Military Review

Unification of Rus': an alternative to Moscow

77
Unification of Rus': an alternative to Moscow

When it comes to the unification of feudally fragmented medieval Rus' into a single state, everyone intuitively thinks only of Moscow as the only and uncontested center of unification. But what about the other principalities? Did they have any chance of becoming the center of "collecting lands"? How were they going to achieve this and why did they fail in the end?


The struggle for the right to become the unifier of Rus', which lasted more than two centuries, was uncompromising and cruel. Russian people in the course of this struggle slaughtered other similar Russian people with no less frenzy than the most vicious foreign invaders. And this struggle can hardly be called only a consequence of medieval backwardness.

A lot was at stake: who exactly would rule in the new united state, what form of government would be, who would write their own laws for everyone, manage all the country's wealth, and so on. There really could only be one winner here.

Who applied for this role?

Kiev


Kyiv was considered the main city of Rus' for quite a long time - from the XNUMXth to the XNUMXth centuries. Before the collapse of Kievan Rus, it was the capital. And even after the collapse of Rus' into small principalities, Kyiv continued to be considered the main city, and the Kyiv prince had seniority in relation to other Russian princes.

At the beginning of the XIII century, Kyiv could well act as a "collector of Russian lands." In fact, this would mean the revival of Kievan Rus. The invasion of the Mongols and the defeat on the Kalka River in 1223 was a serious argument in favor of uniting into one state. But the Russian princes never learned the lesson of the defeat at Kalka. And Kyiv, having missed its chance after Kalka, soon lost it forever.

Kyiv finally lost the opportunity to become the capital and the center of "gathering lands" in 1240, when it was taken and devastated by the Mongols. They devastated the city to such an extent that the population, as it was before the capture, reached Kyiv only in the 600th century. As many as XNUMX years it took to fully recover from the ruin.

Thus, after 1240, Kyiv no longer had a chance to claim the role of the capital of the united Rus'.


Image in the annals of the capture of Kyiv by the Mongols in 1240

Tver


Another city that could well act as a unifier of Rus' is Tver.

Tver princes in the XIV-XV centuries. very often fought with Moscow. The competition for the right to be the unifier of Rus' was fierce. The winner in this confrontation decided everything.

In order to crush their opponent, both sides did not hesitate to enter into alliances with the eternal enemies of Rus'. So, Moscow, in order to crush Tver, agreed to an alliance with the Golden Horde, and Tver chose the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as its allies.

The Grand Duke of Tver Mikhail Yaroslavich besieged Moscow twice - in 1305 and 1308, but could not take it. Muscovites in response, having entered into an alliance with the Golden Horde, undertook a joint campaign against Tver in 1317, but were defeated in the Battle of Bortenevskaya. Unable to defeat the prince of Tver on the battlefield, the Horde dealt with him in a different way. In 1318, Mikhail Yaroslavich was summoned to the Horde and brutally killed there. But to conquer Tver and this time also failed.

The next attempt to conquer the Principality of Tver and get rid of the hated competitor was made in 1327. Then the Tverites raised an uprising against the insolent Tatars who were in the city, and killed them. In response, a punitive campaign of the 50th Tatar army, reinforced by Moscow and Suzdal detachments, followed. After a stubborn defense, Tver was taken and turned into ruins and ashes. The same fate befell many other cities that the Tatars took.


The uprising of the Tverchi against the Horde. 1327

But the confrontation between the two principalities did not end there. Tver quickly recovered from the defeat and until 1485 did not allow Moscow princes to sleep peacefully. During the time of Dmitry Donskoy, Tver fought with Moscow in alliance with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and fought very successfully: Tver and Lithuanian troops besieged Moscow twice.

However, this did not prevent the Tver troops from fighting in the ranks of the army of Dmitry Donskoy a few years later in the Battle of Kulikovo. But the prince of Tver could well have attacked Moscow while Dmitry was at war with Mamai! But it is obvious that of the two evils, the Tatars were much greater for Tver.

Which way would the Russian история, if Tver was able to finally defeat Moscow and began to collect Russian lands? One can ask the question in another way: would Tver be able to unite Russia in general, and how long would it last?

If, after the Battle of Bortenev, the prince of Tver had captured Moscow and gathered the Moscow-Tver army, then the Horde yoke would have been ended in the near future. Such an army had every chance of winning, and the Golden Horde, tormented by unrest, would soon disintegrate, and the yoke would end like a nightmare. And if the Horde yoke ended in the 1320s, then Rus' could have united by the middle of the same century.

Why, then, did the unification of the Russian lands by Moscow take so long?

The reasons are many.

Firstly, Moscow began to unite the Russian lands much later.

Secondly, even in 1462 the territory of the Moscow principality was only 400 thousand square meters. km.

And thirdly, the collection of Russian lands by Moscow was not beneficial to anyone. The Moscow princes had to pursue a rather cunning policy, entering into alliances with some enemies in order to crush others. Therefore, the joint campaign of the Moscow-Tatar troops against Tver was not surprising. Using the Golden Horde as an ally in difficult times, having grown stronger, Moscow successfully dealt with it.

Velikiy Novgorod


Another city that could also act as a unifier of Rus' was Novgorod.

Mr. Veliky Novgorod, as the locals called it, was a republic and owned a territory several times larger than the Moscow principality. Novgorod rarely waged war, and if it did, it was with Sweden and other invaders who invaded its territory.

In general, the Novgorod Republic was the most peaceful Russian principality.

Another plus of Novgorod is that it never knew the Mongol-Tatar yoke, the Mongols simply did not reach it. Even more than that, from the moment Rurik was called up to joining the Muscovite state, that is, from 862 to 1478, an enemy soldier never set foot in Novgorod. What other city in Rus' can boast of such a thing?

On the other hand, there was active trade with European countries, the republic and its inhabitants grew noticeably richer. If Novgorod were a little more aggressive, he could unite Rus'.

How could it be? And most importantly, when?


The territory of the Novgorod Republic around 1400

The most optimal time for the unification of Rus' by Novgorod is the second half of the XNUMXth century. It was at this time that Rus' had not yet recovered from the Mongol invasion, and the Golden Horde had already begun to show the first signs of weakness. Novgorod is flourishing.

Hypothetically, having gathered an army and made alliances with several princes - primarily with Tver and Pskov - Novgorodians set off on a campaign to the east with the slogan of liberating Rus' from the hated Tatars. In every city where Novgorodians enter, a veche system and a republic are established. No longer Novgorod, but the united Russian army in a general battle defeats the Tatars. Rus' is liberated, it is united into a single state with a republican form of government and the capital in Novgorod. So, what is next? What are her development prospects?

In any case, a huge plus is that Rus' has been liberated from the Golden Horde yoke. The second plus is that it is united in one state. How long will Rus' remain a republic? Probably until the XNUMXth century - no longer. It was at this time that the process of the formation of absolutism took place in Europe, it would hardly have bypassed Rus', provided that Novgorod Rus' had close relations with Europe.

And yet it must be said that more than 200 years of republican rule would not have passed without a trace for Russia. Even after the restoration of absolutism, the new form of government would be much softer than the absolutism of Ivan the Terrible or Peter I.

Grand Duchy of Lithuania


In addition to Lithuania, Belarus and most of Ukraine, this state also included many lands of the current Russian Federation: the territories of Kursk, Bryansk, Smolensk, Kaluga and other regions. In a word, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the XIV-XV centuries. was a huge state, larger than any of the Russian principalities.

It is clear that the Orthodox in this state constituted the absolute majority of the population. Officially, it was called the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Russia and Samogitia (Zhemogitia is a region of Lithuania). And the official language was Russian (along with Latin and Polish).

By the way, on the monument "Millennium of Russia", opened in 1862 in Veliky Novgorod, next to the Russian princes and commanders of that era, there are also four Lithuanian princes: Keistut, Gedemin, Olgerd and Vitovt. That is, back in the XNUMXth century, the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was perceived as an integral part of the all-Russian history.


Olgerd and Vitovt at the Millennium of Russia monument

Based on all this, there is no doubt that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania laid claim to all other Russian lands.

And it had more than one chance to conquer them. During the Muscovite-Lithuanian war of 1368-1372. Lithuanian troops besieged Moscow twice, their ally was the Principality of Tver. But they failed to take Moscow.

The Lithuanians had a good chance to end Moscow in 1380, when Dmitry Donskoy left his capital to go to war with Mamai. But why did the Lithuanians not realize this chance? Moscow, deprived of a large garrison, could be taken. After that, the conquest of the remaining Russian principalities by the Lithuanian-Tver troops would only be a matter of time.

The next chance to conquer the Moscow Principality was even easier. 1382. Khan Tokhtamysh stormed, plundered and burned Moscow, while Dmitry Donskoy hid in Kostroma. The Moscow prince no longer had a huge army, as on the Kulikovo field, he was forced to hide from the ferocious Tokhtamysh. Such was the retribution for the victory on the Kulikovo field and the attempt to gain complete independence from the Horde.


Preparations for the defense of Moscow from the troops of Khan Tokhtamysh. Painting by A. Vasnetsov

The Tatars left, leaving behind mountains of corpses and smoking ruins. Why did the Lithuanians not take advantage of this? Why not finished off the already devastated principality?

The point here is that just at that time in Lithuania itself there was an active struggle for power, which resulted in a civil war, in which the neighbors intervened, so the Lithuanians had no time for Moscow.

The last chance to put an end to Moscow once and for all was with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the middle of the XNUMXth century. By this time, it had significantly expanded its territory, conquered the principality of Smolensk and other Russian lands. The military power of the Lithuanians also increased.

But the Moscow principality was going through hard times. Civil war between Vasily the Dark and Dmitry Shemyaka, again devastated cities and villages, again mountains of corpses. Why not a reason to intervene under the pretext of supporting your candidate for power? And then finally conquer Moscow.

But, alas, the Lithuanians did not use this moment either. So they finally lost the chance to become collectors of Russian lands.

In subsequent Russian-Lithuanian wars of the late XV - early XVI centuries. the struggle was for the border lands, and there was no longer any talk of any claims to Moscow.
Author:
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org
77 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 14 January 2023 05: 48
    +11
    The author forgot to mention another failed association center - Vladimir.
    So, Moscow, in order to crush Tver, agreed to an alliance with the Golden Horde, and Tver chose the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as its allies.
    What kind of alliance could Moscow have with the Golden Horde if this principality was a vassal of the Horde?
    The Moscow prince no longer had a huge army, as on the Kulikovo field, he was forced to hide from the ferocious Tokhtamysh.
    And there was no huge army because, unlike Mamai, who was a usurper, that is, illegal, Tokhtamysh had every right to be the ruler of the Horde and he came to punish the obstinate vassal, and he, and only he had the right to do so, everyone else had to just watch it and draw your own conclusions
    1. cold wind
      cold wind 14 January 2023 08: 48
      +6
      Only Moscow had a legal right to the territory of residence of the Eastern Slavs, because. received a corresponding document from the Khan of the Golden Horde. This is the only reason for the rise of Moscow. For there is nothing else here, no trade routes, no rich lands, no forest, no population. The Moscow princes were the most arrogant and unprincipled, apparently from the poor of their lands. Moscow simply collected tribute from neighboring principalities and transferred part of it to the khan of the horde (principle is the same as now). Whoever was against was destroyed by the united troops of the principality and hordes.
      Vassalage/alliance has a very fine line. The principle in those days was the ruler of the King / Khan / King and vassals. For Khan (in the Slavic territories he was called the Tsar) there was no difference between the Slavs, Turks, Finno-Ugric peoples or Mongols, for him everyone was his personal vassals and part of his state. By the way, the Khan / King considered himself a descendant of Genghis Khan, this is the only thing left of the Mongol Empire.
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 14 January 2023 09: 53
        +6
        Prince Danil Alexandrovich of Moscow did not sit on the great table of Vladimir, which means that the Moscow princes did not have any legal rights.
        1. Nicholas C.
          Nicholas C. 14 January 2023 13: 47
          +17
          Another Russophobic nonsense. The author knows practically nothing about Russian history, he has not even read our school textbook. Confuses even centuries. I didn’t hear anything about the two centuries of the period of Vladimir Rus, he lengthened the Kyiv period on them. The term Novgorod Rus, when Novgorod was the capital of Rus', was used out of place. The author even heard nothing about the battles of Alexander Nevsky with the Swedes and Germans. He knows nothing about the catholicity of Rus', hence the nonsense about absolutism under Ivan the Terrible. What kind of feudalism in Vladimir and then Muscovite Rus'? The then saying: here's your grandmother and St. George's day, what about? About the absence of feudalism. All the princes were the closest relatives and dealt with each other within the framework of the law then in force. The author does not understand the historical processes and events that took place then, as the consequences of these processes.

          The article looks like the fruit of painful fantasies and wishes, emphasized from Ukrainian "textbooks" and propaganda, about burned Moscow and mountains of Russian corpses on the streets. In the "article" it is at every step.
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 15: 13
            +1
            Quote: Nikolai S.
            The article looks like the fruit of painful fantasies and wishes, emphasized from Ukrainian "textbooks" and propaganda

            The article is not perfect, somewhat naive and superficial, but compared to your comment, it is just a storehouse of wisdom. laughing
            Did you read the title of the article? Do you understand the questions that the author has set for himself? The theme is the unification of Rus' after a period of feudal fragmentation, whatever this term means. The same association that Ivan III carried out. The author wondered whether this association could have happened before or around a different center.
            And here Alexander Nevsky and his relations with the Swedes?
            Well, the fact that at the word "Kyiv" you are excited like a schoolboy near the women's toilet is generally only your own difficulties, fight them on your own.
            Quote: Nikolai S.
            The then saying: here's your grandmother and St. George's day, what about? About the absence of feudalism.

            Are you seriously? wassat laughing
            And what do you think about the proverb "Language will bring you to Kyiv"? About the baptism of Rus'?
            There is also this one: "There is elderberry in the garden, an uncle in Kyiv." What do you think she is about? Is it really about the national liberation struggle of the Russian people against Ukrainian aggression? Say, we have elderberry prepared for milestones of Kyiv uncles?
            Quote: Nikolai S.
            The article looks like the fruit of painful fantasies and wishes, emphasized from Ukrainian "textbooks" and propaganda

            Only in your inflamed imagination. There is nothing at all about Ukraine in it, simply because during the period that the author is trying to explore, there was no Ukraine, or rather, it was, but it was called "Zalesskaya" and was located in the Volga-Oka interfluve.
            1. El Barto
              El Barto 15 January 2023 12: 01
              0
              But the Kyiv period is indeed lengthened in the article. For some time now, Kyiv has ceased to be a real economic and political force, turning into a formal capital and a kind of challenge prize. And starting with Andrey Bogolyubsky, the "capital" of Kyiv has become virtually virtual.
              As far as I remember, Alexander Nevsky was the last Grand Duke of Kyiv, and then Kyiv was completely forgotten.
              About Novgorod as the center of association - smiled. Is it Novgorod, with its independence, separatism and "multi-vector" unification of Rus'? Novgorod, where they did not consider themselves Rus and "went to Rus"? Novgorod, which, because of some ushkuiniki, was already hated by all the neighbors from Norway to the Caspian Sea? Hmmm.
              In fact, there were only 3 applicants Moscow, Tver and Lithuania.
              On the other hand, if we look closely, then the whole struggle of the 14th-16th centuries was for the unification of only Zalessky Rus, which has a Krivichi-Vyatichi ethnic basis. The south-western principalities, ethnically based on the tribes of the Lekhite root, all these glades and other dulebs, quite reasonably did not interest anyone and gravitated towards their Western relatives.
              Actually, the fight against Lithuania is just a continuation of the long-standing enmity between Vladimir + Novgorod on the one hand and Polotsk on the other. In fact, a showdown between the Krivichi clans and only for the Krivichi lands
  2. andrewkor
    andrewkor 14 January 2023 06: 50
    +1
    Another option is the complete subjugation and unification of the Russian principalities under the rule of the Horde. Right now, they would pray five times a day!
    1. Vladimir80
      Vladimir80 14 January 2023 07: 08
      +8
      Not quite so, the horde was predominantly pagan
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 09: 29
        0
        Quote: Vladimir80
        the horde was predominantly pagan

        Only until the beginning of the XIV century.
    2. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 09: 38
      +4
      Quote: andrewkor
      Another option is the complete subordination and unification of the Russian principalities under the rule of the Horde

      If you look at the process of liberation from Horde dependence from a slightly different angle, then you can see not a "war for independence", but, let's say, a banal shift in the center of power within one power. It was the state of the Golden Horde. It certainly included Rus' as an integral part. In the process of the historical development of this state, its capital moved to the west, and the ruling dynasty changed, but the state itself remained the same.
      I do not propose to consider this point of view the only correct one, but it is at least interesting and non-trivial. smile
    3. Scientist
      Scientist 22 February 2023 17: 31
      +1
      Nothing like this. Neither under the pagans, nor under Islam, the Tatars encroached on the faith of the Russians. This is all the more surprising that the Turkic peoples who lived in the same Horde were brought to Islam harshly, if not cruelly.
  3. Nikolay Malyugin
    Nikolay Malyugin 14 January 2023 07: 09
    0
    Moscow developed under the influence of many princes. These were people from Novgorod, who in turn were descended from Kyiv.
    1. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 11: 30
      +1
      Explain your idea, please. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it seems to me that you wrote something pseudo-historical ...
    2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 14 January 2023 23: 12
      0
      Quote: Nikolai Malyugin
      Moscow developed under the influence of many princes. These were people from Novgorod, who in turn were descended from Kyiv.

      In fact, everything is exactly the opposite. If you believe the PVL, then Prophetic Oleg with the son of Prince Ririk, Igor, captures Kyiv on the way from Novgorod. After the murder of the princes Askold and Dir. By the way, he is credited with the words that Kyiv is destined to be the Mother of Russian cities. In the future, a similar “northern expansion” will be repeated at least twice more. The opposite, or rather mutual, will be three or four centuries later under the Moscow princes.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 14 January 2023 07: 39
    +2
    Hmm, “Grandma Lukerya (alternative) went to dance (alternative) There is no hair on her head, she attached feathers” smile
  5. SVD68
    SVD68 14 January 2023 08: 06
    +7
    Kyiv rose as the center of the trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks. And after the devastation by the Tatar-Mongols, he could not recover, because its economic basis - the trade route - had lost its significance.
    1. parusnik
      parusnik 14 January 2023 08: 20
      +5
      With the beginning of the Crusades, the path from the Varangians to the Greeks had already lost its meaning.
  6. Dimy4
    Dimy4 14 January 2023 08: 26
    +5
    There is a cycle of Dmitry Balashov on this topic (unification of lands by Moscow). I read avidly when I was young.
  7. Trilobite Master
    Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 09: 26
    +7
    Well, colleagues, let's start the fun? laughing
    According to the article.
    Dual feeling. On the one hand, the author clearly adheres to historical science, no Samsonism, Fomenkovism or other pseudo-historical shit, for which I sincerely thank him. On the other hand, the author's view of the historical process does not withstand even the most superficial criticism - the political process takes place in his complete separation from economic and social movements. I understand the author like no one else - I myself suffered from this disease about twenty years ago or so, it was politics that interested me most of all, and the war, of course, I didn’t want to pay attention to the actual driving forces of the historical process - it’s boring.
    Okay, let's say we are considering exclusively the political history of Rus', without touching on any socio-economic issues.
    But even here the author is not all right - he also knows the political history of Rus' in fragments and understands it somewhat superficially.
    Let me explain.
    The author, for example, puts forward Kyiv and Novgorod as possible alternative centers for the unification of Russian lands on the simple formal basis that these were the richest and largest cities in Rus' at the beginning of the XNUMXth century. The premise is correct, but here one must understand the general essence of the political processes in Rus' in a global sense. Kyiv and Novgorod (as well as Galich) were indeed the largest and richest cities, but they did not have their own dynasty, they constantly changed hands, being a bone of contention between princely families. Namely families, not individual princes. And these families by the XIII century. four stood out, and each of them owned their own lands and at the same time claimed ownership of the three rich and powerful cities listed. The first, most famous, family of Suzdal princes, descendants of Yuri Dolgoruky. Then, according to the degree of fame in a wide circle of history buffs, one can name the Chernigov princes, the descendants of Svyatoslav Yaroslavich, who are called Olgovichi by the name of Prince Oleg Svyatoslavich. In fact, not all Chernigov princes were descendants of Oleg, but according to tradition, everyone is called Olgovichi. Third, it is worth mentioning the princes of Smolensk, the descendants of Prince Rostislav Mstislavich, the son of Mstislav the Great, the grandson of Monomakh. And, finally, the fourth should be called the family of the Volyn princes - the descendants of another grandson of Monomakh, Izyaslav Mstislavich, the main opponent of Yuri Dolgoruky in the struggle for the Kyiv table.
    Four families sitting on their lands. There were periods when one family dominated, then it was replaced by another. By the beginning of the XIII century. in Rus', the Smolensk Rostislavichs dominated, in addition to their Smolensk land, who also indisputably owned Kyiv, Galich and Polotsk, and also periodically challenged Novgorod from the Suzdal Yurievichs. However, by the second third of the XIII century. they lost first Novgorod, then Galich, for which a strife began that lasted almost thirty years, and by 1236 also Kyiv. Novgorod and Kyiv went to the house of Suzdal, Polotsk became the arena of the struggle between Rus' and Lithuania, and the Smolensk lands themselves fell into obvious dependence on Suzdal.
    For representatives of these families, Kyiv, Novgorod and Galich were just "imaginations", nothing more. They could not firmly settle in these cities. Accordingly, they not only could not make them capitals and centers of association, but simply did not want to. What is the point of strengthening and developing something that at any moment can pass to your opponent? Where can one see here at least insignificant prerequisites for the formation of an all-Russian center in Novgorod or Kyiv? Such centers could be formed only in the lands belonging to specific families, where there was a continuity of power. These lands were, I repeat, Suzdal (Vladimir-on-Klyazma), Chernigov, Smolensk and Vladimir-Volynsky. But the very course of the historical process testifies, rather, that these lands would become the centers of independent states, and if it were not for the Mongols, most likely it would have been so. Personally (and not only) it seems to me (and not only) the most likely (in the normal course of the historical process) the emergence of two states with centers in Volhynia (southwestern Rus') and Vladimir (northeastern Rus'), while Kyiv, Chernigov and Galich would retreat to the south , and Novgorod, Smolensk and, possibly, Polotsk - to the north.
    About Tver and Lithuania, as possible centers of unification, I will say a little later. Here, too, everything is not simple. smile
    1. parusnik
      parusnik 14 January 2023 09: 53
      +3
      Well, colleagues, let's start the fun?
      Not all "colleagues" have yet pulled themselves up. laughing What you wrote in your comment, the author will not take into account.
      I myself suffered from this disease twenty years ago
      It's not a disease, it's a pandemic. laughing He himself in childhood "had been ill", like chickenpox, since then, a strong immunity to the alternative. laughing
    2. mihaylov
      mihaylov 14 January 2023 11: 11
      +3
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      Kyiv and Novgorod, as possible alternative centers for the unification of Russian lands on the simple formal basis that they were the richest and largest cities in Rus' at the beginning of the XNUMXth century.

      Good afternoon, Michael, after the Mongol defeat, Kyiv and the southern lands in general are "scorched earth", the surviving population mostly moves to the north and northeast.
      As for Novgorod, I don’t know, in my opinion, he never considered himself as the center of the Russian land. hi
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 11: 28
        +4
        Hello, Sergey.
        The outflow of the population from Kyiv was not due to the actual defeat of 1240, but to the general proximity to the steppe. They smashed Kyiv and Vladimir in the same way, they just continued to smash Kyiv after. But even before it was defeated, it was no longer suitable for the role of an all-Russian center - it was simply not possible to sit in it for any long time.
        Well, about Novgorod - I have already answered Ivan below. The desire for a quiet life plus dependence on food supplies - what kind of all-Russian ambitions can there be under such conditions? Only separatism is the maximum... Novgorod was a natural opponent of any unification.
        1. mihaylov
          mihaylov 14 January 2023 13: 22
          +2
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          Only separatism is the maximum... Novgorod was a natural opponent of any unification.

          There’s nothing to add hi
        2. Konstantin Shevchenko
          Konstantin Shevchenko 16 January 2023 23: 59
          -1
          Where are you, all the opponents of the alternative take?
          Novgorod was a natural opponent of any unification.
          Novgorod was already in the Hanseatic League before being annexed to Moscow. Even churches differ in architecture from Moscow ones, well, of course, it is clear that they were built for themselves by foreign merchants.
      2. cat Rusich
        cat Rusich 14 January 2023 19: 01
        +3
        Quote: Mihaylov

        As for Novgorod, I don’t know, in my opinion, he never considered himself as the center of the Russian land. hi
        One can only try to compare Veliky Novgorod with Venice and Genoa...
        Venice and Genoa had their own states, but the unification of Italy around Genoa or Venice did not happen - the "traders" are aimed at making a profit, not at state interests.
        hi
    3. kalibr
      kalibr 14 January 2023 12: 02
      +3
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      About Tver

      In my novel "God the Creator" (Lost on the Highway), it is Tver, the capital of Russia, and not Moscow. This is generally a common point of view among alternatives ... But this is a novel, and a novel is a novel ... Paper will endure everything!
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 13: 08
        +3
        Balashov, in his novel, in my opinion, The Great Table, writes that Tver would have brought Rus' to Kulikovo Field fifty years earlier ... Or it would have destroyed ...
        Although I personally do not think that something could seriously change if the descendants of Michael, and not Daniel, stood at the head of Rus'. Yes, in particular...
        1. Korsar4
          Korsar4 15 January 2023 15: 24
          0
          The first novel read by Balashov. Mikhail Tverskoy is good there.
    4. Oldbaton
      Oldbaton 14 January 2023 13: 21
      +3
      The senior branch of the Monomashichs established itself in the Galicia-Volyn land. The youngest - in Vladimir-Suzdal. Olgovichi held the Chernihiv land. Novgorod was critically dependent on the Vladimir-Suzdal lands through grain supplies from the south. After the Mongol invasion, the Chernihiv land was destroyed and the Olgovichi moved into the category of petty service princes. The Galician-Volyn dynasty was cut short by Mstislav the Great. The Gediminoviches replaced the thrones of the North-Western Principalities and the South-West of Rus'. So, either the descendants of Alexander Nevsky in the Vladimir-Suzdal (including Tver) land, or the descendants of Gediminas in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, remained really contenders for the throne of united Rus'. Could it happen that several independent states appeared on the territory of Rus'? Yes, it could. Polotsk, Vladimir, Chernigov, Galich, Smolensk, possibly Ryazan, could well have consolidated the lands around them. But it happened differently. And the Orthodox Church and the economy played an important role here.
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 13: 49
        +1
        Quote: OldBaton
        The senior branch of the Monomashichs established itself in the Galicia-Volyn land.

        More precisely, it will be the older branch in Volyn (Izyaslav) and in Smolensk (Rostislav). For some reason, many people forget about Smolensk, which in the period before the arrival of the Mongols played a very significant role in the political process.
        Quote: OldBaton
        After the Mongol invasion, the Chernihiv land was destroyed and the Olgovichi moved into the category of petty service princes

        No more ruined than all the other lands. It simply broke up into small destinies - there was no leader who could collect it. And then these small destinies were quickly and painlessly absorbed by Lithuania.
        Quote: OldBaton
        descendants of Alexander Nevsky in Vladimir-Suzdal (including Tver) land

        The princes of Tver were not descendants of Alexander.
        Quote: OldBaton
        Could it happen that several independent states appeared on the territory of Rus'?

        I think it would inevitably arise. By the middle of the XIII century. two independent political centers were already very clearly visible - in Suzdal and in Volyn. The third was born in Lithuania, but there was still a thin one there.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Oldbaton
          Oldbaton 15 January 2023 09: 46
          0
          That's right. The center of consolidation did not happen in Chernihiv land. And Smolensk is often and undeservedly missed. And, judging by what happened in Western Europe 300 years before, everything could have been different. Although, there is also the experience of China.
          1. El Barto
            El Barto 15 January 2023 17: 00
            +1
            In general, this view is too princely-centric. If we consider history not as the acts of a princely dynasty, but as a continuous social process determined by objective factors, then the picture looks a little different.
            First of all, if we superimpose the borders of medieval principalities on the map of early tribal associations, we will see that they practically coincide. That is, there are organic boundaries of political formations that have historical continuity and are determined by objective factors - geography, economic and cultural community.
            The princes were not absolutists, their power depended on the local tribal aristocracy and the economic elite, connected with the interests of the lands, and not on the princely dynasty. And chronicles are full of examples of the expulsion of princes in case of their neglect of the interests of the lands.
            That is, the North Russian lands had objectively (historically, geographically, economically and culturally) determined grounds for unification, despite the destructive activity of the princely dynasty.
            And they had no objective grounds for uniting with the Southwestern lands, with which, in fact, they had never been united. The whole connection consisted solely in the fragile and rather conditional unity of the princely dynasty.
            So the unification of Northern Rus' was objectively inevitable, with a natural center in its geographical, economic and transport center, and this is Moscow or Tver. And already the choice between them is a historical accident.
            And the unification with the southern lands occurs much later, at the stage of another historical and political-economic formation, at the stage of the beginning of the formation of the state in its modern sense and the beginning of the formation of nations
  8. Cartalon
    Cartalon 14 January 2023 09: 32
    +3
    Superficial, sometimes ridiculous.
    In general, a weak flock, for the sake of comments.
  9. Maks1995
    Maks1995 14 January 2023 09: 39
    +2
    Yes. If you recall the history, Moscow simply led the Horde troops to neighboring principalities more often.
    She was a kind of "own policeman" for the Mongols.
    I collected taxes for them. Goromila with them all the dissatisfied. For example - Tver, which often opposed the power of the Tatars ...
    1. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 11: 36
      +2
      Quote: Max1995
      Tver, which often opposed the power of the Tatars

      How often?
      Mikhail of Tverskoy, like his children, was always obedient and obedient to the Horde, unlike the same Muscovites. If anyone is considered the opponents of the horde, it is Moscow under Yuri Danilovich. He also occupied the cities, contrary to the khan's will, and concealed the tribute, let it into circulation, and in general sometimes spat on the khans - and nothing, everything got away with it. He even managed to marry the Khan's sister... How he managed to do it is not clear. Apparently, he was a brilliant diplomat.
      1. Maks1995
        Maks1995 14 January 2023 13: 20
        +1
        You need to look at the textbooks.
        But from memory
        Tver was smashed as rebelling against the Mongols, namely the troops of the Moscow prince, together with the Tatars. And not only Tver. But on the contrary - I can’t recall offhand ..
        + common fund clamped
        + gifts, bribes, nepotism ...

        And then they changed their shoes on the fly ...
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 14: 17
          +3
          Tver never vystpila against the Horde consciously. The rebellion of 1328 - a spontaneous manifestation, the battle of Bortenev - a battle between Tver and Moscow in order to stop the robberies of the Tver land. The Horde detachment, marching with the army of Yuri of Moscow, did not participate in the battle and was invited by Mikhail to Tver in full force, where they were fed, watered and looked after. Even during this conflict, Mikhail did not dispute the Khan's decision to approve Yuri on the Great Table - he recognized himself as Yuri's "younger brother", that is, his vassal, and since Yuri acted "out of line" in that conflict as overlord, he considered it possible for themselves to raise weapons against him, but not against the Khan.
          Tver's "hostility" to the Horde is limited to these two episodes. In all other respects - complete humility.
          Yuri and Ivan of Moscow, unlike the princes of Tver, acted differently. Yuri so generally openly, practically, showed disobedience. Pereyaslavl, in fact, did not return, despite the khan's labels, Novgorod incited disobedience, becoming the grand duke, delayed the tribute, and when he was deprived of this title, he continued to use it, contrary to the khan's command ...
          There is a very interesting work in this regard by Anton Gorsky, now, probably, our leading historian on the topic of the Middle Ages, called "Rus and the Horde". There, among other things, the issues of relations between Tver and Moscow with the Horde are considered. Recommend.
      2. Korsar4
        Korsar4 15 January 2023 15: 26
        0
        Red and cunning. A kind of reincarnation of Odysseus. However, all Danilovichi are good.
  10. Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 14 January 2023 10: 17
    +5
    Novgorod as the unifying center of Rus' is unscientific fiction. Oligarchic republics are not suitable for such a rod by definition.
    The competition between Tver and Moscow is the rivalry of two branches of the descendants of Alexander Nevsky.
    Hypothetically, having gathered an army and made alliances with several princes - primarily with Tver and Pskov - Novgorodians set off on a campaign to the east with the slogan of liberating Rus' from the hated Tatars.

    And they receive unimaginable people from the unimaginable Great Horde, after which there will be no unification and revival in principle.
    Lithuania... but here I prefer to wait for Mikhail feel
    1. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 11: 20
      +3
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      Novgorod as the unifying center of Rus' is unscientific fiction. Oligarchic republics are not suitable for such a rod by definition.

      In addition, Novgorod and Galich were trading cities that received the main income not from land, but from transit trade. And trade and war are incompatible things. Therefore, both of these cities preferred to pay rather than fight. Novgorod could not be at the head of the unification process also because it was import-dependent on food supplies. This predetermined his fate - first formal, in the form of regular monetary contributions, and then the final submission to the Suzdal princely house.
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      The competition between Tver and Moscow is the rivalry of two branches of the descendants of Alexander Nevsky.

      Not at all. The common ancestor of the Tver and Moscow princes is Yaroslav Vsevolodovich. Mikhail of Tverskoy was the son of Yaroslav Yaroslavich, the younger brother of Alexander, Daniil of Moscow was his cousin.
      The choice between Tver and Moscow, in my opinion, is somewhat random. Initially, Tver had much more preferable chances, but the princes of Tver lost the political struggle over and over again in the form of a personal confrontation with the Moscow princes. Mikhail Tverskoy outright lost to Yuri Danilovich, and Alexander Mikhailovich, his son, to Ivan Kalita. Mikhail Alexandrovich of Tver, tried to revive the intrigue, but he had to face Metropolitan Alexy Byakont, and this was probably the most capable politician in this region at that time. In any case, he had the ability to humble Mikhail - the all-Russian campaign against Tver in 1375 was mainly his merit. It was this campaign, and not at all the devastation of Tver in 1328, as the author claims, that decided the outcome of the confrontation between Tver and Moscow.
      But Tver definitely had chances, and initially much more preferable.
      The author also did not mention such a city as Nizhny Novgorod among the contenders for the central role in the unification of Rus', and completely in vain. But here, again, let's remember Alexy Byakont, and Prince Dmitry Konstanovich of Suzdal and Nizhny Novgorod himself was not like his father - not so smart and not so energetic.
      However, some changes, significant from the point of view of global historical progress, the victory of Tver or Nizhny Novgorod in the struggle for power would change little. Only the names and titles would change, nothing more, unlike the victory in the same conflict of Lithuania.
      But as far as Lithuania is concerned, then the question is generally more than one article.
      The cornerstone in the question "Moscow or Lithuania", of course, was religion. Accept the sons of Gedemin Orthodoxy, the process of unification of the Russian lands could turn in a completely different direction. But Jagiello preferred the Polish princess and the Polish crown to the daughter of Dmitry Donskoy. The political abilities of Vitovt could no longer radically decide anything - Catholics in Rus', especially at that time, the time of Sergius of Radonezh, Dionysius of Suzdal and their students, the time of an unprecedented rise in religious zeal among the broad masses, would not have taken root under any circumstances, and the Lithuanian rulers unwilling or unable to turn their backs on Europe. Even the Russian lands, annexed by force or otherwise to Lithuania, subsequently all ended up under the rule of Moscow - co-religionists.
      1. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 14 January 2023 11: 45
        +2
        Your truth is that they are all descendants of Vsevolod the Big Nest)))
      2. mihaylov
        mihaylov 14 January 2023 13: 16
        +2
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        The author also did not mention such a city as Nizhny Novgorod among the contenders for the central role in the unification of Rus'.

        I think Zimin's concept ("The Knight at the Crossroads") about the possible center of unification - the Galicia-Vyatka land (naturally northern Galich is included) is also worth mentioning. In his opinion, Yury Shemyaka's mistake was that he aspired to Moscow, instead of making Galich or Vyatka the center.
        An interesting theory, but in my opinion, still not very substantiated. I doubt that the outlying Vyatka lands could economically compete with Moscow. hi
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 14: 22
          0
          Zimin was generally a man of original views. But when I read "Vityaz" I did not pay attention to such a design. But I think that you are right - to oppose the Upper Volga region to Moscow is a hopeless idea. Building a state on the basis of the Vyatka Ushkuinichi freemen is not even a step back, it is a rollback of several centuries.
      3. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 14 January 2023 13: 18
        +3
        Vitovt's political abilities could no longer solve anything cardinally
        Here the case rather intervened - the absence of male children from Vitovt.
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 14: 31
          +1
          But this problem, it seems to me, did not play a role at all. There were enough heirs in the Lithuanian princely house. On the contrary, Vitovt's lack of a male heir allowed him to brainwash Vasily Dmitrievich, they say, he is going to transfer the throne after his death to Vasily's son - his grandson. By the way, if such a combination had passed (which was, in general, not realistic, only Vasily did not understand this), then such a dynastic union of Rus' and Lithuania could completely change the political alignments in the region ...
          1. 3x3zsave
            3x3zsave 14 January 2023 15: 05
            +1
            (which was, in general, not real, only Vasily did not understand this),
            Was Vasily so naive? The possible in 1384 was crossed out by the Union of Kreva.
            1. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 15: 16
              +2
              There is direct evidence that Vytautas promised his throne to his grandson. And Vasily Dmitrievich really was not a great mind, moreover, under the heel of his wife. Apparently they talked in the style of "And who do you trust? Me or your shameless eyes?"
              1. 3x3zsave
                3x3zsave 14 January 2023 16: 17
                +1
                There is direct evidence that Vytautas promised his throne to his grandson.
                By the way, which grandson? For Vitovt also did not work out with his grandchildren ...
                1. Trilobite Master
                  Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 16: 56
                  +1
                  Vasily Vasilyevich, the future Dark One, son of Sophia.
                  Under this case, he cleaned up Smolensk, they say, why should we, son-in-law, quarrel? I, they say, will expel the Smolensk princes, and then, when I die, you will get everything. So Vasily did not interfere. Only Oleg Ryazansky gave Vitovt a short cut - he was afraid of him.
                  1. 3x3zsave
                    3x3zsave 14 January 2023 17: 04
                    +1
                    Well, lucky Vasily Vasilyevich. With such an abundance of Olgerd's heirs, the probability of repeating the fate of his great-grandfather was very high.
                    Was Sophia really a powerful woman?
                    1. Trilobite Master
                      Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 17: 16
                      +1
                      Quote: 3x3zsave
                      Well, lucky Vasily Vasilyevich.

                      Rus' did not have the opportunity to interfere in the struggle in Lithuania. After the death of Vitovt, Yuri Dmitrievich, Vasily's brother, began to make claims to the Moscow reign, there the showdowns began worse than in Lithuania.
                      Quote: 3x3zsave
                      Was Sophia really a powerful woman?

                      Yes, powerful and decisive.
                      How she undressed Vasily Kosoy's nephew right at the feast ... Everyone then went nuts.
                      1. Senior seaman
                        Senior seaman 14 January 2023 19: 59
                        +2
                        Quote: Trilobite Master
                        How she undressed Vasily Kosy's nephew right at the feast ... Everyone then went nuts


                        And what offended you more, that the belt was torn off, or that a woman did it?
                      2. Trilobite Master
                        Trilobite Master 15 January 2023 08: 26
                        +1
                        The belt is a symbol. Weapons were worn on the belt, belts were awarded, and the social status of the owner was determined by them. To unbelt means to deprive a person of this status. In the case of Vasily Kosy, it was a deliberate insult, completely unforgivable, and Sophia, of course, was well aware of this. It was her original message to the father of Vasily Kosoy - Prince Yuri Dmitrievich, who did not come to the wedding of his nephew - Vasily II.
                2. Senior seaman
                  Senior seaman 14 January 2023 17: 02
                  +1
                  Quote: 3x3zsave
                  By the way, which grandson?

                  Obviously, one of the sons of Sofia Vitovtovna.
                  1. 3x3zsave
                    3x3zsave 14 January 2023 17: 16
                    0
                    Almost everyone died in childhood. The eldest, Ivan, at the age of 20. Here is the prince's table and went to the youngest. But the girls are gone! One was even married to a Byzantine emperor. True, that empire remains ...)))
      4. Cartalon
        Cartalon 14 January 2023 15: 58
        -1
        For me, the victory of Tver or Lower would change something, firstly, their princes would have legal rights to the Great Table and, accordingly, would unify based not only on strength, but also on the right, they would not need to drive the princes from their destinies, simply because I want to.
        And Tver and Nizhny are much better located than Moscow, and the growth of angglomeration in their case would be more natural, we would not get that monster in the form of Moscow that we have now.
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 17: 30
          +1
          Moscow princes after Yuri Danilovich had quite legitimate rights to the Great Table. But Nizhny Novgorod could not even boast of such a right: their origin is generally vague. It is believed that they come from Andrei Yaroslavich, brother of Alexander Nevsky. But in this case, they did not have the grand ducal dignity for three generations. Moscow, in comparison with them, is legitimacy itself. smile
          Quote: Cartalon
          And Tver and Nizhny are much better located than Moscow, and the growth of angglomeration in their case would be more natural, we would not get that monster in the form of Moscow that we have now.

          But I did not understand this thesis at all. Why is Moscow now a monster and how is it connected with the realities of the XNUMXth century?
    2. setter
      setter 14 January 2023 14: 56
      -1
      Lithuania... but here I prefer to wait for Mikhail

      It is not realistic to cover this issue on this resource. Any attempt here will cause such a seething of shit that it’s even scary to imagine. Moreover, the percentage of the contingent that is interested in objective information and is able to adequately perceive it is a vanishingly small value.
      1. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 14 January 2023 15: 13
        0
        Not more than yesterday, under another attack of Russo-Aryan Mongolophobia.
      2. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 15: 36
        +1
        Quote from Passeur
        Any attempt here will cause such a seething of shit that it’s even scary to imagine.

        I don’t think that the “Mongolian theme” causes them less, yesterday’s Samsonov
        (didn’t read, didn’t look) evidence of this is more than three hundred comments.
        So there is nothing to be afraid of - and they have not seen such a thing. smile
        1. setter
          setter 14 January 2023 17: 45
          +1
          I don't think the "Mongolian theme" causes them less

          Controversial issue.
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 14 January 2023 18: 14
            +2
            I'm used to the fact that the total srach in the "History" section is consistently caused by three topics: the Norman question, the Mongol invasion and the revolution of the 17th year. Well, you can still expect the same from critical articles addressed to the USSR as a whole, Stalin personally, and, probably, everything.
            Well, if you do not tie Lithuania to the Ukrainian topic, which is quite realistic, I see no particular reason for a sharp increase in the amount of feces.
  11. Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 14 January 2023 12: 09
    +2
    The topic of the Galicia-Volyn principality is somehow bypassed. And at one time it was quite a state, with the Ruriks on the throne, until the Lithuanians swallowed them up
  12. Diviz
    Diviz 14 January 2023 13: 13
    +1
    Kievan Rus was a collector of lands. If there were Askold Dir Prince Vladimir. The Byzantines mentioned in the writings about Rosy.
    That is, Kievan Rus had great potential as it was a continuation of the Khazar Khaganate. And her story ended when Mamai was defeated.
    Then Poland became the center of the expansion of troops to Moscow. Well, it is worth mentioning the Ottoman Empire.
    And Moscow was made the 3rd Rome.
    The label word Rus can be compared with the same events that led to the emergence of the Latin alphabet and our modern alphabet.
    The question is how the descendants of Rurik before Ivan the Terrible called our territories. And what was the name of Ivan 4.
  13. Bogalex
    Bogalex 14 January 2023 21: 27
    +1
    When it comes to the unification of feudally fragmented medieval Rus' into a single state, everyone intuitively thinks only of Moscow

    Who are these all? High school history truants?
  14. Bogalex
    Bogalex 14 January 2023 21: 34
    +1
    In the event that, after the Battle of Bortenev, the prince of Tver would have captured Moscow and gathered the Moscow-Tver army, then the Horde yoke would be ended in the near future. Such an army had every chance of winning, and the Golden Horde, tormented by unrest, would soon disintegrate, and the yoke would end like a nightmare. And if the Horde yoke ended in the 1320s, then Rus' could have united by the middle of the same century.

    I would love to hear the rationale for this strange thesis.
    1. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 15 January 2023 08: 37
      0
      It is very difficult to substantiate it. I wouldn't take laughing
      The advancement of such a thesis suggests that the author, to some extent, misunderstands the political realities of that time.
  15. Bogalex
    Bogalex 14 January 2023 21: 43
    +1
    The whole article, to be honest, is the author's fantasies on the topic of Russian history. Very strange and not very smart.
    I started to write a detailed refutation of everything that is stated here, but I won’t - it’s too much work for the sake of a comment, which, after turning off notifications about new messages on the site, no one will probably read it. Sorry for the work and your time.
    The author - to buy a school textbook and refresh basic knowledge on the subject.
    Readers of the site - good mood and with all the past holidays!
  16. Eugene Zaboy
    Eugene Zaboy 14 January 2023 23: 52
    +5
    Kyiv was considered the main city of Rus' for quite a long time - from the XNUMXth to the XNUMXth centuries. Before the collapse of Kievan Rus, it was the capital. And even after the collapse of Rus' into small principalities, Kyiv continued to be considered the main city, and the Kyiv prince had seniority in relation to other Russian princes.


    Whether Kyiv was considered the main city and capital of Rus' in the period from the XNUMXth to the XNUMXth centuries, we still need to figure it out. As you know, the richest Novgorod Republic was a completely independent state and received tribute not only from the Scandinavian and northern territories, but also from Kyiv, after the appearance of Rurik. Whether Kyiv was considered the capital in the Vladimir and Yaroslavl principalities, it still needs to be substantiated, since these are more speculations of monks and historians from Kyiv than the truth. All that is known today is that Kyiv could not make the most important decisions about war and peace during the period indicated in the article. What is the capital? Rather, a tidbit for the next power-hungry prince. During this period, the Russian, completely independent principalities, tried to make Kyiv the capital, but due to circumstances they were forced to abandon this idea and focused on Moscow, in the end.

    In fact, if it is not biased to understand, the idea of ​​the existence of the historical period of Kievan Rus is promoted by supporters of the independence of Ukraine in order to justify the significance of the role of Kyiv in the history of Rus. In fact, these estimates are clearly overestimated.
  17. dtnthfy
    dtnthfy 15 January 2023 14: 18
    -1
    What are the Tatar-Mongols? Where were they, where did they go? The Golden Horde is us, Russians, these are the cities of Samara, Saratov, Saransk and other Russian cities. And the story about the yoke was invented by the German Miller (he did not speak Russian). And when Lomonosov categorically disagreed with him, he suddenly died. Russian chronicles from the monasteries were brought to St. Petersburg "for accounting". Burnt down in a fire. History is written by the winner. Here it was written by Karamzin. Modern historians and writers were surprised with indignation at this work, but this story was convenient for the Winner.
  18. dtnthfy
    dtnthfy 15 January 2023 14: 22
    +1
    The expression "Kievan Rus" was coined by historians in the 18th century, before that it was not mentioned anywhere.
  19. Sovpadenie
    Sovpadenie 16 January 2023 12: 41
    0
    "In every city where Novgorodians enter, a veche system and a republic are established"
    And where would the aristocracy be divided? Would you take it to the root? I doubt that the Rurik princes, their boyars and warriors would agree to a republic
    1. El Barto
      El Barto 16 January 2023 23: 50
      0
      Well, the Rurik princes would hardly have bothered them much. And how the Novgorodians established the veche system and the republic is known. Here is what chronicles write about the delights of "democratization" in Novgorod:
      "... And when they came to Kostroma, the citizens went out to fight against them, and the governor had Pleshchei. Seeing the Novgorodians, as if there were many Kostroma, there were more than 5000 of them, and there were only 2000 of them, and the Novgorodians were divided in two: one half of the wilderness hid in the forest, and bypassed around the mezhdeelnik, and hit the Kostroma in the rear, and the friends in the face to them. run through the woods, but many here are beaten bysh, and others have it and are lucky. When you come to the city and see it, no one cares and enters it, plunder everything, the fir tree is in it. And he stood in it for a week and found all the secret and all the goods worn out on Wednesday, and what is better and easier, then pomash, and what is heavy, then throw it into the Volga, and burn the other. And a host of captive people: husbands and wives, boys and girls. And from there going to Novugrad Nizhny, and there they did a lot of evil, they seized Christians and besermen, and led others into full, and plundered goods. And going down and turning to the Kama, and there they plundered a lot along the Kama, and then going up and down into the Volga, and reaching the Bolgar, and that is full of Christian all sold, and go down to the barn, Besermyans are beating guests, and their goods are eaten, and Christians are plundered ... "
  20. Illanatol
    Illanatol 18 January 2023 09: 56
    +1
    Kyiv finally lost the opportunity to become the capital and the center of "gathering lands" in 1240, when it was taken and devastated by the Mongols.


    Kyiv lost its significance long before 1240, since it was taken by storm and devastated by the troops of the Suzdal prince. In 1240, Vladimir, and not Kyiv, was considered the capital city in Rus'. "Rus Vladimirskaya", in short.

    And if the Horde yoke ended in the 1320s, then Rus' could have united by the middle of the same century.


    No. Most likely, no Rus', as a sovereign state, would simply have arisen.
    The Horde was then our "roof". In Moscow, this was well understood, which is why a whole century passed between the Battle of Kulikovo and getting rid of the Yoke.
    If Rus' had been "liberated" from the Horde "roof" prematurely, then the Russian lands would have been absorbed by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and then by the Commonwealth. As you know, part of the Western Russian lands already became part of these "European powers." The consequences of such "European integration" are still being dealt with by Russians.
  21. Illanatol
    Illanatol 18 January 2023 13: 03
    +1
    Quote: Trilobite Master
    But the very course of the historical process testifies, rather, that these lands would become the centers of independent states, and if it were not for the Mongols, most likely it would have been so. Personally (and not only) it seems to me (and not only) the most likely (in the normal course of the historical process) the emergence of two states with centers in Volhynia (southwestern Rus') and Vladimir (northeastern Rus'), while Kyiv, Chernigov and Galich would depart to the south , and Novgorod, Smolensk and, possibly, Polotsk - to the north.


    And how long would these "independent states" last? Given the very modest potentials (demographic, economic, military)? They would inevitably be swallowed up by stronger neighbors. Yes, and with a united Russia, this almost happened at the beginning of the 17th century.
    The normal historical process is not a spherical horse in a vacuum, it does not exist in isolation.
  22. Smoke
    Smoke 23 January 2023 13: 13
    0
    Why is there no option for the unification of Rus' by the Grand Ryazan Principality?
    For me, Ryazan had much more chances than Tver or Lithuania
  23. goose
    goose 24 March 2023 22: 37
    +1
    The author, there was no such state in history as Kievan Rus. It was just Rus'. This is a term that historians came up with much later, designating the period when Kyiv was the richest city in Rus'. Not so long, by the way, the period was.