Introduction. From the beginning of the 14th century. The fragmentation of Russian principalities ceases, giving way to their unification. The creation of a Russian centralized state was caused primarily by the strengthening of economic ties between Russian lands, which was a consequence of the general economic development of the country.

The starting point in the development of the feudal economy was the progress of agriculture. Agricultural production is characterized in this period by the increasing spread of the arable system, which is becoming the predominant method of land cultivation in the central regions of the country. The arable system is noticeably replacing the cutting system, which is widespread mainly in northern forest areas, and the fallow system, which is still dominant in the south.

The arable system requires constant cultivation of the land. Since here the peasant always deals with one plot of land, which takes a break from sowing only after a year or two, the need arises to fertilize the fields. All this requires more advanced production tools.

The increasing need for agricultural implements necessitates the development of crafts. As a result, the process of separating crafts from agriculture goes deeper and deeper.

The separation of crafts from agriculture entails the need for exchange between peasant and artisan. This exchange takes place in the form of trade, which intensifies accordingly during this period. Markets are created on the basis of such exchange. The natural division of labor between individual regions of the country, due to their natural characteristics, forms economic ties on the scale of all of Rus'. The development of foreign trade also contributed to the establishment of internal economic ties.

All this urgently required the political unification of the Russian lands, i.e. creation of a centralized state.

Another prerequisite for the unification of the Russian lands was the intensification of the class struggle, the strengthening of the class resistance of the peasantry. The rise of the economy, the opportunity to receive an ever-increasing surplus product, encourages the feudal lords to intensify the exploitation of the peasants. Moreover, the feudal lords strive not only economically, but also legally to secure the peasants in their estates and estates, to enslave them. Such a policy causes natural resistance from the peasantry, which takes on various forms. In such conditions, the feudal class was faced with the task of keeping the peasantry in check and completing its enslavement. This task could only be solved by a powerful centralized state, capable of fulfilling the main function of the exploiting state - suppressing the resistance of the exploited masses.

These two reasons played a leading role in the unification of Rus'. Without them, the centralization process could not have achieved significant success. At the same time, the economic and social development of the country in itself in the XIV - XVI centuries. could not yet lead to the formation of a centralized state.

The factor that accelerated the centralization of the Russian state was the threat of attack, which forced the Russian lands to unite in the face of a common enemy.

It is known that only a powerful centralized state can cope with an external enemy. Therefore, quite a wide mass of people were interested in its education.

Formation of the Russian centralized state. The Russian centralized state was formed around Moscow, which was destined to eventually become the capital of a great power. This role of Moscow, a relatively young city, was determined primarily by its economic and geographical position. Moscow arose in the then center of Russian lands, due to which it was better protected from external enemies than other principalities. It stood at the crossroads of river and land trade routes.

Having emerged as a city in the 12th century, Moscow was not initially the center of a special principality. Only from time to time it was given as an inheritance to the younger sons of the Rostov-Suzdal princes. Only from the end of the 13th century. Moscow becomes the capital city of an independent principality with a permanent prince. The first such prince was the son of the famous hero of the Russian land Alexander Nevsky - Daniel. Under him at the end of the XIII - beginning of the XIV centuries. The unification of Russian lands began, successfully continued by his successors. Pursuing a line towards the unification of the Russian principalities, the Moscow princes bought up the lands of neighboring principalities, seized them at the opportunity by armed force, often using the Golden Horde for this, annexed them diplomatically, concluded treaties with weakened appanage princes, making them their vassals. The territory of the Moscow Principality also expanded due to the settlement of the Upper Trans-Volga region.

The foundation of Moscow's power was laid under Daniel's second son, Ivan Kalita (1325-1340). Under him, the collection of Russian lands continued. Ivan Kalita managed to obtain from the Tatars a label for a great reign, and acquired the right to collect tribute for the Tatars from all or almost all Russian principalities that retained their independence. This situation was used by the Moscow princes in order to gradually subjugate these principalities. Thanks to the flexible foreign policy of the Moscow princes, they managed to ensure peace in Rus' for several decades. Moscow also became the center of the Orthodox Church; in 1326 the metropolitan see was transferred to it from Vladimir. Expanding the territory of the Moscow state, the great princes turned their appanages into simple fiefdoms. Appanage princes ceased to be sovereigns in their appanages and were equated with boyars, i.e. became subjects of the Grand Duke of Moscow. They could no longer conduct independent domestic and foreign policies.

By the end of the 14th century. The Moscow principality became so strong that it was able to begin the struggle for liberation from the Mongol-Tatar yoke. The first crushing blows were dealt to the Horde, the most significant of which was the victory of Russian troops under the command of Prince Dmitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo Field. Under Ivan III, the unification of Russian lands entered its completed phase. The most important lands were annexed to Moscow - Novgorod the Great, Tver, part of the Ryazan principality, Russian lands along the Desna. In 1480, after the famous “stand on the Ugra”, Rus' was finally freed from the Tatar yoke. The process of unification of Russian lands was completed at the beginning of the 16th century. Prince Vasily III annexed the second half of the Ryazan principality, Pskov, to Moscow, and liberated Smolensk from Lithuanian rule.

Along with the unification of the Russian lands, the power of the great princes over them also grew. The Moscow principality ceased to be a collection of more or less independent states. The division into appanages was replaced by division into administrative-territorial units headed by governors and volostels.

Along with the unification of Russian lands, some neighboring peoples were also annexed. Together with Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Perm and other lands, the Moscow state also included small non-Russian peoples who inhabited them: Meshchera, Karelians, Sami, Nenets, Udmurts and others. Some of them assimilated, dissolved into the composition of the Great Russian people, but the majority retained their originality. The Russian state, like the Kyiv one, became multinational. Chistyakov O.I. History of domestic state and law. Part 1: Textbook/Ed. O.I. Chistyakova. - M. Publishing house BEK, 1996. - 368 p.

Thus, the process of formation of a unified Russian state was expressed, firstly, in the unification of the territories of previously independent principality states into one - the Moscow Grand Duchy; and secondly, in changing the very nature of statehood, in transforming the political organization of society. Titov Yu.P. History of state and law of Russia. Textbook/Ed. Yu.P. Titova - M.: “Prospekt”, 1999. - 544 p.

Social system and legal status of the population. During the period under review in Rus', quite significant changes took place in the forms of feudal land ownership and in the legal status of the main groupings of the ruling class of feudal lords. The nature of the relationship between them became different.

The feudal class was divided into several categories. At the head of the hierarchical ladder was the Grand Duke - the largest feudal lord who owned palace and black-plow lands. The palace lands belonged directly to the prince and his family and were often distributed to those close to them for their service. The peasants of the palace lands paid dues or corvée and were managed by palace servants. The black soil lands belonged to the prince as the head of state. The peasants of these lands bore taxes and duties in favor of the grand ducal power and were governed by his governors. Black lands also often passed into the private ownership of feudal lords - boyars, monasteries, and nobility. The serving princes turned into large patrimonial owners, first vassals, and then subjects of the Grand Duke, obligated to serve him. Boyars - large landowners, patrimonial owners, were also vassals of the Grand Duke, and then - his subjects. The patrimonial boyars became the main category of the ruling class of feudal lords during the period of feudal fragmentation. They had great rights to the land and the peasants living on it: they passed the land on by inheritance, alienated it, exchanged it, etc.; in their hands were the court, administration, collection of taxes, etc. in addition, the boyars had the “right of departure” from one prince to another, which did not entail the liquidation of the estate. An important institution of patrimonial land ownership was the right of patrimonial redemption of alienated lands, according to which the relatives of the patrimonial owner had the opportunity to acquire them first. This right was exercised regardless of the vassal connections of the boyars. Boyar land ownership already by the 15th century. did not coincide with the boundaries of the appanage principalities that remained from political fragmentation. Vassal relations with appanage princes were destroyed and replaced by service to the Grand Duke. As the lands were unified and the grand ducal power was strengthened, the legal status of the boyars-patrimonials changed significantly: the “right of departure” was limited and then abolished; estates began to acquire the character of conditional land ownership; their immunity privileges were reduced. These changes led to some limitation of the power of the boyars, which did not yet mean their loss of a privileged position. The boyars were still large landowners and exploited peasants, bonded people, and slaves. They were free from taxes and duties, judged their peasants and governed them. The boyars were part of the feudal council under the prince, occupied the most important positions in the government system and in the armed forces, and had privileges in court.

Previously, the boyar title could only be obtained by inheritance. With the change of the old feudal nobility, the title of boyars became a court rank granted by the Grand Duke. “Introduced” boyars, okolnichy, appeared, whose affiliation with the top of the feudal nobility was established by the prince. Other layers of feudal lords had the ranks of Duma nobles, Duma clerks, stolniks, Moscow nobles and policemen, etc.

The feudal hierarchy of this time was characterized by a system of localism, in which representatives of princely or feudal families, based on their birthright, occupied a certain place at the prince’s court and in the sovereign’s service. The broad privileges of the old feudal nobility and the system of localism were a serious obstacle to the process of centralization and strengthening of political unity. Titov Yu.P. History of state and law of Russia. Textbook/Ed. Yu.P. Titova - M.: “Prospekt”, 1999. - 544 p.

Service people - nobles - owned land on the so-called local right, i.e. conditionally, for service and for the duration of service. Owners of local lands could not alienate them and transfer them by inheritance, were not included in the Boyar Duma, could not receive higher ranks in the palace administration and be governors.

The nobility became an increasingly numerous group of the ruling class, and a group closely associated with the grand ducal power and becoming its important political support. The nobility was extremely interested in strengthening the power of a single sovereign, since it could not cope with either internal or external enemies on its own. It was interested in seizing new lands and expanding the “dachas” provided to it, in intensifying the development of trade, and the emergence of new trade routes, since the economy of the middle and small feudal lord could only be effective in conditions of connections with the market, the development of lordly plowing, and an increase in duties. Subsequently, the rights of the nobles to land were significantly expanded.

The middle and small feudal lords included free servants and boyar children. The middle and small noble landownership had a more progressive and viable character compared to the boyar-princely estate, as evidenced by numerous facts of the ruin of former princes and boyars, their debts, mortgages of lands, and the sale of them to new owners.

Monasteries and the church - the largest landowners-patrimonial owners - had up to a third of all privately owned land in the Russian state. Church and monastic land ownership continued to develop intensively throughout the XIV - XV centuries. As a rule, it did not coincide with the borders of individual principalities. The clergy linked their policies with the Grand Duke and supported his desire for the political unification of Rus' and the strengthening of the state apparatus. Only the grand ducal power could help the churchmen cope with the peasant movement. The peasants increasingly rose up to fight, seized the lands of the feudal lords, and fled to the outskirts of the country. Only a strong government could protect the interests of the clergy and create the necessary conditions for the increasing exploitation of direct producers. But at the same time, the broad privileges and immunities of church feudal lords prevented the centralization of the state. At the beginning of the 16th century. There was a tendency towards some change and limitation: the lands of monasteries and churches were no longer exempt from paying state taxes, cases of the most serious crimes were removed from the jurisdiction of the clergy court.

Church feudal lords had a number of personal privileges - they did not pay sovereign taxes, were subject only to the court of the clergy, their life, honor, property were protected by increased penalties. Titov Yu.P. History of state and law of Russia. Textbook/Ed. Yu.P. Titova - M.: “Prospekt”, 1999. - 544 p.

Urban population. Cities were usually divided into two parts: the city itself, i.e. a walled place, a fortress and a trade and craftsmen's estate surrounding the city walls. Accordingly, the population was divided. In peacetime, mainly representatives of the princely authorities, a garrison and servants of local feudal lords lived in the fortress - Detinets. Craftsmen and traders settled in the settlement. The first part of the population was free from taxes and government duties, the second belonged to the taxable “black” people.

The intermediate category consisted of the population of settlements and courtyards that belonged to individual feudal lords and were located within the city limits. These people, economically connected with the settlement, were nevertheless free from city taxes and bore duties only in favor of their master. The economic boom in the 15th century and the development of crafts and trade strengthened the economic position of the cities, and consequently increased the importance of the townspeople. In the cities, the wealthiest circles of merchants stand out - guests conducting foreign trade. Chistyakov O.I. History of domestic state and law. Part 1: Textbook/Ed. O.I. Chistyakova. - M. Publishing house BEK, 1996. - 368 p.

The peasants were divided into several main groups: black draft, i.e. sovereign, palace and privately owned.

The black-taxed peasants paid taxes and carried out other in-kind duties to the Grand Duke-Sovereign. Their number was constantly and significantly reduced, as they were transferred along with the land and complained to the feudal lords. Privately owned peasants lived on the land of individual feudal lords, having a land allotment from them, for which the land owners received rent, either quitrent, or corvee. The situation of the palace peasants was similar. During the period under review, there is an increase in the exploitation of peasants, an increase in the size of quitrents and corvée. The feudal lords could ensure the fulfillment of these duties only by strengthening non-economic coercion and strengthening the state apparatus. With his help, from the middle of the 15th century. The process of general enslavement of the peasants began. At first, the right of transition of certain groups of old-timer peasants, silversmiths, was limited, then in special charters granted by the Grand Dukes, the general period for the transition of peasants was determined - St. George's Day. When leaving, the peasant had to pay a certain amount - the elderly. At this time, the institution of servitude was preserved, but a new group appeared - enslaved people. Titov Yu.P. History of state and law of Russia. Textbook/Ed. Yu.P. Titova - M.: “Prospekt”, 1999. - 544 p. Bondage arose from debt dependence. The person who borrowed money had to pay off the interest. Most often, bondage became lifelong.

Slaves were divided into several groups. There were large, full-time and reporting slaves. Great serfs are the top serfs, princely and boyar servants, who sometimes held high positions. Full and reported slaves worked on the feudal lord's farm as servants, artisans, and cultivators. The economic disadvantage of servile labor is becoming more and more obvious. Therefore, there is a tendency towards a relative reduction in servitude.

At the same time, self-selling into slaves became widespread. Impoverished peasants were sold as slaves. The number of slaves was also reduced due to their release. Most often, slaves were released according to a will. Monasteries also freed their slaves.

During this period, a process of gradual erasing of the line between serfs and peasants, which began in Ancient Rus', is developing. Serfs receive some property and personal rights, and enslaved peasants increasingly lose them. Chistyakov O.I. History of domestic state and law. Part 1: Textbook/Ed. O.I. Chistyakova. - M. Publishing house BEK, 1996. - 368 p.

Conclusion Thus, in the second half of the 14th century. in northeastern Rus', the tendency towards land unification intensified. The center of unification was the Moscow principality, which separated from the Vladimir-Suzdal principality back in the 12th century.

The weakening and collapse of the Golden Horde, the development of economic inter-princely ties and trade, the formation of new cities and the strengthening of the nobility as a social stratum played the role of unifying factors. In the Principality of Moscow, a system of local relations developed intensively: the nobles received land from the Grand Duke for their service and for the duration of their service. This made them dependent on the prince and strengthened his power.

Speaking about centralization, one should keep in mind two processes: the unification of Russian lands around a new center - Moscow and the creation of a centralized state apparatus, a new power structure in the Moscow state.

During centralization, the entire political system was transformed. In place of many independent principalities, a single state is formed. The entire system of suzerain-vassal relations changes: former grand dukes themselves become vassals of the Moscow Grand Duke, and a complex hierarchy of feudal ranks takes shape. The strengthening service nobility becomes a support for the Grand Duke in the fight against the feudal aristocracy, which does not want to give up its independence. In the economic field, a struggle is unfolding between patrimonial and local types of land ownership.

The church became a serious political force, concentrating significant land holdings and values ​​in its hands and largely determining the ideology of the emerging autocratic state.

The elite of the urban population waged a continuous struggle against the feudal aristocracy and actively supported the policy of centralization. She formed her own corporate bodies, insisted on liberation from heavy taxation and the elimination of privileged feudal trades and trades in the cities.

Thus, in the emerging political situation, all three social forces - the feudal (secular and spiritual) aristocracy, the serving nobility and the elite of the town - formed the basis of the estate-representative system of government.

Lesson plan:

1. Reasons for the formation of the Russian centralized state.
2. The political system of the Russian state at the end of the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries.

The beginning of the centralization process dates back to the 14th century. However, until the 80s of the 15th century. The unification of Russian lands and the centralization of state power took place within the framework of feudal fragmentation that still prevailed. Only since the 80s. XV century The dominant form of the political system of Rus' is no longer fragmentation, but a centralized state. The completion of the process of forming a single state territory and the design of a centralized management system dates back to the end of the 15th - 16th centuries.

It should be noted that the process of the emergence of centralized states is a natural stage in the development of feudalism, following the early feudal period and feudal fragmentation. It occurs at a stage in the development of feudalism when more or less strong economic ties are established between individual regions of the country due to the growth of the social division of labor, the development of crafts and commodity production, and the growth of cities. Along with the commonality of this process, Russia, in comparison with Western Europe, had its own characteristics. In Western Europe, the formation of centralized states took place under the conditions of emerging bourgeois development, and in Russia it began under the dominance of the feudal system. However, the main feature is the predominance of political reasons over economic ones. In Russia, the process of centralization was significantly accelerated by the need to combat external dangers: the Golden Horde first of all, but also threats from Lithuania and the Livonian Order.

1. Reasons for the formation of a centralized state.

In the 14th century tendencies began to emerge for the political unification of Russian princes. This was facilitated - although not to the same extent as in Western Europe - by the socio-economic development of the country: Rus' began to recover from Batu's pogrom.

Agriculture, restored after the Mongol-Tatar invasion, is developing. The rise in productive forces in agriculture occurs mainly due to the expansion of areas sown with agricultural crops. During this period, peasants intensively plowed wastelands - lands abandoned as a result of enemy raids, cleared forest areas for arable land, and colonized the lands of the Urals and Primorye.

There was a transition to a two- and three-field crop rotation system; the plow with an iron coulter became the main arable implement; the land began to be fertilized with manure.

But as the area of ​​cultivated land increased, thereby increasing its value, the offensive of the feudal lords against the peasants intensified. The land is valuable to the feudal lord only if the peasants who work it live on it. During the XI-XV centuries. Feudal land ownership increased significantly: the free, peasant community was absorbed by feudal owners. Only in the northeast did the so-called “black” peasants survive, who did not belong to individual feudal lords.

From the middle of the 14th century. The church begins to turn into a large feudal landowner. Under the conditions of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, the church was placed in the most favorable conditions compared to other layers of feudal lords. In Russia, as in other conquered countries, the Mongol-Tatars did not touch the church. They perfectly understood the power of its influence on the masses, which could be used to assert the power of the conquerors. Church lands were exempted from paying tribute, even from the supply and maintenance of Tatar horses. The Church received immunity from the conquerors. Also, through purchases, usurious transactions, grants from the prince, deposits of patrimonial landowners, metropolitan, episcopal, and monastic land ownership is expanding. Founded by Sergius of Radonezh, the Trinity-Sergius Monastery (1339) became one of the largest feudal lords. The same large landowners became the Kirillov Monastery in the north near White Lake, the Solovetsky Monastery founded in 1404. It became the largest landowner in the 14th century. Moscow Metropolitan.

The development of feudal property and its new forms caused a further increase in the dependence and exploitation of the rural working population. However, feudal exploitation in the XIII - XV centuries. was not intensive: with the weak development of commodity-money relations, the feudal lord was content with receiving only those agricultural products that he could consume. Quirk in kind was the main form of rent. The increased exploitation of peasants intensified the class struggle and led to numerous anti-feudal protests. This struggle took a variety of forms: clearing and mowing the fields and meadows of the feudal lord, setting fire to his estate, killing individual patrimonial lords, and armed uprisings. Therefore, the feudal class was interested in expanding the base of the grand ducal power and strengthening the state.

From the second half of the 14th century. The rise of urban craft begins. It was accompanied by a significant increase in craft technology. Among the numerous craft specialties of the cities, metal processing occupied first place. The most common trades were blacksmithing and weapons production. It should be said that firearms appeared in Rus' simultaneously with their appearance in Western Europe. During the siege of Moscow by Tokhtamysh in 1382, cannons (so-called mattresses) were used on the fortress walls of Moscow.

Jewelry making became widespread. Russian weapons and jewelry successfully competed with the products of Damascus, Milan, Baghdad and Constantinople craftsmen, who brought their goods to the Crimean market. Many Russian cities, especially Moscow, were famous at that time for their excellent gunsmiths, jewelers, silversmiths and goldsmiths.

The widespread development of crafts, its further separation from agriculture, and the growth of commodity production of artisans caused the economic rise of cities, which was especially clearly observed at the end of the 14th century.

In the XIV-XV centuries. cities were built up, expanded, and actively populated by artisans and merchants. During this period, many new Russian cities were born, growing mainly from trade and craft villages. These include Klin, Serpukhov, Kineshma, Ruza, Vereya, Borovsk, Kashira and others.

In the old cities - Moscow, Vladimir, Novgorod, Pskov, Kostroma, Nizhny Novgorod, large craft settlements grew up. Cities increasingly turned into centers of craft. The rise of agricultural production and the development of crafts increased the role of cities and as trading centers. In a number of cities, including Moscow, Novgorod, and Tver, certain branches of craft worked only for the market. In Moscow, for example, commodity production was widely developed in pottery, leather and shoemaking.

In the cities there were “trades” - markets where local agricultural products and handicrafts were sold. Local trades predominated, but which acquired the significance of regional markets (Novgorod the Great, Pskov, Tver, Ryazan, Nizhny Novgorod). Internal trade relations developed primarily between town and village within each principality. However, trade ties also developed between the various lands of North-Eastern Rus'.

The development of trade relations between the Russian lands is indicated, in particular, by the treaty letters of the princes of the 14th-15th centuries. These letters indicated that the princes undertake not to interfere with the trade of merchants, to let them pass through their possessions “without hooks and without dirty tricks.” All this constituted one of the prerequisites for the political unification of Rus'.

The most extensive trade relations were developed by Moscow, which became the largest center of North-Eastern Rus', the main market for agricultural products. The expansion of trade contributed to the strengthening of economic ties between individual principalities. However, for further economic development it was necessary to unite all Russian lands into a single state.

The completion of the political unification of Rus' was caused by the need to liberate the country from the yoke of the Mongol-Tatar khans, as well as by an increase in external danger. The raids on Rus' by the Golden Horde khans still did not stop. Behind the Tatar feudal lords now stood the powerful Sultan's Turkey. After recognition in the 70s of the 15th century.

With the Crimean Khanate, vassalage of the Sultan, the Turkish feudal lords actually captured the southern regions of Ukraine, the Azov region, and a significant part of the Caucasus. They cut off Russian lands from the shores of the Black and Azov Seas.

The Russian people were not only not cut off from the seas by neighboring states, but also from the mouths of large rivers. The entire middle and lower reaches of the Dnieper were captured by Lithuania. Livonian knights established themselves on the lower reaches of the Western Dvina and Neman. The middle and lower reaches of the Volga were dominated by Mongol-Tatar feudal lords. The feudal lords of Poland, Lithuania, Livonia and Sweden set the feudal nobility of Novgorod, Pskov, Tver and Ryazan against Moscow and, with their help, sought to seize the border Russian lands.

Thus, not only the economic, but also the political development of the Russian lands required the completion of their unification in a single state. Due to the above reasons, all segments of the population of Rus' were interested in the process of unification.

1. The unification of Russian lands around Moscow.

In the 80-90s of the 13th century, the process of formation of new principalities continued in North-Eastern Rus', and this was not just the fragmentation of the former principalities, but the emergence of independent and semi-independent states. The new principalities in the political events of their time acted as an increasingly stronger force, despite the relatively small size of their territory. This is evidenced by the political history of Moscow, Tver, Yaroslavl and other principalities. In northeastern Rus', new centers of economic development arose, which also became centers of struggle against the conquerors. Apparently, Tver developed the fastest at the end of the 13th century, where, already in 1285, even earlier than in Novgorod, stone construction began for the first time after the invasion. True, the Cathedral of the Savior took several years to build, but still it became the first stone structure after the Mongol-Tatar invasion. This was not only a manifestation of the increased strength of Tver, but was of no small importance for the defense of the city. At the end of the 13th century, Tver and its prince, who had the label of a great reign, acted as a real force seeking to lead the Russian lands. However, pretty soon Tver had rivals.

At the turn of the 13th-14th centuries, Moscow began to rapidly grow stronger. In the first years of the 14th century. Moscow Prince Daniil Alexandrovich took Kolomna (1301) and Mozhaisk (1303) from their neighbors. The entire course of the Moscow River came under the authority of the Moscow prince. At the same time, apparently taking advantage of the discord between the Pereyaslavl and Tver princes, the Moscow prince won over the Pereyaslavl prince to his side and received from him his possessions in his will (1302). With the addition of the Pereyaslavl principality with its densely populated, long-cultivated lands, salt lands, and fishing, the power of the Moscow prince increased even more.

In the struggle between the Tver and Moscow princes, a lot of blood was shed. Both rival sides relied on the Mongol-Tatars. The princes made trips to the Horde more than once. In the Horde in 1318, the Tver prince Mikhail Yaroslavich died, and then in 1325 his rival, the Moscow prince Yuri Daniilovich, died. The struggle had the character of a typical feudal strife, but in its objective content it was the initial stage of a new stage of the unification process in North-Eastern Russia. The question of the political center that would lead this process in the future was being resolved. And the Principality of Moscow became such a center. There were objective and subjective prerequisites that determined Moscow's victory. If we compare the geographical conditions of development of Moscow and Tver, they are generally similar. Moscow, however, had an advantage over Tver in that it occupied a more central position in relation to all the northeastern lands and that important water and land routes passing through its area connected various parts of Northeastern Rus'. In addition, the geographical position of Moscow guaranteed it a certain security: from the north-west it was covered by the Tver Principality, and from the east and south-east of the Golden Horde by other Russian lands, which contributed to the influx of residents here and an increase in population density. The Moscow principality also became a territory of developed feudal land tenure.

One of the greatest political achievements of the Moscow princes in the first half of the 14th century was winning the church to their side. When in 1299 Metropolitan Maxim moved from the devastated Kyiv to Vladimir, he became an ally of the Tver prince, who was then the Grand Duke. The Church sought support in a strong prince and therefore focused on Tver. After the death of Maxim in 1307, the prince of Tver wanted to consolidate his alliance with the church and sent his bishop to the patriarch of Constantinople with a request to install him as metropolitan of Rus'. But the patriarch had another candidate for the Russian metropolis - Peter, who arrived in Rus'. In Tver, Peter was greeted coldly. Moscow Prince Yuri Danilovich took advantage of this and attracted Peter to his side. The far-sighted Ivan Daniilovich, who ruled in Moscow during the life of his older brother, Yuri, built the first stone church in the city in 1326 - the Assumption Cathedral and invited Metropolitan Peter, who lived for a long time in Moscow, to completely leave Vladimir. Peter agreed, but in the same year 1326 he died and was buried in Moscow. His successor Theognostus finally made Moscow the center of the all-Russian metropolis. Therefore, some historians date the transfer of the capital of Rus' from Vladimir to Moscow to 1326. Their more far-sighted policies also played a significant role in the success of the Moscow princes. Taking advantage of the contradictions in the camp of their opponents and consistently attracting a wide variety of social forces to their side, the Moscow princes step by step strengthened their position. They often acted with military force, but in the first half of the 14th century a considerable share of Moscow's successes should be attributed to diplomatic activity.

In 1325, the brother of Prince Yuri Daniilovich, who was killed in the Horde, Ivan Daniilovich, appeared on the Moscow princely table, who subsequently subdued the apt nickname “Kalita” - the money bag. There are two versions about the origin of this nickname. According to one of them, he received his nickname due to the fact that he was a prudent, cautious politician and a hoarding owner: a wicket was a purse for money that was tied to a belt. According to the second version, Ivan Daniilovich was nicknamed Kalita because he always carried a bag with copper money, which he distributed to the poor and needy.

Ivan Daniilovich was an experienced politician, he knew the Horde well and soon tried to use its rulers in his own interests. At the time of Kalita’s reign, the label for the great reign was with the Tver prince Alexander Mikhailovich. two years later, in August 1327, a large popular uprising against the Mongol-Tatars broke out in Tver. Ivan Kaliita went to the Horde and returned from there with a punitive Mongol-Tatar detachment, which dealt a heavy blow to the entire Tver principality. Thus, the power of Moscow’s rival, the Tver prince, was undermined. Ivan Daniilovich gained great trust from the khans; he was instructed to collect tribute from Russian lands and send it to the Horde. The Baska system in Rus' was eliminated, in which the khan's officials - the Baskaks - collected tribute, while committing violence and cruelty. During this period, the Horde's invasion of Rus' almost completely ceased. The chronicler noted: “And from then on there was great silence for 40 years, and the abominations stopped fighting the Russian land and slaughtering Christians, and Christians rested and perished from great languor and many burdens, from Tatar violence.” The respite from the Tatar invasions played a big role in the restoration and development of the economy in the Russian lands. This respite was an immediate prerequisite for the economic upswing that began in the second half of the 14th century and predetermined decisive successes in the unification process and the fight against the Mongol-Tatars. The transformation of Moscow into a gathering center for the Horde “exit” gave the Moscow princes the opportunity to significantly enrich themselves and bring many small principalities under their influence. A significant role was played by the alliance between Moscow and the Novgorod Republic, established in the first half of the 14th century, which was interested in supporting Moscow against neighboring Tver, which threatened it. Through the Tver lands, grain was transported from the central regions of the country, which was in short supply in Novgorod, surrounded by infertile lands, and the Tver princes more than once resorted to direct pressure on Novgorod, detaining ships with grain in Torzhok. According to tradition, Moscow princes became princes in Novgorod. But they did not interfere in Novgorod affairs, acting only as military leaders in the defense of Novgorod land from its neighbors. At the same time, Novgorod gave Moscow considerable funds, which the Moscow princes often demanded from the Novgorod Republic on an emergency basis. The concentration of significant material resources in the hands of the prince made it possible to acquire new lands (the so-called purchases of Ivan Kalita). One of Kalita’s spiritual letters lists the villages he bought in the Novgorod, Vladimir, Kostroma, Pereyaslav, Yuryev and Rostov lands. In this way, the prudent prince penetrated into other principalities, gaining new opportunities to carry out his affairs. But the Moscow prince also acted by force. He thus subjugated the Rostov principality. Kalita tried to put an end to the Tver prince Alexander Mikhailovich by force, when he fled to Pskov and refused to go to the Horde khan for reprisals. Kalita was helped by the church - Metropolitan Theognost excommunicated Pskov from the church, banned worship there and achieved his goal - the Pskovites expelled Alexander Mikhailovich, who had to flee to Lithuania. In 1339, Ivan Kalita removed the bell from the main Tver Cathedral and took it to Moscow.

Ivan Kalita devoted a lot of effort and attention to the construction of the new capital of the Russian land - Moscow. He built a new, oak Kremlin in Moscow, which significantly increased its importance as a military-defense center. Five stone cathedrals erected under Kalita further strengthened both the military-defensive and ecclesiastical-political significance of Moscow.

Shortly before his death in 1339, Kalita traveled to the Horde with his two sons and confirmed his will there. One of his spiritual documents bears the Khan's tamga - evidence of its approval by the Uzbek Khan. Kalita's spiritual testament secured the primacy of the Moscow prince over his brothers. the territory of the principality was divided by Kalita between his sons - heirs in such a way that the Moscow prince Simeon the Proud received a preponderance of material forces compared to

by their brothers. Therefore, when the Russian princes went to the Horde for a label for the great reign, no one could compete with Simeon Ivanovich - he received the grand-ducal table from Khan Uzbek. In the Golden Horde, he received not only a great reign - all the Russian appanage princes were “given under his hands,” that is, they ceased to be equal to him and became his subordinates. The new Grand Duke treated them arrogantly, which is why he received the nickname Proud.

In 1347, Simeon Ivanovich more firmly cemented the alliance between Moscow and Tver, taking as his wife the daughter of the Tver prince Alexander Mikhailovich, who died in the Horde.

Simeon the Proud continued the policy of his father - he often traveled to the Horde and sought unity of action between the great and appanage princes. During his reign, Rus' did not experience bloody strife and Horde pogroms. But in 1352 it was subjected to another, no less terrible in its consequences, devastation - the Black Death epidemic. In 1351, the plague was brought to Russia from Western Europe through Poland, and a little later it came from the south. The Grand Duke himself became a victim of the Black Death in 1353. After the death of Simeon the Proud, Khan Janibek issued a label for the great reign to his brother Ivan Ivanovich (1353-1359). By nature, Ivan was a quiet and unambitious person, for which he received the nickname Meek. Ivan the Meek died in 1359, when his son Dmitry was nine years old.

Taking advantage of the minority of the Moscow prince Dmitry, in 1359 the Suzdal prince Dmitry Konstantinovich managed to acquire the label for the great reign. But those close to the Moscow prince, of course, could not come to terms with the loss of their privileged position. The Moscow boyars, led by Metropolitan Alexei - Kalita's godson, skillful politics in the Horde, as well as direct military pressure on Dmitry Konstantinovich, forced the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod prince in 1363 to renounce the great reign in favor of the Moscow dynasty, and in 1366 to marry Dmitry Ivanovich his daughter, Evdokia.

Dmitry Ivanovich successfully continued the work of his grandfather - he strengthened the power of Moscow. In this he was persistent and unshakable. His distinguishing feature was military valor. He boldly entered into the fight against strong enemies - Tver, Lithuania, Ryazan and even the Golden Horde.

The defeat of Moscow's rivals in the struggle for the great reign was an important prerequisite for the consolidation of all-Russian forces to fight the external enemy. Moscow, which became the main center of Rus', was actively preparing its forces for the decisive battle with the conquerors. The Moscow prince began to send his troops to meet the Mongol-Tatar invasions that resumed after a long break into the borders of other principalities and lands, thereby fulfilling the function of the defender of the entire Russian land. On the Vozha River, the right tributary of the Oka, his troops defeated the Khan of the Golden Horde, Begich, in 1378. It was the largest Russian victory over the conquerors. The power of the Golden Horde was shaken.

To restore his former power, the ruler of the Horde, Mamai, began to gather forces for a campaign against Moscow. He prepared for it long and carefully. He pulled together an army from all the lands under his control and recruited mercenaries. In 1380, according to the chronicler, he recruited mercenaries. In 1380, according to the chronicler, he moved to Rus' “with all the princes and with the powerful Tatar and Polovtsian forces,” and along the way, “he annexed many hordes to himself.” Together with the Horde cavalry, mercenary Genoese infantry marched to the Russian borders. According to historians, Mamai’s army reached 200-300 thousand people - more than Batu Khan had during the conquest of Rus'. He found Mamai and allies - the Grand Duke of Lithuania Jagiello and Prince Oleg of Ryazan. The Ryazan principality was on the route of the Horde and was afraid to oppose them. A terrible danger loomed over Russia.

Dmitry Ivanovich, having learned at the end of July about the Mongol-Tatar movement, made an appeal for the gathering of Russian military forces in Moscow and Kolomna, a Moscow fortress on the Oka River. Soon the Grand Duke himself marched to Kolomna with an army. On the spacious Maiden Field near Kolomna, all the regiments united. Most likely, the number of the Russian army reached 100-150 thousand people, and the Horde, as already indicated, 200-300 thousand people. But there are also judgments (in particular, by the military historian E.A. Razin) that the Russian army was half the size mentioned. Be that as it may, contemporaries argued that Rus' had never assembled such a large army. “From the beginning of the world, such was the power of the Russian princes,” wrote the chronicler. With this army, Dmitry Ivanovich moved towards the Don. The plan for the campaign was to instead of defending on the Oka River, where Mamai could unite with his allies, cross the Oka and move towards the enemy to the upper reaches of the Don.

On the morning of September 7, Russian regiments crossed from the left bank to the right bank of the Don at the confluence of the Nepryadva River and settled down on the Kulikovo Field. The Advance Regiment stood in front, next to it on the flanks were the Right Hand and Left Hand regiments, behind it was the reserve (cavalry). Behind the left flank, in the forest (in the “oak grove”), the Ambush Regiment was located, led by Prince Vladimir Andreevich the Brave and boyar D.M. Bobrok-Volynsky.

The crossing of the Don meant the determination of the Russian commanders to fight to the end, since the possibility of retreat was greatly complicated by the fact that in the rear of the Russian army there were the Don and Nepryadva rivers and deep ravines. At the same time, this position made it difficult for the Mongol-Tatar cavalry to make outflanking maneuvers. Mamai's army stood in a deployed formation without reserves, the cavalry was in the first line, and the infantry in the second.

The general slaughter, according to the custom of that time, was preceded by a duel of heroes. A mighty warrior, Chelubey, emerged from the Horde ranks. The monk Alexander Peresvet, “a native of Lyubechan”, rushed towards him from the Russian ranks, about whom the chronicler wrote that “when he was in the world, he was a glorious hero, had great strength and strength and was skilled in military affairs.” The horsemen came together "and struck hard with their spears, and the spears broke, and both fell from their horses to the ground dead and their horses fell." Alexander Peresvet is the first hero and the first Russian warrior to fall in this battle. After this, the main forces converged. The Tatar cavalry, having crushed the Advanced Regiment, began to press out the Big Regiment, the Russian regiments suffered heavy losses; Boyar Mikhail Brenok, who fought in the Big Regiment in the armor of the Grand Duke and under his banner, was killed. Dmitry Ivanovich, wearing the armor of an ordinary warrior, fought among the soldiers of the same regiment. The onslaught of the Mongol-Tatars in the center was delayed by the deployment of the reserve. The Horde failed to break through on the right flank of the Russian army. Then Mamai threw all his remaining forces onto the Russian left flank. The "Left Hand Regiment" began to slowly retreat. A critical moment was approaching - the Horde went around the Big Regiment from the side. Apparently, Mamai was already celebrating the victory. He did not know that a selected Russian regiment was hiding in an ambush in Green Dubrava, and the Horde tumens, approaching the flank of the Big Regiment, exposed themselves to the attack of the ambush. And the ambush regiment struck! “We left the green oak grove, attacked the great Tatar force and began to mercilessly kill the Tatars. And the Tatars took flight and ran...” The Russian soldiers rushed in pursuit, which lasted almost fifty miles, and only the fact that “their horses were tired” saved the remnants of Mamai’s army.

The victory in the Battle of Kulikovo can least of all be regarded as an accident. It was truly prepared by the entire course of development of the unification process, the rise of the national economy in Rus'. The great courage of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers, the military leadership and valor of Dmitry Ivanovich, nicknamed “Donskoy” for this victory, ensured one of the glorious victories in the history of our Motherland.

The victory on the Kulikovo Field had many consequences. It established the leadership position of Moscow in the Russian lands, showing the strength of the unity of the Russian lands to fight the external enemy and the organizing role of Moscow in this matter, and also caused a new rise in spiritual life in Rus'.

Nevertheless, the Russian princes had to pay tribute to the Horde for a long time even after the Battle of Kulikovo. This is explained by the fact that the unification process was not fixed, and the latter depended on the level of socio-economic development of Rus'.

However, in general, as a result of the reign of Dmitry Donskoy, significant successes were achieved in the unification process. In his spiritual will, Dmitry was able for the first time, without the sanction of the Horde khan, to transfer the great reign to his son Vasily as the “fatherland” of the Moscow princes.

By the end of the 15th century, the socio-economic and political prerequisites for the unification of Russian lands in one state had matured. They were embodied in the strengthening of the grand ducal power, which acquired a fairly strong material foundation as a result of the development of feudal land tenure and economy, as well as cities. The need to overthrow the Mongol-Tatar yoke and to defend against external enemies accelerated the process of the rise of the grand ducal power, which acted as the organizer of the defense of the Russian land.

The unification of Russian lands in one state took place over approximately 50 years - during the great reign of Ivan III Vasilyevich (1462-1505) and the first years of the reign of his successor Vasily III Ivanovich (1505-1533). Back at the end of the 14th century. The Nizhny Novgorod principality ceased to exist independently. In the 60-70s of the 15th century. The principalities of Yaroslavl and Rostov came under the authority of Moscow - not without direct violence on the part of Moscow. But the most difficult task was the liquidation of the strong and independent Novgorod feudal republic. Ivan III began to prepare for an attack against Novgorod. There were enough reasons for this: the Novgorodians did not fulfill previous agreements and seized lands that had been transferred to the great prince. In the 70s, part of the Novgorod nobility, led by the Boretskys, headed for the transition of Novgorod under the protection of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, so as not to give up their power to the Grand Duke of Moscow.

Attempts by the Novgorod nobility to enter into an alliance with Lithuania gave the Moscow prince a basis and at the same time gave rise to the need to take decisive measures to subjugate Novgorod to his power. A plan for the campaign against Novgorod was developed. In the spring of 1471, Ivan III set out on a campaign to “punish” the Novgorodians. On July 14, 1471, a decisive battle took place on the Sheloni River. The poorly organized Novgorod regiments were defeated without much effort. An agreement was concluded between Moscow and Novgorod. Under the terms of the agreement, the Novgorodians pledged to be “persistent” from the Moscow prince and not to come under the rule of Lithuania.

After the events of 1471, the situation in Novgorod worsened even more, which the Moscow Grand Duke soon took advantage of. In 1478, the Novgorod Republic was liquidated, the veche bell was removed and taken to Moscow. Together with Novgorod, Karelia was annexed to the Moscow principality, in 1472 - “Great” Perm, in 1483 - the Ugra and Vogul lands on the Ob, Irtysh and Tobol, and in 1489 - Moscow troops took Vyatka. The capture of Novgorod with its vast possessions was the decisive success of the Moscow grand-ducal power in the unification process.

Almost simultaneously, another major event occurred in the process of forming a unified Russian state. It was the overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke in 1480, associated with the success in the struggle of Ivan III against the appanage princes who rebelled. The ruler of one of the remnants of the collapsed Golden Horde, Ahmed Khan (he owned the so-called Great Horde), invaded Russian land and tried to force the Moscow Grand Duke to pay tribute again (Ivan III had already stopped paying money several years before). The situation was complicated by the alliance of Ahmed Khan with the Polish-Lithuanian sovereign Casimir IV. Ivan III showed extraordinary political skill by concluding an alliance with Ahmed Khan’s opponent, the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey, who attacked the Ukrainian possessions of Casimir IV and thereby prevented him from coming to the aid of Ahmed Khan. At the same time, Ivan III managed to eliminate the dangerous rebellion of the appanage princes.

Ahmed Khan's attempt to cross the river. Ugru turned out to be unsuccessful. Without waiting for help from Casimir and fearing the approaching winter, Ahmed Khan led his army back. “Standing on the Ugra” ended with the liberation of the Russian land from the Mongol-Tatar yoke. It was prepared by the entire course of history, the heroic struggle against the conquerors and the successes of the unification process. Having overthrown the Mongol-Tatar yoke, Moscow continued to unify the Russian lands even more actively.

The Prince of Moscow bore the title of Grand Duke, but there was another Prince of Tver, who also bore the title of Grand Duke. The reason for the Moscow prince's campaign against Tver was the attempt of the Tver prince Mikhail Borisovich to independently resolve issues that had previously been resolved jointly with Moscow. Moscow's ambassadors were expelled from Tver. Michael entered into an agreement with the Polish king Casimir IV. This is exactly what Ivan III was waiting for. In the winter of 1484-1485. Moscow troops moved to Tver. They crossed the border, as Mikhail Borisovich accepted the conditions of Ivan III, not to be called his brother, but his younger brother, to renounce the Novgorod lands, to participate in the military campaigns of Moscow, to sever ties with Lithuania. The Tver boyars went over to the side of Ivan III, and the townspeople peacefully kissed the cross to the new prince Ivan Ivanovich the Young, to whom Tver was granted as an inheritance. In 1485, the Moscow prince officially accepted the title of Grand Duke of “All Rus'”.

Grand Duke Vasily III (1505-1533) continued the gathering of Rus'. Next in line was the question of annexing Pskov, whose population and boyars had long gravitated towards Moscow. The resolution of this issue was accelerated by a new attack on Pskov by the troops of the Lithuanian Order, which besieged Pskov in September 1503. As a result of the war, Pskov abandoned its independent policy and joined the Russian state without any reservations. In 1510, the veche was liquidated in Pskov.

Finally, in 1512, the Ryazan principality, which had long been under the virtual subordination of Moscow, ceased to exist. The unification of Russian lands was basically completed. The territory subject to the Grand Duke of Moscow grew sixfold (Ivan III inherited approximately 430 thousand km from his predecessor in 1462. A huge power was formed, which turned into a major force in the then Europe. From the end of the 15th century, the term “Russia” began to be used .

1. The political system of the Russian state at the end of the 15th - 17th centuries.

In 1485, Ivan III declared himself “sovereign of all Rus'.” This led to the strengthening of the power of the Grand Duke himself and a change in his relations with other princes. The Grand Duke no longer became just the eldest or the first among equal princes, but a sovereign whose power far exceeded the rest of the Russian princes.

The relationship between the sovereign and the boyars began to take shape in a new way, although they not only were not yet removed from the decision of state affairs, but, on the contrary, remained his closest support. First of all, the composition of the nobility changed, which included princes and boyars from recently former independent lands and principalities. A system of internal hierarchy took shape among the boyars, which resulted in localism - the order of filling positions in accordance with the nobility of origin, which was determined by the length of service and the proximity of one or another family to the Grand Duke.

Under the sovereign, a permanent council of the nobility was formed - the Boyar Duma. Its members were appointed by the Grand Duke on the basis of parochial rules. The Boyar Duma met daily in the presence of the sovereign and resolved issues of domestic and foreign policy. The formula for the decision was the words: “the Grand Duke indicated, and the boyars sentenced.”

With the increase in the functions of public administration, the need arose to create special institutions that would manage military, foreign, land, financial, judicial and other affairs. In the ancient bodies of palace administration - the Grand Palace and the Treasury - special departmental “tables” began to be formed, controlled by clerks, who, as a rule, were nobles. Later they developed into orders, when a certain group of issues began to be entrusted (“ordered”) to some boyar, around whom a staff of clerks and clerks was formed.

To govern in districts - former independent lands, principalities or appanages - boyars - governors - were appointed for a certain period of time. For the performance of judicial and administrative functions, the governors collected “feed” from the subject population for their benefit, which is where the name “feeding” comes from. Formally serving the Grand Duke, the governor actually felt himself the owner of the territory entrusted to him.

For the first time in Rus', Moscow Prince Ivan III began to call himself not only the sovereign, but also the Tsar of All Rus'. The Roman emperor usually added the title "Caesar" to his name. The Russian word “tsar” comes from the word “Caesar”. Having been widowed, Ivan III remarried the Byzantine princess Sophia Paleologus, took the Byzantine coat of arms of the double-headed eagle, later combined with the Moscow coat of arms of St. George the Victorious. The “Monomakh’s cap” was used as a crown, with which the sovereign crowned Vasily III’s son from Sophia Palaeologus to the throne. In 1453, the Ottoman Turks captured the weakened Byzantium and Moscow became the center of government. Muscovy began to be called Russia.

The new state power and the new position of the feudal lords needed legal registration. The previous legal laws of Rus' are outdated. The most important legislative code of Russia, the era of the creation of a unified state, was the code of law of Ivan III, introduced in 1497. The code of law was designed primarily to ensure the class interests of the feudal lords. Article 57 of the Code of Law established as a national law the rule according to which peasants could leave their owners only once a year - a week before St. George’s Day, autumn (November 26), and during the week after it, with the obligatory payment of “elderly” - payment for living on the land of the feudal lord. There was a restriction of peasant freedom.

Dying in 1533, Grand Duke Vasily III (1505-1533) left two sons, Ivan and Yuri. The eldest of them, Ivan, was only three years old. Of course, the new Grand Duke could not rule himself. Power was concentrated in the hands of his mother Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya, but she also died when her son was 8 years old. Ivan's childhood was spent in the palace turmoil of the princes' struggle for power, which made him a suspicious, cruel, unbridled, despotic person. Metropolitan Macarius played a major role in establishing order in the country. In January 1547, according to the ritual he had conceived, the solemn wedding of Ivan IV (1533-1584) to the throne took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. For the first time, the Moscow Grand Duke was endowed with the title of Tsar, which, according to the concepts of that time, sharply elevated him above the entire Russian nobility and put him on an equal footing with Western European sovereigns. But there was another meaning in the crowning of Ivan IV. He received the royal crown from the hands of the head of the church and this emphasized the special position of the church in the state, which acted as a guarantor of autocratic power.

Intensification of the class struggle in the middle of the 16th century. became the most important prerequisite (along with the growth and development of cities) for the formation of an estate-representative monarchy in Russia, that is, a form of feudal state in which the power of the monarch was based on the bodies of estate representation of the nobles, clergy and townspeople. This form of state existed in most European countries during its heyday

feudalism. The bodies of class representation in different countries were called differently: in Spain and Portugal - Cortes, in France - General States, and in Russia - Zemsky Sobors. At the Zemsky Councils, in addition to members of the Boyar Duma and the highest clergy, representatives of the nobility, and since 1566, also of townspeople, were present. There were no peasants at the Zemsky Sobors.

The first Zemsky Sobor was convened in 1549. It is usually called the “Cathedral of Reconciliation”, since in his speech Ivan 1U condemned the boyar autocracy and called on the participants of the cathedral to cooperate. The created state required significant funds, so one of the most important issues at the Zemsky Councils was the introduction of new taxes and changes to the old ones. Foreign policy issues were also discussed here. For example, the council of 1653 approved the reunification of Ukraine with Russia.

The most important was the reform of local government, which consisted of provincial and zemstvo reforms.

As a result of the provincial reform, cases of “robbers” (as the feudal lords called people who opposed feudal oppression) were removed from the court, governors and volosts and transferred to the provincial authorities (from the word lip - district). They were headed by elected officials from local nobles - provincial elders. The provincial elders relied on wealthy peasants and townspeople.

The zemstvo reform consisted in the fact that the court, population management and collection of taxes, which were carried out by governors, were transferred to zemstvo elders, chosen from among the wealthy townspeople and peasants. In 1555-1556 the feeding system was abolished nationwide. In border cities, governors were replaced by governors who headed the military and civil administration of the city and district. At the beginning of the seventeenth century. Voivodes were introduced in all cities of Russia. They controlled the bodies of provincial and zemstvo self-government. Thus, the provincial reform began, and the zemstvo reform completed, the restructuring of local government on an estate-representative basis.

The central government bodies, the orders, were also strengthened. At this time, the main network of permanent orders was formed: Posolsky, Razryadny, Yamskoy and others. The orders grew not only in quantity, but the role of clerks in them increased. By the end of the sixteenth century. the number of orders reached 22.

In 1550 a new one was published Code of Law. It enshrined reforms in the field of local and centralized government. The Code of Law confirmed the restriction of the right of peasant transition only on St. George’s Day and increased the payment for the “elderly”.

The reforms of the 50s were carried out in the interests of the entire class of feudal lords, but they especially strengthened the nobility. In the localities, labial elders—nobles—began to play a greater role; in orders, the role of clerks—nobles—increased. Since the convening of the Zemsky Sobors, the nobility began to be involved in participation in governing the country even more actively. The power of the tsar strengthened, national legislation and taxation were further developed, and the state apparatus grew and strengthened.

The main code of laws of Russia in the 17th century. becomes the Council Code of 1649. It finally formalized serfdom, since it not only secured the secession of peasants from the owner, but also introduced an indefinite search for fugitive peasants with their return to the owner. The Conciliar Code also embodied the general trend in the development of the state system - the strengthening of the role of the nobility and partly the upper classes in the country's government and, in connection with this, the strengthening of the centralization of state power. From a historical perspective, this trend prepared the transition from autocracy to absolutism, which took shape in the first quarter of the 18th century. In the seventeenth century. the title of Russian tsars officially began to include the term “autocrat” (“great sovereign, tsar and grand duke, autocrat of all Russia”).

During the 17th century, changes occurred in the class composition of the Boyar Duma - the representation of the nobility increased. So from the Pskov nobles came the great statesman A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin. The clerk's son A.S. Matveev became a boyar close to the tsar.

In the first half of the seventeenth century. Zemsky Sobors met quite often. Subsequently, the strengthened autocratic power managed to resolve the most important state issues without convening councils, limiting itself to meetings with representatives of individual classes. The last councils took place in 1648-1649; 1651-1653 The withering away of Zemsky Sobors was one of the manifestations of the transition from an estate-representative monarchy to absolutism. The order system, designed to centralize government in the state, fragmented it more and more. In the seventeenth century. there were up to 80 orders. It was then that the notorious red tape and its inevitable companions flourished - bribery, embezzlement, bribery, which could not be stopped by any strictness of the tsarist decrees and codes.

In a peculiar attempt to strengthen centralized power and overcome the fragmentation of management in the middle of the 17th century. there was an organization of the Order of the Great Sovereign for secret affairs. Some important state affairs were removed from the jurisdiction of the orders and the Boyar Duma. Clerks of the Order of Secret Affairs accompanied the boyar-ambassadors abroad, strictly monitoring compliance with the instructions given to them. The order also managed the tsar's household, was in charge of the production of shells for artillery, and the investigation of political affairs.

Changes were also made to the local government system. In 1613, voivodes appointed by the government settled in 33 cities, then voivodes were sent to all cities of Russia, which meant a narrowing of local self-government. In a number of cases, provincial elders were retained in charge of judicial and police affairs. But provincial institutions became only executive bodies under the governors. Zemstvo elders oversaw the collection of direct taxes and were obliged to support the governor and his officials. Some districts were united under the authority of one governor into so-called categories and were the beginnings of the future division of the country into provinces.

In the second half and especially in the last quarter of the seventeenth century. In the political system of Russia, trends towards the formation of absolutism are clearly visible. This showed up in:

• — legislative registration by the Council Code of 1649 of the unlimited autocratic power of the tsar;
• - termination of the convening of Zemsky Sobors;
• - limiting the functions of the Boyar Duma, next to which the Tsar’s personal office appears - the Order of Secret Affairs;
• - abolition of localism in 1682, which contributed to the consolidation of the nobility and boyars into a single class - estate, the merger of patrimony and estates.

The formation of absolutism was completed during the reign of Peter I at the beginning of the 18th century. A Russian centralized state is formed, where political and economic unification takes place around a strong central government and an unlimited monarchy is established - absolutism (autocracy).

Literature:

Klyuchevsky V.O. Essays. In 9 volumes. T.2. Course of Russian history, part 2. - M.: Mysl, 1987.

Solovyov S.M. Works in 18 books. Book 3. History of Russia from ancient times. T.5-6.-M.: Mysl, 1983.

Sakharov A.M. Education and development of the Russian state in the 14th - 17th centuries - Moscow: Higher School, 1969. (1 ratings, average: 5,00 out of 5)

the definition established in domestic historiography of one of the most important stages in the formation of the Russian state (works of S.V. Bakhrushin, K.V. Bazilevich, L.V. Cherepnin, etc.). The name “unified Russian state” is also used (A.M. Sakharov, A.A. Zimin). According to a number of scientists, it developed at the end of the 14th - mid-16th centuries. in the process of strengthening the Moscow Grand Duchy and uniting Russian lands around it. By the middle of the 16th century. took the form of an estate-representative monarchy. The transition to an absolute monarchy (see Autocracy) was basically completed in the first quarter of the 18th century.

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

RUSSIAN CENTRALIZED STATE

feud. multinational state that united to the con. 15 - beginning 16th centuries around the Grand Duchy of Moscow there are territories of land and the Prince of North-East. Rus'. State-political building R. c. g., formed by the middle. 16th century, was a feud. monarchy with class representation. Some socio-economic. prerequisites for overcoming feud. fragmentations began to take shape in the South-West. and North-East. Rus' in con. 12 - beginning 13th centuries But this process was interrupted by the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars and the establishment of the Mongol-Tat. yoke. Prerequisites for centralization in the North-East. Rus' re-emerged in the 14th century, when a new economy began here. climb. The restoration of desolate lands and the development of new ones took place (colonization in the 14th and 15th centuries covered the northern, northeastern, and eastern countries). In most state formations North-East. Rus' gradually developed a stable complex of cultivated old arable lands (villages and villages and villages “pulling” towards them) - permanent centers of agriculture. production with a relatively stable composition of the working population. The volume of companies produced has increased. product, a certain commonality of agricultural conditions has developed. production On this basis the growth of the feud took place. land tenure. In the lands and princes of the North-East. Rus' developed stable systems of all types of feuds. land property. There was a process of concentration and mobilization of land, accelerated by an increase in commodity prices. appeals. As a result of this process, the system of established political systems was disrupted. borders. Growth of the feud. land ownership required the unification of the operating conditions of the feud. land property throughout the country. The overwhelming majority of feudal lords became interested in the success of centralization. Exacerbation of class. the struggle of the peasants in response to the attack of the feudal lords on the economy. and legal The interests of the peasantry also increased the interest of the feudal lords. owners in strengthening the state. apparatus of coercion and violence and the creation of its other forms. The church grew especially rapidly. land ownership, which was explained by privileges. the position of spiritual corporations. Church land ownership developed primarily at the expense of the “black” cross. lands, in colonized regions and partly at the expense of secular patrimony. Spiritual corporations (metropolitan and episcopal sees, Trinity-Sergius, Kirillo-Velozersky, Simonov and other monasteries) turned into owners on a scale throughout the North-East. Rus' is economically powerful and politically influential. part of the feudal class. This is where the support comes from. stage provided the Grand Duke. power of the earth the claims of the church, and the strong interest of the spiritual feudal lords in the success of the unification. Secular patrimonial land ownership also developed on the basis of the development of new and abandoned lands. As large-patrimonial property grew due to the concentration and mobilization of land, the ownership of some feudal lords violated the boundaries of political. formations. The legal entity has changed. status of a fiefdom, it gradually acquired a service character. In the 14th-15th centuries. there was a sharp increase in the layer of middle and small feudal lords who owned land on a conditional basis and were directly interested in strengthening the central state. authorities. The development of various types of conditional land tenure was explained by its special mobility. It spread to the “black” and palace lands, as well as to the lands of the church. and secular feudal lords. In the end 15th century a local system arose - a type of conditional land tenure, adapted to economics. and political needs of R. c. d. Objective interest of the overwhelming majority of feudal lords in the North-East. Rus''s unification of the country was realized in the contradictory struggle of various groups of the ruling class for specific ways and methods of centralization, for ensuring their economics. and political goals. The material prerequisites for unification in the sphere of crafts and trade took shape as the destroyed cities were restored and new ones emerged. Differentiation of crafts. production, the beginning of the transition of a number of its industries to small-scale production led to the expansion of commodity circulation in the country. Local markets were taking shape; All-Russian market connections. The development of the latter took place on the basis of natural geography. division of labor and was stimulated by the expansion of external trade and concentration of crafts. production in large cities (Moscow, Tver, Novgorod, etc.). As a result, most of the trade and crafts. population of the North-East. Rus' became interested in the creation of the Russian Church. g. However, his position was contradictory, because the formation of R. c. happened in means. least due to economic robbery and political subjugation of cities. Dept. layers of trade and crafts. the population of certain cities (Tver, Galich, etc.) supported the separatist aspirations of their princes or, as in Novgorod, the church. and the boyar elite. Preservation of the yoke of the Golden Horde, expansionist policy of Vel. The princes of the Lithuanian, Livonian Order and Sweden stimulated the interest of the population of the North-East. Rus', primarily the ruling class, in accelerating centralization. Education R. c. was inextricably linked with the successes of the national liberation movement. struggle. But constant distraction means. funds for foreign policy. goals slowed down the pace of unification of the country. As a result of an intense struggle between the two strongest princes - Tver and Moscow - the latter won and Moscow became the center of the emerging Republican Church. (from the 2nd half of the 14th century). Under Dmitry Donskoy (1359-89) she became the head of the liberation. struggle North-East. Rus' against the Mongol-Tat. yoke. Under Vasily I Dmitrievich (1389-1425), the Nizhny Novgorod princedom was annexed and foreign policy was strengthened. north-east position rus. lands: During the reign of Vasily II Vasilyevich (1425-1462), the struggle for centralization unfolded within Moscow itself. led Prince-va and resulted in a feud. war 2nd quarter 15th century At the last stage it covered all state. education North-East. Rus'. The defeat of the Galician princes of Moscow. houses and their allies led to a sharp change in the balance of power in favor of the grand dukes. authorities. During the reign of Ivan III (1462-1505) the formation of a single territory. R. c. was actually completed. It included the Tver, Yaroslavl, Rostov and other principalities, as well as the Novgorod land. Rights of appanage princes in Moscow. houses were limited. In 1480 the Mongol-Tat was overthrown. yoke, and as a result of the Russian-Lithuanians. war con. 15 - beginning 16th centuries Vyazma, Bryansk, the appanages of the “Verkhovsky” princes, Novgorod-Seversky and Starodub principalities were annexed. In the 1st half. 16th century The folding of the terrain was completed. R. c. g.: the independence of Pskov was liquidated (1510), the Ryazan princedom was annexed (1521) and as a result of the war with the Polish-Lithuanian. Smolensk was returned to the state (1514). In 1552-56, with the annexation of the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates, the rapid growth of the territory began. R. c. city ​​in the east. During the reign of Vasily III (1505-33) and the regency of Elena Glinskaya (1533-38), the appanages of the Moscow princes were liquidated. houses (later only the appanage of the princes Staritsky was restored; the appanages of the service princes Vorotynsky, Odoevsky, Mstislavsky, etc. were also partially preserved). Completion of registration of social and state-political. structures of R. c. occurred by mid. 16th century Multi-level vassal relations within the feudal class were replaced by relations of citizenship led. prince (from 1547 - tsar). The feudal class has become a mean. to the extent of a closed class. A system of ranks of the ruling class was developed. All secular feudal lords were divided into the ranks of “Duma”, “Moscow” and “city” (see Service people). In accordance with the rank, the official appointments of the feudal lords were determined, and their money was established. and earth salary (“local salaries”). The clan composition of the first two ranks was fixed in the “Sovereign Genealogy” (c. 1555). The relationships of feudal lords within these groups and their career advancement were determined by the norms of localism. These families owned most of the secular patrimonial land ownership. The “city” ranks, subdivided into a number of articles, made up the rank and file of the feudal class and were divided into territorial units. corporations, the numerical and family composition of which was recorded in “tens”. The peculiarities of the position of each corporation were ultimately determined by history. conditions for the development of a particular area. This group was characterized by medium and small local and patrimonial land ownership. The "Code of Service" (c. 1556) determined the types and sizes of military forces. services of all secular feudal lords. An influential part of the ruling class was the church. corporations. A general legal framework was established. privilege of the feudal class. Intermediate layer R. c. g., the design of which is associated with the military. reforms mid. 16th century and governments. colonization of the south regions, there were service people “according to the instrument”. They included archers, gunners and fighters (the rank and file of the marching and fortress artillery), collars, guards, "stern", "city" and "local" Cossacks. They were personally free people, obliged to state regulations. type of service for which they received a salary. The status of trade and craft is being developed. layers of mountains population. All land in cities, with the exception of “white” settlements and courtyards, was considered the sovereign’s, and the townspeople were a taxable population, obliged to bear duties and pay taxes. The privileged part of the posad class consisted of guests and cloth workers. The population of "white" settlements and courtyards, as well as private owners. cities were exploited by their fiefs. owners. The most oppressed class of the R. c. there was a peasantry. Education R. c. g. not only consolidated the previously developed serfdom. trends, but in means. least predetermined by the constant strengthening of serfdom. Peasantry depending on legal status. The status of the land to which it was attached was divided into black-mown, palace and privately owned. Various forms of “whitewashed” servitude were being eliminated, the rapid growth of indentured servitude, and the convergence of real economics took place. the position of the peasantry and the overwhelming majority of slaves. Head of the R. c. g. was led. prince (from 1547 - tsar), who formally possessed all the fullness of the highest legislation, court. and will fulfill it. authorities. Legislative council, court. and will fulfill it. the institution was the Boyar Duma, which represented the estates. organ of the entire secular part of the feud. class and above all its aristocratic. tops. Boyar Duma means. limited the power of the monarch. K ser. 16th century The Zemsky Sobor, the highest legislative council, arose. a body consisting of the Boyar Duma, the “Consecrated Cathedral” (the highest hierarchs of the Russian church), representatives of the “Moscow” and “city” officials, as well as the townspeople. The most important foreign issues were brought up for consideration by the Zemsky Sobors, convened on the initiative of the government. and internal politicians. In the end 15 - 1st floor. 16th centuries center. executive bodies and court. the powers were the grand dukes. Treasury, Palace (Bolshoi and regional) and permanent commissions under the Boyar Duma. By the 50s. 16th century orders arose. The emergence and strengthening of the order system meant the birth of bureaucracy. machines R. c. g. To replace the viceroyal system of local authorities, which played a positive role. role during the formation of R. c. g., estate-representative institutions of local self-government (provincial and zemstvo huts) came, which were under the control of the central authorities. They were led by representatives of the local nobility, the wealthy part of the townspeople and the black-growing peasantry. Some of the functions of local government were transferred to direct hands. production agents (city clerks, etc.). Reforms of the 50s 16th century unified the financial and tax system of the R.C. g. and consolidated a single common state. law (Code Code 1497 and 1550). Terr. R. c. in the 50s. 16th century (without the districts of the Middle and Lower Volga region) was approx. 3 million km2. In the north it extended to the Barents and White Seas, capturing in the north-east. region Northern Ural. To the north-west R. c. The city bordered with Norway, Sweden and the Livonian Order. Zap. and southwest neighbor R. c. was Vel. Prince of Lithuania. South the border was uncertain. K ser. 16th century rus. colonization spread to the upper reaches of pp. Oskol, Don, Voronezh. East the border ran along the foothills of the Middle Urals. To the south-east was ter. the nomadic Great Nogai Horde, which gradually fell into vassal dependence on the R. c. g. Number population of the R. c. in mid. 16th century - approximately 7-9 million hours. Ethnic. the basis was the Great Russian. (Russian) nationality. In addition, it included the Lapps, Khanty, Mansi, Komi, Udmurts, Tatars, Mari, Chuvash, Mordovians, Karelians and other peoples and tribes. The inclusion of these peoples in the R.C. there was progress. factor in their further history. development, but it was carried out primarily in the interests of the ruling class and was carried out using methods of violence. Christianization and Russification. Education R. c. g. - the most important stage in history. development of our country. Despite all the inconsistency and complexity, the process of unification of Russian. and other peoples into a single state had generally progressive significance. Its completion led to the creation of new, more favorable conditions for the development of the country’s economy, the culture of its peoples and for resolving internal political issues. and foreign policy tasks. Historiography. The problem of education R. c. g. was one of the most important topics of Russian research. pre-revolutionary historiography. But its representatives were far from truly scientific. problem statement and solution. The merit of state historians. schools, especially O. M. Solovyov, there was an attempt to reveal the patterns that led to the formation of a unified Rus. state In the works bourgeois. historians have collected valuable factual information. material and interesting specific observations were made (especially in the works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky, A. E. Presnyakov). In Sov. historiography, the first steps in studying the problem were made in the 20-30s. The successes of these years are associated with the name of M.H. Pokrovsky, who, however, made serious mistakes (the theory of “merchant capital,” which he later abandoned, the concept of the “struggle for markets” and the collapse of the feudal order with the formation of the Russian Central Church. etc.). The turning point in the study of the folding of R. c. It was the end of the 30s. The questions of this problem were then most fully posed in the articles of S.V. Bakhrushin and K.V. Bazilevich, who criticized the concept of M.N. Pokrovsky (S.V. Bakhrushin, “Feudal order” in the understanding of M.N. Pokrovsky, in the collection: “ Against the historical concept of M. N. Pokrovsky,” part 1, M.-L., 1939, K. V. Bazilevich, “Trading capitalism” and the genesis of Moscow autocracy in the works of M. N. Pokrovsky, ibid. They first used the term "R. c. g." Methodological the fundamentals and methods of solving the problem were clarified and developed during the discussion held by J. “Questions of History” (in 1946 - about the formation of the Russian Central Geography, in 1949-51 - about the periodization of the history of the USSR). Throughout the 40-60s. there was a wide study of socio-economic. and political development problems of the North-East. Rus' in 14 - 1st half. 16th centuries All this made it possible to create generalized studies devoted to the history of the formation of the R. c. d. However, a number of significant issues of the problem are interpreted differently by scientists. Most of them began to form R. c. dates back to the 14th century. (K.V. Bazilevich - by the 80s of the 15th century), but they will finish. registration of R. c. dated differently: con. 15th century (V.V. Mavrodin), 1st half. 16th century (I. I. Smirnov), 16th century, including oprichnina (S. V. Yushkov, P. P. Smirnov), and mid. 17th century (K.V. Bazilevich). L.V. Cherepnin believes that the formation of the R. c. g. ends mainly in the end. 15 - beginning 16th centuries, and will end. registration of R. c. g. belongs to the middle. 16th century Various opinions have been expressed about the basic social exponents of the centralization process: the nobility and townspeople (K.V. Bazilevich, S.V. Bakhrushin, P.P. Smirnov), church. feudal lords and Moscow boyars (S.V. Yushkov), large “multi-patrimonial landowners” (S.B. Veselovsky), various circles of the ruling class (A.M. Sakharov), various layers of the ruling class of feudal lords and various layers of townspeople (L.V. Cherepnin) . These discrepancies are associated with different understandings of the course of politics. struggle during the formation of the R. c. d. A common point of view is that character is political. struggle in the 1st half. 16th century determined by the collision of economics. and political interests of the progressive landed nobility and the conservative princely-boyar layer. Recent works (by L.V. Cherepnin, A.A. Zimin, S.M. Kashtanov, etc.) show the schematic nature of this division of the class of feudal lords and the inaccuracy of characterizing the actions of the department. its layers, found among supporters of such a scheme. There is also no unity of views on the issue of the level of development of small-scale commodity production in the 14th-15th centuries. These and other questions of the history of the Russian ts. g. need additional studying. Lit.: Presnyakov A.V., Education Velikorus. state-va, P., 1918; Mavrodin V.V., Education of a unified Rus. state-va, L., 1951; Cherepnin L.V., Education Rus. centralized state in XIV-XVBB., M., 1960; his, La r?organisation de l'appareil d'Etat durant la p?riode de la centralization politique de la Russie. Fin du XVe et d?but du XVIe si?cle, "Annali delia Fondazione italiana per la storia amministrativa", 1964, No. 1; him, On the question of the role of cities in the process of formation of Rus. centralized state, in the book: Cities of feud. Russia. Sat. Art., M., 1966; Lyubavsky M.K., Basic education. state terr. Great Russian Nationalities, Leningrad, 1929; Veselovsky S.V., Feod. land ownership in the North-East. Rusi, vol. 1, M.-L., 1947; Grekov B.D., Peasants in Rus' from ancient times to the middle. XVII century, 2nd ed., book. 1-2, M.-L., 1952-54; Kopanev A.I., History of land ownership in the Belozersky region in the 15th-16th centuries, M.-L., 1951; Danilova L.V., Essays on the history of land ownership and management in the Novgorod land of the 14th-15th centuries, M., 1955; Vernadsky V.N., Novgorod and Novgorod land in the 15th century, M.-L., 1961; Gorsky A.D., Essays on economics. the situation of the peasants in the North-East. Rus' XIV-XV centuries, M., 1960; Kochin G.E., Agriculture in Rus' during the period of formation of Rus. centralized state, late XIII - early. XVI century, M.-L., 1965; Alekseev Yu. G., Agrarian and social history of the North-East. Rus' XV-XVI centuries. Pereyaslavsky district, M.-L., 1966; Rybakov B. A., Craft of Ancient Rus', (M.), 1948; Bakhrushin S.V., Scientific. works, vol. 1-2, M., 1952-54; Smirnov P.P., Posad people and their class. fight until midday XVII century, vol. 1, M.-L., 1947; Tikhomirov M. N., Middle Ages. Moscow in the XIV-XV centuries, M., 1957; his, Russia in the 16th century, M., 1962; Sakharov A.M., North-East Cities. Rus' XIV-XV centuries, M., 1959; his, Problem of education Rus. centralized state in the Soviet Union. historiography, "VI", 1961, No. 9; Khoroshkevich A.L., Trade Vel. Novgorod with the Baltic states and the West. Europe in the XIV-XV centuries, M., 1963; Nosov H. E., Essays on the history of local government Rus. states of the first half. XVI century, M.-L., 1957; Smirnov I.I., Essays on politics. history Rus. state 30-50s. XVI century, M.-L., 1958; his, Notes on the feud. Rus' XIV-XV centuries, "ISSSR", 1962, No. 2-3; Zimin A. A., Reforms of Ivan the Terrible, M., 1960; him, O political. prerequisites for the emergence of Russian absolutism, in the book: Absolutism in Russia (XVII-XVIII centuries), collection. Art., M., 1961; Leontyev A.K., Formation of an order management system in Rus. state-ve, M., 1961; Bazilevich K.V., Ext. politics Rus. centralized state. Second floor. XV century, (M.), 1952; Maslennikova N.N., Annexation of Pskov to Russia. centralized state, L., 1955. V. D. Nazarov. Moscow.

Groups of prerequisites for the formation of a Russian centralized state.

1. Economic background: by the beginning of the 14th century. In Rus', after the Tatar-Mongol invasion, economic life was gradually revived and developed, which became the economic basis for the struggle for unification and independence. Cities were also restored, residents returned to their homes, cultivated the land, engaged in crafts, and established trade relations. Novgorod contributed a lot to this.

2. Social preconditions: by the end of the 14th century. The economic situation in Rus' has already completely stabilized. Against this background, late feudal characteristics develop, and the dependence of peasants on large landowners increases. At the same time, peasant resistance also increases, which reveals the need for a strong centralized government.

3. Political background, which in turn are divided into internal and foreign policy:

1) internal: in the XIV–XVI centuries. The power of the Moscow Principality increases and expands significantly. Its princes build a state apparatus to strengthen their power;

2) foreign policy: the main foreign policy task of Rus' was the need to overthrow the Tatar-Mongol yoke, which hindered the development of the Russian state. The restoration of the independence of Rus' required universal unification against a single enemy: the Mongols from the south, Lithuania and the Swedes from the west.

One of the political prerequisites for the formation of a unified Russian state was union of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Western Church, signed by the Byzantine-Constantinople patriarch. Russia became the only Orthodox state that simultaneously united all the principalities of Rus'.

The unification of Rus' took place around Moscow.

The reasons for the rise of Moscow are:

1) favorable geographical and economic position;

2) Moscow was independent in foreign policy, it did not gravitate towards either Lithuania or the Horde, therefore it became the center of the national liberation struggle;

3) support for Moscow from the largest Russian cities (Kostroma, Nizhny Novgorod, etc.);

4) Moscow is the center of Orthodoxy in Rus';

5) the absence of internal hostility among the princes of the Moscow house.

Features of the association:

1) the unification of Russian lands did not take place under the conditions of late feudalism, as in Europe, but under the conditions of its heyday;

2) the basis for unification in Rus' was the union of Moscow princes, and in Europe - the urban bourgeoisie;

3) Rus' united initially for political reasons, and then for economic ones, while European states united primarily for economic reasons.

The unification of Russian lands took place under the leadership of the Prince of Moscow. He was the first to become Tsar of All Rus'. IN 1478 After the unification of Novgorod and Moscow, Rus' was finally freed from the yoke. In 1485, Tver, Ryazan, etc. joined the Moscow state.

Now the appanage princes were controlled by proteges from Moscow. The Moscow prince becomes the highest judge, he considers especially important cases.

The Principality of Moscow creates a new class for the first time nobles(service people), they were soldiers of the Grand Duke who were awarded land on the terms of service.

Russian centralized state

New major changes in Russian military engineering took place in the second half of the 15th century. With the development and improvement of fire artillery, the tactics of siege and defense of fortresses again change significantly, and after this the fortress structures themselves change.

Appearing for the first time in Rus' in the 80s or, more likely, in the 70s of the 14th century, artillery at first was little superior in its military-tactical qualities to stone-throwing vehicles. However, later, guns began to gradually replace stone throwers, which had a very significant impact on the shape of fortifications. Early cannons were used mainly in defense, and therefore already at the beginning of the 15th century. The reconstruction of the fortress towers begins so that guns can be installed in them (at first they were not placed on the city walls, but only in the towers). The increasingly active role of artillery in defense led to the need to increase the number of towers on the floor side of the fortresses.

However, guns were used not only in defense, but also in the siege of fortifications, for which large-caliber guns began to be manufactured. In this regard, in the first half of the 15th century. It turned out to be necessary to strengthen the walls of the fortresses. They began to make stone supports on the floor side of the stone walls.

All these changes, caused by the use of firearms and the development of siege technology in general, at first did not in any way affect the general organization of the defense of fortresses. On the contrary, the tactical scheme of “one-sided” defense acquires a more pronounced character with the use of guns. The range of both stone throwers and early cannons was very small and therefore fairly wide natural ravines and steep slopes still served as a reliable guarantee that there was no fear of an assault from here.

Only by the middle of the 15th century. The power of fire artillery began to be so superior to stone throwers that cannons became the main means of besieging fortresses. Their firing range has increased significantly; they could now be installed on the other side of a wide ravine or river, and even below - at the base of a hillside. Natural barriers are becoming less and less reliable. Now an assault, supported by artillery fire, was possible from all sides of the fortress, regardless of their cover by natural obstacles. In this regard, the general organization of the defense of fortresses is changing.

The possibility of storming the fortress from all sides forced the builders to provide its entire perimeter with flanking fire from the towers - the most effective means of repelling an assault. Therefore, the “one-sided” system gives way to a more advanced one: flanking shelling of all walls was now ensured by an even distribution of towers along their entire length. From that time on, the towers became the nodes of the all-round defense of the fortress, and the sections of walls between them (spun) begin to straighten to facilitate their flanking shelling (see Table V).

The differentiation of the artillery itself made it possible to select guns that were most suitable for defense tasks. Thus, a “mattress” was usually installed above the gate, firing “shot,” that is, with buckshot, and in the remaining towers they usually installed cannons that fired cannonballs.

The logical conclusion of this evolution of fortresses is the creation of “regular” cities, rectangular in plan, with towers at the corners. The first such fortresses are known in the Pskov land, where in the second half of the 15th century. in close cooperation with Moscow, the construction of defensive structures was carried out to strengthen the western border of the Russian state. Thus, the Pskov fortresses of Volodymyrets and Kobyla, built in 1462, have a rectangular plan with towers on two opposite corners. A similar plan was also used in the Gdov fortress, built, perhaps, even earlier. Finally, in an ideally completed form, the new defense scheme is expressed in the Ivangorod fortress, erected by the Moscow government on the border with the Order in 1492. This fortress was originally a square of stone walls with four corner towers (Fig. 16).

16. Ivangorod fortress. 1402 Reconstruction by V.V. Kostochkin.

Square or rectangular fortresses with towers at the corners (and sometimes also in the middle of the long sides of the rectangle) subsequently became widespread in Russian military architecture (see Table VI). This is how they were built in the 16th century. Tula, Zaraysk. A variant of this scheme, which had all its advantages, was triangular in terms of fortress; a pentagonal shape was also used. Thus, among the fortresses built under Ivan the Terrible in the Polotsk land, some had a triangular plan (Krasny, Kasyanov), others had a rectangular plan (Turovlya, Susha), and others had a trapezoidal plan (Sitna). Towers rose at all corners of these wooden fortresses, providing protection from any side.

The correct geometric shape of the fortresses was the most perfect, most fully meeting the tactical requirements of that time. But in a number of cases, the natural conditions of the area forced the construction of fortifications of irregular shape. However, even in these fortresses, the towers are evenly distributed along the walls along the entire perimeter, and the sections of the walls between the towers are straightened. Such are, for example, stone fortresses in Nizhny Novgorod and Kolomna, as well as wooden fortresses in Toropets, Belozersk, Galich-Mersky. All of them date back to the end of the 15th - first half of the 16th century.

In the same way, it was impossible to give the correct geometric shape to those fortresses that were created earlier and only reconstructed in the second half of the 15th - early 16th centuries. in connection with the development of new military engineering requirements. In such fortresses, the reconstruction mainly consisted of creating towers at a more or less uniform distance from one another and straightening sections of the walls between the towers. True, in a number of cases the changes turned out to be so significant that the fortresses had to be completely rebuilt. This is exactly how many fortresses of the Novgorod land were rebuilt by the Moscow government, for example, in Ladoga and Oreshka.

Significant changes in Russian military architecture in the second half - end of the 15th century. reflected not only in the layout of the fortresses, but also in their designs.

The development of artillery presented fortress builders with a number of new technical challenges. First of all, it was necessary to build walls that could withstand impacts from cannonballs. The most radical solution was the construction of stone walls. And indeed, if in the XIV–XV centuries. stone “hails” were built only in the Novgorod and Pskov lands, and in North-Eastern Rus' only the Moscow Kremlin remained stone, then from the end of the 15th century. the construction of stone fortresses begins throughout the Russian land. Thus, the transition to stone-brick defensive structures was caused by the internal development of Russian military engineering, primarily the development of new tactics with the widespread use of cannons in siege and defense. However, some forms and details of brick fortresses are associated with the influence of Italian craftsmen who took part in the construction of the Moscow Kremlin at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries.

Despite the fact that stone and brick fortresses were received from the end of the 15th century. much more widespread than before, but wooden defensive structures continued to be the main type in Rus' at this time.

In those fortresses that had little military significance, the walls were still built in the form of a single-row log wall, and sometimes even more simplified - from horizontal logs taken into the grooves of pillars dug into the ground. However, in more important fortresses the walls were made more powerful, consisting of two or three parallel timber walls, the space between which was filled with earth. Such wood-earth walls could withstand the blows of cannonballs no worse than stone ones. To construct loopholes for the lower battlements, log houses not covered with earth were located in these walls at certain distances from one another, used as chambers for guns (Fig. 17). This design of wooden walls was called Tarasami and had many options. In the upper parts of the walls, as before, there were fighting platforms for soldiers. There were also unique combat devices here - rollers: logs stacked so that they could easily be thrown down at any time. Falling from the walls and rolling down the slope of the ramparts, such logs swept away the soldiers who stormed the fortress on their way.

17. Defensive wall of a Russian city in the 15th–16th centuries. Author's reconstruction

About the construction of towers at the end of the 15th and 16th centuries. can be judged by the surviving towers of stone fortresses. They were somewhat different from the earlier ones. Along with beam ceilings, they now began to make vaulted ceilings. The shape of the loopholes especially changed: they opened inward with large chambers in which cannons were installed (Fig. 18); their holes began to expand outward for more convenient aiming of cannon barrels. Like the walls, the towers ended in battlements. In most cases, the teeth were carried forward on brackets from the surface of the walls. This made it possible to conduct a mounted battle, that is, to shoot from the top platform of the tower not only forward, but also downward - into the gaps between the brackets or into special combat openings directed downward. On some towers, observation towers were installed to monitor the surroundings. All towers were covered with wooden hip roofs.

18. Interior view of the Gate Tower of the Ladoga Fortress. End of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century.

At this time, the construction of complex gates at the entrances was stopped, but the entrances were strengthened with the help of a special second gate tower - outlet archer, which was placed on the outside of the ditch.

Thus, to enter the fortress one had to go through the gate in the outer tower, then over the bridge over the moat and, finally, through the inner gate located in the gate tower itself. At the same time, the passage in it was sometimes made not straight, but curved at a right angle.

Bridges over ditches were built both on supports and with drawbridges. Drawbridges, which began to be used at this time, significantly strengthened the defense of the gate: when raised, they not only made it difficult to cross the ditch, but also blocked the gate passage. They continued to use lowering gratings to block the passage.

At the end of the 15th century. Significant improvements were made to the water supply system of the fortresses. The hiding places leading to the wells were now usually located so that they opened into one of the towers of the fortress, which stood closest to the river. Therefore, in the fortresses of the late 15th and 16th centuries. one of the towers is often called the Secret Tower.

As already noted, they are most characteristic of Russian military architecture of the late 15th and 16th centuries. fortifications that had a rectangular shape in plan. Having developed under the direct influence of new military conditions, these fortresses later received recognition as the most advanced not only militarily, but also artistically. It is not for nothing that in Russian literature the ideal, fairy-tale city began to be depicted as a “regular” rectangular fortress with towers at the corners. However, due to the prevailing circumstances, the largest and most perfect monument of Russian military architecture of the late 15th - early 16th centuries. the fortress became less of an ideal design; it was the Moscow Kremlin.

The initial fortifications of the Moscow Kremlin dated back to the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century. and had a typical cape layout for that time: the hill, located at the confluence of the Moscow and Neglinnaya rivers, was cut off on the floor side by a rampart and a ditch.

In the second half of the 12th century. The Kremlin was slightly enlarged towards the floor; its original rampart and ditch were razed and replaced with more powerful ones.

Subsequently, the expansion of the Kremlin, which was carried out several times, consisted of the destruction of the floor wall of the old fortification and the construction of a new one, located further than the old one, from the end of the cape. Thus, the cape fortification scheme was not violated, and its two sides were still protected by the coastal slopes of the Moscow and Neglinnaya rivers. This is how the Kremlin was rebuilt in 1340 and then again in 1367–1368.

Unlike the Kremlin fortifications of the 12th century. during the restructuring of the 14th century. the fortress acquired a “one-sided” defense system organization, with towers concentrated on the floor side. The fortifications of 1367 were no longer built of wood, but of stone. The perimeter of the Kremlin walls reached almost 2 km; it had eight or nine towers. Based on the white-stone Kremlin, people called the entire Russian capital “white-stone Moscow” (Fig. 19 a).

19 a. Moscow Kremlin at the end of the 14th century. Painting by A. Vasnetsov

19 b. Moscow Kremlin at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century. Painting by A. Vasnetsov

The Moscow stone fortress existed for about 100 years. During this time, it became dilapidated and ceased to meet the requirements of modern military engineering tactics. Meanwhile, Moscow by this time had become the capital of a huge and powerful centralized state. Both its military significance and political prestige required the creation of new, completely modern fortifications here. At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century. The Kremlin was completely rebuilt (Fig. 19 b). Its construction was carried out gradually, in sections, so that the center of Moscow would not remain without fortifications for a single year. Italian craftsmen were involved in the construction, among whom the Milanese Pietro Antonio Solari played a leading role.

The construction of the Moscow Kremlin, carried out on a huge scale, used the achievements of both Russian and Italian military engineering of that time. As a result, it was possible to create a powerful fortress that amazed contemporaries with its beauty and grandeur and had a great influence on the further development of Russian fortress construction. The brick walls of the Moscow Kremlin were equipped with wide semi-circular arched niches on the inside, which made it possible, with significant thickness of the walls, to place loopholes of the plantar (lower) battle tier in them. Designed for both cannons and hand-held firearms, they sharply increased the activity of the rifle defense of the fortress. The outside walls had a high base ending with a decorative roller. Instead of wide rectangular battlements, the walls of the Moscow Kremlin were crowned with narrow two-horned battlements in the shape of a so-called dovetail (Fig. 20). Shooting from the top of the city walls was carried out either through the gaps between the battlements, or through narrow loopholes in the battlements themselves. Both the walls themselves and the battle passages on them were covered with a wooden roof.

20. Wall of the Moscow Kremlin

As a result of construction, one of the largest and most advanced European fortresses was created - the Kremlin, which has survived to this day. Of course, the modern appearance of the Moscow Kremlin is very different from the original; all its towers were in the 17th century. decorative towers were added, the ditch was filled in, most of the archers were destroyed. But the main part of the Kremlin walls and towers dates back to the construction of the late 15th - early 16th centuries.

The length of the walls of the Moscow Kremlin was now 2.25 km; the walls consisted of two brick walls with internal backfilling with limestone. The thickness of the walls reached from 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 m with a height of 5 to 19 m. The Kremlin had 18 towers, including gate towers. On both sides it was protected, as before, by rivers, and on the floor a ditch was dug and lined with stone, filled with water and having a depth of about 8 m and a width of almost 35 m. Of the three diversion arches, only one has survived in a heavily altered form - the tower Kutafya (Fig. 21). The passage through this tower was made at a right angle to make it difficult for the enemy to advance in the event of an assault.

21. Kutafya Tower - outlet arch of the Moscow Kremlin. End of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century. Reconstruction by M. G. Rabinovich and D. N. Kulchinsky

The uniform distribution of the towers along the entire perimeter of the Kremlin and the straightness of the wall sections between them made it possible to conduct flanking fire on any part of the fortress. Created according to the latest military engineering technology of that time, the Moscow Kremlin served as a model that was imitated (mainly not in the general design, but in architectural details) in the construction of most Russian fortresses of the 16th century.

Major changes occurred in the second half of the 15th century. and in defense strategy. They were determined by the formation of the centralized Russian state. The independence of Ryazan, Tver and other lands was completely eliminated, and Veliky Novgorod was subordinated. By this time, small feudal estates also ceased to exist. Therefore, the need for border fortresses on the borders between various Russian lands disappeared. The strengthened administrative apparatus could now ensure the administration of the entire land without erecting fortified points in each administrative district. Rather, on the contrary, fortresses in the interior of state territory now became undesirable, since they could be used as strongholds in attempts by individual feudal lords to rebel against state power. Therefore, the vast majority of fortified points located far from state borders by the end of the 15th century. lost their defensive significance: some of them by this time had grown into large urban-type settlements, others had turned into villages, and others were completely abandoned. In all cases, their defensive structures ceased to be renewed. They turned into fortifications.

Only those fortresses that played a significant role in the defense of national borders retained military significance. They were strengthened, rebuilt, adapted to new military-tactical requirements (Fig. 22). Moreover, depending on the enemy’s weapons and tactics, border fortifications on different sections of the border had completely different character. On the western borders of Rus' one could expect an invasion by well-organized armies equipped with artillery and all types of siege equipment. Therefore, Russian cities on this border had to have powerful defensive structures. On the southern and eastern borders, the military situation was completely different. These lines had to be protected from sudden and rapid attacks by the Tatars, who, however, did not have artillery. Naturally, a very large number of fortifications had to be built here in order to stop the enemy invasion in time, and also in order to shelter the population of the surrounding villages in these fortifications. The fortresses themselves might not have been very powerful.

22. Novgorod Kremlin. The walls and towers were completely rebuilt at the end of the 15th century. The high Kokuy tower was built in the 17th century.

A completely new phenomenon in Russian military engineering was an attempt to create an interconnected system of defensive structures along the border line. In the 16th century this led to the formation of continuous defensive lines on the southern Russian border - serif. Guarding the abatis line required, of course, a much larger number of troops and greater organization of the garrison service and warning service than the defense of individual fortified points. The significantly increased and more organized army of the Russian state was already able to provide such a reliable defense of the Russian borders from the steppe.

From the book Course of Russian History (Lectures LXII-LXXXVI) author Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

The Russian state in the middle of the 18th century. Six reigns over the course of 37 years sufficiently clarified the fate of Peter's reformation work after the death of the converter. He would hardly have recognized his work in this posthumous continuation. He acted despotically; but, personifying

author Bokhanov Alexander Nikolaevich

From the book The Third Project. Volume III. Special Forces of the Almighty author Kalashnikov Maxim

The Russian State and the Russian Miracle It’s easy to say - transform Russia! We need to show a miracle. To amaze the people with it and make the West think. But how to do all this? What treasured methods should you use? You can make something only from available materials. Of those four

From the book Unperverted History of Ukraine-Rus Volume I by Dikiy Andrey

Lithuanian-Russian State (From the creation of Lithuania to the absorption of the Lithuanian-Russian State by Poland) Since time immemorial, scattered Lithuanian tribes inhabited the space from the coast of the Baltic Sea (the area of ​​​​present-day Memel and Koenigsbeog) to the Oka, reaching it

From the book Third Rome author Skrynnikov Ruslan Grigorievich

Chapter 3 The Russian state under Vasily III In the first half of the 16th century. Russia has experienced an economic boom. Our land, the Russian scribe wrote, was freed from the yoke and began to renew itself, as if it had passed from winter to quiet spring; she has again achieved her ancient greatness,

From the book HISTORY OF RUSSIA from ancient times to 1618. Textbook for universities. In two books. Book two. author Kuzmin Apollon Grigorievich

§4. THE RUSSIAN STATE UNDER THE HEIRS OF VASILI III Vasily III died in 1533 from some kind of ulcer (pus flowed from the thigh “up to the half-pelvis and down the pelvis”). Three-year-old Ivan and one-year-old Yuri remained. And in parallel there lived a legend about another Yuri - the son of Solomonia. Elena Glinskaya (d. 1538)

From the book Economic History of Russia author Dusenbaev A A

From the book From the USSR to Russia. The story of an unfinished crisis. 1964–1994 by Boffa Giuseppe

From the book Reader on the History of the USSR. Volume 1. author author unknown

Chapter XII THE BEGINNING OF THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE RUSSIAN STATE INTO A MULTINATIONAL CENTRALIZED STATE IN THE XVI CENTURY 99. IVAN PERESVETOV. FIRST PETITION Ivan Peresvetov - a service man who served the Polish, Czech, and Ugric kings abroad for many years

From the book Slavs: from the Elbe to the Volga author Denisov Yuri Nikolaevich

Chapter 6 Russian state

From the book History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century author Sakharov Andrey Nikolaevich

§ 3. “The Chosen Rada” and the Russian Centralized State For a person familiar with the texts of documents from the 50s of the 16th century, the phrase “The Chosen Rada” sounds unusual. The term, however, has long taken root in scientific and popular literature. They often talk about

From the book From the USSR to Russia. The story of an unfinished crisis. 1964-1994 by Boffa Giuseppe

Russian State and Democracy After the collapse of the USSR in Russia, which had now become an independent republic, already from the beginning of 1992 it was noted that the tendencies characteristic of the country's history, formed in clashes between opposing ideas, went into

From the book The Missing Letter. The unperverted history of Ukraine-Rus by Dikiy Andrey

Lithuanian-Russian state From the creation of Lithuania to the absorption of the Lithuanian-Russian state by Poland Since time immemorial, scattered Lithuanian tribes inhabited the space from the coast of the Baltic Sea (the area of ​​​​present-day Memel and Koenigsberg) to the Oka, reaching its

From the book The Great Past of the Soviet People author Pankratova Anna Mikhailovna

2. The Russian state under Ivan IV The Russian state was built in difficult and difficult conditions. The Mongol-Tatar invasion separated Russian lands from Europe for more than two centuries. Meanwhile, over the last century, great and important changes have taken place there. At the end of the 15th century there was

From the book Rus' and its Autocrats author Anishkin Valery Georgievich

Russian centralized state The Russian centralized state was formed at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. As a result of this, the lands around Moscow were unified. The formation of a centralized state was necessary in order to ensure

From the book Course of Russian History author Devletov Oleg Usmanovich

1.6. The Russian state in the 17th century The main problem of the development of Russia, starting from the 17th century, was the search for ways to modernize the country. The essence of modernization is to change the socio-political, economic, spiritual and private life of society in accordance with the requirements of the new