Politically, Kievan Rus was a large early medieval state in the form of a monarchy. At the head of the state was the Grand Duke of Kiev, the supreme owner of all ancient Russian lands, who concentrated in his hands all the fullness of legislative, executive, administrative-judicial and military power. The power of the Kyiv prince was hereditary.

Separate particles of the state were first ruled by princes and great boyars, and at the end of the 10th century. began to be appointed by the Grand Duke of Kyiv, representatives of the grand ducal family or governors and thousands. Princes and major boyars used part of the tribute for their service, which was collected from the territories subject to them.

Subsequently, the boyars and princes began to receive land and turned into feudal landowners. With the establishment of the power of the feudal lords, the people's assembly (veche) ceased to be held; a council of the closest princes and boyars appeared under the Grand Duke. Wives acted as their support on the principle of vassalage and served the Grand Duke.

The main part of the princely troops was the younger squad (“lads”, “children of the boyars”, “stepsons”). In the event of a general danger, the people's militia gathered - "howl", which included smerds and townspeople. The entire political system of Kievan Rus ensured the interests of the feudal class.

During the time of the Old Russian state, symbolic signs were widespread, some of which, apparently, were started back in the primitive communal system. One of the oldest was the so-called trident, which in ancient times was a symbol of the tribe or a symbol of power.

Since the time of Kievan Rus, the image of a trident has appeared on the gold and silver coins of princes Vladimir Svyatoslavich, Svyatopolk, Yaroslav the Wise, on bricks found during excavations of the Church of the Tithes and other structures, on weapons, utensils. The trident in Kievan Rus was a sign of princely power, a generic sign of princes from the Rurik dynasty.

Kievan Rus was not a state in the modern sense of the word, because it lacked an extensive state apparatus and centralized administration. However, this should not be surprising, because Kievan Rus is a classic early feudal state with a monarchical form of government. The relationship between the owner and subject people was based mainly on the system of collecting tribute. In this, the prince was assisted by a squad - the personal military detachment of the prince.

And it was on the squad in the early stages of the development of Kievan Rus that the princely power, which was part of the military, and not secular, relied. Therefore, during aggressive campaigns (to Byzantium, Volga Bulgaria, the Khazar Khaganate), a significant part of the booty went to the prince's retinue.

Over time, the power of the prince began to rely not on the approximate military elite, but on the boyars. Boyars are the ruling elite of Russian society. Merchants, the former tribal elite and part of the squad became this layer, that is, the boyars were money people. But they were not only a rich layer of society, but also a powerful body. The boyar council could significantly influence the prince, because he must coordinate all his decisions with the council, and disobedience could cost the monarch the affection of the wealthy segment of the population.

However, the prince had all the levers of governing the country. He was the head of all branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial; the prince was also the supreme commander in chief and the main representative of the country in the international arena. The military power of the prince relied on a personal squad, which was associated with him by vassal obligations, and secular power was supported by the church (in the early period of the development of Rus' - by the Magi of pagan cults), for which it was generously rewarded with a mandatory tax on the church - tithe.

In Rus', another body of power was developed - the veche.

Veche - a popular meeting of citizens to resolve urgent matters of the community. Performed functions close to the legislation; adult males were allowed to participate. It comes from tribal assemblies that were common before the formation of Rus'.

Veche could significantly influence this or that decision of the prince, agreeing with him or not. The veche could invite and expel the prince from the city (Izyaslav Yaroslavich was both invited and removed from the throne of Kiev), the townspeople could also ask the prince for certain changes, but the veche could not independently propose and adopt any laws, although it had significant rights .

During the period of fragmentation in Rus', “collective suzerainty” was born, when important decisions for the development of the state were made not only by the Kiev prince, but also by the most influential princes from all over Rus': Kiev, Chernigov, Suzdal, Vladimir and so on. This happened at the princely congresses, which became large-scale events in Russian life.

There are several such congresses known, because this system did not take root: the congress of the Yaroslavoviches, who, after the death of their father, gathered in Vyshgorod (1072) to resolve urgent issues in domestic politics, it is also believed that the Pravda Yaroslavovichi was compiled at this congress - a modification of the laws "Russian Truth" by Yaroslav the Wise; at the Gorodetsky Congress of 1026, Yaroslav and Mstislav Vladimirovich made peace and divided Rus' along the Dnieper; The Lyubetsky and Uvetitsky congresses of 1097 and 1100, respectively, were called upon to stop the internecine struggle and punish the perpetrators of it.

So, Kievan Rus is one of the largest states of medieval Europe. The state of Kievan Rus was formed in the 9th century. as a result of a long internal development of the East Slavic tribes. The historical core of Kievan Rus was the Middle Dnieper. In Kievan Rus, new social phenomena, characteristic of a class society, arose very early.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Moscow Institute of Humanities and Economics

Tver branch

Faculty of Law

Academic discipline: "History"

Topic: "Socio-political system of Ancient Rus'"

1st year students of the Faculty of Law

Groups No. YuV-151 specialty "Jurisprudence"

Ivanova Ekaterina Sergeevna

Lecturer: Ph.D. n., Professor Mikhailova E.E.

TVER 2012

Content

• Introduction
• Conclusion

Introduction

One of the largest states of the European Middle Ages became in the IX-XII centuries. Kievan Rus. The state is usually understood as a mechanism of political power in a certain territory, with a certain system of governing bodies, with the necessary action of laws and the formation of coercive bodies. The emergence of the state is a natural stage in the development of society. It is influenced by many factors that are in complex interaction with each other: social, economic, political and spiritual.

The Russian land as a whole, subject to the princes of Kyiv, took shape in the second half of the 9th-beginning of the 10th century. The main form of unification of the tribes was military democracy, which included, along with princely power, such institutions as the veche, the council of elders, and the people's militia. As the external danger grew and the tribal way of life disintegrated, power was concentrated in the hands of tribal leaders - princes, who united in larger "alliances of unions".

Thus, the formation of a single territorial community began - the Russian land, which, in its political structure, was a federation of Slavic tribes.

Classics of Russian historiography - N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Solovyov, V.O. Klyuchevsky - made a significant contribution to the study of the history of Ancient Rus'.

1. Features of the social structure of Ancient Rus'

1.1 Prerequisites for the formation of the Ancient State

Traditionally, Russian historians divide the history of the Old Russian state into three periods.

I period (IX - the middle of the X century): the formation of the state, the reign of the first Kyiv princes (Oleg, Igor, Svyatoslav).

II period (second half of the 10th - first half of the 11th century): the heyday of Kievan Rus, its highest power, the reign of Vladimir the Red Sun and Yaroslav the Wise.

III period (the second half of the XI - the beginning of the XII century): the time of territorial and political fragmentation.

The geopolitical space in which Kievan Rus was located was at the junction of different worlds: nomadic and sedentary, Christian and Muslim, pagan and Jewish. The population of Ancient Rus' experienced a powerful influence of multidirectional civilizational factors. Naturally, this affected the history of the state from the very beginning of its formation.

These socio-political processes received ideological form in the adoption of Christianity as the state religion. The created state can be characterized as early feudal, in which the process of the genesis of feudalism has not yet been completed. The feudal landowning class was economically and politically dominant, but the free peasantry remained.

The unity of the Kiev land rested on the strength of the Kyiv squads, on the unity of the princely family and the church, on the commonality of the geopolitical interests of the Eastern Slavs, their ethnic kinship, the similarity of the social structure and mentality. Thus, the role of wealth in them was reduced to a large extent to a way to increase prestige. The princes and the nobility spent their wealth on organizing feasts, "donations, giving alms, etc. The ideals of society and the princes coincided. Pious princes were loved not only during their lifetime, but also after death, transferring their love and affection to their descendants. The memory of them lived for centuries in the minds of the people, being a reflection of the ideal of a deep, harmonious interpenetration of the people and power, developed by the Eastern Slavs in antiquity and most in line with the historical aspirations and aspirations of the Russian people.

Kievan Rus is characterized as a huge intertribal superunion with a center in Kyiv, which in the XI-XII centuries. breaks up into independent city-states, surrounded by numerous rural communities. Friendly relations persisted until the 14th century, remaining the antipode of feudal relations.

The basis of political life was direct democracy, expressed in the direct participation of the population in city people's assemblies (veche). Thus, Ancient Rus' gave the first examples of Russian democracy, which survived until the invasion of the Mongols.

The basic structure of ancient Russian civilization was the territorial community in various forms (from urban to rural). Ancient Rus' was part of Europe, developed at the same pace and in the same direction. The country was distinguished by internal cohesion, national unity. It was a time of great accomplishments, a "heroic era", an epic kingdom. By the 11th century the name "Rus" acquired ethno-state significance. Within the boundaries of a single ancient Russian state, the formation of the ancient Russian nationality was completed.

The economic basis of the social system of Ancient Rus' was feudal landownership. But the land in Rus' was not a value embodied in value terms, it was not a subject of sale and purchase, but acted as a fiefdom - the common, collective property of the clan. The feudal patrimony ("fatherland") was inherited from father to son. The estate was owned by a prince or a boyar. The main function of the prince was to "keep the fatherland." The boyars were vassals of the prince, obliged to serve in his army. They, as masters of their territory, were subordinate to less noble vassals. The same relations were characteristic of Western Europe, which testified to the closeness of the tendencies in the development of Rus' and the West. The boyars were formed from the tribal and tribal nobility or the top of the princely squad.

At first, the population of the patrimony consisted of slaves and semi-free categories of the dependent population. And only from the second half of the XI century. feudal elements appear in the patrimony. The exploitation of the peasants was carried out with the help of centralized feudal rent (first labor rent, then quitrent in kind), and private feudal landownership began to develop only in the 12th century.

1.2 The social structure of Ancient Rus'

The main source that reveals the social structure of ancient Russian society is Russkaya Pravda, the first written set of civil laws in the history of Rus'. Russkaya Pravda limited the ancient custom of blood vengeance for murder. Only the closest relatives of the murdered could take revenge. The law established a system of fines (viru) for murder and other crimes. The size of the fine was differentiated depending on the social status of the victim. The murder of a combatant or a representative of the princely administration was punishable by the largest fine - 80 hryvnia, the murder of a free person of a lower rank - 40 hryvnia, a woman - 20 hryvnia. The murder of a smerd (a free community peasant) was punishable by the lowest fine - 5 hryvnias.

At the top of the social ladder stood the boyars, the local aristocracy from the descendants of tribal princes and tribal foremen, the prince’s inner circle (“princes men”) and combatants, who over time gravitated more and more to the land. At the end of the 11th century and at the beginning of the 12th century they turned into large landowners who owned boyar villages, in which the mostly non-free and semi-free population worked. The middle class is urban artisans and merchants, the prince's junior team. The lower class of the free population is the bulk of free peasants - working urban people, who bore the general name "smerdy" . Smerds had personal freedom and united in territorial communities - verv. Smerd paid tribute to the prince. The prince disposed of his land and personality. If the smerd died without leaving heirs, his property passed to the prince. If a smerd “tortured a smerd” without the knowledge of the prince, then, according to the definition of Russkaya Pravda, the fine for insult was 3 hryvnias. The life of a smerd was connected with the community, with mutual responsibility. If the thief or murderer was not found or was hidden, then the whole community paid the vir. The verv could help a member of the community pay a fine if he himself participates in such general payments. Gradually, the position of the smerds worsened and they became dependent on private landowners or monasteries, who became large landowners.

Russkaya Pravda also mentions such a social category as outcasts (from the word “cast out”). These are people knocked out of their social group by living conditions: the son of a priest who does not know how to read and write, a squandered merchant, a freed serf. Outcasts live in princely or church villages, completely dependent on the prince and the church.

The lowest rung of the social pyramid is the serfs, the non-free population. Kholop is a servant, a slave (plural - servant, woman - robe). The number of serfs grew at the expense of prisoners of war, but mainly at the expense of free people. "Russian Truth" lists possible life situations that led to the loss of personal freedom, turned a person into a free (full) slave. This is the purchase of a slave in front of witnesses, marriage to a robe without a row, without a contract, non-payment of a debt, hiring in the service of another without conditions ( series), the lack of freedom of children of serfs and serfs.

The master had an unlimited right to dispose of the life and property of a serf, up to his murder. The fine was imposed only for the murder of someone else's slave. According to the assessment of life, a serf was equal to a smerd - 5 hryvnias, with the only difference being that the prince was paid for the murder of a smerd, and his master was paid for a serf. It was no longer a fine for a crime, but compensation for damages, as for any other material damage. If a serf beat a free man, and the master hid him, a fine of 12 hryvnias was paid by his master. The victim had the right, if he met an offender-serf, to beat and even kill him. Kholop could not be a rumor (witness) in court. If he was the only witness to a theft or other crime, the court resorted to a trial by fire or water - the then accepted method of establishing the truth.

Close to servility was the position of purchases. A purchase is a person who has received a kupa (loan) in money, land, inventory, seeds, etc. Until the payment of the debt and the prescribed interest, he was at the disposal of the lender in the position of a serf. An insolvent, as well as a delinquent (damage to the master's inventory, working livestock, neglect of the master's good), the debtor turned into a complete (linen) serf. The purchase could work, using the master's inventory and livestock in his field.

The purchase was under the protection of public law. He could seek judicial protection, complain about the master, he could not be sold into slaves. If there were no other witnesses, he could be a witness in court. The penalty for beatings for a purchase was the same as for a free one. But the master had the right to beat him “for the cause.” Any absence was considered a flight and was severely punished.

In Russkaya Pravda, much attention was paid to the protection of private property. The property of the prince was especially strictly guarded. Russkaya Pravda lists various types of property crimes. But the theft of a horse was especially severely punished: a thief who stole a horse in the prince's yard could be killed on the spot. The murder of a thief in the commission of a crime was not punishable, but when the thief was tied up and held until morning, he had to be taken to the prince's court for trial. Serious violations of property were the theft of a beaver, honey from a beaver tree, the destruction of a boundary oak, etc.

The legal documents of Ancient Rus' regulated the problem of inheritance. The family property was managed by the man, the head of the family. Sons had the right to inherit. The wife received her dowry in the event of her husband's death. The father and brothers were obliged to give their daughters and sisters in marriage, providing them with a dowry.

An analysis of the socio-political situation in Kievan Rus leads to the conclusion that the people were an active political and social force, based on the traditions of freedom and public institutions dating back to antiquity, but built on a territorial basis. By means of the vecha, the people often decided which of the princes to "put on the table", discussed issues of war and peace, acted as a mediator in princely conflicts, and resolved financial and land problems. As for the nobility, it has not yet emerged as a separate, closed class, has not yet turned into a social entity that opposes the main part of the population.

Kievan Rus prince politics

2. Domestic and foreign policy of the first Russian princes

2.1 The first princes of Ancient Rus'

The main activities of the rulers of the ancient Russian state were the subjugation of the Slavic tribes to collect tribute, the struggle for penetration into the Byzantine market, the protection of borders from nomadic raids, the conduct of religious transformations, the suppression of uprisings of the exploited people, and the strengthening of the country's economy. Each of the princes, to a greater or lesser extent, solved the problems associated with the strengthening of the state apparatus. It is clear that they all combined the difficult task of managing vast territories with a desperate struggle to preserve power and their own lives. Most of them had both glorious deeds and atrocities.

After the death of Rurik in 879, Oleg became the prince of Novgorod, whose name is associated with the date of birth of Kievan Rus. In 882, he made a campaign against Kyiv, where he treacherously killed its rulers Askold and Dir, and in this way united the Novgorod and Dnieper lands. Oleg moved the capital to Kyiv, given its economic, geographical and climatic benefits. In his hands was the territory from Ladoga in the north to the lower reaches of the Dnieper in the south. He was paid tribute to the meadow, northerners, Radimichi, Drevlyans, Eastern Krivichi, Slovenes - Ilmen and some Finno-Ugric tribes.

Oleg made a successful campaign against Constantinople in 907. Four years later, as a result of a secondary attack on the environs of this city, he concluded a more than winning agreement with the Byzantines: in addition to a huge tribute, Kievan Rus received the right of duty-free trade for its merchants.

Less striking is the figure of Igor, who replaced Oleg on the throne. It is known that the beginning of his reign is associated with the pacification of the Drevlyans, who were trying to escape from the power of the great Kyiv prince, and the defense against the attack of the Pechenegs. Not so successful were his campaigns against Constantinople. In the first of them - in 941 - the Byzantines burned Igor's fleet with Greek fire. In 944, he decided to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the combatants and again moved to the southern borders with a huge army. This time, the inhabitants of Constantinople did not risk tempting fate and agreed to pay tribute. Only now, in the new agreement with Byzantium, there was already no provision that was so pleasant for Russian merchants.

"Igor was ruined by greed. In 945, he was not satisfied with the usual one-time collection of tribute from the Drevlyans and went with a small group of combatants to rob representatives of this tribe for the second time. Their indignation was fully justified, because the soldiers of the Grand Duke committed violence. "History of Russia: Textbook for Universities / Ed. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaev. M., 2000. S. 178 They killed Igor and his warriors. The actions of the Drevlyans can be defined as the first popular uprising known to us.

With the cruelty customary for that time, Igor's wife Olga, who became the Grand Duchess, acted. By her order, the capital of the Drevlyans, the city of Iskorosten, was burned. But (and this will be a natural phenomenon in the future), after the ferocious reprisal, she made minor concessions to the common people, establishing "lessons" and "graveyards" (sizes and places of tribute collection). Such a step testified to her wisdom. Olga showed the same quality when she converted to Christianity in Constantinople in 955, which had far-reaching positive consequences: relations with the powerful, culturally developed Byzantium improved and the authority of the grand ducal power in Kiev increased internationally. In general, her policy within the country (except for the ruthless suppression of the Drevlyans) and beyond its borders was distinguished by restraint and peacefulness. A different course was pursued by her son Svyatoslav, distinguished by ambition, the search for glory on the battlefield.

Two main principles of Svyatoslav have come down to us: "I'm going to attack you" and "The dead have no shame." He never attacked the enemy suddenly, and also liked to emphasize that he would only speak well of those who died in battle. We can say that this prince was an example of a brave and noble knight. No wonder the enemies of the Russian land trembled before him. But, of course, not all of Svyatoslav's actions deserve approval from the standpoint of modern man. He bravely defeated the invaders of the Russian land, but also committed aggressive actions. It seemed that this magnanimous knight did not have well-thought-out military-political plans, that he was simply attracted by the element of the campaign itself.

In 966-967. Svyatoslav defeated the Volga Bulgaria, then went south and crushed the Khazar kingdom, which, as in Oleg's time, annoyed Kievan Rus with its raids. As a result of his long campaign, he reached the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov, where he founded the Tmutarakan principality. With rich booty, the prince returned home, but did not stay there for a long time: the Byzantine emperor asked him to help in pacifying the rebellious Danube Bulgarians. Already at the end of 967, Svyatoslav reported to Constantinople about the victory over the rebels. After that, he seemed to have somewhat lost interest in campaigns, he liked living at the mouth of the Danube so much that the warriors soon heard his decision: to move the capital from Kyiv to Pereyaslavets. Indeed, the city and the surrounding lands were in a zone of favorable climate, important trade routes to Europe and Asia passed here.

Naturally, the Byzantine emperor was extremely worried about the new political course; the appearance of a warlike prince with a permanent "registration" in Pereyaslavets was very dangerous. In addition, Russian warriors immediately began to rob Byzantine villages. A war broke out, which ended with the defeat of Svyatoslav. The end of the prince, the eternal warrior, turned out to be natural. In 972, when he was returning home after unsuccessful battles with the Byzantines, the Pechenegs ambushed him at the Dnieper rapids and killed him.

After the death of Svyatoslav, Yaropolk became the Grand Duke. However, he failed to establish good relations with his brothers - Oleg and Vladimir. Between them a struggle unfolded, which soon took on bloody forms. In the end, Vladimir won, who took the princely throne in 980. First of all, the greatest event, the adoption of Christianity, is connected with his name.

Mass baptism by order of Vladimir began in 988. The new religion was welcomed primarily by the rich, because it reduced the severity of the class struggle: the poor more easily endured the hardships of life on earth, hoping for a better life in heaven. In a number of places, baptism was carried out in a violent form (for example, in Novgorod), some pagans preferred to die rather than change their faith.

Christianization was, on the whole, a major progressive step; it contributed to the humanization of the Russians, brought up on cruel pagan rites. Instead of sacrificial offerings, the most important (albeit far from always observed) principle "Thou shalt not kill" came. At the same time, one should not forget about the negative aspects of baptism, which was carried out harshly, and often ruthlessly. It must be borne in mind that changing beliefs is very difficult for many people. In addition, the Christian religion hindered the development of astronomy, physics, philosophy, natural science, medicine and other sciences.

In addition to the introduction of Christianity, Vladimir, who was rightly called the Saint and the Baptist, entered the history of our country with other very positive transformations. His domestic and foreign policy was surprisingly accurately defined by the famous Russian historian S.M. Solovyov. For a deeper understanding of the essence of Vladimir's contribution, he compared the results of the reign of this prince with the results of Svyatoslav's military exploits: "Vladimir's activity, as it is expressed in legends, differs from the activities of his predecessors. He often wages war, but wages it in order to subjugate Russia again those tribes that stopped paying tribute: fighting with the Radimichi, Vyatichi, Croats. He refuses to conquer peoples, distant, strong in their citizenship. The main feature of Vladimir's activity is the defense of the Russian land, in the constant struggle with the steppe barbarians. Svyatoslav deserved the reproach that for foreign land he left his own, which the barbarians had almost taken possession of, Vladimir, on the contrary, always stood guard against these barbarians himself and built a guard line from a number of towns and fortifications along rivers close to the steppes. It is clear what impression such a difference must have made on the people between father and son." Ganelin R.Sh., Kulikov S.V. main sources on the history of Russia at the end of the 19th beginning. 20th century: Textbook. M, 2000. S. 89

Vladimir's marriage to the daughter of the Byzantine emperor, Anna, should be considered a serious diplomatic success of Vladimir, which brought Kievan Rus closer to one of the developed countries of the world and contributed to the expansion of trade with it. He laid a solid foundation for the commonwealth of the grand duke's power with the church, especially important in this regard was the systematic deduction of a tenth of the income of his court to the clergy. Probably, the historian of the beginning of the 21st century will note the humanity of Vladimir, who replaced the death penalty with vira (a fine). Boyars, artisans, and smerds glorified him. It is no coincidence that this prince is mentioned more than others in many epics.

After the death of Vladimir in 1015, a second bloody civil strife began: his sons waged a fierce struggle for the throne of the Grand Duke. Svyatopolk showed himself to be a notorious villain, acting in the most perfidious manner. He seized power in Kyiv and, in order to consolidate it, decided to kill all his brothers. He managed to destroy Boris and Gleb, and then Svyatoslav. The death of the first two, very young brothers, shocked the entire population of Kievan Rus. Historian A.N. Sakharov correctly noted: "Boris and Gleb eventually became a symbol of non-resistance to evil, righteousness, goodness and martyrdom for the glory of the bright ideas of Christianity. Both princes already in the 11th century became the first Russian saints." Kirillov V.V., Kulagina G.M. History of the Fatherland from ancient times to the present day. M., 2000. S. 165

Vladimir's son Yaroslav, who reigned in Novgorod, opposed Svyatopolk, who received the nickname "Cursed". The decisive role in the struggle of the two brothers was played by the Novgorodians, who gave all their means and their lives to crush the criminal and the villain. In the decisive battle on the Alta River in 1019, Yaroslav won, and Svyatopolk fled to the Czech Republic, where

Yaroslav strengthened the international relations of Kievan Rus. Foreign sovereigns sought to intermarry with the family of a strong grand duke. He himself was married to a Swedish princess, and his daughters Elizabeth, Anna and Anastasia married the Norwegian, French and Hungarian kings. In foreign policy Yaroslav followed the example of his father Vladimir. Yaroslav the Wise sought to restore order within the country. And he succeeded in this, laying the foundation for Russian written legislation. Under him, the first judicial code appeared - "Russian Truth". He regulated the relationship of the prince's warriors among themselves and with the inhabitants of the cities, and also established the procedure for resolving various disputes and compensation for damage, and determined punishments for certain crimes or misdemeanors. Russkaya Pravda rejected torture and corporal punishment, limited the use of blood feuds, replacing it with a fine.

Most historians believe that during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, Kievan Rus reached its greatest power. He died in 1054, and then the process of fragmentation of this largest state in Europe begins.

Yaroslav the Wise in his will distributed all the cities and lands among his sons. The eldest son Izyaslav received Kyiv, Svyatoslav - Chernigov, Vsevolod - Pereyaslavl, Igor - Vladimir Volynsky, Vyacheslav - Smolensk. For almost two decades, they maintained the unity of Rus', observing their father's order to prevent any strife among themselves. Then serious disagreements arose between the older brothers. In 1073, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod attacked Izyaslav and drove him out of Kyiv. The latter sought support from the sovereigns of Western Europe for several years, and in the end, with the help of the Pope and the Polish king, he returned the throne in 1077. But fortune soon turned its back on him. He died in the fire of princely civil strife, struck by a treacherous spear. Feudal wars continued under the grandchildren of Yaroslav the Wise.

Kievan Rus was weakening before our eyes. Irreparable damage to its economy was caused by the Polovtsy, who forced out the Pechenegs defeated by Yaroslav the Wise. Worst of all, in the internecine struggle, the princes often resorted to an alliance with the Polovtsian hordes. All this led to an increase in the indignation of smerds and artisans, who, first of all, had to bear the burden of princely civil strife. More than once, ordinary people raised uprisings against the feudal lords.

In 1113, the poor strata of the population of Kyiv plundered the yards of the thousand, sot and Jewish usurers. They destroyed the synagogue, in which they locked themselves, fleeing the wrath of the broad masses, merchants and some boyars. Frightened, the nobility frantically searched for a strong hand capable of crushing the uprising. As a result, she settled on the figure of the Pereyaslav prince Vladimir Monomakh, who was the grandson of the Byzantine emperor Konstantin Monomakh.

V. Monomakh's invitation to the throne was not accidental. He enjoyed authority among all segments of the population of Kievan Rus, having won it over many years of struggle both with external enemies and with those who encroached on the internal unity of the country (princely civil strife for ordinary people was no less terrible than nomadic raids). Driven by anxiety in connection with the aggravation of both dangers, V. Monomakh, being the prince of Chernigov, convened in 1097 a princely congress in Lyubech. He urged its participants to be imbued with his concern and take steps to unite the state. The congress adopted a decision: "Let everyone keep his fatherland." This meant that the princes did not hear V. Monomakh, that they wanted independence within their lands. Having become the Grand Duke in 1113, he received much greater opportunities for the implementation of his noble plans.

On his initiative, the council of feudal lords adopted an expanded and updated version of Russkaya Pravda, which immediately began to be called the "Charter of Vladimir Monomakh." The main thing in this document is articles that facilitated the conditions for borrowing money at interest and sharply limited the possibilities of turning smerds, purchases and ordinary people into slaves. These provisions of the "Charter" at the same time saved the boyars, clergymen, combatants, merchants from the people's wrath.

All historians are unanimous in the conclusion that V. Monomakh pursued a wise, balanced domestic and foreign policy. Under him, civil strife practically ceased, since he knew how to find an approach to the most diverse in character and behavior of princes and boyars, but at the same time he punished the rebels mercilessly.

The international prestige of Kievan Rus under V. Monomakh grew noticeably. This prince became a role model for many generations of rulers of our country. Ivan III crowned his grandson to the kingdom with the "cap of Monomakh" (made at the end of the 15th century); and Ivan the Terrible decorated his royal seat in the Assumption Cathedral with scenes from the military and state activities of Vladimir Monomakh.

Just as resolutely and menacingly, his eldest son Mstislav, nicknamed the Great (1125-1132), ruled Kievan Rus. In 1129, he stopped the invasion of the Polovtsians and pushed a significant part of them beyond the Don and Volga. Unfortunately, the untimely death of Mstislav the Great prevented his further plans to strengthen Rus'. Then the process of feudal fragmentation was clearly identified, which imperceptibly, implicitly developed in the second half of the 11th - early 12th. He was restrained only by the mighty efforts of Vladimir Monomakh and his son Mstislav.

Conclusion

Thus, the following conclusions can be drawn:

Russian political institutions of the Kyiv period were based on a free society. There were no insurmountable barriers between the various social groups of free people, there were no hereditary castes or classes, and it was still easy to leave one group and end up in another.

The Old Russian state that developed on the eastern tip of the European continent played an outstanding role in shaping the image of medieval Europe as a whole, its political structure, international relations, its economic evolution, and culture. It influenced in the IX-XI centuries. on the position of Byzantium, the Khazar Khaganate. The Bulgarian states on the Volga and the Balkans, covering Central and Western Europe from the nomadic Pechenegs and Polovtsians, by their struggle against the German invaders for a long time changed the balance of power in the Baltic states, Central and Northern Europe.

List of used literature

1. Ganelin R.Sh., Kulikov S.V. The main sources on the history of Russia in the late XIX - early XX centuries: Textbook. M, 2000

2. History of Russia from antiquity to the present day: A guide for applicants to universities / I.V. Volkova, M.M. Gorinov, A.A. Gorsky and others; ed. M.N. Zuev. M., 2006

3. History of Russia: Textbook for universities / Ed. M.N. Zueva, A.A. Chernobaev. M., 2001

4. Kirillov V.V., Kulagina G.M. History of the Fatherland from ancient times to the present day. M., 2000

5. Russian history: Textbook for universities / G.B. Polyak, A.N. Markova, N.V. Krivtsova and others; ed. acad. G.B. Pole. M., 2007

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar Documents

The process of the emergence of the state in Rus', internal and external prerequisites. The political system of Kievan Rus; the influence of the first Kyiv princes on the development of Ancient Rus'; the influence of the church on the formation of statehood. Board of the first Kyiv princes.

test, added 09/01/2010


The origin and resettlement of the Eastern Slavs in Europe. The development of agriculture, the characteristics of the social system and religion. The Norman concept of the formation of Ancient Rus' as a state. Domestic and foreign policy of the first Kyiv princes.

test, added 09/07/2011


Historians about the origin of Kievan Rus. Historical and political content of the term "Rus". The formation of the state and the unification of the East Slavic tribes around Kyiv. Activities of the first Kyiv princes. Description of the features of the process of the baptism of Rus'.

test, added 01/19/2016


Two points of view on the origin of the Slavs. The movement of Slavic tribes to the east as part of the Great Migration of Nations. The transition from a tribal community to a neighboring one. Neighbors of the Eastern Slavs. The growth of military power. The formation of Kievan Rus. The reign of the first princes.

presentation, added 03/30/2016


Prerequisites for the emergence of the Old Russian state. The formation of Kievan Rus, the East Slavic tribes inhabiting its territory. Slavic lands - reigns. Domestic and foreign policy of the Kyiv princes. Early feudal state of Kievan Rus.

abstract, added 09/10/2009


The emergence and social structure of the ancient Russian state. State system of Kievan Rus, administrative and legal reforms of the first princes. The introduction of Christianity in Rus', its influence on the development of statehood. The problem of feudalism in Rus'.

abstract, added 12/21/2010


Features of the reign and foreign policy of the Russian princes Igor and Oleg, their activities to strengthen statehood, culture and education. The reign of Olga and her revenge on the Drevlyans for the murder of her husband. Military campaigns and victories of Svyatoslav Igorevich.

abstract, added 10/12/2009


The role of Kievan Rus in the history of the Slavic peoples. The formation of feudal relations and the completion of the formation of a single Russian state, the ethnic development of the East Slavic tribes. The role of the Varangians in the development of Kievan Rus, Norman theory.

abstract, added 02/04/2011


Causes of the collapse of Kievan Rus. The formation of fragmentation, the development of the first sovereign principalities. The decline of the Kyiv principality of this period. The most important factors of the commonality of Russian lands and the difference between Rus' and other Orthodox states. Crusades.

abstract, added 12/23/2012


Origin and ancestral home of the Slavs. The process of formation of the ancient Slavic ethnic community. The first historical information about the Slavs. Occupations and lifestyle of the Slavic tribes. Formation of unions of Slavic tribes. Formation of the ancient Russian state.

LITERATURE

1. Alkushin A.I. Operation of oil and gas wells. M.: Nedra, 1989. 360 p.

2. Bobritsky N.V., Yufin V.A. Fundamentals of the oil and gas industry. M.: Nedra, 1988. 200 p.

3. Vasilievsky V.N., Petrov A.I. Well survey operator. M.: Nedra, 1983. 310 p.

4. Gimatudinov Sh.K., Dunyushkin I.I. and etc.
Hosted on ref.rf
Development and operation of oil, gas and gas condensate fields. M.: Nedra, 1988. 322 p.

5. Information systems in the economy / Ed. V.V. Dick, 1996.

6. Krets V.G., Lene G.V. Fundamentals of oil and gas production: Textbook / Ed. cand. geol.-miner.
Hosted on ref.rf
Sciences G.M. Voloshchuk. - Tomsk: Publishing House Vol. Univ. 2000. 220 p.

7. Oilfield equipment: a set of catalogs / Ed. V.G. Krets, Tomsk.: Publishing house in TGU, 1999. 900p.

8. Podgornov Yu.M. Production and exploration drilling for oil and gas. M.: Nedra, 1988. 325 p.

9. Suleimanov A.B., Karapetov K.A., Yashin A.S. Technique and technology of well workover. Moscow: Nedra, 1987. 316 p.

Briefly:

History of Kievan Rus:

1 period: IX - the middle of the X century; the first Kyiv princes (ʼʼpolyudyeʼʼ - tribute collection; Olga established ʼʼʼʼʼ - the amount of tribute and ʼʼpogostovʼʼ - places of tribute collection after the murder of Igor)

2 period: the second half of the 10th - the first half of the 11th century; heyday, the time of Vladimir I and Yaroslav the Wise (Vladimir: 988 ᴦ. - the adoption of Christianity, the introduction of ʼʼtithesʼʼ - a tax in favor of the church, the church becomes a powerful landowner; Yaroslav: ʼʼRusskaya Pravdaʼʼ [ʼʼTruth of Yaroslavʼʼ and ʼʼTrue of Yaroslavichʼʼ] - a set of laws, mainly hereditary, criminal and procedural law; ʼʼʼʼʼʼ system of transferring the throne - to the eldest in the family, with a strict hierarchy of the significance of territories)

3 period: the second half of the 11th - the beginning of the 12th century; transition to territorial and political fragmentation (strife due to personal conflicts of princes, ambitions, the growth of the power of individual principalities; 1097 ᴦ. - Lyubech Congress - ʼʼLet everyone keep his fatherland; under Vladimir Monomakh - temporary strengthening and unity, ʼʼThe Charter of Vladimir Monomakhʼʼ - a new part ʼʼRussian Truthʼʼ, ʼʼThe Tale of Bygone Yearsʼʼ Nestor; after 1132 - disintegration into separate principalities)

The main institutions of governance (early feudal monarchy):

Grand Duke of Kiev (supreme owner of the land)

Druzhina (professional warriors; the eldest - the boyars, the youngest - the grid; they were the state apparatus)

Local (specific) princes (from the Kyiv princely dynasty), posadniks

local squad

Pogosts (administrative and tax centers and points where trade was carried out), camps, volosts (rural territories subordinate to the city)

Veche - it is not known exactly what role they played in importance. In general, influence was preserved only in Novgorod.

*Early feudal monarchy- a form of government when, in a military democracy, the prince, relying on the squad, becomes not an elected military leader, but a hereditary head of state. In some territories there are princely governors.

Main:

1. The main functions of power in ancient Rus' belonged to the prince, squad and veche. At the same time, it should be noted that there is no clear division of powers between these subjects of power. The main part of the population - the peasants - apparently were not yet formally separated from power, but in fact they did not take direct part in the activities of power institutions (in particular, the veche).

2. Relations between the prince and the squad were built on personal ties, reinforced by a system of gifts and joint feasts. The prince in his decisions largely depended on the squad. At the same time, the squad was largely guided by the prince. The princely power gradually increased, which was expressed, among other things, in the fall of the authority of the “senior” squad.

3. Relations between the prince, who led the squad, and the cities with adjoining rural settlements were built on regular payments of polyudya and (or) tribute. The distribution of the funds received was the prerogative of the prince. At the same time, he acted as a kind of personification of the collective owner of the funds collected by the squad in the form of tribute and polyudya.

4. A “service organization” was engaged in servicing the prince and the squad, in the depths of which new social relations were formed, comparable to the Western European ministeriality (ministerials in medieval Europe were representatives of petty chivalry, owning small fiefs and obligated to military service to the monarch, or to a large feudal lord).

5. In a certain period, all the listed power “bodies” were in a state of unstable balance. Over time, however, the balance of power began to change, and in each land in its own way.

Prince:

1. the highest institution of power

2. legislator

3. supreme military leader

4. judicial and administrative functions (chief judge; sets the amount and timing of payment of tribute)

5. could have personal (private) hereditary lands

Squad:

1. professional warriors

2. closest advisers to the prince

3. performed administrative functions (collection of court fees - ʼʼviryʼʼ, collection of tribute and land management)

4. they received a fixed salary for their service, military booty was divided between them, the boyars received land in possession

Veche:

1. ancient princely power

2. representative body of cities

3. the solution of the widest range of issues: from raising funds for the city militia and hiring military detachments to the expulsion or election of a prince (it is only unclear whether the veche has always dealt with such problems or the sources recorded exceptional cases, usually associated with serious social crises and cataclysms)

4. Judging by everything, in the early stages of the development of the state, city veche meetings existed everywhere, but later they flourished by the 12th century. in the Northwest, and in other lands practically ceased to exist

5. legal - convened by the decision of the prince; illegal - against the will of the prince

6. the value of the vecha decreased with a strong prince and increased with a weak one

7. with the strong power of the prince, the veche deals not with political issues, but with issues of urban life

8. local veche meetings began to intensify in individual principalities during the period of fragmentation

Detailed response:

The political structure of the Kyiv principality was unstable. Composed of many tribal and urban worlds, this principality could not form into a single state in our sense of the word even in the 12th century. fell apart. For this reason, it would be more accurate to define Kievan Rus as a collection of many principalities united by one dynasty, the unity of religion, tribe, language and national identity. This self-consciousness authentically existed: from its height, the people condemned their political disorder, condemned the princes for the fact that they ʼʼcarried the land differentlyʼʼ with their ʼʼwhichʼʼ, that is, strife, and urged them to be in unity for the sake of a single ʼʼRussian landʼʼ.

The political connection of Kievan society was weaker than all its other connections, which was one of the most prominent reasons for the fall of Kievan Rus.

The first political form that originated in Rus' was urban or regional life. When regional and city life had already taken shape, a princely dynasty appeared in the cities and regions, uniting all these regions into one principality. Next to the authorities of the city became the power of the princes. This is the reason for the fact that in the XI-XII centuries. there are two political authorities in Rus': 1) princely and 2) city, or veche. The veche is older than the prince, but the prince is often more visible than the veche; the latter sometimes temporarily loses its significance to it.

princes Kievan Rus, older or younger, were all politically independent from each other, they had only moral duties: the princes of the volost had to honor the elder, the Grand Duke, “in the place of the father”, together with him they had to protect their volost, “from the filthy”, jointly with him to think and guess about the Russian land and solve important issues of Russian life. We distinguish three main functions of the activity of the ancient Kievan princes. First of all, the prince legislated, and the ancient law, ʼʼRusskaya Pravdaʼʼ, directly confirms this with several of its articles. In ʼʼPravdaʼʼ we read, for example, that the sons of Yaroslav, Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod, jointly decided to replace revenge for the murder with a fine. The titles of some articles of Pravda ʼʼ indicate that these articles were ʼʼcourtʼʼ princely, that is, they were established by the princes.

Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, legislative function princes is attested by an ancient monument. The second function of their power is military. The princes appeared for the first time in the Russian land, as defenders of its borders, and in this respect the subsequent princes did not differ from the first. Let us recall that Vladimir Monomakh almost considered his main task to be the defense of the borders from the Polovtsy; he also persuaded other princes at congresses to fight against the Polovtsy, and together with them undertook general campaigns against the nomads. The third function is judicial and administrative function. ʼʼRussian Pravdaʼʼ testifies that the princes themselves judged criminal cases. According to ʼʼRusskaya Pravdaʼʼ, a fine of 80 hryvnia was levied for the murder of the princely equerry, as if Izyaslav had put him in his horse, he was also killed by Dorogobuzhtsiʼʼ. Here ʼʼTrueʼʼ indicates a valid case. With regard to the administrative activities of the princes, we can say that for a long time they have been in charge of administration, establishing ʼʼgraveyards and tributesʼʼ. Even on the very first pages of the chronicle, we read how Olga ʼʼ set graveyards and tributes in the Place and tributes and tributes in Luza. (Pogosts were administrative districts.) Here are the main duties of the prince of the Kievan era: he legislates, he is a military leader, he is the supreme judge and supreme administrator.
Hosted on ref.rf

These signs always characterize the highest political power. In accordance with the nature of their activities, princes also have servants, the so-called squad, their closest advisers, with the help of which they govern the country. In the annals one can find a lot of evidence, even with a poetic character, about the close relationship of the squad to the prince. Even St. Vladimir, according to chronicle legend, expressed the idea that you can’t get a squad with silver and gold, but with a squad you can get both gold and silver. Such a view of the squad, as something incorruptible, standing up to the prince in moral relations, runs through the entire chronicle. The squad in ancient Rus' enjoyed great influence on affairs; she demanded that the prince do nothing without her, and when one young prince of Kiev decided to go on a campaign without consulting her, she refused to help him, and the prince's allies did not go with him without her. The solidarity of the prince with the retinue followed from the most real life conditions, although it was not determined by any law. The squad was hiding behind the princely authority, but she supported him; a prince with a large squad was strong, with a small one - weak. The squad was divided into senior and junior.

The eldest was called ʼʼhusbandsʼʼ and ʼʼboyarsʼʼ (the origin of this word is interpreted differently, by the way, there is an assumption that it came from the word ʼʼbolijʼʼ, greater). The boyars were influential advisers to the prince, they undoubtedly constituted the highest stratum in the squad and often had their own squad. They were followed by the so-called ʼʼmuzhiʼʼ or ʼʼprinces muzhiʼʼ - warriors and princely officials. The younger squad is usually called ʼʼgridiʼʼ; sometimes they are called ʼʼladsʼʼ, and this word should be understood only as a term of social life͵ which could refer, probably, to a very old person. This is how the squad was divided. All of it, with the exception of the prince's slaves - serfs, treats the prince equally; she came to the latter and entered into ʼʼsʼʼ with him, in which she designated her duties and rights. The prince had to treat the combatant and the "husband" as a completely independent person, because the combatant could always leave the prince and look for another service.

From the squad, the prince took his administrators, with the help of whom he manages the land and protects it. These assistants were called ʼʼvirnikiʼʼ and tiuns; their duty was to court and collect the vira, i.e. court fee, manage the land and collect tribute. Tribute and vira fed the prince and squad. The prince collected tribute sometimes with the help of officials, and sometimes Tribute was collected in kind and money, and in the same way, not only in kind, but also in money, it was given to the squad. One chronicler of the beginning of the 13th century writes about an earlier time that the prince was even more vira right, and that was possible, - dayashe The salary of 200 hryvnias for each combatant is very high according to the then concepts and undoubtedly testifies about the wealth of the princes of Kiev (if we count 1/2 pound of silver in the hryvnia, then its weight value is about 10 rubles). Where did this wealth come from, what sources of income did the princes use? First of all, the money was given to the princes by their judicial activities. Secondly , the princes received tribute, which has already been mentioned. Thirdly, military booty was in favor of the princes. Finally, the last type of princely income is private income. Taking advantage of their privileged position, the princes acquire private lands (villages) for themselves, which they strictly distinguish from political possessions. A prince cannot bequeath political possessions to a woman, but only to a son or brother, and yet we see that he gives his private lands to his wife or daughter, or to monasteries.

Veche was older than the prince. We read from the chronicler: ʼʼ Novgorodians from the very beginning both Smolny and Kyyans, and Polochans and all the authorities seem to agree on a thought at the veche, and what the elders think, the suburbs will become ʼʼ. The meaning of these words is as follows: from the beginning, cities and volosts (ʼʼslustiʼʼ) were ruled by veche, and the veche of the older city ruled not only the city, but also its entire volost. Next to these eve, in which all the heads of families used the right to vote, the power of the princes appeared, but the princes did not abolish the eve, but ruled the earth, sometimes with the assistance, and sometimes with the opposition of the latter. Many historians tried to define the relationship of the prince to the vecha and, on the contrary, the vecha to the prince from the point of view of our political concepts, but this only led to exaggerations. The facts of veche activity collected in the book by V. I. Sergeevich ʼʼPrince and vecheʼʼ, first of all, do not allow to establish the very form of the veche, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ is very easy to confuse with simple folk gatherings, and the uncertainty of the form often forced researchers to distinguish between legal and illegal.

A veche convened by a prince was called legal; veche, gathered against the will of the prince, rebelliously, was considered illegal. The consequence of the legal uncertainty of the position of the veche was that the latter was highly dependent on purely local or temporary conditions: its political significance decreased with a strong prince who had a large squad, and, on the contrary, increased with a weak one; moreover, in large cities it had a greater political significance than in small ones. The study of this question makes us convinced that the relationship between the prince and the veche is constantly fluctuating. So, under Yaroslav and his sons, the veche was far from having the same power as under his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. When the power of the princes was strengthened and determined, the veche moved from political activity to economic activity - it began to deal with the affairs of the inner life of the city. But when the family of Rurikovich multiplied and hereditary accounts got confused, the city councils sought to regain their political significance. Taking advantage of the turmoil, they themselves called to themselves the prince they wanted, and concluded ʼʼ ranks ʼʼ with him. Little by little, the veche felt so strong that it decided to argue with the prince: it happened that the prince stood for one thing, and the veche for another, and then the veche often "shows the way to the prince", that is, expels him.

LITERATURE

1. Alkushin A.I. Operation of oil and gas wells. M.: Nedra, 1989. 360 p.

2. Bobritsky N.V., Yufin V.A. Fundamentals of the oil and gas industry. M.: Nedra, 1988. 200 p.

3. Vasilievsky V.N., Petrov A.I. Well survey operator. M.: Nedra, 1983. 310 p.

4. Gimatudinov Sh.K., Dunyushkin I.I. and others. Development and operation of oil, gas and gas condensate fields. M.: Nedra, 1988. 322 p.

5. Information systems in the economy / Ed. V.V. Dick, 1996.

6. Krets V.G., Lene G.V. Fundamentals of oil and gas production: Textbook / Ed. cand. geol.-miner. Sciences G.M. Voloshchuk. - Tomsk: Publishing House Vol. un-ta, 2000. 220 p.

7. Oilfield equipment: a set of catalogs / Ed. V.G. Krets, Tomsk.: Publishing house in TGU, 1999. 900p.

8. Podgornov Yu.M. Production and exploration drilling for oil and gas. M.: Nedra, 1988. 325 p.

9. Suleimanov A.B., Karapetov K.A., Yashin A.S. Technique and technology of well workover. Moscow: Nedra, 1987. 316 p.

Briefly:

History of Kievan Rus:

1. Period: IX - the middle of the X century; the first princes of Kyiv (“polyudye” - tribute collection; Olga’s establishment of “lessons” - the amount of tribute and “graveyards” - places of tribute collection after the murder of Igor)

2 . Period: the second half of the X - the first half of the XI century; heyday, the time of Vladimir I and Yaroslav the Wise (Vladimir: 988 - the adoption of Christianity, the introduction of "tithes" - a tax in favor of the church, the church becomes a powerful landowner; Yaroslav: "Russian Truth" ["The Truth of Yaroslav" and "The Truth of the Yaroslavichs"] - a set of laws, mainly inheritance, criminal and procedural law; "ladder" system of transferring the throne - to the eldest in the family, with a strict hierarchy of the significance of the territories)

3. Period: the second half of the 11th - the beginning of the 12th century; transition to territorial and political fragmentation (strife due to personal conflicts of princes, ambitions, the growth of the power of individual principalities; 1097 - Lyubech Congress - “Let everyone keep his fatherland; under Vladimir Monomakh - temporary strengthening and unity, “Charter of Vladimir Monomakh” - a new part of "Russian Truth", "The Tale of Bygone Years" by Nestor; after 1132 - disintegration into separate principalities)

The main institutions of governance (early feudal monarchy):

Grand Duke of Kiev (supreme owner of the land)

Druzhina (professional warriors; the eldest - the boyars, the youngest - the gridi; they were the state apparatus)

Local (specific) princes (from the Kyiv princely dynasty), posadniks

local squad

Pogosts (administrative and tax centers and points where trade was carried out), camps, volosts (rural territories subordinate to the city)

Veche - it is not known exactly what role they played in importance. In general, influence was preserved only in Novgorod.

Early feudal monarchy - a form of government, when, under the conditions of military democracy, the prince, relying on the retinue, becomes not an elected military leader, but a hereditary head of state. In some territories there are princely governors.

Main:

1 . The main functions of power in Ancient Rus' were the prince, the squad and the veche. At the same time, it should be noted that there is no clear division of powers between these subjects of power. The main part of the population - the peasants - formally, apparently, were not yet separated from power, but in fact they did not take a direct part in the activities of government institutions (in particular, the veche).

2 . Relations between the prince and the squad were built on personal ties, reinforced by a system of gifts and joint feasts. The prince in his decisions largely depended on the squad. However, the squad was largely guided by the prince. The princely power gradually increased, which was expressed, among other things, in the fall of the authority of the “senior” squad.

3 . Relations between the prince, who led the squad, and the cities with adjoining rural settlements were built on regular payments of polyudya and (or) tribute. The distribution of the funds received was the prerogative of the prince. At the same time, he acted as a kind of personification of the collective owner of the funds collected by the squad in the form of tribute and polyudya.

4 . The “service organization” was engaged in servicing the prince and the squad, in the depths of which new social relations were formed, comparable to the Western European ministeriality (ministerials in medieval Europe were representatives of petty chivalry, owning small fiefs and obligated to military service to the monarch, or to a large feudal lord).

5 . In a certain period, all the listed power “bodies” were in a state of unstable balance. Over time, however, the balance of power began to change, and in each land in its own way.

Prince:

1. the highest institution of power

2. legislator

3. supreme military leader

4. judicial and administrative functions (chief judge; sets the amount and timing of payment of tribute)

5. could have personal (private) hereditary lands

Squad:

1. professional warriors

2. closest advisers to the prince

3. performed administrative functions (collection of court fees - "virs", collection of tribute and land management)

4. they received a fixed salary for their service, military booty was divided between them, the boyars received land in possession

Veche:

1 . older than princely power

2 . representative body of cities

3 . solution of the widest range of issues: from raising funds for the city militia and hiring military detachments to the expulsion or election of a prince (it is only unclear whether the veche has always dealt with such problems or sources recorded exceptional cases, usually associated with serious social crises and cataclysms)

4 . apparently, in the early stages of the development of the state, city veche meetings existed everywhere, but later they reached their peak by the 12th century. in the Northwest, and in other lands practically ceased to exist

5 . legal - convened by the decision of the prince; illegal - against the will of the prince

6 . the value of the veche decreased with a strong prince and increased with a weak

7 . under the strong power of the prince, the veche deals not with political issues, but with issues of urban life

8 . local veche meetings began to intensify in individual principalities during the period of fragmentation

Detailed response:

The political structure of the Kyiv principality was unstable. Composed of many tribal and urban worlds, this principality could not form into a single state in our sense of the word even in the 12th century. fell apart. Therefore, it would be most accurate to define Kievan Rus as a collection of many principalities united by one dynasty, the unity of religion, tribe, language and national identity. This self-consciousness authentically existed: from its height, the people condemned their political disorder, condemned the princes for “carrying the land separately” with their “which”, that is, strife, and urged them to be in unity for the sake of a single “Russian land”.

The political connection of Kievan society was weaker than all its other connections, which was one of the most prominent reasons for the fall of Kievan Rus.

The first political form, which originated in Rus', was a city or regional life. When the regional and city life had already taken shape, a princely dynasty appeared in the cities and regions, uniting all these regions into one principality. Next to the authorities of the city became the power of the princes. This is the reason for the fact that in the XI-XII centuries. there are two political authorities in Rus': 1) princely and 2) city, or veche. The veche is older than the prince, but the prince is often more visible than the veche; the latter sometimes temporarily loses its significance to it.

princes Kievan Rus, older or younger, were all politically independent from each other, they had only moral duties: the princes of the volost had to honor the elder, the Grand Duke, “in the father’s place”, together with him they had to protect their volost “from the filthy” , together with him to think and guess about the Russian land and solve important issues of Russian life. We distinguish three main functions of the activity of the ancient Kievan princes. Firstly, the prince legislated, and the ancient law, Russkaya Pravda, directly confirms this with several of its articles. In Pravda we read, for example, that the sons of Yaroslav, Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod, jointly decided to replace revenge for murder with a fine. The titles of some of the articles in Pravda testify that these articles were princely "courts", that is, they were established by the princes.

Thus, legislative function princes attested by an ancient monument. The second function of their power is military. The princes appeared for the first time in the Russian land, as defenders of its borders, and in this respect the subsequent princes did not differ from the first. Let us recall that Vladimir Monomakh almost considered his main task to be the defense of the borders from the Polovtsy; he also persuaded other princes at congresses to fight against the Polovtsy, and together with them undertook general campaigns against the nomads. The third function is judicial and administrative function. Russkaya Pravda testifies that the princes themselves judged criminal cases. According to Russkaya Pravda, a fine of 80 hryvnias was levied for the murder of the prince's equerry, "as if Izyaslav had put him in his stable, he was killed by Dorogobuzhtsi." Here "Truth" indicates a valid court case. Regarding the administrative activities of the princes, we can say that for a long time they have carried the duties of administration, established "graveyards and tributes." Even on the very first pages of the chronicle, we read how Olga "set graveyards and tributes in the Place and dues and tributes in Luza." (Pogosts were administrative districts.) Here are the main duties of the prince of the Kievan era: he legislates, he is a military leader, he is the supreme judge and supreme administrator.

These features are always supreme political power. In accordance with the nature of their activities, princes also have servants, the so-called squad, their closest advisers, with the help of which they govern the country. In the annals one can find a lot of evidence, even with a poetic character, about the close relationship of the squad to the prince. Even St. Vladimir, according to chronicle legend, expressed the idea that you can’t get a squad with silver and gold, but with a squad you can get both gold and silver. Such a view of the squad, as something incorruptible, standing up to the prince in moral relations, runs through the entire chronicle. The squad in ancient Rus' enjoyed great influence on affairs; she demanded that the prince do nothing without her, and when one young prince of Kiev decided to go on a campaign without consulting her, she refused to help him, and the prince's allies did not go with him without her. The solidarity of the prince with the retinue flowed from the most real life conditions, although it was not determined by any law. The squad was hiding behind the princely authority, but she supported him; a prince with a large squad was strong, with a small one - weak. The squad was divided into senior and junior.

The eldest was called "husbands" and "boyars"(the origin of this word is interpreted differently, by the way, there is an assumption that it came from the word "bolius", greater). The boyars were influential advisers to the prince, they undoubtedly made up the highest stratum in the squad and often had their own squad. They were followed by the so-called "husbands" or "princes of men" - warriors and princely officials. The younger squad is called "gridy"; sometimes they are called "lads", and this word should be understood only as a term of social life, which could refer, perhaps, to a very old person. This is how the squad was divided. All of it, with the exception of the prince's slaves - serfs, treats the prince equally; she came to the latter and entered into "ranks" with him, in which she designated her duties and rights. The prince had to treat the combatant and the “husband” as a completely independent person, because the combatant could always leave the prince and look for another service.

From the squad, the prince took his administrators by which he governs the earth and guards it. These assistants were called “virniki” and “tiuns; their duty was to court and collect vira, that is, court fees, manage the land and collect tribute. Tribute and vira fed the prince and squad. The prince sometimes collected tribute with the help of officials, and sometimes personally. Tribute was collected in kind and money, and in the same way, not only in kind, but also in money was given to the squad. One chronicler of the beginning of the 13th century writes about an earlier time that the prince give to the squad for weapons. And his squad ... not thirsty: there are, prince, 200 hryvnias, I don’t put gold hoops on my wives, but I put their wives in silver. "The salary of 200 hryvnias for each combatant is very large according to the then concepts and undoubtedly testifies about the wealth of the Kiev princes (if we count 1/2 pound of silver in hryvnia, then its weight value is about 10 rubles.) Where did this wealth come from, what sources of income did the princes use? , the princes received tribute, which has already been mentioned. Thirdly, military booty was in favor of the princes. Finally, the last type of princely income is private income. Taking advantage of their privileged position, the princes acquire private lands (villages) for themselves, which they strictly distinguish from political possessions. A prince cannot bequeath political possessions to a woman, but only to a son or brother, and yet we see that he gives his private lands to his wife or daughter, or to monasteries.

Veche was older than the prince. We read from the chronicler: “From the very beginning, the Novgorodians and the Smolnyans and the Kyyans and the Polochans and all the authorities seem to agree on a thought at the veche, and what the elders think, the suburbs will become.” The meaning of these words is this: from the beginning, cities and volosts (“sweets”) were ruled by veche and the veche of the older city ruled not only the city, but also its entire volost. Next to these eve, in which all the heads of families used the right to vote, the power of the princes appeared, but the princes did not abolish the eve, but ruled the earth, sometimes with the assistance, and sometimes with the opposition of the latter. Many historians have tried to define the relationship between the prince and the vecha and, conversely, the vecha and the prince from the point of view of our political concepts, but this has only led to exaggerations. The facts of veche activity, collected in the book by V. I. Sergeevich “Prince and Veche”, first of all, do not allow us to establish the very form of the veche, which is very easy to confuse with simple folk gatherings, and the uncertainty of the form often forced researchers to distinguish between legal and illegal veche.

Veche was called legal, summoned by the prince; veche, gathered against the will of the prince, rebelliously, was considered illegal. The consequence of the legal uncertainty of the position of the veche was that the latter was highly dependent on purely local or temporary conditions: its political significance decreased with a strong prince who had a large squad, and, conversely, increased with a weak one; moreover, in large cities it had a greater political significance than in small ones. The study of this question makes us convinced that the relationship between the prince and the veche is constantly fluctuating. So, under Yaroslav and his sons, the veche was far from having the same power as under his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. When the power of the princes was strengthened and determined, the veche moved from political activity to economic activity - it began to deal with the affairs of the inner life of the city. But when the family of Rurikovich multiplied and hereditary accounts got confused, the city councils sought to regain their political significance. Taking advantage of the turmoil, they themselves called to themselves the prince they wanted, and entered into “ranks” with him. Little by little, the veche felt so strong that it dared to argue with the prince: it happened that the prince stood for one thing, and the veche for another, and then the veche often “shows the way to the prince,” i.e., expels him.

The territorial structure of Kievan Rus was formed on the basis of the historically existing territorial-tribal settlement. The first Kyiv princes, seeking to expand their zone of influence, fought with the streets and Tivertsy, with the Drevlyans, Radimichi and Vyatichi.

0 northerners, as a special tribe, continue to mention the sources even in the 11th century: the chronicler puts into the mouth of Prince Mstislav, who defeated the troops of Prince Yaroslav, the following words: “Who is not happy about this? Ce lie Severyanin, and lo Varyag, and his squad is intact ”(Laurentian Chronicle, under 1024).

The formation of the Kievan state as a new historical community was accompanied by an acceleration in the disintegration of tribal territories. Tribal ties, collapsing, gradually gave way to territorial, economic and political ones. But in general, during the period of the formation of feudal relations, the territorial structure of Kievan Rus was a complex of tribal principalities and principalities-governorships. Only by the beginning of the XI century. the disintegration of the tribal territories can be considered basically completed.

First of all, let us turn to the question of the relationship of tribal territories to the main political center - Kiev and, accordingly, the local princes - to the Kiev prince. Sources for studying the problem are treaties concluded by princes, as well as chronicles. So, the Laurentian Chronicle (under 907) says: “And Oleg gave the commandment to howl for 2000 ships, at twelve hryvnias per key, and then give ways to Russian cities ... because the princes near Olg exist in the city of sedyakh” . And in the treaty of 912, it is said about the ambassadors: “Who send from Olga, the Grand Duke of Ruska, and from everyone, who are under the hand of his bright and great prince and his great boyars.” On the basis of these and other sources in the historical literature, the question was raised: who are these "bright" and "great" princes, are they members of the Rurik clan or other clans, or local tribal princes.

The fact that Oleg, not Rurik's brother, began to rule after Igor's infancy, suggests that Rurik had no brothers and children older than Igor. Consequently, the house of Rurik was small and could not hold all the cities in his possession.

The agreement concluded by Prince Igor with the Byzantines (the agreement of 944) makes it possible to establish that the Kievan state at this stage, just as under Oleg, consisted of a number of principalities. The agreement says that the ambassadors and guests for the conclusion of the agreement were sent "from Igor the Grand Duke of Russia and from every prince from all the people of the Russian land." Although by the time of Igor

Rurik increased significantly, but in the main peripheral centers of the Kievan state, princes were still sitting not from the house of Rurik. These were either local tribal princes, or specially sent by the Grand Duke, i.e. governor-princes. Undoubtedly, there was a difference in the position of those and other princes.

Tribal princes continued to sit on their land, but after its annexation to Kiev, they were forced to pay tribute from this land. Their relationship was limited precisely to the payment of tribute to the Kiev prince, they had no other duties. One might think that sometimes the tribal princes not only did not bear military service, but did not even pay tribute. From the chronicle story about the relationship of the Drevlyan prince to Igor, it is easy to establish that the subordination of the Drevlyans and the Drevlyan prince was expressed only in granting the right to collect tribute to the prince himself or to the princely boyars (in this case, Sveneld).

Another type of local principalities subordinated to Kiev was headed by governor-princes who received land from the hands of the grand dukes. Together with land ownership, they, respectively, received incomes, which were made up of tributes from the territory subordinate to them. It cannot be argued that they carried the main duty for European vassals - military service. If these local princes or their squads took part in the army of the Kyiv princes, then this was their voluntary participation. The Kiev prince himself was engaged in the recruitment of "warriors". And this is not surprising, since the local princes did not have feudal militias and could not send them for the Kievan prince. They could only, as a last resort, send him part of their squad.

The further development of feudal dependence led to a relative complication of relations between the Grand Prince of Kiev and the local "bright" princes (A. E. Presnyakov was probably right, considering the title of "bright princes" a designation of their independence. - Presnyakov A. E. Princely law in ancient Russia, 1909, p. 25).

The historical literature somewhat underestimated the activities of Princess Olga, or rather the leading elite that acted during her reign. The organizing activity of Olga and her advisers can be compared with the activities of Oleg, Vladimir Monomakh and other great princes of the 9th-12th centuries.

The financial and administrative reform carried out by Princess Olga was obviously caused by the uprising of the Drevlyans against Igor and his murder. No matter how one relates to the legend of Olga's revenge on the Drevlyans, one cannot deny the fact that Igor's murder was caused by his extortion. The chronicle quite concretely and plausibly speaks of the reasons for the murder of Igor, and in the historical literature, therefore, no doubts were expressed about the reliability of this part of the chronicle story. In the same way, the historical authenticity of that part of the annals that speaks of the events that followed the murder of Igor is beyond doubt: about the exit of the Drevlyans from the power of the Kiev state center, about their attempt to pursue an independent policy (in the annals this is displayed in the form of the courtship of Prince Mal to the princess Olga), about the stubborn struggle that Olga had to endure. It is quite obvious that all these events influenced Olga's decision to change the order of tribute collection. The ruling circles understood that the system of tribute collection that existed before the assassination of Igor could continue to cause uprisings in the future.

In the decision to reform, the authorities proceeded from the understanding that locally the princely administration was either completely absent, or was extremely small and weak, that the power of the great Kiev prince was kept by the recognition of its "tribal" princes or "bright" princes - princes-deputies.

The chronicle speaks of this reform, carried out by Princess Olga immediately after the capture of the city of Iskorosten: “And lay a heavy tribute on her (Drevlyans): 2 parts of the tribute go to Kiev, and the third to Vyshegorod to Olza, for Vyshegorod is the city of Volzin. And Volga went along the Dervst of the earth with his son and with his friends, setting charters and lessons; (and) the essence of her camp and trap. And he came to his city Kyiv with his son Svyatoslav and spent the summer alone. In the summer of 6455, go Volga to Novgorod and charter vosts and tributes along Mst, and dues and tributes along Luza; (and) her catchers are all over the earth, banners and places and flags, and her sleigh to stand in Pleskov to this day, and over the Dnieper, and along the Desna, and there is her village Olzhichi and hitherto ”(Laurentian Chronicle, under 946 and 947).

This is how the financial and administrative reform of Princess Olga is described in the annals. But the content and significance of the reform is much broader than can be established from the chronicle story. One of Olga's main activities was the elimination of the special position of princes - both local tribal and viceroy princes. The local princes were replaced by a strong local financial administration directly linked to the center.

Olga's reform affected not only the Drevlyane land, but was also carried out throughout the entire territory of the Kievan state: along Msta, and along the Luga, and along the Dnieper, and along the Desna. If the chronicle does not say anything about Olga's activities in the Volga-Oka basin, then this is natural: the Vyatichi until 964, i.e. e. until the year of their conquest by Prince Svyatoslav, they were not part of the Kyiv state and continued to pay tribute to the Khazars.

During the implementation of financial and administrative reform by Princess Olga, graveyards were organized. For some time there was a dispute in the historical literature about what they were. V. O. Klyuchevsky, leading the origin of the word "graveyard" from the word "guest" - trade, considered graveyards to be trading points, markets. S. M. Solovyov understood camps, camps, places where princes or princely husbands stopped when they went around the lands for polyudya and collecting tribute. A. E. Presnyakov also came to the conclusion that the emergence of graveyards should be associated not with trade, but with the establishment of dues and tributes.

There is no doubt that the name "graveyard" could indeed come from "guest" and originally graveyards could be trading posts or trading posts. Ho in the X century. the term has taken on a new meaning. The graveyards organized by Olga were financial, administrative and judicial centers. Later, after the adoption of Christianity, they also became church-administrative centers.

When organizing graveyards, Princess Olga undoubtedly appointed permanent princely agents there, otherwise the very meaning of organizing graveyards would be incomprehensible. The meaning of all Olga's innovations was that instead of periodic raids - the autumn and winter polyudya of the prince or the combatants authorized by him, a permanent, strong and rather dense network of local financial authorities was created.

The streamlining of the collection of tribute, undertaken by Princess Olga throughout the territory, was bound to be reflected in the range of those duties that each local prince carried. Thus, the position of the local "light" princes was actually equated with the position of the rest of the "princes" and the boyars, who performed the role of grand princely governors, princely posadniks. In this role, local princes and boyars increasingly turned into local bodies of princely power and lost their autonomy from Kiev.

The researcher of ancient Russian history M.D. Priselkov expressed an opinion based on the analysis of “De administrando imperii” by Konstantin Porphyrogenitus and the texts of Russian-Byzantine treaties that in the second half of the 10th century. The Kiev state consisted of the main core, called Rus in the narrow sense of the word (later it was the territory of the Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereyaslav specific principalities) and the rest of the lands, called "Outer Russia". M. D. Priselkov pointed out that these “outer” lands occupied a special position, in particular, they had to pay “polyudye”, while the main core (“Rus proper”) was exempted from this payment (Priselkov M. D. Kievskoe state of the second half of the 10th century according to Byzantine sources, M. C.226). Undoubtedly, for the middle of the X century. such a division of Kievan Rus into two parts is well confirmed by sources.

Under Svyatoslav, a number of new aspects appeared in territorial relations. First of all, the house of Rurik during this period actually established a monopoly on princely power in the Kievan state. A. E. Presnyakov was right, noting: “In the annalistic presentation, the separation of the Rurik clan from the total mass of“ every prince ”as a kind of possessory appears gradually, starting from the time of Svyatoslav and, as far as one can judge from the meager hints of old legends reflected in our annalistic vaults , not without a struggle, this clan won for itself a monopoly on the princely title and princely possession ”(ibid., p. 26).

Significantly expanded under Svyatoslav, the territory of the Kievan state. The Drevlyansk land was finally included in its composition. When the son of Svyatoslav Oleg received the Drevlyansk land, tributes were established for the local population, which means that the forms of its feudal exploitation were streamlined.

It is not known whether under Svyatoslav or under his successor the land of the Radimichi was developed. In any case, from the end of the X century. the chronicle no longer mentions a special tribal principality of the Radimichi.

By this time, only the land of the Vyatichi remained not completely merged into Kievan Rus. Obviously, sitting in the main centers - Novgorod and Kiev, the final stations of the "Great Way from the Varangians to the Greeks", - the first Ruriks managed to take into their own hands all the main economic and political threads of the state. Only the princes of Polotsk, who also sat on one of the major highways (along the Western Dvina), managed to maintain their autonomous reign. All other princes actually lowered their status to the level of feudal boyars dependent on the prince.

In the reign of Vladimir, tribal principalities were basically eliminated. Longer than others, only one tribe retained its tribal organization and, consequently, its territorial structure - this is the Vyatichi tribe. The principalities, headed by local "bright princes", were also liquidated. The entire territory of the Kievan state became the possession of a single family of Vladimir. Vladimir ruled his very vast state through his proxies ("husbands") - posadniks and thousands, as well as through volostels. When his sons grew up, Prince Vladimir began to distribute separate lands to them. The chronicle indicates that Novgorod was given first to Vyacheslav, and then to Yaroslav, Pskov to Sudislav, Polotsk to Izyaslav, Smolensk to Stanislav, Turov to Svyatopolk, Vladimir-Volynsky to Vsevolod, Tmutarakan to Mstislav, Rostov to Yaroslav, and then to Boris, Murom - Gleb. Thus, in all more or less large centers, his twelve sons were now sitting.

For a long time this fact was insufficiently realized in the historical literature. Meanwhile, the liquidation of local principalities and local dynasties meant not only the introduction of a single administrative and legal regime throughout the entire territory of the Russian state, but also the expropriation of this entire territory, all the land in favor of Prince Vladimir. From now on, the land was the property of this family, the princely domain. The sons of Prince Vladimir “sat” (ruled) no longer in tribal principalities, but in special territorial complexes, which, as was established by M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov, were called “lands”. As a result, there was a relative centralization of the Kievan state.

Undoubtedly, each son planted by Vladimir in one or another center considered the inheritance he received as a fiefdom and took measures for its economic development: he organized villages around his capital, built cities to organize dominion over rural districts that were far from the capital. Each prince sitting in one or another center also had the right to distribute not only the villages organized by him, but also the volosts to his servants or church institutions. The princely domain now began to consist not only of princely villages and lands belonging to the prince, as was the case under Princess Olga, but also of all the land within the principalities that was not distributed to the boyars and church institutions.

The division of the territory of the Kievan state between the twelve sons of Prince Vladimir, who relied on their friends and servants, was supposed to accelerate the process of turning tribute into feudal rent. In addition to tribute, which turned into rent and was now levied from the “ral”, i.e. from the plow, various kinds of requisitions were established in favor of administrative bodies and court fees.

After the death of Vladimir, as a result of a fierce internecine struggle between his sons, Yaroslav became the prince of Kyiv. Ho continued to exist the Principality of Polotsk and Tmutarakan. After the death of Prince Mstislav, Yaroslav extended his power to the Tmutarakan principality. Prince Sudislav, who survived the internecine struggle, was imprisoned. Thus, in the fight against the brothers, Yaroslav also took some measures to centralize the Kievan state. After his children began to grow up, he, like Vladimir, began to give them separate lands of the Kievan state, and then, dying, decided to streamline the mutual relations of his sons in the so-called "Yaroslav's row." By his decision, seniority in the Russian land was transferred to Prince Izyaslav; other sons of Prince Yaroslav, who received separate regions, were obliged to obey Izyaslav.

The territorial structure of the Kievan state, established under the princes Vladimir and Yaroslav, as we see, differed significantly from the territorial structure of the Russian state in the 9th-10th centuries. The main territorial unit in the Kievan state in the XI-XII centuries. there were "lands" - relatively unified administrative, political and economic territories. But the internal integrity of the lands was relatively weak, it was constantly violated throughout the entire existence of the Kievan state.

The essence of relations between the grand-princely Kiev center and the territories cannot be determined on the basis of the concepts of modern state law. To explain it, the largest historian of the XIX century. H. I. Kostomarov put forward a kind of "federal theory", according to which Kievan Rus was represented as an alliance of relatively independent states. This view has not found serious scientific support. Although, paying tribute to her, V. O. Klyuchevsky characterized the Kiev state as follows: “It was not a political federation, but a genealogical one, if it is possible to combine in one definition the concepts of such different orders, a federation built on the fact of the relationship of the rulers: the union is involuntary in origin and non-committal in its action - one of those medieval social compositions in which political relations arose from a private legal basis. (Klyuchevsky V. O. Kypc of Russian history. T. I. S. 245.)

As feudalism developed, these primitive relations between the grand duke and local princes, which were determined by vassalage without fief relations or fiefs made up of tribute, were to become more complicated. Vassalage had to acquire a more developed character: it had to be accompanied by fief relations of a developed type, formalized on the basis of special, so-called feudal treaties, which established and regulated the rights and obligations of the grand princes-suzerains and princes-vassals. The main duty of the vassals was no longer tribute, but military service.

These peculiar relations were close to family ownership of private law, but the fact that the Grand Dukes Vladimir and Yaroslav shared power with their sons did not change the essence of this family power and its organizational and political forms at all. The father - the Grand Duke - was the overlord, his sons were vassals. The duties of vassal sons were no different from those of vassals belonging to other clans. To be in obedience, to pay tribute, to be faithful to the overlord's father, to provide military assistance - all these duties and a number of others, secondary (perhaps, increased by family ties or received a somewhat special form as a result of these ties), were characterized by the relations of the Vasoal sons. . When the vassal sons did not fulfill these duties, the overlord father applied the same measures to them as to all other vassals. For example, Svyatopolk, who was imprisoned in Turov and fell under the hostile influence of his father-in-law, the Polish king Boleslav, was ordered to be arrested by Vladimir along with his wife and his advisers.

It is very characteristic that the relationship between the Grand Duke and his children was equated by the chronicler with the relationship between the prince and the posadnik: “I am living Yaroslav Novgorod and giving Kiev two thousand hryvnias from one year to a year, and we are giving away a thousand hryvnias to Novgorod; and so give all the posadniks of Novgorodstia” (Laurentian Chronicle, under 1014).

This system of family in form, essentially vassal territorial relations underwent a historical test after the death of Yaroslav. If Vladimir and Yaroslav seized power after the elimination of their other brothers, then after the death of Yaroslav, the matter became more complicated: none of his sons, including the eldest, Prince Izyaslav, could count on the elimination of their brothers. Each of the sons of Yaroslav, who had long been sitting in their principalities, managed to put down strong roots there, firmly connect with the feudal elite of his reign, managed to make his fate closely connected with the fate of this elite. (It must be borne in mind that this strengthening of the local feudal clans was a manifestation of an objective centrifugal tendency, which began to manifest itself more and more strongly as a result of the development of the process of feudalization and the decline in the importance of the Kiev political center.) Therefore, removing the brothers from the lands was an extremely difficult task.

The way out was found in the fact that suzerainty was established for the eldest of the Yaroslavichs - Izyaslav. This was done in the so-called "Yaroslav's row", which was mentioned above. You need to read it in full.

The Laurentian Chronicle reads: “Great Prince Yaroslav of Russia repose. And I still live in God for him, my sons’ clothes, I said to them: “Behold, I depart from this light, again mine; have love in you, because you are brothers of one father and mother; but if you are in love among yourselves, God will be in you, and you will subdue the enemies under you, and you will live peacefully; if you live hatefully, in strife and which is, then you will perish yourself, (and) (destroy) the land of your fathers and your grandfathers, southern alezosha with your great labor; but remain peaceful, obedient brother to brother. Ce, I entrust the table to my eldest son and your brother Izyaslav Kiev, this obedience, as if you listen to me, so that you will be in my place; and I give Svyatoslav Chernigov, and Vsevolod Pereyaslavl, (and Igor Volodimer), and Vyacheslav Smolinsk. And so divide the city for them, commanding them neither to cross the limit of the brother, nor drive away, rivers Izyaslav: “if anyone wants to offend his brother, then you help, offend him”; and so arrange your son to abide in love ”(Laurentian Chronicle, under 1054).