One of the most dramatic periods in the history of Rus' is the period of feudal fragmentation, otherwise called "specific". It was characterized by dependence on the Tatar-Mongol and the disintegration of Rus' into separate principalities. The centuries of the period of feudal fragmentation in Rus' are the XII-XV centuries inclusive. It lasted for about 350 years. By the middle of the XII century, there were about 15 principalities and lands in the state. In the XII-XIII centuries there were already 50 of them, and in the XIV - as many as 250. Each of them was ruled by a separate clan of Rurikovich.

Vladimir Monomakh managed to somewhat slow down this process, and then his son, Mstislav the Great, who continued his father's policy of preserving what had been achieved. However, after the death of Mstislav, internecine wars began. Next, we will talk about Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation briefly.

Reasons for fragmentation

Under the period of feudal fragmentation in Rus', the years of which are indicated above, researchers understand the time when several hundred separate states were formed and operated on the territory where Kievan Rus previously existed.

Such fragmentation was a natural result of the development of society (economic and political) in the previous period - the period of the early feudal monarchy. Let's talk about the most significant causes of this phenomenon in the life of the Old Russian state.

Among the economic reasons for the onset of the period of feudal fragmentation of Ancient Rus' are:

1. Successes in the cultivation of the land.
2. The development of crafts (there were more than 60 specialties) and trade, the growth of cities as centers of concentration of these types of activities and as territorial centers.
3. The dominance of the natural system of management.

Political reasons include:

1. The desire to transfer wealth, "fatherlands", into the hands of his son, to make him his heir.
2. The desire of the military elite, turning into landowning boyars, that is, feudal lords, to expand their possessions and gain independence.
3. Formation of immunities by transferring the Kyiv prince to vassals of such rights as the right to judge and collect taxes.
4. Turning tribute into If tribute was paid to the prince for military protection, then rent is paid to the owner for the use of the land.
5. The final registration of the squad in the apparatus of power.
6. The growth of the power of some feudal lords who do not want to obey Kyiv.
7. The decline of the Kyiv principality due to the raids of the Polovtsian nomads.

Period Features

One of the important features of Kievan Rus in the period of feudal fragmentation was the following. All the major states of Western Europe experienced similar periods, but the economy was the main engine of the process. Whereas in Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation, the main thing was the political component. In order to obtain material benefits, local princes and boyars needed to gain political independence, gain a foothold on the territory of their own inheritance, and acquire sovereignty. The boyars represented the main force in the disengagement process.

At the first stage of feudal fragmentation, it contributed to the development of agriculture throughout the Russian land, the flourishing of crafts, the rapid development of trade, and the growth of urban formations. But due to the fact that a large number of tribes of both Slavic and non-Slavic origin, which were at various stages of development, lived in the vast expanse of the East European Plain, this contributed to the decentralization of the state structure.

Specific separatism

The specific princes, as well as the local nobility - the boyars - over time began to destroy the foundation under the state building with their separatist actions. Although their desire to become more independent from the Grand Duke is understandable, because the center developed at the expense of other regions of the state, often actually ignoring their urgent needs. However, the negative side of this desire for independence was an unprecedented manifestation of selfishness on both sides, which ultimately led to anarchist sentiments. Nobody wanted to give up their interests - neither the Kyiv prince, nor the specific princes.

Often such interests were confrontational in nature, and direct conflicts, conspiracies, intrigues, intrigues, cruel wars, and fratricide became the means of resolving conflicts. This inevitably led to further civil strife, disputes over lands, trade benefits, princely titles, inheritances, cities, tributes - in a word, for levers of influence and domination - imperious and economic.

Decline of the central government

In order to keep the state organism from disintegration, a strong power was needed. However, due to these reasons, the Kyiv prince was no longer able to fully manage the policy of the princes on the ground from the center. More and more of them were falling out of his control. In the 30s of the XII century, the center controlled only the territory adjacent to the capital.

The specific princes, feeling the weakness of the central government, no longer wanted to share their income with it, and the local boyars most actively supported them in this. In addition, local boyars needed independent local princes, which also helped to form their own separate state structures and the withering away of the central government as an institution.

Weakening in the face of invaders

However, over time, the ongoing strife observed between the princes caused the exhaustion of the forces of the Russian lands, weakening their defenses in the face of an external enemy.

Constant enmity and disunity led to the fact that many ceased to exist during the period of feudal fragmentation. But most importantly, this was the cause of unprecedented people's suffering caused by the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

three centers

Among the new states that emerged after Kievan Rus during the period of feudal fragmentation, there were three largest, these are two principalities - Vladimir-Suzdal, Galicia-Volyn and Novgorod Republic. They were the political successors of Kyiv. That is, they had the role of becoming the centers of gravity of the common Russian life.

In each of these lands, during the period of feudal fragmentation of Rus', its own original political tradition was formed, each had its own political destiny. Each of the lands in the future had the opportunity to become the center of the unification of all other lands. However, the situation became incredibly complicated in 1237-1240, which marked the beginning of the Mongol-Tatar yoke.

The suffering of the people

Despite the fact that the struggle against the yoke began from the very moment of its establishment, it had the most difficult consequences for Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation. In 1262, in many Russian cities, uprisings took place against the Bessermens, the tax-farmers of the Horde tribute. As a result, they were expelled, and tribute began to be collected and taken to the Golden Horde by the princes themselves. However, despite constant acts of resistance, massacres and captivity of Russian people continued.

Huge damage was done to cities, crafts, culture, stone construction was stopped for more than a century. In addition, the Horde khans created a whole system of robbing the country they conquered in the form of collecting regular tribute. In total, they collected 14 types of "burdens" and "tributes", which depleted the economy of Rus', preventing it from recovering from devastation. The constant leakage of silver, which was the main monetary metal in Rus', was an obstacle to the development of market relations.

The power of the Horde khans over the Russian lands also led to the strengthening of feudal oppression. The people fell under double exploitation - both from the local and from the Mongol-Tatar feudal lords. In order not to allow the country to unite, the khans pursued a policy of inciting feudal strife.

State of Rus' in the period of feudal fragmentation

From what has been said, it can be seen that feudal fragmentation contributed to the conquest of Rus' by the Tatar-Mongols, and this conquest, in turn, contributed to the conservation for a long period of the feudal nature of the economy, the strengthening of the isolation of Russian lands, the weakening of the western and southern principalities. As a result, they became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, an early feudal state that arose in the 13th century. In time, the entry pattern looked like this:

• At the end of the XIII century. - Turov-Pinsk and
• In the middle of the XIV century. - Volyn.
• In the 2nd half of the XIV century. - Chernihiv and Kiev.
• At the beginning of the XV century. - Smolensk.

As a result, Russian statehood (which was under the suzerainty of the Golden Horde) was preserved only in the Vladimir-Suzdal land, and also in Murom, Ryazan and Novgorod.

It was the North-East of Rus', starting approximately from the 2nd half of the XIV century, that became the core of the formation of the Russian state. This marked the beginning of a departure from the old political structure, characterized by the presence of independent principalities of Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation. As already mentioned, they were ruled by various representatives of the Rurik family, and they included vassal, smaller principalities.

Law of Rus' in the period of feudal fragmentation

After the capture of Russian lands by the Mongol-Tatars, Rus' became one of the constituent parts of the Golden Horde. The system of dominance over Russia (political and economic) that prevailed there is regarded as the Golden Horde yoke. All sovereign rights were seized by the supreme ruler - the Khan of the Golden Horde, whom the Russians called the tsar.

The princes, as before, ruled over the local population. The previous order of succession was also preserved, but only if there was the consent of the Horde. The princes began to go there to get a label for reigning. The power of the princes was built into the system in accordance with which the Mongol empire was governed, which assumed rigidly fixed subordination.

At the same time, the appanage princes were subordinate to the elder princes, who, in turn, were subordinate to the Grand Duke (although this was only a formality). And the latter quite really depended on the Horde Khan, being considered his "ulusnik".

This system contributed to the strengthening of the authoritarian traditions inherent in North-Eastern Rus'. Being absolutely powerless in the face of the khan, the princes could completely dispose of their subjects. Veche as an institution of power has lost its significance, since the only source of power now was the khan's yarlyk. The combatants and boyars gradually turned into servants who were completely dependent on the mercy of the prince.

Label for reign

In 1243, Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, who ruled in Vladimir, received a special letter from Batu. She testified to the permission for him to rule in Rus' on behalf of the khan. This permission took the form of the so-called label for a great reign. This event was of great importance for the subsequent history of Rus'. The fact that for the first time the prince was given the right to become a representative of the interests of the Golden Horde in the Russian lands meant the recognition of complete dependence on the Mongol-Tatars, as well as the inclusion of Rus' in the Mongol empire.

When Yaroslav Vsevolodovich left Batu's headquarters, he was forced to leave his son Svyatoslav there as a hostage. This practice was widespread in the great Mongol Empire. In the relationship between Rus' and the Golden Horde, it will become the norm for a long time.

Cultural aspect

The culture of Rus' during the period of feudal fragmentation has its own distinctive features. This is due to the duality of its origins. The first of these was the pagan worldview of the Eastern Slavs, which in its composition was multicomponent. After all, it was formed with the participation of such ethnic groups as the Baltic, Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Norman, Iranian.

The second source is Eastern Christian patristics, which is a collection of theological ideas, doctrines and works of church literature.

The adoption of Christianity by Russia as the official ideology contributed to the displacement of the pagan vision of the world to the periphery of consciousness. At the same time, Russian thought absorbed and creatively reworked the attitudes, theoretical positions and concepts of Eastern Christianity. This was done by her through the assimilation of Byzantine and South Slavic cultures.

As you know, Byzantium, the keeper of the ancient heritage, was the most developed of the countries of the early Middle Ages. From her, Russia received a large number of concepts, names and images that were fundamental for the entire European culture that emerged from the Hellenic civilization.

However, they were not perceived in their pure form and not completely, but only partially and through the prism of Christianity. This was explained by the fact that knowledge of the Greek language was not the lot of many, and the translations that existed at that time concerned, first of all, the array of literature about the holy fathers.

Sources of ancient thought

As for the writings of ancient philosophers, they were known for the most part in fragments, from retellings and collections, sometimes only by name. One of these was the Byzantine collection "Bees", which included sayings of a philosophical and religious nature. Researchers attribute its appearance to the 11th-12th centuries, and they consider Anthony Melissa, a Greek Christian monk and spiritual writer, as the author of the original Greek edition. In Rus', this book was published in the XIII century.

It was one of the main sources giving an idea of ​​the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and the political thought of Antiquity in Ancient Rus'. Among the excerpts contained in The Bee, there are lines from the Holy Scriptures written by such authors as:

• John the Theologian.
• Basil the Great.
• John Chrysostom.

• Aristotle.
• Anaxagoras.
• Pythagoras.
• Democritus.
• Socrates.
• Plutarch.
• Sophocles.
• Euripides.

• Alexander the Great.
• Philip, his father.
• Agesilaus and Leonidas, kings of Sparta.
• Alcibiades, statesman of Athens.
• Darius, Artaxerxes, Cyrus, Croesus, kings of the East.

As one of the exceptions, one can cite the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus "Enhidrion", which was of a detailed nature and was provided with comments by Maximus the Confessor. It was translated in the Balkans and came out under the name "Hundreds", under which it was introduced into the everyday life of the monks as an ascetic instruction.

Almost every state in the world in the early stages of its development went through fragmentation and disunity. This also applies to Ancient Rus'. The period of political fragmentation began in the 12th century and lasted only about a century - however, during this time, both negative and positive consequences were clearly manifested.

Reasons for the political fragmentation of Rus'

There are two main reasons.

• Firstly, there were too many applicants for the great reign, and everyone wanted to take the Kyiv table one way or another. This led to endless strife, skirmishes between neighboring principalities, to the impossibility of reaching an agreement.
• Secondly, despite the previous aspect, Kyiv gradually lost its political significance. Fought for him rather out of habit. New centers were formed, developing independently of each other, the inhabitants of Ancient Rus' were generally more inclined to migrate to its northeastern part - it was removed from the border with the Steppe and safer.

It should be noted that in 1097, the princes at the Lyubech Congress tried to rectify the situation - to stop strife over Kyiv and to focus on everyone's own lot. It is quite logical that after such a decision, the process of political disengagement only accelerated.

The consequences of the political fragmentation of Rus'

Why is fragmentation considered a negative phenomenon?

The answers to this question are obvious.

• Rus' lost its military power. Now dozens of principalities opposed the enemies on their own, and did not act as a united front. The steppe nomads did not fail to take advantage of this.
• Quarrels between the princes did not stop, but only became more frequent - now everyone perceived the lands of their neighbor as valuable military booty.

What are the good consequences of fragmentation?

However, the two-hundred-year period of disunity went to Rus' not only to the detriment, but also to the good.

• The economy of individual cities flourished, no longer dependent on Kyiv.
• There were unique cultural schools - for example, Suzdal, Novgorod, Kyiv. They had much in common, but they also had significant differences, which is why they are still of great interest to researchers.

Of course, politically divided Rus' did not turn into a union of "independent principalities." Formally, the Grand Duke remained the head of the country, in Rus' the church common to all destinies continued to operate, a single language and cultural values ​​\u200b\u200bwere preserved. Nevertheless, in the XIII century, in the aspect of the fight against the Mongol yoke, the return to unity became a fundamentally important issue.

Presentation on the topic: Political fragmentation in Rus'. Specific Rus' (XII - XIII centuries)

1 of 12

Presentation on the topic: Political fragmentation in Rus'. Specific Rus' (XII - XIII centuries)

slide number 1

Description of the slide:

slide number 2

Description of the slide:

Plan.1. Causes of the political fragmentation of Rus' and its consequences. Main models.2. Economy, political system, culture of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. (Yu. Dolgoruky, A. Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod the Big Nest).3. Economy and government structure of the Novgorod land.4. Galicia-Volyn principality.5. Kievan principality.

slide number 3

Description of the slide:

slide number 4

Description of the slide:

slide number 5

Description of the slide:

The reasons for the fragmentation of Rus': Socio-economic: 1) the expansion of large patrimonial land ownership; 2) the growth of cities - local centers; 3) the dominance of natural economy; 4) the weakness and irregularity of trade relations; 5) the movement of trade routes to the northeast and southwest Russian lands Political: 1) the desire of local elites for independence from Kyiv and control over their authorities; 2) inter-princely strife, political separatism; 3) increased Polovtsian danger (the population leaves dangerous areas)

slide number 6

Description of the slide:

Consequences of fragmentation. Positive:1. Economic development of the lands, the rise of cities - local centers. Development of crafts and trade.2. Formation of the apparatus of power, taking into account the peculiarities of the geographical position of the earth, the features of economic activity.3. The formation of certain traditions in culture, architecture, fine arts, literature, social thought, oral folk art. Negative: 1. Separations are accompanied by civil strife, in which Russian rati fight against each other.2. The fragmentation of land will continue, the inheritances will become smaller and smaller.3. The weakening of the defense capability of Russian lands, the inability to resist a strong enemy.4. The collapse of ties between individual Russian lands, the isolation of many of them from Europe, the decline in the international prestige of the Russian land.

slide number 7

Description of the slide:

The main models of the relationship between power and society in a specific era: 1) The tradition of strong and authoritarian princely power. It is in the hands of the prince that all the main threads of managing his land are concentrated, his power is not much limited and the main law of the land is the will and word of the prince himself. (Vladimir-Suzdal book). 2) the princely-boyar tradition, when, along with a strong prince, no less politically strong boyars are formed. And then the government is looking for a compromise between these forces. (Galicia-Volyn land) 3) - a veche tradition, democratic, involving the involvement and participation of the people in the process of developing power decisions (Novgorod and Pskov republics). Each of these traditions implies a different way of thinking of their representatives, a different degree of involvement of the people in power.

slide number 8

Description of the slide:

slide number 9

Description of the slide:

Northeast Rus'. Vladimir-Suzdal principality. separated from Kyiv under Prince Yuri Dolgoruky (1125 - 1157). (the region was covered with impenetrable forests), the fertile lands of the Russian opolye, navigable rivers along which dozens of cities grew (Pereslavl-Zalessky, Yuryev-Polsky, Dmitrov, Zvenigorod, Kostroma, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod). There were no old boyar estates and strong traditions of city self-government in 1147. - the first mention in the annals of Moscow. Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157 - 1174). the capital of the principality was moved to Vladimir, a new title of the ruler was established - "Tsar and Grand Duke". Andrei Bogolyubsky led an active foreign policy, fought for influence in Kyiv and Novgorod, organizing all-Russian campaigns against them. Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176 - 1212), the principality reached its peak, interrupted by civil strife.

slide number 10

Description of the slide:

slide number 11

Description of the slide:

Galicia-Volyn principality (formed in 1199). Boyar estates and cities were traditionally strong. Until the end of the 12th century, there were 2 separate volosts - Volyn land and Galicia. On Volyn land - the older Monomashichs fought with the Younger Monomashichs (Yu. Dolgoruky, A. Bogolyubsky) and the Olgovichi. Heyday under Yaroslav Osmomysl (1152-1187) Roman Mstislavovich Volynsky in 1199. united the territory into the Galicia-Volyn principality. Daniil Romanovich expanded the territory, fought the Mongols, but in 1250. He submitted to the Golden Horde. Internal unrest and constant wars with Hungary, Poland and Lithuania led to the fact that it was included in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland.

slide number 12

Description of the slide:

Kievan principality. Located in the south of the Russian lands, it is going through far from the best of times, the value of the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” is declining. Significantly reduced in size, losing political influence. Kyiv land became the scene of internecine struggle. Therefore, people prefer to move to the north. Sometimes the Kievan elites were even forced to recognize two princes at once as their princes - a kind of duumvirate was established. In 1169, the center of the great reign was formally transferred from Kyiv to his capital, Vladimir-on-Klyazma, by Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky. The last Kyiv prince, before the Batu invasion, Daniil Romanovich Galitsky did not even live in Kyiv himself, but appointed a posadnik - governor Dmitry.

· Feudal fragmentation– political and economic decentralization. The creation on the territory of one state of independent independent principalities, formally having a common ruler, a single religion - Orthodoxy, uniform laws of "Russian Truth".

· The energetic and ambitious policy of the Vladimir-Suzdal princes led to the growth of the influence of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality on the entire Russian state.

· Yuri Dolgoruky, son of Vladimir Monomakh, received the Vladimir principality in his reign. 1125-1157.

· 1147 Moscow first appears in chronicles. The founder is boyar Kuchka.

Andrey Bogolyubsky, son of Yuri Dolgoruky. 1157-1174. The capital was moved from Rostov to Vladimir, the new title of the ruler is Tsar and Grand Duke.

· Vladimir-Suzdal principality flourished under Vsevolod the Big Nest. 1176-1212. The monarchy was finally established.

Consequences of fragmentation.

Positive

Growth and strengthening of cities

Active development of crafts

Settling undeveloped lands

Laying roads

Development of domestic trade

The flourishing of the cultural life of the principalities

Strengthening the local self-government apparatus

Negative

Continuation of the process of fragmentation of lands and principalities

Internecine wars

Weak central government

Vulnerability to external enemies

Specific Rus' (XII-XIII centuries)

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

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

As a result of the decline of Kyiv in southern and southwestern Rus', the Galicia-Volyn principality rose, in the northeastern part of Rus' - the Rostov-Suzdal (later Vladimir-Suzdal) principality, and in northwestern Rus' - the Novgorod Boyar Republic, from which in the XIII century stood out Pskov land.

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

Question

The main occupation of the inhabitants of the Mongolian state was nomadic cattle breeding. The desire to expand their pastures is one of the reasons for their military campaigns. It must be said that the Mongol-Tatars conquered not only Rus', it was not the first state they took. Prior to that, they subjugated Central Asia, including Korea and China, to their interests. From China, they adopted their flamethrower weapons, and because of this they became even stronger. The Tatars were very good warriors. They were armed "to the teeth", their army was very large. They also used psychological intimidation of enemies: in front of the troops were soldiers who did not take prisoners, brutally killed opponents. The very sight of them frightened the enemy.

But let's move on to the Mongol-Tatar invasion of Rus'. The first time the Russians faced the Mongols was in 1223. The Polovtsy asked the Russian princes to help defeat the Mongols, they agreed and a battle took place, which is called the Battle of the Kalka River. We lost this battle for many reasons, the main of which is the lack of unity between the principalities.

In 1235, in the capital of Mongolia, Karakorum, a decision was made on a military campaign to the West, including Rus'. In 1237, the Mongols attacked the Russian lands, and the first city captured was Ryazan. There is also in Russian literature the work “The Tale of the Devastation of Ryazan by Batu”, one of the heroes of this book is Yevpaty Kolovrat. The Tale says that after the ruin of Ryazan, this hero returned to his native city and wanted to take revenge on the Tatars for their cruelty (the city was plundered and almost all the inhabitants were killed). He gathered a detachment of the survivors and rode after the Mongols. All wars fought bravely, but Evpaty distinguished himself with special courage and strength. He killed many Mongols, but in the end he himself was killed. The Tatars brought the body of Yevpatiy to Batu, talking about his unprecedented strength. Batu was struck by the unprecedented power of Yevpaty and gave the body of the hero to the surviving tribesmen, and ordered the Mongols not to touch the Ryazans.

In general, the years 1237-1238 were the years of the conquest of northeastern Rus'. After Ryazan, the Mongols took Moscow, which resisted for a long time, and burned it. Then they took Vladimir.

After the conquest of Vladimir, the Mongols split up and began to ravage the cities of northeastern Rus'. In 1238, a battle took place on the Sit River, the Russians lost this battle.

The Russians fought with dignity, no matter what city the Mongol attacked, the people defended their homeland (their principality). But in most cases, the Mongols still won, only Smolensk was not taken. Kozelsk also defended for a record long time: as many as seven weeks.

After a trip to the north-east of Rus', the Mongols returned to their homeland to rest. But already in 1239 they returned to Rus' again. This time their goal was the southern part of Rus'.

1239-1240 - the campaign of the Mongols in the southern part of Rus'. First they took Pereyaslavl, then the Principality of Chernigov, and in 1240 Kyiv fell.

This ended the Mongol invasion. The period from 1240 to 1480 is called the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Rus'.

What are the consequences of the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the yoke?

· Firstly, this is the backwardness of Rus' from the countries of Europe. Europe continued to develop, but Rus' had to restore everything destroyed by the Mongols.

· Second is the decline of the economy. A lot of people were lost. Many crafts disappeared (the Mongols took artisans into slavery). Also, farmers moved to more northern regions of the country, safer from the Mongols. All this hindered economic development.

· Third- the slowness of the cultural development of Russian lands. For some time after the invasion, no churches were built in Rus' at all.

· Fourth- termination of contacts, including trade, with the countries of Western Europe. Now the foreign policy of Rus' was focused on the Golden Horde. The Horde appointed princes, collected tribute from the Russian people, and, in case of disobedience of the principalities, carried out punitive campaigns.

· Fifth consequences are highly controversial. Some scientists say that the invasion and the yoke preserved the political fragmentation in Rus', others argue that the yoke gave impetus to the unification of Russians.

Question

In 1236, Alexander was invited to reign in Novgorod, he was then 15 years old, and in 1239 he married the daughter of the Polotsk prince Bryachislav. With this dynastic marriage, Yaroslav sought to consolidate the union of the northwestern Russian principalities in the face of the threat looming over them from the German and Swedish crusaders. The most dangerous situation developed at that time on the Novgorod borders. The Swedes, who had long competed with the Novgorodians for control over the lands of the Finnish tribes of Em and Sum, were preparing for a new onslaught. The invasion began in July 1240. The Swedish flotilla under the command of Birger, the son-in-law of the Swedish king Eric Kortavy, passed from the mouth of the Neva to the fall of the river. Izhora. Here the Swedes made a stop before advancing on Ladoga, the main northern fort of the Novgorodtsev post. Meanwhile, Alexander Yaroslavich, warned by the sentinels about the appearance of the Swedish flotilla, hastily left Novgorod with his squad and a small auxiliary detachment. The calculation of the prince was based on the maximum use of the element of surprise. The blow should have been delivered before the Swedes, who outnumbered the Russian army, had time to completely disembark from the ships. On the evening of July 15, the Russians swiftly attacked the Swedes' camp, trapping them on a cape between the Neva and Izhora. Thanks to this, they deprived the enemy of freedom of maneuver and at the cost of small losses, all 20 people. This victory secured the northwestern border of the Novgorod land for a long time and earned the 19-year-old prince the glory of a brilliant commander. In memory of the defeat of the Swedes, Alexander was nicknamed Nevsky. In 1241, he expelled the Germans from the fortress of Koporye, and soon freed Pskov. The further advance of the Russian troops to the northwest, bypassing Lake Pskov, ran into fierce resistance from the Germans. Alexander retreated to Lake Peipsi, pulling up all available forces here. The decisive battle took place on April 5, 1242. The battle formation of the Germans had the traditional wedge shape for the crusaders, at the head of which were several rows of the most experienced heavily armed knights. Knowing about this feature of knightly tactics, Alexander deliberately concentrated all his forces on the flanks, in the regiments of the right and left hands. He left his own squad - the most combat-ready part of the army - in ambush in order to bring it into battle at its most critical moment. In the center, along the very edge of the Uzmeni bank (channels between Lake Peipsi and Pskov), he placed the Novgorod infantry, which could not withstand the frontal attack of the knightly cavalry. In fact, this regiment was initially doomed to defeat. But having crushed and thrown it to the opposite shore (to the island of Voronii Kamen), the knights inevitably had to substitute the weakly protected flanks of their wedge under the blow of the Russian cavalry. In addition, now the Russians would have a shore behind their backs, and the Germans would have thin spring ice. The calculation of Alexander Nevsky was fully justified: when the knightly cavalry broke through a pig regiment, it was taken in pincers by the regiments of the Right and Left hands, and a powerful attack by the prince's squad completed the rout.

In the second half of the 11th c. in Rus', signs of strengthening feudal fragmentation are becoming more and more distinct.

Bloody feuds were aggravated by continuous raids, which skillfully used the disunity of the Russian princes. Other princes took the Polovtsy as allies and brought them to Rus'.

In 1097, on the initiative of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, the son of Vsevolod Yaroslavovich, took place in Lyubech. On it, in order to stop civil strife, it was decided to establish a new order of organizing power in Rus'. In accordance with the new principle, each principality became the hereditary property of the local princely family.

The adopted law became the main cause of feudal fragmentation and destroyed the integrity of the Old Russian state. It became a turning point, as there was a turning point in the distribution of land ownership in Rus'.

The pernicious error in lawmaking did not immediately make itself felt. The need for a joint struggle against the Polovtsy, the strong power and patriotism of Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125) pushed back the inevitable for a while. His work was continued by his son - (1125-1132). However, since 1132, the former counties, having become hereditary "fatherlands", gradually turned into independent principalities.

In the middle of the 12th c. civil strife reached an unprecedented severity, the number of their participants increased due to the fragmentation of princely possessions. At that time, there were 15 principalities in Rus', in the next century - 50, and during the years of government - 250. Many historians consider one of the reasons underlying these events to be the large families of princes: by distributing land by inheritance, they multiplied the number of principalities.

The largest state formations were:

• the Principality of Kiev (despite the loss of the all-Russian status, the struggle for its possession continued until the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars);
• Vladimir-Suzdal Principality (in the 12th-13th centuries, an economic boom began, the cities of Vladimir, Dmitrov Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Gorodets, Kostroma, Tver, Nizhny Novgorod arose);
• Chernigov and Smolensk principalities (the most important trade routes to the upper reaches of the Volga and Dnieper);
• Galicia-Volyn principality (located between the Bug and Dniester rivers, the center of arable landowning culture);
• Polotsk-Minsk land (had a favorable location at the crossroads of trade routes).

Feudal fragmentation is characteristic of the history of many states of the Middle Ages. The uniqueness and grave consequences for the Old Russian state lay in its duration - about 3.5 centuries.