of the old system begins with its complication. It is divided into two parts. One is the administration of the palace, headed by a butler (court), who has at his disposal numerous servants. The butler was in charge of the plowed princely peasants. The other part was formed by the so-called "paths" that provided the special needs of the prince and his entourage. Their names speak eloquently about the purpose of the paths: Sokolnichy, Lovchiy, Konyushy, Stolnichy, Chashnichy. To fulfill their tasks, certain princely villages and entire areas were allocated to the management of the tracks. The routes were not limited to the collection of certain products and all kinds of benefits from the allocated places. They acted as both administrative and judicial bodies. Their leaders were called good boyars. Following the complication of the system of palace and patrimonial bodies, their competence and functions increased. From the bodies that served primarily the personal needs of the prince, they increasingly turned into state institutions performing important tasks of governing the entire state. So, the butler with Xv v. became to a certain extent in charge of issues related to the land tenure of church and secular feudal lords, to carry out or other duties in public administration, the former nature of the temporary princely assignment and turned into a permanent and fairly definite service. The increasing complexity of the functions of the palace organs required the creation of a large and ramified apparatus. The officials of the palace - clerks - specialized in a certain range of affairs. From the composition of the palace service, the grand ducal treasury was allocated, which became an independent department. A large palace office was created with an archive and other appendages.
All this prepared the way for the transition to a new, command-line management system, which had grown from the previous one. Such an outgrowth began at the end Xv v. But as a system, order management took shape only in the second half. Xvi v. At the same time, the very term "order" was established. The first institutions of the order type were the Grand Palace, which grew out of the office of the butler, and the State order. The stables path turned into the Stables order, now not only serving the personal needs of the prince, but also associated with the development of the equestrian noble militia. At the beginning Xvi v. a Discharge order was formed (Discharge order, in charge of keeping records of service people, their ranks and positions. the whole huge Russian state.
Local authorities. The Russian state was subdivided into counties - the largest administrative-territorial units. The counties were divided into the camp, the camps - into the volosts. However, complete uniformity and clarity in the administrative-territorial division has not yet been developed. Along with the counties, some lands were preserved. There were also categories - military districts, lips of judicial districts. The heads of individual administrative divisions were officials - representatives of the center. Counties were headed by governors, volosts - by volostels. These officials were supported at the expense of the local population - they received "fodder" from them, that is, they spent in kind in monetary extortions, collected court and other duties in their favor. Feeding, thus, was both a public service and a form of remuneration of princely vassals for their military and other services. Feeding keepers were obliged to manage the respective counties and volosts on their own, that is, to maintain their own administrative apparatus (tiuns, closers, etc.) and to have their military detachments to ensure the internal and external functions of the feudal state. Sent from the center, they were not personally interested in the affairs of the counties or volosts they governed, especially since their appointment was usually relatively short-term - for a year or two. All the interests of the governors and "volostels were mainly focused on personal enrichment through legal and illegal extortions from the local population. The feeding system was not capable of adequately suppressing the resistance of the revolting peasantry in the conditions of the escalating class struggle. Small patrons and landowners especially suffered from this. who were not able to protect themselves from "dashing people" on their own.
The rising nobility was unhappy with the feeding system for another reason. He was not satisfied that the revenues from local government went into the pockets of the boyars and that feeding provided the boyars with great political weight. Local authorities and administration did not extend their competence to the territory of the boyars' estates. The princes and boyars, as before, retained immunity rights in their estates. They were not just landowners, but I were administrators and judges in their villages and towns.
City government bodies. City administration in the Moscow state has changed in comparison with Kiev times. Cities during this period did not have self-government. In the appanage principalities, the management of cities was carried out on an equal basis with the countryside. With the annexation of the appanage principalities to Moscow, the grand dukes, keeping all the lands of the appanages usually for their previous owners, always seized the cities from the jurisdiction of the former appanage princes and extended their power directly to them. This was done proceeding from the importance of cities, not only as economic centers, but primarily for military reasons. The cities were fortresses. Possession of them ensured the grand princes and the retention of the former inheritance in their hands, and defense against external enemies. Initially, the grand dukes ruled the cities in the same way as the former princes did, that is, without separating them from their other lands. The governors and volostels, leading their county or volost, ruled in the same way the cities located on their territory. Later, some special city government bodies appear. Their emergence is associated with the development of cities primarily as fortresses. In the middle Xv v. there was a post of a small town - a kind of military commandant of the city. He was obliged to monitor the state of the city fortifications, to ensure that the local population fulfilled the duties associated with defense. Already in Xv v. townships were also used for other grand ducal affairs, in particular land.
The position of town dwellers was replaced by local landowners, mainly nobles and boyar children. The town dwellers, who were initially rather insignificant figures in state administration, by the end Xv v. began to play a serious role. At first temporarily, and then more and more permanently, they were assigned wide powers in the land, financial and other branches of government, and not only within the city, but also within the adjacent county. In accordance with the expansion of functions, the names of these officials have also changed. They are beginning to be called policemen and clerks. knowing a number of questions of the military-economic and simple economic order, the city clerks were subordinate to the grand-ducal treasurers. Sometimes two or more such clerks were appointed to one city. In the person of the city clerks, noblemen and boyar children received their own body of local government, and the Grand Duke were reliable agents of the policy of centralization.
Rise of Moscow.
The unification of the Russian lands was caused by the need for protection from external enemies: the Golden Horde, Poland and Lithuania.
Moscow became the center of the unification of Russian lands. According to legend, it was founded in 1147 year by Yuri Dolgoruky and is referred to in the annals as "Moskov". Moscow belonged to the Vladimir princes, and the first Moscow prince was Daniel - the son of Alexander Nevsky.
The exceptionally advantageous geographical position of Moscow made it the center of the routes, both water and land. Moscow was in the center of the Russian principalities, which closed it off from external enemies, and became a kind of refuge for artisans and merchants. Here the objective economic and political prerequisites for the unification of Rus are taking shape.
Ivan Danilovich Kalita ( 1325 – 1340 ) - the grandson of Alexander Nevsky. On this occasion, the chronicle says: "There was still silence throughout the entire Russian land for forty years and the Tartars ceased to fight the Russian land." He maintained very close, friendly relations with the khan, often visited him, generously presented gifts to the khan's wives and nobles. Having earned the trust of the Horde, Ivan Kalita obtained from the khan the right to collect tribute and liquidate the Basque people.
Dynastic marriages also contributed to Kalita's authority. His daughters Maria, Theodosia, Evdokia were married to the Rostov, Belozersk and Yaroslavl princes, respectively. Under Kalita, Moscow became the ideological (spiritual) center of Russia. The residence of the Russian Metropolitanate was moved from Vladimir to Moscow. Peter, who founded the famous Assumption Cathedral, where he was buried after his death. Sons of Ivan Kalita Semyon Proud ( 1341-1353 ) and Ivan Krasny ( 1353-1359 ) they further strengthened the Moscow principality, and according to the chronicler, "all the Russian princes were given under the arm."
A worthy successor to the policy of uniting Russian lands was the grandson of Ivan Kalita, Dmitry Ivanovich. At the age of ten, Dmitry, directed by Metropolitan Alexy, took possession of the great reign of Vladimir.
The main rival of Moscow at that time was Tver. Prince Mikhail of Tver concluded an alliance against Moscow with his son-in-law, the Lithuanian prince Olgerd, and tried three times to take Moscow ( 1368 ,1370 and 1372 ), but each time he was defeated at the impregnable walls of the Moscow Kremlin.
Then Michael found an ally in the Horde and received a label for the great reign. But this did not stop Dmitry. The war began. Mikhail was forced to sign a peace treaty with Moscow and recognize himself as the "younger brother" of the Moscow prince. Then Dmitry settled the conflict with the Ryazan prince Oleg Ivanovich peacefully, pacified Novgorod and made him pay a "payback" (indemnity) in the amount of 8,000 rubles.
Under Dmitry, Rus first dared to openly fight the Horde. Russian warriors in 1378 year won a victory over the Mongol-Tatars on the Vozha River. The next battle took place on the Kulikovo field 8 september 1380 of the year. Khan Mamai gathered a huge army, mobilized not only in the Horde, but also in the subordinate lands of the Volga region and the North Caucasus. The Lithuanian prince Yagailo and the Ryazan ruler Oleg, the rival of the Moscow prince, promised his help to the khan. The Monk Sergius gave Dmitry a blessing for the battle, and he singled out two of his heroes to help the Grand Duke.
Mamaev's army was defeated. Retreating, it was finally defeated by another Golden Horde khan Takhtamysh. V 1382 year he appeared at the walls of Moscow. The city recognized itself as a tributary of the Tatars and gave up its son Vasily to the khan as a hostage.
The Battle of Kulikovo was extremely important. She showed the ability of the Russian people to get rid of the yoke of the Golden Horde, dispelled the myth of the invincibility of the Horde, gave impetus to nationwide unification under the rule of the Moscow prince.
After the death of Vasily Dmitrievich, his brother, Prince Galitsky Yuri, declared his rights to the Moscow throne. The struggle of Yuri and his sons Vasily Kosoy and Dmitry Shemyaka for the great reign began, which lasted almost twenty years. The internecine war was very brutal. For example, Vasily Kosoy, who was captured by Vasily Vasilyevich, was blinded by Dmitry Shemyaka. Moscow passed from hand to hand. After defeating Shemyaka in 1446 year Vasily Vasilyevich Dark annexed many lands of northeastern Russia to the Moscow principality, strengthens his influence on Veliky Novgorod and the Lithuanian principality, under him many Tatar soldiers went into the service of the Moscow prince, which caused discontent among Muscovites.
Under Vasily the Dark, the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the decisions of the council of the Orthodox and Catholic clergy in Florence and Union from 5 july 1439 years on the unification of two churches - Orthodox and Catholic and began to elect patriarchs from among the Russian clergy.
Thus, the feudal wars in Russia in the second quarter Xv centuries led to the strengthening of Moscow, the establishment of a new order of transfer of power (from father to son), further expansion of the possessions of the Moscow prince and the creation of ideological and political prerequisites for the unification of all Russian principalities. This process is actively promoted by the church, advocating a strong, centralized government.
Literature:
Klyuchevsky V.O. "A short guide to Russian history". Moscow, 1992.
Karamzin N.M. "History of the Russian state" - // Collected works-T.V.-Book 2.-Petersburg, 1843.
Platonov S.F. "Textbook of Russian history" .- M.1992.
Gumilev L.N. "From Russia to Russia" .- M.1992.
"History of Russia" .- M.1993 (Edition of the Russian Economic Academy named after G.V. Plekhanov).
Orgish V.P. “Ancient Russia. The formation of the Kiev state and the introduction of Christianity. "
V. Korolyuk "Slavs and Oriental Romance in the Early Middle Ages". M. Science 1985
A.N. Nasonov "Russian land and the formation of the territory of the ancient Russian state."
Rybakov B.A. "The history of the USSR from ancient times to Xvii- centuries ".
Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history course. volume 2.