One of the most dramatic periods in the history of Russia is the period of feudal fragmentation, otherwise called “specific”. It was characterized by internecine wars, dependence on the Tatar-Mongols, and the collapse of Russia into separate principalities. The centuries of feudal fragmentation in Russia are the 12th-15th centuries, inclusive. It lasted about 350 years. By the middle of the XII century in the state there were about 15 principalities, as well as lands. In the XII-XIII centuries, there were already 50 of them, and in the XIV - as many as 250. In each of them a separate clan of the Rurikovich ruled.
This process was somewhat slowed down by Vladimir Monomakh, and then by his son, Mstislav the Great, who continued his father’s policy of preserving what was achieved. However, after the death of Mstislav, civil wars began. Next, we will talk about Russia during the period of feudal fragmentation briefly.
Reasons for fragmentation
Under the period of feudal fragmentation in Russia, the years of which are indicated above, researchers understand the time when several hundred separate states were formed and acted on the territory where Kievan Rus previously existed.
Such fragmentation was a logical result of the development of society (economic and political) in the previous period - the period of the early feudal monarchy. Let's talk about the most significant reasons for this phenomenon in the life of the Old Russian state.
Among the economic reasons for the onset of the feudal fragmentation of Ancient Russia are:
- Success in cultivating the land.
- The development of crafts (there were more than 60 specialties) and trade, the growth of cities as centers of concentration of these types of activities and as territorial centers.
- The dominance of the natural system of management.
Political reasons include:
- The desire to transfer wealth, "fatherland", into the hands of his son, to make him heir.
- The desire of the military elite, turning into boyars, landowners, that is, feudal lords, to expand their possessions and gain independence.
- The formation of immunities through the transfer by the Kiev prince to vassals of such rights as the right of the court and tax collection.
- Turning tribute into feudal rent. If tribute was paid to the prince for military defense, then the rent is paid to the owner for the use of land.
- The final design of the squad in the apparatus of power.
- The growth of power of some feudal lords who did not want to submit to Kiev.
- The decline of the Kiev principality due to the raids of the Polovtsian nomads.
Features of the period
One of the important features of Kievan Rus during the period of feudal fragmentation was the following. Similar periods were experienced by all the major states of Western Europe, but there the engine of the process was mainly the economy. Whereas in Russia during the period of feudal fragmentation the main political component was. To obtain material benefits, the local princes and boyars needed to gain political independence, gain a foothold in their own inheritance, and acquire sovereignty. The main force of the process of separation was the boyars.
At the first stage of feudal fragmentation, it contributed to the development of agriculture throughout Russian land, the flourishing of crafts, the rapid development of trade, and the growth of urban entities. But due to the fact that in the boundless expanse of the East European Plain a large number of tribes lived, having both Slavic and non-Slavic origin, which were at various stages of development, this contributed to the decentralization of the state system.
Specific separatism
The specific princes, as well as the local nobility - the boyars - over time began to destroy the foundation under the state building with their separatist actions. Although their desire to become more independent from the Grand Duke is understandable, because the center developed at the expense of other areas of the state, often practically ignoring their urgent needs. However, the negative side of this desire for independence was an unprecedented manifestation of egoism on both sides, which ultimately led to anarchist sentiments. Nobody wanted to give up their interests - neither the Kiev prince, nor the specific princes.
Often such interests were confrontational, and the means of resolving conflicts became direct clashes, conspiracies, intrigues, intrigues, brutal wars, fratricide. This inevitably led to further feuds, disputes over land, trade benefits, princely titles, inheritances, cities, tributes - in a word, for levers of influence and domination - power and economic.
The decline of central authority
In order to keep the state organism from collapse, a strong power was needed. However, due to these reasons, the Kiev prince was no longer able to fully manage from the center the princes' policies on the ground. More and more of them left his authority. In the 30s of the XII century, the center controlled only the territory adjacent to the capital.
The princes, feeling the weakness of the central government, no longer wanted to share their income with it, and the local boyars most actively supported them in this. In addition, local boyars needed independent local princes, which also helped to form their own separate state structures and the withering away of central authority as an institution.
Weakening in the face of invaders
However, over time, the ongoing strife observed between the princes, was the cause of the depletion of the forces of the Russian lands, the weakening of their defenses in the face of an external enemy.
Constant hostility and disunity led to the fact that many of the principalities of Russia during the period of feudal fragmentation ceased to exist. But the most important thing is that this caused unprecedented popular suffering caused by the Mongol-Tatar invasion.
Three centers
Among the new states that took shape after Kievan Rus in the period of feudal fragmentation, there were three of the largest, these are two principalities - Vladimir-Suzdal, Galicia-Volyn and Novgorod Republic. They were the political successors of Kiev. That is, they had the role to become centers of gravity of the common Russian life.
In each of these lands, during the feudal fragmentation of Russia, its own original political tradition was formed, each had its own political fate. In the future, each of the lands had the opportunity to turn into a center of unification of all other lands. However, the situation was incredibly complicated with the invasion of Batu in Russia in 1237-1240, which laid the foundation for the Mongol-Tatar yoke.
The suffering of the people
Despite the fact that the struggle against the yoke began from the very moment of its establishment, it had severe consequences for Russia during the period of feudal fragmentation. In 1262, in many Russian cities there were rebellions against the Bessermens - the farmers of the Horde tribute. As a result, they were expelled, and tribute began to be collected and transported to the Golden Horde by the princes themselves. However, despite the constant acts of resistance, the mass killings and captivity of the Russian people continued.
Huge damage was done to cities, crafts, culture, stone construction was stopped for more than a century. In addition, the Horde khans created a whole system of robbery of the country they conquered in the form of levying regular tribute. In total, they collected 14 types of “burdens” and “tributes” that depleted the economy of Russia, preventing it from moving away from devastation. The constant drain of silver, which was the main monetary metal in Russia, was an obstacle to the development of market relations.
The power of the Horde khans over Russian lands also led to the strengthening of feudal oppression. The people came under double exploitation - both from the local and from the Mongol-Tatar feudal lords. In order to prevent the country from uniting, the khans pursued a policy of fomenting feudal strife.
State of Russia of the period of feudal fragmentation
It can be seen from the foregoing that feudal fragmentation contributed to the conquest of Russia by the Tatar-Mongols, and this conquest, in turn, facilitated the conservation of the feudal nature of the economy for a long period, strengthened the isolation of the Russian lands, weakened the western and southern principalities. As a result, they became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, an early feudal state that arose in the 13th century. In time, the picture of the entry was as follows:
- At the end of the XIII century. - Turovo-Pinsk and Polotsk principalities.
- In the middle of the XIV century. - Volyn.
- In the 2nd half of the 14th century - Chernihiv and Kiev.
- At the beginning of the XV century. - Smolensk.
As a result, Russian statehood (under the suzerainty of the Golden Horde) survived only on the Vladimir-Suzdal land, and also in Murom, Ryazan and Novgorod.
It is the North-East of Russia, starting from about the 2nd half of the XIV century, that became the core of the formation of the Russian state. This marked the beginning of a departure from the old political structure, characterized by the presence of independent principalities of Russia during the period of feudal fragmentation. As already mentioned, they were controlled by various representatives of the Rurikovich clan, and they included vassal, smaller principalities.
The right of Russia in the period of feudal fragmentation
After the capture of Russian lands by the Mongol-Tatars, Russia became one of the constituent parts of the Golden Horde. The dominant system of domination over Russia there (political and economic) is regarded as the Golden Horde yoke. All sovereign rights were seized by the supreme ruler - the khan of the Golden Horde, whom the Russians called the king.
Princes, as before, dominated the local population. The previous order of inheritance has been preserved, but only if the Horde consented. Princes began to go there to get a label for reigning. The power of the princes was built into the system, according to which the empire of the Mongols was controlled, which assumed a rigidly fixed submission.
At the same time, the specific princes were subordinate to the elders, who, in turn, were subordinate to the Grand Duke (although this was only a formality). And the latter quite real depended on the Horde Khan, considered his "ulusnik".
This system contributed to the consolidation of authoritarian traditions inherent in North-Eastern Russia. Being absolutely powerless in the face of the khan, the princes could completely control their subjects. Veche as an institution of power has lost its significance, since the only source of power now was the Khan's label. The warriors and the boyars gradually turned into servants who were entirely dependent on the grace of the prince.
Shortcut to reign
In 1243, Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, who ruled in Vladimir, received a special letter from Batu. She testified that he was allowed to rule in Russia on behalf of the Khan. This permission received the form of the so-called label for the great reign. This event for the subsequent history of Russia was of great importance. The fact that the prince was first given the right to become a representative of the interests of the Golden Horde in Russian lands, meant the recognition of complete dependence on the Mongol Tatars, as well as the inclusion of Russia in the Mongol empire.
When Yaroslav Vsevolodovich left Batu’s headquarters, he was forced to leave his son Svyatoslav there as a hostage. This practice was widespread in the great Mongol empire. In the relationship between Russia and the Golden Horde, it will become the norm for a long time.
Cultural aspect
The culture of Russia during the feudal fragmentation has its own distinctive features. This is due to the duality of its origins. The first of them was the pagan worldview of the Eastern Slavs, which in its composition was multicomponent. After all, the Old Russian nationality was formed with the participation of such ethnic groups as the Baltic, Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Norman, Iranian.
The second source is East Christian patristics, which is a combination of theological ideas, doctrines and works of church writing.
The adoption by Russia of Christianity as an official ideology contributed to the displacement of the pagan vision of the world on the periphery of consciousness. At the same time, domestic thought absorbed and creatively processed the attitudes, theoretical positions and concepts of Eastern Christianity. This was done by her through the assimilation of Byzantine and South Slavic cultures.
As you know, Byzantium, the keeper of the ancient heritage, was the most developed of the countries of the early Middle Ages. From it, Russia received a large number of concepts, names and images, which were fundamental for the entire European culture that emerged from Hellenic civilization.
However, they were not perceived in their pure form and not completely, but only partially and through the prism of Christianity. This was explained by the fact that knowledge of the Greek language was not the lot of many, and the translations that existed at that time concerned, first of all, the array of literature about the holy fathers.
Sources of Ancient Thought
As for the works of ancient philosophers, they were known for the most part fragmentary, from paraphrases and collections, sometimes only by name. One of these was the Byzantine collection of Bees, which included philosophical and religious sayings. Researchers attribute its appearance to the XI-XII century, and as the author of the original Greek edition, they consider Anthony Melissa, a Greek Christian monk and spiritual writer. In Russia, this book was published in the 13th century.
This was one of the main sources giving an idea of the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and the political thought of Antiquity in Ancient Russia. Among the excerpts contained in the Bee, there are lines from the Holy Scripture that belong to the pen of such authors as:
- John the Theologian.
- Basil the Great.
- John Chrysostom.
Of the ancient authors in the collection are presented such as:
- Aristotle.
- Anaxagoras.
- Pythagoras.
- Democritus.
- Socrates.
- Plutarch.
- Sophocles.
- Euripides.
There are also statements, the authors of which, according to legend, are royal people. It:
- Alexander the Great.
- Philip, his father.
- Agesilaus and Leonid, kings of Sparta.
- Alcibiades, statesman of Athens.
- Darius, Artaxerxes, Cyrus, Croesus, kings of the East.
As one of the exceptions, one can cite the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus "Enchidrion", which was detailed and provided with comments by Maximus the Confessor. It was translated in the Balkans and came out under the name “Hundreds”, under which it was introduced into the everyday life of monks as an ascetic instruction.