Russia as part of the Eastern Empire?

Yes, the Scythians - we! Yes, we are Asians
With slanted and greedy eyes!
A. Block, "Scythians"

Not so long ago, a series of written materials was held at VO historical sources dedicated to the Mongol conquests of the XIII century. Judging by the comments, topics related to the Mongol campaigns are of immeasurable interest. Therefore, I decided, within the framework of a short article based on research in modern historiography, to illuminate the issue of the influence of the Tatar-Mongol yoke on the evolution of state institutions of Russia.

Miniature. The legend of the Mamai massacre. XVII century.

The above quote best describes those complexes and unscientific stratifications associated with the "eastern" roots of Russia, with myths about the influence of external institutions on the development of the Russian state.

But this is by no means a claim to the poet, who, through artistic means, tried to express his vision of the post-revolutionary situation in Russia and the world.

Lag reason

The Tatar-Mongol yoke, which turned Russia from a European state into a part of the Mongolian empire, was blamed for the backlog of Russia, introducing the Asian type of government and the despotism of royal power. Thus, the writer of detectives B. Akunin, developing this “hypothesis”, writes about the European development path interrupted by the Mongols, and, contrary to the opinions of the two “respected historians” (S. Solovyov and S. Platonov), he summarized:

“However, it seems to me more fair that Moscow Rus is not a continuation of the ancient Russian state, but the essence of a different entity that possesses fundamentally new features.”

Another subject of the writer, so often found in non-scientific literature, is also related to our topic:

"For more than two centuries, Russia was part of the Asiatic state."

And further:

"It is enough to look at the atlas to make sure that the borders of modern Russia coincide more with the contour of the Golden Horde, rather than Kievan Rus."

By the way, if the author looked into the atlas of the USSR, he would have discovered the complete coincidence of the western borders of the Union with Ancient Rus, including the territories of Finnish (Estonia) and Baltic tribes (Lithuania, Latvia) tributaries of ancient Russian principalities and princes. Moreover, if you look at the map of the United States, we will find that it miraculously (“what a commission, the creator!”) Coincides with the Native American territories and lands (native Americans). Does this mean that the United States refers to the Indian or Aleutian "civilization"? Does it mean that Belgium and France are African countries, since their African possessions were larger than the metropolitan area? Will we take Britain to Indian civilization on the grounds that from the nineteenth century. they had one monarch, and Spain certainly should be attributed to the Muslim civilization, since the Iberian Peninsula was occupied by Arabs and Moors for seven centuries: from the 8th to the 15th century?

What actually happened in the thirteenth century, after the invasion, I will use this phrase adopted in historiography, the Tatar-Mongols? How did the ancient Russian institutions change and what system of eastern governance was adopted in Russia?

To do this, we consider two key issues: "taxes" and public administration.

Mongolian sword. XIII century. Beijing Museum. PRC Photo author

Tribute

The key issue of the “interaction” of the Russian principalities and the Mongolian conquerors was the question of paying tribute.

A tribute is a kind of “indemnity”, but not a lump sum, as opposed to indemnity, but a payment on an ongoing basis: an extraordinary permanent collection of material values ​​without interfering with the state and economic structure of tributaries, in our case, Rus.

The tribute collection structure was not new for Russia, on the one hand, but, on a permanent basis, and even on a huge scale, was a significant “innovation” that seriously influenced the economic and political development of the Russian volosts: the Horde “collection” laid polls on the entire population, became a source of mass depletion of free members of the commune, deprived of income and princes. If the princes of North-Eastern Russia had the opportunity to collect additional tribute from foreigners (Finno-Ugric peoples), then in the south and west of Russia such an opportunity was excluded, which, in general, led to the defeat of the Rurikovich princes of Lithuania.

The key point: before the Mongol invasion, the free majority of the “husbands” of Russia did not pay tribute!

I repeat, it should be clearly understood that tribute is not a collection or tax that is relatively commensurate with economic opportunities, but excessive, most often undermining the foundations of business and the very existence (family life), “indemnity”: vae victis!

Its meaning is intelligibly "explained" in 390 BC. er the leader of the Gauls, Bren, to the Romans, when he added his sword to the scales to the contribution paid and agreed upon by weight: vae victis - “the mountain of the vanquished.”

However, Prince Igor for the same right tried to increase the tribute from the Drevlyane in 945, but the Drevlyans, in the presence of a “small retinue” from the prince, questioned the expediency of its payment.

As for the situation after the Mongol invasion, the Moscow princes constantly argued about the reduction of tribute, and in a number of periods (the end of the fourteenth century) they completely ignored the payments.

Payments formed the "economic" hierarchy, where the recipient of the tribute was the "king", previously for the Russian "king", was only in Constantinople. The “Tsar” of the Mongols, like the former “Tsar”, continued to stand outside the Russian political organization. The Russian princes became real collectors (from the end of the thirteenth to the beginning of the fourteenth centuries), and not the Tatar-Mongolian representatives.

True, as you know, the Tatar-Mongols tried to apply the “traditional” methods of collecting tribute: first, they first appointed Baskaks, second, they tried to stabilize revenues through tax collectors (Muslim merchants), third, calculate the number tributaries But faced with a huge, armed resistance from the Russian cities and the "desire" of the princes to engage in the collection of tributes themselves, they settled on the latter: from the middle of the fourteenth century. Baskaki disappeared completely, the collection of the Tatar "exit" was carried out by the Russian princes.

Thus, such an important component of the state, as the collection of taxes, was completely absent in the relationship between the Russian principalities and the Horde, unlike England, after its conquest by Wilhelm in 1066, where most of the land was distributed to vassals, a census of the taxed population occurred ) and the population was taxed: England became the state of Wilhelm, and Russia?

The government of Russia on the eve of the invasion

The historiography of this subject is about 300 years. In the early twentieth century after the work of N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky, but especially after the Marxist formational theory became decisive in historical science, Ancient Russia was attributed to the feudal formation, of course, it did not happen in an instant, there were discussions controversy, but the Pavlov-Silvansky postulate, defining early feudalism in Russia from about the end of the fifteenth century, was “aged”, contrary to historical sources, up to the ninth century. The development of historical theoretical thought, from the end of the 60-ies of the twentieth century, made it possible to say that about any feudalism for Ancient Russia, especially for the pre-Mongol period, is out of the question (I.Y. V. Krivosheev, V. V. Puzanov and others.)

Parish or city state

So, a part of modern historiography, based on the analysis of sources, refers all Old Russian volosts to the structure of pre-class "republics" - city-states, as the most famous of textbooks, Novgorod or Pskov. The collapse of the “Rurik Empire” occurred as a result of the fall of the tribal system and the transition to a territorial community. On the territory of Eastern Europe, in the struggle against the hegemony of Kiev and among themselves, separate Russian volosts or independent “principalities” were formed. Russia on the eve of the Mongol invasion consisted of completely separate states: volosts or principalities. Mongolian defeat of cities struck at the "democratic" device of the townships, but did not cancel it. Throughout the thirteenth century, in the cities there are veche, which "solve", it is necessary to especially note, sometimes, as before, spontaneously, various key issues of community life and parish:

• The volost continues to be a single whole organism without separation into a city and a “village”. When we say the townspeople, the people, the community members - we mean all the residents of the parish, without separation.

• Actually, the city is a big village, where most of the inhabitants are connected with agriculture, even if it is artisans.

• The struggle continues between volosts - city-states for seniority in the region or for withdrawing from subordination:

Of course, the ruined and border volosts were not in the mood to fight among themselves as it was in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. between the Russian lands. At the same time, the regions not affected or poorly affected by the Mongol invasion continued the war of tribute on the borders (Smolensk, Novgorod, Polotsk, Volyn, etc.), engaging in battle with each other and with new contenders for border tribute (Germans, Lithuanian tribal union). Rostov, which surrendered to the Mongols and thus retained its community, and hence the city militia, began to strengthen in the Northeast. As soon as the Mongols left, all the old scores and offenses resurfaced, the princes continued to struggle for the "golden table" of Kiev, a city whose state was already at the beginning of the thirteenth century. It was far from the "capital" of the city, by which time it was not just subjected to destruction by other cities and their princes. Alexander Yaroslavovich Nevsky, who received Kiev as a lot, sent the governor there.

• In Russia there are no antagonistic classes that sharply oppose each other: feudal lords and serfs, cities and villages. For example, a professional warrior, a retainer, can be any free person who has certain skills and qualities: strength, courage, courage. This is not yet a closed corporation of feudal warriors, and the presence in the squad often gives no advantages to the “husband” of the community.

• Social movements are a struggle of “parties” in a city-state, and not a confrontation between the rich and the poor, and noble ones against the “black” people. The struggle of parties for their interests: someone behind one prince, someone behind another, at the head of "parties", "streets" or "ends" are the leaders of the boyars, etc.

The Tatar-Mongol invasion caused serious damage to the Zemstvo, the “democratic” structure of the Russian volost, undermining its economic and military bases, but did not cancel it.

Modern vision of Russian and Mongolian warrior weapons. XIV century. Museum "Word about Igor's regiment". Savior Transfiguration Monastery. Yaroslavl. Photo author

Князь

1. In the XII - early XIII centuries. the functions of the prince in relation to the urban community (city-state or parish) were defined as the role of the executive branch. Having a prince in the city-state was an important component of the political system, the prince during this period, with many specific moments of public authority, also remains an integral figure of political existence. Moreover, the strengthening of one or another prince, described in the annals, can, in part, be considered through the struggle of younger and older cities, for the right to be the main city in the region. And the cities, naturally, supported their prince, just as they resisted the princes, who were appointed by them to the eldest cities in the region or from Kiev, during the formation of the city-states. Prince tried to "educate" in their own city. Veche actively acted throughout Russia. It was a time of power, and the city-states were formed, and their urban regiments were more than princely squads. Do not forget that the husband is a city dweller, although he was most often engaged in rural work, but he also spent a lot of time on campaigns: the struggle between volosts goes on without stops. Of course, sometimes the famous princes, by virtue of a personal nature (rather than a political right), could behave without authority, but the cities endured it for the time being. With younger cities or having an advantage in strength princes could not be considered. Princes could have their interests or their tributes, as for example, it was in Smolensk in relation to tributaries in Latvia: the business was a prince, and the city did not have this income and did not support it, and the forces of the squad were obviously not enough.

Again, the community paid the prince for the execution of the court and the organization of campaigns for tribute both against alien tribes and neighboring volosts in order to obtain the main surplus for the people of the community: tribute, booty and slaves (servants) ).

2. The prince, on the eve of the Mongol invasion, is the leader, military leader, judge, chief executive. Neither any monarchy or the beginnings of monarchism can be discussed either for the pre-Mongol period or for the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The beginning of monarchist tendencies can only be seen at the very end of the fifteenth century.

After the Mongol invasion, the princes, as representatives of the Russian volosts, were forced to go to the Horde to, in modern terms, define the conditions for interactions of the tribute relations between Russia and the Horde, the reverse side of these “trips” was the fact that the Mongols, in order to stabilize the flow of "-Dani, and within the framework of their understanding of the management system, strengthen the power of the princes in the volosts:

The Mongols dealt with the Russian princes and "represented" their place in the Russian hierarchy, based on their ideas (mentality), the mentality of the steppe warrior people, where the military leader had unconditional, oppressive power. The Russian princes were first forced to accept these rules of the game, and gradually "fit in" with this structure. Moreover, it became profitable for them, since now it was less possible to reckon with the volost community, and “become” to the city through uncomplicated maneuvers with the city assembly and other princes, often aspiring opponents, and thanks to “external approval” - to the Khan shortcut In the political struggle for power, the princes even used Tatar-Mongol detachments against "their" Russian volosts, although as early as the 13th-14th centuries. Seimas (Congresses) of princes, cities, sometimes with the participation of the Tatars gathered.

The Tatars, playing on the contradictions of the Russian princes, skillfully ruled and set them off. But, in the end, this policy will lead to the fact that the princes of Moscow will gather around themselves Russian lands and lose the power of the Horde.

The urban community (parish) could no longer so easily point the prince to "the path is clean" (expel him). With the Khan label, the princes could now act by force, often by Tatar power, with greater confidence. Moreover, the military forces of many volosts, consisting of free citizens, those same "regiments", fell in battles, which significantly weakened the city-states in the military, and then politically.

Thus, during the XIV – XV centuries. there is an evolution, within the same period in other European countries, on the concentration of power in the person of one person - the prince. The formation of a military-service or early feudal state on the basis of the prince's agreement with all the free: communities and individuals on the conditions of service. All European states passed this way, often, like Russia, under the influence of external threats and there is nothing specific here: France in the 8th – 9th centuries. under pressure from Arabs, Avars, Saxons and Vikings; German states in the 9th – 10th centuries. in collisions with Hungarians, Western Slavs and Normans; Anglo-Saxon states in the 9th – 10th centuries, fighting off the Scots and the Scandinavians.

Thus, we can conclude that the Tatar-Mongol invasion and the tributary dependence of the Russian lands that followed it, as well as the periodic Tatar pogroms, caused enormous damage to the economic and cultural forces of the country, not counting the casualties, however, the Russian lands:

• retain their independence and social structure;

• unequivocally continued social development in the framework, if you will, of the “European” path;

• Unlike non-Chinese and Chinese states on the territory of modern China and Central Asian countries, Iran, which became the provinces of the Mongol empire, Russia retained its independence, was able to recover and throw off the external yoke, and without having the resources, even disastrously ruined China;

• The nomadic state stood outside Russia, close by, but outside, unlike Bulgaria, Greece and the Balkan Slavs, which became provinces of the Ottoman state, where the yoke was infinitely more severe and unbearable.

Conclusion. The "nomadic empire" of the Mongols after the defeat of the Russian principalities introduced changes in the fiscal-economic order in Russia, but could not make and did not make changes in the management systems of the Russian volosts. Russian state and public institutions continued to develop in a natural, organic process.

Comments

[kalibr]

Edward, excellent material, and, by the way, clearly structured! Nothing extra!

[Nicholas C.]

Horror of course. One is glad that the author does not throw (as, for example, Shpakovsky several times chutzpu from his associate Nevzorov from "600 seconds"), but as if opposed to another Russophobe - Chhartishvili. BUT!!!!:

Quote: E. Vashchenko, Ph.D.

it should be clearly understood that tribute is not a fee or tax, relatively commensurate with the possibilities of managing, but excessive, most often undermining the foundations of managing and the very existence (family life), "indemnity": vae victis! ...
Horde "gathering" assigned without exception for the entire population, became a source of mass impoverishment of free community members, deprived of income and princes.

This is not so. The Russian princes of north-eastern Russia did not pay tribute, namely a fee or tax. And this collection was tithing. What basis can undermine a 10% tax? It is interesting to learn from modern positions. Moreover, this tax was not paid without exception. For example, the church, its property, and numerous land holdings were completely exempt from tax.

Quote: E. Vashchenko, Ph.D.

с mid-XNUMXth century the Baskaks disappeared completely, the collection of the Tatar “exit” was carried out by the Russian princes.

Also the date is well-known, and not some kind of "mid-1227th century." In 1228. uprising in Tver - they burned the brother of Uzbek khan Baskak Shchelkan. In XNUMX. punitive campaign. Since this year, the Moscow prince Ivan Danilovich Kalita - the "money bag", has already been collecting tax from north-eastern Russia. The same tithe. But then Moscow was flooded, there was enough money for everything. Actually, the entire Moscow principality itself paid a tax one and a half times less than the city of Astrakhan alone. And there was not such a bad attitude towards tax collection. Daruga (Baskak) Buga is even ranked among the saints of the righteous as John of Ustyug. And the uprising in Tver was not at all due to the actual collection of the tax.

Quote: E. Vashchenko, Ph.D.

community people: tribute, prey and slaves (servants) и slaves-fisk (smerd)

If a mathematician does not know by heart the multiplication table, axioms, etc. ...? Why don't historians read their basic documents? And after that, they will still condemn Fomenko. We read carefully "Russkaya Pravda". Smerd is a free man. Moreover, the land belonging to the community, which he cultivates, is at his personal disposal. There is an interesting place in the Ipatiev Chronicle - two smerds Lazar Domazhirich and Ivor Molybozhich rule Kolomyia. Smerd can take land for farming from another owner, but at the same time he still remains personally free and can leave, having paid off his obligations. Such smerds in the Republic of Poland are called procurement. And only, having borrowed from the creditor-employer, before working off the debt, the person passed into the legal status of a slave, which was regulated by an enslaving agreement (receipt). Having returned the debt, the person passed from a dependent state to a free one. It happened that a person to death did not have time to work off bondage, then the creditor tried to hang the debt on his sons. This was regulated in Russian law later (so as not to hang). The servants also worked under enslaving contracts (as a rule, but not always, all the more, not always moving into the position of a slave). In Russian law, there is nothing close to what is in Roman (a person is a thing that belongs to another person). It is in the West that slavery and other forms of human enslavement have been established since the time of the Roman Empire. In fact, in the Western sense in Russia, only prisoners of war could be considered slaves. But after a while they also had the opportunity to change their status. I am always embarrassed when the expression from the RP "slave and robe" by separate gentlemen. translated as a slave and a slave. In my opinion, there is more likely a worker from the Old Russian word to rob. (Western "potsyuvat" is now crammed into MOV). Only the Romanov dynasty imposed Western orders in Russia.
To understand the essence, see, for example, Judicial Code of the Year 1550: "Article 81. Children of boyar servants and their children who have not yet served shall not be taken into slaves by anyone except those whom the Tsar has removed from service." It is interesting that there in the serfdom it was smeared with honey, that the boyar children wanted to go to the serfs?

Quote: E. Vashchenko, Ph.D.

The collapse of the "empire of the Rurikovich" occurred as a result of the fall of the tribal system and the transition to a territorial community.

This is at least controversial. An attempt to pull Marxism on the globe. Even what I know about my land is close to the Time of Troubles and there was no tribal system close to it.

The question of Southern Russia is not considered. In Kiev, the Baskak sat before defeat at Blue Waters. The remaining parts of that territory were paid to the Tatars until the liberation of Catherine II. In addition to those who passed to Lithuania, after the Blue Waters - but there Lithuania itself paid the Horde. That's where the drama is. In comparison, Moscow paid a penny.

Shpakovsky, I see that you are no longer an employee at Rosenberg. Didn't you cope with such a tricky "specialty" as PR and social communications and were you kicked out?

[akims]

The Code of Law of 1550: "Article 81. Children of boyar servicemen and their children who have not yet served should not be accepted into slaves by anyone except those whom the Tsar removed from service." Interestingly, what was there in the servants was smeared with honey, that the boyar children wanted to become serfs?

So much later, in the event of war, the Cossacks were called up with their weapons, horses, dry rations, uniforms, etc. Poor Cossacks were forced to borrow from the foreman. But the rest (peasants, bourgeoisie) were not called upon by all, and the state provided those who were called up to all who were ready.

[arturpraetor]

In 1227. uprising in Tver - they burned the brother of Uzbek khan Baskak Shchelkan. In 1228. punitive campaign. Since this year, the Moscow prince Ivan Danilovich Kalita - the "money bag" has already collected tax from north-eastern Russia.

Have you been mistaken for a century? In 1227-1228, as it were, there was no Mongol in Russia either, Kalka recently died out, and Batu Khan has not come to visit yet, what Kalita and Uzbek are ...

This is at least controversial. An attempt to pull Marxism on the globe.

As far as I can tell, the author shares the ideas of the historian Mayorov and his teacher (alas, I can’t recall his last name offhand). They just come into conflict with Marxism, as they deny the class struggle, or rather, cast doubt on it in relation to the socio-political and economic life of Russia.

[kalibr]

Quote: Nikolai S.

Shpakovsky, I see that you are no longer an employee of Rosenberg. Didn't you cope with such a tricky "specialty" as PR and social communications and were you kicked out?

Everything is just fine! Just how much can you work? It is necessary and rest from the righteous works. If you are so interested, then in the last year of my work, including in collaboration with Rosenberg, THREE textbooks on PR and advertising have been published. So what kind of expelling can we talk about? But ... tired. All my life I dreamed of working only for myself, and so I waited. Now free completely. The Crusaders book has just been published, there are several more in line, including one novel.

[Nicholas C.]

Quote: kalibr

what kind of expulsion can we talk about? But ... tired of it. All my life I dreamed of working only for myself, and now I waited. Now completely free.

Everyone says like that.

Quote: kalibr

In 1227 in Tver an uprising - they burnt the brother of Khan Uzbek baskak Shchelkan. In 1228 punitive campaign .... Do not confuse the years!

I’m just not confusing the years - in a century I was sealed up and did not even look. I did not think that for a person who calls himself a candidate of historical sciences, the years of life of Uzbek, Schelkan, Kalita, etc. will cause questions. Usually, at the mention of Schelkanova’s rati-1327, I recall that Kalita became the Grand Duke (and not only Moscow) in 1328 - to be able to collect taxes from all the northeastern principalities - and I recall the events of that year.

Quote: akims

in the event of war, the Cossacks were called up with their weapons, horses, dry packs, uniforms, etc. Poor Cossacks were forced to borrow from the foreman. But the rest (peasants, bourgeoisie) were not called upon by all, and the state provided those who were called up to all who were ready.

What does this have to do with the author’s article and my comment? How did you manage to connect this?

Quote: Operator

each volost (former tribal territory, future principality)

Andrei, you had a wonderful article yesterday about how to detect submarines. I put the pluses for the article there, and for each comment. I will not say anything today. Although your amusement about the metropolitan legal entity was amusing, what is really there. By the selected example, once the author of the tribal system has screwed up. Komarinskaya volost (which gave the world Komarinskaya and Barynya) was located in the former territories of the units two !!! tribes: south of Neruss lived Northerners (before the Scythians-androphages, where did they go?), north - Vyatichi. If people then were still divided by tribes, then such a volost could not be.

Not happy that modern Ph.D. they know less in their subject matter (they are not able to object, give a link) than Soviet schoolchildren.

[Nicholas C.]

Quote: Edward Vashchenko

under Ivan III, he embarked on the path of early feudalism. The local army was just beginning to be created, the impetus was given to the conquest of Novgorod, when the state had a free fund of land, and which began to be distributed to the first “feudal lords”. We can’t talk about any nobles before - there are no documents on this subject. None. Pre-Mongol Russia is a country of princely squads and howls - urban militia. The word "nobleman" is used only as an employee at court, in the literal sense of the word.

Horror. Some kind of alternative story. So we get to Ukraine. There, school teachers who defended themselves through the CPSU became academicians. I promised not to read the articles of the Shpakovsky circle. After all, real historians are also printed on VO.

Two of the above smerds from the Ipatiev Chronicle, who received Kolomyia and salt production in management, are just mentioned in connection with the fact that they are being put forward claims: it was all that the soldiers had to get for the service, and who are you? Boyar children, those who served for the earth, for the estates actively mentioned already in the 14th century (and in literature: in Zadonshchina, in the Legend of the Mamaev Massacre, and in the annals) - for an entire eternity before Ivan III. (Although service for patrimony is a phenomenon much earlier than the appearance of the estate of boyar children). As the courtyard appeared, so the children of the boyar stratified into nobles and city. Then they all became nobles. Under Ivan III, another process began with a different meaning - the gathering of specific lands into the treasury and from there the allocation of estates for service. As a result, after some time, not every prince, the boyar came / did not come to the gathering with his army. and the sovereign noble army was formed.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Did you at least refer to historiographic literature? And then with aplomb, the school teacher declares that everyone is wrong:

Under Ivan III, another process began with a different meaning - the gathering of specific lands into the treasury and from there the allocation of estates for service.

This is the only way - iron and nothing else. Everyone who is different is alternatives. SOUTH. Alekseev, and A.A. Zimin, one and all.
Where did the local army come from when there was no land for service?
Do not confuse with the boyar children their source of origin is different.

[Nicholas C.]

Horror. What is historiography, I know. For me, my native language is Russian. What is historiographic literature? Literature on historiography? Or is it your local jargon?
I note that you, the author of the article, have no references either to historical research on the topic or to sources. At least I mention where and what is written, which directly contradicts your unfounded allegations.
About a school teacher - contact Shpakovsky.

Quote: Edward Vashchenko

Where did the local army come from when there was no land for service?

How was it not? I wrote, gave examples, estates, etc. Even before the boyar children, who before Ivan III. No no. Our policemen understand everything the first time. Only "historians" need to repeat.
There is such an old professor, one of the best specialists of that era, R. Skrynnikov. He has a very good Russian language. Overcome, I think, you will not be difficult. He has detailed yes and how, a complete educational program. As Ivan III, becoming an autocratic sovereign, he began to collect specific lands. Already at the beginning of the reign of Ivan IV, only Staritsky and Bekbulatovich inherited the inheritance. However, Grozny had another problem - after the expansion of the Russian state there were so many lands that there was no one left for the soldiers to hand them over. The main merit of the Rurik-sovereigns is the elimination of specific land ownership and the corresponding reform of the sovereign and military service.

Quote: Edward Vashchenko

what does Article 45 and 46 of the truth of Yaroslavich regarding smerds tell us?

This is an outrageous horror in a square of some kind - the "historian" did not see Russian Pravda in the eye. I didn’t even know that such "historians" existed. I report:
1. There are only 43 articles in the Academic List of Russian Truth!
2. In the Trinity List of Russkaya Pravda, article 45 "On luggage" (On storage), article 46 "On cuts".
3. In the Karamzinsky list of Russkaya Pravda, article 45 "On the merchant", article 46 "On the luggage".
4. List of Prince Obolensky. Well, what do you say his Articles 45 and 46 of the Truth of Yaroslavich regarding smerdy?

You can also find out about military slaves at Skrynnikov. Because the nobility became impoverished due to the fact that there was no one to work on the land provided, the state supported the strengthening of the troops by military slaves. Details are there. See also Articles about them in Sudebnik 1550. The main thing is that the status of a combat serf as a serf has not changed: a war slave of enslaved people had the right, having paid off the debt indicated in bondage, to leave the master. The rest of your speculation is so far from the truth that it’s a shame to even comment.

[Edward Vashchenko]

typo on the truth - I recognize.

"There is such an old professor, one of the best specialists in that era, RG Skrynnikov"

- I will try to master ... but I forgot, I studied with Ruslan Grigorievich.
Yes, except for jokes, he is an expert, a prominent specialist, but one of many on this topic, and many of his assumptions are extremely controversial. For example, the works of Yu.G. Alekseev more significant for the periods of Ivan III. This is a word ...
I consider the further dispute to be meaningless, since I consider your tone of the censor and mentor in relation to those who write here to be groundless. I consider commenting quotes from Skrynnikov meaningless. You can please us with an article with your native Russian language. Good luck.

[Beringovsky]

Do not dig.
The author’s conclusions are correct.

[Edward Vashchenko]

How did you deftly put on blades and 300 years of Russian historiography and axioms with theorems, knowledge from the history of law like a modern lawyer right? Not? And what does the Article 45 and 46 of the Truth of Yaroslavicha say about smerds?
This is a rhetorical question.
Essentially. Obviously, both smerd and serf are terms that evolved, serf in the XI century, the period of disintegration of tribal foundations, just when it appeared, not that the battle serf Ivan Bolotnikov in the beginning of the XVII century. Everything flows, everything changes.
But, for the period in question: a slave is a slave of the same tribe, sold for debts, etc.
Smerd is either tribal tribesmen or settlers within the parish of prisoners, who are always free personally, “slave of the fiscal”, that is, paying tribute or lessons not to an individual, unlike the chelyadin, but to the whole parish: the prince was in charge of controlling them . So we have a letter that Prince Izyaslav Mstislavich handed smerds to Panteleimon monastery. It was this category of the rural population, after the Mongol invasion, and with the loosening of control from the cities, began to move into the category of feudal-dependent individuals.

[Grim Reaper]

Vyacheslav Olegovich !!!!

[Grim Reaper]

Damn, I’m trying once again to insert the screen of your book, Krestonstsy .. It doesn’t work. Quite in old age. But the book is great!

[Grim Reaper]

Why did Shpakovsky not please you? The fact that he occasionally writes that everyone would prefer to forget? Occasionally.

[Antares]

Quote: Nikolai S.

In my opinion, there is more likely a worker from the Old Russian word to rob. (Western "potsyuvat" is now stuffed into MOV)

work and work. Standard. Pratsyuvati - even with the Union there was a long word. Nobody shoved him.
Verb Work. Verb Work. Not always the same. Although similar.
I’ll rob, I’ll rob, I’ll still be robots. And also praciuvati ..

[Simargl]

Quote: Nikolai S.

Tver the uprising - they burnt the brother of Khan Uzbek baskak Shchelkan.

Not a foot in Tver: the surname is slightly different, but according to old memory and an error - they will burn it more ...

[Fedor Shmelev]

Thanks Nikolay. Correctly oriented in space and time. But Alexander Nevsky said goodbye to the Baskaks with the permission and consent of Khan. The Vladimir principality collected money from the upper principalities. Novgorod separately. Payment for the military service of the horde did not take place every year, but from time to time. Once every 6-8 years. To fight the enemies, the Russian regiments went out together with the Horde - the army. Alexander let Lithuania and all sorts of crusaders, who wanted to have a road from the North to the Greeks, be procurated. Alexander's midnight hikes were dedicated to just that. The waterway was literally golden.

[3x3zsave]

I will join Vyacheslav Olegovich.

[Fedor Shmelev]

What kind of occupation is this, when, after the disappearance of the "Horde" - the troops, Russia, as a state, became unusually strong, began to cover God's temples with gold, and an unusually replenished population. The "Horde" put an end to civil strife within the State and gave one-man command. With regard to tribute. She was paid once every 6 to 8 years. This "tribute" was not burdensome, since it was no more than 4-6 kopecks per person. The Baskakov, tribute collectors in the Novgorod land and in Central Russia, were kicked out as soon as they appeared. Thus, this tribute can be considered as payment for the activities of the troops of the "Horde" - weapons, uniforms, vehicles. Much can be written about the Horde and its role in Russian history. And how she defended the State from the aggressive Holy See. And the fact that blood brothers came to Russia - there is no genetic "Mongolian" heritage in the blood of Russians.

[Undecim]

Here it is. "Nosovsky there with Fomenka smells"!
Domes began to gilt long before the invasion, a penny appeared three hundred years after that.
But the "folk historians" have their own reference points.

[alebor]

And what about the fact that in Russia stone construction stopped for 70 years after the invasion of "benefactors" from the Horde? The fact that the quality of handicraft products has become much lower and more primitive than in pre-Mongol Russia, i.e. Culturally, Russia was thrown far back, many technologies were lost?
As for the "genetic heritage", as it is rightly said in the article, yoke is primarily a question of tribute. If you pay taxes, how can tax inspector genes appear in the gene pool of your descendants because of this?

[Korsar4]

"They shout: give tribute.
At least carry the saints.
There is a lot of rubbish
It has come in Russia "(c).

I watched the article with great pleasure.
It’s good when you can put it on the shelves.

[Korsar4]

And it would be interesting to trace the dynamics of the transformation of the prince into a "satrap".

"The path is clear" deprives much. But it also gives new opportunities.

[haron]

Good stuff.
Perhaps I will add that an indicator of the greater freedom and independence of Russia is the fact that the Orthodox religion remained in our lands. After the horde converted to Islam, or lands under Turkish patronage, all "seriously" dependent territories either accepted Islam or experienced serious pressure in this direction, which contributed to the division of society into Muslims and non-Muslims (Balkans, for example). In Russia, both northeastern and southwestern (Kiev, Chernigov), this issue was very weakly manifested in the annals and in the end result.
And Islam is not at all "blue sky" with the Tengri at its head. It is an order of magnitude more radical in the yoke period.
In general, this is also an indicator of the specificity of the yoke, and the complete internal freedom of the inhabitants of Russia. Perhaps it was the lack of pressure from religion that caused the yoke to doubt the fact.

[Town Hall]

Quote: haron

After the horde converted to Islam, or lands under Turkish patronage, all "seriously" dependent territories either accepted Islam or experienced serious pressure in this direction, which contributed to the division of society into Muslims and non-Muslims (Balkans, for example).

And what peoples of the Balkans converted from Christianity to Islam?

[Nestorych]

Serbs, today known as Bosniaks. Torbesh, Islamized Macedonians. Montenegrins-poturechentsy and pomaks-Bulgarians.

[Town Hall]

Che is sparse

[Nestorych]

And what other peoples of the Balkans do you know?))

[Town Hall]

Quote: Nestorych

Pomaki-Bulgarians.

It is believed that the Islamization of Pomaks began under the Sultan Bayazid, in the 70s. fourteenth century.

Bulgarian historiography traditionally puts forward the thesis of its violent character. For example, one of the most famous Bulgarian historians, Nikolai Todorov, points to two waves of such violent Islamization - under the Sultans Selim the Second - in the XNUMXth century, and Mehmed the Fourth - at the end of the XNUMXth century. However, this concept does not withstand serious scientific criticism - firstly, Todorov’s main source was a Bulgarian XNUMXth-century chronicle, which he himself could not even quote in his research. The second source on which this concept is based is the chronicle of the Bulgarian priest Draganov, written, according to Todorov, "a little after the events mentioned." At the same time, the scientist admits that the original of the chronicle was lost, and it is available only in the form of a compilation of Stefan Zakharyev. However, at the moment it is proved that this is a fake, on which almost all the main European experts on the history of the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria agreed.

However, the Bulgarian scientists, especially during the communist rule, were so full of desire to prove their "point of view" that they did not stop at outright falsifications. So, for example, in the 1980s, the Historical Museum of the city of Smolyan organized an archaeological expedition to find the graves of Christians in the Pomak villages who allegedly preferred death to conversion to Islam. When they were not found, the leader of the expedition ordered that the crosses be placed in Muslim graves, as "proof" that "they were originally Christian." This information was provided by the mayor of the Pomak village of Smilyan, historian Boryana Panayotova.

[Nestorych]

If only someone else's text in quotation marks.))

[Town Hall]

Is that all that you can say on the subject? I, as it were, did not claim authorship. As they say in the local penates, learn the materiel. Start with the Bosnian Church, for example

[Nestorych]

You haven’t said anything at all, it’s not for you to teach me!)

[Astra wild]

Town Hall, but let's ask Bulgaria itself, but what do they think?

[Town Hall]

I don’t know what the Bulgarians consider. I know that during the 400/500 years of the Ottoman occupation of the Balkans, 99% of the population-Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians-did not undergo any forcible Islamization and remained Christians. And these 3-4 examples of small ethnic groups -The general picture does not change. Moreover, their Islamization is very ambiguous. A separate topic is Albania

[haron]

Quote: Town Hall

.. these 3-4 examples of small ethnic groups do not change the overall picture. Moreover, their Islamization is very ambiguous. A separate topic is Albania

These 3-4 small ethnic groups gave rise to not a weak massacre in the 90s of the 20th century. They became "ethnos" in OSNVOM due to the difference of religions, and not language or genetics.
Yugoslavia was torn apart precisely by ethnicity, and its division into ethnic groups occurred, BASICALLY, by religious principle, including the Catholicism of Croats and Slovenes. (we will not push everything to strangers barmaley, our cousins ​​were found).
The mechanism of separation that led to the "May to Sho May" crystallized precisely in the Turkish - Catholic conflict, where Orthodoxy was the target and control button of a person's loyalty.
"..where he has Uri button !!." - the button is the religion of that time. And this: laws, traditions, money. This is not the current "candle factory", it is a full-fledged system that controls the conditions and way of life of a person / family / primary cell.
The Russian northeastern principalities did not have such a dilemma, for many reasons, although they call it IGOM, but at least you name a stool, it will not change the uniqueness of the situation.

[haron]

Quote: Town Hall

And what peoples of the Balkans converted from Christianity to Islam?

Already listed.
I’ll add about the multitude of people who accepted not only Islam, but also who began to call themselves Turks, and not Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs, etc. Well, it’s just more convenient to live this way, especially to make a career or business.
To prove this, I will give an example with the genetics of the U-chromosome of the Balkan population. Not only does the pattern of gene recruitment across Balkan countries differ very little, no matter what religion people have, including western Turkey. So also the R1A1 U-chromosome gene, which is considered characteristic of the Slavs, is represented less than in Austria, Norway, Iceland, Germany - non-speaking countries in Slavic languages. R1A only slightly diluted I2A and E1B, which remained predominant in most areas. Likewise, the Anatolian Turkish J2 “only daubed”, but incomparably more than Islam.

Quote: Town Hall

Bulgarian historiography traditionally puts forward the thesis of its violent character.

There are several nuances.
What is violent?
1. When confronted with a choice, or otherwise, do the dung head.
2. When non-Muslims are legally limited in their rights and opportunities to increase their well-being.
3. When they create various NOT legislative stimulating transition to Islam.

Well, if there is a "violent" example from history, then you want to understand what is and an example of "NOT violent" change of religion.

And historiography, the official remark, she is a girl with eternal virginity. And the mirror she is looking at can greatly change the curvature and angle of reflection of past reality; regardless of reality itself ... it's the same alphabet. how, for example, to take Goebels’s speeches about the past as the true reality of the past.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Town Hall

And what peoples of the Balkans converted from Christianity to Islam?

Albanians, Bosnians, Gorans, Pomaks, Torbesh ...

[naidas]

Montenegrin poturechentsy

[Boris55]

Another retelling of fairy tales composed by Schlösser, Bayran and other nonsense to hide the genocide of Russian people created by the West and barely barely speak Russian? In Mongolia itself, as they did not try, they did not find a single furnace for metal smelting. Did they trample us with horses? No, well, who wants to believe in this nonsense - for God's sake, I do not mind.

[kalibr]

I found a wonderful comment on the web on this topic. I apologize in advance to the author for taking it without asking. But I think he will forgive me. I'd like to please such a wonderful presentation of the readers of the site. so: “Behind Baer and Schlötser were insidious Jesuits, whose whole purpose was to create a myth that there was a Mongol Yoke in Russia. It was they who carefully studied the Chinese language, wrote the entire history of China, starting with the great Fushi, the First Sovereign, and inspired the naive Chinese that They were conquered by the Mongols. For greater confidence, the Jesuits built a wall for the Chinese and planted manuscripts of chronicles in their libraries. After studying Korean, they wrote the entire history of Korea, convincing the Koreans that they resisted the Mongols for a long time and even overthrew their rule several times. The Jesuits planted the manuscripts of the chronicles on the Koreans. Having studied Arabic, the Jesuits wrote the history of the great Baghdad caliphate, only to compose that the last of the Baghdad caliphs was executed by the Mongols. Along the way, they stopped in Egypt and wrote the history of the Mamelukes and Sultan Be Ybars, who allegedly defeated the Mongols. For greater evidence, they composed the history of the Crusades, in order to confirm their fables with the chronicles of the crusaders, and so that no one doubted, they built the castle of Acre and other buildings that allegedly belonged to the crusaders. In addition, they wrote to the Greeks many chronicles of the wars of Byzantium with the caliphs, only to instill confidence that there was a caliphate, and that the last caliph was executed by non-existent Mongols, but they had to declare all these chronicles stored in the Vatican, which proves their forgery. In addition, the Jesuits, having studied the Georgian language, wrote chronicles of the conquests of Georgia by the Mongols and the circumstances of the death of the son of Queen Tamara, George, who allegedly died from a wound received in a battle with the Mongols. In addition, the Jesuits learned the Armenian language, and wrote chronicles of the conquests of Armenia, and, penetrating into Armenian monasteries, under the guise of Armenian monks, planted all these chronicles on them. Having carefully studied the Caucasian languages, they traveled through the mountain auls, telling the stupid highlanders that they had once been conquered by some Mongols, and some noble families were even inspired that they came from the Mongolian Murzas who settled in the auls. To be more convincing, they built Tatartup and some other supposedly Mongol fortifications, and also invented Alania, allegedly defeated by the Mongols. Then, having learned the language of the Kazakhs, they went to the steppe, convincing the Kazakhs that their clans bear names very reminiscent of the Mongol tribes, and some noble families directly descend from the eldest son of Genghis Khan.For more convincing, they built a mausoleum of Jochi, and, secretly penetrating into the lower reaches of the Volga , buried several mausoleums and ruins of the cities of the supposedly Golden Horde khans. On the way, they stopped in Persia, where they wrote the history of the Khorezmshah Empire, allegedly destroyed by the Mongols, not forgetting to plant chronicles about the death of the Khorezmshahs and the rule of the Ilkhanids in the Persian and Central Asian libraries.
They brought up Bayer, Schlözer, Miller and sent them to Russia specifically to create the myth of the Yoke. This trio, which came to Russia, wrote several dozen manuscripts of fake annals, carefully destroying the real ancient annals.
This will tell any fomencid as twice two.
These Jesuits were true geniuses of all times, even if they showed at least one such Jesuit. "

[Undecim]

And yet the Jesuits did not finish the job. They needed to build at least one metallurgical plant in the Mongolian steppe, a couple of mines for the extraction of iron ore and coking coal, a coke and chemical plant and an arsenal for the production of weapons, horseshoes and uhnals. Pour slag dump. Then destroy it and bury it all. Then no one would doubt that the equipment of the horde was at its best.
I remembered the horseshoes not by chance. The Jesuits had to roll out worn horseshoes on declared routes of movement of the Mongol hordes. Then no one could refute that there were horse hordes.
The issue of mass graves, too, they clearly missed. Either they could not provide the process with people, or they forgot in a hurry.
With agriculture, too, a puncture. After all, it was possible to organize traces of collective farms and state farms in the wild steppes. Dig silo pits. Then it would be clear that in their conquests the Mongols and their horses did not starve.
The Mongolian language had to be corrected, a few technical terms were introduced.
Well, Klesov! The entrance to the arena of the historical struggle of Mr. Klesov could not be foreseen by the Jesuits with all their might. And the effect of this output was amazing and overwhelming. Little did not seem to anyone. Under the rink were historians, anthropologists, ethnologists, linguists, specialists in the field of population genetics and others and others and others. The scientific brethren were so demoralized that they could find nothing better than to declare Klesov a false scientist, which had a completely opposite effect.
Now scientists have somehow settled the process of confronting Klesov, but a decisive victory over the Lenin Komsomol prize winner and the academician of the Georgian Academy of Sciences is not even visible. So the Jesuits, of course, well done, but there are many omissions.
Perhaps the Pope Clement XIV is to blame here, having dispersed the Jesuit order in the midst of the process and deciding that it will do so. What is most suspicious - German Catherine II did not support the Pope and the Jesuits continued to provide support, like other Russian emperors. After 28 years, the Holy See realized that he was wrong and in 1801 Pope Pius VII officially authorized the Jesuit Order on the territory of Russia, at that moment the General Vicar, Francis Kare, received the right to be called the “General of the Society of Jesus in Russia.” In 1802, a Pole (!) Brzozowski was appointed assistant to the newly elected General Gabriel Gruber. After the death of the latter in 1805, Brzhozovsky was elected general, in 1805-1815 he lived in the residence of the order in St. Petersburg.
By the time of its election, the Society was active in Russia, primarily in the field of education (the Jesuits owned 7 colleges), and the total number of members of the order was 333 people. Under the leadership of Brzozowski, the Society continued to expand its activities, and missions were established in Mozdok (1806), Irkutsk (1810) and Tomsk (1814). In 1812, after the petitions of Brzozowski, Tsar Alexander I transformed the Jesuit College in Polotsk into an academy, which he granted the rights of the university.
So the process of falsification of history was going on, although not as intensively as we wanted. Nevertheless, it was not possible to achieve a comprehensive effect, and the ascetic folk historians bit by bit restore the almost destroyed history of the superethnos.

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Undecim

Yet the Jesuits did not finish the job.

I applaud while standing!

[vladcub]

Victor Nikolaevich, here you are and correct the mistakes of the Jesuits. Look how many have been listed.
Like Mikhail, I applaud you

[Fedor Shmelev]

Thanks for supporting Boris55 (Boris). More to say, the Mongols do not even have the names of farriers, metal detectors. They learned that Chinggis conquered the World only in the XNUMXth century and are very proud of their "ancestor", who was a Russian, white-faced, rosy-cheeked. The Chinese experienced the same when they learned that they (the Chinese) made gunpowder, although they had no trace of saltpeter, they opened the North Pole and that's it, everything, everything.

[tlauicol]

moreover, the nameless Dzhelme and Subedey did not even know what their father was doing

[kalibr]

Azerbaijanis do not have animal names and they are surprised to us, Russian, as we are called Sobakin (the son of a dog), Zverev ... Kites, Korovin ... This is a curse for them. But this does not mean that they did not have animals in the premises ...

[Laurus]

They didn't find anything at all. Not a single trace of tribute, not a single coin. And we are talking about an empire that has robbed half the world. And where is everyone? And how could an empire exist without writing? There are a lot of things that refute the myth of the Mongol invasion. The Horde, of course, was, but the Mongols were not there from the word "absolutely". In my opinion, it is enough that in the Mongolian language there is neither the name Chingiz nor the title khan. And in the folklore of the Mongols, there is not even a hint of the once great empire, which they learned about the existence at the end of the XNUMXth century from the Europeans.

[Astra wild]

Boris, actually Byron is an English poet, in modern terms, an enemy of imperialism

[kalibr]

Quote: Boris55

a retelling of fairy tales composed by Schlesser, Bayran and other nemchuroy, that would hide the genocide of rusich perpetrated by the West and could hardly speak Russian?

Was there any genocide to hide? At that time, the genocide of the enemies SWAPPED!

[Boris55]

Quote: kalibr

Was there genocide that needed to be hidden?

No, it’s only the Indians of North America who were killed by 90%, almost all the natives of Australia, the Europeans were halved, the Africans turned into slaves, but in Russia - exclusively by the word of God ... After all, you know that religious wars are the most bloody or do you think that our ancestors gladly abandoned the faith of their fathers and accepted the new faith?

If the people understand that 12 of the millions of the population of Russia, only 4 remains, what do you think they will think about the current church and the prevailing concept of living arrangements that this church is on guard over? In order that the people would not understand this and would not be horrified, the Mongol-Tatar yoke was invented.

[Boris55]

In addition:

[tlauicol]

it’s straight even a little sorry for Vova - his hard work; especially with a clever air trying to answer questions in which he is obviously not strong. Heartbreaking sight

[kalibr]

Quote: Boris55

12 million population of Russia, only 4 is left

Source of this tsifir?
And then ... why be horrified ... if ... "enemies" were killed? The people of that time had to rejoice, that both BGU served and got hold of the property of infidels. Such was the psychology of people ...

[kalibr]

Ta-a-ak, minus there is no source of tsifir! There is extrasensory perception!

[Boris55]

Quote: kalibr

Ta-a-ak, minus there is no source of tsifir! There is extrasensory perception!

Annals of forced baptism of Russia

During the 12 years of forced Christianization, 9 of millions of Slavs who refused to renounce the Faith of the Ancestors was destroyed, and this despite the fact that the entire population, before the baptism of Russia, was 12 of millions of people.

After 1000 A.D. the destruction of the Slavic Old Believers did not stop. This is confirmed by the ancient texts of the Russian Annals, which the ROC has preserved.

“6579 (1071) ... Two Magi revolted near Yaroslavl ... And they came to Belozero, and there were 300 people with them. At that time, it happened that Svyatoslav came to collect a tribute to Yan, the son of Vyshatin ... Yan commanded to beat them and pull out their beards.

When they were beaten and torn with a split beard, Yan asked them: “What do the Gods say to you?” ... They answered: “So the Gods say to us: we should not be alive from you” And Yan told them: “That they are true to you told "... And seizing them, they killed and hung on an oak tree" (Lavrentievsky Chronicle. PSRL, v. 1, v. 1, L., 1962).

“6735 (1227) Magi, Veduni, hermits, and many magicians, and portions, and signs appeared in Novogorod ... New Novgorod residents caught them and brought the Magi to the court of the men of Prince Yaroslav, and bound the Magi all, and threw them into the fire, and here they all burned down ”(Nikonovskaya Chronicle vol. 10, St. Petersburg. 1862).

Laurentian Chronicle. Ancient text see:

PSRL, vol. 1, item 1, M., 1962; repetition ed. PSRL, L "1926; or in the book." Literature of Ancient Rus 1X-KhP ev ". M., 1978. Translated by B. Kresen.

6488 (980). And Vladimir began to reign in Kiev alone, and set idols on a hill outside the courtyard courtyard: Perun wooden - the head of silver, and mustache, and Horse-Dazhbog, and Stribog, and Simargl, and Mokosh ... Vladimir put Dobrynya, his uncle, in Novgorod. And, having come to Novgorod, Dobrynya set an idol over the Volkhov River, and the Novgorodians offered him sacrifices as a god ...

But Vladimir was defeated by lust for women, and these were his spouses: Rogneda, whom he put on Lybed ... from her had four sons: Iceslav, Mstislav, Yaroslav, Vsevolod, and two daughters; from a Greek woman had - Svyatopolk; from Czech Republic - Vysheslav; from the other, Svyatoslav and Mstislav; and from the Bulgarian - Boris and Gleb, and his concubines he had 300 - in Vyshgorod, 300 - in Belgorod and 200 on Berestov ... And he was insatiable in fornication, brought to himself and married wives and molested girls. He was the same woman-lover as Solomon, for they say that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. He was wise, but in the end he perished. This one was an ignoramus, and in the end he gained salvation.

In the year 6496 (988) Vladimir went with an army to Korsun, a Greek city ... And he sent to the tsars Vasily and Konstantin, and so he told them: “Look, your glorious city has taken; I heard that you have a virgin sister; if you don’t give her away for me, then I will create to your city (the capital) the same as I did to this city. ” And having heard this, they (Vasily and Konstantin) were saddened, and sent him a message, and so answered: “It was not appropriate for Christians to marry wives for infidels. If you are baptized, you will receive it, and you will receive the kingdom of heaven, and you will be faithful with us. ”

... According to God's providence, at that time Vladimir was ill with his eyes, and did not see anything, and mourned greatly, and did not know what to do. And the queen (Anna) sent to him and said: “If you want to get rid of this disease, then be baptized soon; otherwise you will not forget this affliction. ” Hearing, Vladimir said: “If this is truly fulfilled, then truly the Christian God will be great.” And he commanded himself to be baptized. The bishop of Korsun with the tsarina priests, having announced, baptized Vladimir. And when he laid his hand on him, he immediately received his sight. Vladimir, sensing his sudden healing, glorified God: "Now I have seen the true God."

... After that, Vladimir took the queen and the priests of Korsun with the relics of St. Clement ... he took both the church vessels and the icons for his blessing ... He took two copper idols and four copper horses, which now stand behind the church of St. Virgin Mary. Korsun gave the Greeks as a vein for the queen, and he came to Kiev. And when he came, he ordered the idols to overturn - to chop off some, and put others on fire. Perun ordered that the horse be tied to the tail and dragged him from the mountain along Borichev to the brook, and he ordered twelve men to beat him with batons. This was done not because the tree feels, but to scold the demon ... Yesterday I was honored by people, and today we scold.

When Perun was dragged along the Brook to the Dnieper, the unfaithful people mourned him ... And, dragging him, they threw him into the Dnieper. And Vladimir said to his companions: “If he is pestering where, you push him away from the shore until the thresholds pass, then just leave him.” They did as he commanded. As soon as they left it behind the rapids, the wind brought it aground, which was later called Perunya Mel, and so it is called to this day. Then Vladimir sent throughout the city to say: “If no one turns up tomorrow on the river - whether it be rich, or poor, or a beggar, or a slave, I will be disgusted.”

Mazurinsky chronicler. PSRL. T. 34, M., 1968. Translation by B. Creseny.

6498 (992). Dobrynya, Uncle of Vladimir, went to Veliky Novgorod, and crushed all the idols, and ravaged the trestle, and baptized many people, and erected churches and priests in the cities and villages of the Novgorod border. But the idol of Perun was cut, and thrown to the ground, and, having tied up the ropes, drew him on the feces, beating with wands and trampling. And at this time a demon entered that soulless idol of Perun and cried out in it like a man: “Oh woe to me! Oh me! I got merciless hands. " And the people threw him into the Volkhov river and ordered that no one take him over. He, swimming through the great bridge, hit the bridge with his club and said: “Let the Novgorod people amuse themselves here, remembering me,” and here crazy people worked for many years, converged on certain holidays and arranged shows, and fought.

Joachim Chronicle. Ancient text in the book. Tatishchev V.N. “Russian History”, 1. M., 1963. Translation by B. Creseny.

6499 (991). In Novgorod, when people saw that Dobrynya was going to baptize them, they made a veche and swore that they would not let them into the city and not allow to refute the idols. And when he arrived, they, having swept the great bridge, came out with arms, and no matter what threats or kind words Dobrynya warned them, they didn’t want to hear, and brought out two large gunshots with many stones, and put them on the bridge, as if on their real enemies. Highest over the Slavic priests, Bogomil, who because of his eloquence was called the Nightingale, forbade people to submit.

We stood on the trading side, walked along the markets and streets, and taught people as best we could. But dying in wickedness, the word godfather, which the apostle said, was madness and deceit. And so we stayed for two days and baptized several hundred people.

Skinny, the Thousand Novgorod Novgorod Hijacked, rode everywhere and shouted: “It is better for us to die than to give our gods a reproach.” The people of this country, having become furious, destroyed the house of Dobrynya, robbed the estate, beat his wife and relatives. Tysyatsky Vladimirov Putyata, a clever and brave husband, having prepared a rook and elected a man from 500 from Rostov, crossed over at night to the other side of the city and entered the city, and no one wasware, since everyone who saw them thought that they saw their warriors. Having reached the courtyard, Stealing, he and other first husbands immediately sent him to Dobryna across the river. The people of that country, having heard about this, gathered before 5000, surrounded Putyata, and there was an evil section between them. Some went and swept the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord and began to rob the homes of Christians. And at dawn Dobrynya arrived in time with the soldiers who were with him, and he ordered some houses to be set on fire by the shore, than people were very frightened, and they ran to extinguish the fire; and immediately ceased to chop, and the skinny first men, having come to Dobryna, began to ask for peace.

Dobrynya, having gathered soldiers, forbade robbery, and immediately crushed idols, burned the wooden ones, and stone, having broken, threw him into the river; and there was wicked great sorrow. Husbands and wives, seeing this, with a great cry and tears asked for them, as if for real gods. Dobrynya, taunting them, said to them: “Why, mad people, you regret those who cannot defend themselves, what good you can expect from them.” And he sent everywhere, announcing that everyone would go to baptism ... And many came, and warriors who didn’t want to be baptized brought and baptized, men above the bridge, and women below the bridge ... And so, baptizing, Putyat went to Kiev. Therefore, people reproach the Novgorodians, they say, their Puti baptized with a sword, and Dobrynya with fire.

Nikon Chronicle. PSRL, t. 10., M., 1965; sings. SPb., 1862. Translation by B. Creseny.

6735 (1227) Magi, sorcerers, hermits, and many magicians, and reproaches, and false signs appeared in Novgorod, and did a lot of evil, and deceived many. And the gathered Novgorodians caught them and brought them to the archbishop's court. And the men of Prince Yaroslav stood up for them. The Novgorodians brought the Magi to the courtyard of Yaroslav’s husbands, and put up a great fire in the courtyard of Yaroslav, and tied the Magi together, and threw them into the fire, and then they all burned down ...

[Boris55]

You needed a link. Here she is:
https://gifakt.ru/archives/index/rus-pravoslavnaya-do-prinyatiya-xristianstva-i-posle-2/

If you have a different number - provide. If not, have to believe it.

ps

EVIDENCE OF THE GENOCIDE OF RUSSIAN PEOPLE, in connection with the consequences of the baptism of Russia:

1. Russia was baptized by fire and sword.
2. An alien religion - Christianity - is forcibly imposed on the Russian people.
3. Christians destroyed the Slavic temples, treasures, luminaries.
4. Destruction of the estate of Russian clergy, the Magi.
5. Destruction of the ancient books of Vedic literature.
6. The ban on the study of runes and other types of Russian writing.
7. Replacing the runes with the simplest script of Cyril and Methodius.
8. Christianity rejects and hides the past of Russia before its baptism.
9. Introduction to serfdom in Russia slavery of the Russian people.
10. The introduction of Old Testament usury loan interest.
11. Silence by Christians of the harm of technocratic civilization.
12. Soldering Russian People, Communion from childhood.
13. Moral degeneration due to church education.
14. The destruction of the Vedic science of giving birth and raising children.
15. The baptism of Russian children only by Jewish or Greek names.

[Mikhail Matyugin]

Quote: Boris55

If the people understand that 12 of the millions of the population of Russia, only 4 remains - what do you think he will think about the current church

Share the data on the census polls in Russia in the 10 century.

Quote: Boris55

No, this is only 90% Indians of North America destroyed, almost all of the Australian Aborigines, Europeans were halted, Africans were turned into slaves,

Europeans halted - what is it like? I thought that the plague tried ...
There are a huge number of Aborigines in Australia, and many have a bank account much more than the average Russian ...

[kalibr]

Quote: haron

Perhaps it was the absence of pressure from religion that gave rise to doubt the fact of the yoke itself.

Most likely that way!

[voyaka uh]

Akunin does not mean what the centralized Russian state copied
Mongolian, and the fact that the Moscow princes organized in their sphere of influence
management, in many ways resembling Mongolian.
It is impossible to regularly visit the Horde and Khan, not to gain experience.
There was a difference:
"Rus" - pre-Mongol management features.
And "Muscovy" - Mongolian management features.

[Sergej1972]

The author should have mentioned that in Vladimir land veche traditions were not so strong. And in many cities, built on the initiative of the Vladimir-Suzdal princes, the veche was not originally created.

[Edward Vashchenko]

This is not true. Princes created "cities" along the periphery of Russia, primarily for the purpose of collecting tributes, then many of them turned into centers of colinisation, therefore, like in the Northeast (Vladimir, Yaroslav) simultaneously in Western lands (now Volyn and Galicia) - Vladimir and Yaroslavl , and in Estonia (the city of Yuryev), on the steppe border along the river Ros were put "city".
The city evolved into a city-state everywhere, the North-East was no exception, but rather one of the “dravers” of this trend: here there is a struggle between the old and the mezinnies: first Suzdal with Rostov, then Vladimir, and then peripheral Tver and Moscow , standing at the beginning of the 12 century in general, on the borders of this parish.
A striking example, the Novgorodians, led by Prince Vsevolod Mstislavovich, met with the Suzdalians, the Rostovites on Zhdanaya Hill in 1136. Rostovtsev, were without a prince, however, the city militia of the northeast beat the squad and the warriors of Novgorod.

But the trend of urban development was, from the thirteenth century, the path from “freedom to freedom”, and the medieval western city - in the opposite direction, but the West (conditional) stood at a different stage of development, higher, the thirteenth century - the end of early feudalism (with all nuances), and we have a pre-class proto-state.

[Trilobite Master]

Good article, Edward. Perhaps some of the premises are controversial, but I fully agree with the conclusions.

[kalibr]

Quote: voyaka uh

It is impossible to regularly visit the Horde and Khan, not to gain experience.

If you calculate how much time Ivan Kalita spent in the Horde and on the way there and back, you will find out - THIRD of his reign. The rest of the time he was in Moscow, drank, ate, and slept!

[kalibr]

Quote: Boris55

what will he think of the present church

Yes, he will not think!

[smaug78]

- unequivocally continued social development within the framework of, if you like, the “European” path; Tell me, what is this way? Courts, for example?

[Edward Vashchenko]

Boris,
By the European way, I certainly do not mean separate institutions, especially since the question of a fair trial is a question of any society, any people and ethnic group.
The European way refers to the commonality of institutions possessed by similar language groups, for example, Western Indo-Europeans, to which the Slavs belong.
Today it does not raise questions that formational staging is primarily encountered and described in European society.
Russia is Russia, almost all the stages of this development have passed, another thing is that in the process of this path a separate civilization has been formed, which today is recognized by all who share the “civilizational” theory. So in Europe there were several civilizations: Greco-Roman, its successor - Byzantium, Western European civilization and, finally, Russian civilization. I did not say: A. Toynbee, S. Huntington, N. Ya. Danilevsky.

[kalibr]

Quote: Nikolai S.

In 1227 uprising in Tver - they burned the brother of Khan Uzbek Baskak Shchelkana. In 1228 punitive campaign

Years do not confuse!

[arturpraetor]

As I understand it, the respected author shares the ideas of the historian Mayorov, which, IMHO, are quite controversial in some places, because they are interpreted strictly in one direction. However, these are the details. And according to the conclusions, there is only one remark, also based on personal opinion:

Conclusion. The "nomadic empire" of the Mongols after the defeat of the Russian principalities introduced changes in the fiscal-economic order in Russia, but could not make and did not make changes in the management systems of the Russian volosts. Russian state and public institutions continued to develop in a natural, organic process.

I fully agree that the Mongols, and then the Golden Horde, did not have much influence on the processes taking place on the territory of Russia, with a detailed study of the history of relations, one can trace not a yoke or a violent occupation, but the usual relationship "vassal-suzerain", only with a special one, steppe smell and its own characteristics. Surely they were not going to specifically influence these processes, which they did not particularly care about. At the same time, the Mongol invasion had an indirect impact on the processes of socio-political development in Russia, and specifically in Eastern Russia. This was reflected in the slowdown in socio-economic development associated with the fragmentation of the territories of local principalities, and the temporary interruption of the tendencies towards unification. In fact, the strife continued, and Moscow had to become the "collector", which in its original form was a fairly small and weak principality. All this required efforts, resources, and hindered progress, since there was no already established, strong and sufficiently centralized power. By the time of the invasion of Batu Khan, such a thing had developed in South-Western and Northern Russia, and in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality the process was already half a step to completion, but the blow of the Mongols and subsequent events actually interrupted this process. What can be traced in other regions almost from the middle of the XNUMXth century, happened in Eastern Russia only by the end of the XNUMXth, under Ivan III, and the pace of progress began to increase under Dmitry Donskoy, who, among other things, formed a large, unified and much more centralized than before, Muscovy. It was under Ivan that a local army was created, which is a kind of milestone and a mark from which one can count the assertion of feudalism in Eastern Russia, but the preconditions for the appearance of such an army and a numerous class of nobility in all major principalities were traced back at the far end of the XNUMXth century, and somewhere the local nobility actually took shape in the XNUMXth century, but in the East it took several more centuries.

All this, of course, is only my own thoughts, because, in the words of the same Mayorov, we do not have enough information about the socio-political development of Russia in the annals, which simply rarely address these issues, and therefore all theories contain one or another amount guesses, sometimes quite significant. Therefore, it is difficult to speak with confidence in this case, as in many others, and, IMHO, it is wrong. Historical science is constantly evolving, the analysis of available information and sources is being improved, and after a century the views on these processes can be completely different ...

[Edward Vashchenko]

Artem, practical comments,
A few points:
1.A.B. Mayorov, a representative of this trend, but, unfortunately, in my opinion is not the brightest, and unfortunately, this is the case, his approach differs in schematics and the use of templates.
2.The development mechanism of pre-Mongol Russia within the tribal and then the neighboring community, clearly draws a situation of the development of the country, which under Ivan III takes the path of early feudalism. The local army was only beginning to be created, the impetus was given by the conquest of Novgorod, when the state had a free land fund, and which began to be heard to the first "feudal lords". There is no need to talk about any noblemen earlier - there are no documents on this account. None Pre-Mongol Russia - the country of the prince's troops and voev - the city militia. The word "nobleman" is used only as serving at court, in the truest sense of the word.
The population remains completely free both under pre-Mongol Rus and under Ivan III. There are categories of "dependent", there are slaves, but there are no feudal dependent ones. Therefore, there is no feudalism: there are no feudal lords, no serfs.
But from the end of the XV century. documents came up, where free communities fight against the seizure of their lands by emerging feudal lords, as in Western Europe, monasteries first go.
By the way, in an amicable way, “feudalism” was legally fixed only by the Council Code of 1649 of the year, after the Time of Troubles, and in another way the civil war (one of the lines of struggle) between the nobles, the townspeople and the peasants: who could be pulled?
It finally took shape in Russia only after Peter I, not because of his actions, but through the development of society and the emergence, after the death of Peter, of the dictatorship of the nobility. Well, I have gone far.
3. It is also a bit strange to interpret in a European manner the relationship between the Khan of the Golden Horde and the Russian principalities: overlord is a vassal. When examples of such relations between the "nomadic empire" and subordinate states are sufficient.

[arturpraetor]

We can’t talk about any nobles before - there are no documents on this subject. None. Pre-Mongol Russia is a country of princely squads and howls - urban militia.

True, but at one time I was interested, and I am still interested, in the development of military affairs in Russia at the indicated time, and some progress towards the formation of a military service class, which served in exchange for land (by which we mean the nobility), nevertheless It was. Eastern Russia is not entirely my topic, but there the EMNIP issue of establishing relations with the petty boyars "military service in exchange for land" was raised under Bogolyubsky, although it did not come to practical implementation. In addition, according to the information I have, an analogue of the local army in Southwestern Russia appeared in the 1250s, when at least part of the cavalry of the Galicia-Volyn principality was recruited just on the principle of giving land in exchange for the service of the petty boyars, since the traditional The princes simply did not have enough "feeding" and resources to maintain the entire army. An indirect confirmation of this is the fact. that with the annexation of the Galician principality to Poland, the local petty boyars easily joined the ranks of the Polish gentry, which at that time was already quite feudal. So to say that in Russia there was no progress at all in this area, I personally do not succeed - just for that very organic continuation of the development of the socio-political system, a sufficiently strong central government and significant resources, primarily land resources, were required. the era of strife, constant "turnover" of princes on the tables, fragmentation of inheritance and other things was very tight. As soon as after the Mongol invasion a strong centralized and land-based state was formed, the early form of Russian feudalism was established almost immediately.

There are categories of “addicted”, there are slaves, but there are no feudal-dependent ones. Therefore, there is no feudalism: no feudal lords, no serfs.

If we understand feudalism in the narrow sense - then yes. But feudalism is a rather broad concept: it is applied to practically all of Europe, while "classical" feudalism existed almost in France alone. Feudalism in a broad sense has one main feature - the main economic resource is the land owned by the nobility, in varying degrees dependent on the supreme ruler (suzerain) and receiving this very land as a source of income in exchange for service or other special merits. The direct serf dependence of the peasants on the feudal lord is far from always necessary. After all, Spain until the XNUMXth century was considered a completely feudal state on the principle of land tenure, but serfdom was not there for a long time. The West has long established a broad definition of feudalism as socio-political, economic and military relations according to the formula "land in exchange for service." In the case of Russia, the term "feudalism" should be taken as a transition from traditional squads to the service of the nobility in exchange for land, which becomes the most important source of "feeding" for the military class of the state. At the same time, peasant dependence, the judicial power of the feudal lord on their lands, and everything else in our country either developed later, or did not develop at all.

Although I know that the topic of feudalism is generally "slippery", and even historians do not have a consensus on this topic because of the serious differences of this very feudalism, even in those countries where it admittedly existed, so this reasoning of mine is at best controversial.

It is also a little strange to interpret the relationship between the Khan of the Golden Horde and the Russian principalities in a European manner: overlord - vassal. When examples of such relations between the "nomadic empire" and subordinate states are enough.

I see no reason to produce entities where everything can be explained in simple and understandable terms. No matter how the relations between the dominant nomads and their subordinate settled in the Mongol Empire or later steppe states (the same Golden Horde) are called, it will still essentially be a variation on the theme of "vassal-suzerain" (which I have repeatedly seen in the foreign segment Internet when I was looking for information on the relations between nomads and sedentary). One could call the subordinate states tributaries, but the relations between the subordinate settled and dominant steppe dwellers went beyond the usual payment of tribute.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Artem, we have a very informative discussion with you.
Just a few words (or not a few):
1. I am not familiar with the issuance of land for service in the Western lands, although it can be assumed that there is influence here from neighbors from the west: the Poles. But I have not come across such documents. I agree that the processes do not occur suddenly, we can assume that the process has begun. But all the “villages” of the princes are not feudal farms with serfs, but points of self-sufficiency, and either horses or falcons are bred there.
2. About feudalism - that's right, if you start discussing it now, it will lead you into the wilds.
3. About vassalage - suzerainty, here the question is fundamental, of course, you can describe such a system in European terminology, but in this way we can lose the essence of the process, and someone will think, see everything as in Zap. Europe. An example, for you, as someone versed in military affairs: two translations: “the Byzantines were dressed in armor” or “the Byzantines were dressed in torass” - the same thing, but not the same thing, and here.
4. and how did the tribute to the Horde differ from the tribute of the Drevlians to Kiev or the fields, the Vyatichi and the northerners - to the Khazars in the 10th century? A rhetorical question.

[arturpraetor]

I am not familiar with the issue of land for service in the Western lands, although it can be assumed that there is influence from neighbors from the west: Poles.

Probably, both the influence of neighbors, and especially the prevailing conditions of the struggle of Daniel Romanovich for the inheritance of his father. His squad was too small; there was not enough "feeding" to maintain a large army for nothing; the big boyars often refused to support the prince (the chronicles give an example of how only 12 "near boyars" or vigilantes appeared at Daniel's call), together with the big boyars, Daniel lost the support of many city regiments. At the same time, there was quite wide support for ordinary community members and petty boyars. In these conditions, almost the only option to form a sufficiently large cavalry army, which will obey you much more willingly than the willful large boyars, is to distribute the princes' lands (of which, according to various estimates, there were up to 50-60 percent in certain districts of the South-West) to that very petty boyars in exchange for service, and to raise some of the community members in a similar way to the status of petty boyars. The alternative was to increase taxes and use mercenaries - but this would require inflating them so that Daniel would quickly lose his remaining support. A forced measure, which as a result turned out to be quite progressive and fully paid off - in different, but somewhat similar conditions, Ivan III created the local army of the Moscow principality, when, in addition to the city regiments (usually we will decide), numerous cavalry were required, which, in addition to as according to the well-known formula it was practically impossible to obtain. And yes, specific documents about this whole process were not preserved due to the turbulent events in the territory of South-Western Russia - but, nevertheless, the results of the military reforms of Daniil Romanovich and Lev Danilovich are known from cross-comparisons of data from Russian, Polish, Hungarian and German chronicles , but how to achieve such a result - there are actually few options, the fingers of one hand will be enough.

Of course, you can describe such a system in European terminology, but this way we can lose the essence of the process, and someone will think, see everything as in Zap. Europe.

Yes, everything can be taken literally, and then the meanings are lost.

and how did the Horde tribute differ from the tribute of the drevlyans to Kiev or the glades, Vyatichi and northerners to the Khazars in the tenth century?

IMHO, tribute in exchange for protection is one thing, but the level of interaction between the steppe people and their sedentary vassals during the Mongol Empire, and somewhere before the "great hush" in the Golden Horde, is another. In the first case, there are really no differences. In the second, everything is much more complicated, and it comes close to the above-mentioned format of "vassal-suzerain", or, more precisely, the protectorate of nomads over the sedentary, although this is also a very controversial analogy. Here you also need to understand that large nomadic empires like the Mongolian one are a complex organism in which nomads and sedentary ones combine with each other and enhance their common potential (the sedentary have a good economy, but small troops, the nomads have a so-so economy - but in the hike can be taken out by many more people). This is not only the payment of tribute, but close, and even at times mutually beneficial economic, political and military cooperation between both groups.

[Operator]

As classics of Marxist-Leninism teach us (including V.Shpakovsky a) analysis of the social order must begin with ownership of the means of production — for the period of the Middle Ages, this is land, since agriculture among the sedentary peoples (to which the Russians belonged) generated the overwhelming part of the gross domestic product.

From this point of view, each volost (former tribal territory, future princedom) of the Ruskaya Land state had five types of land ownership on its territory:
- parish;
- communal;
- private;
- local;
- monastic.

The volost lands were owned by the volost itself, represented by the city council and the foreman of the local capital city. The communal lands were owned by rural communities represented by the village assembly and the foreman. Private lands were owned by their owners - boyars (landowners, from the Sanskrit word "yar" - land) and princes (hereditary leaders of military squads). Local lands (estates) were owned by service people - vigilantes and clerks. The monastic lands were owned by a legal entity - the Kiev Metropolis of the Constantinople Patriarchate.

Only private lands were in private ownership - patrimonies that had been inherited by their owners even before the formation of the Russkaya Zemlya or bought for cash or by barter. Votchimi could be alienated only in the framework of the criminal prosecution of their owners - for example, the Prince of Kiev Yuri Dolgoruky deprived the boyar Fyodor Kuchka of ownership of the settlement of Moscow and its environs because of the reluctance of the boyar to send his sons to Kiev to serve in the prince's squad.

The parish lands could actually change their owner only in the case of the unification or separation of the volosts.

The owners of the remaining lands could lose their lands (with or without compensation) at any time by the decision of the parish or the prince. Another thing is that the volost and the prince were economically interested not only in the existence, but also in the expansion of communal lands, because taxes from them were the main sources of income for the treasury (therefore, volost authorities and princes lured communes from other volosts with the allotment of land to them from volost fund). The monastic lands were allocated by the volost authorities at the request of the church for "eternal" use and contributed to the political prestige of the volost - its weight in resolving issues at zemstvo and church councils.

In the sphere of land relations, Ruskaya Zemlya fully complied with European medieval law. But the sphere of political relations of the pre-Mongol Ruskaya Land was fundamentally different from Europe, because Russia had a right of law - all the volosts of the state were under the general control of one Rurik family without allocating inheritance to each of them (see the section of the Frankish Empire and the subsequent sections of the German kingdoms).

Only in the period of vassalage of the Russian Earth in relation to the Golden Horde, the European feudal system began to form on the territory of Russia with the hereditary right of specific princes not only to manage, but also to own all the land (with separate regimes for estates, estates, communities and monasteries). This was facilitated by the Mongolian practice of issuing labels for a great reign, under which the Moscow princes bought up and transferred neighboring volosts to their hereditary property. So after liberation from vassal dependence in the 15 century, the Grand Duchy of Moscow became a European state with the most progressive political system at that time - without internal vassals in its composition.

Europeans came to this political system two or three centuries later (and since then have been jealous of Russians ).

[Semurg]

Due to the difference in the method of government in Khorezm and Russia, the reason is probably the climate and the lack of pasture. It turned out to be cheaper and more practical to entrust the collection of tribute to the local aristocracy than to keep a standing army there on official maintenance. The campaign to Vietnam also ended when the pastures ended and the jungle began, the same story with Babur’s campaign in India and his Great Mogul, and before him with his grandfather Tamerlane.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Of course it is. Good conclusion! Therefore, the Proto-Bulgarians settled on the Danube among the Slavs in the VIII century, the Avars in the Danube region, the Hungarians there and among the Slavs, and the Mongols did not want to settle in the forests.

[vladcub]

This is not surprising: the Mongols are nomads, and will he roam in the forest?

[Semurg]

The Donets River, the Hungarian Pashta are good lands for nomads, even if the Slavs are around and they stayed there, but the forests of north-eastern Russia, like the southern forests of India and Hindustan, are destructive for the steppe horses and therefore not suitable for nomads.

[Yaik Cossack]

Quote: Edward Vashchenko

Artyom, practical remarks
1.A.B. Mayorov, a representative of this trend, but, unfortunately, in my opinion is not the brightest, and unfortunately, this is the case, his approach differs in schematics and the use of templates.

Exactly. The concepts of patrimonial feudalism of Grekov and state feudalism of Cherepnin began to cause increasing criticism, including after the works of I. Ya. Froyanova.
When we talk about "feudalism", we must bear in mind the diversity of its definitions and ideas about system-forming features. Pavlov-Silvansky understood feudalism somewhat differently than, say, Cherepnin. )))
But in general, the canonical Marxist formation "five-term" from the very beginning had the character of a speculative scheme that did not correspond to very many facts. For example, ancient slavery, as the classics of Marxism understood it (or rather, historians from whom the classics borrowed), in the form of the dominant mode of production, in general, almost never existed.
Hence the discussions about the Asiatic mode of production, "eternal feudalism" in the East, "nomadic feudalism", etc.

[Yaik Cossack]

Quote: Operator

The volost itself was owned by the volost itself in the person of the city council and foreman of the local capital city. Communal lands were owned by rural communities in the person of a rural gathering and foreman.

Is the parish not a community? In fact, Pavlov-Silvansky, who was the first to analyze volost land tenure, believed that the volost was just a special community - an analogue of the German brand community.

[arturpraetor]

Quote: Yaitsky Cossack

Isn't the parish a community?

Everything is there ... Difficult. I have read that it is the same thing, but at the same time I also read how conflicts over resources and land began between the volost city (that is, roughly speaking, the capital of the volost) and its "suburbs", that is, cities and towns, which themselves wanted to gather land around themselves and separate from the volost city, actually independently becoming new volosts. Within the framework of one community, such a conflict is unlikely, but between different communities that are fighting for the redistribution of resources in the region - easily. But at the same time, there could be a crisis of an overgrown community, its fragmentation and division into new volost-communities. But the existence of one community for the entire volost, which could have been quite large, is doubtful - the level of communication between the parts of the community is not the same, in this case it would rather be a "disunity" But, as I said, I met different things on this subject ...

And yes, by the way, conflicts between growing and crushing communities that are always hostile to resources with each other can be explained by all that trash with strife that prevailed in Russia after the weakening of the central princely power. But this is a bare assumption, devoid of detailed justification - although, perhaps, historians have already thought about this topic.

[Edward Vashchenko]

And yes, by the way, conflicts between growing and crushing communities that are always hostile to resources with each other can be explained by all that trash with strife that prevailed in Russia after the weakening of the central princely power. But this is a bare assumption, devoid of detailed justification - although, perhaps, historians have already thought about this topic.

Well, why is it naked, just what happened, as he wrote in the article.
But what is the alternative to the process of dividing volosts or principalities? What would contribute to consolidation, without the Mongol pogrom.
Interest Ask

[arturpraetor]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

But what is the alternative to the process of dividing volosts or principalities? What would contribute to consolidation, without the Mongol pogrom.
Interest Ask

IMHO, but the Mongol pogrom did not contribute to the consolidation of Russian lands, rather, on the contrary, it slowed down the process of years at 100-150, because in parallel with the fragmentation of destinies, the process of forming principalities of a new type, with a centralized authority located above the interests of individual communities, was also going on. Yes, I would still have to put a lot of people in wars, and spend a lot of time in strife - but I will remind you that in real Moscow it was a long and tedious task to gather the surrounding principalities around itself, to fight with Tver, Novgorod. after that - with Lithuania, and so on, so on, i.e. to collect all Russian territories by force of arms. Only the Soviet Union managed to collect all the lands of the former Russia, in 1945, if we do not forget about Galicia and Transcarpathia! Seven centuries have passed since the Mongol invasion! In reality, powerful principalities were engaged in collecting lands, but strong principalities were either defeated by the Mongols or thrown back in development. The winner of the Rus championship was Moscow - which before the Mongols did not exist at all as an independent principality, i.e. actually had to start from scratch. This would not have happened had the Mongol invasion not happened - but the winner, of course, could have been any of the strong principalities. which would be the first to build a strong centralized power, inheritance law by birthright and switch to new socio-economic relations (the same local army primarily increased the number of cavalry instead of the one formed from princely squads and cavalry of city regiments). And for all these changes, it was not necessary to expect the end of the 15th century.

[Yaik Cossack]

Quote: Operator

So after the liberation from vassal dependence in the 15 century, the Grand Duchy of Moscow became a European state with the most progressive political system at that time - without internal vassals.
Europeans came to this political system two or three centuries later (and since then have been jealous of Russians ).

But the state allotment system in medieval China - is it feudalism or not? )))

[kalibr]

Quote: Nikolai S.

Everyone says like that.

That's it. But the 3 tutorial and two monographs can be viewed online. One received a grant from the RHNF. For people who receive grants, they keep in high school ... By the way, you missed a whole cycle of my articles on high school here on the site. There my whole working biography. Read - you are an amateur collect information from the life ...

[kalibr]

Quote: Nikolai S.

Not happy that the modern Ph.D. know less about their subject (they are not able to argue, give a link)

Why object imenrek? Do not pay for it!

[Operator]

Quote: Yaitsky Cossack

Isn't the parish a community?

A rural community in pre-Mongol Russia was called a rope (a rope that could be tied around a circle of community members).

Parish - from the word own (territory).

[Yaik Cossack]

Quote: Operator

Quote: Yaitsky Cossack

Isn't the parish a community?

A rural community in pre-Mongol Russia was called a rope (a rope that could be tied around a circle of community members).

Parish - from the word own (territory).

Not everything is so simple)))) do you think Pavlov-Sylvansky did not know about the verve? But still, he was looking for analogies between the volost and the brand. And what kind of community was there during the free seizure of land? Many Old Russian settlements were just 2-3 families in the felling area, separated from the "community" by forest tracts. In the north, there were mainly such “communities”

[Operator]

Despite the fact that the brand and the parish represent a territorial unit, they differ in the history of education:
the mark is the border region of the Frankish state, created on the conquered lands by the decision of the king;
The volost is the area of ​​settlement of one of the East Slavic tribes before the formation of the Russian state.

A separate rural settlement of several families is called a village, a separate settlement of one family is a farm. The notion of a verve with its village headman refers to the first case, in the second case the head of the family is also the head of the hamlet.

[Yaik Cossack]

Quote: Operator

Despite the fact that the brand and the parish represent a territorial unit, they differ in the history of education:
the mark is the border region of the Frankish state, created on the conquered lands by the decision of the king;
The volost is the area of ​​settlement of one of the East Slavic tribes before the formation of the Russian state.

A separate rural settlement of several families is called a village, a separate settlement of one family is a farm. The notion of a verve with its village headman refers to the first case, in the second case the head of the family is also the head of the hamlet.

Do not be so categorical, Wikipedia fails you))) There were 2 brands. You simply confuse the brand as a military-administrative unit of the Carolingian power with the brand - the German neighborhood community. Look at Skazkin and the same Pavlov-Sylvan. There is not even a point of contention.

As for the volost community, you too are mistaken. There was a volost as an administrative unit and volost community. Everything is well described by the classic - A. Kaufman The Russian community in the process of its inception and growth.

Well, about the "farm" - here you just Wikipedia to help. Where and when did he go. In Ancient Russia, there was no such word. By the way, the old Russian village in 3-5 houses is already a separate community or not? )))

[Yaik Cossack]

Here is a classic from you:
Pavlov-Sylvansky N.P. Feudalism in Ancient Russia. Xnumx

“The Russian community of the corresponding era is the same with the German community of the Middle Ages, that is, our specific time, which lasted until Ivan the Terrible. We have institutions in them, not even similar, but identical in legal structure.

The oldest Germanic brand, an extensive mark union of the ancient era corresponds to our volost of the Middle Ages, a volost community with a vast territory. Over time, our volosts are also divided, like Germanic brands, into volosts — smaller communities. The community structure, just as in Germany, is observed in our later large villages; it also in a very developed form dominates the land of the owners. All these communities in us are composed of the same type. The essence of their ancient structure draws to us in clear outline the acts of the last two centuries of our Middle Ages, i.e. XV and XVI.

At the head of the volost-community of this time, we see its elected representative, who was called the elder or the centurion and sotsky; the second name exactly matches the name of the representative of the western community: the centurion (centurio centenarius). These same terms come from a common source, from common Slavs and Germans to institutions of extreme antiquity, from the initial military division of the tribes into tens, hundreds and thousands. In addition to the name "sotsky", we had other relevant terms: thousand (millenarius) and decimal (decanus).

The parish headman or centurion acts with us in the same way as in Germany, under the authority of the volost world, with "worldly advice." Decisions are made by "the elder and all the peasants." The worldly gathering, with the beginning of the unanimous decision of “all the peasants”, existing to this day in rural societies, originates from ancient times, from the worldly gathering of the medieval volost community.

Sotsky and the world in the volost community, as well as in the German brand, were in charge of the layout of taxes, the so-called markup. The peasants were "drawn by tribute and all duties to the volost" or "to the head of the volost." Sotsky or elders also managed the collection of all taxes. Government officials, tyuns and closers completely eliminated this case.

As well as the brand, the parish community owned judicial rights. As the counts judged in Germany together with the sheffenes, so in our place the governors should have judged only with the elder and with good people, and later, according to the 1551 lawyer of the year, with the kissers. This ancient rule about the participation of the world in the court of princely authorities is confirmed by the judiciary and many charter letters. The viceroy's court was a criminal and most important civil court. The lower court, apparently, was entirely a court of the world, as in the modern rural community.

Our volost community, along with the mark, was also a church community. In volosts we find secular churches, and in some volosts even secular monasteries built for the charity of the elderly. The church was usually built on the "churchyard", the central point of the volost territory ...

There was no communal land tenure in the strict sense of the word, with periodic redistribution, in our medieval volost, as well as in a brand uniform with it. Voloshchans owned the land, as property, with the right of disposal; This is evidenced by a lot of merchants, mortgages and separate letters between the heirs to different parts of the volost lands.

But with this private land ownership in the volost, as well as in the brand, communal land ownership was combined. A significant part of the land consisted of community ownership and use, along with German almenda. In community ownership were also all sorts of abandoned owners, so-called wastelands. The volost community freely disposed of such lands and wastelands: “The peasants — they say to me in letters of letters — gave me the volost, the elder from the peasants.”

The land rights of the volost extended not only to the lands and wastelands, but to the entire volost territory, and can be reduced to the same right of higher possession (dominium eminens) or territorial power, as well as land law of the German mark. The possession of a parish land parcel determined the duties and rights of the voloshkina.
Community unions, volosts and brands, the widely developed self-government of these organically formed territorial unions were the main foundation of the oldest state system.
...
State power, the power of the prince with his governors or counts, was like a superstructure over self-governing communities. ”

[M. Michelson]

Another tendentious garbage.
1. The most powerful contradiction of Princely Rus is between the native Slavic population and the Germanic princes-conquerors. Suffice it to say that the latter called the former (including the boyars) ... "smerds"! Oleg Svyatoslavich told Monomakh that he did not want to discuss their princely problems with the "smerds." The boyars were something of a sergeant-major in the army. "So there was no prince, but who would listen to the boyar!" - one of them made excuses for defeat. And since the power was organized in a funny way in a communal way, the princes constantly squabbled among themselves and therefore needed their "people", therefore this contradiction shifted towards the opposition of the princes with rapprochement with the boyars, but did not cancel it.
2.

... the mentality of the steppe warrior-people, where the military leader possessed unconditional, despotic power ...

The author, why, is joking? I have not heard anything about the kurultai and the election of khans (in which, by the way, the princes also participated)? Let me take an interest steppe democracy (preserved to this day in the arrangement of the life of the Kazakhs and Kirghiz). Some kind of understanding of the Great Steppe at the level of "Polovtsian dances".
3. Solovyov also noted that the Mongols acted in the interests of Yaroslav (Nevsky's father), who ruled in the Northeast. And the latter was isolated under Bogolyubsky, becoming something like Prussia with its command and administrative system. This is where the sources must be sought: on the NE, the Mongols stole the AKS, and where it was not there, everything remained as it was.
4. And finally, what does the author say about the Arabic inscriptions on the coins of the Russian princes?

[Antares]

The reasons for Russia's lag are exclusively in the climate. Less moisture and less heat.
This greatly affects the productivity and, as a consequence, the material base of the whole society.
MIT itself influenced the negative selection of the nobility and the system. But it was still based on subsistence farming — which depended on the climate. But Russia still had at least the Novgorod attempt to change the system to the trading and Lithuanian systems.
Moscow's choice fell not on one or the other, but on the Horde system. The most archaic for development, but the best for conquest. That's all. Material base + imprisonment for expansion. Homeland versus freedom of choice.

[Yaik Cossack]

Quote: Antares

The reasons for Russia's lag are exclusively in the climate. Less moisture and less heat.

It is not.
1. The conquest itself caused tremendous damage. Destroyed cities, undermined the economy, killed and stolen the population. It is impossible to evaluate.
2. The economy of Russia was characterized by a deficit of capital and labor. Tribute ("Horde exit") fatally bled it. Assessment of the value of this tribute involved Nasonov, Tikhomirov, Pashuto, Grekov, Bazilevich, Pavlov.
Here is a summary of their findings.
The first stage from 1257 to 1320-ies. The regular payment of tribute ("exit") began with 1257. First, through representatives (Baskaks) and a system of farms. After 1266, through princes. Around 1275, the Basqualism system was finally liquidated. Tithing was taken in people and property. The best artisans and labor were hijacked to the Mongolian state. Archaeologists in the Horde cities discovered entire blocks of the Russian dependent population - artisans and workers. So, in the period from 1257 to 1320's. the size of the tribute is impossible to establish, but it was very large.
The second stage from 1320's to 1380 of the city of Tribute, according to Pavlov’s calculations, from North-Western Russia amounted to about 13-14 thousand rubles a year. In addition to tribute, “wake” was paid, gifts were handed over, etc. on visits to the Horde, military contingents were sent. But it is impossible to evaluate them. Each year, the tribute was (based on various calculations of the silver content in the ruble) 2 - 4 tons of silver.
The third stage in 1380-1480. tribute to North-Western Russia averaged 10 thousand rubles per year. For the first time, the exact amount of tribute from the Great Vladimir Principality - 5 thousand rubles - was indicated in the agreement between Dmitry Donskoy and Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhovsky in 1389. To this amount was added tribute from other principalities, for example, Nizhny Novgorod paid 1500 rubles. In 1433, the grand-ducal tribute (together with Nizhny Novgorod, Murom and Meshchersky) amounted to 7 thousand rubles.
Even if we accept a deliberately low estimate of the value of tribute in 1257-1320. equal to the subsequent period (14 thousand rubles per year), then the total value for the period 1257-1480. may amount to 2,7 - 3 million rubles.
The weight content of silver in the ruble varied from 409 to 204,76 grams of silver. The historical dynamics are not very clear, so we use boundary estimates. It turns out that Russia paid in silver from 1104 to 614 tons.

Given that there was no silver in Russia, and the economy was mostly natural in nature, the unproductive pumping of such colossal funds led to a slowdown in economic growth and hindering the development of market relations and trade.
Colonial exploitation of Russia gave the Golden Horde the main resources for the existence of its elite and the construction of numerous large cities. Monumental magnificent buildings and a high standard of living of the nobility have been archaeologically revealed.
After the cessation of Russian tribute, all this urban culture was covered, which proves its colonial and parasitic nature. So, the fabrications of the vulgar Marxist Pokrovsky, his last, and also numerous modern Turkic chauvinists about the “beneficial” role of the Horde yoke for Russia are a selfish and malicious lie.

[faterdom]

The look is interesting in its own way, quite reasoned.
But ... Again (I like to trump other people's knowledge and opinions) - the defeat of Kievan Rus, and if not from the Mongols, then from someone else was predetermined. And not by anyone, but by Yaroslav, who, according to Mikhail Iosifovich, was completely undeservedly called the Wise.
If before him, Russia, though sometimes sharing and fighting for power, was a mighty state of that time, more or less unified, against which all Poles of Boleslava were only temporary and random, and Byzantium wrinkled its forehead, gave the porphyro-born princess to marry a prince - ancestor Yaroslav (this should be separately assessed, while Byzantium of the princesses still didn’t fit anyone undeservedly), thanks to an attempt to divide the possessions between the descendants, it was more or less evenly, honestly, the foundation was laid for a long internecine war between the heirs. As a result, before the invasion of the Mongols there was no single strong power, no single management, no opportunity to unite squads to fight back. But Yaroslav is good and kind - he did not offend any of the children! .... (There should be a word that I will keep silent).
And further. In addition to a tax in the form of tribute, Russia for a long time had on the borders not only ulcers - cancerous tumors from nomadic peoples, the remnants of the Horde and its allies, which for centuries ravaged the outskirts, burned farms, led livestock, and most importantly - people into slavery. And this question was resolved long and painfully, century after century, the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates, conflicts with the Turks, the Nogai horde, Krymchaks, Turkmens, and so on. To what extent did all this hinder the development of the Russian state and people?

[Edward Vashchenko]

Andrew, important comments, thank you.
but you proceed from the "opinion", no offense, my article: these are not my thoughts "at my leisure" - this is the work of a whole historiographic trend, based on sources, of course, they are such that stretching is inevitable, but that is, that is.
The division of Yaroslav, like Vladimir and further down the list, is not the prince’s personal whim, it is a sign of the tribal system, yes crumbling, but in transition, but tribal, where children are given tables like Yaroslav. And destinies, as the great Moscow princes.
V. I. Sergiyevich, an eminent historian of the Russian law school, noted at the end of the 19 century that any Moscow prince, having gone through the struggle with specific princes: uncles and brothers, also divided his inheritance in wills, creating problems for his heir.
So the point here is not in Yaroslav Vladimirovich, but in the structure.
And about the enormous material and human losses in the fight against the steppe, the fact is obvious, the Moscow state spent enormous finances on this struggle, on the redemption of prisoners, the construction of fortresses on the borders with the steppe. However, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, foreigners celebrated the wealth of Moscow and its citizens.

[faterdom]

Eduard, re-read his post, missed the last name, whose opinion I voiced: Weller Mikhail Iosifovich, no doubt the highest erudite and witty writer, with his system of philosophical and scientific picture of the world (not contradictory, in my opinion). This is me about Yaroslav. Your article, however, addresses a very complex and controversial issue in our history: the Mongol invasion and its role in Russian history. Like the reverse is also true. That Russia greatly influenced the Mongols, at least the Golden Horde.
And in the future, this mutual influence was expressed in the most important issue under feudalism: the Genghisides and the Rurikovichs are equally noble in their rank and above all other clans.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Andrew, I am by no means against M. Weller, everyone has the right to have an opinion, my thought is about something else: no one speaks about the conclusions of the physicists, since you can be considered a layman, but the “history” seems to be, like, football, an area where you can fantasize, despite the opinion of scientists. Maybe this is the case, not all, but many problems that we do not hear and do not want to listen to expert experts, and each “gopher is an agronomist.” And everywhere.
I repeat, my article is devoted to one of the important aspects of our history, considered in modern historiography, you are right in asking the question about the subsequent influence of the “steppe” on the development of the country. Because the “story of the Mongols” taken out of context does not show anything.
My opinion, I emphasize, is personal, and not historiography, that the listed reasons were important, but were not critical, and the key problem of lagging behind lies outside medieval history. Sincerely.

[haron]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

So the point here is not in Yaroslav Vladimirovich, but in the structure.

Super!! Blakodaru!
After reading everything and this commentary, the painting "Was there a boy" really emerged.

We are now looking at that period through a layer of "royal" thoughts almost 800 years thick. During this period, the head of the community guard turned into a grand duke, tsar, emperor, chairman of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, and president. A meeting-veche, turned into .... "Maidan" no more than 3.
What difference does it make to whom Yaroslav left the inheritance, to one or several. Anyway, in Novgorod there would have been a prince, both in Chernihiv, and in Rostov, and Polotsk ..... Maybe he thought that it was his sons who would save these cities in a single space, peace and prosperity. And if it weren’t for his son, they would have called for a new Rurik, or someone else from the locals ... it doesn't matter.
The main issues determining the direction of the flow of goods were determined by the veche, or something similar from the local nobility. The prince only guarded and executed their decisions.
Rurik was the first to break the veche's monopoly on ALL decisions affecting the public good, creating heredity. Bogolyubsky was one of the first to successfully start taking pieces of pie from the veche and the local nobility. Nevsky took more radical measures. Ivan 3 almost ideally used the accumulated experience of his ancestors. Ivan 4, like Bogolyubsky, went into conflict, but found a way to win in it. Peter repeated his style in a different direction of the "cake of power", Stalin managed to preserve the "house of Rurikism" but with the possibility of participation of all the brains of the state ...
Naturally, these are just my suspicions))

[Edward Vashchenko]

I see your conclusions as objective, I am not from myself, but relying on the conclusions in historiography I wanted to convey.
We once froze on the “monarchism” of N. Karamzin's time, the beginning of the 19 century, of course, and the prevalence in Soviet historiography of the opinion that feudalism is close to monarchism was reflected in the textbooks: this idea firmly stuck in our heads.
But then the question arises, what kind of country, where feudalism is unchanged from the IX, almost through the twentieth century, and many write about "barracks, Soviet feudalism."
Of course, such an opinion on the development of the country may be among journalists or politicians, but this cannot be because it cannot be from the point of view of science: Russian society naturally developed in the framework of the Indo-European or, more precisely, the European way. A separate civilization has arisen - yes, but the path was the same: pre-class society, pre-class, potestarny institutions, feudalism, early capitalism, peripheral state. capitalism, further, without comment.
And the monarchy had the same evolution. There is no need to talk about any monarchy in Ancient Russia, the presence of personally very powerful princes is not a monarchy. Their rampage was quickly tamed: what happened with Andrei Bogolyubsky, what happened with Yuri Dolgoruky, what happened with Daniel Galitsky, Alexander Nevsky, etc.
Early monarchism arose with the formation of a system of "armed forces" directly dependent on the grand duke, while the army consisted of detachments of specific and dependent princes, bishops and urban regiments, where the personal regiments of the grand duke were only part, monarchism could not be considered. This is one side of the coin.
Plus - the influence of the Byzantines - Sofia Paleolog. Before that - the grand duke - not above the rest, but the first among equals: Rurik and Gedyminovych.
Monarchism became relevant for the development of the country, the previously established system began to slow down its development, and it so happened that Basil III began this struggle, all the laurels of the "great and terrible" went to Ivan the Terrible, through the civil war - the Troubles - wars of all classes against all, including the revenge of the “equal” against the monarchy, and the formation of the early monarchy was over at the time of the first Romanov.
By the way, about the "Maidan". Yu.Granberg from Gothenburg in his study of the veche showed that the veche, in each case described in the annals, was spontaneous in all cities during emergency situations - it looks like a "Maidan".

[haron]

Quote: faterdom

I love to trump other people's knowledge and opinions

I trump my opinion - I try to use other opinions only as my bricks.
I did not find a more suitable place, topic or interlocutor. And the topic is rather interfaced with article extended associations.

Below is my answer - why did Ivan the Terrible give Monomakh’s cap to Simeon Bukbelatovich? The answer is simple and complex at the same time, and its essence is as follows.
By transferring the throne to Simeon, Ivan removed the most important reason for the campaign against Russia by Davlet Gerey in 1575.
Brief transcript.
This is an almost personal enmity between the two rulers - Ivan the Terrible and Davlet Geray. In the Battle of Molody, Davlet lost a huge number of relatives and wanted revenge .. He could not fulfill his promise to other "God's chosen" and financiers - to throw Ivan out and sit on the kingdom himself - he wanted to restore honor.
A new campaign was not planned in a normal raid, the Tatars went to capture Moscow and rule in it, just like in 1572. Of course, there was no place for Ivan.

After reading the materials on the accession to the throne of the Russian kingdom of Simeon Bekbulatovich, I was surprised to find that this moment is a "mystery" in history, and that until now Ivan the Terrible’s motives are not very clear. Even Kostomarov attributed this act to a certain incomprehensible frenzy of Ivan, which is quite paradoxical for one of the most pragmatic kings of that time.
So the motive.
Like it or not, there’s only one motive, this is the instinct of self-preservation. I can only say that Ivan lived only as long as he owned the throne. And for him, the whole story of his life, the life of past lords and those living at the same time with him, was a confirmation of this. No throne - no life.
Take a look at the events preceding the year 1575.
1. Campaign Davlet-Geray 1571. total devastation of the lands of the Moscow principality.
2. This year and next year, the country was driven by famine and disease epidemics.
3. The Battle of Molodi in 1572. The destruction of almost the entire combat-ready population of the Crimean Khanate and part of the Nogai horde. At the same time, a large number of Moscow combat-ready people are killed. The war was on the territory of the Moscow state, which was finally rosar.
4. The conduct of the Livonian War, also bled Moscow.
1574 year.
- The Turks defeated John Voda. The sack of Moldova.
- The Siberian Khan Kuchum broke his vassal relations with Moscow.
To list a lot. The meaning is clear.
.........
Davlet Giray planned to take revenge on Moscow, but rather personally to Ivan (for he had lost many relatives under Molody). From 1572 to 1575, in three years, a new combat-ready generation has grown. Geray may have agreed with the Turks and Nagai to provide him with human resources. For three years, the Moscow principality partially recovered and there was already something to rob.

Ivan could not oppose a serious army against a new invasion. Instead of this, he put Chingizid and Rurikovich on his throne, and, like Gedeminovich, with the children of the Paleologists.
In general, Ivan 4 covered himself with Simeonov's indisputable authority, from the raids of various non-steppe nomads, but also of the Turks. Perhaps the West was not indifferent to it.

Result in official historiography.
Moreover, his long life is still a sign of great authority not only among the Horde, but also among his western neighbors - all.
In fact, this is a compilation of the genes of most of the reigning clans - in modest and wise vestments.

[Yaik Cossack]

The invasions of the Horde did not stop with the construction of Simeon Bekbulatovich, but continued every year.
So your opinion is easily refuted by facts.
The reasons for the appointment were openly outlined by well-informed contemporaries. But you should know them before you trump your opinions, and you, obviously, did not read them.

Judging by your passages about the "traditional history", you belong to the "non-traditional", that is, deviant))))

[haron]

Quote: Yaitsky Cossack

So your opinion is easily refuted by facts.

Sophistry))
For two reasons.
1. The onslaught of Crimeans was completely impossible to stop. Yes. They were every year, for the economy of the Crimean Khanate was based on this. BUT !!
2. The scale of these raids and targets from year to year had different volumes. And after Molod there were campaigns with the goal of going straight into the Kremlin, but during the reign of Bekbulat 1576. no large-scale large campaign was recorded.
There are a number of indirect facts indicating that the act of Ivan 4 was dictated by pragmatism and not whim.
I’ll only point out that Ivan needed to convince everyone that Bekbulat was a real king, and therefore any signs showing pragmatism were eradicated by them.

Quote: Yaitsky Cossack

Judging by your passages about the "traditional history", you belong to the "non-traditional", that is, deviant))))

"Traditional history" does not have any specific opinion on this issue at all.
Let me find out that the "non-sofa" historian of the 16th century can only be an archaeologist himself?

[Yaik Cossack]

Quote: Edward Vashchenko

and the key problem of lagging lies beyond medieval history. Sincerely.

In my opinion, the reasons for the lag are multifactorial, but I would not take them completely beyond the Russian Middle Ages. A new time for Russia is already Peter's modernization. The reasons were external and internal. This is the yoke, and the specifics of the formation of centralized power, the slow genesis of capitalism, the one-sided modernization of the 18th century with the “second edition of serfdom”, special absolutism and the weakness of the third estate. In general, there are quite a few reasons.

[Edward Vashchenko]

I agree,
but the formation of feudalism in Russia for natural reasons coincided with the emergence of capitalism in the next more, let's say gently, an active civilization.
And here came to the fore the management system that coped with its task in all previous periods, but it was from the beginning of the 19 century that serious failures began, which of course there were no more severe periods of Russian history, with, of course, pompous external surroundings and victories in numerous wars. Fernand Braudel points to this directly.

[Yaik Cossack]

The stage lag of Russia from the 15th and 16th centuries is undeniable. In the period before the XIII century - I have a number of doubts.
Ancient Russia is generally a plus or minus a typical early medieval state model, approximately at the level of Scandinavia. Novgorod and Pskov as self-governing city communes also have a lot of analogies in Europe.
Means, something happened in this chronological interval, something went wrong)))) here to understand - what.
My passion for the Annals school has been a long time. Once I was their ardent admirer, but their Marxism-light turned out to be fruitless. The scope is ruble, a penny hit. They were not able to create something new in general, to develop a new systemic social history, despite all the requests (although there are a number of excellent observations of a lower level at the bottom). All these world-systems, world-economies turned into outrageous platitudes. Well this is so, by the way.

[Edward Vashchenko]

The stage lag is connected with one simple thing, Russia embarked on the path of historical development, when early feudalism was already in France. Nothing more and did not break. Modernization of Peter provided military parity in the conditions of new technological challenges, but feudalism mothballed: the noble dictatorship of the 18 century is not a figure of speech, but the real situation in the country, but this is, as they say, a different story)

[Yaik Cossack]

Quote: Edward Vashchenko

The stage lag is connected with one simple thing, Russia entered the path of historical development, when there was already early feudalism in France. Nothing else broke.

I'm afraid the reason is not so simple ...
If I understand correctly, you postulate the lag only by the later genesis of the state in Russia. Yes, France was probably the leader in folding the classic feudal model. But there were other, less developed European regions, where then, on the contrary, explosive development is observed. It was not by chance that I brought Scandinavia, which was very archaic, but then, even after giving up a lot of the population, it did not completely lag behind Europe in stages. The speed of social evolution is not a constant.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Nice to talk with you. But, with the Scandinavians, nothing striking and did not happen, rather they, included in historical processes with more developed neighbors, showed a striking lag.
Norway hibernated for a long time, becoming even a colony. The Swedes were able to develop only thanks to the colonial possessions. About Denmark, it can be said the same as about Sweden.

[Yaik Cossack]

Quote: Edward Vashchenko

The modernization of Peter ensured military parity in the face of new technological challenges, but preserved feudalism: the noble dictatorship of the 18 century was not a figure of speech, but the real situation in the country, but, as they say, this is a different story)

I am also a supporter of this point of view on the reforms of Peter the Great and Russian absolutism, the arguments of Miliukov seem convincing to me.
Nevertheless, the absence of a strong counterbalance in the face of cities (defeated by the Mongols and entering a period of decline), along with the external aggression of the neighbors (Lithuania and Poland), who captured the most developed West Russian principalities, affected the balance of forces within the emerging Moscow state. Hence the unsuccessful attempt of Ivan IV in one fell swoop to suppress the nobility, relying on the junta of the guardsmen, and not on the cities.

[faterdom]

Quote: Edward Vashchenko

The stage lag is connected with one simple thing, Russia embarked on the path of historical development, when early feudalism was already in France. Nothing more and did not break. Modernization of Peter provided military parity in the conditions of new technological challenges, but feudalism mothballed: the noble dictatorship of the 18 century is not a figure of speech, but the real situation in the country, but this is, as they say, a different story)

I don’t know who put you a minus: what you write is just axiomatic truths ... Strange.
I would, the only thing I would put from head to foot (I don’t refer to anyone, my opinion is simply personal):
Russia in pre-Petrine times was not only lagging behind ... it was then a hundred years old as a single state.
But Western Europe during the time of the Crusades was not particularly ahead of, say, the same Byzantium, but then surrendered a breakthrough unique in History. What’s become a detonator - you can judge-row .... The Reconquista in the Pyrenees, Norman conquests with a fairly quick absolutization of power, the Hundred Years War, Reformation, plague epidemics, Venice and Italian city-states as a bridge from ancient knowledge and schools to the Renaissance, Great geographical discoveries, medieval universities ...
That is what constitutes the official history of the Middle Ages.
And at the same time, China, Japan, Joseon (Korea), Mongol uluses, Mughal India, Caliphates and Sultanates lived and existed, the Port Middle East appeared and dominated, pirate Muslim states of the islands and northern Africa were created and disappeared. The Aztecs and Incas owned almost continents.
And not to say that, compared with them, Russia developed somehow slowly.
But England, France, the Netherlands, Hansa, Sweden - these made a leap. In economics, science, agriculture, shipbuilding, navigation, and the development of firearms.
We, as they say now, sometimes for decades, if not centuries, "did not have political will." That is, it was simply unnecessary and not interesting to either the rulers or the elite.

[Yaik Cossack]

Quote: Edward Vashchenko

Nice to talk with you

Thank you, mutually.

[andrew42]

Great article! Review, evidence, clear conclusion! Thanks to the author.

[race]

The article is generally interesting, but difficult to read. And the reason is as follows. It is somehow inconvenient to point out such a candidate of historical sciences, but such an abundance of errors and misprints in the text is simply unacceptable. It seems that the author has problems with cases and declensions. And punctuation marks in a number of sentences are generally displayed without any rules - according to the principle "where I want, I put it there." Where it is necessary - they are not, and where they should not be - there they just are. Nevertheless, articles, especially of this level, should be checked for errors more carefully.