The main activities of Vasily I after the death of Dmitry Donskoye to the Moscow throne dates back to his eldest son Vasily Dmitrievich () further growth in the Moscow principality complex and contradictory relations with the Horde. The invasion of the ruler of the ruler of the Central Asian state of Tamerlana confrontation with Lithuania due to influence on Novgorod How do you assess the activities of Vasily I?
The background of the dynastic war in the second quarter of the XV century. The struggle of the family and generic order of inheritance of the princely throne is controversial text of the will of Dmitry Donskoy, who gave the possibility of his interpretation from different positions a personal rivalry for power in Moscow, the descendants of Prince Dmitry Donsky, which factors led to the fratricidal war in Russia in the second quarter of the XV century. ?
Yuri Galitsky and Zvenigorodsky Vasily I Vasily I died in 1425. In the history of the Moscow principality, the question arose about who should inherit the deceased: Son or Brother. Yuri Vasily II before the deceased prince always remained or son, or a younger brother. In 1389, Dmitry Donskoy bequeathed to the heir to Vasily was his brother Yuri. But in 1415, Vasily was born Son - Vasily II. Dmitry Donskaya Vasily I Yuri Galitsky Vasily II Vasily Kosya Dmitry Shemyaka
The fifty-year-old Yuri Dmitrievich presented his rights to the throne. He wanted to return to the previous order of inheritance for seniority, which would be a retreat from inheritance in a straight line from his father to his son. It was yesterday's day of history, because the unity of the Russian lands, the power of the Moscow principality was largely provided precisely from the father to his son and the gradual liquidation of the devices. Yuri Galitsky and Zvenigorodsky
Andrei Rublev Kirillo-Belozersky Kirill Yuri Dmitrievich was a subtle connoisseur of literature and art, patronized by the wonderful Russian artist of the 18th century of the XV XV centuries. Andrei Rublev, consisted of correspondence with the founder of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery Igumen Kirill. Yuri Galitsky and Zvenigorodsky
In Zvenigorod and his district, the prince launched the construction of temples and monasteries. In addition, he was a courageous warrior and a lucky commander did not suffer from a single defeat on the field. Yuri Galitsky and Zvenigorod Assumption Cathedral "On the town" in Zvenigorod. Christmas Cathedral of Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery.
For Yuri, Zvenigorod and Galich, Northern Vyatka and Ustyug, was sympathetic to the top of Novgorod. Supported Yuri and those specific princes, who dreamed of returning themselves to their former independence. The struggle between the adherents of the old, specific order and the new traditions of the inheritance of the throne in the born unified Russian state became a natural phenomenon in history. Yuri Galitsky and Zvenigorodsky
Who supported Vasily II serunen princes, boyars, noblemen- Basis of high-grade troops Large and small landowners, warders and landowners Citizens, Posad and commercial landworked, Posad and commercial resident Church House Kalita, relatives of the Grand Duke House Kalita, relatives of the Grand Prince
Vasily II Immediately after the addende on the throne of young Vasily II, Yuri Dmitrievich went to Galich and sent to all Russian lands of diplomas with a call about Vasily II, and the Moscow army headed about the collection of Rati to Galich, but Yuri ran away from there. The fight between the uncle and the nephew began, between the forces of the centralization of the country and the forces of the specific liberty. Vasily II.
Vasily Yurevich Kosya Dmitry Yuryevich Shemyak, however, at first, deletely agree that it is better to solve the world. Vasily II and Yuri went to the Horde behind a label to the Grand Diction. They stayed there a year, and Moscow won the dispute. However, Yuri did not agree with this decision and again went to Galich, where all the dissatisfied Moscow authorities began to flow under his banners. Open confrontation began in 1433. After the quarrel of Sons, Yuri Dmitrievich (Vasily Yuryevich on the nicknames of Kosya and Dmitry Yurevich on the nicknamed Shemyak) with Vasily II at his wedding. Vasily II.
Someone from the boyars noticed on Vasil Yurevich, a rattaking belt belonged to Dmitry Donskoy and stolen from the Moscow treasury. The grandnya family perceived it as a challenge. Mother Vasily II ordered immediately to take a belt with Vasily. The offended sons of Yuri left the Pir. Vasily II.
A new stage of the struggle for the Moscow throne began. Soon Yuri Dmitrievich, along with the sons, inflicted a rapid and unexpected blow in Moscow. Armored on the battlefield, expelled from Moscow, Vasily II immediately became an attractive figure for part of Russian society. The kolomna was reached by boyars and nobles, in these conditions he accepted an unexpected decision abandoned the Moscow throne, gave way to the nephew. Vasily II took Moscow and immediately resumed the struggle with the revolving sons of Yuri. And again the Grand Duke was defeated.
Vasily II gathered a new ruin and moved it to the possession of Yuri and his sons. And again the Grand Duke lost to his talented uncle. Secondary Yuri Dmitrievich took Moscow, captured the family of the Grand Duke and captured him from the treasury. Vasily II ran. Yuri Rules only two months. In 1434 he died. Contrary to all traditions, the eldest son Yuri Dmitrievich Vasily proclaimed himself a great prince. Vasily II.
A new stage of the feudal war began. The battles and hiking are the entire North-Eastern Rus. Kosy in the decisive battle of 1436. Vasily Yuryevich was divided by the Moscow army, captives and delivered to Moscow. There, by order of the Grand Duke, he was blinded. After that, Vasily Yuryevich got a nickname oblique. After 12 years, he died in oblivion. Vasily II.
Dmitry Shemyaka Military weakening and ruin of Russia immediately took advantage of her old enemy of the horde. Ordans won victory and Vasily II came to captivity. Ordans demanded a huge redemption for Vasily II. He was collected throughout Russia. It was at that time that a conspiracy was ripe, organized by Dmitry Shemyaka. Dmitry Shemyaky, he accused the Grand Duke in the inability to protect Russia from the Horde. On February 12, 1446, the conspirators captured Moscow and sent a detachment to the Trinity-Sergiev Monastery, where Vasily was dark. There was a prince, and arrested him right in the church. He was brought to Moscow and blinded. In history, the Grand Prince Vasily II remained under the name of Vasily Dark.
In December, Vasily II again mastered Moscow and finally occupied the grand permanent throne. Vasily II pledged to keep his goal for the shemyaka. In 1449, the war resumed. In 1450, Shemyak fled from Galich to Novgorod. In 1453, Dyak bribed the cook sent to Vasily II in Novgorod, and he poisoned Dmitry Shemyak. Mount Dmitry Shemyaki
Page 23 of 24
Grand Duchy Lithuanian and Rus
One of the consequences of the state decentralization of Kievan Rus, the ruined by Batym, was the political, economic and cultural separation of the ancient Russian territories. This was especially affected by the fate of South and Western Russia, which fell under the authority of Lithuania. In the Lithuanian princes of Gedzyin and Olgere, Polotsk, Vitebsk, Minsk, Dutinsky Principality, Town-Pin Pilia, Berescheism, Volyn, Pinolia, Chernihiv land and part of Smolensk region were included in Lithuania. In 1362, Kiev went under the power of the Lithuanian Prince. Russian lands in the composition of Lithuania amounted to the whole territory.
The state extended from the Baltic to the Black Sea. East Slavic cultural influence on its territory was predominant. Gedimine and his sons were married to Russian princes. Many representatives of the princely family took Orthodoxy. Ancient Russian language was dominant, especially since, by that time, Lithuanian writing has not yet existed.
Up to the end of the XIV century. Russian areas, joining Lithuania, were not subjected to national religious praise. The Grand Principality of Lithuanian until a certain time was a conglomerate of land and possessions and less than all - a single political education. There was a tendency to form a new one, a peculiar version of Russian statehood on the southern and Western lands of the former Kievan Rus.
Thus, by the middle of the XIV century. On the territory of the former Kievan Rus, there were two centers who claimed to unite all Russian lands, - Northeast Russia (Moscow Principality) and the Grand District Lithuanian. The conflict between them was inevitable, and in 1368-1372. Olgend made three campaigns to Moscow. Rivals divided "spheres of influence."
Everything has changed when the Grand Duke of Lithuanian became Yagailo. In 1386, he accepted Catholicism and issued a Ulya (Union) with Poland, marrying the Polish Queen of Jadvig and thus becoming another Polish king. From that time, the fate of Lithuania and Poland were closely related: in the XIV-XVI centuries. These states were united by personal unia (they had one chapter from the dynasty of descendants Yagailo - Yagellonov). The Catholic expansion in Western land of Russia began. Large princes in Polotsk, Vitebsk, Kiev and other places abolished, vicarity was introduced. Lithuanian aristocracy replaced cultural orientation with Russian to Polish. Polish gentle traditions, as well as the Catholicism began to penetrate Western Russian nobility. However, most Russians kept loyalty to Orthodoxy and traditions. Especially since it was not so difficult. There was some autonomy of Russian lands as part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Many local princes Rurikovichi (Dutic, Vorotnsky, Odoevsky, etc.) retained their possessions, with the other lands there were agreements for which residents could require the change of governors. In many cities, life was regulated by Magdeburg's right, and the Great Principality of the Great Principality was valid, ascending to the "Russian truth" on the Slavic lands. The cities in Lithuania were a bit, and for their development of the princes, as in Poland, the Germans and Jews who received special privileges were invited. In fact, Lithuania was a federation of land and principalities under the rule of great princes from the genus Gediminovichi.
Other compared to Moscow Rus in Lithuania were the relationship between power and subjects. The prohibition of Orthodox Princes and Boyars to occupy the highest state positions caused resistance, and in the XV century. They were equalized in Rights with Catholics and defended the inviolability of their victobs, and themselves - from persecution without trial. At the same time, all dependent peasants were liberated from natural and cash supply in favor of the state and became in all respects dependent on landowners.
In addition to major landowners - Magnants in Lithuania, the main landowner was a gentry - nobles, owned by their position a great prince, which was carried by military service. In the XVI century They received put on private ownership and great personal freedoms and privileges: they could freely go to the service to the Lithuanian-Russian nobility, to leave abroad and were not arrested without a court decision.
A peculiar state of the Great Principality of Lithuanian was peculiar. The great influence of the aristocracy, the broad autonomy of different lands did not contribute to the creation of a strong central office apparatus similar to the order system in Moscow. At the court of the Grand Duke there were officials, but there were no institutions. From the end of the XV century. All the most important state issues of the Grand Duke should have coordinated with Rada Panov as part of four bishops, 15 governors and governors from among the largest magnates. The control system also included a ball (free) seale-top legislative body of the principality. Its competence included: the adoption of laws, decisions on tax collecting for the prince, convening the gentle militia.
Finally, the State Device of Poland and Lithuania was determined in the second half of the XVI century. In 1569, both states had an association of both states in Senate and Seimas, the Senate and Seimas occurred at Lublin Union. With the suppression of the Yagellon Dynasty, the king began to be elected in the Sejm, and the Commonwealth has become a peculiar "Shan Thinking Republic." Such a model of the state device provided a gentry of fairly wide political freedoms and economic dominance in the existence of a serf system for most rural residents. When neighboring states turned into powerful centralized monarchies, the Shan Things and the lack of real centralized power, the financial system and the regular army, turned out to be non-visual. Species in Ukraine and in Belarus, i.e., on the former Slavic lands of the Great The principalities of Lithuanian, the Shuttle land tenure and Catholicism led to strengthening from the XVI century. National and religious struggle, which was not before.
Opinions of historians
Many historians paid attention to the issue of the formation of a centralized state. He was dedicated to him special studies L.V. Cherepnin, A.M. Sakharov, A.A. Zimin and many others.
The philosophers in consideration of this problem primarily interested in the relationship of a Russian character and created by Russian huge and powerful powers. "In the soul of the Russian people," wrote on. Berdyaev in the composition "Russian idea", - there is the same immensity, infinity, aspiration in infinity, as in the Russian plain. "Mighty Russia was born from Russia.
An interesting concept of development of this process was offered a large Russian historian, philosopher, theologian G.P. Fedotov. In the article "Russia and Freedom" he wrote that Moscow was obliged to the Tatarophilic, treacherous actions of his first princes that the reunification of Russia, the creation of a mighty centralized state was carried out through the violent seizures of the territory, treacherous arrests of the rivals. And the very "picking up" of the devals, he considered Fedotov, was committed by the Eastern methods: the local population was led to Moscow, the local customs and traditions were repaired, the local customs and traditions. Fedotov did not deny the need to unite around Moscow, but talked about the "eastern methods" of this process.
If G.P. Fedotov focused on the "Asian unification forms" of Russia, then N.M. Karamzin - on the progressive nature of the act of association itself, on the properties of Russian nature. The creation of a Russian state for him is the result of the activities of individual princes and kings, among which he highlighted Ivan III.
In the XIX century Historians no longer so straightly interpreted the processes of creating a Russian state, did not reduce him to approval of the autocratic power, capable of overcome centrifugal forces within the country and Mongolian dominion. The process of creating a centralized state in Eastern Russia was considered as a certain result of the ethnic development of the people. The main thing was the statement that in this period the state began prevailed over the victorious. Consequently, the development of state institutions of government binds to the processes held in Moscow Rus. The maintenance of the process was reduced to the struggle of various socio-political forms and stood the layers of the population. This scheme has been embodied in the writings, see Solovyov, who gave her historical argument, discontinuing the internal forces of the development of Russian statehood.
IN. Klyuchevsky and his followers complemented this scheme with the study of socio-economic processes, contacting the role of "public classes". The Russian National State has grown, according to VO. Klyuchevsky, from the "specific order", from the "Votchin" of the princes - the descendants of Daniel Moskovsky. At the same time, he emphasized that the inadvertence of the Moscow princes in political means, their mercenary interests were made by formidable force. Moreover, the interests of the Moscow rulers coincided with the "folk needs" associated with the liberation and acquisition of independent statehood.
Much attention to overcoming the fragmentation of Russia and the creation of a centralized state paid to L.V. Cherepnin. In the monograph "The formation of a Russian centralized state in the XIV-XV centuries" he touched upon the poor aspect of this problem - social and economic processes that prepared the association of Russia. The Cherepnin emphasized that the elimination of the "specific order" took a long time and stretched to the second half of the XVI century, and the turning point in this process are the 80s of the XV century. During this period, the administrative system is reorganized, the development of feudal law, the improvement of the armed forces, the formation of a servant nobility, the folding of the new form of feudal ownership of the land - the local system, which was the material basis of the nobility army.
Some historians, considering the features of the formation of the Moscow state, proceed from the concept of the Russian historian M. Dovanar-Zapolsky and the American researcher R. Pipes, the creators of the concept of a "primary state". R. Pipes believes that the absence of feudal structures of Western European type in Russia significantly led to the specifics of many processes in Northeast Russia. Moscow sizards treated their kingdom as well as their ancestors - with their patrimony. The Moscow State His rule that arose did not recognize any rights of estates and social groups, which was the basis for the use of most people and the arbitrariness of the authorities.
Question to paragraph number 1. Why the internecine war of the second quarter of the XV century. Named dynastic? Give examples of dynastic wars in Western European countries.
Because the nephew and uncle fought in this conflict, and later - the cousins.
Examples of gravity between close relatives in Western Europe. In 1202, against the king of England, John Privissless, his nephew Arthur was made by the situation of Moscow, only the nephew wanted to overthrow the uncle, and not an uncle - nephew, and uncle won, not a nephew. In 1467, for power in Castile (part of modern Spain) fought Enrique IV powerless and younger brother of his Alfonso. There are other examples.
Question to paragraph number 2. Why was two applicants for a great reign in Russia?
It happened because of the not quite correct testament Dmitry Donskoy. He could leave the throne to the eldest son and his descendants, if such be. Instead, he called his successor of the eldest son, and in the case of his death - the younger. Thus, he apparently not wanting himself, as if eliminated the sons of the eldest son from the inheritance of the throne. But according to the tradition, the government was given to the eldest surviving son of the previous ruler. Therefore, Vasily I became the successor II, it turned out that by going around the will of his grandfather.
Question to paragraph number 3. How do you evaluate Vasily I? Justify your opinion.
Vasily I continued to expand the principality. He subjugated Moscow by Meshör, Nizhny Novgorod, Murom, Gorodets and Taras. I tried to establish good relations with the Grand Durability Lithuanian. Another thing is that the world did not always want this principality itself. At the same time, with the Golden Horde, Vasily I did not fight: I didn't even try to resist invasion, I threw the city on the mercy of the city and the city itself. However, the case helped in this case, and rather the Timur's campaign.
Therefore, although Vasily I cannot recognize as a great ruler as his father was, but his rule is worthy of a positive assessment, because Moscow has strengthened.
Question to paragraph number 4. What influence on the development of the country was the civil war of the second quarter of the XV century??
The civil war forced to use the military power and resources on the struggle of the descendants of Dmitry Donskoy each other, because the development and expansion of the state stopped. But at the same time it was not discarded back, because there were no significant lands that would drop from Moscow during civil workers. Also, in a happy chance, the time weakness of this center did not use the Tatars, nor Lithuanians - neither the others did not take a serious campaign, which could significantly weaken the future capital of Russia.
Question to paragraph number 5. Write an argued essay (optional): "The rivals in the struggle for Moscow were children of one era"; "Rusi's picking up in Eastern Methods" (P. Fedotov, philosopher, theologian).
Russia gathering went eastern methods
The concept of "Eastern Methods" is not so unequivocal, because Japan and Egypt are all eastern countries, but their mentality varies greatly. In this case, under the eastern methods, you can understand the support on autocracy in opposition to the ancient Russian everlast traditions, as well as the widespread use of the support of the Supreme Ruler, to which the staff itself is filled.
Moscow was raised precisely thanks to the support of the Golden Changs. It was their invasions that allowed her to defeat such a competitor as Tver. Many rivals of Moscow princes, including the same princes of Tver, were destroyed at the Court of Khan. In addition, it was in the Golden Horde that the labels were issued to the Grand Diction by the Moscow princes, that is, on income from extensive lands - these revenues should be transferred in the form of Dani Mongolam, but something was delayed and intermediaries in Moscow.
What price did the princes received this support? In the first centuries, the Russian princes were forced to worship the pagan symbols at the first century before adopting Islam. Some considered it incompatible with Christianity and took martyrdom, but they refused to betray faith. Most others, including Moscow, walked on such concessions. However, for a Christian it was humiliation. In addition, the ritual of communicating with Khan was Eastern, that is, the princes in every way showed their humility, which was also humiliating. However, Moscow Princes preferred through all this to go into exchange for the support they received from the Mongols. This is an east method of action - to please the Lord to deal with his hands with the enemies.
No less eastern appeal to Novgorod and Pskov. The republics were completely subordinated to Moscow, they were stopped going to gather, the elder bells (Novgorodsky before, Pskovsky later) were taken out. Such a policy was a logical continuation of the development of the Moscow state. In the Vladimir-Suzdal Earth initially was the strong princely power, and the Mongolian domination was only strengthened, because the sole reign of the conquerors had better understood.
Will the elder traditions prevented the formation of a centralized state? In such cities of the Grand Principality of Lithuanian as Polotsk, Vitebsk and other events continued to play a significant role; There, the idle self-government gradually transformed into Maldeburg law. At the same time, it did not interfere with the state as a whole be strong and one. It means that the suppression of the self-government of Novgorod and Pskov was dictated by non-government interests - just for the ages of life under the rule of the Goldenopa Khanov, the Moscow princes themselves became the eastern rulers and did not understand such a form of a state device as the E. Republic.
Of all this it can be seen that the collection of land within the framework of the Russian state went easternly, and this state itself was originally easier in their spirit.
The process of formation of the Russian centralized state began in the second half of the XIII century. And ended at the beginning of the XVI century. At this time, the political independence of a number of the most important Russian principalities and feudal republics was eliminated. Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Tver, Novgorod lands were attached to Moscow, which meant the formation of a single state territory and the beginning of the restructuring of the political system, which ended with the establishment of autocracy in Russia.
The process of education of the Russian centralized state has led certain economic, social, political and spiritual backgrounds.
There are different points of view on the issue of reasonsthe formation of a centralized state. Some historians believe that the reasons for the political centralization and its own process in Russia itself were the same as in Western European countries. They believe that the material basis of the formation of a single Russian state with the center in Moscow was the appearance in the XIV century. In the Russian lands of such signs of early burglais relations, as the development of crafts, trade and market (J. Dubi).
However, most domestic historians adhere to the opinion that neither the rise of productive forces in agriculture nor the development of crafts and trade, nor the growth of cities as economic centers in the XIV-XV centuries is not evidence of the origin of early burglase relations, and therefore the process of education of a single Russian state occurred on a feudal basis (M.M. Gorinov, A.A. Gorsky, A.A. Danilov, etc.).
The main thing economicalthe reason for the formation of a centralized state, they see in the development of the feudal relations of "Washir" and "deep into". There was a distribution of these relationships on the entire territory of Northeast Russia and the appearance along with the faithful feudal land tenure.
The development of conditional feudal land tenure was accompanied by the strengthening of feudal exploitation and the exacerbation of social contradictions in the country - between peasants and feudalities, between various groups of feudalists for owning peasants. Middle and small feudal feudalities needed a strong centralized power, which could keep in the obedience of peasants and limit the feudal rights and privileges of Boyar-timers.
As internal politicalthe reasons for the supporters of this concept of the formation of a single Russian state are called the elevation and the growth of the political influence of several feudal centers: Moscow, Tver, Suzdali, applying to uniting around themselves the rest of the Russian lands. There is a process of strengthening the princely power, seeking to subjugate the specific princes and boyars.
According to a number of scientists, in the XIV-XV centuries. In Russia, the Domongolsky level was restored in the development of agriculture. His fastest restoration and development occurred in the northeastern Russian lands. The free peasant community was almost completely absorbed by the feudal state.
The main form of a major feudal land tenure in Russia in the XIV century. There was a faith - Prince, Boyarskaya, Church (S.M. Mun-Tea, V.M. Ustinov).
However, even in the second half of the XV century. Northeast Russia prevailed the so-called blackthe lands for which the community land tenure of peasants were characterized with an individual possession of a household plot and arable land, as well as the presence of elected peasant volost self-government under the control of the princely administration. Large arrays of black lands were in the northern regions of the country, where feudal land tenure began to penetrate.
There were two categories of peasants: black peasantsliving communities in villages that did not belong to individual feudals and owned peasantslow-living lands in the system of feudal primary.
Owned peasants were personally dependent on the feudal, but the degree of this feudal dependence was different in different districts. The peasants still preserved the right to free transition from one feudal to another, but in practice this right increasingly turned out to be formal.
In the XIV century The Russian feudal hierarchy was the following system:
On the top stage squeezed great princes -supreme rulers of Russian land;
The second step was occupied by Vassals of the Grand Duke - specific princespossessing the rights of sovereign rulers within their devices;
In the third stage there were vassal of specific princes - boyars and serunen princes,invalid the rights of specific, other words, large feudals-landowners;
At the lowest stage of the feudal hierarchy stood servants managed by princely farmconstituting prince and boyars administration.
Involvement in the system of feudal relations of all the rural population led to the disappearance of many terms denoted by various categories of the rural population ("People", "Messa", "Rubber", etc.), and the appearance by the end of the XIV century. The new term "peasants". This name has been preserved to this day.
The main foreign policy cause was the preservation of the vassal dependence of the Russian lands from the Golden Horde, as well as the need for centralized protection of Russian lands from external enemies.
Recently, in connection with the increased interest in Russian philosophical and historical literature, other concepts of the formation of a single state appeared, the process of which is considered as "restoration", "revival" of Russian statehood. Considering the state as the "Organic Union of the People", representatives of this concept the main cause of the state's education see the idea of \u200b\u200ba single national state in the people's consciousness. The most consistently idea of \u200b\u200bRussian statehood, in their opinion, expressed Moscow, all other political centers were pursued by narrow-block interests (L.N. Gumilev, G.P. Fedotov).
It is noted that Moscow princes won the victory over their political opponents thanks to cunchasts, treachery and obedient consequences of the Tatar. Tatar element is not from the outside, and from the inside took possession of the soul of Russia, and in this regard, Moscow princes turned out to be the most consistent in the "gathering" of Russian lands, which was committed by Eastern Methods (G. Fedotov):
Violent seizures of territories;
Verger arrests of princes of rivals;
Powered by the population in Moscow and replacing it came;
Enforced measures against local customs and traditions.
The reasons for the formation of a single state can be interpreted within the framework of a civilization approach. If proceed from the recognition that at the turn of the XIII -XIV centuries. The birth of a new, Eurasian (Russian), civilization occurs, then the Russian centralized state should be considered not the heir of the Kiev state, but the successor to Northeast Russia. It was here that the type of statehood began to emerge to the Tatar-Mongol invasion, which in the future will be completed, "despotic autocracy", which is not supported by the system of contractual relationship - vassalitet, and the relationship of citizenship and service - ministerial-tete. Mongolian IHO played a big role in the approval of this type of statehood and social relations, since relations between Russian princes and Mongolian Khan were built according to the type of citizenship (S.A. Kislitsyn, Nov. Serdyukov, I.N. ions).
Featureseducation of the Russian centralized state:
1. Formationother compared with the ancient ruus of the genotype of social development. If for ancient Russia was characteristic evolutionary (traditional)the path of development, then in the X1U-HJ centuries. Approved mobilizingcarried out at the expense of the permanent intervention of the state in the mechanisms of functioning of society.
2. Chronological proximityeducation of a single Russian state and centralized monarchies in Western Europe (Hu-Hu1VV.).
3. Absencein Russia sufficient socio-economic prerequisitesfor folding a single state. In Western Europe:
Deranged senorial relations;
The personal dependence of the peasants weakened;
Increased cities and third estate. In Russia:
Prevailed state-feudal forms;
The relationship of the personal dependence of the peasants from the feudalists was only formed;
Cities were in a subordinate position towards feudal nobility.
4. National AssociationRussia, the formation of a unitary state, which began almost simultaneously with similar processes in England, France and Spain, but had a number of features. First, the Russian state from the very beginning was formed as "Military National"driving the power of which was the leading need for defense and security. Secondly, the formation of the state took place on multinational basis(in Western Europe - on national).
5. Eastern style of political activity.The autocratic power was formed in two samples - Byzantine Vasilev and Mongolian Khan. Western kings were not taken into account due to the fact that they did not possess real state sovereignty, depended on the Roman Catholic Church. The Russian princes adopted the state policy from the Mongols that have established the function of the state to collecting tribute and taxes, maintaining the procedure and security of security. At the same time, this state policy was completely devoid of responsibility for public welfare.
6. The leading role in the formation of the Russian state of the political ("external) factor - the need to confront the Hordeand Great Principality Lithuanian.Thanks to this factor, all segments of the population were interested in centralization. Such a "advanced" (in relation to socio-economic development) the nature of the process of the association led to the features of the one formed by the end of the XVI century. states:
Strong monarchical power;
Strong dependence on the power of the dominant class;
The high degree of exploitation of direct manufacturers (folding the system of serfdom).
7. In addition, some historians, considering the features of the formation of a single state, proceed from the concept of the Russian historian M.V. Davanar-Zapolsky and American researcher R. Pipes, creators of the concept of a "primary state".
In particular, R. Pipes believes that the lack of feudal institutions of Western European type in Russia led to the specifics of a centralized state. He also believes that Northeast Russia was colonized on the initiative of the princes; Here the government anticipated the settlement. As a result, the northeastern princes, who had enormous authorities and prestige, there was a conviction that cities and villages, arable land and forests, meadows and rivers are their property. Such an opinion also assumed that all people living on their land are their servants, a mustache.
The Moscow State Dueses appealed to their kingdom as much as their ancestors did with their patients, therefore, R. PiPS believes, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe state in the European sense of the word was absent in Russia until the middle of the XVII century. And since there was no concept of state, there was also no investigation - the concept of society: the state in Russia recognized the right of different estates and social groups on the legal status and on the legalized sphere of free activity only in the reign of Catherine AND.
1. Combination and prerequisites.
1.1. Features. The unification of land and the formation of the Russian single state was significantly different from similar processes occurring in Western European countries. If in the West, at the base of the association, the development of commodity and money relations was laying and the establishment of economic relations between individual regions, then socio-political and spiritual factors had the predominant influence. Socio-economic processes also affected, but other than in Western Europe.
1.2 Socio-economic prerequisites.
1.2.1. Development of agriculture. Revival by the end of the XIV century. Economic potential
russian land, distribution of the three-field agriculture system, some revival of crafts and trade in recovered cities in the second floor. XV century, "Inner colonization" (i.e., the development of the forests of northeastern Russia), a noticeable demographic rise in villages, the development of fishing in them becomes hidden from a superficial view of the country's progress, prerequisite for its political consolidation.
1.2.2. One of the main socio-economic factors of the association was the growth of boyars and feudal land tenure in separate lands of Northeast Russia. The main source of dissemination of the Boyar Votchin was the princely awards of the Earth with peasants. But in the conditions of a political "spray" (by the beginning of the XIV century, there were more than ten independent principles in the system of Vladimir's reign), a lack of arable land was increasingly felt, which limited the development of a boyars class, and, therefore, undermined the forces of the Prince, first of all the military.
1.2.3. The formation of a single state contributed to the development of a local land tenure, which was distributed in the second half of the 20th century. largely due to the expansion of the range of arable land. The prince's servants, "free" and "servants under the Parish" (hence the later term - nobles) received the land as a conditional holding, that is, they could not freely dispose of them and owned only on the terms of service. They supported the prince in his politics, hoping with his help to strengthen their position and get new lands. The rapid increase in the number of serving nobility became the basis of strengthening the military potential of the Moscow great princes, the key to the success of their unifying policy.
1.3. Socio-political prerequisites.
1.3.1. Princes interested in strengthening their military serving forces, became closely as part of small principalities. As a result, the contradictions were aggravated between princes supported by their boyars. This led to the struggle for the expansion of ownership of one at the expense of another. So gradually revealed the rivalry of the Tver and Moscow principalities, the struggle between which largely predetermined the development of the process of combining Russia.
1.3.2. The Grand Due to Vladimir, whose value was actually restored by Tatars, was a ready-made institute of power for the future of a single state. In addition, the prince, who owns a label to a great reign possessed additional economic and military resources, enjoyed an authority, allowing him to subjugate Russian lands.
1.3.3. The Orthodox Church was also interested in unification of land. The desire to preserve and strengthen the unified church organization, eliminate the threat to its positions from both the West and from the East (after the adoption of Islam's Orda as a state religion) - all this forced the church to support the unifying policy of that prince, which will be able to unite Russia.
1.3.4. The main political prerequisite for the merger of fragmented land was the urgent task of the liberation of the country from the Ordane IGA. In addition, the opposition was played by the Northeast Principality with the Grand Duch of Lithuanian, who also claimed the role of a uniform of Russian lands.
1.4 Cultural, overall spiritual prerequisites facilitated the future association.
1.4.1. In the conditions of fragmentation, Russian people retained a common language, legal norms, and most importantly - the Orthodox faith.
1.4.2. In Orthodoxy, a developing common national self-consciousness was based, which was particularly actively manifested from the middle of Hu. (After the fall of Constantinople, the Orthodoxy Center found himself in the hands of the Turk, which caused the feeling of "spiritual loneliness" among Russian people). Under these conditions, the thrust for unity intensified, the desire to submit the power of the strongest prince, in which they saw the intercession before God, the defender of the Earth and the Orthodox faith. The mindset of the people unusually raised the authority of the Grand Duke Moskovsky, strengthened his power and made it possible to complete the creation of a single state.
Supporters world-historical theoryXIX - NCH. XX centuries belonging to the "state" school positively assessed the role of Moscow in the creation of community statehood. S. F. Platonov (1860-1933) associated the strengthening of Moscow, first of all, with the termination of the specific order of ownership, that is, with the revision of the former, remaining from Kievan Rus, the regulations of the Preconsession on the birthright (from his brother for the seniority). He then highlighted the advantageous geographical position of Moscow at the intersection of transport routes, which meant the rapid settlement of the Moscow region and obtaining considerable shopping duties by the Moscow princes.
Materialistic direction the world-historical theory, studying the progress of mankind, gives it a priority to the development of society.
In materialistic historiography (A. A. Zimin, B. A. Rabakov, V. A. Fedorov et al.) The role of Moscow is explained mainly by its "geographically favorable central regulations in relation to other Russian lands and attached to it the importance of the most important assembly of trade routes ". In general, the process of formation of a Russian centralized state they interpret as "pattern within the framework of the feudal system." This process is associated mainly with socio-economic factors - "the growth of feudal land tenure and the economy, the development of serfdom, aggravation of class struggle." Conditioned at the end of the XV century. The United States is characterized as a "feudal-serf monarchy."
Liberal direction the world-historical theory, studying the progress of mankind, gives the priority in it to the development of personality.
Liberal historian American R. PiPS (our contemporary) One of the reasons for the elevation of Moscow sees in "Kalita's appointment by the General Council on the collection of Dani in all of Russia." Another reason for the American historian sees in copying Moscow to the organization of power from the Golden Horde. "Perhaps the most important thing that the Russians have learned from Mongols," Pipes writes, "there was a political philosophy that made the functions of the state to collecting Dani (or taxes) and well deprived of responsibility for social welfare."
In the Russian historical literature, the point of view of supporters of a liberal theory on the process of collecting lands around Moscow is most pronounced in the works of P. Fedotov (1886-1951). He believed that Moscow was owned by the Tatarophilic, treacherous actions of his first princes, violent seizures of territories, treacherous arrests of princes of rivals. Gathering land - by Fedotov - was committed by the Eastern methods: the local elite was carried away to Moscow, replacing the sediments, the local customs were emerging.
Locally historical theorylearns the unity of the person and the territory that constitutes the concept of local civilization. In Russia, such civilization is Eurasia.
Historians representing the theory (V. Vernadsky, L. N. Gumilyov), allocate the ethnic factor in the elevation of Moscow, believing that Tver focused on Lithuania, and Moscow concluded a solid alliance with Tatars.
At the same time, Moscow Princes professed the principle of ethnic tolerance, selecting people to the service solely on their business qualities. The Moscow courtyard was replenished with people from Horde who did not accept the religious policy of Khan Uzbek, in 1313 the official religion of the Golden Horde proclaimed Islam.
Eurasians about the emergence of the Moscow state.
"European civilization is not a universal culture," wrote N. S. Trubetskaya (1890-1938), - but only the culture of a certain ethnographic individual, the Romotogenians for which it is mandatory. " European culture comes in decline, decomposes, leads humanity to a dead end. Russian culture was created as a result of the synthesis of Slavic and Eastern elements ("Heritage of Genghis Khan"). It was Mongols who marked the beginning of the Unity of Eurasia and the basics of its political system. "There would be no Russia without Tatarist" - it is difficult to distinguish a purely Tatar from truly Russian. According to Eurasians, the Tatar-Mongolian Igo was a neutral cultural medium that took all sorts of gods and patient any cultures. "Veliko, the happiness of Russia, which at the moment when, due to internal decomposition, she had to fall, she went to Tatars and anyone else," P. N. Savitsky wrote (1895-1968). The founders of the state were not Kiev princes, but the Moscow kings, renekes of Mongolian Khanov. The Moscow Principality was a Golden Horde Ulus. After the collapse of the horde, the capital was transferred from the barn to Moscow, and after joining the Moscow kingdom of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia Horde was reborn in the case of the Moscow state.
