Kotlyar N. F.
873 - Rorik in Aachen becomes a vassal of Louis the German.
Mid 870s - baptism of the Rus under Patriarch Ignatius.
Late 870s - early 880s - the first campaign of the Rus to the Caspian Sea, an attack on the city of Abaskun (Abesgun).
879 - death of Rurik. His relative Oleg became the new prince.
882 - Oleg’s capture of Kyiv. The death of Askold and Dir. Rorik's possessions in Friesland were transferred by Emperor Karl Tolstoy to another leader of the Normans - Godfried.
Brief bibliography
Gorsky A. A. Rus': From Slavic settlement to the Muscovite kingdom. M., 2004.
Grinev N. N. The legend about the calling of the Varangian princes (about sources and editions in the First Novgorod Chronicle). In the book: History and culture of the ancient Russian city. M., 1989.
The most ancient states of Eastern Europe. 2005. Rurikovich and Russian statehood. M., 2008.
Ancient Rus' in the light of foreign sources / Ed. E. A. Melnikova. M., 1999.
Ancient Rus' in the light of foreign sources. Reader. T. III. Eastern sources / Comp. T. M. Kalinina, I. G. Konovalova, V. Ya. Petrukhin. M., 2009; T. V. Old Scandinavian sources / Comp. G. V. Glazyrina, T. N. Dzhakson, E. A. Melnikova. M., 2009.
Kirpichnikov A. N. The legend of the calling of the Varangians: Legends and reality // Vikings and Slavs. St. Petersburg, 1998.
Klein L. S. Dispute about the Varangians. History of the confrontation and arguments of the parties. St. Petersburg, 2009.
Kotlyar N. F. Old Russian statehood. St. Petersburg, 1998.
Kotlyar N. F. Kievan Rus and Kyiv in chronicles and legends. Kyiv, 1986.
Lebedev G. C. The Viking Age in Northern Europe and Rus'. St. Petersburg, 2005.
Lovmiansky X. Rurik of Friesland and Rurik of Novgorod // Scandinavian collection. Vol. VII. Tallinn, 1963.
Melnikova E. A. Rurik and the emergence of East Slavic statehood in the ideas of ancient Russian chroniclers of the 11th - early 12th centuries. //The most ancient states of Eastern Europe. 2005. M., 2008.
Melnikova E. A. Rurik, Sineus and Truvor in the Old Russian historiographical tradition // The most ancient states of Eastern Europe. 1998. M., 2000.
The legend of the “calling of the Varangians” and the formation of ancient Russian historiography // Questions of history. 1995. No. 2.
Melnikova E. A., Petrukhin V. Ya. The name “Rus” in the ethnocultural history of the Old Russian state (IX–X centuries) // Questions of history. 1989. No. 8.
Melnikova E. A., Petrukhin V. Ya.“A series” of the legend about the calling of the Varangians in the context of early medieval diplomacy // The most ancient states on the territory of the USSR. 1990. M., 1991.
Molchanov A. A. Old Scandinavian anthroponymic element in the dynastic tradition of the Rurik family // Formation of the Old Russian state: controversial problems. M., 1992.
Nazarenko A.V. Ancient Rus' on international routes. Interdisciplinary essays on cultural, trade, and political relations of the 9th–12th centuries. M., 2001.
Novoseltsev A.P. Eastern sources about the Eastern Slavs and Rus' VI–IX centuries. //The most ancient states of Eastern Europe. 1998. M., 2000.
Nosov E. N. Novgorod (Rurik) settlement. L., 1990.
Pashuto V.T. Russian-Scandinavian relations and their place in the history of early medieval Europe // Scandinavian collection. Vol. XV. Tallinn, 1970.
Petrukhin V. Ya. Ancient Rus': People. Princes. Religion // From the history of Russian culture. T. I (Ancient Rus'). M., 2000.
Petrukhin V. Ya. The legend of the calling of the Varangians and the Baltic region // Ancient Rus': Questions of medieval studies. 2008. No. 2 (32).
Petrukhin V. Ya. The beginning of the ethnocultural history of Rus' in the 9th–11th centuries. Smolensk; M., 1995.
Petrukhin V. Ya. The calling of the Varangians: historical and archaeological context // The most ancient states of Eastern Europe. 2005. M., 2008.
Petrukhin V. Ya., Raevsky D. S. Essays on the history of the peoples of Russia in ancient times and the early Middle Ages. M., 1998.
The Tale of Bygone Years / Prep. text, trans., art. and comment. D. S. Likhacheva. M., 1996.
Rybakov B. A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the 12th–13th centuries. M., 1993.
Rydzevskaya E. A. Ancient Rus' and Scandinavia IX–XIV centuries. (Materials and research). M., 1978.
Sverdlov M. B. Pre-Mongol Rus': Prince and princely power in Rus' VI - first third of the XIII century. St. Petersburg, 2003.
Slavs and Scandinavians. M., 1986.
Tiander K.F. Danish-Russian studies. Vol. III. Pg., 1915.
Thomsen V. The beginning of the Russian state // From the history of Russian culture. T. II. Book 1. Kievan and Moscow Rus' / Comp. A. F. Litvina, F. B. Uspensky. M., 2002.
Franklin S., Shepard D. The beginning of Rus'. 750-1200. St. Petersburg, 2009.
Froyanov I. Ya. Historical realities in the chronicle legend about the calling of the Varangians // Questions of history. 1991. No. 6.
Shakhmatov A. A. The legend of the calling of the Varangians. St. Petersburg, 1904.
Shchavelev A. S. Slavic legends about the first princes. Comparative historical study of power models among the Slavs. M., 2007.
Yanin V.L. About the beginning of Novgorod // At the origins of Russian statehood. Historical and archaeological collection. V. Novgorod; St. Petersburg, 2007.
Illustrations
Image of Rurik in the Titular Book. 1672
Staraya Ladoga - the first capital of Rurik
The calling of the Varangians on a miniature of the Radzivilov Chronicle
Rurik's Settlement
Truvorov cross
Scales for weighing coins and Scandinavian women's jewelry found in Gnezdovo near Smolensk
Federal State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education
"NORTHWEST ACADEMY OF PUBLIC SERVICE"
FACULTY OF STATE
AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
Department of History and World Politics
Abstract monograph on this topic:
Old Russian statehood
Completed by the student: ____________course
groups________________________ _______
faculty____________________ ________
______________________________ ________
- Checked: Pitulko Galina Nikolaevna
grade: ______________________________
Manager's signature: ________________
Saint Petersburg
2007
Introduction ______________________________ _________________________3
- Formation of the East Slavic state ___________________4
- Prerequisites for East Slavic statehood
Completion of statehood under Yaroslav Vladimirovich ______________________________ _______________11
- Foreign policy of Rus'
Cultural and educational activities of Yaroslav
Crisis of power: specific fragmentation ______________________________19
Ideological incentives in the history of statehood in Rus' __________21
Conclusion ______________________________ ______________________23
Introduction
The reasons, chronology, main stages and circumstances of the formation of the state in East Slavic society still remain little studied. Meanwhile, this topic has been the focus of attention of domestic historians for more than two hundred years. Existing theoretical constructions for the most part suffer from excessive sociology and schematism, relying more on logic than on an objective and painstaking analysis of evidence from sources, even if a few are unanimous in the opinion that the Old Russian state was born from unions of East Slavic tribes, but the paths of its genesis are barely noticeable.
Research work in the field of ancient Russian history has the specific feature that the range of main sources, primarily chronicles, was formed approximately a century and a half ago and has not significantly and fundamentally expanded since then. Nowadays, there is not the slightest hope of finding not only a previously unknown chronicle, or at least an unknown list of it, but even a page, a few lines of a source unknown to specialists.
Meanwhile, the study of the history of statehood of the Eastern Slavs in the 9th-13th centuries. seems extremely important. The history of Kievan Rus needs further deepening and specification of research, development of problems that previously did not always seem to exist independently and were considered in the process of creating works of a generalizing nature. These include the problem of East Slavic statehood.
- Formation of the East Slavic state
In recent years, the number of publications on this topic has increased. The overwhelming majority of works on this topic appear in the science of the West and the USA. For various reasons, they remain unknown to most Ukrainian, Russian and Belarusian researchers. But the study of ethnic history itself encounters great difficulties, primarily due to the undeveloped conceptual apparatus.
The study of ethnic processes is seriously hampered by the fact that the term “ethnos” is not a medieval or ancient definition, but a modern word. Therefore, it is difficult for scientists to resist introducing modern concepts into it. Based on a large material of written historians of the medieval West, it has been established that the authors of that time highlight the commonality of customs, language and law as characteristics of ethnic unity.
As modern experts note, all the signs of an ethnos named by ancient sources seem debatable, and in total they do not provide grounds for determining the ethnic community of individuals or groups. 1 Obviously, the definition of ethnicity was carried out by medieval authors in the context of politics, and the category of ethnicity itself was perceived as a function of circumstances that had domination and subordination.
Thus, the study of ethnic evolution and the process of formation of a people in itself turns out to be insufficient to determine the patterns and characteristics of state formation in Eastern Europe, and indeed in any other region of the Earth.
Prerequisites for East Slavic statehood
The intensification of the processes of decomposition of the clan-tribal system, which reflected in the strengthening of social and property differentiation, the strengthening of the positions of the nobility, therefore, in important changes in society, the acceleration of economic development, gradually led to the creation of formations of a higher social level on the basis of tribal unions - tribal principalities. 2
The chronology of the processes of transition of East Slavic society from tribal unions to tribal principalities remains unclear. The current stage of research into sources does not allow us to clarify it in any way. Shifts in the social and political structure of East Slavic society, which led to the formation of tribal principalities, were significant and fundamental. The people sought to move from the tribal society they had been in since ancient times to a political society based on territory and property. The territorial organization of society at the stage of tribal princedoms was still ahead, but private property and the associated property and social stratification became one of the main factors in the transition from tribal unions to princedoms. The power of tribal leaders, including the leaders of tribal unions and the heads of tribal principalities, was based on a system of fortified settlements-towns. The significant difference between the cities of tribes and their unions, on the one hand, and tribal principalities, on the other, consists, as it seems to me, in the fact that in the principalities, in a number of cases, not just fortified settlements, proto-cities arose. Some of them during the 9th-11th centuries. turned into real feudal cities. In historiography, the important role of proto-cities and then cities in the development of a tribal society into an early class society, in the creation of statehood, has been noted more than once.
Some researchers admit the existence of an embryonic apparatus of power in tribal princelings, the gradual formation of a princely treasury, separated from the tribal one.
Tribal principalities were not the initial form of East Slavic statehood; these were still pre-state associations. At the same time, they became the foundation for the formation of statehood and the immediate predecessors of the first real state that arose in the Middle Dnieper region in the middle of the 9th century, and even coexisted with the state.
Sources indicate that tribal reigns were preserved after the Old Russian state had already emerged. They were part of it. It can be considered that, at least until the end of the 10th century, Kievan Rus was a kind of federal state. The entry of tribal principalities into the state was fragile for a long time. A change of prince in Kyiv usually led to the fall of the strongest principalities.
- The era of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich
By the time Vladimir Svyatoslavich was confirmed on the Kiev table, Kievan Rus had just emerged from a state of civil war between the sons of Svyatoslav Igorevich. After the death of Svyatoslav (972), the central princely power in Rus' fell into decline. The autocracy of the Kyiv prince did not exist. Not all tribal principalities were annexed to the state. The change of prince in Kiev, when Yaropolk was replaced by Vladimir, led to the fact that some of the principalities fell out of obedience; it was no coincidence that Vladimir began his state activities with campaigns against the fallen principalities.
However, it must be emphasized that Rus' in the mid-second half of the 10th century had certain and constant signs of state organization.
After “Volodimer began to rule as one in Kiev” 3, he planted people loyal to him in a number of cities of Rus' and, not yet having settled down in Kiev, carried out campaigns in the West and North-East. Vladimir's measures aimed at uniting the state, primarily military expeditions against rebellious tribal principalities, strengthened the authority and elevated the power of the prince.
During such campaigns, an ideology developed in the ruling stratum, according to which the prince viewed his status as special, which further elevated him above the masses. The campaigns also prompted the creation of a princely council. But military actions themselves could not finally consolidate the tribal principalities prone to separatism as part of the Old Russian state, and Vladimir came to the idea of carrying out an administrative reform, which had the goal of once and for all breaking the power of local princes and elders and finally consolidating the lands of the tribal principalities as part of the state.
But the first, judging by the sequence in the chronicle, of Vladimir’s reform was religious. The attempt to establish the cult of the supreme pagan deity Perun in Rus' looks symptomatic. It indicates that Vladimir Svyatoslavich strove for a monotheistic cult, probably believing that personal power should correspond to a single god common to everyone in the country. But the reform of paganism itself was doomed to failure, because the old, outdated pagan religion did not correspond to new conditions, new relations in society in which the feudal mode of production was born. But even the reform of paganism, which was unsuccessful in its consequences, objectively testifies to the strengthening of the leadership of the state on the part of the prince and his entourage, and to a clear desire to centralize the country.
Vladimir Svyatoslavich was the last prince of that state, which still retained its druzhina form. This means that the squad, at least in the first half of his reign, still played a significant role in all spheres of state life and foreign policy. The idea was expressed that Vladimir understood the term “druzhina” very broadly, extending it to the boyars, gridi, sotskys, “children”, in a word, to “deliberate husbands.”
Historians have long noticed that, starting from the reign of Vladimir, the squad gradually changed its character and composition. The main reason for the stratification of the squad was the steady, although barely noticeable at first, feudalization of society during the time of Vladimir Svyatoslavich. 4 This stratification itself, in turn, testifies to the development of elements of a new way of life in a society in which for some time, even under Vladimir, tribal traits prevailed.
In science, the prevailing opinion to this day is that until the middle, or even the end of the 11th and part of the 12th centuries, the dominant form of feudal land ownership was state-owned, and the main method of exploitation was the collection of tribute.
At the initial stage of the development of feudal relations in Rus', forms of property developed through the “possession” of land and the imposition of tribute on free community members, which gradually developed into feudal rent. Private non-princely property was formed through the stratification of the neighboring community, from which allodist peasants emerged, some of whom later turned into feudal lords, as well as through land grants to vassals, first from the princes and then from the boyars.
The era of Vladimir Svyatoslavich in Rus' was a time of further deepening of the process of demarcation of social functions, the progressive isolation of the nobility, who concentrated in their hands military force, policing, administration, and also power over the common people.
Vladimir Svyatoslavich was the first Russian prince to make the fight against nomads a priority state task. Thanks to the purposeful activities of Vladimir, who repeatedly defeated the Pechenegs in battles, the nomadic threat was weakened, and in the last twenty years of his reign, the steppe people hardly threatened Rus'.
Vladimir and his advisers probably understood the importance of effective foreign policy actions to strengthen their power and state. On the one hand, the realities of life forced the prince to pursue an active foreign policy, to provide the main market for Russian goods in Byzantium, and to compete with the empire in the Black Sea regions in general. On the other hand, such a policy objectively increased the authority of the ancient Russian sovereign and seems purposeful in terms of strengthening statehood in Rus'. The siege and capture of Kherson in the Crimea, his marriage to a Greek princess - all this raised the prince even higher in the eyes of ancient Russian society, putting him almost on the same level as the Byzantine basileus. The Church, in all ways and means available to it, strengthened the authority of the prince, proclaimed his power divine, and the sovereign himself as God's anointed. In the eyes of ancient Russian society, Vladimir was especially elevated by the construction of the solemn and elegant, main temple of the state - the Most Holy Theotokos, better known as the Tithe.
No less than other achievements, the construction of the Kyiv child, the “city of Vladimir,” contributed to the exaltation and increase in the authority of the prince and the strengthening of his supreme power. Already in the first years of its existence, Kyiv was a unique and quaint city. During the reign of Vladimir, he was upset and decorated. The grandeur and unprecedented luxury and grandeur of the monumental buildings of the era of Vladimir aroused not only surprise and admiration, but also admiration for the ruler who was able to create this miracle.
Summarizing the consideration of the history of ancient Russian statehood during the time of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, we can conclude that from this time the feudal era in Rus' began. State construction was basically completed. The state acquired distinct signs of a one-person monarchy. The tribal structure was finally broken, tribal reigns and the power of their leaders were eliminated. Centralized systems of tribute collection, administration and legal proceedings were extended throughout the entire territory of the state.
- Completion of statehood under Yaroslav Vladimirovich
One of the main state achievements of Yaroslav Vladimirovich was the creation, on his initiative, of the first written code of ancient Russian law - Russian Pravda. In science, the opinion has become established that the Russian Truth of 1016 was born of an acute political struggle in Novgorod on the eve of Yaroslav’s campaign against Kyiv. Russian Truth was supposed to ensure the rights of both the Novgorod citizens, the princely squad and the Varangians.
The text of the Russian Pravda, placed in the Novgorod First Chronicle of the younger edition, was included as its oldest edition in the Brief Edition of this monument. 5 Yaroslav was not satisfied with the Truth of 1016 and two decades later returned to the text of his Novgorod legislation.
The codification activity of Yaroslav the Wise was caused by the urgent needs of society, primarily its ruling class. It objectively reflected the steady evolution of feudal relations in the Old Russian state. Written truth appeared precisely under Yaroslav because the movement of social life and the development of new social relations needed it.
Russian Truth of the time of Yaroslav defended the interests of not only the prince, warriors and boyars, but also the wider population, in particular townspeople. A written code of laws consolidated the property and class division of society and increased the authority of the state and the prince personally. Princely power became increasingly stabilized and strengthened. This was also facilitated by the internal political activities of Yaroslav Vladimirovich: strengthening the borders and protecting them from nomads, bringing foreign policy measures into the system, developing international relations, upsetting and decorating the capital city of Rus'. All this meant strengthening the state.
During the first half of his reign in Kyiv, Yaroslav had to hold back the onslaught of the nomads of the steppes of the Northern Black Sea region, almost exclusively the Pechenegs, who had been threatening the southern lands of Rus' and Kyiv itself for a century.
Foreign policy of Rus'
The foreign policy of the Old Russian state during the reign of Yaroslav underwent fundamental changes. We are talking about its character, directions, methods of implementation. The prince revised the traditional foreign policy direction of the country - to the South, to Constantinople. This did not happen in the first years of his reign, but before the Russian-Byzantine war broke out in 1043. The adjustment of foreign policy relations was largely caused by internal reasons, the gradual replacement of “polyudye” with more civilized and regulated tributes of products and money, as well as the development of economic connections with Western countries.
During the time of Yaroslav Vladimirovich, there was a transition from the violent and brutal collection of tribute from polyudye to the organized, systematic and orderly collection of ordinary tribute, characteristic of the society of the early feudal era. The sale of its products, as well as products of ancient Russian crafts, could no longer take place only in Byzantine markets. Political and economic ties are established with other countries, and the Byzantine market ceases to be the main and almost the only one for Rus'.
Cultural and educational activities of Yaroslav
The great attention that Yaroslav Vladimirovich paid to the development of ancient Russian culture, as well as the systematic efforts of the prince regarding the construction of churches and monasteries, centers of education and books, especially the first Kiev-Pechersk monastery in Russia, the collection of libraries, the establishment of schools, the creation of book-writing ( scriptoriums) and icon painting workshops.
The oldest code, according to A.A. Shakhmatov, was compiled at the temple or monastery of St. Sophia in Kyiv. Its creator belonged to the circle of representatives of the ancient Russian intellectual elite, gathered around himself by the highly educated Prince Yaroslav - his unique academy. A comparison of the texts of the Ancient Edition and the famous “Sermon on Law and Grace” led some scientists to the idea that the author of the first Russian chronicle was also Hilarion, an outstanding philosopher, orator, writer, political and church leader. This chronicle aimed to describe the history of Kievan Rus from ancient times and the introduction of Christianity in it. Since then, people have had the opportunity to know their history, be proud of it, and draw conclusions from it for the future.
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the beginning of chronicle writing in Rus' and the era of Yaroslav the Wise. Chronicle writing, like all the cultural and educational activities of the prince, contributed to the spiritual development of the people and the rise of their culture. And no less than military successes or the decoration of the capital city, they raised the authority of the state and its sole ruler and leader, Yaroslav the Wise. In this respect, his contribution to the development of statehood exceeded that made by his predecessors, even his great reformer father.
Thus, the Old Russian statehood took a big step forward during the reign of Yaroslav Vladimirovich. State building was generally completed, the structure of the state was strengthened, and its borders were strengthened. Rus' received written legislation, which contributed to the evolution of administrative and legal institutions. Only since the time of Yaroslav can we talk about a purposeful and thoughtful foreign policy of the state, marked by great successes. At the same time, a sovereign monarchy had not yet been established in Rus', as well as hierarchical relations among the ruling class.
4. Weakening the unity of the state
The influence of Yaroslav’s “row” on the development of statehood
To this day, historians debate the contribution of the “series” of 1054 to the development of ancient Russian statehood, to the changes in the political structure of Rus' that occurred after the death of Yaroslav.
The opinion was expressed that the “series” of 1054 fits mainly into the framework of the tribal suzerainty of the Rurikovichs over Russia - they say that this was not the beginning of feudal suzerainty, but the preservation of the existing order of things. And the division of Russian land between brothers is the main characteristic of the order of tribal suzerainty. 6
At the beginning of our century V.O. Klyuchevsky appreciated the contribution of the “number” of 1054 to the development of statehood in Rus'. He substantiated the idea that the order of inheritance of the Kyiv and other significant tables according to the principle of “the eldest in the family” originates from this will of the builder of the Russian state. According to the scientist, the “row” also established the order of seniority between the princes.
The problem of the birth and spread of the suzerainty-vassalage system in Rus' has attracted the attention of historians mainly in recent decades. Previously, it was either not studied in a specific chronological sense, or it was believed that it was inherent in relations among the ruling class almost from the time of the emergence of the Old Russian state.
Original and even paradoxical views on Yaroslav’s “series” were recently expressed by A. Poppe. He believes that the will of 1054 entered the chronicle in a form that had already been reinterpreted during the reign of Vsevolod Yaroslavich and was expressed in writing only under Vladimir Monomakh. The Polish scientist believes that after the death of Yaroslav’s eldest son Vladimir in 1052, “the fifth prince realized more clearly that none of his sons alone could cope with power over Russia... Hence his decision to divide Rus' proper between the three older brothers... giving them common responsibility for political order in Rus'. The Yaroslavich triarchy was not an invention in a moment of weakness, an alliance to overcome disagreements and strife, but a mechanism created by Yaroslav himself.”
However, one should not idealize the socio-political significance of Yaroslav’s will. It was an act of its time and one should not demand more from it than it should. In the “row”, the main issue in terms of the future development of statehood was still not clearly resolved: the order of inheritance of the Kyiv table. The inexpressive formula “I now entrust a place in myself to the table of my eldest son and your brother Izyaslav Kiev” and the call to obey Izyaslav as they obeyed him, Yaroslav, were not understood by the public sense of justice, and even by the sons of the Kiev prince themselves in the sense that the main table The state is transferred to the eldest in the clan, Izyaslav. It is not for nothing that immediately after the death of Yaroslav a triumvirate of his three eldest sons arises. We have to admit that in the “row” the seeds of strife were subconsciously laid in Yaroslav’s family, which sprouted two decades after his death, in the 70s. XI century
The autocratic rule of Yaroslav was replaced in the leadership of the country by the triumvirate of his eldest sons (Izyaslav, Svyatoslav, Vsevolod). They carried out all-Russian affairs together for almost twenty years. At the same time, each of the Yaroslavich triumvirs was concerned primarily with building up their own possessions, and this inevitably weakened the unity of the state. Its polycentricity is also evidenced by the fact of decentralization of church life, unprecedented in ancient Russian history. Along with the Kyiv, until that time, a single and all-Russian metropolis, during the reign of the triumvirate, two more new ones appeared, respectively in Chernigov in Pereyaslavl. According to scattered, incomplete, and even contradictory information from sources, new metropolises were founded in the early 70s.
According to the well-reasoned opinion of A. Poppe, the new metropolises remained titular, that is, they did not perform functions. Allotted to metropolitan sees. Playing. Thus, a purely symbolic role. And after the collapse of the triumvirate, the reign of Svyatoslav in Kiev (March 1073), his death (December 1076), and then Izyaslav in the battle on Nezhatina Niva (October 1078), which led to the restoration of the apparently autocratic rule of Vsevolod Yaroslavich in Rus', the existence of metropolises in Chernigov and Pereyaslavl became of no use to anyone. And they were abolished by the Patriarch of Constantinople, with whose consent they were established.
The outwardly integral state of the Yaroslavichs was in fact weakly unified and centralized. The first strong external shock was enough for Rus' to shake. This impetus was the invasion of the Polovtsian hordes on the Pereyaslavl land in 1068 and the defeat of the triumvirs in the battle with them on the Alta River.
The Yaroslavich triumvirate arose as a result of the interaction of objective and subjective factors. He turned out to be unstable and little capable of leading the state, which under Yaroslav was a relatively unified and centralized monarchy. Despite the fact that the triumvirate to a certain extent stabilized the internal political situation in the country, it was unable to provide either the unity of the state, or a targeted and coordinated foreign policy, or protection from nomads. Society became convinced of the inability of the triumvirs to maintain the stability of the state. Therefore, the establishment of sole power in October 1078, even by such an ordinary ruler as Vsevolod Yaroslavich turned out to be, was probably perceived by the people as a return to the good old order.
The study of ancient Russian history opens up new opportunities for deepening and concretizing scientific ideas about the evolution of statehood in Rus' in pre-Mongol times. For now, we have to state that the current state of research into the problem gives reason to believe that the restoration of the one-person monarchy under Vsevolod Yaroslavich turned out to be incomplete and external. The integrity of the state was supported by the family duumvirate Vsevolod - Monomakh and was based on ensuring balance between the princes of the second and third generations of the Yaroslavichs, to which the reasonable and leisurely Vsevolod and his alter ego - the active and perspicacious eldest son Vladimir Monomakh made efforts.
etc.................
Nikolai Fedorovich Kotlyar (Ukrainian Mikola Fedorovich Kotlyar, 1932, Kamenets-Podolsky, Khmelnitsky region of Ukraine) is a Soviet and Ukrainian historian.
Doctor of Historical Sciences. Corresponding Member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (elected on April 14, 1995). Laureate of the State Prize of Ukraine in the field of science and technology for 2001. Specialist in the history of feudal Rus' and Russian numismatics. Member of the editorial board of the journal “Ancient Rus'. Questions of medieval studies".
In 1956 he graduated from the Faculty of History of Kyiv University. In 1963 he completed his postgraduate studies at the Numismatics Department of the State Hermitage in Leningrad. In 1972 he defended his doctoral dissertation “History of the money market of Ukraine in the 9th-18th centuries.”
Chief researcher at the Institute of History of Ukraine of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Initially, he studied the history of money circulation, markets, and counting systems.
Books (3)
Specific fragmentation of Rus'
Specific fragmentation was a consequence of the socio-economic and political development of East Slavic society. This was an important and inevitable stage in the development of the Old Russian state, which almost all European countries could not avoid. Fragmentation could not come by itself, without the participation of people. She was born mainly by the Yaroslavich princes.
The book examines the influence of family relations between the Yaroslavichs on the socio-political and socio-economic life of the state, showing how the constant desire of the princes for land acquisitions largely gave rise to the specific fragmentation itself and led to its deepening. The genealogical and land aspects of specific fragmentation are the focus of the author’s attention, which distinguishes the book from other works on this topic.
Ancient Rus' and Kyiv in chronicles and legends
Based on the folk tales and legends included in the chronicles, the book reveals a bright and poetic picture of the history of the ancient Russian people: the formation and settlement of tribes, the formation of the first state associations, the founding of cities, the construction and strengthening of the ancient Russian state during the reign of Olga, Svyatoslav and Vladimir.
Formation of the territory of Galician-Volyn Rus
Formation of the territory and the emergence of cities of Galician-Volyn Rus of the 9th-13th centuries.
The book explores the formation of the territory of Galician-Volyn Rus.
The processes of development of the Western Russian lands - Cherven, Belz, Przemysl (VIII-XI centuries), the folding on their basis of the territories of Galician and Volyn lands (XI-XII centuries) with the subsequent folding into a single territory of Galician-Volyn Rus are traced in detail. The genesis of Galician and Volynian cities is shown.
The monograph is based on chronicle and foreign sources, archaeological material.
Kotlyar N.F. Old Russian statehood. St. Petersburg, 1998.
Kradin N. Nomads//Motherland. 1997. 34.
Kuzmin A.G. Which temple are we looking for the way to? History through the eyes of a contemporary. M., 1989.
Kuzmin A.G. Ryazan chronicle: Information from chronicles about Ryazan and Murom until the middle of the 16th century. M., 1965.
Kuskov V.V. History of Old Russian Literature. Ed. 5th, rev. and additional M., 1989.
Kuchkin V. A. Russian land according to chronicle data of the 11th and first third of the 13th century // The most ancient states of Eastern Europe: Materials and research. 19921993. M., 1995.
Kuchkin V.A. Dmitry Donskoy and Sergius of Radonezh on the eve of the Battle of Kulikovo // Church, society and state in feudal Russia: Sat. articles. M., 1990.
Kuchkin V.A. The Mongol-Tatar yoke in the light of ancient Russian scribes: XIII - first quarter of the XIV century // Russian culture in the conditions of foreign invasions and wars: X early XX century: Sat. scientific works. M., 1990. Issue. 1.
Kuchkin V.A. Victory on the Kulikovo Field // Questions of history. 1980. 8.
Kuchkin V.A. Stories about Mikhail Tverskoy: Historical and textual research. M., 1974.
Kuchkin V.A. A date before going to the Don or Vozha? // Science and religion. 1987.7.
Kuchkin V.A. Formation of the state territory of North-Eastern Rus' in the 21st centuries. M., 1984.
LeGoff, J. Civilization of the medieval West. M., 1992.
Levinson A.G. Mass representations of historical figures // Odysseus: Man in History. 1996: The craft of a historian at the end of the 20th century. M., 1996.
Limonov Yu. A. Vladimir-Suzdal Rus': Essays on socio-political history. JL, 1987.
Likhachev D.S. Research on Old Russian Literature. JT., 1986.
Likhachev D. S. Culture of Rus' during the time of Andrei Rublev and Epiphanius the Wise: The end of the XIV beginning of the XV century. M.; L, 1962.
Likhachev D.S. Chronicle news about Alexander Popovich // Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature. M.; L, 1949. T. 7.
Likhachev D.S. Poetics of Old Russian Literature. 3rd ed., add. M.,
Likhachev D.S. Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. M.; L, 1947.
Likhachev D. S. Textology: Based on Russian literature of the X–XVII centuries. 2nd ed., revised. and additional L, 1983.
Lurie Y. S. All-Russian chronicles of the XIV–XVI centuries. L, 1976.
Makariy (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. History of the Russian Church. M., 1995. Book. 2: History of the Russian Church during the period of its complete dependence on the Patriarch of Constantinople (988-1240).
Makariy (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. History of the Russian Church. M., 1995. Book. 3: History of the Russian Church during the period of its gradual transition to independence (12401589). Dept. 1: The state of the Russian Church from Metropolitan Kirill II to Metropolitan Saint Jonah, or during the Mongolian period (12401448).
Malkov V.V. Old Russian apocrypha. St. Petersburg, 1999.
Miloe L.V. About the Tale of Igor’s Campaign: Paleography and archeography of the manuscript, reading by the Russians // History of the USSR. 1983.5.
Milov L.V. Tatishchev’s character portraits and Simon’s chronicle//History of the USSR. 1978. 6.
Mingalev V.S. The Legend of Mamaev’s Massacre and its Sources / Abstract. diss…. Ph.D. ist. Sci. M.; Vilnius, 1971.
Munkuev N.Ts. Notes about the ancient Mongols//Tatar-Mongols. M., 1970.
Muravyova L.L. Chronicles of North-Eastern Rus' of the late XIII - early XV centuries. M., 1983. At the junction of continents and civilizations... (from the experience of the formation and collapse of empires of the X-XVI centuries). M., 1996.
Nazarenko A.V. Was there a capital in Ancient Rus'? Some comparative historical and terminological observations//Capital and peripheral cities of Rus' and Russia in the Middle Ages and early modern times: XIX-VIII centuries. Abstracts of scientific conference reports. Moscow, December 35, 1996. M., 1996.
Nasonov A. N. History of Russian chronicles of the 11th and early 18th centuries: Essays and studies. M., 1969.
Nasonov A.N. Laurentian Chronicle and Vladimir Grand Duke's chronicle of the first half of the 13th century // Problems of source study. M., 1963. T. 11.
Nasonov A.N. Mongols and Rus'. M.; L., 1940.
Nikitin L.A. The feat of Alexander Peresvet//Hermeneutics of Old Russian literature of the XXVI centuries. M., 1992. Sat. 3.
Orlov A.S. Literary sources of the Tale of Mamaev’s Massacre // Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature. M.; L., 1935. T. 2.
From Nestor to Fonvizin: New methods for determining authorship. M., 1994.
Essays on the history of the USSR: The period of feudalism IX–XV centuries: In 2 parts. M., 1953. Part 1: IX–XIII centuries.
Pautkin A.A. Galician chronicle as a monument of literature of Ancient Rus': Textbook. - method, pos. for students of philology. fak. state univ. M., 1990.
Pashuto V.T. Kiev Chronicle of 1238 // Historical notes. M., 1948. 26.
Pashuto V. T. Essays on the history of Galician-Volyn Rus. M., 1950.
Petrukhin V.Ya., Raevsky D. S. Essays on the history of the peoples of Russia in ancient times and the early Middle Ages. M., 1998.
Pletneva S. A. Pechenegs, Torques, Polovtsians // Steppes of Eurasia in the Middle Ages. (Archaeology of the USSR). M., 1981.
