Ancient Rus' in the 10th century. Kievan Rus

“Old Russian State” - Svyatopolk the Accursed. Station "Historical Map". Saint Sophia Cathedral. Yaroslav the Wise. Rurik. Station "Names of Historical Figures". Station "Architectural Monuments". Prophetic Oleg. Historical facts. Duchess Olga. Princes Boris and Gleb. Station "Chronicle sayings". Svyatoslav Igorevich. Nicknames station.

“The period of formation of the Old Russian state” - State. Villages. Merchants. Notable warriors of Rurik. Tribes. Territories of the Northerners and Radimichi. Prerequisites for the creation of the Old Russian state. Trade. Formation of government centers. Rurik's calling. Kings. Formation of the Old Russian state. The glades paid tribute to the Khazars. The emergence of princely power.

“The problem of the formation of the Old Russian state” - Theory. The content of the activities of Russian princes. Formation of the Old Russian state. The need for protection from external enemies. Features of the Old Russian state. The first Varangian princes. The emergence of the state. East Slavs. Theories of origin. Internal political activities of the first princes.

“Formation of the Old Russian State” - Who is the prince? Formation of the Old Russian state. Name the main trading cities of the Slavs. What importance did trade play in the life of the Slavs? Who were called merchants? The reign of Rurik in Novgorod (862 – 879) The reign of Askold and Dir in Kyiv. What are the reasons for the emergence of local reigns among the Eastern Slavs?

“Education of the State of Rus'” - Formation of the State of Rus'. Creation of a single state. The army was led by the Slavic leaders Askold and Dir. Oleg's campaigns against Byzantium. Concepts: State, Norman theory. What significance did the activities of Prince Oleg have for the Old Russian state? Personalities: Rurik, Askold, Dir, Oleg. In 860, the Slavs, sailing on boats, occupied Constantinople.

“State of Kievan Rus” - Why are we destroying the Russian land, bringing quarrels upon ourselves. New feudal strife in Rus'. Clan (tribal community) is a group of relatives. “Everyone keeps his fatherland.” Rurik and his retinue (Sineus, Truvor) were invited to reign. Reasons for religious reforms. “Military democracy” is a stage of historical development.

There are 19 presentations in total

The ancestors of the Slavs - the Proto-Slavs - have long lived in Central and Eastern Europe. By language, they belong to the Indo-European group of peoples who inhabit Europe and part of Asia up to India. The first mentions of the Proto-Slavs date back to the 1st-2nd centuries. The Roman authors Tacitus, Pliny, Ptolemy called the ancestors of the Slavs Wends and believed that they inhabited the Vistula River basin. Later authors - Procopius of Caesarea and Jordan (VI century) divide the Slavs into three groups: the Sklavins, who lived between the Vistula and the Dniester, the Wends, who inhabited the Vistula basin, and the Antes, who settled between the Dniester and the Dnieper. It is the Ants who are considered the ancestors of the Eastern Slavs.
Detailed information about the settlement of the Eastern Slavs is given in his famous “Tale of Bygone Years” by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor, who lived at the beginning of the 12th century. In his chronicle, Nestor names about 13 tribes (scientists believe that these were tribal unions) and describes in detail their places of settlement.
Near Kyiv, on the right bank of the Dnieper, lived the Polyans, along the upper reaches of the Dnieper and Western Dvina lived the Krivichi, and along the banks of the Pripyat lived the Drevlyans. On the Dniester, Prut, in the lower reaches of the Dnieper and on the northern coast of the Black Sea lived the Ulichs and Tivertsy. To the north of them lived the Volynians. The Dregovichi settled from Pripyat to the Western Dvina. Northerners lived along the left bank of the Dnieper and along the Desna, and Radimichi lived along the Sozh River, a tributary of the Dnieper. The Ilmen Slovenes lived around Lake Ilmen.
The neighbors of the Eastern Slavs in the west were the Baltic peoples, the Western Slavs (Poles, Czechs), in the south - the Pechenegs and Khazars, in the east - the Volga Bulgarians and numerous Finno-Ugric tribes (Mordovians, Mari, Muroma).
The main occupations of the Slavs were agriculture, which, depending on the soil, was slash-and-burn or fallow, cattle breeding, hunting, fishing, beekeeping (collecting honey from wild bees).
In the 7th-8th centuries, due to the improvement of tools and the transition from fallow or fallow farming systems to two-field and three-field crop rotation systems, the Eastern Slavs experienced a decomposition of the clan system and an increase in property inequality.
The development of crafts and its separation from agriculture in the 8th-9th centuries led to the emergence of cities - centers of crafts and trade. Typically, cities arose at the confluence of two rivers or on a hill, since such a location made it possible to defend much better from enemies. The most ancient cities were often formed on the most important trade routes or at their intersections. The main trade route that passed through the lands of the Eastern Slavs was the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” from the Baltic Sea to Byzantium.
In the 8th - early 9th centuries, the Eastern Slavs developed a tribal and military nobility, and a military democracy was established. Leaders turn into tribal princes and surround themselves with a personal retinue. It stands out to know. The prince and the nobility seize the tribal land as a personal hereditary share and subordinate the former tribal governing bodies to their power.
By accumulating valuables, seizing lands and holdings, creating a powerful military squad organization, making campaigns to seize military booty, collecting tribute, trading and engaging in usury, the nobility of the Eastern Slavs turns into a force standing above society and subjugating previously free community members. Such was the process of class formation and the formation of early forms of statehood among the Eastern Slavs. This process gradually led to the formation of an early feudal state in Rus' at the end of the 9th century.

The State of Rus' in the 9th - early 10th centuries

On the territory occupied by the Slavic tribes, two Russian state centers were formed: Kyiv and Novgorod, each of which controlled a certain part of the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.”
In 862, according to the Tale of Bygone Years, the Novgorodians, wanting to stop the internecine struggle that had begun, invited the Varangian princes to rule Novgorod. The Varangian prince Rurik, who arrived at the request of the Novgorodians, became the founder of the Russian princely dynasty.
The date of formation of the ancient Russian state is conventionally considered to be 882, when Prince Oleg, who seized power in Novgorod after the death of Rurik, undertook a campaign against Kyiv. Having killed Askold and Dir, the rulers there, he united the northern and southern lands into a single state.
The legend about the calling of the Varangian princes served as the basis for the creation of the so-called Norman theory of the emergence of the ancient Russian state. According to this theory, the Russians turned to the Normans (as they called
or immigrants from Scandinavia) in order for them to restore order on Russian soil. In response, three princes came to Rus': Rurik, Sineus and Truvor. After the death of the brothers, Rurik united the entire Novgorod land under his rule.
The basis for such a theory was the position rooted in the works of German historians that the Eastern Slavs had no prerequisites for the formation of a state.
Subsequent studies refuted this theory, since the determining factor in the process of formation of any state is objective internal conditions, without which it is impossible to create it by any external forces. On the other hand, the story about the foreign origin of power is quite typical for medieval chronicles and is found in the ancient histories of many European states.
After the unification of the Novgorod and Kyiv lands into a single early feudal state, the Kiev prince began to be called the “Grand Duke”. He ruled with the help of a council consisting of other princes and warriors. The collection of tribute was carried out by the Grand Duke himself with the help of the senior squad (the so-called boyars, men). The prince had a younger squad (gridi, youths). The oldest form of collecting tribute was “polyudye”. In late autumn, the prince traveled around the lands under his control, collecting tribute and administering justice. There was no clearly established norm for the delivery of tribute. The prince spent the entire winter traveling around the lands and collecting tribute. In the summer, the prince and his retinue usually went on military campaigns, subjugating the Slavic tribes and fighting with their neighbors.
Gradually, more and more of the princely warriors became land owners. They ran their own farms, exploiting the labor of the peasants they enslaved. Gradually, such warriors became stronger and could in the future resist the Grand Duke both with their own squads and with their economic strength.
The social and class structure of the early feudal state of Rus' was unclear. The class of feudal lords was varied in composition. These were the Grand Duke with his entourage, representatives of the senior squad, the prince’s inner circle - the boyars, local princes.
The dependent population included serfs (people who lost their freedom as a result of sale, debt, etc.), servants (those who lost their freedom as a result of captivity), purchases (peasants who received a “kupa” from the boyar - a loan of money, grain or draft power) etc. The bulk of the rural population were free community members-smerds. As their lands were seized, they turned into feudal dependent people.

Reign of Oleg

After the capture of Kyiv in 882, Oleg subjugated the Drevlyans, Northerners, Radimichi, Croats, and Tiverts. Oleg fought successfully with the Khazars. In 907 he besieged the capital of Byzantium, Constantinople, and in 911 he concluded a profitable trade agreement with it.

Reign of Igor

After Oleg's death, Rurik's son Igor became the Grand Duke of Kyiv. He subjugated the Eastern Slavs who lived between the Dniester and the Danube, fought with Constantinople, and was the first of the Russian princes to clash with the Pechenegs. In 945, he was killed in the land of the Drevlyans while trying to collect tribute from them a second time.

Princess Olga, reign of Svyatoslav

Igor's widow Olga brutally suppressed the Drevlyan uprising. But at the same time, she determined a fixed amount of tribute, organized places for collecting tribute - camps and graveyards. Thus, a new form of collecting tribute was established - the so-called “cart”. Olga visited Constantinople, where she converted to Christianity. She ruled during the childhood of her son Svyatoslav.
In 964, Svyatoslav came of age to rule Russia. Under him, until 969, the state was largely ruled by Princess Olga herself, since her son spent almost his entire life on campaigns. In 964-966. Svyatoslav liberated the Vyatichi from the power of the Khazars and subjugated them to Kyiv, defeated the Volga Bulgaria, the Khazar Kaganate and took the capital of the Kaganate, the city of Itil. In 967 he invaded Bulgaria and
settled at the mouth of the Danube, in Pereyaslavets, and in 971, in alliance with the Bulgarians and Hungarians, he began to fight with Byzantium. The war was unsuccessful for him, and he was forced to make peace with the Byzantine emperor. On the way back to Kyiv, Svyatoslav Igorevich died at the Dnieper rapids in a battle with the Pechenegs, who had been warned by the Byzantines about his return.

Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich

After the death of Svyatoslav, a struggle for rule in Kyiv began between his sons. Vladimir Svyatoslavovich emerged as the winner. By campaigning against the Vyatichi, Lithuanians, Radimichi, and Bulgarians, Vladimir strengthened the possessions of Kievan Rus. To organize defense against the Pechenegs, he established several defensive lines with a system of fortresses.
To strengthen the princely power, Vladimir attempted to transform folk pagan beliefs into a state religion and for this purpose established the cult of the main Slavic warrior god Perun in Kyiv and Novgorod. However, this attempt was unsuccessful, and he turned to Christianity. This religion was declared the only all-Russian religion. Vladimir himself converted to Christianity from Byzantium. The adoption of Christianity not only equalized Kievan Rus with neighboring states, but also had a huge impact on the culture, life and customs of ancient Rus'.

Yaroslav the Wise

After the death of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, a fierce struggle for power began between his sons, ending with the victory of Yaroslav Vladimirovich in 1019. Under him, Rus' became one of the strongest states in Europe. In 1036, Russian troops inflicted a major defeat on the Pechenegs, after which their raids on Rus' ceased.
Under Yaroslav Vladimirovich, nicknamed the Wise, a uniform judicial code for all of Rus' began to take shape - “Russian Truth”. This was the first document regulating the relationship of princely warriors among themselves and with city residents, the procedure for resolving various disputes and compensation for damage.
Important reforms under Yaroslav the Wise were carried out in the church organization. Majestic cathedrals of St. Sophia were built in Kyiv, Novgorod, and Polotsk, which was supposed to show the church independence of Rus'. In 1051, the Kiev Metropolitan was elected not in Constantinople, as before, but in Kyiv by a council of Russian bishops. Church tithes were established. The first monasteries appear. The first saints were canonized - the brothers Princes Boris and Gleb.
Kievan Rus under Yaroslav the Wise reached its greatest power. Many of the largest states in Europe sought her support, friendship and kinship.

Feudal fragmentation in Rus'

However, Yaroslav's heirs - Izyaslav, Svyatoslav, Vsevolod - were unable to maintain the unity of Rus'. The civil strife between the brothers led to the weakening of Kievan Rus, which was taken advantage of by a new formidable enemy who appeared on the southern borders of the state - the Polovtsians. These were nomads who displaced the Pechenegs who had previously lived here. In 1068, the united troops of the Yaroslavich brothers were defeated by the Polovtsians, which led to an uprising in Kyiv.
A new uprising in Kyiv, which broke out after the death of the Kyiv prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich in 1113, forced the Kyiv nobility to call Vladimir Monomakh, the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise, a powerful and authoritative prince, to reign. Vladimir was the inspirer and direct leader of military campaigns against the Polovtsians in 1103, 1107 and 1111. Having become the prince of Kyiv, he suppressed the uprising, but at the same time was forced to somewhat soften the position of the lower classes through legislation. This is how the charter of Vladimir Monomakh arose, who, without encroaching on the foundations of feudal relations, sought to somewhat alleviate the situation of peasants who fell into debt bondage. The “Teaching” of Vladimir Monomakh is imbued with the same spirit, where he advocated the establishment of peace between feudal lords and peasants.
The reign of Vladimir Monomakh was a time of strengthening of Kievan Rus. He managed to unite significant territories of the ancient Russian state under his rule and stop princely civil strife. However, after his death, feudal fragmentation in Rus' intensified again.
The reason for this phenomenon lay in the very course of economic and political development of Rus' as a feudal state. The strengthening of large landholdings - fiefdoms, in which subsistence farming dominated, led to the fact that they became independent production complexes associated with their immediate environment. Cities became economic and political centers of fiefdoms. The feudal lords became complete masters of their land, independent of the central government. The victories of Vladimir Monomakh over the Cumans, which temporarily eliminated the military threat, also contributed to the disunity of individual lands.
Kievan Rus disintegrated into independent principalities, each of which, in terms of the size of its territory, could be compared with the average Western European kingdom. These were Chernigov, Smolensk, Polotsk, Pereyaslavl, Galician, Volyn, Ryazan, Rostov-Suzdal, Kiev principalities, Novgorod land. Each of the principalities not only had its own internal order, but also pursued an independent foreign policy.
The process of feudal fragmentation opened the way for strengthening the system of feudal relations. However, it turned out to have several negative consequences. The division into independent principalities did not stop the princely strife, and the principalities themselves began to split up among the heirs. In addition, a struggle began within the principalities between the princes and local boyars. Each side strove for maximum power, calling on foreign troops to its side to fight the enemy. But most importantly, the defense capability of Rus' was weakened, which the Mongol conquerors soon took advantage of.

Mongol-Tatar invasion

By the end of the 12th - beginning of the 13th century, the Mongol state occupied a vast territory from Baikal and Amur in the east to the upper reaches of the Irtysh and Yenisei in the west, from the Great Wall of China in the south to the borders of southern Siberia in the north. The main occupation of the Mongols was nomadic cattle breeding, so the main source of enrichment was constant raids to capture booty, slaves, and pasture areas.
The Mongol army was a powerful organization consisting of foot squads and mounted warriors, who were the main offensive force. All units were shackled by cruel discipline, and reconnaissance was well established. The Mongols had siege equipment at their disposal. At the beginning of the 13th century, the Mongol hordes conquered and ravaged the largest Central Asian cities - Bukhara, Samarkand, Urgench, Merv. Having passed through Transcaucasia, which they turned into ruins, Mongol troops entered the steppes of the northern Caucasus, and, having defeated the Polovtsian tribes, hordes of Mongol-Tatars led by Genghis Khan advanced along the Black Sea steppes in the direction of Rus'.
A united army of Russian princes, commanded by the Kiev prince Mstislav Romanovich, came out against them. The decision on this was made at the princely congress in Kyiv, after the Polovtsian khans turned to the Russians for help. The battle took place in May 1223 on the Kalka River. The Polovtsians fled almost from the very beginning of the battle. The Russian troops found themselves face to face with an as yet unfamiliar enemy. They knew neither the organization of the Mongol army nor the techniques of combat. There was no unity and coordination of actions in the Russian regiments. One part of the princes led their squads into battle, the other chose to wait. The consequence of this behavior was the brutal defeat of the Russian troops.
Having reached the Dnieper after the Battle of Kalka, the Mongol hordes did not go north, but turned east and returned back to the Mongol steppes. After the death of Genghis Khan, his grandson Batu in the winter of 1237 moved his army, now against
Rus'. Deprived of assistance from other Russian lands, the Ryazan principality became the first victim of the invaders. Having devastated the Ryazan land, Batu’s troops moved to the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. The Mongols ravaged and burned Kolomna and Moscow. In February 1238, they approached the capital of the principality - the city of Vladimir - and took it after a fierce assault.
Having ravaged the Vladimir land, the Mongols moved to Novgorod. But due to the spring thaw, they were forced to turn towards the Volga steppes. Only the next year Batu again moved troops to conquer southern Rus'. Having captured Kiev, they passed through the Galicia-Volyn principality to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. After this, the Mongols returned to the Volga steppes, where they formed the state of the Golden Horde. As a result of these campaigns, the Mongols conquered all Russian lands, with the exception of Novgorod. The Tatar yoke hung over Russia, which lasted until the end of the 14th century.
The yoke of the Mongol-Tatars was to use the economic potential of Rus' in the interests of the conquerors. Every year Rus' paid a huge tribute, and the Golden Horde strictly controlled the activities of the Russian princes. In the cultural field, the Mongols used the labor of Russian craftsmen to build and decorate the Golden Horde cities. The conquerors plundered the material and artistic values ​​of Russian cities, depleting the vitality of the population with numerous raids.

Invasion of the Crusaders. Alexander Nevskiy

Rus', weakened by the Mongol-Tatar yoke, found itself in a very difficult situation when a threat from Swedish and German feudal lords loomed over its northwestern lands. After the capture of the Baltic lands, the knights of the Livonian Order approached the borders of the Novgorod-Pskov land. In 1240, the Battle of the Neva took place - a battle between Russian and Swedish troops on the Neva River. Novgorod Prince Alexander Yaroslavovich completely defeated the enemy, for which he received the nickname Nevsky.
Alexander Nevsky led the united Russian army, which he marched with in the spring of 1242 to liberate Pskov, which by that time had been captured by German knights. Pursuing their army, the Russian squads reached Lake Peipsi, where on April 5, 1242, the famous battle took place, called the Battle of the Ice. As a result of a fierce battle, the German knights were completely defeated.
The significance of Alexander Nevsky's victories against the aggression of the crusaders can hardly be overestimated. If the crusaders were successful, there could have been a forced assimilation of the peoples of Rus' in many areas of their life and culture. This could not have happened during almost three centuries of the Horde yoke, since the general culture of the steppe nomads was much lower than the culture of the Germans and Swedes. Therefore, the Mongol-Tatars were never able to impose their culture and way of life on the Russian people.

The Rise of Moscow

The founder of the Moscow princely dynasty and the first independent Moscow appanage prince was the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky, Daniel. At that time, Moscow was a small and poor place. However, Daniil Alexandrovich managed to significantly expand its borders. In order to gain control over the entire Moscow River, in 1301 he took Kolomna from the Ryazan prince. In 1302, the Pereyaslav inheritance was annexed to Moscow, and the next year - Mozhaisk, which was part of the Smolensk principality.
The growth and rise of Moscow was associated primarily with its location in the center of that part of the Slavic lands where the Russian nation took shape. The economic development of Moscow and the Moscow Principality was facilitated by their location at the crossroads of both water and land trade routes. Trade duties paid to the Moscow princes by passing merchants were an important source of growth for the princely treasury. No less important was the fact that the city was located in the center
Russian principalities, which protected it from the attacks of invaders. The Moscow principality became a kind of refuge for many Russian people, which also contributed to the development of the economy and rapid population growth.
In the 14th century, Moscow emerged as the center of the Moscow Grand Duchy - one of the strongest in North-Eastern Rus'. The skillful policy of the Moscow princes contributed to the rise of Moscow. Since the time of Ivan I Danilovich Kalita, Moscow has become the political center of the Vladimir-Suzdal Grand Duchy, the residence of Russian metropolitans, and the ecclesiastical capital of Rus'. The struggle between Moscow and Tver for supremacy in Rus' ends with the victory of the Moscow prince.
In the second half of the 14th century, under the grandson of Ivan Kalita, Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, Moscow became the organizer of the armed struggle of the Russian people against the Mongol-Tatar yoke, the overthrow of which began with the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, when Dmitry Ivanovich defeated the hundred thousandth army of Khan Mamai on the Kulikovo field. The Golden Horde khans, understanding the significance of Moscow, tried more than once to destroy it (the burning of Moscow by Khan Tokhtamysh in 1382). However, nothing could stop the consolidation of Russian lands around Moscow. In the last quarter of the 15th century, under Grand Duke Ivan III Vasilyevich, Moscow turned into the capital of the Russian centralized state, which in 1480 forever threw off the Mongol-Tatar yoke (standing on the Ugra River).

Reign of Ivan IV the Terrible

After the death of Vasily III in 1533, his three-year-old son Ivan IV ascended the throne. Because of his early age, Elena Glinskaya, his mother, was declared ruler. Thus begins the period of the notorious “boyar rule” - a time of boyar conspiracies, noble unrest, and city uprisings. Ivan IV's participation in state activities begins with the creation of the Elected Rada - a special council under the young tsar, which included the leaders of the nobility, representatives of the largest nobility. The composition of the Elected Rada seemed to reflect a compromise between various layers of the ruling class.
Despite this, the aggravation of relations between Ivan IV and certain circles of the boyars began to brew in the mid-50s of the 16th century. A particularly sharp protest was caused by Ivan IV’s policy of “opening a big war” for Livonia. Some members of the government considered the war for the Baltic states to be premature and demanded that all efforts be directed toward developing the southern and eastern borders of Russia. The split between Ivan IV and the majority of members of the Elected Rada pushed the boyars to oppose the new political course. This prompted the tsar to take more drastic measures - the complete elimination of the boyar opposition and the creation of special punitive authorities. The new order of government, introduced by Ivan IV at the end of 1564, was called the oprichnina.
The country was divided into two parts: the oprichnina and the zemshchina. The tsar included the most important lands in the oprichnina - economically developed regions of the country, strategically important points. The nobles who were part of the oprichnina army settled on these lands. It was the duty of the zemshchina to maintain it. Boyars were evicted from oprichnina territories.
In the oprichnina, a parallel system of government was created. Ivan IV himself became its head. The oprichnina was created to eliminate those who expressed dissatisfaction with the autocracy. This was not only administrative and land reform. In an effort to destroy the remnants of feudal fragmentation in Russia, Ivan the Terrible did not stop at any cruelty. Oprichnina terror, executions and exiles began. The center and north-west of the Russian land, where the boyars were especially strong, were subjected to especially brutal defeat. In 1570, Ivan IV launched a campaign against Novgorod. On the way, the oprichnina army defeated Klin, Torzhok and Tver.
The oprichnina did not destroy princely-boyar land ownership. However, it greatly weakened his power. The political role of the boyar aristocracy, which opposed
centralization policies. At the same time, the oprichnina worsened the situation of the peasants and contributed to their mass enslavement.
In 1572, shortly after the campaign against Novgorod, the oprichnina was abolished. The reason for this was not only that the main forces of the opposition boyars had been broken by this time and that they themselves had been physically exterminated almost completely. The main reason for the abolition of the oprichnina is the clearly matured dissatisfaction with this policy of various segments of the population. But, having abolished the oprichnina and even returned some boyars to their old estates, Ivan the Terrible did not change the general direction of his policy. Many oprichnina institutions continued to exist after 1572 under the name of the Sovereign's Court.
The oprichnina could only give temporary success, since it was an attempt by brute force to break what was generated by the economic laws of the country's development. The need to combat appanage antiquity, strengthening centralization and the power of the tsar were objectively necessary at that time for Russia. The reign of Ivan IV the Terrible predetermined further events - the establishment of serfdom on a national scale and the so-called “Time of Troubles” at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries.

"Time of Troubles"

After Ivan the Terrible, his son Fyodor Ivanovich, the last tsar from the Rurik dynasty, became the Russian Tsar in 1584. His reign marked the beginning of that period in Russian history, which is usually referred to as the “time of troubles.” Fyodor Ivanovich was a weak and sickly man, unable to rule the huge Russian state. Among his associates, Boris Godunov gradually stands out, who, after the death of Fedor in 1598, was elected by the Zemsky Sobor to the throne. A supporter of tough power, the new tsar continued his active policy of enslaving the peasantry. A decree on indentured servants was issued, and at the same time a decree was issued establishing “period years,” that is, the period during which peasant owners could file a claim for the return of runaway serfs to them. During the reign of Boris Godunov, the distribution of lands to service people continued at the expense of estates taken to the treasury from monasteries and disgraced boyars.
In 1601-1602 Russia suffered severe crop failures. The cholera epidemic that affected the central regions of the country contributed to the deterioration of the situation of the population. Disasters and popular discontent led to numerous uprisings, the largest of which was the Cotton Rebellion, which was suppressed with difficulty by the authorities only in the fall of 1603.
Taking advantage of the difficulties of the internal situation of the Russian state, Polish and Swedish feudal lords tried to seize the Smolensk and Seversk lands, which had previously been part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Part of the Russian boyars was dissatisfied with the rule of Boris Godunov, and this was a breeding ground for the emergence of opposition.
In conditions of general discontent, an impostor appears on the western borders of Russia, posing as Tsarevich Dmitry, the son of Ivan the Terrible, who “miraculously escaped” in Uglich. “Tsarevich Dmitry” turned to the Polish magnates for help, and then to King Sigismund. To gain the support of the Catholic Church, he secretly converted to Catholicism and promised to subordinate the Russian Church to the papal throne. In the fall of 1604, False Dmitry with a small army crossed the Russian border and moved through Seversk Ukraine to Moscow. Despite the defeat at Dobrynichi at the beginning of 1605, he managed to rouse many regions of the country into rebellion. The news of the appearance of the “legitimate Tsar Dmitry” raised great hopes for changes in life, so city after city declared support for the impostor. Meeting no resistance on his way, False Dmitry approached Moscow, where by that time Boris Godunov had suddenly died. The Moscow nobility, which did not accept Boris Godunov’s son as tsar, made it possible for the impostor to establish himself on the Russian throne.
However, he was in no hurry to fulfill the promises he had made earlier - to transfer the outlying Russian regions to Poland, and even more so to convert the Russian people to Catholicism. False Dmitry did not justify
hopes and peasantry, since he began to pursue the same policy as Godunov, relying on the nobility. The boyars, who used False Dmitry to overthrow Godunov, were now only waiting for a reason to get rid of him and come to power. The reason for the overthrow of False Dmitry was the wedding of the impostor with the daughter of a Polish tycoon, Marina Mnishek. The Poles who arrived for the celebrations behaved in Moscow as if they were in a conquered city. Taking advantage of the current situation, the boyars, led by Vasily Shuisky, on May 17, 1606, rebelled against the impostor and his Polish supporters. False Dmitry was killed, and the Poles were expelled from Moscow.
After the murder of False Dmitry, Vasily Shuisky took the Russian throne. His government had to fight the peasant movement of the early 17th century (uprising led by Ivan Bolotnikov), with Polish intervention, a new stage of which began in August 1607 (False Dmitry II). After the defeat at Volkhov, the government of Vasily Shuisky was besieged in Moscow by Polish-Lithuanian invaders. At the end of 1608, many regions of the country came under the rule of False Dmitry II, which was facilitated by a new surge in class struggle, as well as growing contradictions among Russian feudal lords. In February 1609, the Shuisky government concluded an agreement with Sweden, according to which, in exchange for hiring Swedish troops, it ceded part of the Russian territory in the north of the country.
At the end of 1608, a spontaneous people's liberation movement began, which Shuisky's government managed to lead only from the end of winter 1609. By the end of 1610, Moscow and most of the country were liberated. But back in September 1609, open Polish intervention began. The defeat of Shuisky's troops near Klushino from the army of Sigismund III in June 1610, the uprising of the urban lower classes against the government of Vasily Shuisky in Moscow led to his downfall. On July 17, part of the boyars, the capital and provincial nobility, Vasily Shuisky was overthrown from the throne and forcibly tonsured a monk. In September 1610, he was handed over to the Poles and taken to Poland, where he died in custody.
After the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky, power was in the hands of 7 boyars. This government was called the “Seven Boyars”. One of the first decisions of the “Seven Boyars” was the decision not to elect representatives of Russian clans as tsar. In August 1610, this group concluded an agreement with the Poles near Moscow, recognizing the son of the Polish king Sigismund III, Vladislav, as the Russian Tsar. On the night of September 21, Polish troops were secretly allowed into Moscow.
Sweden also launched aggressive actions. The overthrow of Vasily Shuisky freed her from allied obligations under the treaty of 1609. Swedish troops occupied a significant part of northern Russia and captured Novgorod. The country faced a direct threat of loss of sovereignty.
Discontent was growing in Russia. The idea of ​​creating a national militia to liberate Moscow from the invaders arose. It was headed by governor Prokopiy Lyapunov. In February-March 1611, militia troops besieged Moscow. The decisive battle took place on March 19. However, the city has not yet been liberated. The Poles still remained in the Kremlin and Kitai-Gorod.
In the autumn of the same year, at the call of Nizhny Novgorod Kuzma Minin, a second militia began to be created, the leader of which was Prince Dmitry Pozharsky. Initially, the militia advanced in the eastern and northeastern regions of the country, where not only new regions were formed, but also governments and administrations were created. This helped the army to enlist the support of people, finances and supplies from all the most important cities in the country.
In August 1612, the militia of Minin and Pozharsky entered Moscow and united with the remnants of the first militia. The Polish garrison experienced enormous hardships and hunger. After a successful assault on Kitay-Gorod on October 26, 1612, the Poles capitulated and surrendered the Kremlin. Moscow was liberated from the interventionists. An attempt by Polish troops to retake Moscow failed, and Sigizmund III was defeated near Volokolamsk.
In January 1613, the Zemsky Sobor, meeting in Moscow, decided to elect 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov, the son of Metropolitan Philaret, who was in Polish captivity at that time, to the Russian throne.
In 1618, the Poles again invaded Russia, but were defeated. The Polish adventure ended with a truce in the village of Deulino that same year. However, Russia lost Smolensk and the Seversk cities, which it was able to return only in the middle of the 17th century. Russian prisoners returned to their homeland, including Filaret, the father of the new Russian Tsar. In Moscow, he was elevated to the rank of patriarch and played a significant role in history as the de facto ruler of Russia.
In the most brutal and severe struggle, Russia defended its independence and entered a new stage of its development. In fact, this is where its medieval history ends.

Russia after the Troubles

Russia defended its independence, but suffered serious territorial losses. The consequence of the intervention and the peasant war led by I. Bolotnikov (1606-1607) was severe economic devastation. Contemporaries called it “the great Moscow ruin.” Almost half of the arable land was abandoned. Having ended the intervention, Russia begins to slowly and with great difficulty restore its economy. This became the main content of the reign of the first two kings from the Romanov dynasty - Mikhail Fedorovich (1613-1645) and Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676).
To improve the work of government bodies and create a more equitable taxation system, by decree of Mikhail Romanov, a population census was carried out and land inventories were compiled. In the first years of his reign, the role of the Zemsky Sobor increased, which became a kind of permanent national council under the tsar and gave the Russian state an outward resemblance to a parliamentary monarchy.
The Swedes, who ruled in the north, failed at Pskov and in 1617 concluded the Peace of Stolbovo, according to which Novgorod was returned to Russia. At the same time, however, Russia lost the entire coast of the Gulf of Finland and access to the Baltic Sea. The situation changed only almost a hundred years later, at the beginning of the 18th century, already under Peter I.
During the reign of Mikhail Romanov, intensive construction of “barrages” against the Crimean Tatars was also carried out, and further colonization of Siberia took place.
After the death of Mikhail Romanov, his son Alexei ascended the throne. Since his reign, the establishment of autocratic power actually begins. The activities of the Zemsky Sobors ceased, the role of the Boyar Duma decreased. In 1654, the Order of Secret Affairs was created, which reported directly to the tsar and exercised control over government administration.
The reign of Alexei Mikhailovich was marked by a number of popular uprisings - urban uprisings, the so-called. “Copper Riot”, peasant war led by Stepan Razin. In a number of Russian cities (Moscow, Voronezh, Kursk, etc.) uprisings broke out in 1648. The uprising in Moscow in June 1648 was called the “salt riot.” It was caused by the dissatisfaction of the population with the predatory policies of the government, which, in order to replenish the state treasury, replaced various direct taxes with a single tax on salt, which caused its price to rise several times. Citizens, peasants and archers took part in the uprising. The rebels set fire to the White City, Kitai-Gorod, and destroyed the courtyards of the most hated boyars, clerks, and merchants. The king was forced to make temporary concessions to the rebels, and then, causing a split in the ranks of the rebels,
executed many leaders and active participants in the uprising.
In 1650, uprisings took place in Novgorod and Pskov. They were caused by the enslavement of the townspeople by the Council Code of 1649. The uprising in Novgorod was quickly suppressed by the authorities. This failed in Pskov, and the government had to negotiate and make some concessions.
On June 25, 1662, Moscow was shocked by a new major uprising - the “Copper Riot.” Its causes were the disruption of the economic life of the state during the wars between Russia and Poland and Sweden, a sharp increase in taxes and the strengthening of feudal-serf exploitation. The release of large quantities of copper money, equal in value to silver, led to their depreciation and the mass production of counterfeit copper money. Up to 10 thousand people took part in the uprising, mainly residents of the capital. The rebels went to the village of Kolomenskoye, where the tsar was, and demanded the extradition of the traitorous boyars. The troops brutally suppressed this uprising, but the government, frightened by the uprising, abolished copper money in 1663.
The strengthening of serfdom and the general deterioration in the life of the people became the main reasons for the peasant war under the leadership of Stepan Razin (1667-1671). Peasants, the urban poor, and the poorest Cossacks took part in the uprising. The movement began with the Cossacks' robbery campaign against Persia. On the way back, the differences approached Astrakhan. Local authorities decided to let them pass through the city, for which they received part of the weapons and loot. Then Razin’s troops occupied Tsaritsyn, after which they went to the Don.
In the spring of 1670, the second period of the uprising began, the main content of which was an attack against the boyars, nobles, and merchants. The rebels again captured Tsaritsyn, and then Astrakhan. Samara and Saratov surrendered without a fight. At the beginning of September, Razin’s troops approached Simbirsk. By that time, the peoples of the Volga region - the Tatars and Mordovians - had joined them. The movement soon spread to Ukraine. Razin failed to take Simbirsk. Wounded in battle, Razin retreated to the Don with a small detachment. There he was captured by wealthy Cossacks and sent to Moscow, where he was executed.
The turbulent time of Alexei Mikhailovich's reign was marked by another important event - the split of the Orthodox Church. In 1654, on the initiative of Patriarch Nikon, a church council met in Moscow, at which it was decided to compare church books with their Greek originals and establish a uniform and mandatory procedure for performing rituals.
Many priests, led by Archpriest Avvakum, opposed the resolution of the council and announced their departure from the Orthodox Church, headed by Nikon. They began to be called schismatics or Old Believers. The opposition to the reform that arose in church circles became a unique form of social protest.
Carrying out the reform, Nikon set theocratic goals - to create a strong church authority standing above the state. However, the patriarch's intervention in government affairs caused a break with the tsar, which resulted in the deposition of Nikon and the transformation of the church into part of the state apparatus. This was another step towards the establishment of autocracy.

Reunification of Ukraine with Russia

During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich in 1654, the reunification of Ukraine with Russia took place. In the 17th century, Ukrainian lands were under Polish rule. Catholicism was forcibly introduced to them, Polish magnates and gentry appeared, who brutally oppressed the Ukrainian people, which caused the rise of the national liberation movement. Its center was the Zaporozhye Sich, where the free Cossacks were formed. The leader of this movement was Bohdan Khmelnitsky.
In 1648, his troops defeated the Poles near Zheltye Vody, Korsun and Pilyavtsy. After the defeat of the Poles, the uprising spread to all of Ukraine and part of Belarus. At the same time, Khmelnitsky appealed
to Russia with a request to accept Ukraine into the Russian state. He understood that only in an alliance with Russia could one get rid of the danger of the complete enslavement of Ukraine by Poland and Turkey. However, at this time, the government of Alexei Mikhailovich could not satisfy his request, since Russia was not ready for war. Nevertheless, despite all the difficulties of its domestic political situation, Russia continued to provide diplomatic, economic and military support to Ukraine.
In April 1653, Khmelnitsky again turned to Russia with a request to accept Ukraine into its composition. On May 10, 1653, the Zemsky Sobor in Moscow decided to grant this request. On January 8, 1654, the Great Rada in the city of Pereyaslavl proclaimed the entry of Ukraine into Russia. In this regard, a war began between Poland and Russia, which ended with the signing of the Truce of Andrusovo at the end of 1667. Russia received Smolensk, Dorogobuzh, Belaya Tserkov, Seversk land with Chernigov and Starodub. Right-bank Ukraine and Belarus still remained part of Poland. The Zaporozhye Sich, according to the agreement, was under the joint control of Russia and Poland. These conditions were finally consolidated in 1686 by the “Eternal Peace” of Russia and Poland.

The reign of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich and the regency of Sophia

In the 17th century, Russia's noticeable lag behind advanced Western countries became apparent. The lack of access to ice-free seas interfered with trade and cultural ties with Europe. The need for a regular army was dictated by the complexity of Russia's foreign policy situation. The Streltsy army and the noble militia could no longer fully ensure its defense capability. There was no large manufacturing industry, and the order-based management system was outdated. Russia needed reforms.
In 1676, the royal throne passed to the weak and sickly Fyodor Alekseevich, from whom one could not expect the radical transformations so necessary for the country. And yet, in 1682, he managed to abolish localism - the system of distribution of ranks and positions according to nobility and birth, which had existed since the 14th century. In the field of foreign policy, Russia managed to win the war with Turkey, which was forced to recognize the reunification of Left Bank Ukraine with Russia.
In 1682, Fyodor Alekseevich died suddenly, and since he was childless, a dynastic crisis broke out again in Russia, since two sons of Alexei Mikhailovich could lay claim to the throne - sixteen-year-old sickly and weak Ivan and ten-year-old Peter. Princess Sophia did not renounce her claims to the throne. As a result of the Streltsy uprising of 1682, both heirs were declared kings, and Sophia was declared their regent.
During her reign, small concessions were made to the townspeople and the search for runaway peasants was weakened. In 1689, there was a break between Sophia and the boyar-noble group that supported Peter I. Having been defeated in this struggle, Sophia was imprisoned in the Novodevichy Convent.

Peter I. His domestic and foreign policies

During the first period of the reign of Peter I, three events occurred that decisively influenced the formation of the reformer tsar. The first of these was the trip of the young tsar to Arkhangelsk in 1693-1694, where the sea and ships conquered him forever. The second is the Azov campaigns against the Turks in order to find access to the Black Sea. The capture of the Turkish fortress of Azov was the first victory of the Russian troops and the fleet created in Russia, the beginning of the country's transformation into a maritime power. On the other hand, these campaigns showed the need for changes in the Russian army. The third event was the trip of the Russian diplomatic mission to Europe, in which the Tsar himself participated. The embassy did not achieve its direct goal (Russia had to abandon the fight with Turkey), but it studied the international situation and prepared the ground for the struggle for the Baltic states and for access to the Baltic Sea.
In 1700, the difficult Northern War with the Swedes began, which lasted for 21 years. This war largely determined the pace and nature of the reforms carried out in Russia. The Northern War was fought for the return of lands captured by the Swedes and for Russia's access to the Baltic Sea. In the first period of the war (1700-1706), after the defeat of the Russian troops near Narva, Peter I was able not only to assemble a new army, but also to rebuild the country's industry on a war footing. Having captured key points in the Baltic states and founded the city of St. Petersburg in 1703, Russian troops gained a foothold on the coast of the Gulf of Finland.
During the second period of the war (1707-1709), the Swedes invaded Russia through Ukraine, but, having been defeated near the village of Lesnoy, were finally defeated in the Battle of Poltava in 1709. The third period of the war occurred in 1710-1718, when the Russians troops captured many Baltic cities, drove the Swedes out of Finland, and together with the Poles pushed the enemy back to Pomerania. The Russian fleet won a brilliant victory at Gangut in 1714.
During the fourth period of the Northern War, despite the machinations of England, which made peace with Sweden, Russia established itself on the shores of the Baltic Sea. The Northern War ended in 1721 with the signing of the Peace of Nystadt. Sweden recognized the annexation of Livonia, Estland, Izhora, part of Karelia and a number of islands of the Baltic Sea to Russia. Russia pledged to pay Sweden monetary compensation for the territories going to it and return Finland. The Russian state, having returned to itself the lands previously captured by Sweden, secured access to the Baltic Sea.
Against the backdrop of the turbulent events of the first quarter of the 18th century, a restructuring of all sectors of the country’s life took place, and reforms of the public administration and political system were also carried out - the power of the tsar acquired an unlimited, absolute character. In 1721, the tsar took the title of Emperor of All Russia. Thus, Russia became an empire, and its ruler became the emperor of a huge and powerful state, on a par with the great world powers of that time.
The creation of new power structures began with a change in the image of the monarch himself and the foundations of his power and authority. In 1702, the Boyar Duma was replaced by the “Concilia of Ministers”, and since 1711 the Senate became the supreme institution in the country. The creation of this authority also gave rise to a complex bureaucratic structure with offices, departments and numerous staff. It was from the time of Peter I that a peculiar cult of bureaucratic institutions and administrative authorities was formed in Russia.
In 1717-1718 instead of the primitive and long-outdated system of orders, collegiums were created - the prototype of future ministries, and in 1721 the establishment of the Synod, headed by a secular official, completely made the church dependent and at the service of the state. Thus, from now on, the institution of patriarchy in Russia was abolished.
The crowning achievement of the bureaucratic structure of the absolutist state was the “Table of Ranks”, adopted in 1722. According to it, military, civil and court ranks were divided into fourteen ranks - steps. Society was not only streamlined, but also came under the control of the emperor and the highest aristocracy. The functioning of government institutions has improved, each of which has received a specific area of ​​activity.
Feeling an urgent need for money, the government of Peter I introduced a poll tax, which replaced household taxation. In this regard, to take into account the male population in the country, which became a new object of taxation, a census was carried out - the so-called. revision. In 1723, a decree on succession to the throne was issued, according to which the monarch himself received the right to appoint his successors, regardless of family ties and primogeniture.
During the reign of Peter I, a large number of manufactories and mining enterprises arose, and the development of new iron ore deposits began. Promoting the development of industry, Peter I established central bodies in charge of trade and industry and transferred state-owned enterprises to private hands.
The protective tariff of 1724 protected new industries from foreign competition and encouraged the import of raw materials and products into the country, the production of which did not meet the needs of the domestic market, which was reflected in the policy of mercantilism.

Results of the activities of Peter I

Thanks to the energetic activity of Peter I, enormous changes occurred in the economy, the level and forms of development of the productive forces, in the political system of Russia, in the structure and functions of government bodies, in the organization of the army, in the class and estate structure of the population, in the life and culture of peoples. Medieval Muscovite Rus' turned into the Russian Empire. Russia's place and role in international affairs has changed radically.
The complexity and inconsistency of Russia's development during this period also determined the inconsistency of Peter I's activities in implementing reforms. On the one hand, these reforms had enormous historical meaning, since they met the national interests and needs of the country, contributed to its progressive development, and were aimed at eliminating its backwardness. On the other hand, the reforms were carried out using the same serfdom methods and thereby contributed to the strengthening of the rule of the serf owners.
From the very beginning, the progressive transformations of Peter the Great's time contained conservative features, which became more and more prominent as the country developed and could not ensure the complete elimination of its backwardness. Objectively, these reforms were bourgeois in nature, but subjectively, their implementation led to the strengthening of serfdom and the strengthening of feudalism. They could not be different - the capitalist structure in Russia at that time was still very weak.
It should also be noted those cultural changes in Russian society that occurred during Peter the Great's time: the emergence of first-level schools, specialized schools, and the Russian Academy of Sciences. A network of printing houses has emerged in the country to print domestic and translated publications. The country's first newspaper began to be published, and the first museum appeared. Significant changes have occurred in everyday life.

Palace coups of the 18th century

After the death of Emperor Peter I, a period began in Russia when supreme power quickly changed hands, and those who occupied the throne did not always have legal rights to do so. This began immediately after the death of Peter I in 1725. The new aristocracy, formed during the reign of the reformer emperor, fearing the loss of its prosperity and power, contributed to the ascension to the throne of Catherine I, Peter’s widow. This made it possible to establish the Supreme Privy Council under the Empress in 1726, which actually seized power.
The greatest benefit from this was the first favorite of Peter I - His Serene Highness Prince A.D. Menshikov. His influence was so great that even after the death of Catherine I, he was able to subjugate the new Russian emperor, Peter II. However, another group of courtiers, dissatisfied with Menshikov’s actions, deprived him of power, and he was soon exiled to Siberia.
These political changes did not change the established order. After the unexpected death of Peter II in 1730, the most influential group of the late emperor’s associates, the so-called. “sovereigns”, decided to invite the niece of Peter I, the Duchess of Courland Anna Ivanovna, to the throne, stipulating her accession to the throne with conditions (“Conditions”): not to marry, not to appoint a successor, not to declare war, not to introduce new taxes, etc. The acceptance of such conditions made Anna is an obedient toy in the hands of the highest aristocracy. However, at the request of the noble deputation, upon accession to the throne, Anna Ivanovna rejected the conditions of the “supreme leaders”.
Fearing intrigues from the aristocracy, Anna Ivanovna surrounded herself with foreigners, on whom she became completely dependent. The empress was almost not interested in state affairs. This prompted foreigners from the tsar’s entourage to commit many abuses, plunder the treasury and insult the national dignity of the Russian people.
Shortly before her death, Anna Ivanovna appointed the grandson of her older sister, baby Ivan Antonovich, as her heir. In 1740, at the age of three months, he was proclaimed Emperor Ivan VI. Duke Biron of Courland, who enjoyed enormous influence even under Anna Ivanovna, became its regent. This caused extreme discontent not only among the Russian nobility, but also in the immediate circle of the late empress. As a result of a court conspiracy, Biron was overthrown, and the rights of the regency were transferred to the emperor's mother, Anna Leopoldovna. Thus, the dominance of foreigners at the court was preserved.
A conspiracy arose among Russian nobles and guard officers in favor of the daughter of Peter I, as a result of which Elizaveta Petrovna ascended the Russian throne in 1741. During her reign, which lasted until 1761, there was a return to Peter's order. The Senate became the highest body of state power. The Cabinet of Ministers was abolished, and the rights of the Russian nobility expanded significantly. All changes in government were primarily aimed at strengthening the autocracy. However, unlike Peter's times, the main role in decision-making began to be played by the court-bureaucratic elite. Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, like her predecessor, was very little interested in state affairs.
Elizabeth Petrovna appointed her heir as the son of Peter I's eldest daughter, Karl-Peter-Ulrich, Duke of Holstein, who in Orthodoxy took the name Peter Fedorovich. He ascended the throne in 1761 under the name of Peter III (1761-1762). The Imperial Council became the highest authority, but the new emperor was completely unprepared to govern the state. The only major event that he carried out was the “Manifesto on the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility,” which abolished the obligatory nature of both civil and military service for nobles.
Peter III's admiration for the Prussian king Frederick II and the implementation of policies that were contrary to the interests of Russia led to dissatisfaction with his rule and contributed to the growing popularity of his wife Sophia Augusta Frederica, Princess of Anhalt-Zerbst, in Orthodoxy Ekaterina Alekseevna. Catherine, unlike her husband, respected Russian customs, traditions, Orthodoxy, and most importantly, the Russian nobility and army. The conspiracy against Peter III in 1762 elevated Catherine to the imperial throne.

Reign of Catherine the Great

Catherine II, who ruled the country for more than thirty years, was an educated, intelligent, businesslike, energetic, and ambitious woman. While on the throne, she repeatedly declared that she was the successor of Peter I. She managed to concentrate all legislative and most of the executive power in her hands. Its first reform was the reform of the Senate, which limited its functions in government. She confiscated church lands, which deprived the church of economic power. A colossal number of monastery peasants were transferred to the state, thanks to which the Russian treasury was replenished.
The reign of Catherine II left a noticeable mark on Russian history. Like many other European states, Russia during the reign of Catherine II was characterized by a policy of “enlightened absolutism,” which presupposed a wise ruler, a patron of art, and a benefactor of all science. Catherine tried to correspond to this model and even corresponded with French enlighteners, giving preference to Voltaire and Diderot. However, this did not prevent her from pursuing a policy of strengthening serfdom.
And yet, a manifestation of the policy of “enlightened absolutism” was the creation and activity of a commission to draw up a new legislative code of Russia instead of the outdated Council Code of 1649. Representatives of various segments of the population were involved in the work of this commission: nobles, townspeople, Cossacks and state peasants. The commission's documents established the class rights and privileges of various segments of the Russian population. However, the commission was soon dissolved. The Empress found out the mindset of class groups and relied on the nobility. There was one goal - to strengthen local government power.
From the beginning of the 80s, a period of reforms began. The main directions were the following provisions: decentralization of management and increasing the role of the local nobility, almost doubling the number of provinces, strict subordination of all local government structures, etc. The law enforcement system was also reformed. Political functions were transferred to the zemstvo court, elected by the noble assembly, headed by the zemstvo police officer, and in district cities - by the mayor. A whole system of courts arose in the districts and provinces, depending on the administration. Partial election of officials in provinces and districts by the nobility was also introduced. These reforms created a fairly advanced system of local government and strengthened the connection between the nobility and the autocracy.
The position of the nobility was further strengthened after the appearance of the “Charter on the rights, liberties and advantages of the noble nobility,” signed in 1785. In accordance with this document, nobles were exempted from compulsory service, corporal punishment, and could also lose their rights and property only by the verdict of the noble court approved by the empress.
Simultaneously with the Charter of the nobility, a “Charter of Rights and Benefits to the Cities of the Russian Empire” also appeared. In accordance with it, townspeople were divided into categories with different rights and responsibilities. A city duma was formed, which dealt with issues of urban management, but under the control of the administration. All these acts further consolidated the class-corporate division of society and strengthened autocratic power.

The uprising of E.I. Pugacheva

The tightening of exploitation and serfdom in Russia during the reign of Catherine II led to the fact that in the 60-70s a wave of anti-feudal protests by peasants, Cossacks, assigned and working people swept across the country. They acquired their greatest scope in the 70s, and the most powerful of them went down in Russian history under the name of the Peasant War under the leadership of E. Pugachev.
In 1771, unrest engulfed the lands of the Yaik Cossacks who lived along the Yaik River (modern Ural). The government began to introduce army regulations in the Cossack regiments and limit Cossack self-government. The unrest of the Cossacks was suppressed, but hatred was brewing among them, which spilled out in January 1772 as a result of the activities of the investigative commission, which examined complaints. This explosive region was chosen by Pugachev to organize and campaign against the authorities.
In 1773, Pugachev escaped from a Kazan prison and headed east, to the Yaik River, where he proclaimed himself to be Emperor Peter III who had allegedly escaped death. The “Manifesto” of Peter III, in which Pugachev granted the Cossacks land, hayfields, and money, attracted a significant part of the dissatisfied Cossacks to him. From that moment the first stage of the war began. After failure near the Yaitsky town, with a small detachment of surviving supporters, he moved towards Orenburg. The city was besieged by the rebels. The government brought troops to Orenburg, which inflicted a severe defeat on the rebels. Pugachev, who retreated to Samara, was soon defeated again and with a small detachment disappeared into the Urals.
In April-June 1774, the second stage of the peasant war occurred. After a series of battles, the rebel detachments moved to Kazan. At the beginning of July, the Pugachevites captured Kazan, but they could not resist the approaching regular army. Pugachev with a small detachment crossed to the right bank of the Volga and began a retreat to the south.
It was from this moment that the war reached its highest scale and acquired a pronounced anti-serfdom character. It covered the entire Volga region and threatened to spread to the central regions of the country. Selected army units were deployed against Pugachev. The spontaneity and locality characteristic of peasant wars made it easier to fight the rebels. Under the blows of government troops, Pugachev retreated to the south, trying to break through into the Cossack lines
Don and Yaik regions. Near Tsaritsyn, his troops were defeated, and on the way to Yaik, Pugachev himself was captured and handed over to the authorities by wealthy Cossacks. In 1775 he was executed in Moscow.
The reasons for the defeat of the peasant war were its tsarist character and naive monarchism, spontaneity, locality, poor armament, disunity. In addition, various categories of the population participated in this movement, each of which sought exclusively to achieve its own goals.

Foreign policy under Catherine II

Empress Catherine II pursued an active and highly successful foreign policy, which can be divided into three directions. The first foreign policy task that her government set for itself was the desire to achieve access to the Black Sea in order, firstly, to secure the southern regions of the country from the threat from Turkey and the Crimean Khanate, and secondly, to expand opportunities for trade and, consequently, , to increase the marketability of agriculture.
In order to complete the task, Russia fought twice with Turkey: the Russian-Turkish wars of 1768-1774. and 1787-1791 In 1768, Turkey, incited by France and Austria, who were very concerned about strengthening Russia's position in the Balkans and Poland, declared war on Russia. During this war, Russian troops under the command of P.A. Rumyantsev won brilliant victories over superior enemy forces at the Larga and Kagul rivers in 1770, and the Russian fleet under the command of F.F. Ushakov twice inflicted major defeats on the Turkish fleet in the same year in the Chios Strait and in Chesme Bay. The advance of Rumyantsev's troops in the Balkans forced Turkey to admit defeat. In 1774, the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi Peace Treaty was signed, according to which Russia received the lands between the Bug and the Dnieper, the fortresses of Azov, Kerch, Yenikale and Kinburn, Turkey recognized the independence of the Crimean Khanate; The Black Sea and its straits were open to Russian merchant ships.
In 1783, the Crimean Khan Shagin-Girey resigned and Crimea was annexed to Russia. The lands of Kuban also became part of the Russian state. In the same 1783, the Georgian king Irakli II recognized the Russian protectorate over Georgia. All these events aggravated the already difficult relations between Russia and Turkey and led to a new Russian-Turkish war. In a number of battles, Russian troops under the command of A.V. Suvorov again showed their superiority: in 1787 at Kinburn, in 1788 at the capture of Ochakov, in 1789 at the Rymnik River and near Focsani, and in 1790 it was taken impregnable fortress Izmail. The Russian fleet under the command of Ushakov also won a number of victories over the Turkish fleet in the Kerch Strait, near Tendra Island, and at Kali-akria. Türkiye again admitted defeat. According to the Treaty of Iasi in 1791, the annexation of Crimea and Kuban to Russia was confirmed, and the border between Russia and Turkey along the Dniester was established. The Ochakov fortress went to Russia, Türkiye renounced its claims to Georgia.
The second foreign policy task - the reunification of Ukrainian and Belarusian lands - was carried out as a result of the divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by Austria, Prussia and Russia. These divisions took place in 1772, 1793, 1795. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ceased to exist as an independent state. Russia regained all of Belarus, right-bank Ukraine, and also received Courland and Lithuania.
The third task was the fight against revolutionary France. The government of Catherine II took a sharply hostile position towards the events in France. At first, Catherine II did not dare to openly intervene, but the execution of Louis XVI (January 21, 1793) caused a final break with France, which the Empress announced by a special decree. The Russian government provided assistance to French emigrants, and in 1793 entered into agreements with Prussia and England on joint actions against France. Suvorov's 60,000-strong corps was preparing for the campaign; the Russian fleet took part in the naval blockade of France. However, Catherine II was no longer destined to solve this problem.

Paul I

On November 6, 1796, Catherine II suddenly died. Her son Paul I became the Russian emperor, whose short reign was filled with an intense search for a monarch in all spheres of public and international life, which from the outside looked more like a hectic rushing from one extreme to another. Trying to restore order in the administrative and financial spheres, Pavel tried to penetrate into every little detail, sent out mutually exclusive circulars, severely punished and punished. All this gave rise to an atmosphere of police surveillance and barracks. On the other hand, Paul ordered the release of all political prisoners arrested under Catherine. True, it was easy to end up in jail just because a person, for one reason or another, violated the rules of everyday life.
Paul I attached great importance to lawmaking in his activities. In 1797, with the “Act on the Order of Succession to the Throne” and the “Institution on the Imperial Family,” he restored the principle of succession to the throne exclusively through the male line.
Paul I's policy towards the nobility turned out to be completely unexpected. Catherine's liberties came to an end, and the nobility was placed under strict state control. The emperor especially severely punished representatives of the noble classes for failure to perform public service. But even here there were some extremes: while infringing on the nobles, on the one hand, Paul I at the same time, on an unprecedented scale, distributed a significant part of all state peasants to landowners. And here another innovation appeared - legislation on the peasant issue. For the first time in many decades, official documents appeared that gave some relief to the peasants. The sale of courtyard people and landless peasants was abolished, a three-day corvee was recommended, and peasant complaints and requests that were previously unacceptable were allowed.
In the field of foreign policy, the government of Paul I continued the fight against revolutionary France. In the fall of 1798, Russia sent a squadron under the command of F.F. Ushakov to the Mediterranean Sea through the Black Sea straits, which liberated the Ionian Islands and southern Italy from the French. One of the largest battles of this campaign was the Battle of Corfu in 1799. In the summer of 1799, Russian warships appeared off the coast of Italy, and Russian soldiers entered Naples and Rome.
In the same 1799, the Russian army under the command of A.V. Suvorov brilliantly carried out the Italian and Swiss campaigns. She managed to liberate Milan and Turin from the French, making a heroic transition through the Alps to Switzerland.
In the middle of 1800, a sharp turn in Russian foreign policy began - a rapprochement between Russia and France, which strained relations with England. Trade with it was virtually stopped. This turn largely determined events in Europe in the first decades of the new 19th century.

Reign of Emperor Alexander I

On the night of March 11-12, 1801, when Emperor Paul I was killed as a result of a conspiracy, the question of the accession of his eldest son Alexander Pavlovich to the Russian throne was decided. He was privy to the conspiracy plan. Hopes were pinned on the new monarch to carry out liberal reforms and soften the regime of personal power.
Emperor Alexander I was raised under the supervision of his grandmother, Catherine II. He was familiar with the ideas of the enlighteners - Voltaire, Montesquieu, Rousseau. However, Alexander Pavlovich never separated thoughts about equality and freedom from autocracy. This half-heartedness became a feature of both the transformations and the reign of Emperor Alexander I.
His first manifestos indicated the adoption of a new political course. It proclaimed the desire to rule according to the laws of Catherine II, to lift restrictions on trade with England, and contained an amnesty and the reinstatement of persons repressed under Paul I.
All work related to the liberalization of life was concentrated in the so-called. A secret committee where friends and associates of the young emperor gathered - P.A. Stroganov, V.P. Kochubey, A. Czartoryski and N.N. Novosiltsev - adherents of constitutionalism. The committee existed until 1805. It was mainly involved in preparing a program for the liberation of peasants from serfdom and the reform of the state system. The result of this activity was the law of December 12, 1801, which allowed state peasants, petty bourgeois and merchants to acquire uninhabited lands, and the decree of February 20, 1803 “On free cultivators,” which gave landowners the right, at their request, to free the peasants with their land for ransom.
A serious reform was the reorganization of the highest and central government bodies. Ministries were established in the country: military and ground forces, finance and public education, the State Treasury and the Committee of Ministers, which received a unified structure and were built on the principle of unity of command. Since 1810, in accordance with the project of the prominent statesman of those years M.M. Speransky, the State Council began to operate. However, Speransky could not implement a consistent principle of separation of powers. The State Council turned from an intermediate body into a legislative chamber appointed from above. The reforms of the early 19th century never affected the foundations of autocratic power in the Russian Empire.
During the reign of Alexander I, the Kingdom of Poland annexed to Russia was granted a constitution. The Constitutional Act was also granted to the Bessarabia region. Finland, which also became part of Russia, received its own legislative body - the Diet - and a constitutional structure.
Thus, constitutional government already existed in part of the territory of the Russian Empire, which raised hopes for its spread throughout the country. In 1818, the development of the “Charter of the Russian Empire” even began, but this document never saw the light of day.
In 1822, the emperor lost interest in state affairs, work on reforms was curtailed, and among the advisers of Alexander I, the figure of a new temporary worker stood out - A.A. Arakcheev, who became the first person in the state after the emperor and ruled as an all-powerful favorite. The consequences of the reform activities of Alexander I and his advisers turned out to be insignificant. The unexpected death of the emperor in 1825 at the age of 48 became the reason for open action on the part of the most advanced part of Russian society, the so-called. Decembrists, against the foundations of autocracy.

Patriotic War of 1812

During the reign of Alexander I there was a terrible test for all of Russia - the war of liberation against Napoleonic aggression. The war was caused by the desire of the French bourgeoisie for world domination, a sharp aggravation of Russian-French economic and political contradictions in connection with the wars of conquest of Napoleon I, and Russia’s refusal to participate in the continental blockade of Great Britain. The agreement between Russia and Napoleonic France, concluded in the city of Tilsit in 1807, was temporary. This was understood both in St. Petersburg and in Paris, although many dignitaries of the two countries advocated maintaining peace. However, contradictions between states continued to accumulate, leading to open conflict.
On June 12 (24), 1812, about 500 thousand Napoleonic soldiers crossed the Neman River and
invaded Russia. Napoleon rejected Alexander I's proposal for a peaceful solution to the conflict if he would withdraw his troops. Thus began the Patriotic War, so called because not only the regular army fought against the French, but also almost the entire population of the country in the militia and partisan detachments.
The Russian army consisted of 220 thousand people, and it was divided into three parts. The first army - under the command of General M.B. Barclay de Tolly - was located on the territory of Lithuania, the second - under General Prince P.I. Bagration - in Belarus, and the third army - under General A.P. Tormasov - in Ukraine. Napoleon's plan was extremely simple and consisted in defeating the Russian armies piece by piece with powerful blows.
The Russian armies retreated to the east in parallel directions, conserving strength and exhausting the enemy in rearguard battles. On August 2 (14), the armies of Barclay de Tolly and Bagration united in the Smolensk area. Here, in a difficult two-day battle, the French troops lost 20 thousand soldiers and officers, the Russians - up to 6 thousand people.
The war was clearly taking on a protracted nature, the Russian army continued its retreat, leading the enemy with it into the interior of the country. At the end of August 1812, M.I. Kutuzov, a student and colleague of A.V. Suvorov, was appointed commander-in-chief instead of Minister of War M.B. Barclay de Tolly. Alexander I, who did not like him, was forced to take into account the patriotic sentiments of the Russian people and army, general dissatisfaction with the retreat tactics chosen by Barclay de Tolly. Kutuzov decided to give a general battle to the French army in the area of ​​the village of Borodino, 124 km west of Moscow.
On August 26 (September 7) the battle began. The Russian army was faced with the task of exhausting the enemy, undermining its combat power and morale, and, if successful, launching a counteroffensive themselves. Kutuzov chose a very successful position for the Russian troops. The right flank was protected by a natural barrier - the Koloch River, and the left - by artificial earthen fortifications - flushes occupied by Bagration's troops. The troops of General N.N. Raevsky, as well as artillery positions, were located in the center. Napoleon's plan envisaged breaking through the defenses of Russian troops in the area of ​​Bagrationov's flushes and encircling Kutuzov's army, and when it was pressed against the river, its complete defeat.
The French launched eight attacks against the flushes, but were unable to completely capture them. They managed to make only slight progress in the center, destroying Raevsky's batteries. In the midst of the battle in the central direction, the Russian cavalry made a daring raid behind enemy lines, which sowed panic in the ranks of the attackers.
Napoleon did not dare to bring into action his main reserve - the old guard - in order to turn the tide of the battle. The Battle of Borodino ended late in the evening, and the troops retreated to previously occupied positions. Thus, the battle was a political and moral victory for the Russian army.
On September 1 (13) in Fili, at a meeting of the command staff, Kutuzov decided to leave Moscow in order to preserve the army. Napoleon's troops entered Moscow and stayed there until October 1812. Meanwhile, Kutuzov carried out his plan called the “Tarutino Maneuver”, thanks to which Napoleon lost the ability to track the locations of the Russians. In the village of Tarutino, Kutuzov’s army was replenished by 120 thousand people and significantly strengthened its artillery and cavalry. In addition, it actually closed the French troops’ path to Tula, where the main weapons arsenals and food warehouses were located.
During their stay in Moscow, the French army was demoralized by hunger, looting, and fires that engulfed the city. In the hope of replenishing his arsenals and food supplies, Napoleon was forced to withdraw his army from Moscow. On the way to Maloyaroslavets on October 12 (24), Napoleon's army suffered a serious defeat and began a retreat from Russia along the Smolensk road, already ruined by the French themselves.
At the final stage of the war, the tactics of the Russian army consisted of parallel pursuit of the enemy. Russian troops, no
entering the battle with Napoleon, they destroyed his retreating army piece by piece. The French also suffered seriously from the winter frosts, for which they were not prepared, since Napoleon hoped to end the war before the cold weather. The culmination of the war of 1812 was the battle of the Berezina River, which ended in the defeat of Napoleonic army.
On December 25, 1812, in St. Petersburg, Emperor Alexander I published a manifesto, which stated that the Patriotic War of the Russian people against the French invaders ended in complete victory and the expulsion of the enemy.
The Russian army took part in the foreign campaigns of 1813-1814, during which, together with the Prussian, Swedish, English and Austrian armies, they finished off the enemy in Germany and France. The campaign of 1813 ended with the defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig. After the capture of Paris by Allied forces in the spring of 1814, Napoleon I abdicated the throne.

Decembrist movement

The first quarter of the 19th century in the history of Russia became the period of formation of the revolutionary movement and its ideology. After the foreign campaigns of the Russian army, advanced ideas began to penetrate into the Russian Empire. The first secret revolutionary organizations of nobles appeared. Most of them were military officers - guard officers.
The first secret political society was founded in 1816 in St. Petersburg under the name "Union of Salvation", renamed the following year into the "Society of True and Faithful Sons of the Fatherland." Its members were the future Decembrists A.I. Muravyov, M.I. Muravyov-Apostol, P.I. Pestel, S.P. Trubetskoy and others. The goal they set for themselves was a constitution, representation, the liquidation of the serf rights. However, this society was still small in number and could not realize the tasks that it set for itself.
In 1818, on the basis of this self-liquidated society, a new one was created - the “Union of Welfare”. It was already a larger secret organization, numbering more than 200 people. Its organizers were F.N. Glinka, F.P. Tolstoy, M.I. Muravyov-Apostol. The organization had a branched nature: its cells were created in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Tambov, and in the south of the country. The goals of society remained the same - the introduction of representative government, the elimination of autocracy and serfdom. Members of the Union saw ways to achieve their goal in promoting their views and proposals sent to the government. However, they never heard a response.
All this prompted radical members of society to create two new secret organizations, established in March 1825. One was founded in St. Petersburg and was called the “Northern Society.” Its creators were N.M. Muravyov and N.I. Turgenev. Another one arose in Ukraine. This “Southern Society” was led by P.I. Pestel. Both societies were interconnected and were actually a single organization. Each society had its own program document, the Northern one - the “Constitution” by N.M. Muravyov, and the Southern one - “Russian Truth”, written by P.I. Pestel.
These documents expressed a single goal - the destruction of autocracy and serfdom. However, the “Constitution” expressed the liberal nature of the reforms - with a constitutional monarchy, restrictions on voting rights and the preservation of landownership, while “Russkaya Pravda” was radical, republican. It proclaimed a presidential republic, the confiscation of landowners' lands and a combination of private and public forms of property.
The conspirators planned to carry out their coup in the summer of 1826 during army exercises. But unexpectedly, on November 19, 1825, Alexander I died, and this event pushed the conspirators to take active action ahead of schedule.
After the death of Alexander I, his brother Konstantin Pavlovich was supposed to become the Russian emperor, but during the life of Alexander I he abdicated the throne in favor of his younger brother Nicholas. This was not officially announced, so initially both the state apparatus and the army swore allegiance to Constantine. But soon Constantine’s renunciation of the throne was made public and a re-oath was ordered. That's why
members of the “Northern Society” decided to speak out on December 14, 1825 with the demands laid down in their program, for which they planned to conduct a demonstration of military force at the Senate building. An important task was to prevent senators from taking the oath of office to Nikolai Pavlovich. Prince S.P. Trubetskoy was proclaimed the leader of the uprising.
On December 14, 1825, the Moscow Regiment, led by members of the “Northern Society” brothers Bestuzhev and Shchepin-Rostovsky, was the first to arrive on Senate Square. However, the regiment stood alone for a long time, the conspirators were inactive. The murder of the Governor-General of St. Petersburg, M.A. Miloradovich, who went to join the rebels, became fatal - the uprising could no longer end peacefully. By mid-day, the rebels were still joined by a guards naval crew and a company of the Life Grenadier Regiment.
The leaders continued to hesitate to take active action. In addition, it turned out that the senators had already sworn allegiance to Nicholas I and left the Senate. Therefore, there was no one to present the “Manifesto” to, and Prince Trubetskoy never appeared on the square. Meanwhile, troops loyal to the government began shelling the rebels. The uprising was suppressed and arrests began. Members of the “Southern Society” tried to carry out an uprising in early January 1826 (uprising of the Chernigov regiment), but it was brutally suppressed by the authorities. Five leaders of the uprising - P.I. Pestel, K.F. Ryleev, S.I. Muravyov-Apostol, M.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin and P.G. Kakhovsky - were executed, the rest of its participants were exiled to hard labor in Siberia.
The Decembrist uprising was the first open protest in Russia, which aimed at radically reorganizing society.

Reign of Nicholas I

In the history of Russia, the reign of Emperor Nicholas I is defined as the apogee of Russian autocracy. The revolutionary upheavals that accompanied the accession to the throne of this Russian emperor left their mark on all his activities. In the eyes of his contemporaries, he was perceived as a strangler of freedom and free-thinking, as an unlimited despot ruler. The emperor believed in the destructiveness of human freedom and the independence of society. In his opinion, the prosperity of the country could be ensured exclusively through strict order, the strict fulfillment of their duties by every subject of the Russian Empire, control and regulation of public life.
Believing that the issue of prosperity can only be resolved from above, Nicholas I formed the “Committee of December 6, 1826.” The committee's tasks included the preparation of reform bills. 1826 also saw the transformation of “His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery” into the most important body of state power and administration. The most important tasks were assigned to its II and III departments. The II department was supposed to deal with the codification of laws, and the III department was supposed to deal with matters of higher politics. To solve problems, it received subordinate corps of gendarmes and, thus, control over all aspects of public life. The all-powerful Count A.H. Benckendorf, close to the emperor, was placed at the head of the III department.
However, the over-centralization of power did not lead to positive results. The higher authorities were drowned in a sea of ​​paperwork and lost control over the course of affairs on the ground, which led to red tape and abuses.
To resolve the peasant question, ten successive secret committees were created. However, the result of their activities was insignificant. The most important event in the peasant question can be considered the reform of the state village of 1837. State peasants were given self-government, and their management was put in order. Taxation and land allocation were revised. In 1842, a decree on obligated peasants was issued, according to which the landowner received the right to release the peasants by providing them with land, but not for ownership, but for use. 1844 changed the situation of peasants in the western regions of the country. But this was done not with the aim of improving the situation of the peasants, but in the interests of the authorities, striving
trying to limit the influence of the local, opposition-minded non-Russian nobility.
With the penetration of capitalist relations into the economic life of the country and the gradual erosion of the class system, changes were also associated in the social structure - the ranks giving nobility were increased, and a new class status was introduced for the growing commercial and industrial strata - honorary citizenship.
Control over public life also led to changes in the field of education. In 1828, a reform of lower and secondary educational institutions was carried out. Education was class-based, i.e. The school levels were separated from each other: primary and parish - for peasants, district - for urban inhabitants, gymnasiums - for nobles. In 1835, a new university charter was issued, which reduced the autonomy of higher educational institutions.
The wave of European bourgeois revolutions in Europe in 1848-1849, which horrified Nicholas I, led to the so-called. During the “dark seven years,” when censorship control was tightened to the limit, the secret police were rampant. A shadow of hopelessness loomed before the most progressively minded people. This last stage of the reign of Nicholas I was essentially the death throes of the system that he created.

Crimean War

The last years of the reign of Nicholas I passed against the backdrop of complications in Russia's foreign policy situation, associated with the aggravation of the eastern question. The cause of the conflict was problems related to trade in the Middle East, for which Russia, France and England fought. Turkey, in turn, was counting on revenge for its defeat in the wars with Russia. Austria, which wanted to expand its sphere of influence into Turkish possessions in the Balkans, also did not want to miss its chance.
The direct cause of the war was the old conflict between the Catholic and Orthodox churches for the right to control the holy places for Christians in Palestine. Supported by France, Turkey refused to satisfy Russia's claims to the priority of the Orthodox Church in this matter. In June 1853, Russia broke off diplomatic relations with Turkey and occupied the Danube principalities. In response to this, the Turkish Sultan declared war on Russia on October 4, 1853.
Turkey relied on the ongoing war in the North Caucasus and provided all possible assistance to the mountaineers who rebelled against Russia, including carrying out landings of its fleet on the Caucasian coast. In response to this, on November 18, 1853, the Russian flotilla under the command of Admiral P.S. Nakhimov completely defeated the Turkish fleet in the roadstead of Sinop Bay. This naval battle became the pretext for France and England entering the war. In December 1853, the combined English and French squadron entered the Black Sea, and in March 1854 a declaration of war followed.
The war that came to the south of Russia showed the complete backwardness of Russia, the weakness of its industrial potential and the unpreparedness of the military command for war in new conditions. The Russian army was inferior in almost all indicators - the number of steam ships, rifled weapons, artillery. Due to the lack of railways, the situation with the supply of equipment, ammunition and food to the Russian army was poor.
During the summer campaign of 1854, Russia managed to successfully resist the enemy. The Turkish troops were defeated in several battles. The English and French fleets tried to attack Russian positions in the Baltic, Black and White Seas and in the Far East, but to no avail. In July 1854, Russia had to accept the Austrian ultimatum and leave the Danube principalities. And from September 1854, the main hostilities began in Crimea.
Mistakes by the Russian command allowed the Allied landing force to successfully land in the Crimea, and on September 8, 1854 to defeat Russian troops near the Alma River and besiege Sevastopol. The defense of Sevastopol under the leadership of admirals V.A. Kornilov, P.S. Nakhimov and V.I. Istomin lasted 349 days. Attempts by the Russian army under the command of Prince A.S. Menshikov to draw back part of the besieging forces were unsuccessful.
On August 27, 1855, French troops stormed the southern part of Sevastopol and captured the height dominating the city - Malakhov Kurgan. Russian troops were forced to leave the city. Since the forces of the fighting parties were exhausted, on March 18, 1856, a peace treaty was signed in Paris, under the terms of which the Black Sea was declared neutral, the Russian fleet was reduced to a minimum and fortifications were destroyed. Similar demands were made to Turkey. However, since the exit from the Black Sea was in the hands of Turkey, such a decision seriously threatened the security of Russia. In addition, Russia was deprived of the mouth of the Danube and the southern part of Bessarabia, and also lost the right to patronize Serbia, Moldova and Wallachia. Thus, Russia lost its position in the Middle East to France and England. Its prestige on the international stage was greatly undermined.

Bourgeois reforms in Russia in the 60s - 70s

The development of capitalist relations in pre-reform Russia came into increasing conflict with the feudal-serf system. The defeat in the Crimean War exposed the rottenness and impotence of serf Russia. A crisis arose in the policy of the ruling feudal class, which could no longer carry it out using the previous, serf-based methods. Urgent economic, social and political reforms were needed in order to prevent a revolutionary explosion in the country. The country's agenda included activities necessary to not only preserve, but also strengthen the social and economic basis of the autocracy.
The new Russian Emperor Alexander II, who ascended the throne on February 19, 1855, was well aware of all this. He also understood the need for concessions and compromise in the interests of state life. After his accession to the throne, the young emperor introduced his brother Constantine, who was a staunch liberal, into the cabinet. The emperor's next steps were also progressive in nature - free travel abroad was allowed, the Decembrists were amnestied, censorship on publications was partially lifted, and other liberal measures were taken.
Alexander II also took the problem of abolishing serfdom very seriously. Starting from the end of 1857, a number of committees and commissions were created in Russia, the main task of which was to resolve the issue of liberating the peasantry from serfdom. At the beginning of 1859, Editorial Commissions were created to summarize and process the committees' projects. The project they developed was submitted to the government.
On February 19, 1861, Alexander II issued a manifesto on the liberation of the peasants, as well as the “Regulations” regulating their new state. According to these documents, Russian peasants received personal freedom and the majority of general civil rights, peasant self-government was introduced, whose responsibilities included collecting taxes and some judicial powers. At the same time, the peasant community and communal land ownership were preserved. Peasants still had to pay a poll tax and carry out conscription duties. As before, corporal punishment was used against peasants.
The government believed that the normal development of the agricultural sector would make it possible for two types of farms to coexist: large landowners and small peasants. However, the peasants received land for plots that were 20% less than the plots they used before liberation. This greatly complicated the development of peasant farming, and in some cases brought it to naught. For the land received, the peasants had to pay the landowners a ransom that was one and a half times its value. But this was unrealistic, so the state paid 80% of the cost of the land to the landowners. Thus, the peasants became debtors to the state and were obliged to repay this amount within 50 years with interest. Be that as it may, the reform created significant opportunities for the agrarian development of Russia, although it retained a number of remnants in the form of class isolation of the peasantry and communities.
The peasant reform entailed transformations in many aspects of the country's social and state life. 1864 was the year of birth of zemstvos - local government bodies. The sphere of competence of zemstvos was quite wide: they had the right to collect taxes for local needs and hire employees, and were in charge of economic issues, schools, medical institutions, and charity issues.
The reforms also affected city life. Since 1870, self-government bodies began to be formed in cities. They were mainly in charge of economic life. The self-government body was called the city duma, which formed the government. The city mayor was at the head of the Duma and the executive body. The Duma itself was elected by city voters, whose composition was formed in accordance with social and property qualifications.
However, the most radical was the judicial reform carried out in 1864. The former class-based and closed court was abolished. Now the verdict in the reformed court was made by jurors who were representatives of the public. The process itself became public, oral and adversarial. The prosecutor-prosecutor spoke on behalf of the state at the trial, and the defense of the accused was carried out by a lawyer - a sworn attorney.
The media and educational institutions were not ignored. In 1863 and 1864 new university statutes are being introduced, restoring their autonomy. A new regulation on school institutions was adopted, according to which the state, zemstvos and city councils, as well as the church took care of them. Education was declared accessible to all classes and religions. In 1865, preliminary censorship on publications was lifted and responsibility for already published articles was assigned to publishers.
Serious reforms were also carried out in the army. Russia was divided into fifteen military districts. Military educational institutions and military courts were modified. Instead of conscription, in 1874, universal conscription was introduced. The transformations also affected the sphere of finance, the Orthodox clergy and church educational institutions.
All these reforms, called “great” ones, brought the socio-political structure of Russia in line with the needs of the second half of the 19th century and mobilized all representatives of society to solve national problems. The first step was taken towards the formation of a rule of law state and civil society. Russia has entered a new, capitalist path of development.

Alexander III and his counter-reforms

After the death of Alexander II in March 1881 as a result of a terrorist attack organized by Narodnaya Volya, members of a secret organization of Russian utopian socialists, his son, Alexander III, ascended the Russian throne. At the beginning of his reign, confusion reigned in the government: knowing nothing about the forces of the populists, Alexander III did not risk dismissing the supporters of his father’s liberal reforms.
However, the very first steps of Alexander III’s state activities showed that the new emperor was not going to sympathize with liberalism. The punitive system was significantly improved. In 1881, the “Regulations on measures to preserve state security and public peace” were approved. This document expanded the powers of governors, giving them the right to declare a state of emergency for an unlimited period and carry out any repressive actions. “Security departments” arose, under the jurisdiction of the gendarmerie corps, whose activities were aimed at suppressing and suppressing any illegal activity.
In 1882, measures were taken to tighten censorship, and in 1884, higher educational institutions were effectively deprived of their self-government. The government of Alexander III closed liberal publications and increased
times the tuition fee. The decree of 1887 “on cooks’ children” made it difficult for children of the lower classes to access higher educational institutions and gymnasiums. At the end of the 80s, reactionary laws were adopted, which essentially repealed a number of provisions of the reforms of the 60s and 70s
Thus, peasant class isolation was preserved and consolidated, and power was transferred to officials from among the local landowners, who combined judicial and administrative powers in their hands. The new Zemstvo Code and City Regulations not only significantly reduced the independence of local government, but also reduced the number of voters several times. Changes were made in the activities of the court.
The reactionary nature of the government of Alexander III was also evident in the socio-economic sphere. An attempt to protect the interests of bankrupt landowners led to a tougher policy towards the peasantry. In order to prevent the emergence of a rural bourgeoisie, family divisions of peasants were limited and obstacles were put in place to alienate peasant plots.
However, in the context of a more complicated international situation, the government could not help but encourage the development of capitalist relations, primarily in the field of industrial production. Priority was given to enterprises and industries of strategic importance. A policy was pursued of their encouragement and state protection, which led to their transformation into monopolists. As a result of these actions, threatening imbalances grew, which could lead to economic and social upheaval.
The reactionary transformations of the 1880-1890s were called “counter-reforms”. Their successful implementation was due to the absence of forces in Russian society that would be capable of creating effective opposition to government policies. To top it all off, they have extremely strained relations between the government and society. However, the counter-reforms did not achieve their goals: society could no longer be stopped in its development.

Russia at the beginning of the 20th century

At the turn of two centuries, Russian capitalism began to develop into its highest stage - imperialism. Bourgeois relations, having become dominant, required the elimination of the remnants of serfdom and the creation of conditions for the further progressive development of society. The main classes of bourgeois society had already emerged - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and the latter was more homogeneous, bound by the same adversities and difficulties, concentrated in the large industrial centers of the country, more receptive and mobile in relation to progressive innovations. All that was needed was a political party that could unite his various detachments and arm him with a program and tactics of struggle.
At the beginning of the 20th century, a revolutionary situation developed in Russia. There was a division of the country's political forces into three camps - government, liberal-bourgeois and democratic. The liberal-bourgeois camp was represented by supporters of the so-called. “Union of Liberation”, whose goal was to establish a constitutional monarchy in Russia, introduce general elections, protect the “interests of the working people,” etc. After the creation of the Cadets (Constitutional Democrats) party, the Liberation Union ceased its activities.
The social democratic movement, which appeared in the 90s of the 19th century, was represented by supporters of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP), which in 1903 divided into two movements - the Bolsheviks led by V.I. Lenin and the Mensheviks. In addition to the RSDLP, this included the Socialist Revolutionaries (Socialist Revolutionary Party).
After the death of Emperor Alexander III in 1894, his son Nicholas I ascended the throne. Easily susceptible to outside influences and lacking a strong and firm character, Nicholas II turned out to be a weak politician, whose actions in the country’s foreign and domestic policy plunged it into the abyss of disasters, the beginning which resulted in the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. The mediocrity of the Russian generals and the tsarist entourage, who sent thousands of Russians into the bloody massacre
soldiers and sailors, further inflamed the situation in the country.

First Russian Revolution

The extremely deteriorating situation of the people, the complete inability of the government to resolve the pressing problems of the country's development, and defeat in the Russo-Japanese War became the main reasons for the first Russian revolution. The reason for it was the shooting of a workers' demonstration in St. Petersburg on January 9, 1905. This shooting caused an explosion of indignation in wide circles of Russian society. Mass riots and unrest broke out in all parts of the country. The movement of discontent gradually took on an organized character. The Russian peasantry also joined him. In the conditions of the war with Japan and complete unpreparedness for such events, the government did not have enough strength or means to suppress numerous protests. As one of the means to relieve tension, tsarism announced the creation of a representative body - the State Duma. The fact of neglect of the interests of the masses from the very beginning put the Duma in the position of a stillborn body, since it had practically no powers.
This attitude of the authorities caused even greater discontent both on the part of the proletariat and peasantry, and on the part of liberal-minded representatives of the Russian bourgeoisie. Therefore, by the autumn of 1905, all conditions were created in Russia for the maturation of a national crisis.
Losing control over the situation, the tsarist government made new concessions. In October 1905, Nicholas II signed the Manifesto, which granted Russians freedom of the press, speech, assembly and unions, which laid the foundations of Russian democracy. This Manifesto caused a split in the revolutionary movement. The revolutionary wave has lost its breadth and mass character. This can explain the defeat of the December armed uprising in Moscow in 1905, which was the highest point in the development of the first Russian revolution.
Under the current conditions, liberal circles came to the fore. Numerous political parties emerged - the Cadets (constitutional democrats), the Octobrists (Union of October 17). A notable phenomenon was the creation of patriotic organizations - the “Black Hundreds”. The revolution was on the decline.
In 1906, the central event in the life of the country was no longer the revolutionary movement, but the elections to the Second State Duma. The New Duma was unable to resist the government and was dispersed in 1907. Since the manifesto on the dissolution of the Duma was promulgated on June 3, the political system in Russia, which lasted until February 1917, was called the Third June Monarchy.

Russia in World War I

Russia's participation in the First World War was due to the aggravation of Russian-German contradictions caused by the formation of the Triple Alliance and the Entente. The murder of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne in the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, became the reason for the outbreak of hostilities. In 1914, simultaneously with the actions of German troops on the western front, the Russian command launched an invasion of East Prussia. It was stopped by German troops. But in the Galicia region, the troops of Austria-Hungary suffered a serious defeat. The result of the 1914 campaign was the establishment of balance on the fronts and the transition to trench warfare.
In 1915, the center of gravity of the fighting was transferred to the Eastern Front. From spring to August, the Russian front along its entire length was breached by German troops. Russian troops were forced to leave Poland, Lithuania and Galicia, suffering heavy losses.
In 1916 the situation changed somewhat. In June, troops under the command of General Brusilov broke through the Austro-Hungarian front in Galicia in Bukovina. This offensive was stopped by the enemy with great difficulty. The military operations of 1917 took place in the context of a clearly mature political crisis in the country. The February bourgeois-democratic revolution took place in Russia, as a result of which the Provisional Government that replaced the autocracy found itself hostage to the previous obligations of tsarism. The course to continue the war to a victorious end led to an aggravation of the situation in the country and to the Bolsheviks coming to power.

Revolutionary 1917

The First World War sharply aggravated all the contradictions that had been brewing in Russia since the beginning of the 20th century. Human casualties, economic devastation, hunger, people's dissatisfaction with tsarism's measures to overcome the brewing national crisis, and the inability of the autocracy to compromise with the bourgeoisie became the main reasons for the February bourgeois revolution of 1917. On February 23, a workers' strike began in Petrograd, which soon grew into an all-Russian one. The workers were supported by the intelligentsia, students,
army. The peasantry also did not remain aloof from these events. Already on February 27, power in the capital passed into the hands of the Council of Workers' Deputies, headed by the Mensheviks.
The Petrograd Soviet completely controlled the army, which soon completely went over to the side of the rebels. Attempts at a punitive campaign undertaken by troops removed from the front were unsuccessful. The soldiers supported the February coup. On March 1, 1917, a Provisional Government was formed in Petrograd, consisting mainly of representatives of bourgeois parties. Nicholas II abdicated the throne. Thus, the February Revolution overthrew the autocracy, which was hindering the progressive development of the country. The relative ease with which tsarism was overthrown in Russia showed how weak the regime of Nicholas II and its support - the landowner-bourgeois circles - were in their attempts to maintain power.
The February bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917 was political in nature. She could not solve the country's pressing economic, social and national problems. The provisional government had no real power. An alternative to his power - the Soviets, created at the very beginning of the February events, controlled for the time being by the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, supported the Provisional Government, but could not yet take on the leading role in implementing radical changes in the country. But at this stage, the Soviets were supported by both the army and the revolutionary people. Therefore, in March - early July 1917, the so-called dual power arose in Russia - that is, the simultaneous existence of two authorities in the country.
Finally, the petty-bourgeois parties, which then had a majority in the Soviets, ceded power to the Provisional Government as a result of the July crisis of 1917. The fact is that at the end of June - beginning of July on the Eastern Front, German troops launched a powerful counter-offensive. Not wanting to go to the front, the soldiers of the Petrograd garrison decided to organize an uprising under the leadership of the Bolsheviks and anarchists. The resignation of some ministers of the Provisional Government further strained the situation. There was no consensus among the Bolsheviks about what was happening. Lenin and some members of the party's central committee considered the uprising premature.
On July 3, mass demonstrations began in the capital. Despite the fact that the Bolsheviks tried to direct the actions of the demonstrators in a peaceful direction, armed clashes began between the demonstrators and troops controlled by the Petrograd Soviet. The Provisional Government, having seized the initiative, with the help of troops arriving from the front, resorted to harsh measures. The demonstrators were shot. From that moment on, the leadership of the Council gave full power to the Provisional Government.
The dual power is over. The Bolsheviks were forced to go underground. A decisive offensive by the authorities began against all those dissatisfied with the government's policies.
By the autumn of 1917, a national crisis had once again matured in the country, creating the ground for a new revolution. The collapse of the economy, the intensification of the revolutionary movement, the increased authority of the Bolsheviks and support for their actions in various sectors of society, the disintegration of the army, which suffered defeat after defeat on the battlefields of the First World War, the growing distrust of the masses in the Provisional Government, as well as the unsuccessful attempt at a military coup undertaken by General Kornilov , - these are the symptoms of the maturation of a new revolutionary explosion.
The gradual Bolshevization of the Soviets, the army, the disappointment of the proletariat and peasantry in the ability of the Provisional Government to find a way out of the crisis made it possible for the Bolsheviks to put forward the slogan “All power to the Soviets,” under which in Petrograd on October 24-25, 1917 they managed to carry out a coup called the Great October Revolution. At the II All-Russian Congress of Soviets on October 25, the transfer of power in the country to the Bolsheviks was announced. The provisional government was arrested. At the congress, the first decrees of the Soviet government were promulgated - “On Peace”, “On Land”, and the first government of the victorious Bolsheviks was formed - the Council of People's Commissars, headed by V.I. Lenin. On November 2, 1917, Soviet power established itself in Moscow. Almost everywhere the army supported the Bolsheviks. By March 1918, the new revolutionary government had established itself throughout the country.
The creation of a new state apparatus, which at first encountered stubborn resistance from the previous bureaucratic apparatus, was completed by the beginning of 1918. At the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets in January 1918, Russia was proclaimed a republic of Soviets of workers, soldiers and peasants' deputies. The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) was established as a federation of Soviet national republics. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets became its highest body; In the intervals between congresses, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK), which had legislative power, worked.
The government - the Council of People's Commissars - through the formed people's commissariats (People's Commissariats) exercised executive power, people's courts and revolutionary tribunals exercised judicial power. Special government bodies were formed - the Supreme Council of the National Economy (VSNKh), which was responsible for regulating the economy and the processes of nationalization of industry, and the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission (VChK) - for the fight against counter-revolution. The main feature of the new state apparatus was the merger of legislative and executive powers in the country.

To successfully build a new state, the Bolsheviks needed peaceful conditions. Therefore, already in December 1917, negotiations began with the command of the German army on concluding a separate peace treaty, which was concluded in March 1918. Its conditions for Soviet Russia were extremely difficult and even humiliating. Russia abandoned Poland, Estonia and Latvia, withdrew its troops from Finland and Ukraine, and ceded the Transcaucasian region. However, this “obscene” peace, as Lenin himself put it, was urgently needed by the young Soviet republic. Thanks to the peaceful respite, the Bolsheviks managed to carry out the first economic measures in the city and in the countryside - to establish workers' control in industry, begin its nationalization, and begin social transformations in the countryside.
However, the course of the ongoing transformations was interrupted for a long time by the bloody civil war, which began with the forces of internal counter-revolution in the spring of 1918. In Siberia, the Cossacks of Ataman Semenov spoke out against Soviet power, in the south, in the Cossack regions, Krasnov’s Don Army and Denikin’s Volunteer Army were formed
in Kuban. Socialist Revolutionary riots broke out in Murom, Rybinsk, and Yaroslavl. Almost simultaneously, intervention troops landed on the territory of Soviet Russia (in the north - the British, Americans, French, in the Far East - the Japanese, Germany occupied the territories of Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic states, British troops occupied Baku). In May 1918, the revolt of the Czechoslovak Corps began.
The situation on the country's fronts was very difficult. Only in December 1918 did the Red Army manage to stop the advance of General Krasnov’s troops on the southern front. From the east, the Bolsheviks were threatened by Admiral Kolchak, who was striving for the Volga. He managed to capture Ufa, Izhevsk and other cities. However, by the summer of 1919 he was thrown back to the Urals. As a result of the summer offensive of General Yudenich's troops in 1919, a threat now loomed over Petrograd. Only after bloody battles in June 1919 was it possible to eliminate the threat of capture of the northern capital of Russia (by this time the Soviet government had moved to Moscow).
However, already in July 1919, as a result of the offensive of General Denikin’s troops from the south to the central regions of the country, Moscow now turned into a military camp. By October 1919, the Bolsheviks had lost Odessa, Kyiv, Kursk, Voronezh and Orel. The Red Army troops managed to repel the offensive of Denikin's troops only at the cost of huge losses.
In November 1919, the troops of Yudenich were finally defeated, who again threatened Petrograd during the autumn offensive. Winter 1919-1920 The Red Army liberated Krasnoyarsk and Irkutsk. Kolchak was captured and shot. At the beginning of 1920, having liberated Donbass and Ukraine, Red Army troops drove the White Guards into Crimea. Only in November 1920 was Crimea cleared of the troops of General Wrangel. The Polish campaign of the spring-summer of 1920 ended in failure for the Bolsheviks.

From the policy of “war communism” to the new economic policy

The economic policy of the Soviet state during the civil war, aimed at mobilizing all resources for military needs, was called the policy of “war communism.” This was a set of emergency measures in the country's economy, which was characterized by such features as nationalization of industry, centralization of management, introduction of surplus appropriation in the countryside, ban on private trade and equalization in distribution and payment. In the conditions of peaceful life, she no longer justified herself. The country was on the verge of economic collapse. Industry, energy, transport, agriculture, as well as the country's finances experienced a protracted crisis. Demonstrations by peasants dissatisfied with food appropriation became more frequent. The uprising in Kronstadt in March 1921 against Soviet power showed that the dissatisfaction of the masses with the policy of “war communism” could threaten its very existence.
The consequence of all these reasons was the decision of the Bolshevik government in March 1921 to move to the “new economic policy” (NEP). This policy provided for the replacement of surplus appropriation with a fixed tax in kind for the peasantry, the transfer of state enterprises to self-financing, and the permission of private trade. At the same time, a transition was made from in-kind to cash wages, and equalization was abolished. Elements of state capitalism in industry in the form of concessions and the creation of state trusts associated with the market were partially allowed. It was allowed to open small artisanal private enterprises, serviced by the labor of hired workers.
The main merit of the NEP was that the peasant masses finally went over to the side of the Soviet government. Conditions were created for the restoration of industry and the beginning of a rise in production. Providing a certain economic freedom to workers gave them the opportunity to show initiative and entrepreneurship. NEP, in essence, demonstrated the possibility and necessity of a variety of forms of ownership, recognition of the market and commodity relations in the country's economy.

In 1918-1922. small and compactly living peoples living on the territory of Russia received autonomy within the RSFSR. In parallel with this, the formation of larger national entities - sovereign Soviet republics allied with the RSFSR - took place. By the summer of 1922, the process of unification of the Soviet republics entered its final phase. The Soviet party leadership prepared a unification project, which provided for the entry of the Soviet republics into the RSFSR as autonomous entities. The author of this project was I.V. Stalin, the then People's Commissar for Nationalities.
Lenin saw in this project an infringement of the national sovereignty of peoples and insisted on the creation of a federation of equal union republics. On December 30, 1922, the First Congress of Soviets of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics rejected Stalin’s “autonomization project” and adopted a declaration and agreement on the formation of the USSR, which was based on the federal structure plan that Lenin insisted on.
In January 1924, the Second All-Union Congress of Soviets approved the Constitution of the new union. According to this Constitution, the USSR was a federation of equal sovereign republics that had the right to freely secede from the union. At the same time, the formation of representative and executive union bodies at the local level took place. However, as subsequent events will show, the USSR gradually acquired the character of a unitary state, governed from a single center - Moscow.
With the introduction of the new economic policy, the measures taken by the Soviet government to implement it (denationalization of some enterprises, allowing free trade and wage labor, emphasis on the development of commodity-money and market relations, etc.) came into conflict with the concept of building a socialist society on a non-commodity basis. The priority of politics over economics, preached by the Bolshevik Party, and the beginning of the formation of an administrative-command system led to the crisis of the NEP in 1923. In order to increase labor productivity, the state artificially increased prices for industrial goods. It turned out that the villagers could not afford to purchase industrial goods, which overflowed all the warehouses and shops of the cities. The so-called "crisis of overproduction." In response to this, the village began to delay supplies of grain to the state under the tax in kind. Peasant uprisings broke out in some places. New concessions to the peasantry from the state were needed.
Thanks to the successfully carried out monetary reform of 1924, the ruble exchange rate was stabilized, which helped overcome the sales crisis and strengthen trade relations between the city and the countryside. Taxation in kind for peasants was replaced by cash taxation, which gave them greater freedom to develop their own economy. In general, thus, by the mid-20s, the process of restoring the national economy was completed in the USSR. The socialist sector of the economy has significantly strengthened its position.
At the same time, the USSR's position in the international arena was improving. In order to break the diplomatic blockade, Soviet diplomacy took an active part in the work of international conferences in the early 20s. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party hoped to establish economic and political cooperation with the leading capitalist countries.
At an international conference in Genoa dedicated to economic and financial issues (1922), the Soviet delegation expressed its readiness to discuss the issue of compensation to former foreign owners in Russia, subject to the recognition of the new state and the provision of international loans to it. At the same time, the Soviet side put forward counterproposals to compensate Soviet Russia for losses caused by the intervention and blockade during the civil war. However, during the conference these issues were not resolved.
But the young Soviet Diplomacy managed to break through the united front of non-recognition of the young Soviet republic from the capitalist environment. In Rapallo, suburb
Genoa, managed to conclude an agreement with Germany, which provided for the restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries on the terms of mutual renunciation of all claims. Thanks to this success of Soviet diplomacy, the country entered a period of recognition from the leading capitalist powers. In a short time, diplomatic relations were established with Great Britain, Italy, Austria, Sweden, China, Mexico, France and other states.

Industrialization of the national economy

The need to modernize industry and the entire economy of the country in a capitalist environment became the main task of the Soviet government from the beginning of the 20s. During these same years, there was a process of strengthening control and regulation of the economy by the state. This led to the development of the first five-year plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR. The first five-year plan, adopted in April 1929, included indicators of a sharp, accelerated growth in industrial production.
In this regard, the problem of lack of funds for an industrial breakthrough has clearly emerged. Capital investment in new industrial construction was sorely lacking. It was impossible to count on help from abroad. Therefore, one of the sources of the country’s industrialization was the resources pumped out by the state from the still fragile agriculture. Another source was government loans, which covered the entire population of the country. To pay for foreign supplies of industrial equipment, the state resorted to forced confiscation of gold and other valuables from both the population and the church. Another source of industrialization was the export of the country's natural resources - oil, timber. Grain and furs were also exported.
Against the backdrop of a lack of funds, the technical and economic backwardness of the country, and a lack of qualified personnel, the state began to artificially speed up the pace of industrial construction, which led to imbalances, disruption of planning, a discrepancy between wage growth and labor productivity, disruption of the monetary system and rising prices. As a result, a commodity shortage was discovered, and a rationing system for supplying the population was introduced.
The command-administrative system of economic management, accompanied by the establishment of Stalin’s regime of personal power, attributed all the difficulties in implementing industrialization plans to certain enemies who were interfering with the construction of socialism in the USSR. In 1928-1931 A wave of political trials swept across the country, in which many qualified specialists and managers were condemned as “saboteurs,” allegedly holding back the development of the country’s economy.
Nevertheless, the first five-year plan, thanks to the broad enthusiasm of the entire Soviet people, was completed ahead of schedule in terms of its main indicators. Only during the period from 1929 to the end of the 1930s did the USSR make a fantastic leap in its industrial development. During this time, about 6 thousand industrial enterprises came into operation. The Soviet people created such an industrial potential that, in terms of its technical equipment and sectoral structure, was not inferior to the level of production of the advanced capitalist countries of that time. And in terms of production volume, our country has taken second place after the United States.

Collectivization of agriculture

The acceleration of the pace of industrialization, mainly at the expense of the countryside, with an emphasis on basic industries, very quickly aggravated the contradictions of the new economic policy. The end of the 20s was marked by its overthrow. This process was stimulated by the administrative-command structures' fear of the prospect of losing control of the country's economy in their own interests.
Difficulties were growing in the country's agriculture. In a number of cases, the authorities came out of this crisis using violent measures, which was comparable to the practice of war communism and surplus appropriation. In the fall of 1929, such violent measures against agricultural producers were replaced by forced, or, as they said then, complete collectivization. For these purposes, with the help of punitive measures, all potentially dangerous elements, as the Soviet leadership believed, were removed from the village in a short time - kulaks, wealthy peasants, that is, those whom collectivization could prevent the normal development of their personal farming and who could resist it.
The destructive nature of the forced unification of peasants into collective farms forced the authorities to abandon the extremes of this process. Voluntariness began to be observed when joining collective farms. The main form of collective farming was the agricultural artel, where the collective farmer had the right to a personal plot, small equipment and livestock. However, land, cattle and basic agricultural implements were still socialized. In these forms, collectivization in the main grain-producing regions of the country was completed by the end of 1931.
The gain of the Soviet state from collectivization was very important. The roots of capitalism in agriculture were eliminated, as were undesirable class elements. The country gained independence from the import of a number of agricultural products. Grain sold abroad became a source for the acquisition of advanced technologies and advanced equipment necessary during industrialization.
However, the consequences of the breakdown of the traditional economic structure in the village turned out to be very difficult. The productive forces of agriculture were undermined. Crop failures in 1932-1933 and unreasonably inflated plans for the supply of agricultural products to the state led to famine in a number of regions of the country, the consequences of which were not immediately eliminated.

Culture of the 20-30s

Transformations in the field of culture were one of the tasks of building a socialist state in the USSR. The peculiarities of the implementation of the cultural revolution were determined by the backwardness of the country, inherited from old times, and the uneven economic and cultural development of the peoples that became part of the Soviet Union. The Bolshevik authorities focused on building a public education system, restructuring higher education, increasing the role of science in the country's economy, and forming a new creative and artistic intelligentsia.
Even during the civil war, the fight against illiteracy began. Since 1931, universal primary education was introduced. The greatest successes in the field of public education were achieved by the end of the 30s. In the higher education system, together with old specialists, measures were taken to create the so-called. “people's intelligentsia” by increasing the number of students from among workers and peasants. Significant advances have been made in the field of science. The research of N. Vavilov (genetics), V. Vernadsky (geochemistry, biosphere), N. Zhukovsky (aerodynamics) and other scientists became famous throughout the world.
Against the backdrop of success, some areas of science experienced pressure from the administrative-command system. Significant damage was caused to the social sciences - history, philosophy, etc. - by various ideological purges and persecution of individual representatives. As a result of this, almost all of the science of that time was subordinated to the ideological ideas of the communist regime.

USSR in the 1930s

By the beginning of the 30s in the USSR, the economic model of society was being formalized, which can be defined as state-administrative socialism. According to Stalin and his inner circle, this model should have been based on complete
the nationalization of all means of production in industry, the implementation of collectivization of peasant farms. Under these conditions, command-administrative methods of managing and managing the country's economy became very strong.
The priority of ideology over economics against the backdrop of the dominance of the party-state nomenclature made it possible to industrialize the country by reducing the living standards of its population (both urban and rural). In organizational terms, this model of socialism was based on maximum centralization and strict planning. In social terms, it relied on formal democracy with the absolute dominance of the party-state apparatus in all areas of life of the country's population. Directive and non-economic methods of coercion prevailed, and the nationalization of the means of production replaced the socialization of the latter.
Under these conditions, the social structure of Soviet society changed significantly. By the end of the 30s, the country's leadership declared that Soviet society, after the liquidation of capitalist elements, consists of three friendly classes - workers, collective farm peasantry and the people's intelligentsia. Several groups have formed among the workers - a small, privileged layer of highly paid skilled workers and a significant layer of main producers who are not interested in the results of labor and are therefore low-paid. The turnover of workers has increased.
In the countryside, the socialized labor of collective farmers was paid very low. Almost half of all agricultural products were grown on small plots of collective farmers. The collective farm fields themselves produced significantly less produce. Collective farmers were infringed on their political rights. They were deprived of passports and the right to free movement throughout the country.
The Soviet people's intelligentsia, the majority of whom were unskilled petty employees, was in a more privileged position. It was mainly formed from yesterday's workers and peasants, and this could not but lead to a decrease in its general educational level.
The new Constitution of the USSR of 1936 found a new reflection of the changes that took place in Soviet society and the state structure of the country since the adoption of the first constitution in 1924. It declaratively confirmed the fact of the victory of socialism in the USSR. The basis of the new Constitution was the principles of socialism - the state of socialist ownership of the means of production, the elimination of exploitation and exploiting classes, work as a duty, the duty of every able-bodied citizen, the right to work, rest and other socio-economic and political rights.
The Soviets of Working People's Deputies became the political form of organization of state power in the center and locally. The electoral system was also updated: elections became direct, with secret voting. The Constitution of 1936 was characterized by a combination of new social rights of the population with a whole series of liberal democratic rights - freedom of speech, press, conscience, rallies, demonstrations, etc. Another thing is how consistently these declared rights and freedoms were implemented in practice...
The new Constitution of the USSR reflected the objective tendency of Soviet society towards democratization, which flowed from the essence of the socialist system. Thus, it contradicted the already established practice of Stalin’s autocracy as the head of the communist party and state. In real life, mass arrests, arbitrariness, and extrajudicial killings continued. These contradictions between word and deed became a characteristic phenomenon in the life of our country in the 1930s. The preparation, discussion and adoption of the new Basic Law of the country was sold simultaneously with rigged political processes, rampant repression, and the forcible elimination of prominent figures of the party and state who did not accept the regime of personal power and Stalin’s cult of personality. The ideological basis for these phenomena was his well-known thesis about the intensification of the class struggle in the country under socialism, which he proclaimed in 1937, which became the most terrible year of mass repression.
By 1939, almost the entire “Leninist Guard” was destroyed. Repressions also affected the Red Army: from 1937 to 1938. About 40 thousand army and navy officers were killed. Almost the entire senior command staff of the Red Army was repressed, a significant part of them were shot. Terror affected all layers of Soviet society. The standard of life was the exclusion of millions of Soviet people from public life - deprivation of civil rights, removal from office, exile, prisons, camps, the death penalty.

The international position of the USSR in the 30s

Already in the early 30s, the USSR established diplomatic relations with most of the countries of the world at that time, and in 1934 it joined the League of Nations, an international organization created in 1919 with the aim of collectively resolving issues in the world community. In 1936, a Franco-Soviet treaty on mutual assistance in the event of aggression followed. Since in the same year Nazi Germany and Japan signed the so-called. “Anti-Comintern Pact”, which Italy later joined; the response to this was the conclusion of a non-aggression treaty with China in August 1937.
The threat to the Soviet Union from the countries of the fascist bloc was growing. Japan provoked two armed conflicts - near Lake Khasan in the Far East (August 1938) and in Mongolia, with which the USSR was bound by an allied treaty (summer 1939). These conflicts were accompanied by significant losses on both sides.
After the conclusion of the Munich Agreement on the separation of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, the USSR's distrust of Western countries that agreed with Hitler's claims to part of Czechoslovakia intensified. Despite this, Soviet diplomacy did not lose hope of creating a defensive alliance with England and France. However, negotiations with delegations from these countries (August 1939) ended in failure.

This forced the Soviet government to move closer to Germany. On August 23, 1939, a Soviet-German non-aggression treaty was signed, accompanied by a secret protocol on the delimitation of spheres of influence in Europe. Estonia, Latvia, Finland, and Bessarabia were included in the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union. In the event of the division of Poland, its Belarusian and Ukrainian territories were to go to the USSR.
After Germany’s attack on Poland on September 28, a new agreement was concluded with Germany, according to which Lithuania also transferred to the sphere of influence of the USSR. Part of the territory of Poland became part of the Ukrainian and Belarusian SSR. In August 1940, the Soviet government granted the request to admit three new republics into the USSR - Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian, where pro-Soviet governments came to power. At the same time, Romania gave in to the ultimatum demand of the Soviet government and transferred the territories of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina to the USSR. Such a significant territorial expansion of the Soviet Union pushed its borders far to the west, which, given the threat of invasion from Germany, should be assessed as a positive development.
Similar actions of the USSR towards Finland led to an armed conflict that escalated into the Soviet-Finnish War of 1939-1940. During heavy winter battles, the Red Army troops only managed to overcome the defensive “Mannerheim Line”, which was considered impregnable, only in February 1940, with great difficulty and losses. Finland was forced to transfer the entire Karelian Isthmus to the USSR, which significantly moved the border away from Leningrad.

The Great Patriotic War

The signing of a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany only briefly delayed the start of the war. On June 22, 1941, having assembled a colossal invasion army of 190 divisions, Germany and its allies attacked the Soviet Union without declaring war. The USSR was not ready for war. The miscalculations of the war with Finland were slowly eliminated. Serious damage to the army and the country was caused by Stalin's repressions of the 30s. The situation with technical support was no better. Despite the fact that Soviet engineering created many examples of advanced military equipment, little of it was sent to the active army, and its mass production was just getting started.
The summer and autumn of 1941 were the most critical for the Soviet Union. Fascist troops invaded a depth of 800 to 1200 kilometers, blocked Leningrad, came dangerously close to Moscow, occupied most of the Donbass and Crimea, the Baltic states, Belarus, Moldova, almost all of Ukraine and a number of regions of the RSFSR. Many people died, the infrastructure of many cities and towns was completely destroyed. However, the enemy was opposed by the courage and strength of spirit of the people and the material capabilities of the country brought into action. A massive resistance movement was unfolding everywhere: partisan detachments were created behind enemy lines, and later even entire formations.
Having bled German troops in heavy defensive battles, Soviet troops in the Battle of Moscow went on the offensive in early December 1941, which continued in some directions until April 1942. This dispelled the myth of the enemy’s invincibility. The international authority of the USSR increased sharply.
On October 1, 1941, a conference of representatives of the USSR, USA and Great Britain ended in Moscow, at which the foundations for the creation of an anti-Hitler coalition were laid. Agreements were signed on the supply of military aid. And already on January 1, 1942, 26 states signed the United Nations Declaration. An anti-Hitler coalition was created, and its leaders resolved issues of warfare and the democratic structure of the post-war system at joint conferences in Tehran in 1943, as well as in Yalta and Potsdam in 1945.
At the beginning - mid-1942, a very difficult situation arose for the Red Army again. Taking advantage of the absence of a second front in Western Europe, the German command concentrated maximum forces against the USSR. The successes of the German troops at the beginning of the offensive were the result of an underestimation of their strength and capabilities, a consequence of an unsuccessful offensive attempt by Soviet troops near Kharkov and gross miscalculations of the command. The Nazis were rushing to the Caucasus and the Volga. On November 19, 1942, Soviet troops, having stopped the enemy in Stalingrad at the cost of colossal losses, launched a counteroffensive, which ended in the encirclement and complete liquidation of more than 330,000 enemy forces.
However, a radical turning point in the course of the Great Patriotic War came only in 1943. One of the main events of this year was the victory of Soviet troops in the Battle of Kursk. This was one of the largest battles of the war. In just one tank battle in the Prokhorovka area, the enemy lost 400 tanks and more than 10 thousand people killed. Germany and its allies were forced to move from active actions to defense.
In 1944, an offensive Belarusian operation was carried out on the Soviet-German front, codenamed “Bagration”. As a result of its implementation, Soviet troops reached their former state border. The enemy was not only expelled from the country, but the liberation of the countries of Eastern and Central Europe from Nazi captivity began. And on June 6, 1944, the Allies who landed in Normandy opened a second front.
In Europe in the winter of 1944-1945. During the Ardennes operation, Hitler's troops inflicted a serious defeat on the Allies. The situation was becoming catastrophic, and the Soviet army, which launched a large-scale Berlin operation, helped them get out of the difficult situation. In April-May this operation was completed, and our troops stormed the capital of Nazi Germany. A historic meeting of the allies took place on the Elbe River. The German command was forced to capitulate. During its offensive operations, the Soviet army made a decisive contribution to the liberation of the occupied countries from the fascist regime. And on May 8 and 9, for the most part
European countries and the Soviet Union began to celebrate as Victory Day.
However, the war was not over yet. On the night of August 9, 1945, the USSR, true to its allied obligations, entered the war with Japan. The offensive in Manchuria against the Japanese Kwantung Army and its defeat forced the Japanese government to admit final defeat. On September 2, the act of surrender of Japan was signed. Thus, after six long years, the Second World War was over. On October 20, 1945, the trial began in the German city of Nuremberg against the main war criminals.

Soviet rear during the war

At the very beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the Nazis managed to occupy industrially and agriculturally developed areas of the country, which were its main military-industrial and food base. However, the Soviet economy was able not only to withstand extreme stress, but also to defeat the enemy’s economy. In an unprecedentedly short time, the economy of the Soviet Union was rebuilt on a military basis and turned into a well-functioning military economy.
Already in the first days of the war, a significant number of industrial enterprises from the front-line territories were prepared for evacuation to the eastern regions of the country in order to create the main arsenal for the needs of the front. The evacuation was carried out in an extremely short time, often under enemy fire and air strikes. The most important force that made it possible to quickly restore evacuated enterprises in new places, build new industrial capacities and begin producing products intended for the front was the selfless work of the Soviet people, which gave unprecedented examples of labor heroism.
In mid-1942, the USSR had a rapidly growing military economy capable of meeting all the needs of the front. During the war years in the USSR, iron ore production increased by 130%, cast iron production - by almost 160%, steel - by 145%. In connection with the loss of Donbass and the enemy’s access to the oil-bearing sources of the Caucasus, vigorous measures were taken to increase the production of coal, oil and other types of fuel in the eastern regions of the country. The light industry worked with great effort, and after a difficult year for the entire national economy of the country in 1942, in the next year, 1943, it was able to fulfill the plan of supplying the warring army with everything necessary. Transport also worked at maximum load. From 1942 to 1945 Freight turnover of railway transport alone increased by almost one and a half times.
With each war year, the military industry of the USSR produced more and more small arms, artillery weapons, tanks, aircraft, and ammunition. Thanks to the selfless work of home front workers, by the end of 1943 the Red Army was already superior to the fascist army in all combat means. All this was the result of persistent combat between two different economic systems and the efforts of the entire Soviet people.

The meaning and price of the victory of the Soviet people over fascism

It was the Soviet Union, its fighting army and people that became the main force that blocked the path of German fascism to world domination. More than 600 fascist divisions were destroyed on the Soviet-German front; the enemy army lost three-quarters of its aviation, a significant part of its tanks and artillery.
The Soviet Union provided decisive assistance to the peoples of Europe in their struggle for national independence. As a result of the victory over fascism, the balance of forces in the world radically changed. The authority of the Soviet Union in the international arena has grown significantly. In the countries of Eastern Europe, power passed to the governments of people's democracies, and the system of socialism went beyond the boundaries of one country. The economic and political isolation of the USSR was eliminated. The Soviet Union became a great world power. This became the main reason for the emergence of a new geopolitical situation in the world, characterized in the future by the confrontation of two different systems - socialist and capitalist.
The war against fascism brought untold losses and destruction to our country. Almost 27 million Soviet people died, more than 10 million of them on the battlefields. About 6 million of our compatriots were captured by fascists, 4 million of them died. Almost 4 million partisans and underground fighters died behind enemy lines. The grief of irrevocable losses came to almost every Soviet family.
During the war years, more than 1,700 cities and about 70 thousand villages were completely destroyed. Almost 25 million people lost a roof over their heads. Large cities such as Leningrad, Kyiv, Kharkov and others suffered significant destruction, and some of them, such as Minsk, Stalingrad, Rostov-on-Don, were completely in ruins.
A truly tragic situation has developed in the village. About 100 thousand collective and state farms were destroyed by the invaders. Cultivated areas have decreased significantly. Livestock farming suffered. In terms of technical equipment, the country's agriculture was thrown back to the level of the first half of the 30s. The country has lost about a third of its national wealth. The damage caused by the war to the Soviet Union exceeded the losses during World War II of all other European countries combined.

Restoration of the USSR economy in the post-war years

The main objectives of the fourth five-year plan for the development of the national economy (1946-1950) were the restoration of the regions of the country destroyed and devastated by the war, and the achievement of the pre-war level of development of industry and agriculture. At first, the Soviet people faced enormous difficulties in this area - a shortage of food, the difficulties of restoring agriculture, aggravated by the severe crop failure of 1946, the problems of transferring industry to a peaceful path, and the mass demobilization of the army. All this did not allow the Soviet leadership to exercise control over the country's economy until the end of 1947.
However, already in 1948, the volume of industrial production still exceeded the pre-war level. Back in 1946, the 1940 level for electricity production was exceeded, in 1947 - for coal, and in the next 1948 - for steel and cement. By 1950, a significant part of the indicators of the Fourth Five-Year Plan had been realized. Almost 3,200 industrial enterprises were put into operation in the west of the country. The main emphasis, therefore, was placed, as during the pre-war five-year plans, on the development of industry, and above all, heavy industry.
The Soviet Union did not have to count on the help of its former Western allies in restoring its industrial and agricultural potential. Therefore, only our own internal resources and the hard work of the entire people became the main sources of restoration of the country’s economy. Massive investments in industry grew. Their volume significantly exceeded the investments that were directed into the national economy in the 1930s during the period of the first five-year plans.
Despite all the close attention to heavy industry, the situation in agriculture has not yet improved. Moreover, we can talk about its protracted crisis in the post-war period. The decline of agriculture forced the country's leadership to turn to methods proven back in the 30s, which concerned primarily the restoration and strengthening of collective farms. The leadership demanded the implementation at any cost of plans that were based not on the capabilities of collective farms, but on the needs of the state. Control over agriculture again sharply increased. The peasantry was under heavy tax pressure. Purchasing prices for agricultural products were very low, and peasants received very little for their labor on collective farms. They were still deprived of passports and freedom of movement.
And yet, by the end of the Fourth Five-Year Plan, the severe consequences of the war in agriculture were partially overcome. Despite this, agriculture still remained a kind of “pain point” for the entire country’s economy and required a radical reorganization, for which, unfortunately, there were neither the funds nor the strength in the post-war period.

Foreign policy in the post-war years (1945-1953)

The victory of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War led to a serious change in the balance of forces in the international arena. The USSR acquired significant territories both in the West (part of East Prussia, Transcarpathian regions, etc.) and in the East (Southern Sakhalin, Kuril Islands). The influence of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe grew. Immediately after the end of the war, communist governments were formed here in a number of countries (Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc.) with the support of the USSR. A revolution took place in China in 1949, as a result of which the communist regime also came to power.
All this could not but lead to confrontation between the former allies in the anti-Hitler coalition. In conditions of severe confrontation and rivalry between two different socio-political and economic systems - socialist and capitalist, called the “Cold War”, the USSR government made great efforts to carry out its policies and ideology in those states of Western Europe and Asia that it considered objects of its influence . The split of Germany into two states - the FRG and the GDR, the Berlin crisis of 1949 marked the final break between the former allies and the division of Europe into two hostile camps.
After the formation of the military-political alliance of the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) in 1949, a single line began to emerge in the economic and political relations of the USSR and the people's democracies. For these purposes, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) was created, which coordinated the economic relations of the socialist countries, and to strengthen their defense capabilities, their military bloc (Warsaw Pact Organization) was formed in 1955 as a counterweight to NATO.
After the US lost its monopoly on nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union was the first to test a thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb in 1953. The process of rapid creation in both countries - the Soviet Union and the USA - began of more and more new carriers of nuclear weapons and more modern weapons - the so-called. arms race.
This is how the global rivalry between the USSR and the USA arose. This most difficult period in the history of modern mankind, called the “Cold War,” showed how two opposing political and socio-economic systems fought for dominance and influence in the world and were preparing for a new, now all-destroying war. This split the world into two parts. Now everything has begun to be viewed through the prism of harsh confrontation and rivalry.

The death of I.V. Stalin became a milestone in the development of our country. The totalitarian system created in the 30s, which was characterized by the features of state-administrative socialism with the dominance of the party-state nomenklatura in all its links, had already exhausted itself by the beginning of the 50s. A radical change was required. The process of de-Stalinization, which began in 1953, developed in a very complex and contradictory manner. Ultimately, it led to the rise to power of N.S. Khrushchev, who became the de facto head of the country in September 1953. His desire to abandon previous repressive methods of leadership won the sympathy of many honest communists and the majority of the Soviet people. At the 20th Congress of the CPSU, held in February 1956, the policies of Stalinism were sharply criticized. Khrushchev's report to the delegates of the congress, later, in softer terms, published in the press, revealed the distortions of the ideals of socialism that Stalin allowed during almost thirty years of his dictatorial rule.
The process of de-Stalinization of Soviet society was very inconsistent. He did not touch upon the essential aspects of the formation and development
tia of the totalitarian regime in our country. N.S. Khrushchev himself was a typical product of this regime, who only realized the potential inability of the previous leadership to preserve it in an unchanged form. His attempts to democratize the country were doomed to failure, since in any case, the real work to implement changes in both the political and economic lines of the USSR fell on the shoulders of the previous state and party apparatus, which did not want any radical changes.
At the same time, however, many victims of Stalin’s repressions were rehabilitated; some peoples of the country, repressed by Stalin’s regime, were given the opportunity to return to their former places of residence. Their autonomy was restored. The most odious representatives of the country's punitive authorities were removed from power. N.S. Khrushchev’s report to the 20th Party Congress confirmed the country’s previous political course, aimed at finding opportunities for peaceful coexistence of countries with different political systems and at defusing international tension. It is characteristic that it already recognized various ways of building a socialist society.
The fact of public condemnation of Stalin's tyranny had a huge impact on the life of the entire Soviet people. Changes in the life of the country led to the weakening of the system of state, barracks socialism built in the USSR. Total control of the authorities over all areas of life of the population of the Soviet Union was becoming a thing of the past. It was precisely these changes in the previous political system of society, no longer controlled by the authorities, that caused them to strive to strengthen the authority of the party. In 1959, at the 21st Congress of the CPSU, the entire Soviet people were told that socialism had won a complete and final victory in the USSR. The statement that our country has entered a period of “expanded construction of a communist society” was confirmed by the adoption of a new program of the CPSU, which outlined in detail the tasks of building the foundations of communism in the Soviet Union by the beginning of the 80s of our century.

The collapse of Khrushchev's leadership. Return to the system of totalitarian socialism

N.S. Khrushchev, like any reformer of the socio-political system that had developed in the USSR, was very vulnerable. He had to change it, relying on its own resources. Therefore, the numerous, not always well-thought-out reform initiatives of this typical representative of the administrative-command system could not only significantly change it, but even undermine it. All his attempts to “cleanse socialism” from the consequences of Stalinism were unsuccessful. By ensuring the return of power to party structures, returning the party-state nomenclature to its significance and saving it from potential repressions, N.S. Khrushchev fulfilled his historical mission.
The worsening food difficulties of the early 60s, if they did not turn the entire population of the country into dissatisfied with the actions of the previously energetic reformer, then at least determined indifference to his future fate. Therefore, the removal of Khrushchev in October 1964 from the post of leader of the country by the forces of senior representatives of the Soviet party and state nomenklatura passed quite calmly and without incidents.

Increasing difficulties in the country's socio-economic development

In the late 60s - 70s, there was a gradual slide of the USSR economy towards stagnation in almost all its sectors. A steady decline in its main economic indicators was obvious. The economic development of the USSR looked especially unfavorable against the backdrop of the world economy, which was progressing significantly at that time. The Soviet economy continued to reproduce its industrial structures with an emphasis on traditional industries, in particular the export of fuel and energy products.
resources This certainly caused significant damage to the development of high-tech technologies and complex equipment, the share of which was significantly reduced.
The extensive nature of the development of the Soviet economy significantly limited the solution of social problems associated with the concentration of funds in heavy industry and the military-industrial complex; the social sphere of life of the population of our country during the period of stagnation was out of sight of the government. The country gradually plunged into a severe crisis, and all attempts to avoid it were unsuccessful.

An attempt to accelerate the socio-economic development of the country

By the end of the 70s, for part of the Soviet leadership and millions of Soviet citizens, it became obvious that it was impossible to maintain the existing order in the country without changes. The last years of the reign of L.I. Brezhnev, who came to power after the dismissal of N.S. Khrushchev, took place against the backdrop of a crisis in the economic and social spheres in the country, the growth of apathy and indifference of the people, and the deformed morality of those in power. The symptoms of decay were clearly felt in all areas of life. Some attempts to find a way out of the current situation were made by the new leader of the country, Yu.V. Andropov. Although he was a typical representative and sincere supporter of the previous system, nevertheless, some of his decisions and actions had already shaken the previously indisputable ideological dogmas that did not allow his predecessors to carry out, although theoretically justified, but practically failed reform attempts.
The new leadership of the country, relying mainly on tough administrative measures, tried to rely on establishing order and discipline in the country, on eradicating corruption, which by this time had affected all levels of government. This brought temporary success - the economic indicators of the country's development improved somewhat. Some of the most odious functionaries were removed from the leadership of the party and government, and criminal cases were opened against many leaders who held high positions.
The change of political leadership after the death of Yu.V. Andropov in 1984 showed how great the power of the nomenklatura is. The new General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, terminally ill K.U. Chernenko, seemed to personify the system that his predecessor was trying to reform. The country continued to develop as if by inertia, the people indifferently watched Chernenko’s attempts to return the USSR to the Brezhnev order. Numerous initiatives of Andropov to revive the economy, renew and cleanse the leadership were curtailed.
In March 1985, M.S. Gorbachev, a representative of a relatively young and ambitious wing of the country's party leadership, came to the leadership of the country. On his initiative, in April 1985, a new strategic course for the country’s development was proclaimed, aimed at accelerating its socio-economic development based on scientific and technological progress, technical re-equipment of mechanical engineering and the activation of the “human factor”. Its implementation at first was able to somewhat improve the economic indicators of the development of the USSR.
In February-March 1986, the XXVII Congress of Soviet Communists took place, the number of which by this time amounted to 19 million people. At the congress, which was held in a traditional ceremonial atmosphere, a new edition of the party program was adopted, from which unfulfilled tasks for building the foundations of a communist society in the USSR by 1980 were removed. Instead, a course was proclaimed for the “improvement” of socialism, issues of democratization of Soviet society and the system were determined elections, plans were outlined to solve the housing problem by the year 2000. It was at this congress that a course was put forward for the restructuring of all aspects of the life of Soviet society, but specific mechanisms for its implementation had not yet been worked out, and it was perceived as an ordinary ideological slogan.

The collapse of perestroika. Collapse of the USSR

The course towards perestroika, proclaimed by Gorbachev's leadership, was accompanied by slogans of accelerating the country's economic development and openness, freedom of speech in the field of public life of the population of the USSR. The economic freedom of enterprises, the expansion of their independence and the revival of the private sector have resulted in rising prices, a shortage of basic goods and a falling standard of living for the majority of the country's population. The policy of glasnost, which at first was perceived as a healthy criticism of all the negative phenomena of Soviet society, led to an uncontrollable process of denigration of the entire past of the country, the emergence of new ideological and political movements and parties alternative to the course of the CPSU.
At the same time, the Soviet Union radically changed its foreign policy - now it was aimed at easing tensions between the West and the East, resolving regional wars and conflicts, expanding economic and political ties with all states. The Soviet Union ended the war in Afghanistan, improved relations with China and the United States, contributed to the unification of Germany, etc.
The disintegration of the administrative-command system generated by the perestroika processes in the USSR, the abolition of the previous levers of managing the country and its economy, significantly worsened the life of the Soviet people and radically influenced the further deterioration of the economic situation. Centrifugal tendencies grew in the union republics. Moscow could no longer strictly control the situation in the country. Market reforms, proclaimed in a number of decisions of the country's leadership, could not be understood by ordinary people, since they further worsened the already low level of well-being of the people. Inflation increased, prices on the “black market” rose, and there was a shortage of goods and products. Worker strikes and interethnic conflicts became frequent occurrences. Under these conditions, representatives of the former party-state nomenklatura attempted a coup d'etat - the removal of Gorbachev from the post of president of the collapsing Soviet Union. The failure of the August 1991 putsch showed the impossibility of resuscitating the previous political system. The very fact of the attempted coup was the result of Gorbachev’s inconsistent and ill-considered policies, leading the country to collapse. In the days following the putsch, many former Soviet republics declared their full independence, and the three Baltic republics achieved recognition from the USSR. The activities of the CPSU were suspended. Gorbachev, having lost all the levers of governing the country and the authority of the party and state leader, resigned as president of the USSR.

Russia at a turning point

The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the American president congratulating his people on their victory in the Cold War in December 1991. The Russian Federation, which became the legal successor of the former USSR, inherited all the difficulties in the economy, social life and political relations of the former world power. Russian President B.N. Yeltsin, who had difficulty maneuvering between various political movements and parties in the country, relied on a group of reformers who took a strict course towards carrying out market reforms in the country. The practice of ill-conceived privatization of state property, appeals for financial assistance to international organizations and major powers of the West and East have significantly worsened the overall situation in the country. Non-payment of wages, criminal clashes at the state level, uncontrolled division of state property, a decline in the living standards of the people with the formation of a very small layer of super-rich citizens - this is the result of the policy of the current leadership of the country. Great trials await Russia. But the entire history of the Russian people shows that their creative powers and intellectual potential will in any case overcome modern difficulties.

Russian history. A short reference book for schoolchildren - Publishers: Slovo, OLMA-PRESS Education, 2003.

Description of the presentation by individual slides:

1 slide

Slide description:

2 slide

Slide description:

3 slide

Slide description:

Lesson assignment. Some historians believe that the Varangians founded the Old Russian state. Could this really be? Justify your point of view? Menu

4 slide

Slide description:

In 862, Rurik began to reign in Novgorod. He is considered the founder of the grand ducal dynasty. In 879 he died and Oleg became prince. In 882, he made a campaign against Kyiv and, posing as a merchant, Oleg kills Askold and takes his place. This is how “Kievan Rus” began. 1.State of Rus'. A.M. Vasnetsov. Varangians. Menu

5 slide

Slide description:

1.State of Rus'. In the 9th century, the Slavs began a period of military democracy. They made campaigns against Byzantium and defended their lands from the steppe nomads. Prince Askold lost his son in the fight against them. In the lower reaches of the Volga, the Khazars often robbed Russian merchants. Therefore, the princely squads made campaigns in these areas. The struggle of the Slavs with the nomads Menu

6 slide

Slide description:

2. Long campaigns of the Rus. The main attention of the Rus was attracted by Constantinople (Constantinople). Back in 860, Askold and Dir, who ruled in Kyiv, made a campaign against Byzantium. But the most famous campaign against Constantinople was made by Oleg. In 907, dividing his squad in half - himself with the soldiers on the boats, and the cavalry along the shore - he moved south. Around the Dnieper rapids, the Russians surrounded their boats and moved on. Layout of Constantinople Menu

7 slide

Slide description:

2. Long campaigns of the Rus. The brother-kings ordered to tighten the chain in the Golden Horn Bay, but the Russians again dragged the boats and forced Byzantium to sign an agreement. The history of Russian diplomacy begins with it. According to legend, Oleg nailed his shield to the gates of Constantinople. In 911, Oleg made another campaign, and an agreement was signed again. But upon his return, he dies. (Apparently the prince was killed by the Pechenegs). The Byzantines pay tribute to Russian warriors. Menu

8 slide

Slide description:

Analyze the text of the agreement between the Rus and Byzantium. Who benefited from the adoption of this agreement? Where can you see this? Treaty of Rus' with Byzantium 1) Oleg, moving a little away from Constantinople, began negotiations for peace with the Greek kings Lesno and Alexander, sending Karl, Farlaf, Vermud, Rul and Stemid to their city with the words “Pay me tribute.” And the Greeks said: “We will give you whatever you want.” 2) And Oleg indicated to give (his) soldiers for 2000 ships 12 hryvnia per hook^ and then to give maintenance to those arriving from Russian cities: first of all from Kiev, and also from Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Polotsk, Rostov, Lyubech and other cities, for in those cities the princes subordinate to Oleg sit. 3) When the Russians come, let them charge as much maintenance as they want, and if merchants come, then let them charge a monthly allowance for 6 months: bread, wine, meat, fish and fruits. And let them give them a bath whenever they want. When the Russians go home, let them borrow food, anchors, tackle, sails and whatever else they need from your king for the journey. 2. Long campaigns of the Rus. Menu

Slide 9

Slide description:

Before the adoption of Christianity, princes either made campaigns or collected tribute (polyudye) from subject tribes. In 945, Igor the Old went to the Drevlyans in Iskorosten. But upon returning, the squad demanded to return for a new tribute. 3.Polyudye. Menu

10 slide

Slide description:

The Drevlyans suggested that Igor wait until the morning, and at night he and his entire squad were killed. Olga learned about the death of her husband from the ambassadors. She gathered a new squad and, taking her young son, Svyatoslav, moved to the land of the Drevlyans. 3.Polyudye. Princess Olga burns Iskorosten. Menu

Briefly about the article: Continuing the theme of Slavic fantasy - a detailed study by Igor Kray about how our distant ancestors went to war. The development of weapons, tactics and strategy, the internal structure of the army in the historical period from the 9th to the 15th centuries. And most importantly, as always in our “arsenal” articles, all facts are confirmed by history.

Who will come to us with a sword...

Armed forces of Ancient Rus'

In this time of ours, there is nothing left of either the Bulgarians, or the Burtases, or the Khazars. The fact is that the Russians invaded all of them and took away all these regions from them...

Ibn Hawqal, 10th century Arab geographer

Unfortunately, a modern resident of Russia imagines medieval Europe much better than Rus' of the same period. This is because almost all major ideas about the past are shaped by popular culture. And now it is imported from us. As a result, “Russian fantasy” differs from “non-Russian” fantasy often only by inclusions of “national flavor” in the form of Baba Yaga or the Nightingale the Robber.

By the way, epics should be taken more seriously. They contain a lot of interesting and reliable information about how and with what Russian soldiers fought. For example, the fabulous heroes - Ilya Muromets, Alyosha Popovich and Dobrynya Nikitich - are real historical figures. Although, their adventures, of course, are slightly embellished by popular rumor.

Rus' 9-10 centuries

In the characteristically unpredictable Russian history, perhaps only one point does not raise any doubts. One way or another, in the 9th century the Russian state arose, and its history began. What was the Rus' of the era like? Oleg, Igor And Svyatoslav?

In the 9th and 10th centuries, feudal relations in Rus' were just beginning to take shape. The peasants (except for a small number of captive slaves) remained free, and their duties to the state were limited to a modest quitrent. The tribute in furs (which the prince had to collect personally, traveling around the estate) did not provide funds for the maintenance of a large squad. The main force of the Russian armies remained the militias of peasants, obliged to go on campaign at the first princely word.

However, one could hardly talk about duty here. Rather, it was the prince who was obliged to regularly lead his subjects on raids on their neighbors... On violent raids! So what to do? In the early Middle Ages, robbery was the most profitable, albeit somewhat one-sided, form of trade.

Ordinary soldiers went on a campaign with spears and “huge”, “difficult to carry”, as the Byzantines defined it, shields. A small ax was used both for combat and for construction plows (see below). In addition, each fighter certainly had a bow. Hunting in Rus' in those days was still a very necessary trade for survival. The princely warriors, naturally, had chain mail, swords and battle axes. But there were only a few hundred such warriors.

Despite the far from brilliant weapons and training of the troops, the Russian state showed itself to be quite strong already in the first century of its existence. Although, of course, only in its “weight category”. Thus, the campaigns of the Kyiv princes against Khazar Khaganate led to the complete defeat of this state, which once collected tribute from the tribes of southern Rus'. However, raids against the still powerful Byzantium tended to end disastrously. Army Askold, Igor And Svyatoslav were destroyed. Oleg, according to the Russian chronicle, who nailed the shield to the gates of Constantinople, the Greeks will not remember at all. Perhaps he nailed the shield to the gate at night.

On the other hand, if one can still argue about the reality of Oleg’s exploits, then the fantastic size of his army is 80-100 thousand! - there is no doubt. In the same way, the Greek reports about Svyatoslav having 60 thousand soldiers are not true.

Only rich powers with large populations can send huge armies on long campaigns. Rus' in the 9-10 centuries did not satisfy either the first or second conditions. Despite the fact that already in Oleg’s time it occupied a worthy place on the map, half as many people lived in its expanses as, for example, in the British Isles. The Russian chronicle speaks of only 10 thousand soldiers of Svyatoslav.

To defeat an enemy, you must first reach him. And the roads in Rus' in the Middle Ages were, of course, bad. But they are long.

Due to the need to cover long distances, walking on foot was not popular in Rus'. The infantry traveled on low horses, and even more often along rivers on plows. Therefore, in Rus', the foot army was often called the “ship’s army.”

Plows - boats with a capacity of about 30 people - were dragged overland from river to river. If this turned out to be difficult, the old plows were abandoned and new ones were built. The construction of the plow by the crew took one week.

If the main force of the army was the cavalry, then the campaign was usually postponed to winter. The army moved along the ice of the rivers, transformed by frost from natural obstacles (there were no bridges) into smooth highways. The heroic horses easily trampled down the deep snow, and the infantry rode behind them on sleighs.

However, especially in the southern part of the country, soldiers sometimes had to travel on foot. And in this regard, it is worth mentioning short boots with a curved toe and high heels. Contrary to the belief of many authors of “Russian fantasy” (starting with the animators of the cartoon “The Golden Cockerel”), no one in Rus' wore such shoes. Riding boots had high heels. Even in the Middle Ages, boots of the most ordinary style were used for walking on foot.

Rus' 11th-13th centuries

Just as it happened in Europe, as feudal relations developed in Rus', an increasing number of peasants were attached to the land. Their labor was used to support the boyar and princely squads. The number of trained and well-armed warriors thus increased.

Peasant militias quickly lost their importance. But in the 12th and 13th centuries, citizen militias began to play a more prominent role.

When the number of squads became comparable to the size of the militia, the squads took up a position on the flanks of the regiment. This is how “ regimental row” from already three regiments: “ right hand”, “big" And " left hand" In a separate one - “ advanced” - the regiment and the archers covering the battle formation soon stood out.

In the 12th century, warriors stopped dismounting altogether. From that time on, cavalry became the main force of the Russian armies. The heavily armed horsemen were supported by mounted riflemen. It could be like Cossacks, and just hired Cumans.

The Russian knight of the 13th century wore chain mail, over which scales or leather armor with iron plates were put on. The warrior's head was protected by a conical helmet with a nosepiece or mask. In general, the “armor class” of warriors was not only very respectable for its time, but also surpassed that of European knights. The heroic horse, however, was somewhat smaller in size than the European destrie, but the difference between them was insignificant.

On the other hand, the Russian knight sat on his huge horse in an Asian style - in a backless saddle with high-mounted stirrups. In this regard, protection on the legs by the Russians, as a rule, was not used. The advantage of the Asian seat was the greater mobility of the rider. Chainmail stockings would have been a hindrance.

The Asian seat allowed the rider to effectively use the sword and bow, but did not provide sufficient stability for fighting with spears. So the main weapons of the warriors were not spears, but swords and clubs. In addition, unlike the European knight, the knight also carried with him a throwing weapon: a bow with a pair of darts.

Russian weapons in the 12-13 centuries, in general, were better than European ones. Nevertheless, even then, “their” knight in close combat was somewhat stronger than “our” knight. The European horseman had the opportunity to be the first to use his longer spear. But the Russian cavalry was superior to the European cavalry in mobility, variety of combat techniques and ability to interact with infantry.

The warriors of the knights were significantly superior in number. True, only in relation to the population of the country. Novgorod land, where only about 250 thousand Slavs lived, had a squad of 1,500 horsemen. Ryazan Principality- far from the richest in Rus' - with a population of less than 400 thousand, it fielded 2,000 horsemen in full armor. That is, in terms of military strength, Novgorod or Ryazan in the 13th century were approximately equal to a country like England.

The large number of heavy cavalry in Rus' is due to the fact that in the 11th-13th centuries Rus' became a predominantly trading country. Despite the fact that no more people lived in the Russian principalities than in England alone, the urban population of Rus' was larger than the urban population of all Western Europe. By the beginning of the 12th century, Kyiv had a population of 100 thousand. Only Constantinople could compare with it.

The great importance of cities in Rus' is well illustrated by the fact that all Russian principalities were named after their main cities: Moscow, Tver, Ryazan, Novgorod. France, for example, has never been called the “kingdom of Paris.”

In the 12th-13th centuries, infantry in Rus' remained of great importance in the northern principalities, where forests and swamps often impeded the actions of cavalry. Thus, the inhabitants of the Novgorod land not only provided funds for the maintenance of the squads of the prince and the mayor, but also armed themselves.

A significant difference between the Russian medieval infantry and the European infantry was that until the 17th century peaks were not known in Rus'. In the European medieval phalanx, pikemen stood behind a row of shields, and only then spearmen. In Rus', warriors with spears, spears And Sulitsa stood immediately behind the defenders.

The absence of pikes significantly weakened the infantry, since the spears could only provide some protection against light cavalry. The wedge of the crusaders during the Battle of the Ice was stopped not by the foot militia of Novgorod, but by the peculiarities of local geography. The knights were prevented from flying from the ice of the lake to the shore by a low (only about 1.5 meters) but slippery cliff. The Germans either underestimated the steepness of the slope, or did not notice it at all, since their view was blocked by the Cossacks who drove out onto the ice.

The main task of the Russian infantry in the 12th and 13th centuries was not the fight against cavalry in the field, but the defense of fortresses. Military operations on the rivers, where, naturally, the cavalry could not threaten the infantry, did not lose their importance. When defending the walls, as in the “river battles,” the battle was fought primarily by throwing. Therefore, the main weapon of the Russian infantryman was a longbow or crossbow.

Muscovy 14-16 centuries

The tactics of the Russian armies constantly became more complicated, and already in the 12th-13th centuries it began to provide for the division of the battle order into 5-6 regiments. From the front, the battle formation was covered by 1-2 “advanced” regiments of horse archers. The “right hand”, “left hand” and “large” regiments could consist of both infantry and cavalry. Moreover, if a large regiment consisted of infantry, then it, in turn, was divided into smaller ones.” city ​​regiments”, each with his own squad of archers. And behind him there was also a strong cavalry detachment, covering the princely banner and serving as a reserve.

Finally, in the third line, behind one of the flanks remained “ sentry" or " ambush"Regiment This has always been the best cavalry.

In the 14th century, Rus' was going through one of the most difficult periods of its history. The devastation of the country by civil strife, the invasion of the Mongols and the monstrous plague epidemic could not but affect its armed forces. The princes' squads became noticeably smaller. Accordingly, the role of the infantry increased. And she no longer had such weapons as before. The protective equipment of a foot warrior was now most often limited to a shirt lined with felt and hemp at the chest.

The cavalry changed even more. In the 14th and 15th centuries, the protective equipment of the Russian cavalry became noticeably lighter. The horses themselves became twice as light. Preparing for offensive action, Dmitry Donskoy transferred his squad to short but hardy Trans-Volga horses.

The lightening of protective equipment was only partly due to the insufficient “carrying capacity” of horses and the general economic decline. The Russians never used full knightly armor, although the princes, of course, could afford it. Hard armor was not of interest to Russian soldiers, since in Rus' the transition from swords to sabers was completed already in the 15th century.

In battle with long knightly spears, mobility was not of great importance. It did not play a decisive role in combat with heavy swords or axes. But on sabers... In saber fighting, mobility was so important that in the 18th and 19th centuries, hussars even wore a jacket (“mentik”) only on one shoulder in order to completely free their right hand. A warrior could only effectively use a saber wearing light and flexible armor.

By the middle of the 15th century, the Moscow army again became predominantly cavalry. The heavy cavalry consisted of nobles and them serfs(as squires were called in Rus'). Light cavalry was fielded by the Cossacks and allied Tatars.

As before, chain mail was most often used as protective equipment for mounted warriors. But ringed armor, although it made it possible to wield a saber, did not itself provide satisfactory protection from saber strikes. In an effort to increase the reliability of armor, Russian armor workers brought the weight of chain mail to 24 kg by the 15th-16th centuries. But this did not solve the problem. Problems were not solved and forged chain mail(made of large flat rings 2 mm thick, connected by ordinary wire rings). Such chain mail, of course, could not be cut, but piercing blows “held” even worse. Therefore, kaftans stuffed with cotton wool, hemp and horsehair began to be worn over chain mail more and more often. In the same way, fur hats were worn over helmets to protect against saber strikes.

In the 16th century, metal shields or even European-style cuirasses began to be attached to caftans with belts. Russian horsemen of the 15th-16th centuries were armed sabers, six-feathered, flails, darts, bows and short spears with a huge scimitar-like tip.

At the end of the 15th century, cities still continued to field infantry. Armed with bows and long reeds, foot soldiers wore hemp armor. From this time on, the foot warrior in Rus' began to be called Sagittarius. That is, a shooter. Close combat was to be carried out by cavalry.

The entire history of Muscovy in the 14th and 15th centuries can be characterized in one word: “war.” Like the inhabitants of early Rome, the Muscovites went on a campaign annually, as if for field work. The neighbors, however, did not remain in debt, so in some years several wars happened at once.

But Moscow won. In 1480, Sarai was destroyed by the troops of Ivan III. Having learned about this, the Tatars fled from the Ugra. The yoke is over.

The end of the 15th century was a turning point in the history of Rus'. During the reign of Ivan III, Moscow defeated the Horde and united the northern Russian principalities. In addition, Muscovy had to enter into a long war with the Polish-Lithuanian union, which outnumbered the population five times.

In 1503, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, having ceded a significant part of the territory to Muscovy, concluded a truce.

The story... continues

Russian history can safely be called long-suffering. Only in the 20th century it was rewritten several times. But no matter what the next guidelines turn out to be, the truth cannot be strangled or killed! But the truth is that history is written by the winners. Or, at least, those who manage to survive it. The Byzantines, for example, will no longer be able to rewrite their history. And the Khazars won’t be able to either.

The fact that the history of Russia has not yet been written is conclusive proof of the strength and effectiveness of Russian weapons.

Correct assessment of events Horde period Russian history is most hampered by a false idea of ​​the Horde itself.

In the 14th-15th centuries Golden Horde was not at all a handful of tents scattered across the endless steppes. The core of the Horde was the densely populated lower reaches of the Volga with trading cities - Sarai and Astrakhan with a population of one hundred thousand. They actually lived there Tatars.

The population of the Black Sea region - the Cumans - was also already sedentary during this period. Greeks have lived on the sea coast and especially in Crimea since Byzantine times. There were also several large cities here.

Finally, in the middle reaches of the Volga they lived Bulgars- enlightened, according to Russian chroniclers, people. It was from Bulgar, for example, that the first cannons reached Moscow. As a trophy. Dmitry Donskoy took tribute from the Bulgars and collected duties for transporting goods along the middle Volga. In the Battle of Kulikovo, the Bulgars fought on the side of the Russians.

Most of the territory of Kievan Rus by the middle of the 14th century had already become part of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, whose population eventually exceeded 5 million. Only a few of the northernmost principalities with a total population of no more than 1 million remained as tributaries of the Horde. In the mid-14th century, the Slavs made up only 20-25% of the Horde's population.

Introduction

Kievan Rus IX - X centuries. - the first state of the Eastern Slavs, uniting more than 200 small Slavic, Finno-Ugric and Latvian-Lithuanian tribes. The term “Kievan Rus” is very convenient to designate a certain chronological period - the 9th - early 12th centuries, when Kiev stood at the head of a huge state, which ushered in a new, feudal period in the history of the peoples of Eastern Europe, a period that replaced primitiveness and lasted almost a thousand years.

The birth of statehood was a very long, centuries-long process, but when the state arose, it immediately became the subject of attention throughout the medieval Old World. A single state - Kievan Rus - arose in the 9th century and existed until the 1130s, accelerating the process of developing the highest stage of a primitive tribal society into a more progressive feudal one over a vast area and preparing the crystallization of one and a half dozen independent principalities, equal in importance to the large kingdoms of the West . No wonder Kyiv was called “the mother of Russian cities.” New principalities of the 12th - early 13th centuries. constituted, as it were, a single family - the ancient Russian people, who spoke the same language, jointly created a single culture and had a single set of laws, which is called “Russian Truth”.

Russian Truth is the most precious source on the history of feudal relations in Kievan Rus. This name hides a complex of legal documents from the 11th and 12th centuries, which reflected the complexity of Russian social life and its evolution.

The question of the socio-political system of the Old Russian state is quite controversial. To consider it, we must first dwell on the sources that we have to characterize it. The oldest code of laws of Rus' is the Russian Truth. Three monuments are known under this general name: the Short Truth, which is the oldest, the Long One, dating back to the second half of the 12th century, and the Abbreviated One, based both on the Long Truth and on some legislative acts of an earlier time that have not reached us. In turn, the Brief Truth is divided into the Truth of Yaroslav (c. 1016), the Truth of the Yaroslavichs (second half of the 11th century) and additional articles. Naturally, the Brief Pravda is the most significant source for characterizing the social system of the Old Russian state, but the later Long Pravda also contains rules of law that, although they were codified only in the 12th century, go back to an earlier time. Separate legal norms are also contained in the treaties of Oleg (911) and Igor (944) with Byzantium included in the text of the chronicle. These treaties also mention “Russian law,” which was taken into account in cases involving disputes between the Byzantines and Russians. The oldest chronicle that has come down to us - “The Tale of Bygone Years” - also provides material for the study of the social system, although the bulk of its information relates to political history.

rope smerd peasant feudal

Chapter 1

The system of punishments in Russian Pravda shows that in the Old Russian state there were still remnants of the tribal system. Yaroslav's truth allows for blood feud, an institution typical of an era when there is no state taking upon itself the function of punishing crimes. However, in the article on blood feud, a tendency towards its limitation is already visible: the legislator precisely defines the circle of close relatives who have the right to take revenge: father, son, brother (including cousins) and nephew. This puts an end to the endless chain of murders that exterminate entire families. The restriction shows the relict nature of blood feuds in the first half of the 11th century. In the Yaroslavich Pravda, blood feud is already prohibited, and in its place a monetary fine for murder (vira) was introduced, which, depending on the social status of the murdered person, varied widely: from 80 to 5 hryvnia.

The sources contain many references to the ancient Russian community - Vervi. N.I. Pavlenko believes that this was apparently no longer a tribal community; she had a certain territory (for example, the rope is responsible for the murder of an unknown person found on her land). It singled out individual economically independent families: Russkaya Pravda examines in detail cases when a community helps a member in trouble and when he must pay himself, “but people don’t need it.” Let us note that Russian Truth mainly regulated the relations that arose during the collision of the ancient Russian community and the princely (boyar) economy. In other words, Russian Truth allows us to judge the community quite one-sidedly. The rope itself continued to live according to the norms of customary law and, unlike the recently emerged feudal land tenure, did not experience the need for codification.

It would seem that this is so. Nevertheless, in our science there is no unanimity in approaches to solving this great problem. Both in old and new literature there is an opinion that the rope of “Russian Truth” is not a neighboring community, but a blood union, a family community.

First of all, Leontovich should be considered a representative of this trend. He defined the community as a family community. This, however, is not a simple family for him, but a transitional stage to purely communal forms of life. “Having accepted elements alien to the family,” he wrote, “rooted partly in agreed upon relationships, the friend relegated blood and patriarchal ties to the background.”

M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov spoke out against this understanding of the shipyard: “Walking around a family,” he says, “even a big one (“look for a brother along the rope”) to look for a thief is a strange phenomenon, especially with common use, like in a friend.” . “Instead of the term pogost, the same unit of provincial division in both the southern and northern lands is called verviu (the root of the common Indo-European word is Warf). The same unit corresponds to the names “hundred” not only in the urban but also in the provincial division, and “guba” in the Pskov and Novgorod lands.”

A.E. Presnyakov also believes that “for the era of Russian Truth, we have no reason to assume in Rus' a blood connection between members of the rope... The rope of Russian Truth is already a territorial, neighborly, and not a blood union.”

V. Leshkov, in his work “The Russian People and State,” dwells on this topic in great detail. He points out that “up to 15 articles can be found in Russian Pravda talking about the rope... Having studied these articles, you come to the conclusion that Pravda represents the rope not in a faint hint, but in a detailed description, not as a fortune-telling ghost, but as a living creature, with full distinct activity." “People, the world and the rope are different expressions for the same concept.” Next, the author adds another term corresponding to the concept of vervi - this is a graveyard, and comes to the final conclusion that vervi is a rural territorial community with its own administration.

Among modern historians, S.V. Yushkov paid much attention to the issue of rope. In his work “Essays on the history of feudalism in Kievan Rus”, he objects to the understanding of the term “rope” as a rural community and proposes to interpret the rope as a large family, while making an attempt to accordingly use the only source that knows the rope - “Pravda Yaroslavichi” and the Extensive "The truth." Recognizing the existence of a rural community in Rus' at that time, he denies, however, its mention in the sources. “Sources do not give us,” he writes, “any indication of the existence of a rural community in the 9th-10th centuries. But this does not mean at all that it did not exist.” Further: “If we admit that the rope is a zadruga, then this means that the rural community contained decaying clan groups, that patriarchal relations in it were still quite strong. But at the same time, we must know that the rural community itself was subject to decomposition in the pre-feudal period” (follows a statement of the signs and reasons for this decomposition of the rural community). And from the previous page we learn that “the large family has long been subject to decay in Kievan Rus.” So, S.V. Yushkov admits that in Kievan Rus there simultaneously exist both a large family and a rural community, and both of these organizations, in his opinion, are beginning to “decay.”

As we can see, there are many versions of the interpretation of vervi. The only way out of the situation is to turn to sources, which, as always, should be understood as a whole, guided by all their data, direct and indirect. First of all, it must be borne in mind that both “Pravda” (“Pravda” of the Yaroslavichs and “Pravda” Extensive, documents of the 11th-12th centuries), containing texts about the rope, depict a society where the individual family, private ownership of land, undoubtedly dominates. large land ownership and other signs of a feudal system. Therefore, one can think that these sources should at least imply a rural community-mark, and not clan organizations, which undoubtedly have already become a thing of the past (of course, not without a trace).

But the documents directly say something about the Vervi, without giving, however, a single hint of the presence of blood relationships among the members of the Vervi.

In the “Pravda” of the Yaroslavichs, the presence of a feudal lord and a feudal estate is quite obvious. Next to the community, it exists among rich property owners, landowners, feudal lords, where individual ownership of arable land, land, hunting grounds, and tools of production clearly prevails. All this is bought, sold, passed on by inheritance.

The feudal lord's attack on the community, his victory over it, and the process of its internal evolution are also visible in the fact that from the depths of the community certain poor elements have already emerged, forced to seek work and protection from the feudal lord. These are the rank and file, the purchasers, the outcasts.

Now it is important for us to note these most significant aspects of the world-vervi in ​​order to show in what direction the degeneration of the clan community into a rural, neighboring, or brand, took place, where individual cultivation took place with initially periodic and then final redistribution of arable land and meadows. This process began earlier in the south than in the north. The North retained traces of the old relations for much longer. In the south, the patriarchal community disappeared earlier and found only a weak reflection in Russkaya Pravda.

In Pravda we have terms that speak specifically about the rural community. This world, rope. The most ancient Novgorod, therefore northern, “Pravda” does not know the rope and calls only “peace”: “If someone has someone else’s horse, or weapon, or port, and recognizes it in his own world, then take him what is his, and 3 hryvnia for the offense.” .

The “World” of the ancient “Pravda” corresponds to the “rope” of the Vast. This is indicated by the relationship between the just quoted article 13 of the ancient “Pravda” and article 40 of the Extensive: “Even if the earth is cut down... then you will look for your father along the rope.” These articles differ in plot, but undoubtedly the procedure for searching for the missing thing and father takes place in the same territory and environment. It will be a rope world; The lengthy "Pravda", which is at least three centuries distant from the ancient one and refers to the southern territory, apparently uses the similar term "city" instead of the term "peace". “If anyone destroys a horse, or a weapon, or a port, and the commandment is at a trade, and then finds out in his city, he will take what is his own...” In this article, which undoubtedly corresponds to Article 13 of the Brief Pravda, by city it is understood not just city, but an urban district. The lengthy “Pravda” also knows perfectly well the rope known in the “Pravda” of the Yaroslavichs, compiled in Kyiv approximately in the middle of the 11th century, but retaining more ancient features. We can, based on the data of our “Truths,” to some extent unravel the essence of this rope.

First of all, it is absolutely clear that the rope is a certain territory: “And if you kill a fireman in robbery or look for a murderer, then your head will surely begin to lie in it.” It is clear that a dead body was found in a certain area. The people living here, connected by a common interest, answer; otherwise they could not answer together. Therefore, the rope is a socio-territorial unit. What kind of society this is, what the connection of its members is, we can partly learn from the same “Pravda” of the Yaroslavichs. “People” live in the vervi (not “vervnik” relatives) who know their rights and responsibilities very well. Until recently, they were collectively responsible for crimes committed on their territory. The law now makes it clear that there are cases when the offender must answer for himself. If the manager of the estate is killed intentionally (“even if you kill the fireman as an insult”), “then the killer will have to pay 80 hryvnia for it, but people don’t need it.” People pay only if the same fireman was killed in a robbery and the killer is unknown; then those people pay - members of the rope, within whose rope the corpse is found.

Yaroslavich's “truth” is a special law. Its purpose is to protect the interests of the princely estate, surrounded by peasant rope worlds, hostile against their far from peaceful feudal neighbor. No wonder the feudal lord fortified his home and defended himself with harsh laws. Peasant worlds are called upon to bear responsibility for their members, and it is quite understandable why Pravda mainly emphasizes only this side of the rope.

The lengthy "Pravda" of the early 12th century. introduces us to social relations even more deeply and gives us the opportunity to take an even better look at the organization and function of the rope.

The rope must not pay anything if a corpse found within its boundaries is not identified. “And the ropes do not pay for the bones and the dead, even though they don’t know the name, they don’t even know it.” The robber must be handed over, along with his wife and children, to be sent away and plundered. This was not in the Yaroslavichs’ Pravda before. Therefore, before our eyes, the responsibility of individual families is increasing, and there is a disassociation from their rope. The law precisely says in the same article: “people do not pay for a robber.” Members of the rope must be held accountable not only for murder: “If the earth is cut, or a sign is caught on the earth, or a net is caught, then look for the thief along the rope, and pay for any sale.” And here the rope is obliged to find either the criminal or compensate for the losses of the owner of the land or the damaged thing.

Finally, in the Extensive Pravda we have a very interesting institution of “wild vira”, which tells us that the rope in the 12th century. no longer helps all its members in paying fines, but only helps those who have taken care of themselves in this sense in advance, i.e. to those who have previously invested in the “wild virus”: “Even if someone does not invest in the wild virus, people do not help him, but he pays himself.” This tells us that by the 12th century. members of the vervi ceased to be equal in their rights, that among them stood out a group of, presumably, more prosperous people who could pay all the fees associated with participation in the “wild vira”. Before us is a symptom of the decomposition of the old rope.

So, there can hardly be any doubt that the Eastern Slavs, like all other peoples of the world, experienced the same stages in their development. The Eastern Slavs know the period of the tribal classless system, which was replaced by a communal-neighborhood system, otherwise the dominance of the rural community, which did not eliminate the large family.

If the tribal system in the 18-19 centuries. preserved in survivals, then by the 1st century. These traces have almost disappeared.

In the oldest Russian written monuments that have reached us, we already see a class society with a solid past behind it.

Chapter 2

Smerda. Many authors believed that the main peasant population of the country were the stinkers mentioned more than once in sources. However, “Russkaya Pravda”, when talking about community members, constantly uses the term “people” and not “smerds”. For the murder of a Lyudin there was a fine of 40 hryvnia, but for the murder of a smerd - only 5. Smerd did not have the right to leave his property to indirect heirs - it was transferred to the prince. There are many hypotheses about the social essence of the smerds, but most researchers recognize, firstly, the close connection of the smerds with the prince, and secondly, they consider the smerds to be a limited, albeit fairly wide, social group. Probably, the smerds were unfree or semi-free princely tributaries who sat on the ground and bore duties in favor of the prince.

V.D. Grekov, through long research, tried to summarize the most important results of observations on the history of smerds:

• 1. Smerdas are the bulk of the Russian people, from which, in the process of class formation, other classes of Russian society emerged.
• 2. With the advent of the ruling classes, the smerds found themselves at the bottom of the social ladder.
• 3. Sources of the Kyiv period of the history of Rus' find them organized into communities.
• 4. The victory of feudal relations introduced very important changes into the life of the smerds and, first of all, split the smerds into two parts: a) communal smerds, independent of private owners, and b) smerds who fell under the power of private owners.
• 5. The process of internal stratification in the community led some of the Smerds to the need to leave the community and look for income on the side. In this way, the landowners acquired new cadres of the working population beyond the stink of the environment.
• 6. Independent smerdas continued to exist, despite the systematic attack on the community of privileged landowners-feudal lords.
• 7. Independent smerds fell under the power of feudal lords through non-economic coercion (seizure of population and land, grants from the state).
• 8. The legal status of dependent slaves cannot be precisely determined. In any case, there is reason to consider their rights to be severely limited.
• 9. The form of their exploitation is determined by the living conditions of the smerd: if he lives directly on the manor’s estate, he works as a corvee and is part of the servants; if he lives away from the estate, he pays rent in food.
• 10. In the 13th-14th centuries. Product rent is growing very vigorously due to the expansion of land ownership of the feudal lords, the increase in the number of their subjects and the transformation of the estate into a seigneury.

Serfs. Russian Truth devotes significant space to slaves. They were known under different names - servants (singular - servants), serfs (feminine - roba). The term “servant” is already found in Oleg’s treaty with Byzantium: it talks about the kidnapping or flight of a Russian servant (“either the Russian servant will be stolen or run away”). The main source of slaves was captivity. When, according to the Tale of Bygone Years, Svyatoslav listed the goods (“good”) coming from Rus', then, along with furs, honey and furs, he also named servants. Already in the oldest part of the Russian Pravda, the Pravda of Yaroslav, the procedure for the trial of the theft of servants is described. Researchers have addressed the issue of the relationship between servant and servant dependence in different ways. Probably, “servant” is a term from an earlier period, which for some time coexisted with the newer term “serf”. Although, many historians, including V.D. Grekov, believe that even if the serf was included in the concept of “servant,” he was not completely dissolved there, and in some cases “Pravda” finds it necessary to talk about him separately.

Russian Truth depicts the difficult situation of slaves who were completely powerless. A slave who hit a free man, even if the master paid a fine for him, could be killed by the offended person upon meeting, and at a later time - severely and physically punished. The slave did not have the right to testify at the trial. The runaway slave, naturally, was punished by the master himself, but heavy monetary fines were imposed on those who would help the runaway by showing the way or at least feeding him. For the murder of his slave, the master did not answer to court, but was subjected only to church repentance.

The issue of serfdom was set out in particularly detailed detail in the lengthy Pravda, where we actually find a whole statute on serfs. At this time (12th century), two types of servitude were already known: whitewashed (full) and incomplete. The source of whitewashed servitude was not only captivity. Many sold themselves into slavery. Anyone who entered service as a tiun (manager) or housekeeper also became a slave if he did not enter into a special agreement (“row”) with the master. A person who married a slave also lost his freedom (if there was no special “row”). White-washed servitude, uniform in its legal status, was at the same time heterogeneous in its real social structure. Of course, the bulk were ordinary slaves who did hard work for their master. For their murder the lowest fine was 5 hryvnia. However, Pravda Yaroslavich already knows the princely village and military (i.e. arable) headman, for whose murder he was supposed to pay 12 hryvnia. 80 hryvnias (2 times more expensive than the life of a free person) defended the life of a princely tiun (and tiuns were, as noted above, serfs). Merchants used slaves for trade, although they bore full financial responsibility for their operations. A serf-tiun could, out of “need” (i.e., out of necessity), also act as a witness in court.

In general, there are many points of view regarding slavery in Rus'. B.N. Chicherin portrayed a very detailed point of view on slavery in ancient Rus': “Captivity, marriage, loan, hiring, crime, voluntary citizenship - everything could make a free person a slave, not to mention derivative methods, such as purchase and birth in servile state." “A slave was considered not a person, but a thing, the private property of the owner,” “the master is responsible for the actions of the slave.” A slave is deprived of all rights. “There is only one legal provision in favor of slaves: this is that children adopted by the owner from a slave after his death become free along with the mother. Here the moral principle triumphed and weakened the legal strictness of institutions.”

B.N. Chicherin also points out the role of slaves in the economy. These are for the most part the personal servants of princes and other persons; slaves were also planted on the land, “but in general the rural population consisted of free peasants, among whom, only as an exception, slaves were planted.”

M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov does not agree with B.N. Chicherin that a serf is a thing. In his opinion, “slaves had certain rights, which is why speech about them should be related to the doctrine of subjects, and not to the doctrine of things (objects).”

For V.O. Klyuchevsky, the question of servitude and especially its legal nature is of particular importance. The institution of servitude interests him not so much in itself as one of the institutions of ancient Russian law, but to a much greater extent from the point of view of its influence on the history of the peasantry, because V.O. Klyuchevsky is convinced that “serfdom arose before the peasants became serfs, and was expressed in various types of servitude.” In his opinion, “the question of the origin of serfdom is the question of what serfdom was in ancient Rus', how this right was instilled in the peasantry.”

IN. Klyuchevsky returned to this subject many times. In the article “Poll tax and the abolition of servitude in Russia,” he comes close to the most ancient monuments related to servitude. He sees law in “Russian Truth” and finds a serious discrepancy between morals and law in Rus': morals were soft, but the law was harsh.

V.O. Klyuchevsky builds his conclusions about ancient Russian servility mainly on the data of “Russian Pravda”. He insists that “Russkaya Pravda” does not distinguish between types of servitude and knows only one whitewash, i.e. complete, that only later, already in the 12th-13th centuries, “Primitive Russian servility” evolved, and unfree people began to be divided into categories according to the degree of dependence and social significance. One could already say among Russian slaves that one is more slave, the other less.” Here the author means the formation of a privileged layer of servants.

From a very interesting position, S.V. Yushkov examines the Charter on the slaves of the Vast Truth. Based on the conviction that Pravda not only fixes the current law, but introduces a lot of new things that abolish the old, S.V. Yushkov makes a very bold conclusion: “... before the Russian Pravda, the serf... was not the subject of a crime. He didn't pay any sales. The slave...could not listen under any circumstances; The life of a slave was protected only by charging a lesson.” "Russian Truth" created new norms of slave law.

Purchases. Along with whitewashed slaves, Extensive Truth knows purchasers who are perceived as incomplete, unwhitewashed slaves. This is a relatively late dependent category of people, emerging only in the 12th century. Zakup is a bankrupt community member who went into debt bondage to the prince or his warrior. He received some kind of loan (“kupa”) and for it (or rather, for interest on the amount of debt) he had to work for the master - either on his arable land (“role” purchases), or as a servant. The owner had the right to subject the purchaser to corporal punishment, and an attempt to escape was punished by turning into a white-washed slave. At the same time, a purchase was different from a slave. First of all, he had the right (albeit probably a formal one) to buy himself free by returning the kupa. The law specifically stipulated that it was not considered an escape if the purchaser went openly (“openly”) to earn money (“look for kun”) in order to pay off his debt. But another circumstance is more important: the procurement continued to conduct its own business, separate from the master. The law provides for the case when the procurement is responsible for the loss of the master’s equipment when working for himself (“tools are their own deed”). The purchase bears financial responsibility to the master, therefore, he is solvent, his farm is not the property of the master. That is why the position of the purchaser, deprived of personal freedom, but separated from the means of production, is close to the status of the future serf. Unfortunately, the sources do not answer the question of how widespread purchasing relations were, but a large number of articles in Prostransnaya Pravda devoted to them convince us that purchasing is not a rare phenomenon in Rus' in the 12th century.

In general, the issue of procurement is one of the most troubling issues. They wrote a lot about purchasing, they argued a lot, and they still argue about it.

The oldest opinion expressed about procurement by I.N. Boltin boils down to the fact that procurement is a temporarily “bonded employee” person. This is a condition close to that which later came to be called indentured servitude.

A. Reitz adds that “the service under the conditions was like bondage, although not complete.” Sometimes he calls this servant a “hired worker.” A. Reitz admits that the procurement concluded a condition of work for life and compares it with “enslaved people” who served until the death of the master.

The understanding of purchasing begins to be complicated by a new consideration about “pledge of oneself”, about “selling oneself”, “personal pledge”.

Ryadovichi. According to “Russian Truth” we know some more categories of the dependent population. In the Brief and Long Pravda, a ryadovich (or rank-and-file officer) is mentioned once each, whose life is protected by a minimum five-hryvnia fine. Probably its connection with the “nearby” (agreement). Perhaps the ryadovichi were tiuns who did not become slaves and entered into a “row,” housekeepers and husbands of slaves, as well as children from marriages between free men and slaves. Judging by other sources, ryadovichi often played the role of petty administrative agents of their masters.

But the term “ryadovich” evokes different understandings among different scientists.

Sergeevich has two opinions about the ryadovichi. He considers the ryadovich mentioned in “Russkaya Pravda” to be an “ordinary” slave on the grounds that “he is valued at 5 hryvnia, and this is the price of an ordinary slave.” He admits that a ryadovich is not always a slave. “Ryadovich - anyone who lives with someone according to a row (agreement).” Mrochek-Drozdovsky sees the ryadovich as an unfree clerk. These are non-free connectors in princely, boyar or proprietary estates. Presnyakov considers the ryadovich to be a lowly agent of economic or administrative management and cites as proof the well-known text from Daniil Zatochnik: “His [prince’s] tiun is like fire, and his ryadovich is like sparks.” “But don’t judge the sotskim and the rank and file.” Leontovich recognizes Ryadovich as a dealmaker.

V.D. Grekov’s understanding of the term “ryadovich” is radically different. In his opinion, “Russkaya Pravda” itself contains data to explain the social essence of the ryadovich. In Art. 110 of the Trinity IV list we read: “And there are three white-washed servitude: ... to have a robe without a row, or to have a robe with a row, then how it will be dressed will cost the same. And this is the third servility: tiunstvo without a row or tying a stick to yourself, whether with a row, then whatever you do, it will cost the same.” It is quite clear that a person planning to marry a slave had every reason to first enter into a row with the bride's master. This, apparently, was what actually happened most often. Before the rumors, obviously, there is a series about the price of ransom for the slave wife, which is paid off by the work of the slave’s husband. According to the series, it was possible to enter the key holders and tiuns.

So, according to V.D. Grekov, a ryadovich is by no means a slave. This, according to Moscow terminology, is one of the types of silver coinage. We know all the conditions of existence of the ryadovichi, but the chronicles give reason to think that their humiliated and difficult position at the time of aggravation of class relations due to the intensifying attack of landowners on the community determined their position in the popular movements of the 11th-12th centuries. and especially clearly manifested themselves in 1113, after which Vladimir Monomakh was called to Kyiv.

He had to pay attention to the rank and file. The “Charter” of Vladimir Monomakh does not speak about ryadovichi in general, but only about their variety - procurement, in which it is not difficult to see all the elements of the social nature of the same ryadovichi.

Outcasts. Also, an outcast is mentioned once each in the Brief and Long Truths. We are talking about a person who has lost his social status. Thus, princes who did not have their own principality were called outcast princes. The outcasts of Russian Truth are apparently people who have broken with their community, and also, possibly, slaves who have been set free.

In Art. 1 of the most ancient “Russian Pravda”, among the social categories entitled to a 40-hryvnia vira, an outcast is listed (if you are a Rusyn, any Gridin, any merchant, any Yabetnik, any swordsman, if you are an outcast, any Slovenian, then put 40 hryvnia for n").

Already at one time, Kalachov expressed an interesting idea that “the beginning of outcastry is rooted ... in tribal life.”

“As a historical phenomenon,” he writes, “outcast lived and developed under certain conditions of life, and as these conditions changed, so did the position of the outcast in society,” he continues further, “you need to know under what conditions and in what The society itself lived in the form of a hostel. This is necessary due to the fact that people at various stages of their development live at a given time in various social unions, the structure of which corresponds precisely to a given era of people's life. The primary form of community life is the clan...; Subsequently, for various reasons, clan isolation disappears, and in the place of the clan... a zemstvo community, justified by a land connection.”

Mroczek-Drozdovsky also has some interesting thoughts: “Voluntary withdrawal from unions is possible only if there is hope of finding some haven outside the clan, at least the kind that was found by the bird released by the forefather Noah from the ark... The hope for such a corner already indicates the beginning of decomposition closed clan unions, at the beginning of the end of clan life...; The very desire of a relative to leave his clan is something other than the same beginning of the end.”

Perhaps, if the term “outcast” really arises in clan society, alien elements were accepted into clan closed groups, but this phenomenon began to especially develop in the process of the disintegration of clan unions and came to “Russkaya Pravda”, undoubtedly, when the clan was already known only in isolated remnants. The Outcast, apparently, is mentioned in Russian Pravda as one of the fragments of the long-broken clan system. Here the outcast still seemed to be considered a full member of the new, apparently urban, society, in some respects standing on a par with the warrior, the merchant, and even with the Rusyn, a representative of the ruling elite of society. There is also nothing incredible in the fact that this equality is of the same origin and is as relative as the right of a purchaser to complain against his master if the latter does not beat him “about business,” i.e. this is a compromise measure in order to calm the social movement, in this case, which took place in Novgorod in 1015, after which, and perhaps to a large extent as a result of which, the present addition to the first article of the ancient text of the “Russian Law” was attributed. If this is so, which is very likely, then the equality of outcasts at the beginning of the 11th century. was already lost for them, but not completely forgotten and, perhaps, served as an unwritten slogan of the lower classes, mainly urban, in the events of 1015.

In conclusion, it is impossible not to say about outcasts that this category of the dependent population of the Kyiv state is least amenable to study than all others. Here one inevitably has to confine oneself mainly to more or less justified assumptions.

Chapter 3

The question of the time of occurrence remains controversial feudal land tenure in Ancient Rus'. Some authors attribute its appearance to the 9th-10th centuries, but most believe that in the 10th century. There were only individual princely villages, the economy of which was more of a cattle-breeding (perhaps even horse-breeding) nature, and already in the second half of the 11th - first half of the 12th century. a feudal system is formed fiefdom. In the 9th - first half of the 11th century. the princes collected tribute from free members of the community. The collection of tribute was carried out during polyudya, when the prince and his retinue came to a certain center, where they received tribute from the local population. The size of the tribute was initially not fixed, which led to a clash between Igor and the Drevlyans. According to the chronicle, Olga then established the exact amount of the tribute (“lessons”) and the places of its collection (“pogosts” or “povosts”). The prince divided the collected tribute among the warriors.

The predominance of free community members among the direct producers of material goods, the significant role of slave labor and the absence of feudal land tenure served as the basis for the hypothesis that the Old Russian state was not feudal. I.Ya. Froyanov, who defends this point of view, believes that in ancient Russian society of the 9th-11th centuries. There were several socio-economic structures, none of which was dominant. He views the tribute collected from the local population not as a special type of feudal rent, but as a military indemnity imposed on the tribes conquered by the Kyiv princes. However, most researchers consider the Old Russian state to be early feudal.

Early feudal society is not identical to feudal society. The main characteristic features of the feudal formation have not yet developed to a mature state, and many phenomena inherent in previous formations exist. We are talking not so much about the predominance of one way or another at a given moment, but rather about the development trend, about which of the ways is developing and which are gradually fading away. In the ancient Russian state, the future belonged precisely to the feudal structure.

Of course, the tribute contained elements of both military indemnity and a national tax. But at the same time, tribute was collected from the peasant population, who gave part of their product to the prince and his warriors. This brings tribute closer to feudal rent. The absence of feudal estates could be compensated by the distribution of tribute among the warriors, the total ruling class. The concept of “state feudalism” put forward by L.V. Cherepnin is based on the recognition of the state in the person of the prince as the supreme owner of all land in the country, according to which the peasantry of Kievan Rus was subjected to exploitation by the feudal state.

Political system The Old Russian state combined the institutions of the new feudal formation and the old, primitive communal one. The head of the state was a hereditary prince. The rulers of other principalities were subordinate to the Kyiv prince. Few of them are known to us from the chronicle. However, the treaties of Oleg and Igor with Byzantium contain a mention that there were quite a few of them. So, in Oleg’s agreement it is said that the ambassadors were sent “from Olga, the Grand Duke of Russia, and from everyone who is under his hand, the bright and great princes.” According to Igor’s agreement, ambassadors were sent from Igor and “from every prince,” and ambassadors were named from individual princes and princesses.

The prince was a legislator, military leader, supreme judge, and recipient of tribute. The functions of the prince are precisely defined in the legend about the calling of the Varangians: “to rule and judge by right.” The prince was surrounded by a squad. The warriors lived in the prince's court, feasted with the prince, took part in campaigns, and shared tribute and spoils of war. The relationship between the prince and the warriors was far from the relationship of citizenship. The prince consulted with his squad on all matters. Igor, having received from Byzantium to take tribute and abandon the campaign, “convened a squad and began to think.” Igor’s squad advised him to go on an unfortunate campaign against the Drevlyans. Vladimir “thought” with his squad “about the earthly system, and about the army, and about the earthly charter,” i.e. about state and military affairs. Svyatoslav, when his mother Olga urged him to accept Christianity, refused, citing the fact that the squad would laugh at him. The warriors could not only advise the prince, but also argue with him and demand more generosity from him. The chronicler says that Vladimir’s warriors grumbled at the prince that they had to eat with wooden, not silver, spoons. In response, Vladimir “commanded to search” for silver spoons, for “I can’t fill the squad with silver and gold (i.e., I can’t find it), but with a squad I can fill the gold and silver.”

At the same time, the squad also needed the prince, but not only as a real military leader, but also as a kind of symbol of statehood. The formal independence of the will of the prince, even if he was still a minor, manifested itself during the battle of the Kyiv squad with the Drevlyans. The prince was supposed to start the battle. Young Svyatoslav really “threw his spear... at the Derevlyans,” but his childhood strength was only enough for it to fly between the horse’s ears and hit his legs. However, the sign for the start of the battle was given, the main warriors Sveneld and Asmud exclaimed: “The prince has already begun; Pull, squad, according to the prince.”

The most respected, senior warriors who make up the permanent council, “ Duma"prince began to be called boyars. Some of them could have their own squad. To designate the junior squad, the terms “youths”, “child”, “gridi” were used. If the boyars acted as governors, then the younger warriors performed the duties of administrative agents: swordsmen (bailiffs), virniks (fines collectors), etc. The princely squad, separated from the community and dividing tribute among themselves, represented the emerging class of feudal lords.

The emergence of the squad as a permanent military force was a step towards eliminating the general arming of the people characteristic of the period of the tribal system. However, the immaturity of feudal relations was manifested, in particular, in the fact that people's militias continued to play an important role. Along with the warriors, “voi” are constantly mentioned on the pages of the chronicle. Moreover, they sometimes took a more active part in hostilities than the warriors whom the prince protected. So, during the time of Mstislav and Yaroslav Vladimirovich, Mstislav placed northern warriors in the center of his troops, and a squad on the flanks. After the battle, he rejoiced that all the northerners were killed, but “his squad was intact.”

Princely power was also limited by the elements of preserved popular self-government. People's Assembly - veche - was active in the 9th-11th centuries. and later. People's elders - "city elders"- participated in the princely Duma, and without their consent it was apparently difficult to make this or that decision. The chronicles reflected the decline in the role of the veche in political life: its mention is usually associated with extraordinary situations when the weakened princely administration either needed additional support or lost power. However, there were exceptions: the people's assembly in Novgorod and a number of other cities retained strong positions.

An analysis of socio-political structures allows us to speak of three centers of gravity that influenced social development: first of all, the princely power, the growing squad (boyars), and the people's veche. In the future, it is the relationship of these power elements that will determine one or another type of statehood that will prevail in the territories that were once part of the Rurikovich state.

List of used literature

• - Grekov V.D. Peasants in Rus' from ancient times to the 17th century. M., 1952-1954. Book 1
• - Pavlenko N.I. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2001
• - Leontovich F.I. About the significance of the rope according to Russian Pravda and Politsky Status, in comparison with that of the southwestern Slavs. J. M. N. Ave., 1867
• - Blumenfeld G.F. On the forms of land ownership in ancient Rus', Odessa, 1884
• - Vladimirsky-Budanov M.F. Review of the history of Russian law, Kyiv, 1907
• - Klyuchevsky V.O. The origin of serfdom in Russia. Experiments and research, first Sat. Art., 2, 1919

Yushkov S.V. Essays

Boltin I.N. Russian Truth. SPb.. 1792, M., 1799

Evers I.F. Ancient Russian law