Russian principalities of the XII-XIII centuries. Principality of Kiev. Russian principalities and lands in the 12th – 13th centuries Economic features of the Kyiv principality in the 12th century

Principality of Kiev. The Principality of Kiev, although it lost its significance as the political center of the Russian lands, was still considered the first among other principalities. Kyiv has retained its historical glory as the “mother of Russian cities.” It also remained the ecclesiastical center of the Russian lands. The Principality of Kiev was the center of the most fertile lands in Rus'. The largest number of large patrimonial farms and the largest amount of arable land were located here. In Kyiv itself and the cities of the Kyiv land, thousands of artisans worked, whose products were famous not only in Rus', but also far beyond its borders.

The death of Mstislav the Great in 1132 and the subsequent struggle for the Kiev throne became a turning point in the history of Kyiv. It was in the 30-40s. XII century he irretrievably lost control over the Rostov-Suzdal land, where the energetic and power-hungry ruled younger son Vladimir Monomakh Yuri Dolgoruky, over Novgorod and Smolensk, whose boyars themselves began to select princes for themselves.

For the land of Kyiv, big European politics and long-distance campaigns are a thing of the past. Now Kyiv's foreign policy is limited to two directions. The same exhausting struggle with the Polovtsians continues. The Vladimir-Suzdal Principality becomes a new strong enemy.

The Kyiv princes managed to contain the Polovtsian danger, relying on the help of other principalities, which themselves suffered from Polovtsian raids. However, dealing with its northeastern neighbor was much more difficult. Yuri Dolgoruky and his son Andrei Bogolyubsky more than once made campaigns against Kyiv, took it by storm several times and subjected it to pogroms. The victors plundered the city, burned churches, killed residents and took them captive. As the chronicler said, there were then “all people see groans and melancholy, inconsolable sadness and incessant tears”.

However, during the years of peace, Kyiv continued to live the full life of the capital of a large principality. Beautiful palaces and temples have been preserved here, here in the monasteries, especially in the Kiev Pechersk Monastery, or Lavra (from the Greek word "Laura"- a large monastery), pilgrims from all over Rus' converged. The all-Russian chronicle was also written in Kyiv.

There were periods in the history of the Principality of Kyiv when, under a strong and skillful ruler, it achieved certain successes and partially regained its former authority. This happened at the end of the 12th century. with the grandson of Oleg Chernigovsky Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, hero "Tales about Igor's Campaign". Svyatoslav shared power in the principality with the great-grandson of Vladimir Monomakh Rurik Rostislavich, brother of the Smolensk prince. Thus, the Kyiv boyars sometimes united representatives of warring princely factions on the throne and avoided another civil strife. When Svyatoslav died, Roman Mstislavich, Prince of Volyn, great-great-grandson of Vladimir Monomakh, became co-ruler of Rurik.

After some time, the co-rulers began to fight among themselves. During the struggle between the warring parties, Kyiv changed hands several times. During the war, Rurik burned Podol, plundered the St. Sophia Cathedral and the Church of the Tithes - Russian shrines. The Polovtsians allied with him plundered the land of Kyiv, took people captive, chopped up old monks in monasteries, and “young monks, wives and daughters of Kievites were taken to their camps”. But then Roman captured Rurik and tonsured him as a monk.

The Principality of Kiev for a long time occupied a central place in medieval Rus'. Kyiv was the main and richest city. It was the Kiev table that was occupied by the Grand Duke, who, in fact, was the head of state. Therefore, fierce internecine wars were fought for the Principality of Kiev for several centuries.

Development of the Principality of Kyiv in the 12th-13th centuries

To understand what influenced the development of the Principality of Kyiv in the 12th and 13th centuries, it is necessary to understand its position in Rus' at that time:

• Kyiv emerged as a large shopping center due to its favorable location. The city was on a busy trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” The ruler of the principality controlled this route, extracting large profits. However, with the weakening of Byzantium in the 12th and 13th centuries, the importance of the trade route declined. This made the Kiev table less important for the rest of the Russian princes;
• Kyiv is located in the steppe zone. Therefore, the city is convenient for nomadic raids. Immediately beyond the Dnieper began the lands through which the Pechenegs, Torques, Cumans and other steppe peoples roamed. Kyiv was constantly subject to destruction. In the 13th century, such vulnerability greatly reduced the prestige of the Principality of Kyiv;
• In the 12-13 centuries, there was a strengthening of North-Eastern Rus'. This association included several principalities with the cities of Moscow, Suzdal, Vladimir, Yaroslavl, and Rostov the Great. They were located in a forest zone and were protected from raids by nomads. The principalities grew rich from trade; they supplied Novgorod and Pskov with bread. And Kyiv gradually weakened and lost its greatness.

Thus, the main features of the development of the Principality of Kyiv in the 12th-13th centuries were the weakening of the principality itself and the simultaneous strengthening of North-Eastern Rus'. It was there that the center of power of Rus' shifted. The northern princes had strong squads and large land holdings. But many of them still sought to seize the Kiev table.

The result of the weakening of the principality

The weakening of the Kyiv principality led to its capture by the Tatar-Mongols. However, Kyiv quite quickly left the sphere of their influence and fell under the control of the strong Polish-Lithuanian state. Until modern times, Kyiv was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Development of feudal relations in Rus'.

Time from the end of the X to the beginning of the XII century. is an important stage in the development of feudal relations in Rus'. This time is characterized by the gradual victory of the feudal mode of production over a large territory of the country.

Sustainable field farming dominated Russian agriculture. Cattle breeding developed more slowly than agriculture. Despite the relative increase in agricultural production, harvests were low. Frequent phenomena were shortages and hunger, which undermined the Kresgyap economy and contributed to the enslavement of the peasants. The economy maintained great importance hunting, fishing, beekeeping. The furs of squirrels, martens, otters, beavers, sables, foxes, as well as honey and wax went to the foreign market. The best hunting and fishing areas, forests and lands were seized by the feudal lords.

In the XI and early XII centuries. part of the land was exploited by the state by collecting tribute from the population, part land area was in the hands of individual feudal lords as estates that could be passed on by inheritance (later they became known as estates), and possessions received from princes for temporary conditional holding.

The ruling class of feudal lords was formed from local princes and boyars, who became dependent on Kiev, and from the husbands (combatants) of the Kyiv princes, who received control, holding or patrimony of the lands “tortured” by them and the princes. The Kyiv Grand Dukes themselves had large land holdings. The distribution of land by princes to warriors, strengthening feudal production relations, was at the same time one of the means used by the state to subjugate local population of his power.

Land ownership was protected by law. The growth of boyar and church land ownership was closely related to the development of immunity. The land, which was previously peasant property, became the property of the feudal lord “with tribute, virami and sales,” that is, with the right to collect taxes and court fines from the population for murder and other crimes, and, consequently, with the right of trial.

With the transfer of lands into the ownership of individual feudal lords, peasants in different ways became dependent on them. Some peasants, deprived of the means of production, were enslaved by landowners, taking advantage of their need for tools, equipment, seeds, etc. Other peasants, sitting on land subject to tribute, who owned their own tools of production, were forced by the state to transfer the land under the patrimonial power of the feudal lords. As the estates expanded and the smerds became enslaved, the term servants, which previously meant slaves, began to apply to the entire mass of the peasantry dependent on the landowner.

The peasants who fell into bondage to the feudal lord, legally formalized by a special agreement - nearby, were called zakupov. They received from the landowner a plot of land and a loan, which they worked on on the feudal lord's farm with the master's equipment. For escaping from the master, the zakuns turned into serfs - slaves deprived of all rights. Labor rent - corvée, field and castle (construction of fortifications, bridges, roads, etc.), was combined with nagural quitrent.

With the death of Vladimir Monomakh in 1125. The decline of Kievan Rus began, which was accompanied by its disintegration into separate states-principalities. Even earlier, the Lyubech Congress of Princes in 1097 established: “...let each one maintain his fatherland” - this meant that each prince became the full owner of his hereditary principality.

The collapse of the Kyiv state into small fiefdoms, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, was caused by the existing order of succession to the throne. The princely throne was passed not from father to son, but from the older brother to the middle and younger. This gave rise to strife within the family and a struggle over the division of estates. External factors played a certain role: raids by nomads devastated the southern Russian lands and interrupted the trade route along the Dnieper.

As a result of the decline of Kiev, the Galician-Volyn principality rose in southern and southwestern Rus', in the northeastern part of Rus' - the Rostov-Suzdal (later Vladimir-Suzdal) principality, and in northwestern Rus' - the Novgorod Boyar Republic, from which in the 13th century century the Pskov land was allocated.

All these principalities, with the exception of Novgorod and Pskov, inherited the political system of Kievan Rus. They were led by princes, supported by their squads. The Orthodox clergy had great political influence in the principalities.

The political system in Novgorod and Pskov developed in a special way. The highest power there belonged not to the prince, but to the veche, which consisted of the city aristocracy, large landowners, wealthy merchants and the clergy. The veche, at its discretion, invited the prince, whose functions were limited only to leading the city militia - and then under the control of the council of gentlemen and the mayor (the highest official, the de facto head of the boyar republic). The permanent opponents of the Novgorodians were the Swedes and Livonian Germans, who repeatedly tried to subjugate Novgorod. But in 1240 and 1242. They suffered a crushing defeat from Prince Alexander Yaroslavich, who received the nickname Nevsky for his victory over the Swedes on the Neva River.

A special situation has developed in Kyiv. On the one hand, he became first among equals. Soon, some Russian lands caught up and even ahead of him in their development. On the other hand, Kyiv remained an “apple of discord” (they joked that there was not a single prince in Rus' who did not want to “sit” in Kyiv). Kyiv was “conquered,” for example, by Yuri Dolgoruky, the Vladimir-Suzdal prince; in 1154 he achieved the Kyiv throne and sat on it until 1157. His son Andrei Bogolyubsky also sent regiments to Kyiv, etc. Under such conditions, the Kiev boyars introduced a curious system of “duumvirate” (co-government), which lasted throughout the second half of the 12th century. The meaning of this original measure was as follows: at the same time, representatives of two warring branches were invited to the Kyiv land (an agreement was concluded with them - a “row”); Thus, relative balance was established and strife was partially eliminated. One of the princes lived in Kyiv, the other in Belgorod (or Vyshgorod). They went on military campaigns together and conducted diplomatic correspondence in concert. So, the duumvirs-co-rulers were Izyaslav Mstislavich and his uncle, Vyacheslav Vladimirovich; Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich and Rurik Mstislavich.

Already in the middle of the 12th century. the power of the Kiev princes began to have real significance only within the boundaries of the Kiev principality itself, which included lands along the banks of the tributaries of the Dnieper - Teterev, Irpen and semi-autonomous Porosye, populated by the Black Hoods, vassals from Kiev. The attempt of Yaropolk, who became the prince of Kyiv after the death of Mstislav I, to autocratically dispose of the “fatherland” of other princes was decisively stopped.
Despite the loss of Kiev's all-Russian significance, the struggle for its possession continued until the Mongol invasion. There was no order in the inheritance of the Kyiv throne, and it passed from hand to hand depending on the balance of power of the fighting princely groups and, to a large extent, on the attitude towards them on the part of the powerful Kiev boyars and the “Black Klobuks”. In the conditions of the all-Russian struggle for Kyiv, the local boyars sought to end the strife and to political stabilization in their principality. The invitation by the boyars in 1113 of Vladimir Monomakh to Kyiv (bypassing the then accepted order of succession) was a precedent that was later used by the boyars to justify their “right” to choose a strong and pleasing prince and to conclude a “row” with him that protected them territorially. corporate interests. The boyars who violated this series of princes were eliminated by going over to the side of his rivals or through a conspiracy (as, perhaps, Yuri Dolgoruky was poisoned, overthrown, and then killed in 1147 during popular uprising Igor Olgovich Chernigovsky, unpopular among Kiev residents). As more and more princes were drawn into the struggle for Kiev, the Kyiv boyars resorted to a kind of system of princely duumvirate, inviting representatives from two of several rival princely groups to Kiev as co-rulers, which for some time achieved the relative political balance much needed by the Kyiv land.
As Kiev loses its all-Russian significance, individual rulers of the strongest principalities, who have become “great” in their lands, begin to be satisfied by the installation of their proteges in Kyiv - “henchmen”.
Princely strife over Kyiv turned the Kyiv land into an arena of frequent military operations, during which cities and villages were ruined, and the population was taken prisoner. Kyiv itself was subjected to brutal pogroms, both from the princes who entered it as victors and those who left it as defeated and returned to their “fatherland.” All this predetermined the development that emerged from the beginning of the 13th century. the gradual decline of the Kyiv land, the flow of its population to the northern and northwestern regions of the country, which suffered less from princely strife and were virtually inaccessible to the Polovtsians. Periods of temporary strengthening of Kiev during the reign of such outstanding political figures and organizers of the fight against the Polovtsians as Svyatoslav Vsevolodich of Chernigov (1180-1194) and Roman Mstislavich of Volyn (1202 - 1205) alternated with the reign of colorless, kaleidoscopically successive princes. Daniil Romanovich Galitsky, into whose hands Kyiv passed shortly before Batu’s capture of it, had already limited himself to appointing his mayor from the boyars.

Vladimir-Suzdal Principality

Until the middle of the 11th century. The Rostov-Suzdal land was governed by mayors sent from Kyiv. Its real “princeship” began after it went to the younger “Yaroslavich” - Vsevolod of Pereyaslavl - and was assigned to his descendants as their ancestral “volost” in the XII-XIII centuries. The Rostov-Suzdal land experienced an economic and political upsurge, which put it among the strongest principalities in Rus'. The fertile lands of the Suzdal “Opolye”, vast forests cut through by a dense network of rivers and lakes along which ancient and important trade routes to the south and east ran, the presence of iron ores accessible for mining - all this favored the development of agriculture, cattle breeding, rural and forestry industries , crafts and trade. In accelerating the economic development and political rise of this forest region, the rapid growth of its population at the expense of the inhabitants of the southern Russian lands, subjected to Polovtsian raids, was of great importance. In the 11th-12th centuries, a large princely and boyar (and then ecclesiastical) state was formed and strengthened here. land ownership, absorbing communal lands and involving peasants in personal feudal dependence In the 12th - 13th centuries, almost all the main cities of this land arose (Vladimir, Pereyaslavl-Zalesskiy, Dmitrov, Starodub, Gorodets, Galich, Kostroma, Tver, Nizhny Novgorod etc.), built by the Suzdal princes on the borders and within the principality as strongholds of fortress and administrative points and equipped with trade and craft settlements, the population of which was actively involved in political life. In 1147, the chronicle first mentioned Moscow, a small border town built by Yuri Dolgoruky on the site of the estate of the boyar Kuchka, which he had confiscated.
In the early 30s of the 12th century, during the reign of Monomakh’s son Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky (1125-1157), the Rostov-Suzdal land gained independence. The military-political activity of Yuri, who intervened in all the princely strife, stretched out his “long hands” to cities and lands far from his principality, made him one of the central figures in political life Rus' of the second third of the 11th century. The struggle with Novgorod and the war with Volga Bulgaria, begun by Yuri and continued by his successors, marked the beginning of the expansion of the borders of the principality towards the Podvina region and the Volga-Kama lands. Ryazan and Murom, which had previously been “pulling” towards Chernigov, fell under the influence of the Suzdal princes.
The last ten years of Dolgoruky’s life were spent in a grueling and alien to the interests of his principality struggle with the southern Russian princes for Kyiv, the reign of which, in the eyes of Yuri and the princes of his generation, was combined with “eldership” in Rus'. But already the son of Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky, having captured Kiev in 1169 and brutally robbed it, handed it over to the management of one of his vassal princes, “helpers”, which indicated a change on the part of the most far-sighted princes in their attitude towards Kyiv, which had lost its significance all-Russian political center.
The reign of Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky (1157 - 1174) was marked by the beginning of the struggle of the Suzdal princes for the political hegemony of their principality over the rest of the Russian lands. The ambitious attempts of Bogolyubsky, who claimed the title of Grand Duke of all Rus', to completely subjugate Novgorod and force other princes to recognize his supremacy in Rus' failed. However, it was precisely these attempts that reflected the tendency to restore the state-political unity of the country based on the subordination of appanage princes to the autocratic ruler of one of the strongest principalities in Rus'.
The reign of Andrei Bogolyubsky is associated with the revival of the traditions of the power politics of Vladimir Monomakh. Relying on the support of the townspeople and noble warriors, Andrei dealt harshly with the rebellious boyars, expelled them from the principality, and confiscated their estates. To be even more independent from the boyars, he moved the capital of the principality from a relatively new city - Vladimir-on-Klyazma, which had a significant trade and craft settlement. It was not possible to completely suppress the boyar opposition to the “autocratic” prince, as Andrei was called by his contemporaries. In June 1174 he was killed by conspiratorial boyars.
The two-year strife, unleashed after the murder of Bogolyubsky by the boyars, ended with the reign of his brother Vsevolod Yuryevich the Big Nest (1176-1212), who, relying on the townspeople and the squads of feudal lords, dealt harshly with the rebellious nobility and became the sovereign ruler in his land. During his reign, the Vladimir-Suzdal land reached its greatest prosperity and power, playing a decisive role in the political life of Rus' at the end of the 12th - beginning of the 13th century. Extending his influence to other Russian lands, Vsevolod skillfully combined the force of arms (as, for example, in relation to the Ryazan princes) with skillful politics (in relations with the southern Russian princes and Novgorod). The name and power of Vsevolod were well known far beyond the borders of Rus'. The author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” proudly wrote about him as the most powerful prince in Rus', whose numerous regiments could sprinkle the Volga with oars, and with their helmets draw water from the Don, from whose very name “all countries trembled” and with rumors about which “the world was full of the whole earth."
After the death of Vsevolod, an intensive process of feudal fragmentation began in the Vladimir-Suzdal land. The quarrels of Vsevolod's numerous sons over the grand-ducal table and the distribution of principalities led to a gradual weakening of the grand-ducal power and its political influence on other Russian lands. Nevertheless, until the invasion of the Mongols, the Vladimir-Suzdal land remained the strongest and most influential principality in Rus', maintaining political unity under the leadership of the Vladimir Grand Duke. When planning a campaign of conquest against Rus', the Mongol-Tatars linked the result of the surprise and power of their first strike with the success of the entire campaign as a whole. And it is no coincidence that North-Eastern Rus' was chosen as the target of the first strike.

Chernigov and Smolensk principalities

These two large Dnieper principalities had economic and political system has much in common with other southern Russian principalities, which were ancient centers of culture Eastern Slavs. Here already in the 9th -11th centuries. large princely and boyar land ownership developed, cities grew rapidly, becoming centers of handicraft production, serving not only the nearby rural districts, but also having developed external Relations. The Smolensk Principality had extensive trade relations, especially with the West, where the upper reaches of the Volga, Dnieper and Western Dvina converged - the most important trade routes of Eastern Europe.
The separation of Chernigov land into an independent principality occurred in the second half of the 11th century. in connection with its transfer (together with the Murom-Ryazan land) to the son of Yaroslav the Wise Svyatoslav, to whose descendants it was assigned. Back at the end of the 11th century. The ancient ties between Chernigov and Tmutarakan, which was cut off by the Polovtsians from the rest of the Russian lands and fell under the sovereignty of Byzantium, were interrupted. At the end of the 40s of the 11th century. The Chernigov principality was divided into two principalities: Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversky. At the same time, the Murom-Ryazan land became isolated, falling under the influence of the Vladimir-Suzdal princes. The Smolensk land separated from Kyiv at the end of the 20s of the 12th century, when it went to the son of Mstislav I Rostislav. Under him and his descendants (“Rostislavichs”), the Smolensk principality expanded territorially and strengthened.
The central, connecting position of the Chernigov and Smolensk principalities among other Russian lands involved their princes in all the political events that took place in Rus' in the 12th-13th centuries, and above all in the struggle for their neighboring Kyiv. The Chernigov and Seversk princes showed particular political activity, indispensable participants (and often initiators) of all princely strife, unscrupulous in the means of fighting their opponents and more often than other princes resorted to an alliance with the Polovtsians, with whom they devastated the lands of their rivals. It is no coincidence that the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” called the founder of the dynasty of Chernigov princes Oleg Svyatoslavich “Gorislavich,” who was the first to “forge sedition with the sword” and “sow” the Russian land with strife.
The grand ducal power in the Chernigov and Smolensk lands was unable to overcome the forces of feudal decentralization (the zemstvo nobility and the rulers of small principalities), and as a result, these lands at the end of the 12th - first half of the 13th centuries. were fragmented into many small principalities, which only nominally recognized the sovereignty of the great princes.

Polotsk-Minsk land

The Polotsk-Minsk land showed early trends towards separation from Kyiv. Despite the unfavorable soil conditions for agriculture, the socio-economic development of the Polotsk land occurred at a high pace due to its favorable location at the crossroads of the most important trade routes along the Western Dvina, Neman and Berezina. Lively trade relations with the West and the Baltic neighboring tribes (Livs, Lats, Curonians, etc.), which were under the sovereignty of the Polotsk princes, contributed to the growth of cities with a significant and influential trade and craft stratum. A large feudal economy with developed agricultural industries, the products of which were exported abroad, also developed here early.
At the beginning of the 11th century. The Polotsk land went to the brother of Yaroslav the Wise, Izyaslav, whose descendants, relying on the support of the local nobility and townspeople, fought for the independence of their “fatherland” from Kyiv for more than a hundred years with varying success. The Polotsk land reached its greatest power in the second half of the 11th century. during the reign of Vseslav Bryachislavich (1044-1103), but in the 12th century. an intensive process of feudal fragmentation began in it. In the first half of the 13th century. it was already a conglomerate of small principalities that only nominally recognized the power of the Grand Duke of Polotsk. These principalities, weakened by internal strife, faced a difficult struggle (in alliance with neighboring and dependent Baltic tribes) with the German crusaders who invaded the Eastern Baltic. From the middle of the 12th century. The Polotsk land became the target of an offensive by the Lithuanian feudal lords.

Galicia-Volyn land

The Galician-Volyn land extended from the Carpathians and the Dniester-Danube Black Sea region in the south and southwest to the lands of the Lithuanian Yatvingian tribe and the Polotsk land in the north. In the west it bordered with Hungary and Poland, and in the east with the Kyiv land and the Polovtsian steppe. The Galicia-Volyn land was one of the most ancient centers of the arable farming culture of the Eastern Slavs. Fertile soils, mild climate, numerous rivers and forests, interspersed with steppe spaces, created favorable conditions for the development of agriculture, cattle breeding and various crafts, and at the same time the early development of feudal relations, large feudal princely and boyar land ownership. High level Craft production reached its peak, the separation of which from agriculture contributed to the growth of cities, which were more numerous here than in other Russian lands. The largest of them were Vladimir-Volynsky, Przemysl, Terebovl, Galich, Berestye, Kholm, Drogichin, etc. A significant part of the inhabitants of these cities were artisans and merchants. The second trade route from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea (Vistula-Western Bug-Dniester) and overland trade routes from Rus' to the countries of South-Eastern and Central Europe passed through the Galicia-Volyn land. The dependence of the Dniester-Danube lower land on Galich made it possible to control the European shipping trade route along the Danube with the East.
Galician land until the middle of the 12th century. was divided into several small principalities, which in 1141 were united by the Przemysl prince Vladimir Volodarevich, who moved his capital to Galich. The Principality of Galicia reached its greatest prosperity and power under his son Yaroslav Osmomysl (1153-1187) - a major statesman of that time, who highly raised the international prestige of his principality and successfully defended in his policy all-Russian interests in relations with Byzantium and the European states neighboring Russia. . The author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” dedicated the most pathetic lines to the military power and international authority of Yaroslav Osmomysl. After the death of Osmomysl, the Principality of Galicia became the arena of a long struggle between the princes and the oligarchic aspirations of the local boyars. Boyar land ownership in the Galician land was ahead of the princely land in its development and significantly exceeded the latter in size. The Galician “great boyars”, who owned huge estates with their own fortified castle cities and had numerous military servants-vassals, in the fight against the princes they disliked, resorted to conspiracies and rebellions, and entered into an alliance with the Hungarian and Polish feudal lords.
The Volyn land separated from Kyiv in the middle of the 12th century, securing itself as a ancestral “fatherland” for the descendants of the Kyiv Grand Duke Izyaslav Mstislavich. Unlike the neighboring Galician land, a large princely domain was formed early in Volyn. Boyar land ownership grew mainly due to princely grants to serving boyars, whose support allowed the Volyn princes to begin an active struggle to expand their “fatherland.” In 1199, the Volyn prince Roman Mstislavich managed to unite the Galician and Volyn lands for the first time, and with his occupation in 1203, Kyiv brought all of Southern and Southwestern Rus' under his rule - a territory equal to the large European states of that time. The reign of Roman Mstislavich was marked by the strengthening of the all-Russian and international position of the Galicia-Volyn region
lands, successes in the fight against the Polovtsians, the fight against the rebellious boyars, the rise of Western Russian cities, crafts and trade. Thus, the conditions were prepared for the flourishing of Southwestern Rus' during the reign of his son Daniil Romanovich.
The death of Roman Mstislavich in Poland in 1205 led to the temporary loss of the achieved political unity of Southwestern Rus' and to the weakening of princely power in it. All groups of the Galician boyars united in the struggle against the princely power, unleashing a devastating feudal war that lasted over 30 years.
The boyars entered into an agreement with the Hungarian and
Polish feudal lords who managed to take possession of the Galician land and part of Volyn. During these same years, an unprecedented case in Rus' occurred in the reign of boyar Vodrdislav Kormilich in Galich. The national liberation struggle against the Hungarian and Polish invaders, which ended in their defeat and expulsion, served as the basis for the restoration and strengthening of the positions of princely power. Relying on the support of cities, the service boyars and the nobility, Daniil Romanovich established himself in Volyn, and then, having occupied Galich in 1238, and Kyiv in 1240, he again united all of South-Western Rus' and the Kyiv land.

Novgorod feudal republic

A special political system, different from princely monarchies, developed in the 12th century. in Novgorod land, one of the most developed Russian lands. The ancient core of the Novgorod-Pskov land consisted of the lands between Ilmen and Lake Peipsi and along the banks of the Volkhov, Lovat, Velikaya, Mologa and Msta rivers, which were divided territorially and geographically into “pyatitins”, and
in administrative terms - “hundreds” and “cemeteries”. The Novgorod “suburbs” (Pskov, Ladoga, Staraya Russa, Velikiye Luki, Bezhichi, Yuryev, Torzhok) served as important trading posts on trade routes and military strongholds on the borders of the land. The largest suburb, which occupied a special, autonomous position in the system of the Novgorod Republic (the “younger brother” of Novgorod), was Pskov, distinguished by its developed crafts and its own trade with the Baltic states, German cities and even with Novgorod itself. In the second half of the 13th century. Pskov actually became an independent feudal republic.
From the 11th century active Novgorod colonization of Karelia, the Podvina region, the Onega region and the vast northern Pomerania began, which became Novgorod colonies. Following the peasant colonization (from the Novgorod and Rostov-Suzdal lands) and the Novgorod trade and fishing people, the Novgorod feudal lords also moved there. In the XII - XIII centuries. there already were the largest patrimonial estates of the Novgorod nobility, who jealously did not allow feudal lords from other principalities to enter these areas and create princely land ownership there.
In the 12th century. Novgorod was one of the largest and most developed cities in Rus'. The rise of Novgorod was facilitated by its exceptionally advantageous location at the beginning of trade routes important for Eastern Europe, connecting the Baltic Sea with the Black and Caspian Seas. This predetermined a significant share of intermediary trade in Novgorod’s trade relations with other Russian lands, with Volga Bulgaria, the Caspian and Black Sea regions, the Baltic states, Scandinavia and North German cities. Trade in Novgorod was based on crafts and various trades developed in the Novgorod land. Novgorod artisans, distinguished by their wide specialization and professional skills, worked mainly to order, but some of their products came to the city market, and through merchant buyers to foreign markets. Craftsmen and merchants had their own territorial (“Ulichansky”) and professional associations (“hundreds”, “brotherhood”), which played a significant role in the political life of Novgorod. The most influential, uniting the top of the Novgorod merchants, was the association of merchants-women (“Ivanskoye Sto”), who were mainly engaged in foreign trade. The Novgorod boyars also actively participated in foreign trade, virtually monopolizing the most profitable fur trade, which they received from their possessions in the Podvina and Pomerania and from the trade and fishing expeditions they specially equipped to the Pechersk and Ugra lands.
Despite the predominance of the trade and craft population in Novgorod, the basis of the economy of the Novgorod land was agriculture and related crafts. Due to unfavorable natural conditions grain farming was unproductive and bread constituted a significant part of Novgorod imports. Grain reserves in the estates were created at the expense of food rent collected from smerds and were used by feudal lords for speculation in frequent lean years of famine, to entangle the working people in usurious bondage. In a number of areas, peasants, in addition to ordinary rural crafts, were engaged in the extraction of iron ore and salt.
In the Novgorod land, large boyar and then church land ownership arose early and became dominant. The specificity of the position of the princes in Novgorod, sent from Kyiv as prince-deputies, which excluded the possibility of Novgorod turning into a principality, did not contribute to the formation of a large princely domain, thereby weakening the position of the princely authorities in the fight against the oligarchic aspirations of the local boyars. Already the end! V. the Novgorod nobility largely predetermined the candidacies of the princes sent from Kyiv. Thus, in 1102, the boyars refused to accept the son of the Kyiv Grand Duke Svyatopolk into Novgorod, declaring with a threat to the latter: “if your son had two heads, then they ate him.”
In 1136, the rebels of Novgorod, supported by the Pskovians and Ladoga residents, expelled Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich, accusing him of “neglecting” the interests of Novgorod. In the Novgorod land, freed from the rule of Kyiv, a unique political system was established, in which republican governing bodies stood next to and above the princely power. However, the Novgorod feudal lords needed the prince and his squad to fight the anti-feudal protests of the masses and to protect Novgorod from external danger. In the first time after the uprising of 1136, the scope of the rights and activities of the princely power did not change, but they acquired a service-executive character, were subject to regulation and were placed under the control of the mayor (primarily in the field of court, which the prince began to administer together with the mayor). As the political system in Novgorod acquired an increasingly pronounced boyar-oligarchic character, the rights and sphere of activity of the princely power were steadily reduced.
The lowest level of organization and management in Novgorod was the unification of neighbors - “ulichans” with elected elders at their head. Five urban “ends” formed self-governing territorial-administrative and political units, which also had special Konchan lands in collective feudal ownership. At the ends, their own veche gathered and elected Konchan elders.
The highest authority, representing all ends, was considered the city veche meeting of free citizens, owners of city yards and estates. The bulk of the urban plebs, who lived on the lands and estates of feudal lords as tenants or enslaved and feudal-dependent people, were not authorized to participate in the passing of veche sentences, but thanks to the publicity of the veche, which gathered on Sophia Square or Yaroslav's Courtyard, they could follow the progress of veche debates and with its violent reaction often exerted a certain amount of pressure on the eternalists. The veche considered the most important issues of internal and foreign policy, invited the prince and entered into a series with him, elected the mayor, who was in charge of administration and court and controlled the activities of the prince, and the thousand, who headed the militia and the court for trade matters, which was of particular importance in Novgorod.
Throughout the history of the Novgorod Republic, the positions of posadnik, Konchan elders and tysyatsky were occupied only by representatives of 30 - 40 boyar families - the elite of the Novgorod nobility (“300 golden belts”).
In order to further strengthen the independence of Novgorod from Kyiv and transform the Novgorod bishopric from an ally of the princely power into one of the instruments of its political domination, the Novgorod nobility managed to achieve the election (since 1156) of the Novgorod bishop, who, as the head of the powerful church feudal hierarchy, became soon one of the first dignitaries of the republic.
The veche system in Novgorod and Pskov was a kind of Feudal “democracy”, one of the forms of the feudal state, in which the democratic principles of representation and election of officials at the veche created the illusion of “democracy”, the participation of “the whole of Novgovgorod in governance, but where in reality all the power was concentrated in the hands of the boyars and the privileged elite of the merchant class. Taking into account the political activity of the urban plebs, the boyars skillfully used the democratic traditions of Konchan self-government as a symbol of Novgorod freedom, which covered their political dominance and provided them with the support of the urban plebs in the fight against the princely power.
Political history of Novgorod in the XII - XIII centuries. was distinguished by the complex interweaving of the struggle for independence with anti-feudal protests of the masses and the struggle for power between boyar groups (representing the boyar families of the Sofia and Trade sides of the city, its ends and streets). The boyars often used anti-feudal protests of the urban poor to eliminate their rivals from power, dulling the anti-feudal nature of these protests to the point of reprisals against individual boyars or officials. The largest anti-feudal movement was the uprising in 1207 against the mayor Dmitry Miroshkinich and his relatives, who burdened the urban people and peasants with arbitrary exactions and usurious bondage. The rebels destroyed the city estates and villages of the Miroshkinichs and seized their debt bonds. The boyars, hostile to the Miroshkinichs, took advantage of the uprising to remove them from power.
Novgorod had to wage a stubborn struggle for its independence with neighboring princes who sought to subjugate the rich “free” city. The Novgorod boyars skillfully used the rivalry between the princes to choose strong allies among them. At the same time, rival boyar groups drew the rulers of neighboring principalities into their struggle. The most difficult thing for Novgorod was the struggle with the Suzdal princes, who enjoyed the support of an influential group of Novgorod boyars and merchants connected by trade interests with North-Eastern Russia. An important weapon of political pressure on Novgorod in the hands of the Suzdal princes was the cessation of the supply of grain from North-Eastern Rus'. The positions of the Suzdal princes in Novgorod were significantly strengthened when their military assistance to the Novgorodians and Pskovians became decisive in repelling the aggression of the German Crusaders and Swedish feudal lords who sought to seize the western and northern Novgorod territories.

PRINCIPALITY OF KIEV, ancient Russian principality in the 2nd third of the 12th century - 1470. Capital - Kyiv. Formed during the process of decay Old Russian state. Initially, the Principality of Kiev, in addition to its main territory, included Pogorina (Pogorynye; lands along the Goryn River) and Beresteyskaya volost (center - the city of Berestye, now Brest). In the Principality of Kiev there were about 90 cities, in many of them separate princely tables existed in different periods: in Belgorod of Kiev, Berestye, Vasilyev (now Vasilkov), Vyshgorod, Dorogobuzh, Dorogichin (now Drokhichin), Ovruch, Gorodets-Ostersky (now Oster ), Peresopnytsia, Torchesk, Trepol, etc. A number of fortified cities defended Kiev from Polovtsian raids along the right bank of the Dnieper River and from the south along the Stugna and Ros rivers; Vyshgorod and Belgorod of Kiev defended the capital of the Kyiv principality from the north and west. On the southern borders of the Kyiv principality, in Porosye, nomads who served the Kyiv princes - black hoods - settled.

Economy. The basis for the economic development of the Kyiv principality was arable farming (mainly in the form of two-field and three-field), with agriculture The population of the cities was also closely connected. The main grain crops grown on the territory of the Principality of Kyiv were rye, wheat, barley, oats, millet and buckwheat; from legumes - peas, vetch, lentils and beans; Industrial crops include flax, hemp and camelina. Cattle breeding and poultry farming also developed: cows, sheep, goats and pigs were bred in the Kiev principality; chickens, geese and ducks. Vegetable gardening and horticulture have become quite widespread. The most common trade in the Principality of Kiev was fishing. Due to constant inter-princely conflicts and the increase in Polovtsian raids, from the middle (and especially from the last third) of the 12th century, a gradual outflow of the rural population from the Kiev principality (for example, from Porosye), primarily to North-Eastern Rus', the Ryazan and Murom principalities began.

Most of the cities of the Kyiv principality were major centers of crafts until the end of the 1230s; Almost the entire range of ancient Russian handicrafts was produced on its territory. Pottery, foundry (production of copper encolpion crosses, icons, etc.), enamel, bone-carving, woodworking and stone-working industries, and the art of the mob have reached a high level of development. Until the mid-13th century, Kyiv was the only center of glassmaking in Rus' (dishes, window glass, jewelry, mainly beads and bracelets). In some cities of the Kyiv principality, production was based on the use of local minerals: for example, in the city of Ovruch - the extraction and processing of natural red (pink) slate, the production of slate whorls; in the city of Gorodesk - iron production, etc.

The largest trade routes passed through the territory of the Kiev principality, connecting it both with other Russian principalities and with foreign countries, including the Dnieper section of the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks”, the land roads Kyiv - Galich - Krakow - Prague - Regensburg; Kyiv - Lutsk - Vladimir-Volynsky - Lublin; Salt and Zalozny paths.

The struggle of ancient Russian princes for dynastic eldership. The main feature of the political development of the Kyiv principality in the 12th - 1st third of the 13th century is the absence in it, unlike other ancient Russian principalities, of its own princely dynasty. Despite the collapse of the Old Russian state, the Russian princes, until 1169, continued to consider Kyiv as a kind of “oldest” city, and its possession as receiving dynastic eldership, which led to an intensification of the inter-princely struggle for the Principality of Kiev. Often the closest relatives and allies of the Kyiv princes received separate cities and volosts in the territory of the Kyiv principality. Throughout the 1130-1150s, the decisive role in this struggle was played by two groups of Monomakhovichs (Vladimirovichs - the children of Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh; Mstislavichs - the children of Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich the Great) and Svyatoslavichs (descendants of the Chernigov and Kiev prince Svyatoslav Yaroslavich). After the death of the Kyiv prince Mstislav Vladimirovich (1132), the Kiev table was occupied by his younger brother Yaropolk Vladimirovich without any difficulties. However, Yaropolk’s attempts to implement some provisions of the will of Vladimir Monomakh (transferring the sons of Mstislav the Great to the princely tables closest to Kiev, so that later, after the death of Yaropolk, they would inherit the Kiev table) caused serious opposition from the younger Vladimirovichs, in particular Prince Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky. The Chernigov Svyatoslavichs took advantage of the weakening of the internal unity of the Monomakhovichs and actively intervened in the inter-princely struggle in the 1130s. As a result of these troubles, Yaropolk's successor on the Kiev throne, Vyacheslav Vladimirovich, lasted in Kiev for less than two weeks (22.2-4.3.1139), after which he was expelled from the Kiev principality by the Chernigov prince Vsevolod Olgovich, who, in violation of the agreements of the Lyubech Congress of 1097, deprived the Chernigov princes of the right inherit the Kiev table, not only managed to occupy and hold the Kiev table until his death (1146), but also took steps to secure the inheritance of the Kiev principality to the Chernigov Olgovichs. In 1142 and 1146-57, the Principality of Kyiv included the Principality of Turov.

In the mid-1140s - early 1170s, the role of the Kyiv Council, which discussed almost everything, intensified key issues political life of the Kyiv principality and often determined the fate of the Kyiv princes or contenders for the Kiev throne. After the death of Vsevolod Olgovich, his brother Igor Olgovich (August 2-13, 1146) briefly reigned in the Kiev principality, who was defeated in a battle near Kyiv by the Pereyaslavl prince Izyaslav Mstislavich. The 2nd half of the 1140s - mid-1150s - the time of open confrontation between Izyaslav Mstislavich and Yuri Dolgoruky in the struggle for the Principality of Kiev. It was accompanied by various innovations, including in the political life of the Kyiv principality. So, essentially for the first time, both princes (especially Yuri Dolgoruky) practiced the creation of numerous princely tables within the Kyiv principality (under Yuri Dolgoruky, they were occupied by his sons). Izyaslav Mstislavich in 1151 agreed to recognize the eldership of his uncle, Vyacheslav Vladimirovich, in order to create a “duumvirate” with him to legitimize his own power in the Principality of Kiev. The victory of Izyaslav Mstislavich in the Battle of Rut in 1151 actually meant his victory in the struggle for the Principality of Kiev. A new aggravation of the struggle for the Kiev principality occurred after the death of Izyaslav Mstislavich (on the night of November 13 to 14, 1154) and Vyacheslav Vladimirovich (December 1154) and ended with the reign of Yuri Dolgoruky (1155-57) in Kyiv. The death of the latter changed the balance of power during the struggle for the Kiev table among the Monomakhovichs. All the Vladimirovichs died, the Mstislavichs remained only two (Smolensk prince Rostislav Mstislavich and his younger half-brother Vladimir Mstislavich, who did not play a significant political role), in North-Eastern Rus' the position of Prince Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky strengthened, coalitions of sons (later - descendants in the following generations) Izyaslav Mstislavich - Volyn Izyaslavichs and sons (later - descendants in subsequent generations) Rostislav Mstislavich - Smolensk Rostislavichs.

During the short second reign of the Chernigov prince Izyaslav Davidovich (1157-1158), the Principality of Turov was separated from the Kyiv principality, power in which was seized by Prince Yuri Yaroslavich - who had previously been in the service of Yuri Dolgoruky (grandson of the Vladimir-Volyn prince Yaropolk Izyaslavich). Probably at the same time, the Beresteyskaya volost finally transferred from the Principality of Kyiv to the Principality of Vladimir-Volyn. Already in December 1158, the Monomakhovichs regained the Principality of Kiev. Rostislav Mstislavich, Prince of Kiev from 12.4.1159 to 8.2.1161 and from 6.3.1161 to 14.3.1167, sought to restore the former prestige and respect for the power of the Kyiv prince and largely achieved his goal. Under his control and the power of his sons in 1161-67 were, in addition to the Principality of Kyiv, the Principality of Smolensk and the Novgorod Republic; Rostislav's allies and vassals were the princes of Vladimir-Volynsky, Lutsk, Galich, Pereyaslavl; The suzerainty of the Rostislavichs extended to the Polotsk and Vitebsk principalities. The eldership of Rostislav Mstislavich was also recognized by the Vladimir prince Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky. The closest relatives and allies of Rostislav Mstislavich received new holdings on the territory of the Kyiv principality.

With the death of Rostislav Mstislavich, among the contenders for the Principality of Kiev, there was no prince left who would enjoy the same authority among relatives and vassals. In this regard, the position and status of the Kyiv prince changed: during 1167-74 he almost always found himself a hostage in the struggle of certain princely groups or individual princes, who relied on the support of the residents of Kiev or the population of some lands of the Kyiv principality (for example, Porosye or Pogorynya) . At the same time, the death of Rostislav Mstislavich made Vladimir Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky the oldest among the descendants of Vladimir Monomakh (the youngest son of Mstislav the Great, Prince Vladimir Mstislavich, was not a serious political figure and was younger than his cousin). The campaign against the Principality of Kiev in 1169 by the troops of the coalition created by Andrei Bogolyubsky ended in a three-day defeat of Kyiv (12-15.3.1169). The capture of Kiev by the forces of Andrei Bogolyubsky and the fact that he himself did not occupy the Kiev table, but handed it over to his younger brother Gleb Yuryevich (1169-70, 1170-71), marked a change in the political status of the Kiev principality. Firstly, now eldership, at least for the Vladimir princes, it was no longer associated with the occupation of the Kiev table (starting from the fall of 1173, only one descendant of Yuri Dolgoruky occupied the Kiev table - Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich in 1236-38). Secondly, from the beginning of the 1170s, the role of the Kyiv Council in making key political decisions, including in determining candidates for the Kiev table, seriously decreased. After 1170, the main part of Pogoryn gradually entered the sphere of influence of the Vladimir-Volyn principality. The suzerainty of Andrei Bogolyubsky over the Kiev principality remained until 1173, when, after the conflict between the Rostislavichs and Andrei Bogolyubsky, the troops of the Vyshgorod prince David Rostislavich and the Belgorod prince Mstislav Rostislavich captured Kiev on March 24, 1173, and captured the governors of the Vladimir prince, Prince Yaro, who reigned here for 5 weeks regiment of Rostislavich and Prince Vsevolod Yurievich The Big Nest - and handed over the Kiev table to their brother - the Ovruch prince Rurik Rostislavich. The defeat of the troops of the new coalition sent to Kyiv by Andrei Bogolyubsky in the fall of 1173 meant the final liberation of the Kyiv principality from its influence.

The Principality of Kiev is the sphere of interests of the South Russian princes. For the princes of Southern Rus', the occupation of the Kyiv table continued to be associated with a kind of eldership until the mid-1230s (the only exception was the attempt of the Galician-Volyn prince Roman Mstislavich in 1201-05 to establish control over the Kiev principality, just as Andrei Bogolyubsky did in 1169-05). 73). The history of the Kyiv principality in 1174-1240 essentially represents a struggle for it (either subsiding or intensifying again) of two princely coalitions - the Rostislavichs and the Chernigov Olgovichs (the only exception was the period 1201-05). For many years, the key figure in this struggle was Rurik Rostislavich (Kiev prince in March - September 1173, 1180-81, 1194-1201, 1203-04, 1205-06, 1206-07, 1207-10). In 1181-94, a “duumvirate” of Prince Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich and Rurik Rostislavich operated in the Principality of Kiev: Svyatoslav received Kyiv and nominal eldership, but at the same time the entire rest of the territory of the Principality of Kyiv came under the rule of Rurik. The sharp increase in the political influence of the Vladimir prince Vsevolod the Big Nest forced the southern Russian princes to officially recognize his eldership (probably in 1194 at the congress of the Kyiv prince Rurik Rostislavich and the Smolensk prince David Rostislavich), but this did not change the rather independent position of the rulers of the Kyiv principality. At the same time, the problem of “communion” emerged - recognized as the oldest, Vsevolod the Big Nest in 1195 demanded a “part” for himself in the territory of the Kiev principality, which led to a conflict, since the cities that he wanted to receive (Torchesk, Korsun, Boguslavl, Trepol, Kanev ), the Kiev prince Rurik Rostislavich had previously transferred ownership to his son-in-law, the Vladimir-Volyn prince Roman Mstislavich. The Kiev prince took away the required cities from Roman Mstislavich, which led to the emergence of a conflict between them, which only worsened in the future (in particular, in 1196 the Vladimir-Volyn prince actually left his first wife - the daughter of Rurik Rostislavich Predslava) and largely determined the political fate of Kyiv principalities at the turn of the 12th-13th centuries. The conflict of interests of Roman Mstislavich (who united the Vladimir-Volyn and Galician principalities in 1199) and Rurik Rostislavich led to the overthrow of the latter and the appearance of Roman Mstislavich’s protege, the Lutsk prince Ingvar Yaroslavich (1201-02, 1204), on the Kiev table.

1-2.1.1203 the united troops of Rurik Rostislavich, the Chernigov Olgovichi and the Polovtsians subjected Kyiv to a new defeat. At the beginning of 1204, Roman Mstislavich forced Rurik Rostislavich, his wife and daughter Predslava (his ex-wife) to take monastic vows, and captured Rurik’s sons Rostislav Rurikovich and Vladimir Rurikovich and took them to Galich. However, soon, after diplomatic intervention in the situation by Rostislav Rurikovich’s father-in-law, the Vladimir prince Vsevolod the Big Nest, Roman Mstislavich had to transfer the Principality of Kiev to Rostislav (1204-05). The death of Roman Mstislavich in Poland (19.6.1205) made it possible for Rurik Rostislavich to once again begin the struggle for the Kiev table, now with the Chernigov prince Vsevolod Svyatoslavich Chermny (Kiev prince in 1206, 1207, 1210-12). During 1212-36, only the Rostislavichs ruled in the Kiev principality (Mstislav Romanovich the Old in 1212-23, Vladimir Rurikovich in 1223-35 and 1235-36, Izyaslav Mstislavich in 1235). In the 1st third of the 13th century, the “Bolokhov Land” became practically independent from the Principality of Kyiv, turning into a kind of buffer zone between the Principality of Kyiv, the Galician and Vladimir-Volyn principalities. In 1236, Vladimir Rurikovich ceded the Principality of Kiev to the Novgorod prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, probably in exchange for support in occupying the Smolensk throne.

The Mongol-Tatar invasion of North-Eastern Rus' (1237-38) led to the departure of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich from the Principality of Kyiv to Novgorod, and then to Vladimir. For the first time in 1212, a representative of the Chernigov Olgovichi, Mikhail Vsevolodovich, became the prince of Kyiv. After the capture of Pereyaslavl by the Mongols (3.3.1239), the arrival of Mongol ambassadors from Tsarevich Mongke in Kyiv and their murder, Mikhail Vsevolodovich fled to Hungary. According to indirect data from a number of chronicles, it can be assumed that his successor was his cousin Mstislav Glebovich, whose name is named first among the names three Russians princes (previously Vladimir Rurikovich and Daniil Romanovich), who signed a truce with the Mongols in the fall of 1239. However, Mstislav Glebovich soon, apparently, also left the Principality of Kiev and fled to Hungary. He was replaced by the son of Mstislav Romanovich the Old - Rostislav Mstislavich, who took the Kiev table, probably after the death of Vladimir Rurikovich in Smolensk. Rostislav Mstislavich had no real support in the Kiev principality and was easily captured by the Galician prince Daniil Romanovich, who left the thousand-year-old Dmitry in Kyiv in the face of the Mongol-Tatar threat to organize the defense. After a more than 10-week siege by the main forces of the Mongol-Tatars, Kyiv fell on November 19, 1240, most of the cities of the Kyiv principality were taken by storm or destroyed.

Principality of Kiev under the control of the Mongol-Tatars. The destruction and devastation of cities and lands on the territory of the Principality of Kyiv led to a strong political and economic crisis. According to the Nikon Chronicle (1520s), after the conquest of Kyiv and before continuing the campaign to the west, Batu left his governor in the city. Obviously, the appearance of Mongol authorities in Pereyaslavl and Kanev dates back to 1239-40, which Carpini described. One of their main functions at the first stage was the organization of yam service and the recruitment of warriors for campaigning against the countries Western Europe. Already in 1241, Prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich, who returned to Rus', was forced to live not at the princely court in Kyiv (obviously occupied by representatives of another government), but on one of the islands on the Dnieper River, and then return to Chernigov. In the 1240s, he tried to unite the efforts of the Principality of Kyiv, Hungary and the Roman Curia in the fight against the Golden Horde, Lithuania, Mazovia and the Galician prince Daniil Romanovich. The anti-Horde position of Mikhail Vsevolodovich alerted Batu, who in 1243 summoned Mikhail Vsevolodovich’s long-time political opponent, the Grand Duke of Vladimir Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, to the Horde and gave him a label for the Principality of Kiev and the entire “Russian Land”. Yaroslav Vsevolodovich did not personally rule in Kyiv, but sent his governor, boyar Dmitry Eykovich (1243-46), to the city. After the death of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich (1246) Mongol Empire his eldest sons, princes Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky and Andrei Yaroslavich, went. In 1248, the first of them received the right to the Principality of Kiev, and the second - to the Grand Duchy of Vladimir. This political act testified to the legal preservation of the eldership of the Kyiv principality in the system of ancient Russian principalities. However, Prince Alexander Yaroslavich's refusal to move from Novgorod to Kyiv and his enthronement in Vladimir (1252) led to a decline in the importance of the Kyiv principality. This was facilitated not only by the political and economic crisis, favorable conditions for the settlement of nomads on the southern borders of the Kiev principality, but also by the establishment here of a stricter system of Horde control, which had not yet been introduced in North-Eastern Rus', and the frequent presence there, and not in Kiev the principality of Metropolitan Kirill II(III). The Mongolian administration supported the desire of the princes of the “Bolokhov land” to get out of the control of Prince Daniil Romanovich, traces of the presence of its garrisons are known in the territory of some cities of Pogorynya, brodniks and black hoods, as well as a number of lands along the rivers Ros and Stugna. The unsuccessful plan to capture Kyiv (1254) and the defeat of Prince Daniil Romanovich in the fight against the Mongol noyon Burundai (1257-60) caused a new political crisis in the Principality of Kiev. In the 1260s, under the Temnik Nogai, the bulk of the black hoods were resettled to the Volga region and the North Caucasus. The Mongol authorities resettled the conquered Cumans to the liberated areas of the Kyiv principality. On the southern borders of the Kyiv principality, there was a gradual desolation of cities, even those that were not destroyed during the Mongol-Tatar invasion. In a number of cases, the fortifications of the border towns of the Kiev principality were burned and razed, and they themselves turned into rural-type settlements (for example, Vyshgorod, Chuchin, Ivan in Rzhishchev, Voin at the mouth of the Sula, as well as settlements located on the site of a settlement explored by archaeologists near the village of Komarovka on the Dnieper, settlements near the Polovetsky farm on Ros, etc.). Certain categories of residents of the Kyiv principality, primarily artisans, moved to other Russian principalities and lands (Novgorod, Smolensk, Galicia-Volyn lands, etc.).

Information about the political development of the Kyiv principality in the last third of the 13th century is associated exclusively with the activities of the Russian metropolitans Kirill II (III) and Maxim, who spent a lot of time here, and sometimes consecrated new bishops in Kyiv. The gradual restoration of the Principality of Kyiv was interrupted in the 1290s, during a fierce struggle for power in the Golden Horde between the Mongol princes and the influential temnik Nogai, to whom the Principality of Kiev was directly subordinate. This struggle caused attacks by the Horde (probably the troops of Khan Tokhta) on the territory of the Kyiv principality. Horde violence also led to the flight of Metropolitan Maxim, along with the entire clergy of St. Sophia Cathedral, from Kyiv to Vladimir (1299), after which, as stated in the Laurentian Chronicle (1377), “all of Kiev fled.”

In the 1st quarter of the 14th century, the Principality of Kiev was gradually revived (this is evidenced, in particular, by dated graffiti in the churches of Kyiv, starting from 1317). At the turn of the 1320s-30s, the younger brother of the Lithuanian prince Gediminas, Prince Fedor, reigned in the Kiev principality, who probably occupied the Kiev throne with the consent of the Horde. The institution of Baskaism was preserved in Kyiv. At the same time, the jurisdiction of Prince Fedor extended to part of the Chernigov principality, which indicates a change in the borders of the Kyiv principality in the 1st quarter of the 14th century. The reign of Prince Fedor in Kyiv apparently ended no later than the 1340s. The Horde took advantage of the weakening positions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) in the mid-1340s - early 1350s. The next Kyiv prince known from sources was Vladimir Ivanovich (died probably between 1359 and 1363), who came from the senior (Bryansk) line of the Chernigov Olgovich dynasty and was the great-grandson of the Kyiv and Chernigov prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich. It is possible that his claims were caused by the previous reign in the Kiev principality of his father, the Putivl prince Ivan Romanovich, who, like Vladimir himself, died at the hands of the Horde.

Principality of Kiev as part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania . The beginning of the “great turmoil” in the Horde (1359) weakened Horde control over the Kiev principality, and the death of Vladimir Ivanovich allowed the vacant Kiev table to be occupied by the representative of the Lithuanian Gediminovichs - Prince Vladimir Olgerdovich (no later than 1367-95) and entailed inclusion in the Kyiv principalities of escheat possessions of the senior branch of the Olgovichi in the territory of the Chernihiv and Putivl regions. The reign of the Grand Duke of Kyiv Vladimir Olgerdovich, despite the political dependence of the Kyiv principality on the Golden Horde, was characterized by a noticeable military-economic and cultural rise of the cities and lands of the Kyiv principality. In the mid-2nd half of the 14th century they finally entered the zone of interests of the rulers of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Vladimir Olgerdovich led large-scale construction and reconstruction in the cities of the Kyiv principality, mainly in Kyiv. With the help of the military forces of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Horde were gradually driven out beyond the Dnieper River, and defensive fortifications along the Sula River were recreated on the southeastern border of the Kyiv Principality. Apparently, already under Grand Duke Vladimir Olgerdovich, the Pereyaslav Principality (on the left bank of the Dnieper) was included in the Kyiv Principality. Vladimir Olgerdovich, like other Orthodox appanage Lithuanian princes - his contemporaries, began minting silver coins in Kyiv with his name (they were widely circulated in the territory of the Kyiv principality and the Chernigov principality, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). In the struggle for control over the Kyiv Metropolis, Vladimir Olgerdovich supported Cyprian, who in 1376-81 and 1382-90 was in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and often lived in Kyiv. In the winter of 1385, the daughter of Vladimir Olgerdovich married the 4th son of the Grand Duke of Tver Mikhail Alexandrovich - Prince Vasily Mikhailovich. After Jagiello ascended the royal throne in Poland under the name of Vladislav II Jagiello in 1386, Vladimir Olgerdovich recognized the power and suzerainty of his younger brother (in 1386, 1388 and 1389 he took an oath of allegiance to the king, his wife, Queen Jadwiga, and the Polish crown). In 1390 he supported Vladislav II Jagiello in the fight against Vytautas; Together with the Kyiv army, he took part in the siege of Grodno. In 1392, after Vytautas came to power in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Vladimir Olgerdovich refused to obey him, citing the fact that he had already sworn an oath of allegiance to Vladislav II Jagiello. Another reason for the conflict was the terms of the 1392 agreement between Vladislav II Jagiello and Vytautas, according to which the Principality of Kiev was to pass to Prince John-Skirgailo as compensation for the lands of North-Western Belarus and the Principality of Troki that he had lost. In 1393-94, Vladimir Olgerdovich supported the Novgorod-Seversk prince Dmitry-Koribut Olgerdovich and the Podolsk prince Fyodor Koryatovich in the fight against Vytautas. In the spring of 1394, Vytautas and the Polotsk prince John-Skirgailo captured the cities of Zhitomir and Ovruch in the northern part of the Kyiv principality and forced Vladimir Olgerdovich to negotiate. The princes made peace for 2 years, but already in 1395 Vladimir Olgerdovich lost the Principality of Kyiv, and his place was taken by Prince John-Skirgailo, who immediately had to besiege the cities of Zvenigorod and Cherkassy that did not submit to him. In 1397, the Grand Duke of Kiev John-Skirgailo was poisoned by the governor of Metropolitan Cyprian in Kyiv, Thomas (Izufov). Probably, after this, Vytautas essentially turned the Principality of Kiev into a governorate, which sharply reduced the status of the Principality of Kyiv among the Old Russian principalities subordinate to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. At the same time, the principality of Kiev retained the appanages of minor princes, whose role was largely determined by their service at the court of Vytautas (for example, the princes of Glinsky). The first governors of the Kyiv principality were Prince Ivan Borisovich (died in 1399), the son of the Podolian prince Boris Koryatovich, and Ivan Mikhailovich Golshansky (died after 1401), the son of the Lithuanian prince Mikhail Olgimont. In 1399, after the defeat of the troops of Vytautas and his allies in the Battle of Vorskla, the Principality of Kiev was attacked by the troops of the Horde rulers. Having ravaged the rural district, Khan Timur-Kutlug and Emir Edigei were satisfied with 1 thousand rubles from Kyiv and 30 rubles from the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery; in 1416 the Horde again raided the Principality of Kiev, ravaging the rural district of Kyiv and the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. According to the Belarusian-Lithuanian chronicles of the 1st third of the 16th century, I.M. Golshansky’s successors as governors of the Kyiv principality were his sons - Andrei (died no later than 1422) and Mikhail (died in 1433).

In 1440, Casimir Jagiellonczyk, who became the new Grand Duke of Lithuania (later the Polish king Casimir IV), went for a partial revival of the system of appanages in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, in particular, the Principality of Kiev received this status. The son of the Grand Duke of Kiev Vladimir Olgerdovich, Prince of Slutsk Alexander Olelko Vladimirovich, became the appanage prince of Kyiv. His reign was briefly interrupted in 1449 when Grand Duke Lithuanian Mikhail Sigismundovich, with the support of the Horde Khan Seid-Akhmed, captured the Principality of Kiev and the Seversk land. However, the joint actions of the troops of Casimir IV and the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily II Vasilyevich the Dark led to the defeat of Mikhail Sigismundovich and the return of Prince Alexander Olelko Vladimirovich to Kyiv. In 1455, after his death, the Principality of Kiev was inherited by his eldest son Semyon Alexandrovich.

Some increase in the status of the Kyiv principality within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania contributed to the strengthening of the role of the Kyiv boyars within the Kiev principality, where the Kyiv princes continued the policy of distributing large and small estates to the princes and boyars who were members of their rada, as well as to smaller boyars and servants. For large boyars who were not members of the rada, the system of annual feeding continued to operate. The boyars took part in the collection and distribution of taxes collected in the Principality of Kiev, and also sometimes received salaries and lands from the Grand Duke of Lithuania, who was considered the ruler of the Principality of Kyiv. In the 1450-60s, relations between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Crimean Khanate were normalized; Khan Hadji Giray I gave Casimir IV a label for the possession of the Principality of Kyiv and other lands of Western and Southern Rus'.

After strengthening his position in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland, victory in the war with the Teutonic Order, Casimir IV, taking advantage of the death of Prince Semyon Alexandrovich in 1470 and the absence of his brother Mikhail in Kiev (in 1470-71 reigned in Novgorod), liquidated the Principality of Kiev and transformed it into a voivodeship , while in 1471 Casimir IV, with a special privilege, secured a certain autonomy of the Kiev region as part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Lit.: Lyubavsky M.K. Regional division and local government of the Lithuanian-Russian state at the time of publication of the first Lithuanian statute. M., 1893; Klepatsky P. G. Essays on the history of the Kyiv land. Od., 1912. T. 1; Nasonov A. N. Mongols and Rus'. M.; L., 1940; Rybakov B. A. Craft of Ancient Rus'. M., 1948; Dovzhenok V. I. Agriculture of Ancient Pyci until the middle of the 13th century. Kiev, 1961; Umanskaya A. S. On the importance of birds in the economy of the ancient Russian population of the territory of Ukraine // Apxeologia. 1973. No. 10; Rapov O. M. Princely possessions in Rus' in the 10th - first half of the 13th century. M., 1977; Dovzhenok V. O. Middle Dnieper region after Tatar-Mongol invasion // Ancient Rus' and Slavs. M., 1978; Tolochko P. P. Kyiv and the Kiev land in the era feudal fragmentation XII-XIII centuries K., 1980; Pashkevich G. O., Petrashenko V. O. Agriculture and animal husbandry in the Middle Dnieper region in the VIII-X centuries. // Archaeology. 1982. No. 41; Pashuto V. T., Florya B. N., Khoroshkevich A. L. Old Russian heritage and historical destinies of the Eastern Slavs. M., 1982; Belyaeva S. A. South Russian lands in the second half of the XIII-XIV centuries. K., 1982; Rychka V.M. Formation of the territory of the Kyiv land (IX - first third of the 12th century). K., 1988; Stavisky V.I. On the analysis of news about Rus' in the “History of the Mongols” by Plano Carpini in the light of its archaeographic tradition // The most ancient states on the territory of the USSR: Materials and research. 1986 M., 1988; aka. “History of the Mongols” Plano Carpini and Russian chronicles // Ibid. 1990 M., 1991; Grushevsky M. S. Essay on the history of the Kyiv land from the death of Yaroslav to the end of the XIV century. K., 1991; Grushevsky M. S. History of Ukraine-Rus. Kiev, 1992-1993. T. 2-4; Gorsky A. A. Russian lands in the XIII-XIV centuries: Paths of political development. M., 1996; Rusina O. V. Ukraine under the Tatars and Lithuania // Ukraine crisis wiki. Kiev, 1998. T. 6; Ivakin G. Yu. Historical development Southern Rus' and Batya’s invasion // Rus' in the XIII century: Antiquities of the Dark Time. M., 2003; Pyatnov A.P. The struggle for the Kiev table in 1148-1151 // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Episode 8. History. 2003. No. 1; aka. Kyiv and the Kiev land in 1167-1169 // Ancient Rus': questions of medieval studies. 2003. No. 1; aka. Kyiv and the Kiev land in 1169-1173 // Collection of the Russian Historical Society. M., 2003. T. 7; aka. The Principality of Kiev in 1235-1240 // First open historical readings “Young Science”. M., 2003; Kuzmin A.V. Sources of the XVI-XVII centuries. about the origin of the Kyiv and Putivl prince Vladimir Ivanovich // Eastern Europe in antiquity and the Middle Ages: Problems of source study. M., 2005. Part 2.

A. V. Kuzmin, A. P. Pyatnov.