Who was the author of the famous letter to Gogol. Tom Stoppard Shore of Utopia dramatic trilogy

Folding Moscow states in XIV-XVI

_____centuries _______

1/ The unification of Russian lands around Moscow and the formation of a single

Russian states

2/ Role of Russian Orthodox Church in its formation and strengthening

Russian state

Z/ Formation of a centralized Russian state

4/ XVII century - crisis of the Muscovite kingdom

The unification of Russian lands around Moscow and the formation of a single Russian state

As in Western Europe after the period of feudal fragmentation, in Rus' in the XIV-XV centuries. The time is coming for the formation of a unified Russian state. What are the reasons for the unification of Russian lands? If we follow the logic of the formational approach, then the decisive condition should have been the economic factor. Economic needs, regardless of the will and desire of people, force the establishment of economic ties between individual regions, and a single market begins to form. Political fragmentation becomes a brake on economic development. Under the influence of economic factors, political boundaries are overcome, lands are united, and a single state is formed.

To some extent, this scheme worked quite accurately in Western Europe. But in Rus' the process of unification followed a different scenario. And although economic ties between individual principalities undoubtedly developed, the common all-Russian market arose later - only in the 17th century, and the economic remnants of the former fragmentation - internal customs - would be eliminated only in the middle of the 18th century, during the reign of Empress Elizabeth. Thus, political processes in Rus' they were ahead of economic ones.

Giving an explanation for this phenomenon, most historians are inclined to believe that the decisive incentive for the unification of Russian lands lies in the existential plane. During this period, the most pressing question arose about survival of the Russian state" preserving the identity of the Russian people with his culture and beliefs. In the XIV-XV centuries. Rus' was under extreme pressure at the same time with two sides - from the East and West. In the East there was an attempt on her life Golden Horde, in the West - the young and aggressive Principality of Lithuania. It was in the confrontation and victory over these two forces that the foundations of a unified Russian states. Successful same confrontation could only be carried out by a single large state. Through the efforts of several pok deer prominent figures in Rus' such a state is taking shape. Let us consider specifically how this process.

Historians testify that by the 14th century the most strong positions in the Russian lands the principalities of Tver, Moscow and Novgorod occupy. The struggle for the seizure of Russian lands for a long time went on, first of all, between the Tver and Moscow principalities. The complexity of this struggle lay in the fact that both principalities were politically dependent on the Golden Horde. Therefore success their politicians depended on how they would build their relations with the Horde and be able to use the Horde khans as patrons.

The organizer of the unification of Russian lands was the Moscow Principality. The reasons for this are related both to the advantageous geographical position of Moscow and the personal qualities of a number of princes who occupied the Moscow “table” in the 14th-16th centuries. The city of Moscow appeared in the 12th century on the southern outskirts of the Rostov-Suzdal land, not far from the border with the Chernigov-Seversk land, i.e. in the center of the then Russian world, at the crossroads of three important roads. The first road ran from West to East: from the upper Dniester region to Vladimir-on-Klyazma and further to the land of the Volga Bulgars. The second is from the South-West to the North-East - from the Kyiv and Chernigov South to Pereslavl-Zalessky and Rostov. The third - from the North-West to the South-East, from the Novgorod land to the Ryazan land. Thus, Moscow early became a junction of trade routes, and, in particular, an important center for the grain trade. And this gave great advantages to the Moscow princes, who, enriching themselves from trade and duties, later managed to acquire from the khans of the Golden Horde a “label” for the great reign of Vladimir, and on the other hand, expand their possessions by buying land from small appanage princes. The strengthening of the Moscow principality occurs under Daniil Alexandrovich (1276-1303) (son of Alexander Nevsky), who captured Kolomna in 1301, Pereslavl in 1302, Mozhaisk in 1303 and so he himself almost doubled his possessions and became the master of the coast of the entire Moscow River. The son of Daniil Alexandrovich, Ivan Daniilovich Kaliga (1325-1340), sharply intensified the process of consolidation of Russian lands around the Moscow principality. Politically them tacking, intrigues Ivan Kaliga intercepted the “label” for the great reign from the Tver princes. Since 1327, he received the right to collect tribute from Russian lands in favor of the Golden Horde. He collects this tribute with an “iron hand,” mercilessly suppressing any resistance. A considerable part of the money remains in his treasury (hence the nickname “Kaliga” - money bag). He buys part of the land for his possessions from neighboring small princes. This policy was continued by his heirs:

Semyon Ivanovich Proud (1340-1353), Ivan Ivanovich the Red (1353-1359) and Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy (1359-1389). Under Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy, significant events took place in the unification process. Moscow becomes the largest economic and political center of Rus'. During this period, the trade and craft population of Moscow increased significantly. The production of weapons is undergoing great development. A whole settlement of gunsmiths appears in Moscow. The development of weapons production contributed to the growth of the military power of the Moscow principality. The Moscow prince had at his disposal a large and well-armed army. In the 60-70s, Moscow successfully withstood the struggle for the great reign of Vladimir with the Suzdal-Novgorod, Tver and Ryazan princes. The territory of the principality was significantly expanded.

The strengthening of the Moscow principality allowed Dmitry Donskoy to raise the banner of an open struggle for the liberation of the country from the Tatar-Mongol enslavers. In 1378, on the Vozha River, Dmitry Donskoy won a major victory over the Tatars. The greatest significance for the formation of a unified Russian state was his famous victory on the Kulikovo Field in 1380. The victory on the Kulikovo Field is not only a military-political, but a spiritual and moral victory. In military-political terms, the Battle of Kulikovo showed that the Russian army can fight on equal terms, and even defeat such a strong enemy. The myth about the invincibility of the Golden Horde army was dispelled. The spiritual and moral meaning of this victory is that thanks to it, the Russian people managed to overcome the age-old fear of enslavers and revive a sense of national pride and national dignity. After the victory on the Kulikovo field, the Golden Horde yoke continued in Rus' for about another hundred years. However, the nature of the relationship between Rus' and the Horde has changed significantly. And although Khan Tokhtamysh burned Moscow in 1382 and restored the formal subordination of Rus' to the Horde, in reality there was no longer subordination in the previous form. In 1389, Dmitry Donskoy for the first time transferred the great reign without a label to his son Vasily I (1389-1425). In 1393, Vasily I, without the consent of the khan, captured Nizhny Novgorod, Murom, and Moshera. A significant contribution to the unification process was the victory of Vasily II the Dark (1425-4462) over the Galician prince Yuri Dmitrievich and his sons Dmitry Shemyaka, Vasily Kosy and Dmitry the Red in the struggle for the grand-ducal throne.

The final phase in the unification process is associated with the activities of two outstanding political figures of Rus': Ivan III and Ivan IV. During the reign of Ivan III Vasilyevich (1462-1505), Rostov (1474), Veliky Novgorod (1478), Dvina land (1478), Tver (1485), Kazan (1487), Vyatka land (1489) were annexed to the Moscow principality. Pskov and Ryazan became dependent on Moscow. Thus, at the end of the 15th century, the borders of the territory of the united Russian state in the north reached the White Sea, in the south - to the Oka, in the west - to the Upper Dnieper, in the east - to the spurs of the Northern Urals.

Ivan III's greatest achievement was the final overthrow of the Tatar-Mongol yoke in 1480(famous standing on the Ugra River). By that time, the Golden Horde was in decline. As a result of feudal fragmentation, a number of territories fell away from it, in which independent khanates arose. In the middle of the 15th century, the Kazan Khanate was formed on the territory of the middle Volga region, the Astrakhan Khanate was formed in the lower reaches of the Volga, the Northern Black Sea region became part of the Crimean Khanate, and an independent state was formed in the territory between the Volga and Ural rivers - the Nogai Horde. The Tatars, living east of the Ural Mountains in the lower reaches of the Irtysh and Tobol rivers, formed the Siberian Khanate. The Kazakh and Uzbek khanates were formed on the territory of Kazakhstan and Central Asia.

As a result of the collapse of the Golden Horde, the balance of forces developed in favor of the Russian state. But Khan of the Golden Horde Akhmat decided to force Moscow to pay tribute. A meeting of Russian and Tatar troops took place on the Ugra River. Realizing the superiority of the Russian army, which was numerous and better armed, Akhmat did not dare to fight and gradually retreated. After the failure of Akhmat's campaign against Rus', the Golden Horde ceased to exist in 1502.

The overthrow of the Tatar-Mongol yoke provided Rus' with conditions for intensive economic, political and cultural development. The international authority of the Moscow Principality has greatly increased both in the East and in the West. From that time on, Rus' began to exist again as an independent state in Eastern Europe, but in a new capacity. It was from this time that the unification of the Russian state around Moscow actually led to the creation Russian state, although the term “Russia”, “Russian state” formally entered the political lexicon during the reign of Ivan IV.

Principality of Lithuania. As a result of these wars, Moscow annexed the Supreme Regions - the region of the upper reaches of the Oka River (Novosil, Odoev, Vorotynsk, Belev, etc.) and northern cities(Putivl, Novgorod-Seversky, Trubachevsk, etc.). At the same time, the status of the head of state changed radically. The Grand Duke of Moscow and Vladimir turns into the “sovereign of all Rus'” - “autocrat”. The word “autocrat” was first used to mean the independence of the Grand Duke from any other state, and then in the sense of the unlimited power of his power in his country.

In order to strengthen autocratic power, Ivan III married the niece of the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI, Sophia (Zoe) Paleologus. He used his relationship with the Byzantine emperor to strengthen the authority of the grand ducal power and the Russian state. Ivan III combined the old Moscow coat of arms with the image of St. George the Victorious slaying a serpent with a spear with the ancient coat of arms of Byzantium - a double-headed eagle. On the seal with the coat of arms of the Russian state it was indicated new title Ivan III "By the grace of God, the sovereign of all Rus', Grand Duke John." By introducing a new coat of arms of the Russian state and a new title, Ivan III wanted to emphasize that after his marriage with Sophia Paleologus, the Russian state became the direct heir of the Roman Empire. Byzantine Empire, and the Moscow sovereign is the direct successor to the autocratic power of the Byzantine emperor. Ceremonies were built according to the Byzantine model. During the reception of foreign ambassadors, Ivan IV sat on the throne given to him by Constantine XI. The ambassadors had to bow low to the sovereign, dressed in ceremonial clothes embroidered with gold and silver with Byzantine “barmas” (shoulders) and crowned with the “Monomakh’s cap.”

The unification policy was continued by the son of Ivan III, Vasily III (1505-1533). During his reign, Pskov was subordinated to the authorities of Moscow (1510), and in 1521 the last appanage principality, Ryazan, ceased to exist.

During the reign of Ivan IV the Terrible (1547-1584), the expansion of the territory of the Russian state was carried out through the seizure and colonization of new territories from the fragments of the Golden Horde. In 1552, Ivan the Terrible conquered the Kazan Khanate. In 1556, the troops of Ivan the Terrible conquered the Astrakhan Khanate. Thus, the entire Volga region became part of the Russian state. The Volga trade route, along which one could sail to the Caspian Sea, and from there to Persia, Turkey and move further to the East, belonged to Russia. In 1581, a detachment of Cossacks led by Ermak conquered the Siberian Khanate. Part of the population of Siberia submitted to Russia voluntarily. Now the Russian state occupied all of Eastern Europe and advanced its border far beyond the Urals.

2.

The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the formation and strengthening

Russian state

In the consolidation of Russian lands, the formation of a unified Russian states The Orthodox Church played an important role. Within a relatively short period of two or three centuries Christianity has taken deep roots on Russian land. The Orthodox Church has become one of the most authoritative institutions. She remained the most important link everyone Russian lands during the period of feudal fragmentation before the Tatar-Mongol invasion.

During the Tatar-Mongol yoke, its importance increased even more. Orthodoxy served as the spiritual and moral support of the Russian people during the years of severe hardship. The great princes of Moscow relied on her authority when pursuing their unification policy. It is known that the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Peter of Vladimir, was in close friendship with Ivan Kalita, lived for a long time in Moscow, where he died in 1326 and was buried in the Assumption Cathedral. His successor, Metropolitan Theognost, finally settled in Moscow, which thus became the ecclesiastical capital of all Rus'. The transfer of the metropolitan department to Moscow contributed to the strengthening of the political role of the Moscow principality.

The Orthodox clergy played an active role in the liberation process from the Tatar-Gol yoke. Of particular merit in this is the founder of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery near Moscow, Sergius of Radonezh, who became one of the most revered saints of the Russian Orthodox Church. Sergius of Radonezh, together with Dmitry Donskoy, can rightfully be called the organizer and inspirer of the victory of Russian troops over the Tatar troops during the Battle of Kulikovo.

The Battle of Kulikovo, as follows from the above, took place after the victory of Prince Dmitry Donskoy over the Tatar-Mongols skim troops led by Begich on the river. Vozhe in 1378. Immediately after this event, the new Horde military leader Mamai began intensive preparations to pacify the Russians. Rus' also began to prepare for battle. And in this preparation great importance had the creation of an appropriate spiritual and moral attitude by Sergius of Radonezh. It was at this time that Rus' was preparing for great trials that Sergius had a vision. The Mother of God appeared to him in a dream and promised her care and protection of the Russian land." This kind of spiritual revelation had a huge impact on the mood and state of mind of people. The news of the “appearance of the Mother of God” to Sergius quickly spread throughout the Russian lands, which contributed to the rise of patriotic feelings and the unity of the Russian people. The Mother of God’s promise to protect the Russian land was combined in the popular consciousness with preparations to repel the new Golden Horde invasion.

It is difficult to overestimate the significance of the blessing Dmitry Donskoy received from St. Sergius on the eve of the Battle of Kulikovo “for the battle.” behind Russian land." Together with With blessing, Sergius of Radonezh sent two monks of his monastery, the heroes Andrei, for spiritual and military support Oslyabya and Alexander Peresvet. Peresvet, as you know, opened the Battle of Kulikovo with its duel with the Tatar hero Chelubey.

Venerable Sergius sought to overcome conflicts between Russian princes, contributed their consolidation in the name of the interests of the Russian land. Before the Battle of Kulikovo, he warned the Ryazan prince Oleg against acting on the side of the Horde. And Prince Oleg listened to the admonitions of the authoritative clergyman, which undoubtedly contributed to the victory of the Russian troops. After the Battle of Kulikovo in 1387, he insisted on the marriage of the daughter of Dmitry Donskoy with the son of the Ryazan prince Oleg Fedor. In this way, problems in relations between Moscow and Ryazan were resolved and peace was concluded between them for a long time.

In the formation of a unified Russian state, the formation of national Russian Orthodox Church.

In the process of formation of the national Russian Orthodox Church, two sides can be distinguished - formal-organizational and content-spiritual. The formal organizational side is associated with the gradual acquisition of independence by the Russian Orthodox Church in relation to the Byzantine Church, obtaining the status of an autocephalous (independent) church. As is known, from the beginning of its formation, the Russian Orthodox Church was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The highest official in Rus' - the Metropolitan of Kiev, then Vladimir and Moscow - were directly appointed by Constantinople and were Greeks by nationality. In the 13th-15th centuries, in connection with the Tatar-Mongol invasion of the Balkan Peninsula and the seizure of Byzantium by the crusaders, the procedure for appointing and approving a metropolitan changed somewhat. Most often, the metropolitan was consecrated at home, in Rus', and the patriarch only confirmed this consecration.

At the end of the 15th century, significant changes occurred in the relations between the Orthodox churches of Rus' and Constantinople. In 1439, in order to ensure the protection of Byzantium from the invasion of the Turks, at the Ecumenical Council in the Italian city of Florence, the Orthodox Church signed Catholic Church Union - a document about the unification of the Eastern and Western Christian churches. This document recognized the dogma of the primacy of the Pope over all

Christian churches, but it persisted For Orthodoxy the right to perform rituals according to its canonical rules* For centuries, Orthodox Rus' was brought up in the spirit of hatred of the Roman Catholics which church. Therefore, the conclusion of the Union of Florence was regarded by the Russian Orthodox Church and the entire Russian society How betrayal, apostasy from the true faith. Florentine union was rejected, and this served as a powerful impetus for the separation of the Russian Orthodox Church from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Participant in Ecumenical Council and the protege of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Metropolitan Isidore, who signed the union, was deposed and in 1448 the council of Russian bishops for the first time, without the participation of Constantinople, elected a Russian person - Jonah - as metropolitan. The Russian Orthodox Church finally becomes independent (autocephalous), and therefore, in the full sense of the word, a national church in 1589. This year, the Russian Orthodox Church turns from the metropolis of the Patriarch of Constantineple into the autocephalous Moscow Patriarchate and the first Russian patriarch is elected at the Local Council riarch Job. In content and spiritual terms, in the formation of a single

of the Russian state and the formation of the national Orthodox Church, the creation of all-Russian shrines was of great importance. Famous Russian historian and public figure P.N. Milyukov noted that even during the times of Kievan Rus, the inhabitants of each locality loved to have their own special, special them

belonging to the shrine: their icons and their local saints, under whose patronage this or that region was. Naturally, such local saints were honored only within their own region, and other regions their ignored and even treated

hostile to them.

The unification of lands also required a change in views on local shrines. Collecting their inheritance, the Moscow princes without ceremony transported the most important of these shrines to the new capital. Thus, the icon of the Savior from Novgorod, the icon of the First Annunciation from Ustyug, the icon of the Mother of God Hodegetria from Smolensk, etc. appeared in the Assumption Cathedral. The purpose of collecting these shrines in Moscow is not to deprive the conquered regions of local shrines, but to attract their favor, but to bring all local shrines to universal fame and thus create a single treasury of national piety (Milyukov L.N. Essays on the history of Russian culture in 3 volumes. T.2. Ch. 1 . P.38). The work of two spiritual councils during the reign of Ivan the Terrible for the canonization of Russian saints was aimed at solving the same problem. At the first council (1547) he was canonized, that is, canonized. 22 pleasers.

On the second (1549) there are 17 more saints. Thus, in the Russian Orthodox Church, in 3 years, as many saints were canonized as were not canonized in the five previous centuries of its existence. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church proved. that it has rich spiritual foundations and in this regard can compete with any ancient Christian church

Against the background of the rise of the international authority of the Russian state, the growth of national self-awareness in the depths of the Russian Orthodox Church, already at the end of the 15th century, the idea of ​​​​the world-historical role of the Muscovite kingdom, of Moscow as the “third Rome” began to take shape. This idea is based on the idea of ​​the saving role of Russian Orthodoxy for all humanity after the conclusion of the Union of Florence and the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. This idea is clearly formulated in a letter to Ivan III by the abbot of the Pskov monastery, Philaret. “The Church of old Rome fell through unbelief of the Apollinarian heresy, but the second Rome - the Church of Constantinople - was cut down by the Hagarians with axes. Now this third new Rome - your sovereign kingdom - the holy catholic apostolic church throughout the whole of heaven shines more than the sun. And let your power, pious king, know that all the kingdoms of the Orthodox faith have converged into your single kingdom: you alone are the king of Christians in all the heavenly regions. Watch and listen, pious king, that all Christian kingdoms have come together into your one, that two Romes have fallen, and a third stands, and there will not be a fourth. Your Christian kingdom will no longer go to others.” Thus, the Moscow sovereign received religious illumination not only for the management of all Russian lands, but also for the entire world.

In the 16th century, the formation of the national church acquired new features. The National Russian Orthodox Church is increasingly turning into a state church. The prerequisites for such a transformation are embedded in the very tradition of Eastern Christianity. The Eastern Church recognized the supremacy of state power over itself and was part of government institutions. In Rus', Prince Vladimir and his heirs - Andrei Bogolyubsky, Vladimir Monomakh and others - sought to continue this tradition. But after the collapse of the unified Russian state on appanage principalities, the close union of church and state was broken. This union begins to recover as a unified Russian state is formed. The greatest impetus for establishing such union, transformation into a state national church was given by three major church figures of the XVI century: Abbot of the Volokolamsk Monastery Joseph, Metropolitans Daniel and Macarius. As noted P.N. Milyukov, Joseph in theory put Russian the prince for that place, which occupied in eastern church emperor Byzantine. Daniel practically subordinated the church and its representatives to the will of secular authorities. Finally Macarius applied the theory;

the practice of secular intervention to revise the entire spiritual content of the national church. The culmination of Josephleena's policy was the spiritual councils of the first years of the independent reign of Ivan the Terrible (Milyukov P.N. Essays on the history of Russian culture in 3t. T.2. Part 1. P.37).

The most important fruit of such a union between the state and the church was the national exaltation of both - the creation of a religious-political theory (ideology) sanctioning the original Russian power (statehood) and placing it under the protection of an original national shrine.

Formation of a centralized Russian state

In parallel with the unification of Russian lands and the creation of the spiritual basis of the national state, there was a process of strengthening Russian statehood and the formation of a centralized Russian state. The prerequisites for this process were laid during the period of the Tatar-Mongol yoke. Researchers note that the vassal dependence of Russian lands on the Golden Horde to a certain extent contributed to the strengthening of Russian statehood. During this period, the volume and authority of princely power within the country increases, the princely apparatus crushes the institutions of popular self-government, and the veche - the oldest organ democracy is gradually disappearing from practice throughout the entire territory of the historical core of the future Russian state (Lyutykh A.A, Skobelkin O.V.” Thin V.A. History of Russia (Lecture course. Voronezh, 1 993. P. 82).

During the period of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, city liberties and privileges were destroyed. The outflow of money to the Golden Horde prevented the emergence of the “third estate,” the pillar of urban independence in Western Europe. "

The wars with the Tatar-Mongol invaders led to the fact that during their Most of the warriors - feudal lords - were destroyed. The feudal class began to be reborn on a fundamentally different basis. Now princes distribute lands not to advisers and comrades, but to their servants and stewards. All of them are personally dependent on the prince. Having become feudal lords, they did not cease to be his subordinates.

Due to the political dependence of the Russian lands on the Golden Horde, the unification process took place under extreme conditions. And this left a significant imprint on the nature of power relations in the emerging Russian state, the process of annexing other states, “principalities-lands”

to the Principality of Moscow most often relied on violence and assumed the violent nature of power in the unifying state. The feudal lords of the annexed territories became servants of the Moscow ruler. And if the latter, in relation to his own boyars, according to tradition, could retain some contractual obligations that came from vassal relations, then in relation to the ruling class of the annexed lands he was only a master for his subjects. Thus, due to a number of historical reasons in In the formation of statehood of the Moscow kingdom, elements of eastern civilization predominated. The relations of vassalage, established in Kievan Rus before the Tatar-Mongol yoke, are inferior to the relations of subjection.

Already during the reign of Ivan III, a system of authoritarian power, which had significant elements of eastern despotism. The “Sovereign of All Rus'” had a volume of power and authority immeasurably greater than that of European monarchs. The entire population of the country - from the highest boyars to the last smerd - were the tsar's subjects, his slaves. The relations of citizenship were introduced into law by the Belozersk charter of 1488. According to this charter, all classes were equalized in the face of state power.

The economic basis of subject relations was predominance of state ownership of land. In Russia, noted V.O. Klyuchevsky, the tsar was a kind of patrimonial owner. The whole country for him is property, with which he acts as a rightful owner. The number of princes, boyars and other patrimonial owners was constantly decreasing: Ivan IV reduced their share in economic relations in the country to a minimum. The decisive blow to private ownership of land was dealt by the institution of reason. From an economic point of view, the oprichnina was characterized by the allocation of significant territories in the west, north and south of the country to a special sovereign inheritance. These territories were declared the personal possessions of the king. This means that all private owners in the oprichnina lands had to either recognize the sovereign rights of the tsar or be subject to liquidation, and their property was confiscated. The large estates of princes and boyars were divided into small estates and distributed to the nobles for the sovereign's service as hereditary possession, but not as property. In this way, the power of appanage princes and boyars was destroyed, and the position of service landowners - nobles - was strengthened under the unlimited power of the autocratic tsar.

The oprichnina policy was carried out with extreme cruelty. Evictions and confiscation of property were accompanied by bloody terror and accusations of conspiracy against the tsar. The strongest pogroms were carried out in Novgorod, Tver, Pskov. No wonder words“oprichnina” and “oprichnik” became common nouns and were used as figurative expressions of gross tyranny.

As a result of the oprichnina, society submitted to the unlimited power of a single ruler - the Moscow Tsar. The serving nobility became the main social support of power. Boyarskaya Duma A was still preserved as a tribute to tradition, but became more manageable. Owners economically independent from the authorities have been liquidated. which could serve as the basis for the formation of civil society.

In addition to state ownership, corporate, that is, collective ownership, was quite widespread in the Muscovite kingdom. Collective owners were church and monasteries. Free communal peasants (chernososnye) had collective ownership of land and holdings. Thus, in the Russian state there was practically no institution of private property, which in Western Europe served as the basis for the principle of separation of powers and the creation of a parliamentary system.

However, Russian statehood cannot be fully attributed to Eastern despotism. For a long time, such bodies of public representation as the Boyar Duma, Zemstvo self-government and Zemsky Sobors functioned in it.

The Boyar Duma as an advisory governing body existed in Kievan Rus. At that time it was not part of the state apparatus. With the formation of a single centralized state, the Boyar Duma turns into the highest state body of the country. In addition to the sovereign, the Boyar Duma included former appanage princes and them boyars The most important power functions are practically concentrated in her hands. The Boyar Duma is the legislative body of the state. Without its “sentences,” legislative acts could not come into force. She had the legislative initiative in the adoption of new “charters”, taxes and the famous Code of Laws (1497, 1550), which were sets of legal norms and laws that were in force throughout the entire territory of a single state. At the same time, the Boyar Duma was also the highest executive body. She carried out general management of orders, supervised local administration, and made decisions on organizational issues. armies and land affairs. From 1530-1540 The Boyar Duma becomes a state bureaucratic institution.

From the middle of the 16th century, the so-called “Near Duma” emerged from the Boyar Duma, and under Ivan the Terrible - the “Elected Rada” (1547-1560), which consisted of a narrow circle of close associates

tsar, such as the priest of the Annunciation Cathedral in the Kremlin Sylvester, the tsar's bed-guard A. Adashev and others, who resolved emergency and secret issues. In addition to the Duma clerks, Ivan the Terrible introduced Duma nobles into the bureaucracy. The decisions of the “Chosen Rada” came on behalf of the Tsar and were implemented by Duma officials, among whom more and more were his favorites and relatives.

However, over the years, the Boyar Duma gradually becomes a conservative body that opposes the sovereign’s initiatives. Ivan the Terrible is pushing her away from the legislative and executive powers. The importance of the Boyar Duma will increase briefly after his death, but by the end of the 17th century. it will no longer meet the urgent needs of government and will be cancelled.

During the formation of a unified Russian state, the process of forming central executive authorities was underway. Already at the beginning of the 16th century. Orders occupy an important place in the structure of public administration. The order was usually headed by a boyar. Direct executive activities were carried out by clerks and clerks, recruited from among the serving nobility. Orders are sectoral management bodies. They were created for various reasons, performed many functions, and sometimes were temporary. The treasury was in charge of all state finances. But at certain times, the treasury order also oversees the southern direction of foreign policy. The state order was in charge of national institutions; Zemsky - carried out police functions; Yamskoy (postal) - was responsible for uninterrupted communications between Moscow and the interior of the country;

robber - engaged in the analysis of criminal cases; rank - he was in charge of recruiting the army, he was also in charge of the construction of fortresses and border cities; local - was in charge of state lands, etc.

There were many small orders (stable, pharmacy, etc.) and a whole network of financial orders.

The development of artillery during the Livonian War led to the formation of the Pushkar order, which was in charge of the production of cannons, shells and gunpowder.

After the capture of Kazan and Astrakhan, the order of the Kazan Palace was organized - the department of territorial administration. Back at the end of the 15th century. The Armory Chamber arose - the arsenal of the Russian state. For more than a quarter of a century, it was headed by a talented diplomat and subtle connoisseur art of B.I. Khitrovo.

Precisely on Ivan's orders Grozny and his government assigned the responsibility of implementing major reforms in the middle of the 16th century. Final decor orders as institutions occurred at the end of the 16th century, when for everyone of them a certain staff and budget were established and special buildings were built on the territory of the Kremlin. |

By the middle of the 17th century. the total number of orders reached 53 with a staff of 3.5 thousand people. During major orders, special schools were created to train qualified government officials. However, the main shortcomings of the order management system appeared quite early: the lack of clear regulation and distribution of responsibilities between individual institutions; red tape, embezzlement, corruption, etc.

Administratively, the main territory of the Russian state was divided into counties, and the county into volosts and camps.

Uyezds were administrative districts consisting of cities assigned to him lands. There was no significant difference between the volost and the camp: the camp was the same rural volost, but usually directly subordinate to the city administration. Instead of counties, the Novgorod land was divided into Pyatyns, and Pyatyns into graveyards. The Pskov land was divided into lips. Novgorod churchyards and Pskov lips roughly corresponded to Moscow skim volosts

General local administration was concentrated among governors and volosts. Governors ruled cities and suburban camps; The volostel governed the volosts. The power of governors and volostels extended to various aspects of local life: they were judges/rulers, collectors of the princes' income, with the exception of income of purely palace origin and tribute; Moreover, the governors were the military commanders of the city and district. The governors of the Grand Duke were the boyars, and the volostels were service people, as a rule, from among the children of the boyars. Both of them, according to the old custom, were supported, or, as they said then, “fed,” at the expense of the population. Initially, “feeding” (that is, extortions in favor of governors and volosts) nothing were not limited. Later, in order to centralize local government and increase state revenues, “feeding” standards were established, and the exact amounts of judicial and trade duties collected by governors and volosts in their favor were determined.

All office work in the local administration, as well as in the central one, was concentrated in the hands of clerks and clerks, who were also supported by the local population.

In addition to the general administration carried out by governors and volosts, on In some places there was also a system of palace, patrimonial administration, which was in charge of the Princely lands and palaces, and

also by performing such generally obligatory palace duties (“princely affairs”), such as the mandatory participation of the local population in harvesting, threshing and transporting princely grain, feeding the princely horse and mowing hay for him, building a princely courtyard, a mill, participating in princely hunting, etc. .

At the turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In the cities, so-called city clerks appeared - a kind of military commandants appointed by the Grand Duke from among the local nobles. City clerks were in charge of the construction and repair of city fortifications, roads and bridges, ensuring the transportation of military supplies, the production of gunpowder, and the storage of ammunition, weapons and food for the army. The task of city clerks was also to conduct a district meeting of city and peasant militias.

To create a uniform system of administration and court throughout the state, the Code of Laws was published in 1497 - the first set of existing laws, something between the criminal code and the constitution. The general trend towards centralization of the country and the state apparatus entailed the publication of a new Code of Law in 1550. In the Code of Code of 1550, for the first time in Russia, law was proclaimed as the only source of law. He eliminated the judicial privileges of appanage princes and strengthened the role of state judicial bodies. The Code of Law introduced punishment for bribery for the first time. The population of the country was obliged to bear taxes - a complex of natural and monetary duties. The Moscow ruble became the main payment unit in the state. A procedure for filing complaints against governors was established, which ensured control over them by the local nobility. The right to collect trade duties passed into the hands of the state. A radical management reform was carried out.

In 1555-1556. The feeding system was eliminated. All volosts and cities were given the right to move to a new order of self-government, according to which volosts and cities were required to contribute a special rent to the sovereign's treasury - “fodder farming”. The power of governors was completely replaced by the power of elected zemstvo bodies. The latter were headed by provincial and zemstvo elders, who were involved in the analysis of criminal cases, the distribution of taxes, and were in charge of the city economy, land allocation, that is, the basic needs of the townspeople and district people. Black-nosed peasants, townspeople, and service people used the word “zemshchina” to choose “kissers” - jurors who kissed the cross, swearing an oath to a fair trial.

In addition to the system of local self-government, zemstvo councils were an influential institution of democracy in Russia in the 16th-18th centuries. Zemsky Sobors were convened at the initiative of the sovereign to discuss the most important problems of domestic and foreign policy. First Zemsky The cathedral was convened on February 27, 1549 as a meeting of “every rank of people in the Moscow state” or the “great zemstvo duma” to discuss the issue of how to build local government and where to get money for waging a war against Lithuania. Its composition included members of the Boyar Duma, church leaders, governors and boyar children, representatives of the nobility, townspeople. There were no official documents defining the principles for selecting participants in the council. Most often, the highest layers of the state hierarchy were included there by position, and the lower ones, according to certain quotas, were elected at local meetings. Zemsky Sobors had no legal rights. However their authority consolidated the most important government decisions.

The era of Zemsky Sobors lasted over a century (1549-1653). During this time their convened several dozen times. The most famous: in 1550 regarding the new Code of Laws; in 1566 during the Livonian War; in 1613 - the most crowded (over 700 people) for the election of Mikhail Romanov to the Russian throne; in 1648, the issue of creating a commission to draw up the Council Code was discussed and, finally, in 1653, the last Zemsky Sobor decided to reunite Little Russia with the Muscovite kingdom (Ukraine with Russia).

Zemsky Sobors were not only a tool for strengthening the autocracy, but they contributed to the formation of the national-state consciousness of the Russian people.

In the second half of the 17th century. The activity of the Zemsky Sobors, as well as the Zemshchina, is gradually fading away. The final blow was dealt by Peter I: during the reign of the great reformer in the empire, the bureaucracy ousted the zemshchina.

An important element of Russian statehood, bringing it closer to Eastern civilization, is Institute of serfdom.

The process of forming serfdom was a long one. d It was generated by the feudal social system and was its main attribute. In an era of political fragmentation, there was no general law defining the position of peasants and them responsibilities. Back in the 15th century. peasants were free to leave the land on which they lived and to pass to another landowner, having paid the previous owner debts and a special fee for the use of the yard and land plot - elderly. But already at that time, the princes began to issue charters in favor of landowners, limiting the peasant exit, that is, the right of rural residents to “cross from volost to volost, from village in the village” for one period of the year - a week before St. George’s Day (November 26, old style) and a week after the bliss

Although there is no direct decree on the introduction of serfdom, the fact of its establishment is confirmed in writing by the St. George’s Day rule in the Code of Laws of 1497. The condition for the transition was the payment of the elderly - compensation to the landowner for the loss of workers. Old-timers-peasants (who lived with the landowner for at least 4 years) and newcomers paid differently. The elderly accounted for a large, but not the same amount in the forest and steppe zones. Approximately, it was necessary to give at least 15 pounds of honey, a herd of domestic animals, or 200 pounds of rye.

The Code of Law of 1550 increased the size of the “elderly” and established an additional duty “for the cart”, which was paid if the peasant refused to fulfill the obligation to bring the landowner’s crop from the field. The judge defined in detail the position of slaves. The feudal lord was now responsible for the crimes of his peasants, which increased their personal dependence on the master.

Ivan the Terrible established a regime of “reserved years”, and Tsar Fedor’s decree of 1597 introduced a 5-year detective runaways peasants B. Godunov either abolished or re-introduced the system of “reserve and designated years.” V. Shuisky increased the “lesson summers” to 10, and then 15 years, in addition, the sale of peasants was allowed without land.

The Council Code (1649) introduces an indefinite period for the search and return of fugitive and forcibly removed peasants and punishment their concealers. Thus the process of legal registration of serfdom in Russia was completed.

Serfdom arose and developed simultaneously with feudalism and was inseparable from it. It was in serfdom that the ability of owners of the means of production to receive feudal rent in its most diverse forms from direct producers was realized. Until the middle of the 16th century. quitrent in kind prevailed, less often in money, and then corvée took priority.

In Russia, peasants were divided into palace (royal), patrimonial, local, church and state. A feature of feudalism in Rus' was the development of “state feudalism”, in which the state itself acted as the owner. In the XVI-XVII centuries. Characteristic features of the process of further evolution of feudalism were the increased development of the state estate system, especially in the northern regions and on the outskirts of the country.

In the center and south of Russia, there was a tendency to strengthen serf relations, manifested in the further attachment of peasants to the land and the right of the feudal lord to alienate peasants without land, as well as the extreme limitation of the civil capacity of peasants. Three-part peasant plots in the first half of the 16th century. amounted to 8 acres. The size of quitrents and corvée was constantly growing.

An indicator of the deep aggravation of social contradictions caused by the strengthening of serfdom were mass popular uprisings in the 16th century: a peasant uprising (1606-1607) led by I. Bolotnikov, urban uprisings, a peasant war led by S. Razin (1670-1671). ) and etc.

XVI-XVII centuries in Russian history were turning point time When finally development was determined feudalism along the way of strengthening serfdom and autocracy.

4. 17th century - crisis of the Muscovite kingdom

So, by the end of the 16th century, the Muscovite kingdom became a powerful centralized state, uniting significant territories. The apogee of the Muscovite kingdom occurred during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. After the death of Ivan IV, the throne passed to his weak-willed and weak-minded son Fedor (1584-1598). Fedor was practically unable to govern the state, and gradually all power was concentrated in the hands of the boyar Boris Godunov (1598-1605). The years of his reign coincide with the first period of the “time of troubles” - dynastic), whose sister was same Nat Tsar Feodor. Continuing the policies of Ivan the Terrible, Godunov dealt harshly with representatives of the boyar nobility who were hostile to him. His actions were supported by wide circles of the nobility, wealthy sections of the townspeople, and the closest associates of Ivan IV. He acquired a strong ally in the person of the higher clergy. In 1589, Godunov took advantage of the visit to Russia of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who, according to ancient custom, was considered the head of the Russian Church, and obtained from him the ordination of his supporter, the Moscow Metropolitan Job, as patriarch. As a result, the Russian Orthodox Church ended its dependence on the Patriarch of Constantinople.

An ambitious, intelligent and subtle politician, Boris Godunov headed the government of Tsar Feodor for 10 years. During this time, significant successes were achieved in the struggle to strengthen the Russian centralized state and strengthen its international position.

Soon after the death of Ivan IV, the Polish-Lithuanian feudal lords began preparations for war against Russia. The Polish throne was taken by King Sigismund III, a graduate of the Jesuit Order. Incited Roman Pope, he hoped to achieve the introduction of the Catholic religion in Rus' and deprive it of independence. Godunov managed to conclude a 15-year truce with Poland and strengthen the southern borders; forcing the feudal lords of Crimea to sign peace with Russia. As a result of the successful war with Sweden, Russia was opened to

steps to the Baltic Sea. Founded in 1584 in the north, at the mouth of the Dvina, the city of Arkhangelsk became a center of trade with England and the Netherlands.

In 1591, under unclear circumstances, the heir to the Russian throne, Tsarevich Dmitry, the youngest son of Ivan IV, died in Uglich. According to the official report, the prince, who suffered from epilepsy, fell on a knife while playing and stabbed himself. However, a rumor also spread that he was killed by supporters of Boris Godunov.

In 1598, after the death of Tsarevich Dmitry, Tsar Fedor dies. He had no direct heirs and thus with his death the Rurik dynasty dried up. Russia faces dynastic crisis. In the history of any monarchy, this is a very dangerous moment, fraught with social upheaval. In Russia at that time, the dynastic crisis took place in the context of major social upheavals associated with crop failures and famine, which lasted three years (1601-1603). People ate tree bark, cats, and dogs. Peasants fled in droves from the landowners. Entire detachments were formed from fugitive peasants, attacking merchants and nobles. Peasant uprisings began. The largest of them was led by Ivan Bolotnikov. The country gradually slipped into the abyss of civil war, which was called the “Time of Troubles.”

The “time of troubles,” as noted earlier, began with a dynastic crisis. They tried to resolve this crisis in a way unprecedented in Russia - by electing a tsar at the Zemsky Sobor. In 1598, at the Zemsky Sobor, with great support from the serving nobility, Boris Godunov (1598-1605) was elected Tsar. He abandoned the policy of terror and sought to consolidate the entire landowning class. B. Godunov supported the townspeople, easing the situation of those who were engaged in crafts and trade. During his reign, the construction of new cities in the Volga region became widespread. However, the famine of 1601-1603 and the inability of the authorities to cope with him caused discontent among all layers of Russian society with the rule of B. Godunov, who was also accused of the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry, which led to the suppression of the Rurik dynasty.

The growth of social tension in society gave rise to a civil war and created a threat to Russian statehood. With the death of Boris Godunov, the second stage of the crisis of power began in Russia - social(1605-1609) - False Dmitry I appeared in Poland, who at that time hard time, demagogically using the idea of ​​a “good tsar” with the help of Polish magnates, invades the country with the aim of implementing the division of Russia. In conditions of civil war and thanks to betrayal, False Dmitry I manages to capture Moscow. False Dmitry I reigned for almost a year (June 1605 - May 1606)" favor with the support of not only the Poles, but also a certain part of the Russian people. However, with their anti-Russian anti-patriotic actions he caused general discontent, was overthrown and killed.

And yet, the reasons for imposture were not eliminated. At the next Zemsky Sobor, one of the noble aristocrats, Prince V. Shuisky (1606-1610), was elected Russian Tsar, but he not only failed to stop the civil war, but plunged the country into even greater chaos. Dissatisfied with the policies of V. Shuisky, the Cossacks, nobles, and peasants united around the “voivode Tsarevich Dmitry” - I. Bolotnikov (1606-1607). The rebels tried to take Moscow, but were defeated And With them dealt with mercilessly.

Poland took advantage of the critical situation in Russia and again organized a campaign against Moscow under the leadership of False Dmitry II. Russia turned out to be split: some territories recognized the Moscow Tsar, others - the impostor. Civil war between their subjects was again gaining strength. Soon, as a result of hostilities, False Dmitry II, the “Tuvan thief,” was defeated and destroyed. However, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth did not abandon its aggressive goals. The Polish king Sigismund III concluded an agreement with the “Russian Tushins” to recognize his son Vladislav as the Russian Tsar, and foreign troops entered Russian territory.

The Russian people rise to fight the Polish interventionists, and the third begins - national liberation period of the “time of troubles”(1610-1613). People's militia units were created, headed by Ryazan serviceman P. Lyapunov, Prince Trubetskoy and Cossack leader I. Zarutsky. They pursue the goal of expelling the Poles from Moscow and restoring the Orthodox monarchy. However, the first militia did not solve its main tasks, attempts to take Moscow ended in failure, and it ceased to represent a real military force.

In the fall of 1611, on the initiative of the zemstvo elder K. Minin and Prince D. Pozharsky, a second militia was created in Nizhny Novgorod. In August 1612, it approached Moscow and broke the resistance of the Polish interventionists, liberating the capital of Russia in October 1612.

The country faced the difficult question of electing a new monarch, whose candidacy would be supported by all the main political forces and the ordinary population of the country. For this it was necessary to convene a Zemsky Sobor with the widest representation. Letters were sent to cities and districts with a decree on the election of representatives from different strata of the Russian people. After two months of preparation in January 1613. The Zemsky Sobor began its work, and in February it elected 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov (1613-1645) was appointed Tsar to the Russian throne.

It took the authorities almost 6 years to basically bring the country out of the state of turmoil and restore proper order. The weakened state was forced to make concessions to foreigners. According to the Stolbovo Peace Treaty with Sweden in 1617, Russia retained the Novgorod land, but gave the Smolensk region to Poland and lost access to the Baltic Sea.

So, the “time of troubles” was a shock to the entire political, social and economic life of the country. It was a test of the Moscow state's viability. Gradually, Russia began to emerge from social catastrophe and restore statehood, destroyed during the period of the Troubles.

In conditions of devastation and difficult financial situation, the government was in great need of support from the main groups of the ruling class. Therefore, after the new royal dynasty came to power, zemstvo councils met almost continuously. In addition to finding financial resources to replenish the state treasury, foreign policy matters were also discussed at the councils. The local nobility and townspeople were represented much more widely at these cathedrals, how in the 16th century, voices their were heard more and more confidently. But, despite the increased importance of the local nobility and townspeople, the Boyar Duma was still the most important body of the state, sharing supreme power with the tsar. Meetings of the Duma, as a rule, were held daily in one of the chambers of the Tsar's Palace or in its sovereign room.

During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, power was actually in the hands of his father, Patriarch Filaret. And this contributed to the strengthening of the influence of the church. As P.N. Milyukov noted, during this period the patriarchal power was freed from under the influence of the state and even acquired decisive influence over it. In internal administration, the church literally became a state within a state, since it received a structure copied from national institutions. Church administration, court, finance, court life of the Patriarch himself - all this was, from the time of Filaret, under the control of various orders, structured on the model of state ones. (Milyukov P.N. Essays on history of Russian culture, 3 vols. T.2.h .1. P. 169).

The efforts of Tsar Mikhail's successor, Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), were aimed at restoring and strengthening the statehood of the Muscovite kingdom. During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, Russia made significant progress towards building a rule of law state. In 1649, the Zemsky Sobor adopted Cathedral Code, which represented the foundations of Russian legislation.

The Council Code of 1649 affirmed the principle of the centrality of a titled state with the authoritarian power of the king. The tsar relied on the nobility to govern society. Where elective positions were retained, they were subordinate to representatives of the royal power - the governors. Only in the “black” lands, that is, among the black-growing communal peasants, did elected bodies continue to operate relatively independently. The Code somewhat limited the corporate interests of the church. The property that the church owned was retained by it, but it was strictly forbidden to reacquire church estates. Management of church affairs passed into the hands of the secular body of the monastery order. The command system of management has become widespread.

The largest historical event of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich is reunification of Ukraine with Russia. The lands of Ukraine were still part of the Old Russian state. In the 13th century. A significant part of Ukraine was conquered by the Tatar-Mongols. Another part of it was captured by Lithuanian feudal lords. Then Lithuania entered into an alliance with Poland, and the Polish-Lithuanian state was formed. Ukraine found itself under his yoke. Alien customs and religion were imposed on the Ukrainian people.

In the 16th and first half of the 17th centuries. In Ukraine, uprisings break out against Polish landowners and officials. The major force fighting against lordly Poland in Ukraine was the Dnieper Cossacks, who had their own organization on the Dnieper beyond the threshold - the Zaporozhye Sich. Here fugitives from the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian lands hid from serfdom, from the oppression of the landowners and masters, from the oppression of tsarist and royal officials.

In the middle of the 17th century. in Ukraine the flames of a huge people's war against lordly Poland flared. Bohdan Khmelnytsky led the war. The war began in the spring of 1648. The Russian people sympathized with the struggle of the Ukrainians against the lordly Poland. Detachments of Don Cossacks, Russian peasants, and townspeople took part in this struggle. The Russian government helped the rebellious Ukraine with food and weapons. Khmelnitsky turned to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with a request to accept Ukraine into the Russian state. Moscow agreed to Khmelnitsky’s proposal and sent an embassy to Ukraine with the boyar Buturlin. In the city of Pereyaslavl, a general council (council) was assembled to resolve this important matter. The Pereyaslav Rada of 1654 unanimously decided: Ukraine should reunite with Russia, “so that everyone would be one forever.” Poland tried to retake Ukraine, but her attempts ended in failure.

XVII century - time of great popular movements. The uprising led by the Don Cossack Stepan Razin was one of the most significant.

The uprising began on the Don, where the peasantry - fugitives from serfdom - flocked. There were also wealthy, “homely” Cossacks on the Don, but the bulk were representatives of the Cossack poor - the “golytba”. Stepan Razin became its leader. The beginning of the uprising was the march of the Golytba along the Volga in 1667. The differences attacked the royal and merchant caravans, dealt with the royal servants, and accepted working people into their detachments. Caravans of rich Persian ships were captured in the Caspian Sea, which increased Razin's prestige. In May 1670, Razin's troops took Tsaritsyn, Astrakhan, Saratov, and Samara. The royal commanders were killed or expelled from these cities. Not only Russian serfs, but also the peoples of the Volga region - Mordovians, Chuvash, Mari, who were severely oppressed by the tsarist authorities, flocked to Razin's detachments. It seemed to the rebel peasants that the main their the goal is to destroy their own, local boyar, landowner, but the main enemy of the peasants was the entire serf system as a whole, with the main landowner - the tsar - at its head. But the peasants thought that instead of hostile them a landowner tsar can be installed as a “good” tsar for the peasantry, a kind tsar.

Having flared up brightly in one place, the peasant uprising immediately died out. The rebels did not have a unified plan of action; they were poorly trained in military affairs and poorly armed.

The tsarist government sent huge military forces and the most experienced commanders against Razin. The rebels heroically resisted, but the uprising was suppressed. Rich Cossacks handed Razin over to the authorities, and in 1671 he was executed.

Increasing social cataclysms showed that social system in Russia needs deep reform. However, such reform had to begin in the spiritual sphere, since Russia continued to remain a deeply religious society. In the middle of the 17th century, the Russian Orthodox Church began reform of the cult system. The idea of ​​the reform was to eliminate differences in liturgical practice between the Russian Church and the rest of the Orthodox churches, to introduce uniformity church service all around Russia.

The external background of this reform was as follows: a theological school was opened in Kyiv, where one could learn ancient languages ​​and grammar. Several students of this school were allowed to publish liturgical books at the Moscow Printing Yard - the only state printing house at that time. Comparing the handwritten and printed texts of published books in accordance with their official duties, they coughed that the printed editions were unsatisfactory, and the handwritten ones were full of discrepancies. The only way to establish a correct and uniform text was to turn to the Greek originals. They wrote out the Greeks and the Greek originals and began to compare And, in addition to translation errors and copyist's slips, we noticed original Russian inserts in Russian books that corresponded to national ritual characteristics. These insertions were to be removed from the revised text.

Patriarch Nikon, who was elected to the position, personally went to the patriarchal library and, as far as he could, compared the books of the Moscow press there with ancient Greek manuscripts and became convinced of the existence of disagreements. He convened a Local Council. And at this council the necessary changes were made to the liturgical books and liturgical practice. These changes were insignificant for Orthodox doctrine and cult, since they did not affect the foundations of Orthodoxy, its dogma and sacraments, but concerned some grammatical and cult innovations. Instead of “Isus” they began to write “Jesus”, instead of “singers” - “singers”, etc. The two-finger sign of the cross was replaced by a three-finger one, along with the eight-pointed cross, the four-pointed one was recognized, etc. Bows to the ground were replaced by bows, the direction of movement during the service was changed (“posolon”), i.e. movement in the direction of the Sun, movement against the Sun, etc.

However, these changes have had enormous consequences. The entire Russian society split into adherents of the old and new faiths. This split had its own ideological and socio-political motives. Supporters of the “old faith”, “old rite” defended the idea of ​​​​the originality of Russian Orthodoxy, its superiority over other Orthodox churches, including over its ancestor - the Constantinople, which, according to their opinion, having concluded the Union of Florence with the Roman Catholic Church, she fell into heresy. Moreover, the fact of signing the Union of Florence allegedly indicates the weakness of the faith of Constantinople. This means that he did not have true, that is, Orthodox faith. Therefore, given the difference in church forms and rituals, all preferences should belong to national Russian forms. Only they should be considered truly Orthodox. Since Greek Orthodoxy is corrupt, the highest and most important task of Russian piety should be to preserve everything that didn't look like into Greek.

Supporters of the old rite are usually represented as inert people, unable to accept unimportant formal and ritual innovations. However, according to the famous Russian historian Kostomarov, schismatics are the most active part of the Orthodox Church. IN ancient Rus' few people thought about religions, schismatics not only thought about religion, but their spiritual focus was concentrated on it life. In ancient Rus' the ritual

was a dead form and performed poorly. The schismatics searched in him meaning and sought to fulfill it sacredly and precisely. The consciousness of national-religious identity and the resulting firm belief in the world-historical mission of Russian Orthodoxy (Moscow is the third Rome) formed the ideological basis of the schismatic movement. The retreat of the state and the official church from these guidelines during church reform was the main reason for the schismatic movement. This reason was joined by social motives associated with the consolidation of serfdom and the increased exploitation of the peasantry and urban population.

Opponents of the reform were subjected to a church curse - anathema at the Local Council of 1666-1667. From that time on they were subjected to severe repression. Fleeing from persecution, the defenders of the “old faith” fled to the remote places of the North, the Volga region, Siberia, and the south of Russia. As a sign of protest, they burned themselves alive. In 1675-1695. 37 collective self-immolations were registered, during which at least 20 thousand people died. The ideological leader of the Old Believers was Archpriest Avvakum, who also carried out an act of collective self-immolation in the log house of a house under construction.

Brutal repression by the tsarist government, as a result of which thousands of supporters of the Old Believers were executed, tens of thousands were tortured, imprisoned and exiled, did not sway the most ardent adherents in their beliefs. They declared the existing authorities to be proxies of the Antichrist and refused all communication with the worldly (in food, drink, prayer, etc.).

However, the official church won. Church reform was carried out. The Council recognized all Greek patriarchs and Greek liturgical books as Orthodox, and the Russian Orthodox Church became closer to the rest of the Orthodox world. The council also approved the principle of separation of secular and spiritual power. The king has the advantage in deciding civil matters, and the church - in deciding spiritual ones. For his extraordinary claims to secular power, the council condemned Patriarch Nikon and deprived him of his patriarchal rank.

Federal Agency for Education

Belgorod State University

Department of Russian History and Political Science

PRACTICUM ONDISCIPLINE "NATIONAL HISTORY"

Belgorod 2011

Topic 1. Old Russian state inIX – XIIIcenturies

1. The problem of ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs.

2. Formation and evolution of the ancient Russian state - Kievan Rus.

3. The adoption of Christianity in Rus' and its influence on ancient Russian culture.

4. Feudal fragmentation of Rus'.

First question. It is advisable to consider this issue in the context of the Great Migration. Students should understand the origin of the term "Slavs", what group of peoples they belonged to, and also name the Slavic peoples. Regarding the origin and settlement of the Eastern Slavs, there are two main points of view: migratory and autochthonous. In the migration theory, three options can be distinguished: Danube, Baltic and Scythian-Sarmatian. When considering migration theory, it is necessary to answer the question: what peoples did the Eastern Slavs encounter during their resettlement? It is also necessary to name the East Slavic tribes from which the Old Russian people were formed.

Second question. When studying this issue, it is necessary to understand Why a state arose and How this process took place.

The formation of the state was preceded by certain preconditions . Name them. The desire of the Slavic tribes for unification intensified under the influence of constant raids by nomadic tribes, as well as the desire to establish control of the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.”

Formation of the Old Russian state is the subject of intense scientific debate. In simplified form, they come down to two theories - « Norman» And " anti-Norman." Reveal their contents. Modern historians are inclined, having abandoned extremes, to combine the arguments of the opposing sides, believing that the state arose as a result of the formation internal prerequisites, and role Varangians in this process was expressed in the fact that the state formed faster and over a larger territory.

Considering political system, understand the functions of the Kyiv prince, squads, the role of town meetings ( veche). Think about why Kievan Rus was early feudal monarchy .

The history of Ancient Rus' can be divided into three periods . Name them. Give them a description of the first Kyiv princes. Please note that until the end of the 10th century. former tribal centers were governed by former tribal princes, who retained autonomy and paid to the prince of Kyiv tribute. Prince Vladimir (980–1015) changed this system; he planted his sons in large cities, who became his vassals. What is characteristic of vassal relations? Folds up "staircase" form of government under which Rus' becomes collective possession of the Rurik family , because Only representatives of this dynasty reigned throughout the country. A peculiarity of Ancient Rus' was that there was a custom of inheritance of principalities according to the principle ancestral seniority (from older brother to younger), which, given the large number of the Rurik family, confused the inheritance and gave rise to numerous civil strife.

In the social structure ancient Russian society there are two main groups – servicemen (princes who were in the service of the Grand Duke and boyars) and non-service - peasants and townspeople. Peasants ( People) divided into free X community members and dependent from feudal lords ( purchases, stinkers, rank and file). It should be emphasized that the bulk of the peasants were personally free. Living on the prince's land, they paid tribute for this and carried out various duties.

It is also necessary to consider the question of the metamorphosis of Kievan Rus in world civilization. Consider the relationship of Ancient Rus' with Byzantium and nomadic peoples.

Third question. The adoption of Christianity by Russia was of enormous importance and influenced all aspects of the life of our state and society. What were the reasons for accepting Christianity? When considering this issue, it should be taken into account that the formation of statehood among all peoples is accompanied by a rejection of paganism, because it does not correspond to the new level of development of society. The adoption of a new religion was dictated by the need to spiritually unite numerous Slavic tribes (one faith - one people), as well as strengthen the position of the state. The choice of Christianity was not accidental; it testified to the European orientation of Rus'. The adoption of Christianity in its eastern version ( Orthodoxy) was largely a consequence of close ties with Byzantium. Tell us how and when the baptism of Kievan Rus took place. Uncover the meaning adoption of Christianity for the development of ancient Russian culture.

Fourth question. The feudal fragmentation of Russian lands was a pan-European phenomenon and had a number of reasons. Name them. As a result of fragmentation, 15 independent principalities were formed. What role did the congress of princes in the city of Lyubech in 1097 play in this process? Name the largest government centers, which were formed in Rus'. It is necessary to find out their geographical location, as well as the most important factors that contributed to their power and influence. Vladimir-Suzdal Principality– North-Eastern Rus'. Note the active colonization of lands, the growth of cities, crafts and trade in the 12th century. Give a description of the reigns of Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky, and Vsevolod the Big Nest. There is a tendency here to become strong princely power, which caused resistance from the boyars . Galicia-Volynskoe principality was the strongest in the south of Rus'. The proximity of European countries contributed to the prosperity of crafts and trade, and the mild climate and fertile lands contributed to the development of agriculture. It happened here strong boyars, which fought with the prince for power. Novgorod Boyar Republic– Northwestern Rus' developed in a special way. Novgorod was one of the ten largest trading cities in Europe and was a major craft center. Power in Novgorod belonged to veche which elected prince, mayor, thousand, archbishop. Find out their functions. Please note that virtually all the main issues were resolved here boyars. What's it like meaning of feudal fragmentation? Find in educational literature data indicating the flourishing of cities, crafts and trade, and the further development of culture during this period.

Main literature:

1. Gumilyov L.N. From Rus' to Russia: essays on ethnic history / L.N. Gumilev. – M.: Ecopros, 1992. – P. 20-86.

2. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861: Textbook. manual for universities / N.I. Pavlenko, I.L. Andreev, V.B. Kobrin, V.A. Fedorov; Ed. N.I. Pavlenko. – M.: Higher. school, 2000. – P. 30-55.

3. History of Russia. Textbook. / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina. –M.: LLC “TK Velby”, 2002. – P. 14-49.

4. History of Russia: Textbook. for universities / A.A. Chernobaev, I.E. Gorelov, M.N. Zuev et al; Under. re. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaeva. – M.: Higher. school, 2001. P. 10-46.

Additional literature:

1. Anisimov E.V. History of Russia from Rurik to Putin. People. Events. Dates / E.V. Anisimov. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007. – P. 17-35, 37-39, 43-44, 48-52, 55-58, 60-64.

2. Gorsky A.A. Old Russian squad / A.A. Gorsky. – M., 1989.

3. How Rus' was baptized. – M.: Politizdat, 1989.

4. Klyuchevsky V.O. Works: In 9 volumes. Volume I. Course of Russian history. / V.O. Klyuchevsky. – M.: Mysl, 1987.

5. Lukyanov L.P. Eastern Slavs: is that us? Evolution of the 6th-10th centuries / L.P. Lukyanov. – M.: Kraft+, 2004.

6. Lyubavsky M.K. Review of the history of Russian colonization from ancient times to the 20th century. / M.K. Lyubavsky. – M.: Publishing house Mosk. Univ., 1996. pp. 88-128.

7. Pereverzentsev S.V. Russia. Great destiny / S.V. Pereverzentsev. – M.: White City, 2005. P.13-170.

8. Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities in the XII-XIII centuries. / B.A. Rybakov. – M., 1993.

9. Soloviev S.M. Essays. In 18 books. Book 1. T. 1-2. "History of Russia from ancient times." T. 1-2. / CM. Soloviev. – M.: Golos, 1993.

Topic 2. Unification of Rus'. The beginning of the formation of a centralized Russian state

1. The establishment of the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Rus' and its consequences.

2. Alexander Nevsky: the fight against Swedish feudal lords and German knights.

3. The rise of Moscow.

4. Specifics of the formation of a unified Russian state in the 14th – early 16th centuries.

5. Ivan IV. Search for alternative ways of socio-political development of Russia: reforms and oprichnina.

Question one. In the 13th century. Russian lands experienced blows from conquerors both from the north-west - Swedish feudal lords and German knights, and from the east - Mongol-Tatars.

The student needs to find out where they settled mongol tribes at the end of the 12th – beginning of the 13th century, their social system, main occupation, characterize the Mongol-Tatar army. Tell us about invasion Mongols to North-Eastern Rus' in 1237-1238. and Southern Rus' in 1239-1241. What are the reasons for the military successes of the conquerors? Where and when did the Golden Horde state arise?

Question about consequences The Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russian lands is debatable. Recommended educational literature will help you clarify existing points of view. It is necessary to separate concepts "invasion" and "domination". In the first case, we are talking about the devastation of Russian lands, the death of people, material and spiritual values. In the second - about the system of relations between Rus' and the Horde. Rus' became part of the Golden Horde with the rights vassal Political dependence Russian lands consisted of the Horde issuing labels (letters) to the princes for the right to reign. Economic dependence consisted of paying tribute (Horde exit). What was the attitude of the Mongol-Tatars to the Russian Church?

It should be noted that in western and southwestern Rus' the Mongol-Tatar yoke lasted about a century. They were replaced by the Lithuanians, who included the lands of the future Belarus and Lithuania into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Initially, the situation of the former ancient Russian lands was prosperous. The princes and boyars, while retaining their possessions, even took an active part in the political life of the principality. But with the establishment of the union of Lithuania and Poland in 1385 and the spread of Catholicism among the Lithuanians, the position of Orthodox people gradually began to be infringed.

Question two. When considering this issue, it is advisable to point out that the attack of the Swedish feudal lords and German knights should be considered not as local phenomena, but as an attack of Catholicism on Orthodoxy. It is also necessary to show here the strategic position of Veliky Novgorod, which at that time was an outpost of Orthodoxy in the north-west of Rus'. It should also be noted that Alexander’s relations with the Novgorod ruling elite were not easy. Students must also discover Alexander's talent as both a military leader and a politician who prioritized national interests over regional ones. It is necessary to describe the Battle of the Neva and the Battle of the Ice. Show their historical significance for all of Rus'.

Question three. In the XIV – XV centuries. a unified Russian state is being formed. Should find out preconditions this process. Unlike Western Europe, where they prevailed socio-economic factors V state formation , dominated in Russian lands political factor - the need to unite the Russian principalities to overthrow Mongol-Tatar rule. However, economic conditions for unification were also developing. Read what changes are taking place in agriculture, engineering and technology, pay attention to the growth of cities. The possibility of unification is also common: faith, language, the foundations of culture.

Next, it is necessary to take into account that the role center Tver, Novgorod, and Moscow could claim unification of Russian lands. Moreover, Moscow, as the youngest principality, had the least chance of success. Consider reasons for the rise Moscow. The most important among them is policy Moscow princes. Being flexible allowed them to get ahead of their less fortunate rivals.

Tell us about the board Ivan Kalita. Why did he manage to receive a label for a great reign from the Horde? What did this give to the Russian lands? Dmitry Donskoy the first of the Moscow princes began open struggle with the Mongol-Tatars. What is the meaning Battle of Kulikovo?

Fourth question. The formation of a centralized Russian state began with the reign of Ivan III. Using various methods, he annexed Russian lands to the Moscow Principality.

Ivan III was already called “the sovereign of all Rus'”, and not the Moscow prince. Find facts in the literature confirming the formation of a single state.

The state cannot exist without governing bodies. Tell us about their formation. What role did they play under the Grand Duke? Boyar Duma. For what purpose did Ivan III divide the country into counties and volosts? What's happened feeding? In 1497, the first set of all-Russian laws was adopted - Code of Law. What was its content? What is the specificity of the formation of a unified Russian state? What is autocracy, and what points of view are there in Russian historical science on the issue of its genesis? How did Ivan III manage to free himself from the rule of the Mongol-Tatars?

Question five. By the 16th century the centralization of the state was not completed; large-scale transformations were necessary to solve this problem. Their implementation is associated with the name IvanaIV, describe his personality, note that he is the first of the rulers of Russia married to the kingdom. In the reign of Ivan IV, two periods are clearly visible - reforms late 40's - 50's. and about reason 60's - early 80's In carrying out reforms, the tsar relied on the support Zemsky Sobor. Representatives of what strata of society were part of it? What issues did he solve? What is an estate-representative monarchy? The unofficial government under Ivan IV became Elected Rada(to please - to take care). Who were its members? In 1550, the Zemsky Sobor adopted a new Code of Law. Tell us about its contents. Created system of specialized orders. Name the most important of them. Changes are taking place in local government system. The governorship turned out to be ineffective. In those areas of the country where nobles lived, the population chose labial headman. Where there were no nobles, the peasants chose zemstvo elder. What duties did they perform? To conduct an active foreign policy, the state needed armed forces. Military reform approved the “domestic” and “recruitment” service. What's happened estate? To whom and under what conditions was it provided? Who was recruiting? In 1551, at a church council it was adopted Stoglav. What changes in religious sphere did he fix it? Was limited localism. Define it. What was the significance of the reforms of Ivan IV?

Oprichnina(1564 – 1572). Tell us about the circumstances of its introduction. Which lands were included in the oprichnina? How were the oprichnina lands governed? What policy was pursued in relation to those areas of the country that were not included in the oprichnina lands? Causes The transition to oprichnina is a complex issue on which there are lively discussions in historical science. Find different points of view on this issue in the educational literature. In general, we can highlight objective contradictions(political and social) internal structure of the state and personal motives Ivan IV. What were the consequences of the oprichnina policy? Give a general assessment of the reign of Ivan IV.

Main literature:

1. Derevyanko A.P., Shabelnikova N.A. History of Russia / A.P. Derevianko. – M.: TK VELBY, Prospekt Publishing House, 2006. – P. 65-97.

2. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861: Textbook. manual for universities / N.I. Pavlenko, I.L. Andreev, V.B. Kobrin, V.A. Fedorov; Ed. N.I. Pavlenko. – M.: Higher. school, 2000. – P. 93-136.

3. History of Russia. Textbook. / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina. –M.: TK Velby LLC, 2002. – P. 50-84.

4. History of Russia: Textbook. for universities / A.A. Chernobaev, I.E. Gorelov, M.N. Zuev et al.; Under. re. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaeva. – M.: Higher. school, 2001. P. 47-87.

Additional literature:

1. Anisimov E.V. History of Russia from Rurik to Putin. People. Events. Dates / E.V. Anisimov. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007. – P. 71-108, 11-114, 116-155,158-159.

2. Vernadsky G.V. Russia in the Middle Ages / G.V. Vernadsky. – Tver: LEAN, Moscow: AGRAF, 2000, – P. 21-179.

3. Gumelev L.N. Ancient Rus' and the Great Steppe / L.N. Gumilev. – M.: Mysl, 1992. – P. 378-560, 569-577, 586-588.

4. Klyuchevsky V.O. Essays. At 9 t. T.” Russian history course. Part 2. / V.O. Klyuchevsky. – M.: Mysl, 1987.

5. Kobrin V.B. Ivan the Terrible / V.B. Kobrin. – M., 1989.

6. Skrynnikov R.G. Ivan groznyj. Boris Godunov. Vasily Shuisky / R.G. Skrynnikov. - M.: AST: Transitkniga, 2005. - P. 7-419.

7. Solovyov S.M. Essays. In 18 books. Book III. T. 5-6. History of Russia since ancient times / S.M. Soloviev. – M.: Golos, 1993.

Topic 3. Time of Troubles. Restoration and development of Russian statehood in the 17th century

1. Time of Troubles, its causes, main stages and results.

2. The rise to power and reign of the first Romanovs (1613 – 1676).

Question one . In historical literature, the events of the late 16th and early 17th centuries are usually called the Time of Troubles. It was structural crisis, which covered all areas of life. Without going into details of scientific discussions about reasons The Troubles, it should be said that the devastating consequences of the oprichnina increased tension in society, which was already high. The formation of a state required enormous material costs, which placed a heavy burden on all segments of the population. The situation became even more complicated as a result dynastic crisis. What are its reasons?

Time of Troubles begins accession to the throne of Boris Godunov in 1598 and ends the election of Mikhail Romanov to the throne in 1613. Next, it is necessary to consider the main events of the Time of Troubles. Why was he elected to the kingdom? Boris Godunov? Describe his reign. Pay attention to his policy on the peasant issue. What's happened “lesson summer”? The fragility of Godunov’s position on the throne can be explained by the fact that in the perception of people of that time, he was not real, “unnatural,” but a chosen king. Hence the phenomenon of imposture, the search for a real king. Tell us about False DmitryI. On what terms did he receive Polish support? Why was he able to take the Russian throne? What was the reason for the overthrow of False Dmitry? He was then elected to the throne Vasily Shuisky(1606 – 1610). During this period the Troubles reached their climax. Tell us about the uprising I. Bolotnikova. The defeat of this uprising did not lead to the strengthening of Shuisky’s power, because a new False Dmitry appeared near Moscow. Why was he called the “Tushino thief”? Influence False DmitryII spread over a large area of ​​the country. In fact, a dual power arose - two sovereigns, two capitals, two patriarchs. Vasily Shuisky concludes an agreement with Sweden for help in fighting the impostor. How did this agreement turn out for Russia? These events led to open intervention of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. What were Poland's plans for the Russian throne? When did the Poles occupy Moscow? Since the autumn of 1610, the Troubles took on the character of a national struggle against the Polish invaders. October 26 (old style) 1612 d. second militia liberated Moscow from foreigners. Who led it? In February 1613, at the Zemsky Sobor, he was elected king Michael Romanov. The time of troubles is over. What were the consequences of the Troubles? Please note that statehood was restored only thanks to the selfless struggle of the Russian people.

Question two. After being elected tsar, life would present three tasks to Mikhail Romanov: it was necessary to calm the country, expel the interventionists and restore Russian statehood. Show how Mikhail solved these problems.

The beginning of the reign of the Romanov dynasty was the time heyday of the estate-representative monarchy. Its main elements were Boyar Duma And Zemsky Sobor. Who was part of the Boyar Duma? What role did she play in governing the country? After the end of the Time of Troubles, it was necessary to restore the state, therefore, in the person of the Zemsky Sobor, the government received the support of the entire society. From 1613 to 1619 he met almost continuously. From the middle of the 17th century. begins in Russia formation of absolutism. Define absolutism. Firstly, is changingappearance and meaning Boyar Duma. Its numbers are growing due to the nobles appointed by the Tsar. Why does power seek to rely not on the boyars, but on the nobles? Later, the Near or Indoor Duma was separated from the Duma. Secondly, by the middle of the century The activities of Zemsky Sobors ceased. To resolve what issue did he meet in full force for the last time? Thirdly, it begins heyday of the order systems. At this time, the formation of a bureaucracy occurs. Its characteristic feature was numerous abuses. Why? IN local government Changes are also taking place indicating increased centralization. Elected elders are being replaced by governors, appointed by the authorities.

In 1649, the Zemsky Sobor adopted Cathedral Code. Tell us about its contents. Please note that its provisions, in particular, contributed to the strengthening of autocracy.

Split of the Russian Orthodox Church. Began in the 17th century. the formation of absolutism changed the relationship between government and the church and, inevitably, should have led to its deprivation of feudal privileges and subordination to the state. Tell us about the conflict between Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon. What caused this conflict? Why was there a need? church reforms. What role did Patriarch Nikon play in its implementation? Tell us about the most significant changes adopted in 1654 by the church council, which became cause of the church split. Who began to be called Old Believers?

The first Romanovs completed their tasks. But they failed to avoid social upheaval. Tell us about the “salt” and “copper” riots, the uprising led by Stepan Razin? How did Alexei Romanov manage to eliminate them?

Main literature:

1. Derevyanko A.P., Shabelnikova N.A. History of Russia: textbook. allowance / A.P. Derevianko. – M.: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2006. – P. 98-105, 473-478.

2. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861: Textbook. manual for universities / N.I. Pavlenko, I.L. Andreev, V.B. Kobrin, V.A. Fedorov; Ed. N.I. Pavlenko. – M.: Higher. school, 2000. – P. 157-190, 211-217, 219-228.

3. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. / A.P. Novoseltsev, A.N. Sakharov, V.I. Buganov, V.D. Nazarov; resp. ed. A.N. Sakharov, A.P. Novoseltsev - M.: AST Publishing House, 1996. - P. 457-512, 533-540, 546-550.

4. History of Russia. Textbook. / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina. –M.: TK Velby LLC, 2002. – P. 85-96, 105-126.

5. Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history / S.F. Platonov. – M.: Higher. school, 1993. – P. 248-334, 344-405.

Additional literature:

1. Anisimov E.V. History of Russia from Rurik to Putin. People. Events. Dates / E.V. Anisimov. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007. – P. 160-211.

2. Valishevsky K. The First Romanovs / K. Valishevsky. – M.: TERRA – Book Club, 2003.

3. Klyuchevsky V.O. Essays. In 9 volumes. T. 3. Course of Russian history. Part 3. / V.O. Klyuchevsky. – M.: Mysl, 1988.

4. Skrynnikov R.G. Boris Godunov / R.G. Skrynnikov. – M.: AST Publishing House LLC, 2002.

5. Skrynnikov R.G. Vasily Shuisky / R.G. Skrynnikov. – M.: AST Publishing House LLC, 2002.

6. Skrynnikov R.G. Three False Dmitrys / R.G. Skrynnikov. – M.: AST Publishing House LLC, 2003.

7. Soloviev S.M. Essays. In 18 books. Book IV. T. 7-8. History of Russia from ancient times. / CM. Soloviev. – M.: Golos, 1994.

Topic 4. Formation and strengthening of the Russian Empire in the 18th century.

1. Reforms of Peter I.

2. “Enlightened absolutism” of Catherine II.

Question one. During the reign of Peter I (1682–1725) in Russia, major reforms. What are their premises? What is the meaning? By the end of the 17th century. the country lagged significantly behind Western European countries: science and education, industry and navy were absent, the organization of the army and the state apparatus were hopelessly outdated. The transformations of Peter I covered the most diverse spheres of public life (which ones?), their essence was “Europeanization” Russia.

The implementation of reforms was associated with Northern War. Who did Russia fight with? What goals did she pursue? Failures at the beginning of the war required military reform. Tell us about its contents. Why regular army more combat-ready? Peter I attached great importance construction navy. What are the results of military reform? underwent a radical restructuring organs central and local government. In 1711 it was created Governing Senate, which replaced the Boyar Duma. What is the difference between them? What functions did the Senate perform? The outdated order system has been replaced collegiums. Name the most important of them. Was created Chief Magistrate, to which all city magistrates were subordinate. Regional reform changed the territorial division of the country. Governorates were formed. What powers did the governor have? Peter I completed the process of subordinating the church to the state, transferring its management Synod. In the social sphere, the introduction of Table of ranks, because it provided the opportunity for career advancement thanks to personal qualities, and not origin. Decree on unified inheritance Peter I equated estates with estates, thereby the line between boyars and nobles ceased to exist. Summing up Peter's transformations, it should be emphasized that there are positive and negative points of view in assessing their significance. Consider the arguments of the opposing sides, whose assessment seems to you the most justified.

Question two . When studying the domestic policy of Catherine II (1762–1796), a number of circumstances should be taken into account. Firstly, being an ardent admirer of the ideas of the Enlightenment, the empress sought to rule in the spirit of “ enlightened absolutism." Secondly, the peasant war of E. Pugachev, the bourgeois revolution in France, the “rebel worse than Pugachev” A. Radishchev forced her to be careful in carrying out reforms. Thirdly, caution was also required because Catherine illegally took the throne and had to take into account the sentiments of the nobility. Therefore, the empress's policy was contradictory. You need to familiarize yourself with the basic ideas of the Enlightenment and “enlightened absolutism”. In accordance with them, Catherine sought to transform Russia on the basis of the principles of freedom and legality, but not to allow the weakening of the autocratic foundations of her power. Tell us why Catherine called Stacked commission. What ideas did she present in "Nakaze"? Why was she forced to dissolve the commission? In accordance with the theory of separation of powers, Catherine did attempt to create an independent judiciary, transferring judicial powers Senate. A system of estate courts was created. E. Pugachev's Peasant War showed the need to shift the center of gravity in public administration from the center to the localities. In 1775 it was carried out provincial reform. What changes have occurred in local government? One of the largest transformations in the spirit of “enlightened absolutism” was “Charter of Complaint to the Nobility” 1785. Check out its contents. In accordance with the theory of the “regular state,” Peter I obliged the nobles be in public service for life. By decree of Catherine, the first free estate. At the same time, the empress tried to create another free class - the urban one. “Certificate of Commitment to Cities” Elected governing bodies were introduced, but they came under strict control of the central authorities. At the same time, Catherine's reign was marked tightening serfdom, the nobles received, in fact, an unlimited right to dispose of serfs. Support this point with examples. The educational initiatives of the Empress had a significant influence on the spiritual development of Russian society. Tell us about them. Under the influence of the French bourgeois revolution, Catherine persecutes A. Radishchev, N. Novikov, and introduces strict censorship. Assess the transformations of Catherine II.

Question three . The peculiarity of cultural processes in Russia in the 18th century. was transfer from traditional, church and closed culture to secular and European. The country has experienced a real spiritual revolution. Before Peter's reforms, there was no science or secular education in the country; a religious worldview dominated spiritual life. Peter's reform activities affected literally all aspects of society. Tell us about the origins Russian science, appearance secular schools And special education. What do you know about the publication of the first newspaper, the founding of the Kunstkamera, changes in everyday life. These transformations of Peter led to sociocultural split between the “bottom” and “top” of society. Peasants and urban inhabitants continued to be the bearers of traditional culture. It should be emphasized that the consequence of this split was the mutual alienation of the educated part of society and the people. Tell us about the opening in Russia first university A. What was the role in this M. Lomonosova? What do you know about the achievements of Russian culture in the field of science, literature, architecture, art in the 18th century? What is the contribution to development national culture contributed by Catherine II?

Main literature:

1. Derevianko A.P., Shabelnikova N.A. History of Russia: textbook. allowance / A.P. Derevianko. – M.: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2006. – P.122-135, 148-164, 488-493.

2. History of Russia. Textbook. / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina. – M.6 TK Velby LLC, 2002. – P. 128-144, 154-188.

3. History of Russia from the beginning of the 18th to the end of the 19th century / L.V. Milov, P.N. Zyryanov, A.N. Bokhanov; resp. ed. A.N. Sakharov. – M.: AST Publishing House. 1996. – P.9-76, 80-107, 181-244, 248-256, 262-266, 270-296.

4. History of Russia: Textbook. for universities / A.A. Chernobaev, I.E. Gorelov, M.N. Zuev, etc.; Ed. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaeva. – M.: Higher. school, 2001. – P. 127-163.

5. Domestic history / I.Yu. Zaorskaya, M.V. Zotova, A.V. Demidov and others; Ed. M.V. Zotova: Tutorial for university students. – M.: Logos, 2002. – P. 125-166.

Additional literature:

1. Walishevsky K. Peter the Great / K. Walishevsky. – M.: TERRA – Book Club, 2003.

2. Knyazkov S. Essays on the history of Peter the Great and his time / S. Knyazkov. – Pushkino: Publishing Association “Culture”, 1990.

3. Works of Catherine II. / Comp., intro. Art. HE. Mikhailova. – M.: Sov. Russia, 1990.

4. Stegny P.V. Partitions of Poland and the diplomacy of Catherine II. 1772. 1793. 1795. / P.V. Stegny - M.: Intern. Relationships, 2002.

5. Sukhareva O.V. Who was who in Russia from Peter I to Paul I. / O.V. Sukhareva. – M.: AST Publishing House LLC: Astrel Publishing House LLC: Lux OJSC, 2005.

6. Hosking J. Russia: people and empire (1552-1917). / J. Hosking. – Smolensk: “Rusich”, 2000.

Topic 5. The Russian Empire in the first half of the 19th century

1. Attempts to reform the political system and liberalize society during the reign of Alexander I.

2. Domestic policy of Nicholas I.

3. Russian economy in the first half of the 19th century. The crisis of the feudal-serf system.

Question one. Alexander I reigned from 1801-1825. After taking the throne, he carried out a number of liberal events. In particular, he declared an amnesty for prisoners and exiles under Paul I, restored Complained letters of Catherine II, etc. This raised hopes that he would rule in the traditions of Catherine’s time. However, Alexander I decided to reform the state and society.

He took an active part in the development of reform projects at the beginning of his reign. Secret committee. Since 1807 this work was entrusted MM. Speransky. His project for the reorganization of public administration was based on principle of separation of powers. Legislative power was concentrated in the State Duma. Who received voting rights for this project? Executive power belonged to the ministries. The Senate became supreme judicial organ. The State Council was created under the emperor. What functions was he supposed to perform? Laws were to be adopted by the Duma, and presented by the emperor, the government and the State Council. The emperor himself could pass laws apart from the Duma. Could such a reform, if implemented, limit the autocracy? Why didn't the emperor sign this project? In 1810 there was the State Council was established, which existed until 1917. In 1802 there were ministries created. Tell us about the significance of these reforms. In 1815 Alexander signed constitution of Poland. After the Patriotic War of 1812, the Tsar again ordered the development of a draft constitution for Russia N.N. Novosiltsev. Tell us about its contents. Why did Alexander withdraw from government affairs in the 1920s? What role did he play at this time? A.A. Arakcheev? What's happened military settlements? Why were plans to reform the political system not implemented?

Show what Alexander I did to alleviate the situation of the peasants. Why didn’t he agree to abolish serfdom, although he created a committee to prepare for the liberation of the peasants?

Question two. Beginning with Peter, Russian emperors looked to Europe as a role model. NikolayI(1825-1855) ascended the throne when bourgeois revolutions were taking place in the West, and the Decembrist nobles rebelled in Russia. These circumstances determined conservative-protective nature his reign. At the same time, the king was convinced of the need to resolve the most pressing issues. In general, his domestic policy was aimed at strengthening the power of Russia. Considering that all state affairs should be led personally by the emperor, Nicholas turns His Imperial Majesty's Own Office to the highest body that controlled all government agencies. Tell me what you were doing IIdepartment Offices? Tell us about your work codification of Russian laws. Who was it assigned to? What tasks were set for IIIdepartment? Emphasize that first and foremost it was supposed to monitor public attitudes. Nikolai considered one of the most important internal political tasks strengthening police-bureaucratic apparatus on the principles of centralization and bureaucratization, which, in his opinion, should have made it possible to effectively combat revolutionary sentiments in society and strengthen the autocracy. To achieve this goal, a huge army of officials was required, the main quality of which should be diligence. What is the meaning of the expression “the uniform defeated the tailcoat”? Who did Nicholas I rely on? What policy did he pursue towards the peasants? Why didn’t he decide to free them, although he considered serfdom to be evil?

Third question. Tell us about the economic development of Russia in the first half of the 19th century. Expand the structure of feudal land tenure. Show how manufacturing and industrial production developed. How did the crisis of the feudal-serf system manifest itself?

Main literature:

1. Derevyanko A.P., Shabelnikova N.A. History of Russia: textbook. allowance / A.P. Derevianko. – M.: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2006. – P. 164-191.

2. History of Russia. Textbook / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Gergieva, T.A. Sivokhina.- M.: TK Velby LLC. 2002. – P. 187-222.

3. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861: Textbook. manual for universities / N.I. Pavlenko, I.L. Andreev, V.B. Kobrin, V.A. Fedorov; Ed. N.I. Pavlenko. – M.: Higher. school, 2000. – P. 421-439, 473-484.

4. History of Russia from the beginning from the beginning of the 18th to the end of the 19th century / L.V. Milov, P.N. Zyryanov, A.N. Bokhanov; resp. ed. A.N. Sakharov. – M.: AST Publishing House, 1996. – P. 297-323, 335-345.

5. History of Russia: Textbook. for universities / A.A. Chernobaev, I.E. Gorelov, M.N. Zuev et al.; Under. ed. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaeva. – M.: Higher. school, 2001. – P. 163-177, 184-189.

6. Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history / S.F. Platonov. – M.: Higher. school, 1993. – P. 646-684.

Additional literature:

1. Anisimov E.V. History of Russia from Rurik to Putin. People. Events. Dates. / E.V. Anisimov. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007. pp. 296-326.

2. De Custine A. Nikolaevskaya Russia / A. De Custine. – M., 1990.

3. Mironenko S.V. Autocracy and reforms. Political struggle in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. / S.V. Mironenko. – M.: Nauka, 1989.

4. Tomsinov V.A. The luminary of the Russian bureaucracy: A historical portrait of M.M. Speransky / V.A. Tomsinov. – M.: Mol. Guard, 1991.

Topic 6. Russia during the period of reforms and counter-reforms of the 19th century

1. Abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861.

2. Liberal reforms of the 60s – 70s of the 19th century: judicial; zemstvo; education; military

3. Counter-reforms of the 80s - 90s of the 19th century.

4. Economic development of Russia in the 60s – 90s of the 19th century.

Question one. Alexander I and Nicholas I began preparing for the abolition of serfdom by creating secret committees. But they never dared to do it. Meanwhile, serfdom hampered the country's socio-economic development. This manifested itself not only in agriculture, but also in industry and trade. Explain why? Alexander II also did not immediately begin to resolve this issue. Tell us how preparations were made for the abolition of serfdom, how the project and manifesto were drawn up. Who took part in this matter? Show under what conditions the peasants were freed and given land. Did the peasants receive land as private property? What is the historical significance of the abolition of serfdom?

Question two. The abolition of serfdom required changes in political and spiritual sphere. In the 60s - 70s followed series of reforms, the purpose of which was to bring the state system and administration into conformity with the new situation of the peasantry. In 1864 it was held zemstvo reform, a little bit later - urban. Zemstvos became local government bodies. How did they form? Which classes participated in the elections? What issues were under the jurisdiction of zemstvos? In the same year it is held judicial reform. It was based on the following principles: lack of authority of the court; its independence from the administration; adversarial legal process; openness and transparency of the judicial process; creation of the institution of jurors. Please evaluate this reform. How was the education reform carried out? What are the main links of General Education educational institutions? What has changed in higher education? Reveal the basics "autonomy", which the universities received. In 1874, transformations were carried out into army . Tell us about the content of the military reform. Universal conscription made it possible to maintain a relatively small army in peacetime, and during war to increase its number at the expense of reserves. How has your military service changed? The series of reforms was to be completed by the implementation project M.T. Loris-Melikova to involve elected officials from local self-government bodies in resolving state issues, which, in fact, would mean limitation of autocracy. The signing of this document by Alexander II was scheduled for March 1, 1881. Why was it not signed? What happened on this day? Assessing the reforms of the 60-70s. XIX century, emphasize that they marked Russia’s entry onto the path bourgeois development and beginning of formation civil society and right states.

Question three. After the death of Alexander II, his second son (by age), Alexander III, ascended the throne. The implementation of counter-reforms in Russia is associated with his name. They were due to both objective and subjective reasons. After the abolition of serfdom, the process of ruining part of the nobility, who had not adapted to market relations, began. A wave of peasant riots swept across the country. Crime has increased. The first working class protests took place. The populists carried out a number of terrorist acts. As a result of one of them, Alexander II died. Finally, the formation of the views of Alexander III was greatly influenced by K.P. Pobedonostsev, who was his mentor, who believed that reforms in Russia were necessary to freeze". But the counter-reforms were not comprehensive. Explain how they manifested themselves in legal proceedings, zemstvo and city government, and in the field of education. Why didn't counter-reforms prevent a social explosion in Russia? Also explain why Alexander III was nicknamed "peacemaker king".

Question four. The abolition of serfdom contributed to the acceleration of the country's economic development. Show the evolution of forms of land ownership in post-reform times, the growth of commercial agricultural production. Give examples. Please note that in post-reform times, trade turnover increases, which requires improved transport. Railway construction is underway. This, in turn, influences the development of metallurgy, machine tool building and mechanical engineering. The development of railway transport ensured the intensification of trade and the completion of the formation of a single All-Russian market. All this led to the formation of an industrial society in Russia.

2. History of Russia. Textbook / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Gergieva, T.A. Sivokhina.- M.: TK Velby LLC. 2002. – pp. 248-258.

3. History of Russia from the beginning from the beginning of the 18th to the end of the 19th century / L.V. Milov, P.N. Zyryanov, A.N. Bokhanov; resp. ed. A.N. Sakharov. – M.: AST Publishing House, 1996. – 381-407, 437-440.

4. History of Russia: Textbook. for universities / A.A. Chernobaev, I.E. Gorelov, M.N. Zuev et al.; Under. ed. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaeva. – M.: Higher. school, 2001. – P. 200-212, 223-233.

5. Domestic history: textbook. allowance / under. edited by R.V. Degtyareva, S.N. Poltoraka – M.: Gardariki, 2007. – P. 166-172.

Additional literature:

1. Zayonchkovsky P.A. Russian autocracy at the end of the 19th century (political reaction of the 80s - early 90s) / P.A. Zayonchkovsky. – M.: “Thought”, 1970.

2. History of Russia in the 19th century. The era of reform. – M.: ZAO Publishing House Tsentrpoligraf, 2001.

3. Litvak B.G. The coup of 1861 in Russia: why the reformist alternative was not realized / B.G. Litvak. – M.: Politizdat, 1991.

4. Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia during the imperial period (XVIII - early XX centuries): In 2 volumes. T. 1 / B.N. Mironov. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003. – P. 360-415.

5. Nolde B.E. Yuri Samarin and his time / B.E. Nolde. – M.: Eksmo Publishing House, 2003.

6. Reforms of Alexander II. – M.: Legal. lit., 1998.

7. Tatishchev S.S. Emperor Alexander II, his life and reign. Book 1-2 / S.S. Tatishchev. – M.: “Charlie”, 1996.

Topic 7. Russia in 1894 – 1914

1. Political crisis at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. Revolution of 1905 – 1907: prerequisites, causes, driving forces, consequences.

2. Political parties of Russia: genesis, classification, programs, tactics.

3. Problems of economic growth and modernization. Reforms S.Yu. Witte and P.A. Stolypin.

Question one. In 1894, Nicholas II occupied the royal throne. Give him a general description. His reign began during a period of aggravated socio-political contradictions in the country. The foreign policy situation is also unfavorable for Russia. The Russo-Japanese War begins, which ends with the defeat of the Russian Empire. Tell us about its progress. The economic situation in the country is also deteriorating. All this leads to the first Russian revolution of 1905-1907. It began with the shooting of a peaceful procession of workers to the Tsar in order to submit a petition. What do you know about this? Reveal the driving forces of the revolution and forms of struggle. In October-December 1905 the revolution reached its climax. What methods did the tsarist government use to suppress the revolution? Why did the revolution decline after the defeat of the December uprising in Moscow in 1905? Summing up the results of the revolution, it should be noted that, despite the defeat, it forced the tsarist government to modernize the state and social structure of Russia. The achievement of the revolution was the creation of the State Duma. The activities of political parties, trade unions and other public organizations, with the exception of the councils of workers' deputies that appeared during the revolution. Redemption payments by peasants for land were stopped. Restrictions on the use of some national languages ​​in education have been lifted. But at the same time, the main tasks of the revolution were not solved; it turned out to be incomplete, which led to a new revolution in February 1917.

Question two. At the beginning of the century, oppositional sentiments in society intensified. What caused this? On this wave the process begins formation of political parties. The first to organize socialist parties. In 1902 the formation was proclaimed Socialist Revolutionary Party (SRs), which inherited the traditions of the populists. In her program also contained some elements of Marxism. Tell us about its content, pay attention to the fact that the Socialist Revolutionaries expressed, first of all, the interests of the peasantry. What's happened "socialization of the earth"? How did they imagine the future of Russia? What was the social composition of the Socialist Revolutionary Party? Name the leaders of this party. Education completed in 1903 social democratic parties. At the Second Congress of the RSDLP the Program was adopted. What provisions contained minimum program And maximum program? The reason for the split of the party into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks was disagreement on the issue about the attitude towards liberals and party membership. What were they? What was the social composition of the RSDLP? Name the party leaders. It should be especially emphasized that both parties recognized only the revolutionary nature of the actions. What were the disparate anarchist organizations like? What goals did they set for themselves? The growing opposition to power among liberals contributed to the emergence liberal organizations. In 1903 the Union was formed liberation and the Union of Zemstvo Constitutionalists. Education liberal political parties occurs in October–November 1905 after publication Manifesto October 17"About improvement public order» Nicholas II. Tell us about the party's program requirements cadets(constitutional democrats) regarding government system, political rights and freedoms, in worker, peasant and national issues What do you know about the content of the party program Octobrists(“Union October 17”). Liberal parties only recognized reforms as a way to restructure society. What was the social composition of the parties? Name the leaders of these parties. During the revolution the right was created monarchical organizations. The largest among them was the Union of the Russian People party. What goals did she proclaim? Whose interests did she defend?

Question three. At the end of the 19th century. Russia, despite economic growth, remained an agricultural country. The government recognized the need for further changes. Therefore it is accepted economic modernization or industrialization program. Its developer was S.Yu. Witte. What do you know about him? The main goal of the program was to create a modern industry in the country. This problem was supposed to be solved within 10 years. To achieve this, it was planned to create a developed transport system in the country, form new centers of industrial production and develop new industries. It is worth noting that the program of S.Yu. Witte differed from the previous economic policies pursued in the country. If earlier the government focused on eliminating obstacles to the development of industry, now it has moved on to directly supporting it. What exactly did this mean? It should be noted that in the Ministry of Finance, which was headed by S.Yu. Witte, at the same time being Prime Minister, began preparing a project for agrarian reform. At the same time, it was carried out by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

In 1906, P.A. was appointed to the post of Minister of Internal Affairs, and then Chairman of the Council of Ministers. Stolypin, a famous statesman of the beginning of the century. What measures were taken by Stolypin to combat revolutionary uprisings? Meanwhile, P.A. Stolypin understood perfectly well that repressive measures alone could not resolve the situation, hence his formula "calm and reform". By decree of November 9, 1906 peasants were allowed to leave the community and secure a plot of land for themselves as a private own. Why do you think this measure, according to Stolypin, should have contributed to the resolution of the agrarian question? The second component of the peasant reform was policy encouraging the resettlement of land-poor peasants for the Urals. What was the purpose of this measure? What's the point peasant reform? How was its implementation? Talk about its positive consequences. What shortcomings did the reform have? Being a conservative, P.A. Stolypin, however, understood that in order to achieve political stability, Russia needed a whole set of reforms. What were his plans for local government, administration and the courts? How was the work issue supposed to be resolved? What changes were planned in the field of education? It should be emphasized that the implementation of these transformations was supposed to bring Russia closer to the ideal rule of law. Why are most P.A. plans? Stolypin were not implemented?

Main literature:

1. Derevyanko A.P., Shabelnikova N.A. History of Russia: textbook. allowance / A.P. Derevianko. - M.: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2006. - P. 210-247.

2. History of Russia. Textbook. / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina. – M.: TK Velby LLC, 2002. – P. 284-313.

3. History of Russia. XX century / A.N. Bokhanov, M.M. Gorinov, V.P. Dmitrenko and others - M.: AST Publishing House, 1996. - P. 17-50, 61-113.

4. History of Russia: Textbook. for universities / A.A. Chernobaev, I.E. Gorelov. M.N. Zuev et al.; Ed. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaeva. – M.: Higher. school, 2001. – P. 244-275.

5. Domestic history: textbook / ed. R.V. Degtereva, S.N. Poltorak. – M.: Gardariki, 2007. – P. 200-215.

Additional literature:

1. Avrekh A.Ya. Stolypin and the fate of reforms in Russia / A.Ya. Avreh. – M., 1991.

2. Witte S.Yu. Selected works / S.Yu. Witte. – M., 1991.

3. Ganelin R.Sh. Russian autocracy in 1905: reform and revolution / R.Sh. Ganelin. – St. Petersburg, 1991.

4. Milyukov P.N. Memories / P.N. Miliukov. – M.: Politizdat, 1991.

5. Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia during the imperial period (XVIII - early XX centuries): In 2 volumes. T. 2 / B.N. Mironov. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003. – P. 150-162.

6. Nikolaevsky B.I. The story of a traitor. Terrorists and politics, police / B.I. Nikolaevsky. – M.: Politizdat, 1991.

7. Oldenburg S.S. The reign of Emperor Nicholas II S.S. Oldenburg. – M., 1992.

8. Political history of Russia in parties and persons / Compiled by: V.V. Shelokhaev (leader), A.N. Bokhanov, N.G. Dumova, N.D. Erofeev and others - M.: TERRA, 1993.

9. Rybas S.Yu., Tarakanova L.V. Reformer: The Life and Death of Pyotr Stolypin / S.Yu. Rybas. – M.: Nedra, 1991.

Topic 9. Russia during the First World War and the national crisis. 1914 – October 1917.

1. Russia during the war.

3. Russia from February to October 1917.

Question one. Reveal the causes of the First World War and Russia's participation in it. What military-political blocs opposed each other during the war? How did the Russian public react to the war? Explain the positions of Russian political parties on this issue. Tell us about the main military operations of the Russian army and their results. Russia's defeats on the fronts of the First World War increased the severity of social contradictions. The war led to economic disorganization and contributed to the paralysis of power. The economic breakdown of the country has begun since the crisis of railway transport, which was unable to simultaneously supply the front and rear in full. The consequence was interruptions in supplying cities with food and raw materials for enterprises. Low purchasing prices for bread caused the peasants to hide it and further worsened the situation. What consequences did this have? Power turned out to be incapable cope with economic difficulties. The ineffectiveness of the state apparatus caused criticism in society. Tell us about the attempts liberal bourgeoisie rectify the situation. Which parties were included? "Progressive Bloc"? What did his demand for a “responsible ministry” mean? What role did personality play in discrediting Emperor Nicholas II? Rasputin? What was the mood in army? In conclusion, it should be emphasized that in the conditions of incomplete socio-economic and political reforms, the war aggravated the situation in the country to the limit. By the beginning of 1917, the crisis had become systemic.

Question two. Unlike the revolution of 1905-1907, the February Revolution lasted just over a week and developed spontaneously. Name driving forces revolution? Which tasks did she have to decide? Tell us about its main events. Assess the significance of the February Revolution. A characteristic feature of the country’s subsequent development was the emergence dual power. Tell us about the composition Provisional Government, which, before the convening of the Constituent Assembly, was supposed to exercise executive and administrative functions. Please note that, in fact, it also became a legislative body. The second authority was Petrograd Soviet workers' and soldiers' deputies, which consisted of representatives of socialist parties. Which ones? What program of action did the Provisional Government propose? It should be emphasized that the Socialist-Revolutionary-Menshevik Petrograd Soviet believed that due to the prematureness of the socialist revolution, their support for the bourgeois Provisional Government was necessary.

Question three. After the February events, the country was faced with the prospect of developments in two options. In the first case, it could follow the democratic path of reforms initiated by liberal parties. The second way is the establishment of either a military or socialist dictatorship. During the period between February and October, events can be considered within the framework three crises of power. April crisis. In the “April Theses”, V.I., who returned from emigration. Lenin called on the Bolsheviks to change tactics and set a course for carrying out a socialist revolution in the country. Name the main provisions of Lenin's program of action. Under these conditions, the desire of the Provisional Government to continue the war provoked demonstrations in Petrograd. What were the strikers' demands? How did the crisis end? It should be emphasized that, having become part of the Provisional Government, the left parties (Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks) shared with the liberals responsibility for what was happening in the country. Tell us about the events that caused June crisis? The main result July crisis has become elimination of dual power. The peaceful period of development of the revolution ended, the Bolsheviks began preparations for armed uprising, and right-wing bourgeois parties - to establish military dictatorship. Tell us about Kornilov's speech. What were L.G.’s plans? Kornilov? What role did the Bolsheviks play in suppressing the rebellion? These events caused a huge increase in sympathy for the Bolsheviks in society. In September 1917 they received a majority in the Soviets. Russia faced an alternative: either the Provisional Government or dictatorship of the proletariat.

Main literature:

1. Derevyanko A.P., Shabelnikova N.A. History of Russia: textbook. allowance / A.P. Derevianko.- M.: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2006. – P. 247-253.

2. History of Russia. Textbook. / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina. – M.: TK Velby LLC, 2002. – P. 313-317, 327-335.

3. History of Russia. XX century / A.N. Bokhanov, M.M. Gorinov, V.P. Dmitrenko and others - M.: AST Publishing House, 1996. - P. 124-168.

4. History of Russia: Textbook. for universities / A.A. Chernobaev, I.E. Gorelov. M.N. Zuev et al.; Ed. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaeva. – M.: Higher. school, 2001. – P. 279-294.

5. Domestic history: textbook / ed. R.V. Degtereva, S.N. Poltorak. – M.: Gardariki, 2007. – P. 221-226.

Additional literature:

1. Galili Z. Leaders of the Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution / Z. Galili. – M., 1993.

2. Milyukov P.N. Memories / P.N. Miliukov. – M.: Politizdat, 1991.

3. Paleolog M. Tsarist Russia on the Eve of the Revolution / M. Paleolog. – M.: Politizdat, 1991.

4. Radzinsky E. “Lord... save and pacify Russia.” Nicholas II: life and death / E. Radzinsky. – M.: Publishing house “VAGRIUS”, 1993.

5. Rodzianko M.V. The collapse of the empire / M.V. Rodzianko. – Kharkov: Interbook, 1990.

Topic 10. Establishment of Soviet power. Civil war, its results and consequences

2. The beginning of the formation of the structure of Soviet power and a one-party political regime.

3. Economic policy of the Bolsheviks. "War communism".

4. Civil war in Russia.

Question one. The Bolshevization of the Soviets created the opportunity for the Bolsheviks to take power into their own hands. However, the leadership of their party did not have a consensus on this matter. Lenin, whose arrest was announced by the Provisional Government, was forced to go into hiding. While outside Petrograd, he writes two letters to the Party Central Committee: “Marxism and uprising” and “The Bolsheviks must take power.” In them, Lenin specifically proposed that the party take a course towards an armed uprising. However, the letters delivered to Petrograd did not receive approval from the Central Committee. Then Lenin decides to return to Petrograd. He managed to convince the majority of the Central Committee of the need for an armed uprising. But his closest associates in emigration: Kamenev and Zinoviev opposed the armed uprising. Why? Despite this, organizational preparations for an armed uprising began. What bodies were created to lead the uprising? Tell us about the course of the uprising and the capture of the Winter Palace. Representatives of which parties and revolutionary organizations took part in the uprising? The results of the uprising were summed up at the Second Congress of Soviets. What are his decisions? Reveal the content of the decrees on peace and earth.

Question two. After the uprising, the formation of new government bodies began. What were they called and what functions were assigned to them? It is worth noting that at first there were representatives of the Bolsheviks and Left Socialist Revolutionaries in the government. But then the Left Social Revolutionaries rebelled against the Bolsheviks. Why? This marked the beginning of the formation of a one-party political regime, which led to the elevation of party bodies over the state apparatus. Why did the Bolsheviks convene and then dissolve the Constituent Assembly? What are the consequences of this act? What methods did the Bolsheviks use against the activities of other political parties? Name the punitive bodies of the Soviet government and show how they acted.

Question three. Reveal the content of the economic policy of the Bolsheviks in the first months of their stay in power. Who owned the land and factories? What is "war communism"? Reveal its main provisions. Pay special attention to the introduction surplus appropriation, which became the main reason for the peasants' dissatisfaction with the Bolsheviks.

Question four. When preparing this question, it should be noted that a certain share of the blame for the outbreak of the Civil War lies with all the opposing political and social forces. But among the Bolsheviks, the Civil War was programmed back in 1914, when Lenin put forward the slogan of turning the imperialist war into a civil war. Reveal the main causes of the civil war, the political and social composition of the hostile camps. At the same time, it should be understood that the Civil War cannot be reduced only to the struggle of the Reds and the Whites, because the Greens, the National Separatists and the Socialist-Revolutionary-Menshevik bloc also took part in it. In addition, interventionists intervened in the war. Which states took part in the armed invasion of Russian territory? What were their goals? The main political opponents in the war were the Reds and the Whites . When studying these two political forces, consider the following. Disengagement white And red didn't happen only on social grounds. Important role At the same time, national, religious, regional, and personal factors played a role. Often the choice could be random. The white movement was not homogeneous. Reveal the main stages of the struggle between the whites and the reds. Analyzing the reasons for the victory of the Reds and the defeat of the Whites, one should pay attention to the fact that the Bolshevik program was closer to the masses, since it put forward the slogans: “Land for the peasants” and “Factory workers.” The White movement was unable to offer anything similar; its goal was revenge on the Bolsheviks for the destruction of a huge empire. In the white camp it was never achieved ideological and organizational unity. Talk about the divisions within the white movement. The outcome of the struggle ultimately depended on who the peasantry would follow. What changes in the Bolshevik Party's policy towards the peasantry occurred during the war? The Bolsheviks also occupied a more advantageous geopolitical space, since all railways began in Moscow. Finally, the Bolsheviks proclaimed rights of nations to self-determination V to a greater extent at that time corresponded to the interests of the national outskirts than the white slogan about united and indivisible Russia. During the war, the movement also had a massive character "green" which was attended mainly by peasants who were dissatisfied with both the Bolshevik surplus appropriation system and the return of land and property to the white landowners. What do you know about the movement? N. Makhno and ataman N. Grigorieva? Talking about the consequences of the Civil War , It should be noted that from a moral point of view, for a long time it established in society an atmosphere of intolerance and the desire to resolve social conflicts by violent methods.

Main literature:

1. Derevyanko A.P., Shabelnikova N.A. History of Russia6 textbooks. allowance / A.P. Derevianko. – M.: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2006. – 253-257, 261-281.

2. History of Russia. Textbook. / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina. – M.: TK Velby LLC, 2002. – P. 335-351.

3. History of Russia. XX century / A.N. Bokhanov, M.M. Gorinov, V.P. Dmitrenko and others - M.: AST Publishing House, 1996. - P. 168-196.

4. History of Russia: Textbook. for universities / A.A. Chernobaev, I.E. Gorelov. M.N. Zuev et al.; Ed. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaeva. – M.: Higher. school, 2001. – P. 294-321.

5. Domestic history: textbook / ed. R.V. Degtereva, S.N. Poltorak. – M.: Gardariki, 2007. – P. 226-258.

Additional literature:

1. Volkovinsky V.N. Makhno and his collapse / V.N. Volkovinsky. - M., 1991.

2. Volkogonov D.A. Lenin: a political portrait. In 2 books. Book 2 / D.A. Volkogonov. – M., 1994.

3. Diterichs M.K. Murder of the Royal Family and members of the House of Romanov in the Urals / M.K. Dieterichs. – M.: Veche, 2007.

4. Kostikov V.V. Let us not curse the exile...(The paths and destinies of the Russian emigration) / V.V. Kostikov. – M.: International. relationship. 1990.

5. Melgunov S.P. Red terror in Russia. 1917 – 1924 / S.P. Melgunov. – M., 1990.

6. Shulgin V.V. Years. Days. 1920 / V.V. Shulgin. – M.: Publishing house “Novosti”, 1990.

Topic 11. Transformation of power, society and culture in 1921 – 1928.

1. New economic policy: prerequisites, content, results.

2. Education of the USSR.

3. The struggle in the leadership of the RCP (b) - the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) on issues of the country’s development. The rise of Stalin.

Question one. By the end of 1920, the country was struck by a deep economic, social and political crisis. Tell us about its manifestations. What were causes crisis? The speeches of workers and peasants under the slogan “Soviets without Communists” testified that dissatisfaction was caused by the policies pursued by the Bolshevik leadership. By this time it became clear that the hopes of V.I. Lenin’s support for the Russian revolution from the world revolution was not justified, and the Soviet state would have to exist in a “hostile environment.” In 1921, at the X Congress of the RCP (b), decisions were made that laid the foundation new economic policy. Among opponents of Bolshevism, the NEP gave rise to hope for its rebirth and the return of Russia to the path of capitalism. How did the Bolsheviks themselves view the NEP?? What was it like content new economic policy? The main elements of the NEP are tax in kind, freedom of trade and hiring of labor, permission to lease land and small industrial enterprises . Large industry remained in the hands of the state and was transferred to self-financing. Think about why these measures were chosen as an anti-crisis program? Next we should focus on implementation of the NEP. Tell us about the achievements in restoring agriculture and industry. Think about why it happened in such a short period? What was the incentive? However, the new economic policy could not solve a number of problems. Tell us about the NEP crises in 1923, 1925 and 1927. What was the inconsistency NEP?

Question two. The October Revolution completed the collapse of the Russian Empire. In accordance with its program requirement " on the right of nations to self-determination" Right up to the separation and creation of an independent state, the Bolsheviks sanctioned the emergence of a number of independent states. What caused the desire of peoples former empire To independence? At the same time, there were a number of factors that created conditions for unification republics Name them. Started Civil War led to the formation military-political union republics in which Soviet power was established. Which ones? In the early 20s. a system has been formed bilateral treaties between individual republics. In the subsequent period it continued to develop. Then the unification process entered a new phase. Tell us about "autonomization" plan Stalin, please note that it provided for the entry of the republics into the Russian Federation without the right to secede from it. What is the difference between the proposed Lenin union form unification of republics? Formally, the formation of the USSR took place according to Lenin’s plan. When and by which republics was it signed? alliance treaty? Tell us about the creation of the highest authorities of the new state. What issues were within the jurisdiction of the union and republican bodies for Constitution of 1924.? What was the significance of the formation of the USSR?

Question three. After Lenin's death on January 21, 1924, a struggle for power unfolded among the Bolshevik elite. Students should understand that this was not only a struggle of personalities, but also a struggle of concepts for the further development of the country. The main opponents were L.D. Trotsky and I.V. Stalin. What positions did they hold? What characteristics did Lenin give them shortly before his death? Why did Lenin demand the removal of Stalin from the post of General Secretary of the party? At the first stage of the struggle for power, a triumvirate consisting of Stalin, Kamenev and Zinoviev acted against Trotsky. Why did Kamenev and Zinoviev support Stalin? Who won? At the second stage, a struggle developed between "new opposition" led by Zinoviev and Kamenev and Stalin, who in 1925 was supported by the majority of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. What is the program "new opposition"? Why did she fail? Then a new bloc led by Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev came out against Stalin. What brought the former opponents together? What program did Trotsky present from the bloc? Why did this block get its name? "left bias". The majority of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) supported Stalin. What penalties were applied against the Trotskyists? After this, Stalin and his supporters began to fight against "right bias" headed by N.I. Bukharin. What is his program? Why did Stalin defeat all potential opponents?

Main literature:

1. Derevyanko A.P., Shabelnikova N.A. History of Russia6 textbooks. allowance / A.P. Derevianko. – M.: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2006. – 283-294, 296-305, 513-519.

2. History of Russia. Textbook. / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina. – M.: TK Velby LLC, 2002. – P. 352-362, 389-394.

3. History of Russia. XX century / A.N. Bokhanov, M.M. Gorinov, V.P. Dmitrenko and others - M.: AST Publishing House, 1996. - P. 211-279.

4. History of Russia: Textbook. for universities / A.A. Chernobaev, I.E. Gorelov. M.N. Zuev et al.; Ed. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaeva. – M.: Higher. school, 2001. – P. 322-336.

5. Domestic history: textbook / ed. R.V. Degtereva, S.N. Poltorak. – M.: Gardariki, 2007. – P. 259-273.

Additional literature:

1. Beladi L., Kraus T. Stalin: Transl. from Hungarian / L. Beladi. – M.: Politizdat, 1990.

2. Boffa J. History of the Soviet Union. T. 1. From the revolution to the Second World War. Lenin and Stalin. 1917-1941 / J. Boffa. – M.: International. Relations, 1990. pp. 153-311.

3. Bushkov A. Red Monarch. Chronicles of a great and terrible time / A. Bushkov. – St. Petersburg: Publishing House"Neva", 2004.

4. Volkogonov V.A. Triumph and tragedy: a political portrait of I.V. Stalin. In 2 books. / V.A. Volkogonov. – M., 1989.

5. Shubin A.V. Leaders and conspirators: political struggle in the USSR in the 1920s - 1930s / M.: Veche, 2004.

Topic 12. Formation of a totalitarian regime in the USSR in the 30s: politics, economics, culture

1. Strengthening the regime of Stalin’s personal power. The establishment of totalitarianism in the USSR in the 30s.

2. Forced industrialization in the USSR

3. The policy of complete collectivization of agriculture and its consequences.

4. “Cultural revolution” and the totalitarian type of Soviet culture in the 30s.

Question one. In the 30s formation took place in the USSR totalitarian regime. What is totalitarianism? What are its symptoms? Considering origins totalitarianism, one should pay attention to the historical traditions of autocratic power in our country and the low level of democratic and general culture various layers of society. An important role in the formation of totalitarianism (a synonym was played by the ideological guidelines of the Bolsheviks for their exclusive role in protecting the interests of the working people and hostility to the people of all other parties. In the 20s, the Bolshevik party eliminated its political opponents from the political arena and formed one-party politic system. Tell us how it happened. What decision did you make? XCongress of the RCP(b) against the opposition within its own ranks? Already in the 20s. The dictatorship of the proletariat has become dictatorship of the party represented by its Central Committee. There was a merging of the party and state apparatus. How did this manifest itself? Formally, power belonged to the workers, but in fact, they were deprived of it. The party's instrument for maintaining power was the creation of a powerful repressive apparatus And carrying out mass repressions. Tell us about them. Who were they directed against? What was their scale? Economic basis totalitarian regime became state ownership of the means of production. What did this mean? IN spiritual life full control was established over the activities of public organizations, the transformation of party ideology into state ideology.

Question two. Despite the fact that by the mid-20s. The country's economy has been restored, in general, to its pre-war level, the absolute gap with developed capitalist countries has increased. It was necessary to continue the industrialization that began at the beginning of the century. Considering the international isolation of the USSR and the growing threat of a new international conflict, this task had to be solved as soon as possible. When the country's leadership was proclaimed course towards industrialization? What economic development strategy was proposed N.I. Bukharin? What was the fundamental difference Stalin's model industrialization? In essence, the disagreements concerned relations with the peasantry, because . main source The creation of large-scale industry was supposed to come from the sale of grain abroad. Why did the country's leadership abandon the NEP at the end of the 20s? Tell us about first five year plans? What were their results in the field of industrial production?

Question three. Refusal market model relationship between the state and the peasantry occurred towards the end of 1929 and a different mechanism was created for pumping funds from the countryside for the needs of industrialization. To this end, a course was proclaimed towards collectivization of agriculture. It should be emphasized that collectivization made it possible to solve several more problems. Which ones? Tell us about the methods of collectivization. The direct consequence of its implementation was the famine of 1932-1933. What do you know about collectivization in the Belgorod region? What are the results of collectivization?

Question four. What problems was it supposed to solve? "cultural revolution"? Tell us about the measures to literacy. By the mid-30s. Soviet education took shape. What was she like? The authorities also faced the task of approving communist ideology in the public consciousness. How was it resolved? What's happened totalitarian culture? For what purpose was the transition to it carried out in the 30s? What are its main features? Tell us about their manifestation in the cultural life of the country.

Main literature:

1. Derevyanko A.P., Shabelnikova N.A. History of Russia6 textbooks. allowance / A.P. Derevianko. – M.: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2006. – P. 305-325.

2. History of Russia. Textbook. / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina. – M.: TK Velby LLC, 2002. – P. 363-376, 394-398.

3. History of Russia. XX century / A.N. Bokhanov, M.M. Gorinov, V.P. Dmitrenko and others - M.: AST Publishing House, 1996. - 302-389.

4. History of Russia: Textbook. for universities / A.A. Chernobaev, I.E. Gorelov. M.N. Zuev et al.; Ed. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaeva. – M.: Higher. school, 2001. – 336-344.

Additional literature:

1. Anisimov E.V. History of Russia from Rurik to Putin. People. Events. Dates. / E.V. Anisimov. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007. pp. 419-446.

2. Boffa J. History of the Soviet Union. T. 1. From the revolution to the Second World War. Lenin and Stalin. 1917-1941 / J. Boffa. – M.: International. relations, 1990. – P. 329-366, 388-410, 450-520.

3. Documents testify: From the history of the village on the eve and during collectivization, 1927 - 1932. / Ed. V.P. Danilova, N.A. Ivanitsky. – M.: Politizdat, 1989.

4. History gives a lesson / Under general. ed. V.G. Afanasyeva, G.L. Smirnova; Comp. A.A. Ilyin. – M.: Politizdat, 1989.

5. Khlevnyuk O.V. 1937: Stalin, the NKVD and Soviet society / O.V. Khlevnyuk. – M., 1992.

6. Hosking J. Russia and the Russians: In 2 books. Book Per. from English / J. Hosking. – M.: AST Publishing House LLC: Transitkniga LLC, 2003. P. 153-215.

Topic 13. USSR during the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War (1939-1945)

1. Foreign policy of the Soviet state in the 20-30s.

2. German attack on the USSR. The reasons for the retreat of the Red Army at the beginning of the war.

3. The main stages of the war and their characteristics.

4. Reasons for the victory of the Soviet people. Lessons and results of the Great Patriotic War and the Second World War.

Question one. Foreign policy of the Soviet state in the 20s. was supposed to provide a solution to two rather contradictory problems. Firstly, it was necessary restore economic ties with capitalist countries, because hopes for revolutions in Europe did not come true, and Soviet Russia had to live “in a capitalist encirclement.” Secondly, the Bolshevik leadership did not give up hope of implementing world proletarian revolution. For what purpose was the Comintern created? What issue was the main obstacle in establishing diplomatic relations between Soviet Russia and Western countries? For what purpose was it organized? Genoa Conference in 1922? At this conference, the Soviet Union and Germany were able to break through international isolation and sign a mutually beneficial trade agreement. On what terms? With which countries did the USSR establish diplomatic relations in the subsequent period? Assess the results of Soviet foreign policy in the 20s.

Until 1933, the main partner of the Soviet Union on the world stage was Germany. Hitler's rise to power forced the Soviet state change foreign policy. Tell us about the USSR's efforts to create a system collective security. Why didn't the West create such a system? England and France, on the one hand, and the Soviet Union, on the other, had reason not to trust each other. What do you know about the “appeasement” policy pursued by Western countries? Why were the negotiations between the military missions of England, France and the USSR in Moscow in the summer of 1939 unsuccessful? Tell us about the signing of the USSR on August 23, 1939. Non-Aggression Pact with Germany. Pay attention to the content secret protocols to him. The territories of which countries belonged to the sphere of influence of the USSR? Evaluate the agreement Friendship and borders September 28, 1939 In accordance with these agreements, the USSR participated in the division of Poland. The Baltic states and Bessarabia were included in the USSR, and a war was launched against Finland. What were the consequences of the foreign policy of the Soviet state pursued during the initial period of the Second World War?

Question two. When starting to study the Great Patriotic War, determine the goals of Nazi Germany. What was the name of the German plan to capture the USSR? Do you think the attack by Germany and its allies on the USSR was really sudden? Reveal the reasons for the retreat of the Red Army at the beginning of the war. How did you mobilize forces to repel the enemy?

Question three. You are invited to consider the war in stages: the initial period - June 22, 1941 - November 1942; a radical turning point in the course of the war - November 19, 1942 - end of 1943; end of the war - beginning of 1944 - May 9, 1945 Tell us about the most important battles Patriotic War. Show value Battle of Kursk. Name the names of the most prominent military leaders of the Red Army. Give examples of the heroism of Soviet soldiers and officers.

Question four. When discussing this issue, it should be emphasized that the war from the very beginning acquired a nationwide character. The enemy was crushed not only at the front, but also in the rear, where a powerful partisan movement unfolded. Tell us about the partisans' contribution to the victory. Despite the confusion of the Soviet leadership in the first days, the war acquired an organized character. On June 30, the State Defense Committee (GKO) was created. Who entered it? Victories on the fronts would have been impossible without the efforts of workers rear. When was it implemented translation of Soviet economy on a war footing? When was the USSR able to surpass Germany in terms of military production? What new weapon models were created by Soviet scientists and designers. The war was not fought by the USSR alone. Tell us about the formation anti-Hitler coalition, emphasize that in the face of a common threat, the USSR and the West were able to join forces in the fight against a common enemy. In what forms did cooperation take place between the allies? Tell us about the contribution of cultural figures to the Great Victory. Hitler hoped to set the various peoples of the USSR against each other. But, despite some exceptions, the multinational Soviet Union passed the test of strength. All the peoples of the USSR rose up to fight the enemy. Give examples. There is no doubt that all the countries that were part of the anti-Hitler coalition contributed to the victory over the fascist bloc. But the main role in defeating the aggressor belongs to the USSR. Give the facts. What are the lessons of the Great Patriotic War and the Second World War?

Main literature:

1. Derevyanko A.P., Shabelnikova N.A. History of Russia: textbook. allowance / A.P. Derevianko. – M.: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2006. – P. 325-362.

2. History of Russia. Textbook. / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina. – M.: TK Velby LLC, 2002. – P. 381-388, 399-415.

3. History of Russia. XX century / A.N. Bokhanov, M.M. Gorinov, V.P. Dmitrenko and others - M.: AST Publishing House, 1996. - 280-302, 411-466.

4. History of Russia: Textbook. for universities / A.A. Chernobaev, I.E. Gorelov. M.N. Zuev et al.; Ed. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaeva. – M.: Higher. school, 2001. – P. 344-376.

5. Domestic history: textbook / ed. R.V. Degtereva, S.N. Poltorak. – M.: Gardariki, 2007. – P. 284-312.

Additional literature:

1. Zhukov G.K. Memories and reflections. In 3 volumes / G.K. Zhukov. – M., 1992.

2. Documents on the history of the Munich agreement. 1937 – 1939 / Foreign Ministry Affairs of the USSR, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Case of Czechoslovakia. M.: Politizdat, 1979.

3. Zemskov I.N. Diplomatic history of the second front in Europe / I.N. Zemskov. – M.: Politizdat, 1982.

4. History of the Second World War. In 12 volumes - M., 1973-1982.

5. History of international relations and foreign policy of the USSR: In 3 volumes: T. 1 / Ed. I.A. Kirilina. – M.: International. Relationships, 1986.

6. The eve and beginning of the war: documents and materials. – L., 1991.

7. Lubenkov Yu.N. 100 great commanders of World War II / Yu.N. Lubenkov. – M.: Veche, 2005.

8. Rozanov G.L. Stalin - Hitler: a documentary sketch of Soviet-German diplomatic relations. 1939-1941. / G.L. Rozanov. – M., 1991.

9. Samsonov A.M. The Second World War. In 3 volumes / A.M. Samsonov. – M., 1993.

Topic 14. The Soviet Union in the Cold War

1. Changes in the world after the Second World War. The beginning of the Cold War.

2. Socio-economic development, socio-political life and culture in the post-war years.

3. Attempts to implement political and economic reforms during the “thaw”.

4. Changes in the foreign policy course of the USSR in 1956-1984.

5. USSR in the mid-60s – 80s: increasing crisis phenomena.

Question one. With the end of the Second World War, the world experienced new balance of power. Firstly, the authority of the USSR increased, which played a decisive role in the defeat of fascism. Secondly, the economic and political power of the United States has increased immeasurably, and it has begun to lay claim to world domination. Thirdly, it began cold war, as a result of the confrontation between these powers. What is the Cold War? When did it start? What goals did both sides pursue in the Cold War? The confrontation was aggravated by the creation of nuclear weapons in the United States shortly before the end of World War II. Tell us about the formation socialist regimes in Eastern European countries. What role did the USSR play in this process? On what terms did the United States provide assistance to European countries in economic recovery? What was the Truman Doctrine? What do you know about the formation military-political and economic blocs NATO, Warsaw Pact Organization, Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. How were the relations between the USSR and the Commonwealth countries built? Tell us about the armed confrontation between the USSR and the USA in Korea how did it end for this country? In conclusion, it should be noted that the consequence of the Cold War policy was race weapons.

Question two. Talk about the damage caused by the war to the country's economy, emphasizing that the USSR lost about a third of its national wealth. What were the casualties? Please note that in the process of reviving the national economy, as in the pre-war period, emphasis was placed on heavy industry, to the detriment and expense of light industry and agriculture. Economic recovery has become more difficult the need for huge expenses to create nuclear weapons and support socialist countries, as well as the severe drought of 1946. The war changed the Soviet people, and contributed to liberalization sentiments in society. What aspects of life in Soviet society were criticized? These sentiments were reflected in the party itself. What changes were supposed to be made to the draft of the new program of the CPSU (b), which was developed in 1947? Tell us when the new round began repression? Name the largest political processes 1946 – 1952 After the war, party ideological control over culture intensified. How did it manifest itself? Give examples.

Question three. In March 1953, Stalin died. As a result of the struggle for power in the fall of 1953, he became the First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee N.S. Khrushchev, who remained in this post until October 1964. This period of our history was called the Khrushchev decade or "thaw", when an attempt was made to renew “state socialism”. The central event was XX Congress of the CPSU, at which N.S. presented a report. Khrushchev about "cult of personality" Stalin. Assess the significance of this speech. In 1957, opponents of exposing Stalin’s personality cult tried to remove N.S. Khrushchev. Why didn't they succeed? Tell us about the reform of party and government bodies. For what purpose was it carried out? In 1961 at XXIICongress of the CPSU was accepted new party program. What task was set in it? These transformations aroused enormous enthusiasm in society and contributed to democratization spiritual life, which especially influenced the state of literature and art. What artistic works of this time are you familiar with? Significant efforts were aimed at increasing the efficiency of the Soviet economy. Tell us about the measures taken for development Agriculture. Why did the development of virgin lands and the “corn campaign” not produce the expected results? Pay attention to the inconsistency of N.S.’s agricultural policy. Khrushchev. How can the liquidation be explained? MTS? Why in the early 60s? Was the USSR forced to start purchasing food abroad? What role did the creation play? economic councils in economic management? What were the successes of the USSR in the field scientific and technological revolution. Tell us about the changes in everyday life Soviet people, mass housing construction, production of household appliances. Why did opponents manage to remove N.S. from power in October 1964? Khrushchev?

Question four. Foreign policy course of N.S. Khrushchev's was significantly different from Stalin's. The foreign policy of the new leadership was based on the principles of peaceful coexistence of two social systems, the possibility of preventing world wars, various forms transition to socialism. However, the principle of peaceful coexistence did not mean abandoning the ideological struggle. N.S. Khrushchev opened it slightly "iron curtain". How did this manifest itself? The USSR unilaterally decided to reduce the size of the army. What are the consequences? However, the new leadership of the USSR was unable to avoid confrontation with developed Western countries, which became evident during Cuban missile crisis 1962 Tell us about it. The debunking of Stalin's personality cult made a great impression on countries that followed the socialist path of development. This caused discontent in some (China, North Korea, Albania, Romania), while in other countries (Poland, Hungary) unrest began aimed at deepening democratic processes. What position did the Soviet leadership take in both cases? What is the reason for the conflict with the leadership of the CCP? In relation to the countries that freed themselves from the colonial yoke, the Soviet leadership pursued a policy aimed at strengthening comprehensive cooperation with them and expanding the camp "non-aligned" countries, providing assistance to those states that have taken a course towards socialism.

What changes took place in foreign policy under L.I. Brezhnev and his successors? Why did the USSR, together with four countries, send troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968? In the mid-60s. the Cold War received additional impetus. This was caused by the US-Vietnamese War. But after the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam in the first half of the 70s. began the period of the so-called "discharge". What did this mean? However, the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan led to a new round in the development of the Cold War. What are the results of the Cold War?

Question five. Khrushchev's resignation in 1964 led to change of political course and a return to the previous system, but more soft form. Rise stagnation in the economic field was that rates of growth gradually decreased. After L.I. came to power. Brezhnev, for some time economic growth was even significant, which was a consequence of the 1965 economic reform. Tell us what measures have been taken to production intensification in industry and agriculture? Study the digital indicators of economic development of the USSR according to five-year plans. Please note that high economic growth eighth five year plan, are gradually replaced by increasingly lower rates. Why was the principles of the 1965 reform abandoned? The increase in stagnation phenomena also manifested itself in political And public life of the country. Back it up with facts. What do you know about adoption? Constitution of 1977. What place was given to the CPSU under Article 6? During these years, the country appears dissident movement. What did it see as its task? Name the most famous representatives of dissidence. What attempts have been made to bring the country out of stagnation? What are the results?

Main literature:

1. Derevyanko A.P., Shabelnikova N.A. History of Russia: textbook. allowance / A.P. Derevianko. – M.: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2006. – P. 363-421, 520-534.

2. History of Russia: modern times (1945-1999): Textbook for universities / Ed. A.B. Bezborodova. – M.: “Olympus”. "AST Publishing House", 2001. – P. 15-254.

3. History of Russia. Textbook. / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina. – M.: TK Velby LLC, 2002. – P. 416-451, 478-490.

4. History of Russia. XX century / A.N. Bokhanov, M.M. Gorinov, V.P. Dmitrenko and others - M.: AST Publishing House, 1996. - 466-559.

5. History of Russia: Textbook. for universities / A.A. Chernobaev, I.E. Gorelov. M.N. Zuev et al.; Ed. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaeva. – M.: Higher. school, 2001. – P. 376-422.

6. Domestic history: textbook / ed. R.V. Degtereva, S.N. Poltorak. – M.: Gardariki, 2007. – P. 313-337.

Additional literature:

1. Aksyutin Yu.V., Volobuev O.V. XX Congress of the CPSU: innovations and dogmas / Yu.V. Aksyutin. – M., 1991.

2. Bezborodov A.B. Power and scientific and technical policy in the USSR in the mid-50s – mid-70s / A.B. Bezborodov. – M., 1997.

4. Boffa J. History of the Soviet Union. T. 2. From the Patriotic War to the position of the second world power. Stalin and Khrushchev. 1941-1964: Transl. from Italian / J. Boffa. – M.: International. Relations, 1990. pp. 251-545.

5. Volkogonov D.A. Seven leaders. – In 2 books / D.A. Volkogonov. – M.: JSC Publishing House “Novosti”, 1996.

6. Voslensky M.S. Nomenclature. The ruling class of the Soviet Union / M.S. Voslensky. – M.: “Soviet Russia” jointly. from MP "October", 1991.

7. Voschenkov K.P. USSR in the struggle for peace. International conferences 1944-1974 / K.P. Voschenkov. – M.: “International. relations, 1975.

8. Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev: Materials for the biography / Comp. Yu.V. Aksyutin. – M.: Politizdat, 1989.

Topic 15. Soviet Union in 1985-1991.

1. “Perestroika” M.S. Gorbachev.

2. New foreign policy of the USSR.

Question one. In April 1985, he came to leadership of the Soviet state M.S. Gorbachev. Started era of "perestroika", the content of which was an attempt global reform of the political system while maintaining socialist path of development. The following stages should be distinguished in the implementation of “perestroika”: April 1985 – 1986, 1987 – 1989, 1990-1991. On first stage was supposed to be implemented acceleration socio-economic development through technical re-equipment of industry and the “human factor”. What did this mean? At the same time, the idea was put forward . Tell us about the foreign policy initiatives of the Soviet leadership. By the end of 1986, the country's leadership concluded that changes in the economy were impossible without deep-rooted political change. Second period begins with the January 1987 Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, at which the need was stated democratization internal party and public life. A characteristic phenomenon of this time was the mass participation of people in the discussion of political events, the “rally” period. Increased social activity was largely a consequence of growing economic difficulties. In the summer of 1987 it began economic reform, prepared by L.I. Abalkin. What changes did she envision? At the same time, the political reforms. What decisions did you make in this matter? XIXparty conference? What changes were made to the Soviet political system? At this time the formation begins multi-party system. Tell us about the elections held in the country in 1989 under the new electoral law. In the second half of the 80s. there is an exacerbation national question . Which ones do you see? causes? Under these conditions, the CPSU is increasingly losing its role as a leader of reforms, and a critical attitude is growing in society. In an effort to maintain power and stability, M.S. Gorbachev agrees to the introduction of positions in the country President of the USSR. When was he elected to this position? This event begins final stage"perestroika". After elections are held in the republics, "parade sovereignties". How did this find expression? This process took place against the backdrop of a rapidly growing economic crisis and a decline in the living standards of the country's population. A mass strike movement begins. To keep the country from falling apart in the summer 1990. preparations began project new union treaty. Tell us about its main provisions. When was it supposed to be signed? Tell us about the events August 19 – 21, 1991. What were the plans of the putschists? How did these events end? What are the results of perestroika? Why did she fail?

Question two. In the mid-80s. The foreign policy of the USSR was based on the concept of “ new political thinking". Its core was the thesis about the globalization of international relations, the convergence of the interests of states with different social systems. The universal way to resolve interstate issues was proclaimed balance of interests. The main ideas of the new Soviet foreign policy were voiced at the XXVII Congress of the CPSU in 1986. Expand them. The most important component of international relations was the existence of two superpowers: the USSR and the USA. What has changed in their relationship? What agreements were reached? At the end of the 80s. The Soviet leadership took a series of major measures to reduce the USSR's military presence abroad. Tell us about it. At the same time, Soviet-Chinese relations were normalized. What do you know about this? An important condition for the successful implementation of the new foreign policy course was de-ideologization of foreign policy. What was meant by this? The key issue in relations with Western European countries for the Soviet leadership was the question of Germany. How was it resolved? What are the results of the new foreign policy course?

Question three. The political crisis of 1991 led to the collapse of the USSR. How did this happen? What are the reasons? When answering the last question, you should pay attention to the fact that the collapse of the USSR was caused not only by socio-economic and political processes in the second half of the 80s, but also by mistakes made during the formation of the USSR. Name them. How did education happen? CIS? Which republics were included in it? Tell us about the beginning of his activities.

Main literature:

1. Derevyanko A.P., Shabelnikova N.A. History of Russia: textbook. allowance / A.P. Derevianko. – M.: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2006. – P. 422-440.

2. History of Russia: modern times (1945-1999)6 Textbook for universities / Ed. A.B. Bezborodova. – M.: “Olympus”. “AST Publishing House”, 2001. – pp. 255-323.

3. History of Russia. Textbook. / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina. – M.: TK Velby LLC, 2002. – P. 452-464.

4. History of Russia: Textbook. for universities / A.A. Chernobaev, I.E. Gorelov. M.N. Zuev et al.; Ed. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaeva. – M.: Higher. school, 2001. – P. 423-436.

5. Domestic history: textbook / ed. R.V. Degtereva, S.N. Poltorak. – M.: Gardariki, 2007. – P. 338-346.

Additional literature:

1. Anisimov E.V. History of Russia from Rurik to Putin. People. Events. Dates / E.V. Anisimov. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007. – P. 515-523.

2. Volkogonov D.A. Seven leaders. - In 2 books. - Book 2 / D.A. Volkogonov. – M.: JSC Publishing House “Novosti”, 1996.

3. Volobuev O.V., Kuleshov S.V. Purification = History and perestroika / O.V. Volobuev. – M.: Publishing House of the News Press Agency, 1989.

4. Russia. Complete encyclopedic illustrated reference book / Author-comp. P.G. Deinichenko / Edited by A.A. Krasnovsky. – M.: OLMA-PRESS Star World, 2005. – P. 312-322.

5. Hosking J. Russia and the Russians: In 2 books. Book 2. Translated from English. / J. Hosking. – M.: AST Publishing House LLC: Transitkniga LLC, 2003. P. 340-373.

Topic 16. Formation and development of a new state –

Russian Federation

1. Formation of a new Russian statehood. Constitution of 1993

2. Russia is on the path of radical socio-economic modernization.

3. Foreign policy activity in the new geopolitical situation.

4. Culture in modern Russia.

Question one. After the collapse of the USSR and the formation of a sovereign Russian state, the priority task became the task of preventing the collapse of Russia. The “parade of sovereignties” has begun. Many subjects of the Federation delayed or stopped paying taxes to the federal budget. Illegal armed groups appeared in Chechnya, led by D. Dudayev, who dispersed the Supreme Council of the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Republic and announced the separation of Chechnya from Russia. Under these conditions, it was necessary to take measures to preserve the new state. What was done for this? What are the main provisions of the federal agreement of March 31, 1992? Have all subjects of the Federation signed it?

At the end of 1992, a new danger emerged for the Russian state: confrontation between the legislative and executive powers. In conditions of growing socio-economic tension, the center for uniting forces dissatisfied with the progress of reforms became Supreme Council of the RSFSR(legislative branch of government). Who was its chairman? During the discussion of the draft Constitution, the conflict between the legislative and executive branches of government further intensified. The latter was represented by the President and the Government. What is the cause of the conflict? In these conditions, only the judiciary could act as an arbiter. Chairman of the Constitutional Court V.D. Zorkin proposed the “zero option.” What was its essence? How did the warring parties react to the proposals of the Chairman of the Constitutional Court? Tell us about the events October 3 – 4, 1993. On December 12, 1993, elections were held Federation Council and State Duma, was held simultaneously referendum on the draft Constitution of the Russian Federation. Tell us about the election results. Which parties won the majority of seats in the Duma? Describe the main provisions of the Russian Constitution. In 1996, elections were held in the country President of the Russian Federation. Who won this election? The political life of Russia in the second half of the 90s was characterized by instability: frequent changes of governments, the struggle of financial groups for influence on the president. The campaign to remove B.N., which began at the initiative of the State Duma. Yeltsin from office ended with December 31, 1999. he announced his resignation as president. V.V. becomes president. Putin? What changes in the socio-political life of the country occurred during the eight years of his rule? How was the “Chechen issue” resolved? Give the layout of the main political forces in the country. What socio-political difficulties did the new President D.A. face? Medvedev?

Question two. In January 1992, a large-scale economic reform, the purpose of which was to create market economy. The country's national economic reform program was developed by a group of economists led by E.T. Gaidar, who headed the Russian government. The first step on this path was price release from government control on most goods and services. What did this lead to? Consequences These actions were ambiguous, on the one hand, empty store shelves disappeared, the market quickly filled with goods, on the other hand, they led to a sharp rise in prices, while wage growth lagged behind. At the end of 1992 it began privatization of state property. What is privatization? What was her goal? It should be emphasized that it was supposed to lead to the creation of a wide middle class in the country and give the state funds to provide social support to low-income people. On first stage privatization of small enterprises, mainly in the service sector, was carried out. The transition to market relations was accompanied by profound crisis in heavy industry and agriculture farm. Provide figures that demonstrate this.

Why was there a change of government in December 1992? The head of government was appointed V.S. Chernomyrdin, to whom By the beginning of 1995, it was possible to reduce the rate of inflation. Has begun second phase privatization. Tell us about its content and results. In 1995-1996 the economic downturn intensified. Inflation, external debt, arrears of wages, pensions and social benefits grew. The government tried to make up for the lack of funds through external loans, as well as by introducing government short-term liabilities(GKO). These measures could not change the situation, since the government had to pay GKO holders huge sums. In April 1998, the Cabinet of Ministers headed S.V. Kiriyenko, who tried to prevent a financial disaster, but failed to achieve this. August 17, 1998. A crisis broke out - the state announced that it was unable to pay GKOs and canceled the “currency corridor.” What were consequences crisis for the country and population? What is default? Government EAT. Primakova, sent their efforts to overcome the consequences of the crisis. In 1999, economic development saw positive trends, which was associated with a sharp jump in world energy prices. Give facts indicating this. However, by the end of the 90s it became clear that hopes for quickly overcoming the difficulties associated with the transition of the economy to a market economy were not justified. Describe the main economic problems of the present time. What is benefit monetization? What are its consequences? What changes have occurred in social structure Russian society? Tell us about how the “middle class” is being formed. Emphasize that the main social problem remains the existence of a large part of the population living below the poverty line.

Question three. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia found itself in a fundamentally new geopolitical position. It was surrounded by former Soviet republics, which had different attitudes towards new Russia. It was necessary to build relationships with them in a new way. Relations between Russia and the CIS countries began to be regulated by the Agreement signed by the parliaments of these states on March 27, 1992. What efforts did the Russian leadership make to develop integration processes in CIS. Compare how the relations of the Russian Federation with Belarus and Ukraine developed. Give a description of Russia's relations with the republics that were not part of CIS. Tell us about the relationship between the Russian Federation and the former socialist countries. What changes have occurred in relations between Russia and Western European countries? Reveal the problems of developing relations between Russia and the United States. Show the participation of the Russian Federation in the fight against global terrorism and aggression. What are the prospects for the development of Russia’s relations with other countries of the Eurasian world. Please note that the Russian Federation defends the concept of a multipolar world in the international arena.

Question four. The emergence of new socio-economic relations had a profound impact on the development of Russian culture. Students must understand that the new sociocultural situation is characterized by its uncertainty, complexity and inconsistency. On the one hand, economic and political freedom, cultural pluralism, abolition of censorship, freedom of creativity; on the other hand, the “market”, the commercialization of culture, its economic dependence, the criminalization of society. The only acceptable communist ideology is being replaced by a spiritual vacuum. On the one hand, there are attempts to revive Russian spirituality. Strengthening the role of the Orthodox Church in society, on the other hand, is the Americanization of Russian culture, the formation of a “market” personality, ready to be what is in demand. Hence, what tasks and problems are facing modern Russian culture? What programs of national and regional significance have been adopted in recent years? What is being done to implement them? Give examples. What new moments have appeared in artistic culture? What is being done to maintain the traditions of folk culture? Students should understand that a people exists as long as the national national culture is preserved.

Main literature:

1. Derevyanko A.P., Shabelnikova N.A. History of Russia: textbook. allowance / A.P. Derevianko. – M.: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2006. – P. 441-471, 534-540.

2. History of Russia: modern times (1945-1999): Textbook for universities / Ed. A.B. Bezborodova. – M.: “Olympus”. “AST Publishing House”, 2001. – pp. 324-422.

3. History of Russia. Textbook. / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina. – M.: TK Velby LLC, 2002. – P. 465-477, 490-492.

4. History of Russia: Textbook. for universities / A.A. Chernobaev, I.E. Gorelov. M.N. Zuev et al.; Ed. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaeva. – M.: Higher. school, 2001. – P. 436-464.

5. Domestic history: textbook / ed. R.V. Degtereva, S.N. Poltorak. – M.: Gardariki, 2007. – P. 3347-361.

Additional literature:

1. Anisimov E.V. History of Russia from Rurik to Putin. People. Events. Dates / E.V. Anisimov. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007. – P. 525-543.

2. Ozersky V.V. Rulers of Russia. From Rurik to Putin. History in portraits. / V.V. Ozersky. – Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2004. – P. 321-340.

3. Russia. Complete encyclopedic illustrated reference book / Author-comp. P.G. Deinichenko / Edited by A.A. Krasnovsky. – M.: OLMA-PRESS Star World, 2005. – P. 322-350 .

1. After the death of Vasily II (1462), his son Ivan III (1462-1505) becomes Grand Duke. At this time he was 22 years old. It was during his reign that the process of unification of Russian lands was completed. A cautious and prudent man, Ivan III consistently pursued his course towards the conquest of appanage principalities and the return of Russian lands seized by Lithuania. At the same time, he showed determination and iron will.

2. Under Ivan III, Novgorod was finally included in the Moscow Principality. Back in 1471, the pro-Lithuanian part of the Novgorod aristocracy, led by Martha Boretskaya, concluded an agreement with the Lithuanian prince Casimir IV: Novgorod recognized Casimir IV as its prince, accepted his governor, and the king promised help to Novgorod in the fight against the Grand Duke of Moscow. Ivan III organized a well-planned campaign against Novgorod. The main battle took place on the Shelon River. And although the Novgorodians had a huge superiority in forces (approximately 40,000 versus 5,000), they suffered a crushing defeat. Ivan III brutally dealt with representatives of the pro-Lithuanian party: some were executed, others were sent to Moscow and Kaluga and imprisoned. The independence of the Novgorod Republic was greatly undermined. After 1471, the situation in Novgorod worsened even more. In 1477, Ivan III launched a second campaign against Novgorod. In December the city was blocked on all sides. Negotiations lasted a whole month and ended with the capitulation of Novgorod. At the beginning of January 1478, the Novgorod veche was cancelled. Ivan III ordered the veche bell to be removed and sent to Moscow. The Novgorod Republic ceased to exist and became part of the Moscow Principality. Many boyars and merchants were taken from Novgorod to the central regions, and 2 thousand Moscow nobles arrived in Novgorod.

3. In 1485, Ivan III made a campaign against Tver, Prince Mikhail Tverskoy fled to Lithuania. The rivalry between the two centers of North-Eastern Rus' ended in favor of Moscow. The son of Ivan III, Ivan Ivanovich, became the prince in Tver. The Moscow principality turned into an all-Russian principality. Since 1485, the Moscow sovereign began to be called “the sovereign of all Rus'.” Under Vasily III (1505-1533), Rostov, Yaroslavl, Pskov (1510), Smolensk (1514), Ryazan (1521) were annexed. The unification of Russian lands was basically completed. The territory of a single Russian state was formed - the largest in Europe. From the end of the 15th century. it began to be called Russia. The state emblem became double headed eagle. During this period, government bodies are formed. At the head of the state was the Grand Duke, to whom the princely-boyar power was subordinate. Along with the boyar elite and the princes of the former appanage principalities, the service nobility is gaining strength. It is a support for the Grand Duke in his fight against the boyars. For their service, nobles receive estates, which are not inherited. Naturally, the nobles are interested in supporting the grand ducal power.

Changes are taking place in the army. The feudal squads supplied by the boyars recede into the background. And the first comes out to the noble militias, noble cavalry, foot regiments with firearms (arquebuses) and artillery.

But the Grand Duke is still forced to reckon with the economic and political power of the princes and boyars. Under him there is a permanent council - the Boyar Duma. Members are appointed to this advisory body by the Grand Duke on a local basis. This is the name for the procedure for appointment to a position in accordance with birth, proximity of the family to the Grand Duke and length of service, and not according to personal abilities and merits. The Boyar Duma met daily, deciding all issues of domestic and foreign policy. But often Ivan III made decisions alone, limiting boyar power. Thus, under Ivan III, the formation of an estate-representative monarchy takes place, when the Grand Duke rules with the help of the Boyar Duma.

At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century. orders are created - special institutions for managing military, judicial and financial affairs.

The most significant innovation of Ivan III was the judicial reform, promulgated in 1497 in the form of a special legislative collection - the Code of Laws. Until 1497, the governors of the Grand Duke, in exchange for carrying out judicial and administrative functions, received the right to collect “feed” from the subject population for their needs. They were called feeders. These officials abused the power given to them, imposed exorbitant taxes on the population, took bribes, and carried out unfair trials. The Code of Law of Ivan III prohibited bribes for legal proceedings and business management, proclaimed impartial court, and established uniform court fees for all types of judicial activities. This was a major step towards creating a judicial apparatus in the country. The Code of Law in legislative form expressed the interests of the ruling class - boyars, princes and nobles - and reflected the attack of the feudal state on the peasants. Article 57 of the Code of Laws marked the beginning of the legal formalization of serfdom. It limited the right of peasants to transfer from one feudal lord to another. From now on, the peasant could leave his feudal lord a week before and a week after St. George's Day (November 26), i.e. when all rural work ended. At the same time, he had to pay the feudal lord for living on his land “elderly” and all debts. The size of the “elderly” amount ranged from 50 kopecks to 1 ruble (the price of 100 pounds of rye or 7 pounds of honey).

The reign of Vasily the Dark's son, Ivan III (1462-1505), was the most important stage in the process of creating the Russian state. This was the time of the formation of the main territory of Russia, the formation of its political foundations. Ivan III was a major statesman, a man of great political plans and decisive undertakings. Smart, far-sighted, prudent and persistent, he was a worthy successor to his father's work.

The highest goal of Ivan III was the unification of all Russian lands under the rule of Moscow. In 1463, the Yaroslavl Principality was annexed to Moscow, then the vast Perm region was conquered, and the Rostov Principality passed under the hand of the Grand Duke. In 1471, it was the turn of “Mr. Veliky Novgorod”: the army of the Grand Duke set out from Moscow, and Novgorod, defeated in the battle on the Sheloni River, was brought to obedience. In 1478, the Novgorod Republic was liquidated, and Novgorod itself and its lands became part of the Moscow Principality. To strengthen his power in Novgorod, Ivan III evicted 1000 Novgorod boyars and merchants to Moscow; Moscow service people were resettled in their place. In 1485, Moscow's old rival, Tver, was conquered, and four years later the Vyatka region joined Moscow. Ivan III began to be called the Grand Duke of All Rus'.

Having united most of the Russian lands, Ivan III began to behave like an independent sovereign and stopped paying tribute to the Tatars. Akhmat, Khan of the Great Horde, decided to restore dominance over Russia. Ambitious but cautious, he spent several years preparing for a campaign against Russian soil. With victories in Central Asia and the Caucasus, he strengthened his power and again raised the power of the Khanate.

In 1480, Akhmat, having concluded an alliance with the Lithuanian king Casimir, raised the Great Horde on a campaign. Danger loomed over Russia. Akhmat's troops approached the Ugra River (a tributary of the Oka), which flowed along the border of the Moscow Principality and Lithuania. The Tatars' attempts to cross the river were unsuccessful. The “standing on the Ugra” of the enemy troops began, which ended in favor of the Russians: on November 11, 1480, Akhmat turned away. The failure of the campaign caused a new outbreak of strife in the Horde, and Akhmat was killed by his enemy, the Siberian Khan Ivak. Ivak cut off Akhmat's head and sent it to the Grand Duke; Ivan III warmly greeted Ivak's ambassadors and presented gifts to them and the khan.

Under Ivan III, the basic principles of the foreign policy of the Moscow state were formed, principles that determined this policy for centuries to come. Ivan III put forward the position that the Moscow princes are the heirs of the princes of Kievan Rus, and, therefore, all the lands of Kievan Rus are the patrimony of the Moscow sovereigns. The Grand Duke started a war with the Lithuanian-Russian state and conquered 19 cities and 70 volosts.

After the Golden Horde finally disintegrated into the Kazan, Astrakhan and Crimean khanates, Ivan III declared Muscovite Rus' the heir of the Golden Horde and laid claim to its former lands. Ivan III's successors continued his policies.

At the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, a powerful power emerged around the Moscow principality, which became the largest in Europe: “Astonished Europe,” wrote K. Marx, “at the beginning of Ivan’s reign, not even aware of Muscovy, squeezed between Lithuania and the Tatars, was stunned by the sudden appearance huge empire on her eastern borders, and Sultan Bayazet himself, before whom she was in awe, heard arrogant speeches from the Muscovites for the first time.”

As the lands were concentrated under the rule of the Grand Duke of Moscow, the very nature of power, its organization and ideology changed. In diplomatic correspondence, Ivan III from 1485 called himself: “John, by the grace of God, sovereign of all Rus'.”

Mainly the brothers and nephews of the Grand Duke remained appanage princes, but they no longer had the right to mint their own coins, establish diplomatic relations with foreign states and rule over important matters.

In order to increase the prestige of his power, Ivan III, after the death of his first wife (Tver Princess Maria Borisovna), married Sophia Paleologus, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI4. By her marriage, the princess made the Moscow sovereigns as successors to the Byzantine emperors. Following the princess, craftsmen were sent from Italy, where she was educated at the papal court, who built a new Assumption Cathedral, the Palace of Facets and a new stone palace on the site of the previous wooden mansion. In the Kremlin, a complex and strict ceremony began to be introduced at the court. A new, more solemn language appeared in diplomatic papers, and florid terminology developed. During receptions of foreign ambassadors, Ivan III sat on the throne given to him by the Palaiologans. The ambassadors had to bow low to the sovereign, dressed in clothes embroidered with gold and silver. An integral part of them were Byzantine “barmas” (mantles) and the so-called “Monomakh’s hat,” allegedly donated by the Byzantine emperor to Vladimir Monomakh.

Under Ivan III, a new coat of arms of the Russian state appeared5. The old Moscow coat of arms, depicting a horseman slaying a serpent with a spear, was combined with the Byzantine double-headed eagle. On the seal with the coat of arms of the Russian state, the full title of Ivan III was reproduced: “By the grace of God, the sovereign of all Rus', Grand Duke John, Grand Duke of Vladimir and Moscow, and Novgorod, and Pskov, and Tver, and Ugra, and Perm, and Bulgaria and others.”

As centralization progressed, the organization of government administration also changed. The number of appanage principalities decreased, and former appanage princes joined the ranks of the Moscow boyars. The most notable boyars were members of the Boyar Duma - the highest advisory body; All the most important state issues and issues of palace management were resolved in the Boyar Duma. Gradually, a whole system of palace institutions grew up, in charge of the grand ducal economy and palace lands (Novgorod, Tverskoy and other “palaces”). Along with the system of palaces, at the end of the 15th century, central government institutions began to emerge, which were in charge of individual branches of government in all lands of the state. They were called huts, and later - orders. The huts were usually headed by boyars, but the main work was done by clerks, and from among the serving nobles, office managers and their assistants.

Administratively, the main territory of the state was divided into counties, and the latter into volosts and camps. General local administration was concentrated among governors and volosts. They were judges, collectors of the princes' income. The governors were also the military commanders of cities and districts; according to the old custom, they were supported (“fed”) at the expense of the population. Initially, “feeding” - extortions - was not limited to anything; later, “feeding” standards were established.

The establishment of the local system dates back to the reign of Ivan III. After the annexation of Novgorod, the Grand Duke confiscated the lands of the Novgorod boyars, divided them into estates of 100-300 dessiatinas and distributed them to his horsemen (“landowners”). The landowners had no power over the peasants of their estates; they only collected taxes from them, the amounts of which were recorded in census forms. Ownership of the estate was conditional on service; landowners were regularly called to inspections, and if a warrior displeased the commanders, the estate could be taken away; if the landowner proved himself in battle, then the “manor’s dacha” was increased. Estates could be inherited, but the son entering the service in place of his father was not given the entire father’s allotment, but only what was due to a young warrior, a “novice.”

The local system marked the beginning of the separation of the military service class - the nobility. The main legal feature of this class was the right to own land subject to public service.

Legally, centralization was expressed in the appearance of the first all-Russian Code of Law (1497) with uniform legal norms. Art. 57 of the Code of Law, while formalizing the local system by law, limited the period for peasants to leave the landowner to a week before and a week after St. George’s Day (November 26); the peasant had to pay the elderly.

Ivan III died in 1505 at the age of 67 after 44 years of reign. When he passed away, he clearly outlined a new order of succession to the throne. In his will, the Grand Duke left inheritance for all his sons, but he gave two-thirds of the state and all power to the heir Vasily, the son of Sophia Paleologus. Under Vasily III (1505-1530), the borders of the state continued to expand - Pskov, Ryazan and Smolensk lands were finally annexed.

The formation of the Russian state has become a fact of great international significance. Many Christians, South Slavic patriots and Greeks who were persecuted in their homeland by the Turkish conquerors found refuge in Moscow. The Russian state has established permanent diplomatic ties with many countries in Europe and Asia.

COURSE WORK

Reign of Ivan III. Formation of a unified Russian state. Domestic and foreign policy.

Plan.

Introduction

I . Rise of the Moscow Principality (end XIII end of XIV centuries).

1.2. The first successes of the Moscow princes

1.4. Feudal War

II III

2.1.Completion of the political unification of Russian lands around Moscow

2.3. Fight with Novgorod

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

In the course work I would like to pay special attention to the issue of the formation of a single centralized state. It is advisable to begin the consideration of this issue with the definition of the concept of “centralization” and the characteristics of the features of this process in Rus'.

Centralization is the process of unifying lands, the result of which is the formation of a single supreme power, establishing a single administrative apparatus controlled by the center, uniform laws, common armed forces, etc. A natural and progressive stage in the economic and socio-political development of society.

The history of the emergence of unified states is one of the central themes of historical science.Coursework topic o you are directly connected with the o the end of feudal fragmentation and the emergence of a centralized state - Russia. One of the brightest options for centralization is the formation of the Russian state based on the unification of Russian lands around Moscow. The versatility of the topic in historical science requires a wide variety of approaches to its study.

This topic has been the subject of in-depth study by a wide range of historians and jurists. The works of such authors as: Cherepnin L.V., Karamzin N.M., Klyuchevsky V.O., Grekov I.B., Shakhmagonov F.F., Bushuev S.V., Mironov G.E., Sharov V., Soloviev S.M. et al.

Considering the reasons for the rise of Moscow, one can pay attention to the different points of view that exist in historiography on this issue. For example, S. F. Platonov associated the strengthening of Moscow primarily with the revision of the previous order of succession to the throne, left over from Kievan Rus. Then he highlighted the advantageous geographical location, since Moscow was located at the intersection of transport routes.

A. A. Zimin believed that the advantageous geographical position of Moscow cannot be considered the reason for the political unification of Russian lands.

B. A. Rybakov, V. A. Fedorov and other scientists explain the role of Moscow mainly by its geographically advantageous position in relation to other Russian lands, which gave it the importance of the most important junction of trade routes.

Despite different points of view, most modern historians see the decisive role in the rise of Moscow in such factors as the personal qualities of the Moscow princes and their skillful policies, which allowed Moscow to gain the support of the church and become the center of the liberation struggle against the Mongol-Tatar yoke.

The Russian centralized state developed gradually and became such only after freeing itself from the dependence of the Horde. The process of centralization captured individual lands and principalities at different stages of its development. Some of them were annexed quite early to a stronger principality, while others submitted already at the final stage of the formation of a single centralized state. Such unevenness ensured the uniqueness of the path traversed by each region and the long-term preservation of significant local differences.

Studying this topic helps to understand the importance and significance of creating a single centralized state.

The purpose of the course work: is to study the historical process of formation of the centralized Russian state.

Tasks:

study the factors that contributed to the formation of a centralized Russian state;

consider the main stages of the formation of a centralized Russian state.

show the significance of the unification of Russian lands for domestic science.

I . Rise of the Moscow Principality

1.1. Reasons for the rise of the Moscow principality

One of the traditional topics in Russian historiography is the explanation of the increased role of Moscow, which for a long time did not have its own prince. In search of an answer to this question, historians turn to clarifying the benefits that Moscow received from its geographical location.

Moscow and the lands adjacent to it occupied a small territory along the middle course of the Moscow River. Located on the western outskirts of the Vladimir-Suzdal land, the principality was intensively populated. First of all, I was attracted by the relative safety of the territory. Fenced off to the east from the Golden Horde by rich neighboring principalities, which were hit by the Horde’s raids, covered by dense forests and swamps, Moscow became a place of attraction for popular forces.

The thesis about relative security is not an empty fantasy of historians. Chronicles indicate that after Batu’s invasion, subsequent Horde armies bypassed Moscow for a long time. Only in 1293 did Tatar troops ravage the future capital of the Russian state.

Trade routes did not bypass Moscow either. But for a long time they were of a transit nature, which made it very difficult to control them and obtain rich duties. This factor forced the Moscow rulers to speed up the process of expanding their principality.

It must be admitted that the superiority of Moscow's favorable location is not enough to explain its rise. Moscow's rivals, primarily the Tver Principality, were not inferior to it in these parameters and even surpassed it in some ways. Nevertheless, it was the Moscow principality that became the center of gathering Russian lands. We can conclude that the main reason for the rise of Moscow is the policy of the Moscow princes, which turned out to be more effective, more effective in comparison with what their opponents were able to offer.

The Moscow princes had little chance of occupying the grand-ducal table. Deprived of the opportunity to get ahead of their rivals, relying on law and customs, Moscow rulers were more often than others ready to violate generally accepted norms.

Since the time of N.M. Karamzin, researchers have been talking about the tenacity, the “incredible” will of Moscow rulers, the consistency of their political course, and the ability not only to preserve, but to increase what they had accumulated.

1.2. The first successes of the Moscow princes.

By the middle of the 13th century. Moscow had its own prince, Mikhail Yaroslavich, nicknamed Horobrit, the son of Grand Duke Yaroslav Vsevolodovich. This fact indirectly indicates the growth of Moscow, which became the capital of the appanage principality. Little is known about the reign of Khorobrit. In 1247 he died in a battle with the Lithuanians. Such a short reign prompts us to begin counting the history of the rise of Moscow with another reign Daniil Alexandrovich.

Daniil Alexandrovich received the Principality of Moscow as an inheritance according to the will of his father, Alexander Yaroslavich. 1 Daniel was the first prince to raise the importance of Moscow, which was until now an insignificant suburb of Vladimir. Participating in the civil strife of his brothers, Daniel, by cunning, captured the Ryazan prince Konstantin. This event was the first manifestation of self-empowerment techniques. At the same time, Daniel laid the foundation for the expansion of his possessions, which was so consistently carried out by all his successors. 2

Important changes occurred at the end of Daniel's reign. It was then that Daniil managed to lay the first stones in the foundation of the growing power of Moscow. The capture of Kolomna opened up control over the middle course of the Oka.

No less important in its consequences was the expansion of Moscow at the expense of the Pereyaslav Principality. Its last owner, the childless Prince Ivan Dmitrievich, before his death in 1302, blessed “his place” to Prince Daniil “of Moscow”. The acquisition of the Pereyaslav principality made Moscow one of the largest principalities in the Vladimir-Suzdal land and raised its political importance.

1.3. The struggle for the grand ducal throne

In 1303, Daniil's eldest son, Yuri (13031325), became the prince of Moscow. Having recaptured Mozhaisk from the Smolensk principality, he felt so strong that he decided to join the fight for the grand-ducal table.

Possession of the great table promised benefits in the struggle for leadership among the northeastern princes, for example, the opportunity to communicate with the ruler of the Horde. The Mongol Empire had a political system of unconditional vertical subordination. By demanding slavish obedience from the Grand Duke, the khan involuntarily raised his importance as the main representative of the khan's power in Rus'. The Grand Duke thus received power, became the owner of the Grand Duke's domain, and his boyars could receive profitable governorships here. In the XIV century. The Vladimir-Suzdal principality included the Kostroma and Yuryev principalities.

In addition to power, the prince received the right to collect “exit” from almost the entire territory of the Zalesskaya Horde (Russian lands as part of the Golden Horde). This made it possible to collect large amounts of money.

Yuri Danilovich began to challenge the rights to the reign of Vladimir from his cousin, Prince of Tver Mikhail Yaroslavich. But the fate of the great reign also depended on the will of the khan. Yuri Danilovich, having suffered defeat in an open clash with the Tver prince, began to look for luck in the Horde. Circumstances favored him, he received the long-awaited great table.

But Mikhail Yaroslavich opposed the khan’s will. A war began between Moscow and Tver. In 1318, the princes went to the Horde for the khan's court. By order of Khan Uzbek, the prince of Tver was given a painful execution.

Having got rid of a dangerous rival, Yuri Danilovich went to Novgorod. Here he had to wage war with the Swedes, who attacked the northwestern borders of the Novgorod land.

Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich of Tver again acted as Yuri Danilovich's rival. He managed to seize the initiative, accusing the Moscow prince of concealing the “exit”. The denunciation was recognized as justified and the Tver prince received a label for the great reign. During a meeting in the Horde, Dmitry Mikhailovich dealt with the Moscow prince, considering him the main culprit in the death of his father. Because Dmitry Mikhailovich killed Yuri “without a word from the Tsar,” he was executed. The label for the great reign went to the brother of the deceased Tver prince Alexander Mikhailovich.

The Moscow table was occupied by Ivan Danilovich Kalita (1325 1340). His role in the rise of the Moscow principality turned out to be so significant that the Moscow Grand Dukes, descendants of Ivan Kalita, began to be called Kalitovichs.

Ivan inherited his father’s entire expanded “fatherland.” By this time, the rivalry between single princes for leadership in North-Eastern Rus' was becoming a thing of the past; now the struggle was waged by princely dynasties, which relied primarily on the resources of their hereditary estates. A cautious and prudent politician, Ivan Kalita accumulated strength gradually, trying to enlist the support of two powerful forces - the Horde and the Orthodox Church. 3

During the reign of Ivan I, the struggle between Moscow and Tver flared up with renewed vigor. The Tver prince Alexander Mikhailovich surpassed the Moscow prince in power and authority. Taking into account tradition, the Horde returned the label to the Grand Duchy of Vladimir Tver. At the same time, the khan decided to achieve complete submission from the Tver prince Alexander and for this purpose in 1327 he sent Tsarevich Cholkhan with an armed detachment to Rus'. Having appeared in Tver, he expelled the Tver prince from his court and himself settled in the palace. The violence of the Tatars caused a popular uprising. Cholkhan and his squad were killed. Ivan I brought Tatar armies to Rus', and the Tatars destroyed the Tver land. Alexander Mikhailovich went to bow to the Horde and regained the Tver throne. But here Moscow intervened again. According to Ivan Kalita's denunciation of Alexander Tverskoy, Khan in 1339. executed him. Ivan Danilovich received the label for the great reign and acquired a reputation as a devoted and obedient tributary of the khan. The right to collect the “Horde exit” was approved for him. Moscow collectors began to manage the cash flow directed to the Horde.

With the growth of the treasury, the Moscow prince was able to expand his possessions in such a way as purchasing land. Kalita’s “purchase” gave V. O. Klyuchevsky a reason to note that the Moscow prince “beat his opponents not so much with a sword as with a ruble.” Perhaps Ivan Kalita managed to buy labels for Uglich and Beloozero in the Horde. The Kostroma lands with rich salt deposits in the Galich region came under the control of the Moscow prince.

Relations with the church also developed successfully for the Moscow prince. At the turn of the XIII-XIV centuries, the successor of Kyiv Metropolitan Cyril III (1243 - 1280), Metropolitan Maxim, a Greek by birth, arrived in Rus' in 1283 with the rank of metropolitan. In 1301, Metropolitan Maximus arrived in Constantinople for the Patriarchal Council, where, by the will of the saint, Bishop Theognostus proposed solutions to questions about the needs of the Russian Church. Concerned about strengthening the forces of enslaved Rus', the saint convinced the Moscow Prince Yuri Danilovich to reconcile with the Tver Prince Mikhail Yaroslavich and did not advise Yuri to go to the Horde to receive the grand-ducal throne. In 1304, the saint in Vladimir placed Prince Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver on the grand-ducal throne. Metropolitan Maxim established a rule about fasts, appointing, in addition to Great Lent, the Apostolic, Dormition and Nativity fasts. The special care of the holy metropolitan was the approval of legal marriage. Maxim died on December 6, 1305; his body was buried in the Assumption Vladimir Cathedral. 4

In fact, the Metropolitan's move was a recognition that the center of political and religious life in Orthodox Russian lands had moved to the northeast.

Metropolitan Maxim's successor, Peter (13081326), established friendly relations with the Moscow princes Yuri and Ivan Danilovich.

In 1312, the saint made a trip to the Horde, where he received from Uzbek Khan a charter protecting the rights of the Russian clergy. In 1325, Saint Peter, at the request of Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich Kalita (1328 - 1340), transferred the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow. This event was important for the entire Russian land. Saint Peter prophetically predicted liberation from the Tatar yoke and the future rise of Moscow as the center of all Russia.

With his blessing, a cathedral in honor of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary was founded in the Moscow Kremlin in August 1326. 5

Peter's successor was Metropolitan Theognostus (13281353), who received initiation in Constantinople in 1328 and settled in Moscow.

In 1329, he visited Novgorod and from there declared a curse on the Pskovites, who accepted the disgraced Prince of Tver Alexander Mikhailovich. Pskov's old desire to gain church independence intensified: the Pskovites chose a certain Arseny as their bishop and sent him to be consecrated to the metropolitan, but Theognost refused them this.

Like his predecessors, Theognostus undertook travels throughout his metropolis. Theognost traveled to the Horde twice. On the second trip (1342) someone told Khan Janibek that the metropolitan was collecting large incomes from the clergy and that he had a lot of money. Khan demanded payment from him from all the clergy. Theognost endured all sorts of torture in the Horde, gave away up to 600 rubles to various strong people and insisted that the khan confirm for the church all its previous benefits with a new label. 6

For contemporaries this was a significant event. Moscow, long before becoming the political capital of the united Russian state, became the religious center of the country. This raised the authority of the Moscow princes and opened up the opportunity for them to act in concert with the metropolitan, relying on the power of the church.

Throughout his reign, Kalita visited the Horde several times, repelling the intrigues of his rivals and strengthening his ties with the “king”. At the end of the 1330s, princes dissatisfied with Moscow's policies, led by Prince of Tver Alexander Mikhailovich, tried to undermine Kalita's position in the Horde. Ivan Danilovich managed to avert the threat. Apparently, he took advantage of the khan’s suspicion regarding Alexander Mikhailovich’s connections with Lithuania, whose growing power worried the Horde. The accusations turned out to be so serious that in 1338, on the orders of Khan Uzbek, Alexander Mikhailovich was killed.

The policy of appeasement allowed Kalita to avoid the devastating Tatar raids on Russian soil. To the credit of the Moscow prince, the chroniclers wrote: “The silence is great” “the abomination has ceased to wage war on the Russian land.” Realizing that the strength of the prince was in the number and wealth of the grand ducal servants, Ivan Danilovich began to grant land for temporary use on the terms of service. While emphasizing the merits of the Moscow prince, one must not idealize him and forget that he built his well-being on seeking before the Horde rulers. 7

The Moscow rulers spared no effort and did not hesitate to use bribery, deception, and violence to expand their domains. These princes, devoid of talent and distinguished by persistent mediocrity, behaved like petty predators and hoarders (V. O. Klyuchevsky).

The rapid rise of Moscow delayed the process of fragmentation of North-Eastern Rus' and made it possible to collect “the fragmented parts into something whole.” (V. O. Klyuchevsky). In his study of the Moscow state, A.E. Presnyakov paid attention to the formation of the foundations of a new statehood under the immediate successors of Ivan Kalita, and to the gathering of power by the Moscow Grand Dukes. 8

The sons of Ivan Kalita, Semyon Ivanovich the Proud (1340-1353) and Ivan Ivanovich the Red (1353-1359), retained the grand-ducal table and continued the work of their father, gathering new lands under their own hands. During these years, the Yuriev Principality, whose territory was famous for its fertility and rich salt springs, became part of the Grand Duchy of Moscow. The strength of the Moscow princes was their unity. The title “Grand Duke of All Rus'” appeared for the first time on Semyon Ivanovich’s seal.

In 1352, a plague epidemic claimed the lives of the Grand Duke and his two sons. The throne passed to the brother of Semyon the Proud, Ivan Ivanovich the Red. Chroniclers described this prince, adding the definitions “meek” and “merciful,” but in November 1359 he died. 9

In 1359, John of Moscow died, 33 years old, leaving young sons Dmitry and Ivan and a young nephew, Vladimir Andreevich.

It seemed that John’s early death would be disastrous for Moscow, because his little son could not fight other princes. And, indeed, when all the princes appeared in the Horde and only one Moscow one was missing, the khan gave the great reign of Vladimir to the Suzdal prince Dmitry Konstantinovich.

But Moscow was already so strong that even such an unfavorable circumstance as the prince’s minority could not harm it. The Moscow boyars did not want to descend to a lower level or go to the new Grand Duke, to a new principality, where nothing was known or secured to them; They began to try to get a label for their prince. 10

The Great Table was transferred to the Suzdal and Nizhny Novgorod prince Dmitry Konstantinovich. Then the results of the activities of the first Moscow princes made themselves known in full. It was not so much the personal qualities of the ruler that came to the fore, but rather the accumulated potential of the principality and the interest of the secular and spiritual elites in supporting their prince. The change in the status of the Moscow prince also did not suit Metropolitan Alexei (1353-1378), a consistent supporter of the union of the church with the Moscow princes. Having headed the government during Dmitry Ivanovich’s childhood, Metropolitan Alexei began to vigorously defend the supremacy of Moscow.

Taking advantage of the civil strife in the Horde, the Moscow boyars already in 1362 achieved the expulsion of Dmitry Konstantinovich from Vladimir. Several more years passed and the Nizhny Novgorod prince was forced to abandon the Vladimir table himself.

With the growing power of the Moscow principality, its rulers increasingly resorted to violence. In the early 1360s, Dmitrov was captured and annexed. This was followed by the expulsion of princes hostile to Moscow from the Rostov, Galich and Starodub lands.

Having matured, Dmitry Ivanovich began to interfere in the affairs of the great Tver Principality. He entered into a protracted struggle with Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich, whose ally was the powerful Lithuanian Prince Olgerd. Olgerd approached Moscow twice (1368, 1370), but on the eve of the war, Dmitry Ivanovich was not in vain in his haste to build the Moscow Kremlin. The Kremlin walls, erected from white stone in an incredibly short time, turned out to be impregnable for the Lithuanian troops. The last, third, campaign (1372), like the previous two, ended in failure. The Lithuanian guard regiment was defeated, after which Prince Olgerd chose to make another peace with Dmitry Ivanovich.

In 1371, Mikhail Alexandrovich Tverskoy managed to receive a label for the great reign. However, the residents of Vladimir, at the call of the Moscow prince, did not allow the governors of the Tver prince to enter. The weakening of the Horde opened up the possibility of maneuver between the warring factions of the Horde nobility and their proteges to the khan's throne. At the same time, Moscow, which had solid material resources, had advantages over its rivals. The envoys of the Moscow prince in the Horde settled the conflict with generous gifts. As a result, the great table was left to Kalita's grandson.

Many Russian princes went over to the side of Dmitry Ivanovich in his fight with Mikhail Alexandrovich. In 1375, in addition to the Moscow regiments, armies from Yaroslavl, Rostov, Suzdal, Smolensk and even Kashin, an appanage principality of the Tver land, moved to Tver - a total of 22 squads. In fact, this was the first all-Russian campaign led by Dmitry Ivanovich. The Tver prince, weakened in the struggle, was forced to recognize the supremacy of Moscow.

Under Dmitry Ivanovich, the former quest in the Horde is gradually being replaced by the desire for greater independence. The church played a major role in this transformation, actively supporting the unification process. Kalita's descendant stood at the head of the national struggle for independence, and this gave him a huge advantage over his rivals: the latter, speaking against the Moscow princes, unwittingly found themselves in the camp of opponents of the faith. 11

The Principality of Moscow was constantly strengthening, while the Horde was apparently weakening due to internal unrest and strife, and the khans were losing more and more of their importance and ceased to inspire fear. 12

Dmitry Ivanovich's disobedience to the Horde Khan led to an increase in the number of Horde raids on Rus'. The Nizhny Novgorod principality especially suffered from them. The allied princes came to the aid of the Nizhny Novgorod residents. In 1377, taking advantage of the carelessness of the Russian governors, the Tatars defeated the army on the Pyana River. The next year, Dmitry Ivanovich met the Horde army on the Vozha River, a tributary of the Oka. The brutal battle ended in victory for the Moscow prince. But this success was the beginning of a decisive battle.

In preparation for it, Mamai mobilized all his strength. Russian chronicles, clearly exaggerating, determined their number at almost a quarter of a million. Modern researchers call a more modest figure - about 60 thousand. For that time, this was a huge army. Mamai's ally was the Grand Duke of Lithuania Jagiello, who was interested in the mutual weakening of Rus' and the Horde.

The Russian army was hardly inferior in number to Mamai. In addition to the Moscow regiments, troops from Beloozero, Serpukhov, Pereyaslavl, Kostroma, Vladimir, Murom, Yaroslavl and other destinies came to the gathering place. It is fashionable to conclude that almost all of Rus' came together under the banners of the Moscow prince.

The battle took place on September 8, 1380 and ended with the defeat of Mamai. The dead were buried for six days after the battle. 13 Historical assessment The significance of the Battle of Kulikovo is ambiguous. The following main points of view can be distinguished:

According to the traditional point of view, dating back to Karamzin and generally accepted by most historians, the Battle of Kulikovo was the first step towards the liberation of Russian lands from Horde dependence.

Supporters of the Orthodox approach, following unknown author Tales of Mamaev's massacre, see the Battle of Kulikovo as a confrontation between Christian Rus' and the steppe infidels.

The largest Russian historian of the 19th century, S. M. Solovyov, believed that the Battle of Kulikovo, which stopped another invasion from Asia, had the same significance for Eastern Europe that the battle on the Catalaunian fields in 451 and the Battle of Poitiers in 732 had for Western Europe. 14

Gumilyov and his followers see in Mamai a representative of the trade and political interests of hostile Europe; Moscow troops objectively came out to defend the legitimate ruler of the Golden Horde, Tokhtamysh. In this interpretation, the Battle of Kulikovo appears as just an intermediate stage in the struggle for power within the Golden Horde.

Some modern historians, who do not at all share Gumilyov’s views, still agree that the significance of the battle is greatly exaggerated in the historiographical tradition. In the realities of 1380, there could still be no talk of liberating Russian lands from the power of the Golden Horde. The tasks of the Moscow government included: changing the balance of power in the region in its favor and rising among other Russian principalities, taking advantage of the protracted internal political conflict in the Horde. 15

The first victory over the Tatars accelerated the process of formation of self-awareness and instilled confidence in the liberation of Rus' from the khan's power. The position of the Moscow prince was strengthened, who, according to V. O. Klyuchevsky, finally acquired “the importance of the national leader of Northern Rus' in the fight against external enemies" The status of Moscow also rose - it turned into a national capital.

The defeat of Mamai allowed Khan Tokhtamysh to seize power in the Horde and even restore its unity for a short time. 16 Hostile activity against Moscow reigned in the Horde. For almost two years, Tokhtamysh, in deep secret, was preparing to deal a crushing blow to Rus' in order to bring it to its knees.

Taking advantage of the strife between the Russians, the khan won over the Ryazan and Nizhny Novgorod grand dukes to his side. The Tatar invasion in 1382 was like a flood. The cavalry poured into the Russian borders, sweeping away everything in its path. The border princes tried to save their lands from the pogrom and spread to the enemy’s camp. 17

Dmitry Ivanovich went to Kostroma, probably to gather an army. There is another version: he tried to avoid a collision with Tokhtamysh. At the end of August, the khan besieged Moscow. Muscovites greeted the Horde with stones, arrows and even shots from mattresses (small-caliber guns). Unable to break the resistance, Tokhtamysh resorted to deception. He promised to lift the siege after an expression of submission. When the city gates were open, the enemy broke into the Kremlin. The pogrom was terrible.

Dmitry Ivanovich was forced to recognize the power of the khan and resume payment of the “exit”. But the military-political potential of the Horde was so undermined that the restoration of Horde rule in full was impossible. Tokhtamysh not only retained the great table for the Moscow prince, but in fact approved the transformation of the Vladimir reign into a Moscow fiefdom.

Dmitry Donskoy reigned for thirty years. The first victories over the Horde speak of the military leadership talent of Dmitry Donskoy. But he also proved himself to be a major statesman, a strong-willed and independent ruler.

The territorial results of Dmitry Ivanovich’s reign are also impressive: he not only finally secured the great reign for Moscow, but also made large acquisitions in the Volga region, in the Klyazma and Oka basins. Thus, the basis for the unification of Great Russian lands around Moscow expanded materially and territorially. Before his death, Dmitry divided the principality between his sons. He “blessed” his eldest son Vasily with “his fatherland with a great reign.” Vasily received most of the Moscow principality and Moscow, fifteen-year-old Yuri Galich and Zvenigorod, seven-year-old Andrei Mozhaisk and Beloozero, four-year-old Peter Dmitrov and Uglich. The Grand Duke acted in the spirit of appanage ideas and, although he sought to prevent clashes between his sons, punishing them to obey “the eldest brother in my place of his father,” he unwittingly created the basis for a future internecine war.

1.4. Feudal War

From the end of the 14th century. Moscow's unification policy acquires a number of new features. Moscow rulers are increasingly resorting to violence, sanctioning their actions by the will of the khan. The Horde itself is experiencing a deep crisis, breaking up into warring parts, each of which lays claim to the “Russian ulus”. In connection with this, the number of robber campaigns against Rus' is increasing. The need for a prince capable of organizing a general effective defense became an urgent need at the end of the 14th century.

Lithuania had a huge impact on the political processes of Rus'. The Lithuanian princes took full advantage of the weakening of the Horde and gathered the main ancient Russian lands under their control. At the same time, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania there was a process of rapprochement with Poland, which led to the growth of Polish and Catholic influence in Lithuania. The Orthodox elite faced difficult political, religious and cultural choices, which prompted many to turn their gaze to Moscow.

Vasily I (13891425) successfully continued the work of his father. In his youth, he spent four years in Horde captivity. When the prince reached adulthood, well-wishers helped him escape from the Horde to Lithuania. Apparently, there he was engaged to the daughter of the ruler of Lithuania, Prince Vytautas. Having ascended the throne, Vasily I pursued a policy of submission to the Horde and tried to use its power to expand Moscow's possessions. 18

Taking advantage of the complications in the Horde, he did not miss the opportunity to expand the borders of his possessions. Basil I received labels for the Murom and Tarusa principalities; the Nizhny Novgorod principality was an important acquisition.

Finding himself isolated, the Horde Khan Tokhtamysh and his supporters began to seek refuge in Lithuania. Here he concluded an agreement with Vitovt, according to which the Lithuanian prince was to contribute to the return of Tokhtamysh to the Horde throne, and Tokhtamysh to the installation of Vitovt “in all Russian land.” This was a dangerous alliance for Moscow. However, in August 1400, in the battle on the river. Vorskla, the left tributary of the Dnieper, Vitovt and Tokhtamysh were defeated by the new Horde khan Timur.

The Lithuanian prince was forced to abandon his extensive plans, but this did not prevent him from conquering the Smolensk principality in 1404. Basil I , avoiding aggravation with Lithuania, did not protest this accession. But when Vitovt tried to strengthen his positions in the Novgorod and Pskov lands, Moscow resolutely opposed it. In 1390, Vasily married Sofya Vitovtovna, daughter of Vitovt. The dynastic marriage undoubtedly influenced Vasily's relationship with the powerful Lithuanian prince. Nevertheless, Vasily Dmitrievich did not abandon his independent policy. The war that broke out between Moscow and Vilna in 1406-1408. did not reveal the winner. On the eve of the clash with the Teutonic Order, Vytautas agreed to make peace.

The overthrow of Tokhtamysh by the Horde khan Timur allowed Vasily I to stop paying the “exit”. Another Horde ruler who aspired to power, Edigei, did not want to put up with this. In December 1408, his army invaded Moscow. 19 Vasily I he was not careful, hoping that the Horde had weakened, and did not take measures in advance against the cunning enemy. Like his father, Vasily Dmitrievich fled to Kostroma, but he managed the defense of Moscow better than his father, entrusting it to his brave uncle, Prince Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov. Muscovites themselves burned down their settlement. Edigei could not take the Kremlin, but the Horde devastated many Russian cities and villages. Moscow experienced that if the Horde was not able to keep Rus' under its control, as before, it could still be terrible for a long time with its sudden raids, devastation and captivity of the inhabitants. 20 The news of another turmoil in the Horde changed the plans of the Horde protege. He moved back, having previously taken a huge “payback of 3,000 rubles” from the Muscovites. The scale of the devastation was such that contemporaries compared it with the invasion of Batu. But the main thing Vasily I was forced to resume paying the “exit”.

By the end of his life, Vasily Dmitrievich was the undisputed leader among the northeastern princes. He strengthened his positions along the border of the Novgorod land, putting Volok Damsky, Torzhok, Vologda, etc. under control. His major success was the capture of Veliky Ustyug. Most of the appanage princes who retained their independence were in the position of “young brothers” in relation to the Grand Duke. A considerable number of princes turned into “helpers” of the Grand Duke. Usually they were sent as governors to their former appanages. Such feudal lords began to be called service or service princes. However, the question of the center for the unification of Russian lands was not finally resolved. It seemed that the Lithuanian Prince Vytautas took the lead in this process.

He united not only Central and Southern Rus', the Tver and Ryazan princes became dependent on him. Vasily Dmitrievich was forced to reckon with this circumstance.

The process of political unification was interrupted by the feudal war, which broke out during the reign of Vasily II Vasilyevich (1425-1462). The reason was a dynastic conflict between the Moscow princes. In 1425, after the death of Vasily I, Prince Yuri of Zvenigorod refused to swear allegiance to his nine-year-old nephew. He justified his rights to the Moscow throne with references to “seniority” and to the will of Dmitry Donskoy, according to which, in the event of the death of Vasily I, his next brother became his successor.

The collision was avoided thanks to the mediation of Metropolitan Photius and the pressure of Vytautas, who, as the grandfather of Vasily II, acted as his patron. Yuri retreated. However, Vytautas defended not so much the rights of his grandson as he sought to take advantage of the situation and strengthen his position.

The death of Vytautas in 1430 changed the situation in North-Eastern Rus'. The Lithuanian princes found themselves drawn into an internecine struggle, which freed the hands of the rivals of Vasily II. The dispute over seniority was transferred to the Horde. The Khan of the Golden Horde again received the functions of the supreme arbiter. Vasily II won the fight for the label in the Horde. Yuri Dmitrievich did not accept this decision and went into open conflict.

The war, which began in 1433, continued intermittently until the mid-50s. It is surprising that Vasily II, who won it, was inferior to his opponents in experience, talent, and even luck: he experienced several defeats, lost the Moscow table many times and nevertheless won. Thus, the outcome of the struggle depended not so much on the personal qualities of the rival Moscow princes, but on the power of those social strata and government institutions that supported them.

The Zvenigorod prince, Yuri Dmitrievich, twice occupied the grand-ducal table and faced the opposition of the Moscow princes, but two months later after his second ascension to the grand-ducal table, he died (1434).

At the new stage of the feudal war, Vasily II encountered the sons of Yuri Dmitrievich, Vasily and Dmitry. At the same time, Dmitry Yurievich (Shemyaka) acted in alliance with Vasily II against his older brother Vasily Yuryevich, who declared himself Grand Duke. The fight ended with the capture of Vasily Yuryevich, who was blinded by order of Vasily II.

Taking advantage of the strife between the Russian princes, Tatar troops often appeared on the borders of the Russian state. Tokhtamysh's grandson Ulu-Mukhammed captured Kazan in 1438 and became the founder of a new dynasty of Kazan khans. In 1445 he ravaged Nizhny Novgorod. In a battle near Suzdal, the sons of Ulu-Muhammad inflicted a crushing defeat on the grand ducal army, capturing Vasily II himself.

Dmitry Shemyaka’s plans to take advantage of the situation and occupy the grand-ducal table were prevented by the return of Vasily II from captivity. However, the conditions of liberation turned out to be so difficult that they caused strong discontent on the part of the population: it was necessary to pay a huge ransom, and the Horde was given cities and volosts as collateral. This allowed the conspirators to accuse Vasily of “leading” the Horde to Rus'. In February 1446, supporters of Dmitry Shemyaka captured Moscow, he became the Grand Duke. Vasily II (Dark) was blinded and sent to prison in Uglich. 21 It is noteworthy that the nature of Vasily’s reign II Since then it has completely changed. Using his sight, Vasily was the most insignificant sovereign, but since he lost his eyes, the rest of his reign was distinguished by firmness, intelligence and determination. 22

The Moscow boyars did not want the rulers of other principalities to be strengthened on the grand ducal table. This threatened the elite with serious changes in the established system of service-parochial hierarchy, pushing it away from the helm of power. The land policy of Vasily II, who united the Moscow boyars around himself with generous distributions of estates, ensured the stability and strength of his power. The support of the church was of great importance for Vasily II. Condemning the actions of Dmitry Shemyaka, the hierarchs unanimously spoke out for the release of Vasily from Uglich imprisonment.

In mid-1446, Vasily the Dark appeared in Tver. The alliance with the Tver prince Boris Alexandrovich was sealed by the betrothal of the children of the future Ivan III and Maria. With the help of supporters, Vasily the Dark returns to his great reign and brings charges against Shemyaka, who helped him remove Vasily from power two years earlier II and that Shemyaka brought detachments of Tatars to Rus'. The dramatic struggle continued until 1453, in which Dmitry Shemyaka died.

The war undoubtedly slowed down the unification processes. Nevertheless, its outcome is indisputable - the strengthening of the position of the grand ducal power. As a result of military campaigns, other lands hostile to the Grand Duke, Novgorod and Vyatka, were brought into submission. Having drawn conclusions from what was happening, Vasily II distributed the lands among the heirs in such a way that the eldest son received a decisive advantage over his brothers. Ivan, who ascended the throne, owned 16 large cities, while his four brothers together owned 12. This became a serious guarantee against new strife.

It is characteristic that even during civil strife, the Moscow principality continued to expand. The size of the new acquisitions was not impressive, but important from a strategic point of view. Strengthening the Oka outskirts, the Moscow prince acquired Venev and Tula in the south. An important defensive measure was the creation of a special “kingdom” - the Kasimov kingdom, which was headed by Kashima and his horde, whose responsibility was attributed to the protection of Russian borders. Kashima's son Mahmud, having seized power, completed the process of formation of the Kazan kingdom, independent from the Horde, begun by his father. The creation of the Kasimov kingdom is a new phenomenon in Russian-Horde relations: for the first time, Horde princes appear among the service people of the Moscow prince. From the end of the 14th century. Numerous “departures” of Tatars for Russian service began. They converted to Orthodoxy, many of them became the founders of noble noble families.

At the end of the reign of Vasily II, the conflict with Novgorod was resolved. In 1456, the defeat at Russa forced the Novgorod boyars to begin peace negotiations. The Peace of Yazhelbitsa preserved the political system of Novgorod, but the positions of the Moscow prince and his governors strengthened. The power of Vasily the Dark was also strengthened in Pskov, where a grand-ducal governor appeared.

Thus, by the end of the reign of Vasily II, important prerequisites were created for overcoming specific fragmentation and creating a unified state. The unification of Rus' was still on the agenda, but this process was already moving towards its logical conclusion. Largely thanks to the policies of the Moscow princes, including the acquisition of territory, the purchase of lands or even principalities, the religious factor that united the people, the formation of Moscow not only as a political, but also a religious center - everything was heading towards the fact that Moscow would become the capital of the future state, with centralized control system in all areas of life, all that remained was to put in a little more effort. But the main thing has already been done - the unification process has begun...

II . Formation of a unified Russian state during the reign of Ivan III

2.1. Completion of the political unification of Russian lands around Moscow

The reign of Ivan III Vasilyevich (14621505) the final stage of the formation of the Russian centralized state. At the beginning of his reign, his principality was surrounded almost everywhere by Russian possessions: Novgorod the Great, the princes of Tver, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Ryazan. Ivan III subjugated all these lands thanks to successful foreign political and diplomatic qualities . At the end of his reign, he had only heterodox and foreign neighbors: Swedes, Germans, Lithuania, Tatars. 23 The prince faced three most important tasks. Firstly, to unite the lands around Moscow that still retained their independence, secondly, to put an end to the position of the khan’s “ulusnik” and become an independent sovereign, thirdly, qualitative changes in society and the state entailed corresponding changes in the power itself and its institutions. If in the first two cases Ivan III to a certain extent acted as a continuator of the work of his predecessors, then the last task required innovation and courage. 24

The events of civil strife could not but influence little Ivan and subsequently his politics. He felt an irreconcilable hatred for the remnants of the old appanage freedom. He was a man of a harsh disposition, cold, reasonable, with a hard heart, power-hungry, adamant in the pursuit of his chosen goal, secretive, extremely cautious; gradualness is visible in all his actions; he was not distinguished by either courage or bravery, but he knew how to make excellent use of circumstances; he never got carried away, but acted decisively when he saw that the matter had matured to the point where success was undoubted. 25

Ivan III revealed himself as a statesman in his ability to accurately and clearly understand his goals and find the optimal means to achieve them. Despite the resources that Ivan Vasilyevich inherited and increased, the problem of leadership under him acquired enormous importance. This was due to the fact that an external threat pushed for a high rate of unification. The fate of Ivan III's father showed how important a talented ruler is in such a historical situation and how dangerous mediocrity is. 26

… The local societies themselves, for various reasons, began to openly gravitate toward Moscow. Thus, in Novgorod the Great, the people took the side of Moscow as opposed to the local aristocracy; on the contrary, in the principalities of northern Rus', the upper service class gravitated towards Moscow, tempted by the benefits of Moscow service; finally, in Chernigov, which depended on Lithuania, princes and societies joined Moscow in the fight against Catholic propaganda, which began in western Rus' in the 14th century. with the intervention of the Polish-Lithuanian intervention. Thanks to the desire of local authorities to become part of the Moscow principality, the gathering of the Russian land by Moscow became a national-religious movement and accelerated. 27

By the beginning of the reign of Ivan III, the Tver, Yaroslavl and Rostov principalities did not enter the Moscow patrimony from the Upper Volga principalities (or were included in separate volosts and destinies). In 1463, the Yaroslavl prince ceded his principality with volosts to Ivan III. The loss of independence was accompanied by political reorganization, which in turn emphasized the dependence of local feudal lords on the Grand Duke. Thus, according to researchers of the era of Ivan III, methods were approved for including the territories of appanage principalities into a single state. In 1474, the Moscow prince acquired the remaining half of the Rostov principality from local princes. 28

For a century and a half, Moscow tried to undermine the independence and prosperity of Novgorod: Novgorod suffered frequent extortion of money, land seizures, and the destruction of Novgorod volosts, and therefore it was clear that Novgorod had long been intolerant of Moscow’s supremacy. Dissatisfaction with Moscow reached high degree during the reign of Vasily the Dark. The independence of Veliky Novgorod caused concern among the Novgorodians. Then, having united in the name of a common cause, they decided to repel the Moscow princes at all costs. Since it seemed to the Novgorodians that they were unable to protect Veliky Novgorod from Moscow, which could advance against it beyond the strength of the lands already subordinate to it, the patriots of Novgorod came to the conclusion that it was best to surrender under the protection of the Lithuanian Grand Duke and King of Poland Casimir.

Ivan Vasilyevich, having learned about the decision of the Novgorodians, sent ambassadors with an appeal that Novgorod is the fatherland of the Grand Duke.

At the end of 1470, the Novgorodians invited the prince from Kyiv, Mikhail Olelkovich.

The Novgorodians entered into an agreement with Casimir: Novgorod came under the supreme authority of Casimir, retreated from Moscow, and Casimir undertook to protect it from the attacks of the Moscow Grand Duke. 29

Having learned about this, Prince Ivan Vasilyevich tried to peacefully resolve the escalating struggle for independence; he sent his ambassadors to Novgorod to negotiate.

This was heard by the Novgorod people, their boyars, and mayors, and thousands, and wealthy people who did not want to break their ancient custom and the kiss of the cross. 30

After the unsuccessful return of the ambassadors from Novgorod, Ivan Vasilyevich decided to use weapons. On May 31, 1471, he sent his troops under the command of Voivode Sample to the Dvina to take this important volost from Novgorod; On June 6, the second army was advanced under the leadership of Prince Danil Dmitrievich Kholmsky to Ilmen, and on June 13 the third detachment was sent under the command of Prince Vasily Obolensky-Striga to the coast of the Meta River. The Grand Duke gave the order to burn all Novgorod suburbs and villages and kill indiscriminately. His goal was to weaken the Novgorod land to the extreme. At the same time, the forces of Pskov and Tver were involved in the campaign against Novgorod.

Moscow troops, carrying out the orders of Ivan Vasilyevich, behaved inhumanly; Having defeated the Novgorod detachment at Korostin, on the banks of the Ilmen, Moscow military leaders ordered the captives’ noses and lips to be cut off and in this form sent them to show themselves to their brothers. The main Novgorod army consisted mostly of people unaccustomed to battle: artisans, farmers, laborers. There was no agreement among this army. On July 13, 1471, on the banks of the Sheloni River, the Novgorodians were completely defeated. Ivan Vasilyevich, having arrived with the main army following the detachments he had sent, stopped in Yazhelbitsy and ordered the heads of the four captured leaders of the Novgorod army to be cut off.

The defeat of the Novgorod army produced a revolution in minds. The people in Novgorod were sure that Casimir would appear or send an army to help Novgorod; but there was no help from Lithuania. The people sent their archbishop to ask the Grand Duke for mercy. Novgorod renounced its connection with the Lithuanian sovereign and ceded to the Grand Duke part of the Dvina land, where the Novgorod army was defeated by the Moscow one. In general, the Dvina land (Zavolochye), which Novgorod considered its property, has long been disunited. Among the Novgorod possessions there were inhabited lands to which other princes, especially those of Rostov, laid claim. The Grand Duke of Moscow, as the supreme head of all appanage princes and the owner of their possessions, considered all such disputed lands to be his fatherland and took them away from Novgorod. Novgorod, in addition, undertook to pay a “kopeck” (indemnity). The amount of a penny was indicated at fifteen and a half thousand. In all other respects, this agreement was a repetition of the one concluded under Vasily the Dark. “Eternal” letters were also destroyed. 31

In the first year after the subjugation of Novgorod, Grand Duke Ivan did not impose his disgrace on the Novgorodians and did not take drastic measures against them. 32

And the last page of Novgorod freedom was turned at the end of the 70s. In the spring of 1477, the Novgorod embassy, ​​supposedly sent from the archbishop and “all of Veliky Novgorod,” named Ivan III not lord, but sovereign. The difference was significant: if the address “master” expressed the attitude of feudal equality or, in extreme cases,unequal status vassalage, then the concept of “sovereign” meant recognition of citizenship. 33

Achieving the complete subjugation of Novgorod, Ivan III set out to liquidate the Novgorod court, replacing it with the grand ducal court. The question of eliminating the veche system was postponed to the future.

The emergence of a second government in Novgorod had important consequences. Residents who failed in the court of the “republic” immediately turned their claims to Ivan III. By the spring of 1477, a whole crowd of Novgorod complainants, belonging to various strata of society, had gathered in Moscow. 34

However, this pacification did not stop with the removal of the bell and the prohibition of the veche: the townspeople tried to rebel. So, in order to completely dispel the spirit of resistance to the new order, “in 1487, 50 of the best merchant families were transferred from Novagorod to Vladimir. In 1488, the Governor of Novgorod, Yakov Zakharyevich, executed and hanged many living people who wanted to kill him, and sent to Moscow more than eight thousand Boyars, eminent citizens and merchants who received lands in Vladimir, Murom, Nizhny, Pereslavl, Yuryev, Rostov, Kostroma; and to their lands, to Novgorod, they sent Muscovites, service people and guests. With this resettlement Novgorod was pacified forever.” 35

Surrounded on almost all sides by Moscow possessions, the Grand Duchy of Tver stood on the verge of its collapse. 36 Tver Prince Mikhail Borisovich was in peace and alliance with John until the end of 1484. In Moscow they learned that the Tver prince began to maintain friendship with Casimir of Lithuania and married his granddaughter; In the agreement with the king, Michael pledged to stand with him against everyone without exception.

This circumstance was a clear violation of the obligations previously concluded with the Moscow prince, and therefore the latter declared war on Mikhail, which began with the devastation of the Tver region; Tver alone could not fight with Moscow, Lithuanian help did not come, and Mikhail was forced to ask for peace. Mikhail Borisovich re-entered an alliance with Lithuania; in Moscow, having learned about this, they began to gather an army; the frightened Mikhail in vain sent to beat John with his forehead, he did not want to hear anything and besieged Tver; Mikhail fled to Lithuania at night, and Tver swore allegiance to John in 1485. 37

In the spring of June 11, 1489. The great of all Rus', Ivan Vasilyevich, sent military detachments to Vyatka. Under the leadership of Prince Daniil Vasilyevich Shchen and Grigory Vasilyevich Morozov, the cities were taken, and the Vyatchyans themselves were led to a kiss, and the Aryans were led to an oath; and the Vyatchans carried away the great people with their wives and children, and even the Aryan princes, and so they returned. And the Great Prince planted the Vyatchan zemstvo people in Borovets and Klemenets and gave them land, and planted the Vyatchan trading people in Dmitrov; and the great prince granted favor to the Arsky princes, released them to his land, and executed the seditionists by death.. 38

An integral part of the history of collecting lands around Moscow under Ivan III was his desire to reduce the number of appanage principalities. After almost all independent principalities disappeared from the political map of Rus', a glance was cast at the destinies of the members of the Moscow ruling house. Some of the estates passed into the possession of the Moscow prince after the death of their owners. It is important to emphasize that under Ivan III, all territorial acquisitions of the Grand Duke were not subject to kinship division. Thus, the space reproducing specific antiquity was gradually reduced. By the beginning of the reign of Vasily III Ivanovich (1505-1533), only Pskov and the Ryazan principality remained not annexed to Moscow.

2.2. The end of Horde rule. Rus' and Lithuania at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries.

The creation of a unified state was impossible without liberation from Horde rule. The latter implied not only the mobilization of all military resources, but also the intensification of foreign policy aimed at finding allies and disrupting the plans of hostile neighboring states, primarily the Great Horde and Lithuania. Thanks to the diplomatic efforts of Ivan III, the capabilities of the Moscow Principality increased. Foreign policy contacts have increased, which have allowed Moscow to influence the course of affairs not only in its region, but throughout Eastern Europe.

The end of the 80s became a time of difficult trials for Ivan III. The growing power of the Moscow principality, just confirmed by the annexation of Novgorod, led to serious complications. Khan of the Great Horde Akhmet and Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir created a military alliance directed against Moscow. In turn, Ivan III entered into an agreement with Akhmet’s worst enemy, the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey. This far-sighted diplomatic move somewhat balanced the forces. 39

Khan of the Golden Horde Akhmet was not pleased with John because he did not go to him with a bow and did not satisfy his demands for tribute. Akhmet in 1472 attacked the Moscow borders from the Oka and, having burned Aleksin, retreated back. 40

On the eve of the invasion, the position of the Grand Duke was complicated by a conflict with his brothers, appanage princes Andrei Bolshoi and Boris Vasilyevich. The clash with the brothers was caused by Ivan III’s reluctance to share the newly annexed regions. The brothers of the Grand Duke did not get anything even after the conquest of the Novgorod land. Such a policy reflected the desire of Ivan III to expand his possessions. The brothers who rebelled proceeded from traditional ideas, according to which they became co-owners of annexed or inherited territories.

Andrei and Boris with their specific regiments moved to Velikiye Luki, which gave them the opportunity, if necessary, to seek help from Casimir. At the height of the conflict, news came about the performance of Khan Akhmet. Resolving the internal political crisis became a top priority for Ivan III.

The Moscow prince did not allow the conflict to deepen further. He made concessions, while at the same time relying on the mediation and authority of the church during negotiations. For this purpose, the Rostov archbishop, the confessor of the Grand Duke Vassian Rylo, was sent to the rebels, announcing Ivan III’s readiness to yield to the brothers Aleksin and Kaluga. A compromise was found, and in the fall, on the eve of the decisive clash, the brothers' specific regiments stood next to the grand ducal detachments.

The appearance of Akhmet's hordes in the spring of 1480 did not come as a surprise to Ivan III. 41 The time has long passed when the Horde could field up to a hundred thousand horsemen. Akhmet Khan could hardly muster more than 30-40 thousand soldiers. Ivan III had approximately the same forces. The troops of the Tver prince came to his aid. Pskov, which was attacked by knights, did not participate in the war with the Tatars. 42 At the Oka line, the Khan’s troops met Russian regiments. Convinced of the reliability of the defense, Akhmet in early September headed to the left tributary of the Oka, the Ugra River. The maneuver pursued two goals: a connection with Casimir’s troops and a crossing to the flank of the Russian troops through the shallow Ugra. Thanks tosuccessful military tacticsThe Moscow governors and grand ducal regiments reached the river bank before the Tatars and prevented the crossing. The “great stand on the Ugra” began.

In the circle of Ivan III there were heated debates regarding the prospects of Horde politics. Some boyars insisted on negotiations with the khan, which meant maintaining dependence in one form or another. Ivan Vasilyevich himself experienced certain hesitations: as a politician, he did not like risk in cases where the outcome of the struggle was not clear. Residents of Moscow, prominent church figures, and military men led by the heir Ivan the Young were in favor of a decisive clash.

The onset of cold weather forced the khan to make a choice: either decide on a general battle or retreat to the steppe. At the beginning of November, the Horde turned its horses. On the way, the khan, for violating the treaty Casimir never came to his aid ruined the Lithuanian possessions.

The stand on the Ugra ended the centuries-old history of Horde rule. The almost bloodless victory was partly achieved thanks to the diplomatic skill of Ivan III and his closest assistants. After liberation from Horde dependence, Ivan III strove for peaceful relations with Crimea and Turkey. 43

Another important direction of Ivan's foreign policy III is to resolve the issue with Lithuania. The Moscow prince begins an offensive movement and expresses the idea that all Western Russian volosts should belong to him as a descendant of St. Vladimir, and not to the Lithuanian princes.

Lacking the means to wage an open war with Moscow, King Casimir forced a search for Ivan III allies against Lithuania: thus, sending his ambassadors to the Crimea, he ordered them to try to prevent Mengli-Girey from making peace with Casimir. The reason for hostile clashes between Lithuania and Moscow was given by petty border princes, continuing old family strife, they constantly quarreled among themselves, transferred from Lithuanian citizenship to Moscow.

In 1492, Casimir died and Poland and Lithuania were divided between his sons: Jan Albrecht got Poland, Alexander - Lithuania. Ivan Vasilyevich immediately sent his governors to Lithuania and insisted that Mengli-Girey send his troops there too. It was difficult for Lithuania to fight off the joint actions of John Mengli-Girey; the nobles began to think about peace with Moscow. They tried to persuade John to make concessions and decided to offer him a marriage alliance of one of his daughters with Grand Duke Alexander.

But John replied that he did not want to hear about matchmaking until peace was concluded, and for this, Lithuania must cede to him all his acquisitions. The Lithuanian prince will send great ambassadors to Moscow to conclude peace according to the will of John. According to the peace treaty, the city of Vyazma, the princes of Novosilsk, Odoevsky, Vorotynsky and Belevsky went to Moscow with estates; Also in the contract document the Moscow prince was written as the sovereign of all Rus'.

In 1495, Alexander married Elena, daughter of John, and promised his father-in-law not to force his wife to accept the Roman Catholic confession; John also demanded that Alexander build a home Orthodox church for Elena in the palace itself, but Alexander did not want to fulfill this demand, he also stopped calling his father-in-law the sovereign of all Rus' and did not want the Moscow boyars to remain with Elena. All this led to a quarrel between father-in-law and son-in-law, and the renewed transfer of princes from Lithuanian citizenship to Moscow led to open war.

The war started successfully for Moscow. On July 14, 1500, the Moscow army under the command of Prince Daniil Shchenya met at Dorogobuzh, on the Vedrosha River, with the Lithuanian army, which was under the command of Hetman Prince Konstantin Ostrozhsky; thanks to a secret ambush, the Moscow governors won a decisive victory: Hetman Prince Ostrozhsky and other Lithuanian governors were captured; The Vedrosh victory was followed by the victory at Mstislavl, where the Lithuanians also lost many people. After this, the war continued for several more years; The Livonian master Walter von Plettenberg took part in it, who, thanks to his artillery, defeated the Pskov and Moscow army near Izborsk, but then the Russians marked him with a strong defeat near Telmed. In the third battle, on the shores of Lake Smolina, the Germans, despite their small numbers compared to the Russians, fought desperately, stood their ground, and Plettenberg retreated to their borders.

Alexander of Lithuania, who became King of Poland after the death of his brother, John Albrecht, had to ask for peace from Ivan III . Through the mediation of the Hungarian ambassador, a truce was concluded for six years - from March 25, 1503 to March 25, 1509; Alexander ceded to the Moscow prince the lands of all the princes who had succumbed to Moscow - Starodubsky, Shemyachich and others. At the same time, a truce was concluded with the Livonian Order. 44

The completion of the unification of the Great Russian lands around the Moscow Principality significantly changed the nature of the entire foreign policy of the heirs of Ivan Kalita. From the task of national liberation, Muscovite Rus' moved on to solving problems related to ensuring the security of its borders and territorial expansion, both in the West and in the East. The rapid rise of Moscow meant not only the emergence of a new independent sector of the diplomatic game; the entire system of international relations in Eastern Europe, the entire balance of forces, interests, and traditional alliances was changing. 45

Conclusion

Territorial expansion had a powerful effect on the political position of the Moscow principality and its prince. Having imagined the new borders of the Moscow principality, created by the listed territorial acquisitions, it is easy to see that this principality has now absorbed an entire nation. In specific centuries, through colonization in central and northern Rus', a new tribe was formed within the Russian population, the Great Russian nationality was formed. But until the half of the 15th century. this nation remained only an ethnographic fact, and not a political one: it was divided into several independent political parts; National unity was not expressed in state unity. Now all this nation has united under one state authority. 46 As a result, this was an important historical significance of the reign of Ivan III, and also imparted a new character to the Moscow principality.

The Moscow principality turned into a Russian state. The combination of many factors and coincidences led to the fact that Moscow gradually, with careful steps, not only became a leader among the Russian principalities, but also became the center of the unification of lands.

The creation of the Russian state took place in bloody battles of internal strife, in harsh confrontation with the majority of its neighbors. Russia found its place in the world in a grueling struggle with the Golden Horde, the Kazan, and from the beginning of the 16th century, the Crimean khanates, the Principality of Lithuania, the Livonian Order, and the Kingdom of Sweden.

The emergence of a unified Russian state was of great historical significance.

Undoubtedly, the historical significance of the formation of a centralized Russian state is great:

• the period of feudal fragmentation ends;
• feudal strife ceased;
• favorable conditions for the development of the economy and culture have appeared;
• the Golden Horde yoke was overthrown and the defense capability of the state was strengthened (a permanent military army was created);
• joining Russia saved the peoples from the attacks of warlike neighbors;
• the process of enslaving the peasants accelerated;
• international authority has grown.

Thus, the centralization of the Russian state was reflected in the apparatus of government, which contributed to its development in a progressive direction.

Bibliography.

1. Kostomarov N. I. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures / N. I. Kostomarov. M., 2006. (electronic version of the encyclopedia) (http://www.kulichki.com/inkwell/text/special/history/kostom/kostlec.htm) Ivan III

2. Gumilev L.N. From Rus' to Russia/L. N. Gumilev. M., 2010.

3. Skrynnikov R. G. Russian History IX-XVII centuries. / R. G. Skrynnikov. M., 1997.

4. Cherepnin L.V. Formation of the Russian centralized state in the XIV-XV centuries / L. V. Cherepnin. - M., 1960.

5. Platonov S.F. Complete course of lectures on Russian history. / Essay on Russian historiography Review of sources of Russian history. Petrograd, 1917. (electronic version - http://www.pstbionline.orthodoxy.ru/books/platonov.)

6. Tatishchev V.N. Russian history [V3t.]. T.3/V. Tatishchev. M., 2005.

7. Klyuchevsky V. O. Course of Russian history: Course of Russian history in one volume / V. O. Klyuchevsky. M., 2009.

8. Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004.

9. Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian state. Volume VI. M., 2006.

10. Solovyov S. M. Works: Book II History of Russia since ancient times [In 12 volumes]. T.3-4. M., 2012.

Internet resources:

1 Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004. P. 120.

2 Kostomarov N. I. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures / N. I. Kostomarov. M., 2006. Chapter 9.

3 Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004. P. 123.

4 http://days.pravoslavie.ru/Life/life3073.htm

5 http://days.pravoslavie.ru/Life/life3160.htm

6 http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/1318114

7 Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004. p. 125.

8 Skrynnikov R. G. Russian History IX-XVII centuries. / R. G. Skrynnikov. M., 1997. Chapter 4. Part 1.

9 Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004. P. 126.

11 Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004. P. 127.

12 Soloviev S. M. Educational book on Russian history. Chapter 21.

14 Soloviev S. M. Educational book on Russian history. Chapter 21.

15 Gumilev L.N. From Rus' to Russia/L. N. Gumilev. M., 2006.

16 Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004. P. 128.

17 Skrynnikov R. G. Russian History IX-XVII centuries. / R. G. Skrynnikov. M., 1997. Chapter 4. Part 2.

18 Skrynnikov R. G. Russian History IX-XVII centuries. / R. G. Skrynnikov. M., 1997. Chapter 4, part 2.

19 Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004. P. 141.

20 Kostomarov N. I. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures / N. I. Kostomarov. M., 2006. Chapter 13.

21 Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004. Ibid.

22 Kostomarov N. I. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures / N. I. Kostomarov. M., 2006. P. 142.

24 Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004. P. 143

27 Klyuchevsky V. O. Course of Russian history: Course of Russian history in one volume / V. O. Klyuchevsky. M., 2005. P. 59

28 Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004. P. 144.

29 Kostomarov N. I. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures / N. I. Kostomarov. M., 2006.

31 Kostomarov N. I. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures / N. I. Kostomarov. M., 2006.

32 Platonov S.F. Complete course of lectures on Russian history. / Essay on Russian historiography Review of sources of Russian history. Petrograd, 1917.

34 Skrynnikov R. G. Russian History IX-XVII centuries. / R. G. Skrynnikov. M., 1997. Chapter 5. Part 1.

35 Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian state. Volume VI. M., 2006. Part 3.

36 Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004. P. 145.

38 Tatishchev V.N. Russian History. Part 4. Chapter 57.

39 Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004. P. 147.

40 Soloviev S. M. Educational book on Russian history. Chapter 25.

41 Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004. P. 148.

42 Skrynnikov R. G. Russian History IX-XVII centuries. / R. G. Skrynnikov. M., 1997. Chapter 5. Part 2.

43 Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004. P. 149.

44 Soloviev S. M. Educational book on Russian history. Chapter 25.

45 Pavlenko N. I., Fedorov V. A., Andreev I. L. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. M., 2004.

46 Klyuchevsky V. O. Course of Russian history: Course of Russian history in one volume / V. O. Klyuchevsky. M., 2005. P. 59.